House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee Hears Divided Views on Balanced Budget Amendment

The House Committee on the Judiciary's Constitution Subcommittee spent the hearing arguing over whether to enshrine a balanced budget requirement in the Constitution, with Republicans and some outside witnesses urging a binding constraint and Democrats and other witnesses warning that such an amendment could endanger Social Security, Medicare and the economy.

Chairman Roy opened the hearing by framing the fiscal problem in stark terms, saying, "Today, our national debt is at $38,000,000,000,000 and counting." He said a balanced budget amendment could be "a possible tool to beat back a future fiscal crisis" and called for a detailed, enforceable design.

Supporters on the witness panel argued the country needs a stronger, structural constraint. David M. Walker, chair of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation, said the government's obligations extend far beyond headline debt, asserting that "total federal liabilities and unfunded obligations exceed $125,000,000,000,000" and arguing for a debt-to-GDP approach with limited exceptions and enforcement mechanisms. Kurt Couchman of Americans for Prosperity recommended a "principles-based" amendment with a glide path and statutory tools to implement enforcement. Brittany Madney of the Economic Policy Innovation Center emphasized waste and improper payments and said the nation is "$38,400,000,000,000 in debt," arguing a constitutional backstop could prompt long-term discipline.

Opponents warned of real-world harms. Bridal Duke, senior director for federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said an annual balanced-budget rule could be "highly ill advised and risky," and warned it could "exacerbate and prolong recessions" by removing automatic stabilizers. Duke also cautioned that a broad constitutional requirement could force benefits cuts by preventing Social Security and Medicare from accessing their reserves in a way that preserves payments over time.

Members pressed witnesses on design details. Rep. McClintock argued for a short, explicit amendment with a delayed effective date and cited Switzerland's constitutional debt brake as a successful model; Walker and witnesses said any effective text must define exceptions carefully and include strong thresholds. Other members asked about glide paths, emergency exceptions (war, natural disaster), enforcement options, and whether counting conventions or baseline assumptions change the budget impact of recent legislation. Witnesses repeatedly said scoring depends heavily on baseline assumptions and implementation choices.

The hearing included partisan exchanges over recent tax legislation and the role of revenue enforcement. Democrats on the dais repeatedly pointed to the cost of recent tax measures and to proposals to strengthen IRS enforcement, while Republicans focused on mandatory spending growth and interest costs, which witnesses estimated at roughly 13% of the federal budget.

No bills were considered and there were no votes taken during the hearing. Chairman Roy closed by asking whether the Constitution can be amended to require fiscal constraints; Walker, Couchman and Madney answered yes (with differing designs), Duke answered no. The subcommittee adjourned after announcing members have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the record.

The hearing record includes written testimony from the four witnesses and multiple exchanges where members pushed for specifics on exceptions, enforcement thresholds and transition timelines.