PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on the Legislative and Budget Process.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 9, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS: Title I: Amendment to Title 31, United States Code Title II: Amendment to Congressional Budget Act of 1974 Title III: Effective Date Title I: Amendment to Title 31, United States Code - Amends specified Federal law to require that each President's budget submission to Congress be a balanced budget for the ensuing fiscal year. Directs the President, for any fiscal year with respect to which the President determines that it is infeasible to submit a budget in compliance with such balanced budget requirement, to submit on the same day two budgets, one of them in compliance with such requirement, together with written reasons in support of that determination. Title II: Amendment to Congressional Budget Act of 1974 - Amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (CBA) to require reporting of balanced budgets by Committees on the Budget of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Requires either such Committee, for any fiscal year with respect to which such Committee determines that it is infeasible to report a concurrent resolution on the budget in compliance with such balanced budget requirement, and includes written reasons in support of that determination in its accompanying report, to report two concurrent resolutions on the budget, one of them in compliance with such requirement. Amends CBA to make it in order, in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, to consider: (1) any amendment to a concurrent resolution on the budget for a fiscal year comprising the text of any budget submitted by the President for that fiscal year in compliance with the balanced budget requirement; and (2) whenever applicable, an amendment comprising the text of any alternative budget submitted by the President when the President determines a balanced budget is infeasible for that fiscal year. Title III: Effective Date - Makes this Act effective for FY 1999. Requires it to be fully reflected in the President's FY 1999 budget.
People & committees
Rep. Bentsen, Ken [D-TX-25] · D–TX
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 Legislative and Budget Process.
Referred to House Rules
Referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Budget
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.R.397 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.R.397 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.R.397 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.R.397 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.