House Dems Reject Balanced Budget Amendment Proposal
The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected legislation that would require the federal government to maintain a balanced budget, dealing a setback to a long-standing goal of fiscal conservatives.
Lawmakers voted 211-207 against the resolution, which would have begun the process of amending the Constitution to prohibit deficit spending.
The measure required a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress before being sent to the states for ratification.
Nearly every Democrat opposed the proposal, with only one voting in favor.
The amendment effort faced significant challenges from the start, given the high threshold required for passage.
Despite the outcome, the vote was significant for budget hawks, including the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz. He said the effort reflects years of advocacy among conservatives pushing for stricter fiscal controls.
“Many of us have been agitating for years to do a balanced budget amendment, and out of the blue, they said, ‘we’re ready to do it,’” Biggs said in an interview.
“They didn’t ask me to do anything, didn’t offer anything,” he said, referring to House GOP leadership. “Just out of the blue, I got a call,” Biggs added.
Balanced budget amendments have been introduced more than 100 times since 1999, according to legislative data analyzed by the Pew Research Center.
The concept saw its peak in the 1970s and 1980s and remains one of the most frequently proposed constitutional changes.
Biggs’ proposal would have required that federal spending in a given year not exceed the average annual revenue collected over the previous three years, adjusted for inflation and population growth.
The resolution included an exception for times of declared war, allowing Congress to approve spending beyond the cap.
Modern military conflicts, including those following World War II, have typically funded themselves through deficit spending without formal declarations of war.
That reality has complicated past efforts to impose strict balanced budget requirements.
The proposal also sought to impose a two-thirds vote requirement in both the House and Senate for any new taxes or tax increases.
Current law allows tax legislation to pass with a simple majority under certain procedures, including budget reconciliation.
While the measure fell short, it underscores continued divisions in Congress over fiscal policy and the role of deficit spending in federal governance.
Supporters argue that a balanced-budget requirement would impose discipline on federal spending, while opponents warn that it could limit the government’s ability to respond to economic downturns or emergencies.
The House passed legislation Wednesday aimed at cracking down on illegal immigrants accused of welfare fraud, approving the measure despite strong opposition from most Democrats.
Lawmakers voted 231-186 to pass the Deporting Fraudsters Act, with 186 Democrats voting against it. The bill was introduced by Rep. David Taylor, R-Ohio.
The legislation would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to explicitly classify fraud involving public benefits as a deportable offense.
Republicans said the measure is designed to ensure that noncitizens who defraud taxpayer-funded programs are removed from the country and barred from returning.
“If you admit to or you’re convicted of fraudulently receiving public benefits, you are out of here on the next plane and can never return,” Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., said during debate on the House floor.
Democrats largely opposed the bill, arguing that existing law already allows for the deportation of noncitizens convicted of fraud. They characterized the legislation as unnecessary and duplicative.
Republicans pushed back on that claim, saying the bill does not prevent criminal prosecution before removal and maintains existing legal processes.
GOP lawmakers argued that the measure strengthens enforcement by closing perceived loopholes.
The U.S. House recently passed the Save America Act, again putting the pressire on the Senate.
Shocking 'truth' behind Prince Harry's decision to quit major role
Prince Harry should have "resigned in disgrace" from the board of a controversial African wildlife charity, a commentator says. James Walker makes the bombshell remark in Wednesday's episode of this publication's podcast, Daily Expresso.
He and the show's host, JJ Anisiobi, delve into the Duke of Sussex's dramatic decision to step down from African Parks. James, commenting on the controversy, said: "When you hear about this stuff and how long it's been going on for, you should be resigning in disgrace. [Harry] should be saying: 'I'm not touching that with a barge pole. That is a failed entity. We're going nowhere near it'.
"But no. He's still saying he's going to 'support their mission'. And again this Caroline Pearce, executive director of Survival International, goes on to say: 'His departure doesn't undo that record'.
"She alleged that African Parks was aware of the abuses for years, but it was only after Survival complained to Harry that the charity finally commissioned an investigation."
James added: "Well, she's got a point."
It emerged on Monday (August 24) that Harry was no longer a board member of the wildlife charity.
The conservation organisation has admitted that human rights abuses were committed by its rangers against members of the semi-nomadic Baka group in Congo-Brazzaville.
African Parks has said since that it has improved its safeguarding processes both in the Odzala-Kokoua National Park and institutionally.
Its admission followed an independent human rights investigation into allegations guards managed and paid by the charity had beaten, raped and tortured indigenous people in Odzala-Kokoua National Park.
Harry was president of the charity for six years before he became a member of its board of directors in 2023.
A spokesman for the Duke said he remains an active and avid supporter of African Parks. He added: "The Duke is proud of his 10 years with African Parks and fully supports the ongoing strengthening of its board.
"His commitment to conservation in Africa continues and he remains a supporter of African Parks’ mission."
Human rights organisation, Survival International, said it had been calling on Harry to step down from African Parks for years.
The group's director, Caroline Pearce, said in a statement: "It’s outrageous that for 10 years Prince Harry has served African Parks while the organisation has been responsible for abuse and violence against Indigenous people.
"His departure doesn't undo that record — African Parks itself must now be held accountable, and must abandon this model of fortress conservation for good."
Survival International said indigenous peoples know how best to manage their land and the idea outsiders know better is racist and colonial.
