All Roll Calls
Yes: 211 • No: 207
Sponsored By: Representative Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
Failed
This joint resolution would add a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget. It caps federal spending to recent receipts, raises the bar for tax increases, and creates narrow overrides for emergencies.
Personalized for You
Personalize government policy and PRIA will tell you what this bill means for your household, plus every other piece of legislation we track. PRIA reads each provision against your financial profile to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.
3 provisions identified: 0 benefits, 0 costs, 3 mixed.
Had it passed, the amendment would have capped total federal spending each year to the average of federal receipts in the prior three years. The cap would have been adjusted for changes in the U.S. citizen population and for inflation. The cap would not have counted payments on federal debt, and receipts from borrowing would not have counted. The rule would have started five years after ratification.
Had it passed, the amendment would have let Congress, by a two-thirds roll-call vote in each House, authorize specific spending above the cap. It would have also allowed Congress, by a roll-call vote, to authorize excess spending during any year a declaration of war was in effect. The amendment would have required Congress to pass laws to enforce and implement the article. The amendment would have taken effect starting five years after ratification.
Had it passed, the amendment would have required two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress to approve any bill that levied a new tax or increased any tax rate. That higher vote threshold would have made new or higher federal taxes harder to pass. The change would have shaped future revenue and trade-offs between taxes and spending.
Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
AZ • R
Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9]
GA • R
Sponsored 1/12/2026
Rep. Brecheen, Josh [R-OK-2]
OK • R
Sponsored 1/13/2026
All Roll Calls
Yes: 211 • No: 207
house vote • 3/18/2026
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
Yes: 211 • No: 207
119-hr-624, RIFLE Act of 2025
Would replace current ATF and Justice Department enforcement of federal firearms licensing with a graduated civil penalties regime and stronger procedural protections for licensees. It would set tougher proof rules for revocation and add formal notice, hearing, and timeline requirements for enforcement actions.
119-hr-3151, SHIPS for America Act of 2025
Rebuild U.S. commercial shipbuilding and a U.S.-flag strategic fleet by pairing new tax credits, grants, and operating payments with stronger cargo-preference rules and workforce and innovation programs to restore domestic capacity and sealift readiness. It centralizes maritime strategy in a White House advisor and a Maritime Security Board and funds a broad set of industrial, port, and training programs to favor U.S.-built, U.S.-crewed vessels.
119-hr-2395, SHORT Act
Reclassifies short‑barreled rifles and shotguns under federal law and limits state oversight. The SHORT Act would change the Internal Revenue Code and Title 18 to treat certain short‑barreled weapons differently, create a federal safe harbor for people who comply with Chapter 44, preempt state taxes and registration rules, and require destruction of some National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record entries. - Owners who follow federal Chapter 44 rules would be regarded as meeting any state or local registration or licensing requirement for short‑barreled rifles and shotguns. - States and localities would be barred from imposing taxes other than general sales or use taxes, or from requiring markings, recordkeeping, or registration for short‑barreled rifles and shotguns that affect interstate commerce. - The Attorney General would have to destroy within 365 days certain NFRTR registrations and transfer and maker applications that identify owners or makers of those weapons.
119-hr-21, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
Mandates care and penalties for infants born alive after an abortion. This bill would set standards of care, require reporting, create criminal penalties, and allow civil suits when an infant is born alive following an abortion. - Women and families: A woman on whom an abortion is performed may sue anyone who violates the law and recover objectively verifiable medical and psychological damages, punitive damages, and statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the abortion. Courts must award reasonable attorney's fees to prevailing plaintiffs and may award fees to defendants if a suit is frivolous. - Health care practitioners and facility employees: Any practitioner present at a birth resulting from an abortion must exercise the same professional skill, care, and diligence as for any other live-born infant of the same gestational age. Practitioners or employees who know of a failure to comply must immediately report the violation to appropriate State or Federal law enforcement. - Criminal and statutory consequences: Violators face fines, up to 5 years in prison, or both, and anyone who intentionally kills a born-alive infant is punished under the murder statute. The bill also updates chapter headings and adds statutory definitions for "abortion" and "attempt."
119-hr-987, Fair Access to Banking Act
Prevents banks and payment networks from cutting off customers for political or reputational reasons. It sets a national standard that forces objective, risk-based decisions and creates a private right of action for people and businesses harmed by unfair denials. - Families and households keep access to bank accounts and payment services without being excluded for politics or reputation, and any denial must include a written, quantifiable justification. - Lawful businesses and nonprofits, including politically unpopular ones, gain protection from category-based refusals and can sue for treble damages and attorney’s fees if a covered institution violates the rules. - Banks, credit unions, and payment networks must adopt impartial, data-driven risk standards, may face civil penalties, and large institutions that refuse service could lose access to discount window lending or automated clearing house services.
119-hr-317, Healthcare Freedom Act of 2025
Health Freedom Accounts (HFAs) would replace Health Savings Accounts across the tax code and reshape tax-advantaged health saving by expanding who can deduct contributions and what counts as medical expenses. - Families and individuals: Would raise the individual contribution limit to $12,000 and double that for joint filers, letting more money be saved tax-advantaged for health. - Older savers: Would add a $5,000 catch-up for people 55 or older, encouraging larger pre-tax health savings as they age. - Account rules and expenses: Would allow rollovers into another HFA if redeposited within 60 days and remove the monthly "eligible individual" requirement so more people can deduct contributions. Would expand qualified expenses to include direct primary care and health care sharing ministries. - Employers and workers: Would create a phased tax exclusion so employer contributions to HFAs are excluded from employee income for workers hired five years after enactment.
Surfaced from PRIA's policy knowledge graph, ranked by signal strength, connected by evidence.
Would block federal eminent domain for most agricultural land when a feasible alternative exists, defines covered land, and excludes tiny low‑income parcels.
- 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. — Communications Act of 1934: establishes the FCC and its jurisdiction over interstate and foreign communications by wire and radio; the foundational statute for all FCC regu
The Federal Communications Commission — an independent regulatory agency created by the Communications Act of 1934 47 U.S.C. § 151 and substantially restructured by the Telecommunications Act of 1996
The U.S. Department of Labor is revising its implementing regulations for Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Section 503). The revisions align the regulations with applicable law and recent executive orders, including Executive Order 14173, "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity," and Executive Order 14219, "Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative."
“Bill HR10135 contains provision HR10135::prov_1”
The War Powers Resolution 1973 — enacted over President Nixon's veto and codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548 — is Congress's primary statutory attempt to limit the President's ability to commit U.S. fo