PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Civil Service.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 5, 1995
Reduces by $2 billion the amount of FY 1996 executive branch appropriations available for entering into service contracts and increases by the same amount the funds available for pay schedule adjustments and locality-based comparability payments. Requires: (1) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to allocate the reductions and increases among the appropriate accounts and to report to the Congress on such allocations; (2) each department, agency, and instrumentality in the executive branch to submit to the Director, within 90 days after the end of FY 1996, a certification of compliance with this Act in accordance with the required allocations; and (3) the Director to report to the Congress on such certifications.
People & committees
Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large] · D–DC
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 Civil Service.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E795-796)
Referred to the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
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: Feb 4, 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.R.1409 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.1409 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.1409 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.1409 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.