Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 20.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 30, 2023
Unauthorized Spending Accountability Act
This bill reduces budgetary levels for certain federal programs that are funded through the annual appropriations process and do not have an authorization of appropriations.
Under the bill, budgetary levels are spending allocations provided to the congressional appropriations committees by a congressional budget resolution or a deeming resolution. The allocations are provided under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and are often referred to as 302(a) allocations.
The bill applies to programs included in the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO's) annual report listing programs that are funded through the appropriations process and have an authorization of appropriations that has either expired or will expire during the year.
If a program is listed in the CBO report, the bill requires specified reductions to be implemented over a three-year period and terminates the unauthorized programs at the end of the third unauthorized year.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 20.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and in addition to the Committees on the Budget, and Rules, 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 Oversight and Accountability, and in addition to the Committees on the Budget, and Rules, 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 Oversight and Accountability, and in addition to the Committees on the Budget, and Rules, 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
Bill text & related measures
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
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.4435 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.4435 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.4435 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.4435 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.