PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 18, 1995
Sets forth the congressional budget for FY 1996, including the appropriate budgetary levels for FY 1997 through 2002. Sets forth recommended budgetary levels for Federal revenues, total new budget authority, total budget outlays, budget deficits, and public debt. (Sec. 3) Sets forth the increase in the public debt subject to limitation. (Sec. 4) Sets forth for each major functional category the appropriate levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for FY 1996 through 2002. (Sec. 5) Requires, on adoption of this resolution, the chairmen of the Budget committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate to each file reconciliation directives in the Congressional Record to effectuate this resolution. Deems, for the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, those directives to be reconciliation directives set forth in this revised concurrent resolution on the budget.
People & committees
Rep. Kasich, John R. [R-OH-12] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On agreeing to the resolution Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 0 - 412, 5 Present (Roll no. 869).
House roll call 869 · Individual votesFailed of passage/not agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 0 - 412, 5 Present (Roll no. 869).
House roll call 869 · Individual votesThe previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 309, the House proceeded with two hours of debate.
Rule provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 122 with 2 hours of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions. Providing for the consideration of the concurrent resolution in the House and waiving all points of order against consideration.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 309. (consideration: CR H15130-15134, H15137-15155)
Rule H. Res. 309 passed House.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H15137)
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 309 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 122 with 2 hours of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions. Providing for the consideration of the concurrent resolution in the House and waiving all points of order against consideration.
Referred to the House Committee on The Budget.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.Con.Res.122 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.Con.Res.122 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.Con.Res.122 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.Con.Res.122 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.