PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 255.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Mar 19, 2004
Spending Control Act of 2004 - Amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act) to establish for FY 2005 through 2009 unspecified discretionary spending limits (spending caps) for the general purpose discretionary category in new budget authority and outlays.
Provides that, in any of such fiscal years, discretionary advance appropriations provided in appropriation Acts in excess of an unspecified amount shall be counted against the discretionary spending limits for the fiscal year for which the appropriation Act containing the advance appropriation is enacted.
Extends PAY-AS-YOU-GO requirements through FY 2009 to provide for an offsetting sequestration for direct spending (currently, direct spending and receipts) legislation that is enacted before October 1, 2009, that causes a net increase in direct spending (currently, net deficit increase).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Modifies the formula used to calculate the amount of direct spending (currently, deficit) increase to exclude receipts.
Provides that, if supplemental appropriations for discretionary accounts are enacted for contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism that the President designates and Congress so designates in statute, the adjustment shall be the total of such appropriations in discretionary accounts so designated and the outlays flowing in all fiscal years from them.
States that the general purpose discretionary category shall consist of accounts designated in the joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying the conference report on this Act.
Makes revisions to the baseline calculation for discretionary appropriations to prohibit the assumption beyond the fiscal year for which they have been enacted of any new budget resources designated by the President and by Congress in statute for emergency appropriations or for supplemental appropriations for contingency operations related to global war on terrorism.
Requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cost estimates on direct spending or receipts legislation to exclude any amount resulting from extending provisions in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 or in the Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 relating to certain individual tax rate reductions, tax benefits to children, and marriage penalty relief.
Requires the estimates set forth in the discretionary sequestration preview reports and such final reports issued by OMB and the Congressional Budget Office to include the current year and each subsequent year through FY 2009.
Extends: (1) certain budget enforcement requirements through FY 2009; and (2) PAY-AS-YOU-GO requirements through FY 2013.
People & committees
Rep. Nussle, Jim [R-IA-1] · R–IA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 255.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on The Budget. H. Rept. 108-442.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on The Budget. H. Rept. 108-442.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on the Budget.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.3973 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.3973 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.3973 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.3973 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.