PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 7, 2011
Review Every Dollar Act of 2011 - Makes it out of order in both chambers to consider any bill, joint resolution, or other measure that: (1) reauthorizes any federal program for more than seven fiscal years, or (2) establishes a new federal program that exceeds such period.
Requires each standing congressional committee with legislative jurisdiction over any direct spending program by July 31 during the second session of each Congress to apply specified criteria to determine whether any such program should be modified, terminated, or reauthorized.
Amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to require each of the chairs of the congressional budget committees to maintain a deficit reduction discretionary account and a deficit reduction direct spending account. Prescribes procedures for the crediting to such accounts of the amounts of either discretionary or direct spending deficit reduction in any amendment to a bill that reduces the appropriate budget authority.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires any measure or Act that transfers funds from the general fund of the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund to be counted as new budget authority and outlays equal to the amount of the transfer in the fiscal year in which it occurs.
Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to eliminate the authorization of appropriations and the appropriation of additional Pell Grant funds after FY2012 that were to be used to increase the maximum Pell Grant amount. Maintains the amount of a Pell Grant at $5,500 for academic years 2013-2014 through 2017-2018, minus the expected family contribution.
Amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act) with respect to adjustments to discretionary spending limits for the budget year and each outyear to reflect changes in concepts. Defines changing a program from direct spending to discretionary spending or from discretionary spending to direct spending as such a change of concept, if it does not cause a net increase in new budget authority or outlays for FY2012-FY2021.
Prohibits from taking effect, except according to a specified procedure, any rule made to carry out a direct spending program that would require new budget authority of at least $100 million for the fiscal year it takes effect or for any of the nine ensuing fiscal years. Limits exceptions to this prohibition to rules necessary: (1) because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency, for the enforcement of criminal laws, or for national security; or (2) to implement an international trade agreement. Requires also for such an exception that the new budget authority to carry it out is provided by law.
Requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to: (1) review proposed rules requiring new budget authority before their effective dates, and (2) take specified administrative steps to prevent further agency action pertaining to such rulemaking.
People & committees
Rep. Chaffetz, Jason [R-UT-3] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committees on Rules, Education and the Workforce, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committees on Rules, Education and the Workforce, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committees on Rules, Education and the Workforce, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committees on Rules, Education and the Workforce, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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: Sep 8, 2026. 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 H.R.3579 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 H.R.3579 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 H.R.3579 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 H.R.3579 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.