PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 10, 2010
Economic Disaster Prevention Act of 2010 - Amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act) to establish non-defense discretionary spending limits for FY2011-FY2020.
Prohibits the total level of direct spending for all direct spending programs, projects, and activities for FY2011-FY2020 from exceeding the respective total levels for the previous fiscal year after the direct spending for each such program, project, or activity is increased by a specified calculation.
Requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to issue non-defense discretionary spending limit and direct spending limit sequestration preview reports, including updates.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the OMB report to explain: (1) any differences between OMB and CBO estimates of any net direct spending change, any excess deficit, any breach, and any required sequestration percentage; and (2) differences in the amount of sequesterable resources for any budget account to be reduced if such difference is greater than $5 million.
Requires the President to issue a sequestration order, effective on issuance, if OMB in its Final Sequestration Report estimates that any sequestration is required.
Requires the Comptroller General, upon request of the congressional budget committees, to report to Congress and the President on the extent to which each such issued presidential order or OMB or CBO report complies with all of the requirements contained in this Act.
Requires CBO to send Congress a low-growth report if real economic growth is projected or estimated to be less than zero with respect to each of any two consecutive quarters within a specified period.
Amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 with respect to enforcement mechanisms for: (1) non-defense discretionary spending limits; (2) direct spending limits; and (3) sequestration orders.
Amends the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act to prescribe administrative and legislative procedures for spending reduction orders to eliminate breaches of non-defense discretionary spending limits and direct spending limits.
Makes it out of order to consider in the Senate or the House of Representatives any legislation that increases the level of direct spending for an existing program or creates new direct spending unless it provides that the increased or new direct spending expires 10 years after its effective date.
People & committees
Sen. Bennett, Robert F. [R-UT] · R–UT
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 S1360-1362)
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.3096 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.3096 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.3096 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.3096 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.