John Barrasso (R-WY)
Dollar-for-Dollar Deficit Reduction Act
A Republican bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget. (text: CR S1582-1583)
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The ``Dollar-for-Dollar Deficit Reduction Act'' aims to ensure that any increase or suspension of the debt limit is matched by spending cuts. Under this bill, if the debt limit is nearly breached, the Secretary of the Treasury must issue a warning to specific congressional committees. Any Presidential request to raise the debt limit must include proposed legislation to reduce spending over 10 years by an amount equal to or greater than the increase. Furthermore, a point of order would be raised in both the House and Senate to prevent considering debt limit actions that do not include these net spending reductions. To bypass these restrictions in the Senate, a three-fifths supermajority vote is required.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +7
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
The bill enforces strict fiscal discipline by tying debt limit increases directly to spending reductions.
- Scored +6
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill requires net spending reductions over a 10-year period as a prerequisite for raising the debt limit.
- Scored +5
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill mandates that any debt limit increase must be accompanied by spending cuts equal to or greater than the increase.
The opposite· 3 of 34
- Scored -4
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Reductions in government spending often disproportionately impact low-income households relying on public assistance.
- Scored -4
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Spending cuts could negatively impact federal trust obligations and services for Native American tribes.
- Scored -4
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
The mandate for spending reductions could negatively impact programs like SSI and Medicaid for people with disabilities.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Financial Oversight: The bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to issue a debt limit warning to the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Ways and Means when a ``near breach'' is determined (Sec. 2(a)(1)). This includes a determination on when extraordinary measures might be necessary to prolong government funding (Sec. 2(a)(1)).
-
Mandatory Savings for Debt Limit Increases: Any formal Presidential request to increase the debt limit must be accompanied by proposed legislation to reduce spending over the current and following 10 years by an amount equal to or greater than the requested increase (Sec. 2(b)(1)).
-
Stringent Requirements for Debt Limit Suspensions: For debt limit suspensions, the bill requires net spending reductions over 10 years that are equal to or greater than the projected debt amount during the suspension period (Sec. 3(a)(1)).
-
Transparency in Budgetary Estimates: The bill mandates that any bill or motion regarding the debt limit cannot be voted on until the Congressional Budget Office's cost estimate has been publicly available on their website for at least 24 hours (Sec. 3(a)(2)(B)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Strict Barriers to Increasing Debt: The bill creates a point of order that prevents the consideration of any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that increases the debt limit unless it contains net spending reductions of an equal or greater amount over 10 years (Sec. 3(a)(1)).
-
Difficulties in Overriding Restrictions: In the Senate, any attempt to waive or suspend the points of order created by this bill requires an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members (Sec. 3(a)(b)(1)). An affirmative vote of three-fifths is also required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair (Sec. 3(a)(b)(2)).
-
Strict Calculation Rules for Savings: Spending savings cannot include net interest savings (Sec. 2(b)(1), Sec. 3(a)(1)). Additionally, any provision that shifts outlays or revenues outside of the 10-year window will not count toward the required budget savings target (Sec. 3(a)(2)(C)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would billionaires be better off under this? — The bill's emphasis on fiscal restraint can favor high-net-worth individuals through increased economic stability. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Reductions in government spending can lead to lower taxes or more stable market conditions for the wealthy. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — The reduction in government size may benefit those with large capital holdings. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Reduced government spending can lead to a more favorable environment for large-scale private investment. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Reductions in government spending often disproportionately impact low-income households relying on public assistance. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Spending cuts could negatively impact federal trust obligations and services for Native American tribes. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The mandate for spending reductions could negatively impact programs like SSI and Medicaid for people with disabilities. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Reductions in federal spending often impact programs that disproportionately serve minority communities. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill's spending cuts may reduce support for community-based social programs. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Reductions in government spending may negatively impact support services for immigrant populations. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Reductions in federal spending could impact civil rights protections and social services for the LGBTQ community. Would retired people be better off under this? — The bill's focus on spending cuts could threaten the funding of programs for retirees, such as Social Security. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Spending cuts could negatively impact federal programs such as Medicare or Social Security. Would students be better off under this? — Spending cuts could reduce federal student aid and educational opportunities. Would union members be better off under this? — The bill's emphasis on spending cuts could reduce funding for public sector jobs and union-supported programs. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Mandatory spending cuts may reduce funding for veterans' healthcare and benefits. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Reductions in federal spending could impact diverse social and economic programs. Would children be better off under this? — Spending cuts could reduce funding for programs benefiting children. Would farmers be better off under this? — The bill's spending cuts could reduce agricultural subsidies and support. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The economic contraction caused by spending cuts could negatively affect middle-class stability. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Reductions in government spending could impact rural infrastructure and agricultural support. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Reductions in federal spending often impact urban infrastructure and social services. Would women be better off under this? — Spending cuts could negatively affect social programs that disproportionately assist women. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Reductions in government spending may impact job creation and social programs for young adults. Would business owners be better off under this? — Reduced government spending may decrease demand for goods and services provided by businesses. Would men be better off under this? — The economic impact of the bill may affect employment opportunities for men. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — The bill's impact on the economy and social services could negatively affect middle-aged workers. Would white Americans be better off under this? — The bill's impact on the economy and social services may have varied effects on this group.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The bill enforces strict fiscal discipline by tying debt limit increases directly to spending reductions. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill requires net spending reductions over a 10-year period as a prerequisite for raising the debt limit. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill mandates that any debt limit increase must be accompanied by spending cuts equal to or greater than the increase. Is this likely to slow the rise in prices? — By mandating spending cuts, the bill may exert downward pressure on economic demand. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Mandatory spending cuts could reduce government investment and consumer demand in the economy.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this strengthen Social Security? — The mandate for broad spending reductions could potentially target social safety net programs like Social Security. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — The requirement for net spending cuts may reduce funding for programs aimed at lifting people out of poverty. Does this make housing cost less? — Broad spending reductions could negatively impact federal housing assistance programs. Does this make child care cost less? — Mandatory spending cuts may reduce funding available for childcare subsidies or programs. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Spending cuts could reduce federal support for housing and services intended to reduce homelessness.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into public schools? — Mandated spending cuts could reduce the amount of federal funding available for public schools.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this reduce what is spent on the military? — The requirement for net spending reductions could lead to cuts in defense and military budgets.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this repair or build roads and bridges? — The mandate for spending reductions could impact funding for infrastructure and road projects.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires CBO cost estimates to be available online for 24 hours before a vote, increasing transparency. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill centralizes control over debt limit negotiations through strict legislative procedures.
- 8/4/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/24/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget. (text: CR S1582-1583)
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
3 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Cynthia LummisRepublican · Wyoming
David McCormickRepublican · Pennsylvania