hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Amends Constitution to balance budget, require supermajority for new taxes.
Rep. Biggs (R-AZ), Rep. Clyde, Rep. Brecheen introduced.
Out of committee, on House Calendar awaiting vote.
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to strictly limit federal spending to an average of past tax collections and require a two-thirds vote in Congress for any new or increased taxes. The bill was introduced by Representative Andy Biggs, a Republican from Arizona, along with Representatives Clyde and Brecheen. It has been approved by a committee and is now listed on the House Calendar, meaning it's ready for a vote by the full House of Representatives.
Introduced Jan 9, 2026
This resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives on January 9, 2026, and referred to the Judiciary Committee. On February 25, 2026, it was favorably reported out of committee and placed on the House Calendar, signaling it's ready for consideration and a vote by the full House. If passed by a two-thirds vote in the House, it would then go to the Senate for a similar two-thirds vote. If approved by both chambers, it would then be sent to the states for ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures to become part of the Constitution.
If this constitutional amendment were ratified, the federal government would be largely restricted from spending more money than it has collected in taxes over the previous three years, adjusted for population and inflation. This means funding for government programs and services would directly depend on past revenues. It would also become significantly more challenging to increase taxes or create new ones, as both would require a two-thirds vote from both the House and Senate. While exceptions exist for declared wars or specific emergencies approved by a two-thirds vote, overall government flexibility to respond to unforeseen events or economic downturns could be limited without supermajority support.
Supporters Say
Supporters argue it ensures fiscal responsibility, reduces national debt, and prevents unchecked government spending.
Critics Say
Critics contend it would make government inflexible, hinder crisis response, and limit investments in critical areas.
Those in favor believe this amendment would force the government to live within its means, preventing excessive borrowing and accumulating more national debt. They argue it would promote long-term economic stability. Opponents, however, raise concerns that such strict limits could make it difficult for the government to respond effectively to economic recessions, natural disasters, or other national emergencies without widespread political agreement. They also worry it could lead to cuts in essential services or make necessary investments challenging.