PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Budget. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 1, 1993
Modified Line Item Veto/Expedited Rescissions Act of 1993 - Amends the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to allow the President to transmit to both Houses of the Congress, for expedited consideration, a special message proposing to rescind all or part of any item of budget authority provided in an appropriation bill. Requires that such special message be transmitted not later than three days after the President approves the appropriation bill and be accompanied by draft bill or joint resolution that would, if enacted, rescind the budget authority proposed to be rescinded. Limits the amount subject to rescission to 25 percent of the amount appropriated. Sets forth House and Senate procedures for the expedited consideration of such a proposal.
People & committees
Sen. Craig, Larry E. [R-ID] · R–ID
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Budget. Hearings held.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S4373-4374)
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 S4270-4273)
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 26, 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.690 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.690 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.690 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.690 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.