H.J. Res. 10 would add a new constitutional article that bars federal deficits in any fiscal year unless each House authorizes a specific excess by a three-fifths rollcall vote, and it prevents increases in publicly held debt except by the same three-fifths threshold.
The resolution also requires the President to submit a budget in which outlays do not exceed receipts, makes revenue increases subject to a majority of the "whole number" of each House, and limits what counts as receipts and outlays for compliance purposes.
The measure matters because it converts ordinary budget rules into a constitutional constraint with a tight waiver regime and a delayed effective date. If ratified, it alters the balance between fiscal discipline and policy flexibility, creates new procedural thresholds for Congress, and shifts many technical implementation questions to future statutory lawmakers and, likely, the courts.
At a Glance
What It Does
Bars federal outlays from exceeding receipts each fiscal year unless a three-fifths rollcall majority in each House authorizes a specific excess; requires the President to propose a balanced-budget-compliant budget; and requires three-fifths approval to increase publicly held debt. It also defines receipts and outlays to exclude borrowing and debt-principal repayment respectively.
Who It Affects
Members of Congress (vote thresholds and legislative drafting), the Treasury (cash and debt management), federal program managers and beneficiaries (spending pressure), and market participants watching U.S. fiscal capacity. Future Congresses who must write implementing statutes will also be affected.
Why It Matters
By elevating budget rules to constitutional status, the amendment reduces ordinary statutory flexibility and creates high procedural barriers to authorized deficits and debt increases, while leaving implementation details and enforcement to subsequent laws and institutions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The proposed amendment inserts an article into the Constitution that makes a balanced federal budget the default rule. Section 1 says total federal outlays for any fiscal year cannot exceed total receipts for that year unless each House, by a rollcall, authorizes a specific excess with three-fifths of its whole membership.
That language converts a fiscal rule into a constitutional prohibition and attaches a supermajority override mechanism tied to a vote on a specific dollar excess.
Section 2 ties increases in the debt held by the public to the same three-fifths threshold, so Congress could not raise the externally held debt ceiling without a supermajority rollcall vote in each House. Section 3 requires the President to submit an annual budget that complies with the balanced-budget rule.
Section 4 changes the vote requirement for any bill that increases revenue to a majority of the whole number of each House, a higher procedural bar than a simple majority of those present.The amendment includes waiver and enforcement mechanics but leaves substantial room for later lawmaking. Section 5 allows waivers for fiscal years when a declaration of war is in effect and permits a different waiver for certain military conflicts by a joint resolution adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House that becomes law; any such waiver must identify and be limited to the specific excess required.
Section 6 directs Congress to implement the article by statute and permits reliance on estimates of receipts and outlays, while Section 7 supplies compact definitions excluding borrowing from receipts and debt-principal repayment from outlays. Finally, Section 8 delays the amendment’s operative start until the fifth fiscal year after ratification, and the proposal requires ratification by three-fourths of the states within seven years after submission.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The amendment makes a fiscal-year-by-fiscal-year balanced budget the constitutional default and allows a specific excess only if each House authorizes it by a rollcall vote of three-fifths of its whole membership.
It requires three-fifths of the whole number of each House to authorize any increase in the debt of the United States held by the public.
The President must submit a proposed federal budget each year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts, creating a constitutional duty for the executive’s budget request.
The amendment defines receipts to exclude borrowing and outlays to exclude repayment of debt principal, and it permits Congress to rely on estimates when implementing the article.
Waivers are narrow and time-limited: automatic waiver is tied to a declaration of war in effect; for other imminent military threats, a waiver needs a joint resolution adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House and must specify the fiscal-year excess it authorizes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Annual balanced-budget requirement with three-fifths override
This provision converts a balanced-budget rule into a constitutional ban on deficits: outlays cannot exceed receipts for any fiscal year. The sole routine escape valve is a rollcall vote in which three-fifths of the whole number of each House must enact a law authorizing a specific excess. Practically, that forces Congress to vote on a dollar-amount waiver rather than relying on general appropriations practices, and it raises the bar for deficit authorization above ordinary majorities.
Supermajority required to increase publicly held federal debt
Section 2 requires a three-fifths rollcall vote in each House to raise the debt held by the public. This ties the statutory debt-limit process to the constitutional amendment, meaning routine Treasury requests to increase borrowing capacity would need a higher threshold in Congress unless alternative measures are taken—e.g., cash management or timing of obligations to stay below the limit.
Presidential budget duty to present a balanced proposal
The President must transmit an annual budget proposal in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts. That imposes a constitutional obligation on the executive’s budget submission and creates a new reference point that Congress can use when enacting appropriations or considering waivers; it also increases political pressure on the President to propose offsets or cuts rather than deficits.
Majority-of-whole requirement for revenue-increasing bills
Any bill that increases revenue must be approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by rollcall vote. "Majority of the whole number" refers to a numerical majority of the full membership (e.g., 218 in the House if full). This raises the procedural threshold compared with a majority of members present and voting and could affect how Congress structures tax or receipt legislation.
Limited waiver regime tied to war and military threats
Waivers are narrowly drawn: Congress may waive the article for a fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect; for other military conflicts that constitute an imminent and serious threat, a waiver requires a joint resolution adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House that becomes law. Any waiver must identify and be limited to the specific excess for that fiscal year, which constrains open-ended emergency spending but leaves questions about multiyear operations.
Congress decides enforcement and can use estimates
This section delegates enforcement and implementation to Congress via statute and explicitly permits reliance on estimates of outlays and receipts. That means the amendment intentionally leaves detailed compliance mechanics—timing, offsets, penalties, reporting—to future legislation, creating practical discretion but also ambiguity about enforcement and dispute resolution.
Definitions of receipts and outlays
Section 7 narrows the constitutional accounting baseline: receipts include all government receipts except borrowing, and outlays include all outlays except repayment of debt principal. Interest on debt is therefore an outlay, while new borrowing cannot be treated as a receipt to cover deficits. These definitions close some accounting loopholes but leave open treatment of trust funds, credit programs, and off-budget entities.
Delayed effective date after ratification
The article would take effect beginning with the fifth fiscal year after ratification. That delay gives states and the federal government time to prepare implementing statutes and budgetary adjustments, but it also means the constitutional constraint would not apply immediately upon ratification, creating a multi-year transition window.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Fiscal conservatives and deficit hawks: The amendment hardwires a legal constraint against routine deficits and raises the bar for debt increases, aligning federal policy with balance-oriented objectives.
- Creditors and some market participants: A constitutional limit and a supermajority requirement for public debt increases could be perceived as a structural commitment to fiscal discipline, which may affect long-term expectations about U.S. borrowing.
- Future taxpayers: By limiting the government's ability to run persistent deficits, the amendment aims to reduce the risk of tax burdens or reduced services falling on future generations.
- State budget planners and long-term investors: Greater federal fiscal predictability—if the rule is faithfully applied—could change expectations about federal transfers and macroeconomic volatility.
Who Bears the Cost
- Beneficiaries of federal programs (entitlement and discretionary recipients): The balanced-budget requirement pressures Congress to cut spending or raise revenues to close gaps, potentially reducing program funding or slowing growth.
- Congressional majority-building and governance: Legislators lose ordinary deficit financing as a policy tool and must secure supermajorities for temporary relief, complicating coalition-building and legislative strategy.
- The Executive Branch and Treasury operations: The President’s constitutional duty to propose a balanced budget and the three-fifths debt threshold constrain executive flexibility for crisis response and cash management, adding operational burdens.
- Agencies and program administrators: Agencies may face abrupt funding changes or increased compliance requirements from new implementing statutes, and they may have to adapt to stricter estimates, reprogramming limits, or cash flow constraints.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between binding fiscal discipline and maintaining sufficient fiscal flexibility: the amendment forces stronger limits on deficits and debt to curb long-term fiscal risks, but those same constraints reduce the federal government’s ability to respond to recessions, large-scale emergencies, or persistent structural needs. Deciding which risk to prioritize—structural solvency versus countercyclical and emergency capacity—is the policy trade-off the amendment hardens.
The amendment delegates most implementation to future Congresses while embedding high-level constraints in the Constitution. That creates a two-layered uncertainty: the constitutional rule is rigid, but the statutory design that will determine how to measure compliance, handle timing mismatches, and enforce penalties remains open.
Allowing Congress to rely on estimates is practical, but estimates are contestable and can be politically manipulated; specifying which estimates control and who adjudicates disputes will be critical and contentious.
The definitions in Section 7 remove borrowing and principal repayment from the arithmetic baseline, but they leave unanswered how to treat trust funds, off-budget entities, federal credit programs, and intragovernmental balances. A likely path is increased use of off-budget accounting and timing shifts (delay receipts or accelerate outlays), which could erode the amendment’s substantive effect.
The waiver rules focus narrowly on war and immediate military threats and do not expressly accommodate severe economic downturns, pandemics, or financial crises, raising a clear risk of procyclical austerity or politically fraught emergency legislation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.