PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.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.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 2, 2005
Common Sense Spending Act of 2005 - Amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act) to extend discretionary spending limits through FY 2010.
Repeals requirements for inclusion in a sequestration report of adjustments to discretionary limits for: (1) continuing disability reviews by the Social Security Administration; (2) specified allowances for the International Monetary Fund and international arrearages; (3) any earned income tax credit compliance initiative; (4) adoption incentive payments; and (5) conservation spending. Requires an adjustment to discretionary spending limits equal to the estimated resulting reduction in mandatory budget authority and outlays utilizing accrual methods, if enacted legislation charges Federal agencies for the full cost of accrued Federal retirement and health benefits, and an appropriations Act provides new budget authority to carry out such legislation. Revises PAYGO requirements to remove receipts from the requirement that any legislation enacted before FY 2011 affecting direct spending (currently, direct spending and receipts) that increases the deficit will trigger an offsetting sequestration. Revises the formula for calculating the amount of deficit increase or decrease by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Requires OMB to assume an automatic deficit increase of $8.4 billion before making such calculations for FY 2005. States that, with respect to eliminating a deficit increase, accounts shall be assumed to be at the level in the baseline for FY 2006 and for FY 2007 through 2010 at the baseline after adjusting for any sequester in FY 2005.
Revises the definition of baseline to exclude emergency appropriations and legislation.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits such emergency appropriations from being extended in the baseline.
Amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to require that the committee report and any statement of managers accompanying proposed legislation analyze whether a proposed emergency requirement meets a specified definition of "emergency." Prohibits the consideration of any such legislation that does not meet this "emergency" definition.
People & committees
Rep. Barrett, J. Gresham [R-SC-3] · R–SC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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 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 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.
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.523 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.523 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.523 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.523 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.