PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 19, 2014
One Percent Spending Reduction Act of 2014 - Amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act) to establish and enforce new spending caps. Establishes the aggregate outlay cap (less net interest payments) for FY2015 at $3.774 trillion, less 1%. Reduces the outlay cap for FY2016-FY2017 by 1% of the previous fiscal year's outlay cap.
Requires the outlay cap for FY2018 and subsequent fiscal years to be 18% of the gross domestic product (GDP) for that fiscal year as estimated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prohibits outlays from being less than those for the preceding fiscal year for any fiscal year beginning with FY2019.
Requires OMB to enforce the spending caps using a sequestration to eliminate any excess spending through automatic cuts. Eliminates most exemptions from sequestration.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Permits the budget committees to report a resolution directing the committees of their respective chambers to change existing law to achieve the spending reductions necessary to meet the outlay limits if a sequestration is projected.
Amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to create procedures for the House and Senate to enforce the outlay caps established in this Act.
People & committees
Sen. Enzi, Michael B. [R-WY] · R–WY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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.2495 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.2495 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.2495 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.2495 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.