PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on the Budget. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1687)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 5, 2009
Declares that: (1) time on a budget resolution may only be yielded back by consent; (2) no first degree amendment may be proposed after the 10th hour of debate on such legislation unless it has been submitted to the Journal Clerk before the expiration of such hour; (3) no second degree amendment may be proposed after the 20th hour of debate on a budget resolution unless it has been submitted to such Clerk before the expiration of the 20th hour; (4) the budget resolution shall be set aside for one calendar day, after up to 40 hours of debate, so that all filed amendments are printed and made available in the Congressional Record before debate continues; and (5) provisions contained in such measure or its amendments shall exclude programmatic detail not within the Senate Committee on the Budget's jurisdiction.
Permits waiver or suspension of such requirements, or successful appeals from rulings of the Chair, only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths (60) of the Senate.
People & committees
Sen. Specter, Arlen [R-PA] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on the Budget. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1687)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1687-1688)
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: Jan 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.Res.29 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.Res.29 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.Res.29 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.Res.29 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.