PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial And Antitrust Law.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 20, 2015
Review Every Dollar Act of 2015
This bill prohibits Congress from considering legislation authorizing or reauthorizing a federal program for more than seven years. Congressional committees are required to consider specified criteria to determine whether direct spending programs should be modified, terminated, or reauthorized.
The bill amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to create deficit reduction accounts for savings from legislation intended for deficit reduction. The Chairmen of the House and Senate Budget Committees are required to adjust spending allocations to reflect balances in the accounts. This creates procedural obstacles for considering legislation that spends savings intended for deficit reduction.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill requires transfers of funds from the general fund of the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund to be counted as new budget authority and outlays.
The bill prohibits certain rules requiring at least $100 million in new budget authority from taking effect unless: (1) the President notifies Congress that the rule is necessary for an emergency, the enforcement of criminal laws, national security, or the implementation of an international trade agreement; or (2) budget authority to carry out the rule is provided by law.
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 Regulatory Reform, Commercial And Antitrust Law.
Referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committees on Rules, 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, 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, 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, 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.
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.405 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.405 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.405 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.405 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.