PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 211 - 207 (Roll no. 95).
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 9, 2026
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment prohibiting total federal expenditures for a year from exceeding the average annual federal receipts collected in the three prior years, adjusted for changes in the population of U.S. citizens and inflation. Expenditures for payment of debt and receipts derived from borrowing are excluded.
Under the amendment, Congress may authorize specific expenditures in excess of the limit with (1) a roll call vote of two-thirds of each chamber, or (2) a roll call vote for any year in which a declaration of war is in effect.
The amendment also prohibits any bill to levy a new tax or increase the rate of any tax from becoming law unless it has been approved by a roll call vote of two-thirds of the whole number of each chamber of Congress.
The requirements take effect in the fifth year beginning after ratification of the amendment.
People & committees
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 211 - 207 (Roll no. 95).
House roll call 95 · Individual votesFailed of passage/not agreed to in House On motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 211 - 207 (Roll no. 95).
House roll call 95 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2583-2584)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1115, the House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.J. Res. 139
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2560-2568; text: CR H2560-2561)
Mr. Biggs (AZ) moved to suspend the rules and pass the resolution.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 63.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-520.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-520.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 16 - 10.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 11, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.J.Res.139 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.J.Res.139 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.J.Res.139 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.J.Res.139 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.