H.Con.Res. 113House concurrent resolution · 119th CongressOn the calendar2 votes from flippingEconomics and Public Finance

Establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2027 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2028 through 2036.

Sponsored byJodey C. ArringtonR-TX-19Introduced Jul 18, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Jul 23, 2026) under General Orders. Calendar No. 468.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Jul 22, 2026

This concurrent resolution establishes the congressional budget for the federal government for FY2027, sets forth budgetary levels for FY2028-FY2036, and provides reconciliation instructions for legislation that increases the deficit.

The resolution recommends levels and amounts for FY2027-FY2036 for

federal revenues,new budget authority,budget outlays,deficits (on-budget),debt subject to limit,debt held by the public, andthe major functional categories of spending.The resolution includes reconciliation instructions that direct the House Agriculture Committee, the House Armed Services Committee, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the House Administration Committee to submit recommendations for legislation that will increase the deficit over FY2027-FY2036 by not more than specified amounts. Each committee must submit the recommendations to the House Budget Committee by September 11, 2026.

(Under current law, reconciliation bills are considered by Congress using expedited legislative procedures that prevent a filibuster and restrict amendments in the Senate.)

In addition, the resolution establishes a reserve fund that allows certain adjustments to committee allocations and other budgetary levels to accommodate reconciliation legislation.

Finally, the resolution sets forth budget enforcement procedures that address issues such as

adjustments to committee allocations and other budgetary levels;the budgetary treatment of the discretionary administrative expenses for the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Postal Service;emergency spending; andadditional adjustments for disaster relief, wildfire suppression, health care fraud and abuse control, continuing disability reviews and redeterminations, and reemployment services and eligibility assessments.

Face Value

as passed the House
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

What Congress did

1 recorded
  • On Agreeing to the Resolutiondecisive vote

    House · Jul 22, 2026

    Whether to adopt the resolution itself.

    216214

    Passed

    Every vote →

Who lobbied on this

4 organizations

These organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.

  • Capital One Financial Corp.no position stated
    The FY2027 Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res 113): issues related to the tax treatment of financial institutions. filing ↗
  • Cencora, Inc.no position stated
    The FY2027 Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res 113): issues related to the tax treatment of the LIFO inventory valuation method and business tax issues. filing ↗
  • Comcast Corporationno position stated
    The FY2027 Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res 113): issues related to the taxation of American corporations. filing ↗
  • Nextera Energy, Incno position stated
    The FY2027 Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res 113): issues related to clean energy production. filing ↗

Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.

Discussion

12 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
21
MidwestMechanicDemoPA-17voted Nay25d ago
The intent is fine. The drafting is not. There's no sunset, no review, and no mechanism to stop it if it turns out to be counterproductive.
10
TheQuietMajorityDemoCA-12voted Nay21d ago
Same conclusion, different reasoning. I'm less worried about scope and more about who administers it.
3
RedRiverRonDemoNJ-1voted Nay22d ago
Fair, but the alternative on the table is nothing, and nothing has a cost too.
10
BackbenchBrendaDemoPA-2voted Yea18d ago
This is the kind of unglamorous plumbing that never makes the news and matters more than the stuff that does.
9
sam_whitfieldDemoMD-7voted Yea28d ago
In favour, with a caveat: the effective date is doing a lot of work here. If it slips, everything else in this bill is theoretical.
5
BackbenchBrendaDemoPA-2voted Yea23d ago
That's the part I can't get past either. The authority is broad and the guardrails are thin.
6
RedRiverRonDemoNJ-1voted Nay20d ago
Sure, but 'the states are doing it' cuts the other way for me. If it's working there, why federalise it?
9
r_castellanoDemoMN-6voted Yea24d ago
The sunset clause point is the strongest argument in this thread and nobody has answered it.
7
quietriverbendDemoCA-21voted Yea18d ago
This is my worry too — the cost estimate always assumes full compliance and full compliance never happens.
5
BackbenchBrendaDemoPA-2voted Yea20d ago
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it now means starting over in the next Congress.
8
r_castellanoDemoMN-6voted Yea27d ago
Support. The reporting requirements alone would be worth it. You can't fix what nobody is required to measure.
7
quietriverbendDemoCA-21voted Yea25d ago
Reading the summary, this looks like it mostly codifies what agencies are already doing informally. That's worth doing — informal practice evaporates when administrations change.
Your position on H.Con.Res. 11354% Yea · 13 VoteWire users