PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 8, 2015
Constitutional Amendment
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment prohibiting total outlays of the operating funds of the United States from exceeding total receipts of those funds for a fiscal year unless Congress authorizes the excess by a three-fifths vote of each chamber.
The prohibition excludes:
outlays for repayment of debt principal, capital investments, and Social Security; and
receipts derived from net borrowing or Social Security.
The President must submit an annual budget in which total outlays for operating funds do not exceed total receipts for those funds for the fiscal year.
Congress may waive the requirements for two years if: (1) a declaration of war is in effect, or (2) the Congressional Budget Office estimates that real economic growth has been or will be less than 1% for two consecutive quarters during the two-year period.
Congress may also waive the requirements for any year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security.
People & committees
Rep. Carney, John C., Jr. [D-DE-At Large] · D–DE
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 2025. 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.J.Res.69 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.J.Res.69 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.J.Res.69 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.J.Res.69 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.