Proposed constitutional amendment would lock federal spending cuts into law permanently.

What it does

This is a proposed constitutional amendment requiring the federal government to balance its budget by limiting annual spending to the average of the prior three years' revenues (adjusted for population and inflation), with exceptions only for debt repayment and wartime spending. It also requires a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers to approve any new tax or tax increase, making it much harder for Congress to raise revenue to meet spending needs.

Why we flagged it

This is a straightforward constitutional amendment proposal that openly proposes to amend the Constitution to require balanced budgets and supermajority tax votes. It states its mechanism plainly without hidden provisions or misdirection.

What the text implies

• The 3-year rolling average revenue baseline could lock in revenue shortfalls from recessions, forcing pro-cyclical spending cuts during downturns when demand for services peaks.
• The two-thirds supermajority requirement for tax increases makes it structurally easier to cut taxes than to raise them, creating asymmetric fiscal pressure toward lower revenue.
• Debt-payment exemption means interest costs grow unconstrained while discretionary spending shrinks, potentially crowding out investments in infrastructure, education, and research.
• Amendment provides no mechanism for emergency spending outside declared war, potentially preventing rapid response to pandemics, natural disasters, or financial crises.
• Ratification by 38 states would lock this constraint into the Constitution permanently, making future fiscal policy changes require another constitutional amendment.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The amendment would force automatic spending constraints that could reduce funding for Social Security, Medicare, education, infrastructure, and other programs ordinary people depend on, while making it nearly impossible to raise revenue through taxation to address shortfalls. Citizens would face either reduced services or forced austerity during recessions and crises when spending needs typically rise.

Named in the bill

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Congress, Federal Government, Mr. Biggs (Arizona), Mr. Clyde, Mr. Brecheen

Where it stands

2 cosponsors: 2 Republicans.

• Jan 9, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jan 9, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”
• Feb 3, 2026 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”
• Feb 3, 2026 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 16 - 10”
• Mar 18, 2026 — Failed · Congress.gov: “Failed of passage/not agreed to in House On motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution Failed by the…”
• Mar 18, 2026 — Floor vote scheduled · Congress.gov: “Mr. Biggs (AZ) moved to suspend the rules and pass the resolution”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

1 lobbying clients named this bill on 1 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $340,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 67 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 0% of bills with at least one filing.

Andy Biggs, the sponsor, reported $9,100 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• National Treasury Employees Union — $340,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.