PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2029)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 20, 2013
No Budget, No OMB Pay Act of 2013 - Requires the Inspector General (IG) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), within three days after the President's budget is due, to: (1) make an annual determination of whether the Director of OMB and the President are in compliance with the statutory requirement for the President's budget submission to Congress, and (2) notify the Chairpersons of the congressional budget and appropriations committees of that determination.
Prohibits funds from being appropriated or otherwise made available from the U.S. Treasury for the pay of the Director of OMB, Deputy Director of OMB, and the Deputy Director for Management of OMB during any noncompliant period determined by the IG.
Bars such individuals from receiving any retroactive pay for any such period.
People & committees
Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX] · R–TX
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 Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2029)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2029)
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 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.620 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.620 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.620 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.620 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.