PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 9, 2010
Honest Expenditure Limitation Program Act of 2010 or HELP Act - Amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to make it out of order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that includes any provision that would exceed specified non-security discretionary spending limits for FY2011-FY2020.
Limits non-security discretionary spending limits for FY2011-FY2015 to the level provided in FY2010, but reduced each year on a pro rata basis so that the level for FY2015 does not exceed the level for FY2008. Limits the spending levels for FY2016-FY2020 to the FY2015 spending level.
Defines "non-security discretionary spending" as discretionary spending other than spending for the Department of Defense (DOD), homeland security activities, intelligence-related activities within the Department of State, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and national security related activities in the Department of Energy (DOE).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the President to issue a sequestration order, effective on issuance, if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in its Final Discretionary Sequestration Report estimates that any sequestration is required.
Subjects to permanent cancellation any budgetary resources sequestered from any account, except those in special fund accounts or offsetting collections sequestered in appropriation accounts. Applies the same percentage sequestration to all programs, projects, and activities within a budget account.
Requires Discretionary Sequestration Preview Reports by: (1) OMB to the President and Congress; and (2) the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to Congress. Requires the OMB report to explain the difference between OMB and CBO estimates for each item.
Requires the Final Discretionary Sequestration Reports to set forth estimates for: (1) the current year and each subsequent year through 2014; (2) the current year, if applicable, and, the budget year, the new budget authority and the breach, if any; (3) the sequestration percentages necessary to eliminate the breach; and (4) the level of enacted sequesterable budget authority, and resulting estimated outlays to be sequestered for each account.
Sets forth sequestration enforcement mechanisms.
People & committees
Sen. Inhofe, James M. [R-OK] · R–OK
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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1313-1315)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.3095 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.3095 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.3095 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.3095 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.