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 · Feb 3, 1999
Fiscal Discipline for a New Millenium Act of 1999 - Amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act) to set discretionary spending limits for FY 2001 through 2010 at the limits of new budget authority and outlays for FY 2000. Requires an affirmative vote of two-thirds (currently, three-fifths) of Members of the Senate to waive a point of order against legislation that would exceed discretionary spending limits.
People & committees
Sen. Grams, Rod [R-MN] · R–MN
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 S1173-1175)
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 20, 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.358 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.358 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.358 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.358 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.