Passed
216 Yea214 Nay3 Not voting1/2 required
HCONRES-14-119
Star Print ordered on the reported concurrent resolution.
Sponsored by Jodey Arrington (R-TX)
What it does
This concurrent resolution would set the federal government's overall spending, revenue, and deficit targets for fiscal year 2025 and establish non-binding guideposts for fiscal years 2026 through 2034. It would instruct 11 House committees and 10 Senate committees to find specific amounts of spending cuts or new spending authority through a separate reconciliation process, targeting at least $2 trillion in net deficit reduction while allowing up to $4.5 trillion in tax reductions over the decade. It would also direct the Committee on Ways and Means to raise the statutory debt ceiling by $4 trillion (House) or $5 trillion (Senate).
Who benefits
Taxpayers who would benefit from extended or expanded tax cuts directed through the Ways and Means reconciliation instruction. Defense contractors and the military, as defense spending is maintained and allowed to grow. Businesses subject to federal regulations, which the resolution explicitly targets for reduction. Bondholders and financial markets, which benefit from a raised debt ceiling that avoids a potential default. Veterans, whose benefits category sees sustained and growing appropriations. Fiscal conservatives who favor reduced federal spending as a policy goal.
Who is hurt
Recipients of programs subject to the largest spending cut instructions — particularly Medicaid and other health programs overseen by the Energy and Commerce Committee ($880B cut target) and education and workforce programs ($330B cut target). Low-income households that rely on programs in the Income Security category, which faces cuts through the Agriculture Committee ($230B). Future taxpayers who would bear the cost of deficits projected to remain between $936 billion and $1.47 trillion annually through 2034, with public debt rising to over $50 trillion. Discretionary program beneficiaries in natural resources, community development, and transportation, which face reduced new budget authority in later years.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the federal government is on an unsustainable fiscal path, with annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion and debt projected to surpass $50 trillion by 2034 under current trajectories, and that this resolution provides a necessary framework to begin reducing that trajectory by over $2 trillion. They contend that extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions prevents a large automatic tax increase on working families and small businesses, and that targeting waste, fraud, and abuse in programs like Medicaid — rather than cutting benefits — can achieve savings without harming vulnerable populations.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the resolution's math is structurally contradictory — it allows up to $4.5 trillion in tax reductions while requiring only $2 trillion in spending cuts, producing larger deficits than current projections, not smaller ones. They contend that the $880 billion Energy and Commerce cut target is so large it cannot be achieved without reducing Medicaid eligibility or benefits for tens of millions of low-income Americans, despite the resolution's stated goal of protecting the program. Critics also note that the resolution's deficit figures show annual shortfalls growing, not shrinking, throughout the decade.
Constitutional context
The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 provides the statutory framework for concurrent budget resolutions, which are an exercise of Congress's Article I power of the purse. The reconciliation instructions, if carried out, would produce legislation subject to Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause scrutiny; the deregulation reserve fund explicitly references reasserting Congress's constitutional role in lawmaking, which implicates the nondelegation doctrine and the post-Loper Bright environment in which agency rules face heightened judicial review.
Checks and balances
Congress gains significant agenda-setting power through the reconciliation instructions, which direct committees to produce legislation on a fixed timeline; the Budget Committees in both chambers serve as gatekeepers, and the Congressional Budget Office provides independent cost estimates that must certify compliance before key adjustments take effect.
Historical precedent
The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 established the budget resolution process; reconciliation has been used to pass major fiscal legislation including the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Affordable Care Act of 2010, and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.
Passed
Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (51-48)
Amendment Rejected (47-52)
Amendment Rejected (49-50)
Amendment Rejected (48-51)
Amendment Rejected (48-51)
Amendment Rejected (49-50)
Motion Rejected (49-50, 3/5 majority required)
Amendment Rejected (47-52)
Amendment Rejected (49-50)
Amendment Rejected (48-51)
Amendment Rejected (48-51)
Amendment Agreed to (51-48)
Amendment Rejected (49-50)
Amendment Rejected (5-94)
Amendment Rejected (48-51)
Amendment Rejected (48-51)
Amendment Rejected (46-53)
Amendment Rejected (48-51)
Amendment Rejected (46-53)
Amendment Rejected (47-51)
Amendment Rejected (48-51)
Amendment Rejected (46-53)
Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-48)
Passed