Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Bill Number: H.J.Res. 17
Origin Chamber: House
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 1
Policy Area: Economics and Public Finance
Status: Introduced
Latest Action: 2025-01-13: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Last Updated: 2026-06-11T23:26:39Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to require the U.S. federal government to maintain a balanced budget each fiscal year, limiting spending to available revenues unless overridden by a supermajority vote in Congress. The goal is to enforce fiscal discipline and reduce reliance on borrowing to fund government operations.

Key Provisions

Section 1: Total government spending (outlays) for any fiscal year cannot exceed total revenues (receipts) unless two-thirds of the members of both the House and Senate approve an exception through a specific law passed by rollcall vote.
Section 2: Before each fiscal year begins, the President must submit a proposed budget to Congress that balances outlays and receipts (no deficit proposed).
Section 3: Congress is responsible for creating laws to enforce and implement the amendment, and these laws can use estimates of future outlays and receipts to guide decisions.
Section 4: Defines key terms—total receipts include all government income except funds from borrowing; total outlays include all spending except payments to repay the principal on existing debt.
Section 5: The amendment would take effect starting with the fifth fiscal year after it is ratified by three-fourths of the states (within seven years of congressional approval).

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This proposal would add a new article to the U.S. Constitution, fundamentally altering current fiscal practices. Unlike the existing system, which allows annual deficits and debt increases without constitutional limits, this amendment would mandate balance as the default rule. It introduces supermajority requirements for exceptions and presidential obligations for balanced proposals, shifting from flexible budgeting under statutes like the Congressional Budget Act to rigid constitutional constraints.

Potential Impacts

On Government Agencies: Federal agencies would face stricter budget limits, potentially leading to reduced funding for programs, mandatory spending cuts, or reliance on revenue increases. This could streamline operations but complicate emergency responses or long-term investments like infrastructure.
On Citizens: Taxpayers might benefit from lower national debt and potential tax stability, but could experience reduced government services, such as in social programs, education, or defense, if spending is curtailed. It may promote economic stability by curbing inflation from excessive borrowing.
On International Relations: The U.S. could be seen as more fiscally responsible, potentially strengthening its global credit rating and influence in international finance. However, it might limit flexibility in foreign aid, military commitments, or responses to global crises, affecting alliances or trade negotiations.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Congress: Directly responsible for enforcement, voting on exceptions, and passing implementing laws; members from spending-heavy districts may face political pressure.
President and Executive Branch: Required to propose balanced budgets, impacting the Office of Management and Budget and agency planning.
Federal Agencies and Programs: All government entities reliant on federal funding, including defense, healthcare (e.g., Medicare), and social services, could see operational changes.
Citizens and Taxpayers: Everyday Americans, businesses, and state governments, as reduced deficits might lower future taxes or interest payments but could cut benefits or increase state burdens.
States: Play a key role in ratification (needing 38 states to approve); successful ratification would indirectly affect state-federal funding dynamics.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Constitutional: As an amendment, it requires two-thirds approval in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures, embedding fiscal rules directly into the Constitution (making them harder to change than ordinary laws). It relies on Congress for details, preserving some legislative flexibility while limiting judicial override.
Legal: Allows use of estimates in enforcement laws, which could lead to debates over accuracy and challenges in courts if budgets are disputed. Excludes debt principal repayment from outlays, protecting existing debt obligations without forcing immediate repayment.
Political: Introduces supermajority hurdles for deficits, potentially shifting power toward revenue-focused or spending-cut advocates, and sparking partisan divides over exceptions (e.g., during recessions or wars). It could reduce political incentives for deficit spending but raise questions about economic rigidity in downturns.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Obernolte, Jay [R-CA-23]

Cosponsors (2)

Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14], Rep. Franklin, Scott [R-FL-18]

Recent Actions

2025-01-13: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
2025-01-13: Introduced in House
2025-01-13: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. — issued 2025-01-13 — PDF (2 pages)