Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide for balanced budgets for the Government.

Bill Number

H.J.Res. 6

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Economics and Public Finance

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-01-03: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Last Updated

2026-06-11T20:36:36Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 6) proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to require the federal government to maintain balanced budgets each fiscal year, limiting spending to available revenues unless specific exceptions are met. The goal is to promote fiscal responsibility by constitutionally mandating that total government outlays (spending) do not exceed total receipts (revenues) without supermajority approval.

Key Provisions

• Balanced Budget Requirement (Section 1): For any fiscal year, total government spending cannot exceed total revenues unless two-thirds of the full membership of both the House and Senate approve an excess through a specific law passed by rollcall vote.
• Presidential Budget Proposal (Section 2): Before each fiscal year begins, the President must submit a proposed budget to Congress where planned spending does not exceed planned revenues.
• Waiver for War (Section 3): Congress can waive the balanced budget rule during any fiscal year with a declaration of war in effect, approved by a rollcall vote (no specified majority required in the text).
• Waiver for National Emergency (Section 4): Congress can waive the rule during a declared national emergency, established by a joint resolution passed by a simple majority of the full membership of each chamber and signed into law.
• Waiver for Natural Disaster (Section 5): Similar to national emergencies, Congress can waive the rule for a declared natural disaster via a majority joint resolution that becomes law.
• Enforcement (Section 6): Congress must pass laws to implement and enforce the amendment, which can use estimates of spending and revenues rather than exact figures.
• Effective Date (Section 7): The amendment takes effect starting with the fifth fiscal year after ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This proposal would introduce a new constitutional mandate for balanced federal budgets, which is not currently required under the U.S. Constitution or existing statutes. It shifts from the current flexible budgetary process—where deficits are common and funded by borrowing—toward strict limits on deficits, enforceable only through supermajority votes or specific waivers. No prior constitutional provision directly constrains federal spending in this way, though laws like the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 provide procedural guidelines without binding balance requirements.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Federal agencies may face reduced funding flexibility, requiring stricter prioritization of programs and potentially leading to cuts in discretionary spending (e.g., defense, education, or infrastructure) during non-waiver periods to avoid deficits.
• On Citizens: Could result in lower national debt over time, potentially stabilizing taxes and reducing inflation risks, but might limit government responses to economic downturns or social needs, affecting public services like healthcare, Social Security, or unemployment benefits.
• On International Relations: A more fiscally disciplined U.S. could enhance global economic confidence and the dollar's stability, but constraints on emergency spending might hinder rapid foreign aid, military actions, or responses to international crises, indirectly affecting alliances or trade.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Congress: Bears primary responsibility for enforcement, waivers, and budgeting; supermajority requirements could intensify partisan debates on spending.
• President: Must propose balanced budgets, influencing executive priorities but with limited unilateral power over waivers.
• State Governments: Play a key role in ratification (needing 38 states to approve); once ratified, states could indirectly benefit from federal fiscal stability but might see shifts in federal grants or mandates.
• Citizens and Taxpayers: Directly impacted by potential changes in federal spending, taxes, and debt levels; advocacy groups for fiscal conservatism or social programs would be particularly engaged.
• Federal Agencies and Programs: Entities reliant on annual appropriations (e.g., Department of Defense, HHS) could experience funding volatility.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal/Constitutional: As a constitutional amendment, it would be supreme law, potentially overriding conflicting statutes and requiring new legislation for implementation. The use of estimates in enforcement introduces flexibility but could lead to legal challenges over accuracy or interpretation. Ratification process (two-thirds congressional approval followed by three-fourths state legislatures) underscores federalism, but failure to ratify would maintain the status quo.
• Political: Likely to spark debates on government size and priorities; supermajority waivers could empower minorities to block spending, fostering gridlock, while exceptions for emergencies aim to balance rigidity with practicality. Historically, similar balanced budget amendments have faced opposition for potentially exacerbating recessions by limiting counter-cyclical spending.

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

Sponsor

Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]

Recent Actions

• 2025-01-03: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 2025-01-03: Introduced in House
• 2025-01-03: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide for balanced budgets for the Government. — issued 2025-01-03 — PDF (3 pages)