PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred jointly to the Committees on Budget; Governmental Affairs pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one Committee reports, the other Committee have thirty days to report or be discharged.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 20, 1999
Requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, no later than 15 days after Congress adjourns to end the first session of the 106th Congress and on the same day as a specified sequestration (if any) under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act), to cause a sequestration for FY 2000 of all non-exempt accounts within the discretionary spending category (excluding national defense) to achieve a reduction in budget authority equal to $13.303 billion minus the amount of reimbursements identified in a report under the 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act regarding efforts to increase burden sharing for Operation Allied Force.
People & committees
Sen. Enzi, Michael B. [R-WY] · R–WY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred jointly to the Committees on Budget; Governmental Affairs pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one Committee reports, the other Committee have thirty days to report or be discharged.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5682-5683)
Introduced in Senate
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: Apr 7, 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 S.1097 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 S.1097 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 S.1097 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 S.1097 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.