PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 27, 1993
Amends Federal law to continue appropriations automatically if a regular appropriations bill covering a project or activity does not become law by the beginning of a fiscal year. Continues appropriations at the funding level of the preceding fiscal year or, if the relevant Act did not become law, in accordance with criteria prescribed in this Act. Declares it to be out of order in the House of Representatives or in the Senate to consider or to vote on the question of agreeing to any continuing appropriations legislation. Permits a waiver of this restriction in the Senate by a three-fifths vote.
People & committees
Rep. Gekas, George W. [R-PA-17] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
Referred to the House Committee on Appropriations.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H270)
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: Jan 2, 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.675 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.675 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.675 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.675 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.