PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 15, 2017
No Hearing, No Vote Act of 2017
This bill amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to prohibit the Senate from considering any reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution, unless:
the legislation is either ordered reported to the Senate by the committee receiving reconciliation instructions or reported by the Senate Budget Committee after receiving recommendations from multiple committees receiving instructions, and
each committee that ordered the legislation to be reported or ordered recommendations to be reported to the Senate Budget Committee held at least one hearing regarding any major provision of the legislation that is within the jurisdiction of the committee
An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Senators, duly chosen and sworn, is required to either: (1) waive or suspend the requirements of this bill, or (2) sustain an appeal of the ruling of the chair on a point of order raised, with respect to the requirements.
People & committees
Sen. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget.
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: Aug 11, 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.1376 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.1376 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.1376 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.1376 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.