PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 12, 2013
Budget Reform Act of 2013 - Amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (CBA) to require joint budget resolutions signed by the President instead of the concurrent resolutions now required (which do not have to be signed by the President). Revises accordingly the congressional procedures for considering budget resolutions.
Prescribes procedures for: (1) expedited consideration in each chamber of a presidential veto of a joint budget resolution; and (2) revision of a joint budget resolution already enacted.
Makes specified provisional continuing appropriations in the event that any regular appropriation bill for each fiscal year in a biennium does not become law before the beginning of such fiscal year, or a joint resolution making continuing appropriations is not in effect. (Thus prevents federal government shutdown.)
Requires biennial budget resolutions, appropriations Acts, and government strategic and performance plans instead of annual ones.
People & committees
Sen. Thune, John [R-SD] · R–SD
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.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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.280 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.280 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.280 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.280 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.