Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States related to the public debt.
Summary
H.J. Res. 112 proposes a constitutional amendment aimed at imposing strict limits on federal borrowing, spending, and certain tax increases. It would require total federal outlays to not exceed receipts unless any deficit spending is financed only through debt issued under the amendment’s rules. The resolution sets an initial debt ceiling at 105% of outstanding debt on the amendment’s effective date and bars any increase in that ceiling unless approved by a simple majority of state legislatures after Congress refers a single-subject measure to the states.
The proposal also creates an enforcement mechanism tied to the debt limit. If outstanding debt rises above 98% of the limit, the President would be required to designate spending for impoundment sufficient to keep debt within the authorized amount, unless Congress substitutes an alternative impoundment by concurrent resolution. It further states that failure by the President to carry out this duty would be an impeachable misdemeanor, and any debt issued above the limit would be void. The amendment would take effect upon ratification by three-fourths of the states within seven years and would be self-enforcing, though Congress could pass conforming legislation.
Impact
If ratified, the amendment would substantially alter federal fiscal law by embedding a balanced-budget-style constraint in the Constitution, limiting future deficits, constraining debt issuance, and giving state legislatures a direct role in approving debt-limit increases. It would also raise the threshold for new or increased general revenue taxes to a two-thirds vote in each House, while exempting certain tax changes such as replacing income taxes with an end-user sales tax or reducing tax preferences. The measure would affect Congress’s budgetary authority, the President’s spending execution powers, and the legal status of federal debt issued beyond the constitutional limit.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote data were provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or roll-call sentiment in the available materials. Based on the text alone, the resolution reflects a strong fiscal restraint approach and is likely intended to appeal to supporters of debt limitation, balanced budgets, and tax supermajority requirements. The absence of recorded votes or hearings means the bill’s reception in Congress cannot be assessed from the provided context.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the constitutional constraints on Congress’s fiscal authority, the role of state legislatures in approving federal debt increases, and the enforcement provisions requiring presidential impoundment and threatening impeachment for noncompliance. Critics may object that the amendment could reduce federal flexibility in responding to recessions, emergencies, or wars, and that it shifts significant national fiscal decisions to the states. Supporters are likely to favor the measure as a way to curb deficit spending, restrain borrowing, and make tax increases harder to enact.