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 19, 2009
Second Look at Wasteful Spending Act of 2009 - Amends the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to authorize the President to transmit annually to Congress a maximum of four special messages that propose to rescind dollar amounts of discretionary budget authority, items of direct spending, and targeted tax benefits.
Requires an analysis by: (1) the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) of an estimated savings in budget authority or outlays resulting from any such rescission; and (2) the Joint Committee on Taxation of an estimated savings resulting from repeal of targeted tax benefits.
Requires any rescinded budget authority, items of direct spending, or targeted tax benefit to be dedicated only to deficit reduction, and not to be used as an offset for other spending increases or revenue reductions.
Provides for adjustment of: (1) committee allocations resulting from such rescission; and (2) applicable limits, as appropriate, under this Act.
Sets forth procedures for expedited congressional consideration of a proposed rescission.
People & committees
Sen. Gregg, Judd [R-NH] · R–NH
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.640 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.640 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.640 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.640 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.