On motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 211 - 207 (Roll no. 95).
This resolution proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would require the federal government to run a balanced budget. It sets the limit so total yearly spending cannot exceed the average annual receipts of the prior three years, adjusted for population and inflation, and excludes debt payments and borrowing. It allows Congress to approve specific spending above the limit by a two-thirds roll call vote (and by a roll call vote during a declared war) and requires a two-thirds vote of each House to create new taxes or raise tax rates. If Congress passes the proposal and three-fourths of the states ratify it, the amendment would take effect five years after ratification.
A constitutional amendment must be approved by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate and then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states; proposed amendments are not submitted to the President.
This joint resolution proposes a Constitutional amendment requiring federal annual expenditures not to exceed the average annual receipts of the prior three years, adjusted for population and inflation.
Expenditures exclude debt payments and receipts exclude borrowing.
Overrides to exceed the limit require two-thirds roll call votes of each House for specific expenditures; a separate clause permits exceeding limits during years a declaration of war is in effect.
Historic difficulty of amendments plus contentious fiscal effects and ambiguity reduce knockout prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this proposed constitutional amendment clearly establishes a concise substantive rule (a balanced‑budget requirement) and includes several concrete elements (calculation method, exclusions, override thresholds, effective date). However, it leaves many operational, definitional, enforcement, and integration details unspecified, delegating implementation to future congressional legislation.
Left emphasizes harm to safety net and countercyclical policy
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes harm to safety net and countercyclical policy
Generally opposed.
Views the amendment as a rigid fiscal constraint that risks cutting social programs and hampering crisis responses.
Concerned the two-thirds tax rule blocks progressive revenue options needed for public investments.
Mixed.
Appreciates emphasis on fiscal responsibility but worries about legal rigidity and economic inflexibility.
Wants clearer emergency exceptions and implementation details before endorsing.
Generally supportive.
Sees the amendment as a structural fix to limit federal spending growth and protect taxpayers.
Values the two-thirds tax rule and high bar for spending overrides.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Historic difficulty of amendments plus contentious fiscal effects and ambiguity reduce knockout prospects.
The fast-track attempt fell short of the two-thirds majority needed. The bill can still advance through regular debate procedures.
Suspending the rules allows the House to bypass normal debate procedures and pass a bill immediately with a two-thirds vote.
Left emphasizes harm to safety net and countercyclical policy
Historic difficulty of amendments plus contentious fiscal effects and ambiguity reduce knockout prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this proposed constitutional amendment clearly establishes a concise substantive rule (a balanced‑budget requirement) and includes several concrete elements (calculation method…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.