PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 17, 2010
Spending Reduction Act of 2010 - Amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act) to establish nonsecurity discretionary category spending limits (spending caps) for FY2011-FY2015.
Defines "nonsecurity discretionary category" as all discretionary appropriations except budget accounts within major functional category (050) National Defense, (150) International Affairs, (700) Veterans Benefits and Services, and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) within major functional category (270) Energy, and any appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Repeals the termination date for Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) enforcement mechanisms under such Act (thus making them permanent).
Declares that, if for any fiscal year, legislation making appropriations for discretionary accounts includes a designation for emergency requirements, such measure may not be considered in either chamber as passed or agreed to unless by a vote of at least two-thirds of the Members.
People & committees
Rep. Kratovil, Frank, Jr. [D-MD-1] · D–MD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to House Rules
Referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committee on 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 House Budget
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.4871 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.4871 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.4871 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.4871 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.