PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 29, 2006
Budget Enforcement Legislative Tools Act of 2006 - Amends the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to provide for expedited consideration of certain rescissions proposed by the President of discretionary budget authority in an appropriation Act. Prohibits funds made available for obligation under this procedure from being proposed for rescission again.
Sets forth requirements for: (1) the President's transmittal to Congress of a special message regarding a proposed rescission; (2) a maximum 25% ceiling on amounts subject to rescission; and (3) expedited congressional consideration of such proposal.
Makes it out of order in the Senate to consider any direct spending or revenue legislation that would increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget deficit for: (1) the first year or first five fiscal years covered by the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget; or (2) the five fiscal years following such fiscal years.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act) to retain (by eliminating the expiration of) pay-as-you-go requirements.
Extends specified budget enforcement mechanisms through FY2011.
People & committees
Sen. Carper, Thomas R. [D-DE] · D–DE
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 15, 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.4036 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.4036 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.4036 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.4036 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.