Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debate on balanced-budget amendment fails to reach two-thirds threshold
Summary
A House vote to suspend the rules and advance H.J.Res.139, a balanced-budget constitutional amendment, failed to meet the two-thirds threshold. Supporters said it would impose fiscal discipline; opponents warned it would gut social programs and be undemocratic.
A measure proposing a constitutional balanced-budget amendment, H.J.Res.139, drew lengthy debate on the House floor but failed under suspension of the rules when it could not secure the two-thirds majority required.
Proponents argued the amendment would impose long-term fiscal discipline. "Our national debt exceeds $38 trillion," a sponsor said, calling a constitutional amendment the —forcing mechanism— needed to constrain future spending.
Opponents, including senior Democrats, said the amendment was unnecessary and dangerous, arguing Congress can and should present balanced budgets without altering the Constitution. "This resolution is a press release that lets them pretend to care about deficits," one ranking member said, warning the amendment would hamstring future Congresses and cut programs in crises.
The House recorded votes showed the measure did not receive the required two-thirds support under the suspension process and thus failed to pass under those rules; the transcript records subsequent procedural steps and votes.
Members on both sides linked the fiscal debate to recent overseas military spending and other drivers of the deficit, making the vote part of a broader floor argument about priorities and oversight.
