PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 329.
Congressional Research Service
Version 18 · Reported to House amended, Part I · May 9, 2012
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Sequester Replacement Act of 2012 - Amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act) to remove veterans medical care from the accounts subject to a sequester.
Abolishes the distinction between security and nonsecurity categories of discretionary spending for new budget authority in FY2013. Combines the dollar amounts of the current categories ($686 billion for the security category and $361 billion for the nonsecurity category) into a single amount of $1.047 trillion in new budget authority.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Revises sequestration requirements for FY2013 to require a $19.104 billion across-the-board decrease in the discretionary spending category as of January 2, 2013.
Directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue a supplemental sequestration report for FY2013 to eliminate any discretionary spending breach of the $1.047 trillion spending limit, as adjusted by the $19.104 billion across-the-board reduction requirement of this Act. Directs the President to order a sequestration, if any, as required by such report.
Amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to authorize the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives or the Senate to make adjustments to any legislative measure to conform to the discretionary spending limits of this Act.
Nullifies any sequestration order the President may issue under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act to carry out reductions to direct spending for the FY2013 defense function (050).
People & committees
Rep. Ryan, Paul [R-WI-1] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 329.
Committee on Rules discharged.
Committee on Rules discharged.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Budget. H. Rept. 112-469, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Budget. H. Rept. 112-469, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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 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.
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.4966 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.4966 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.4966 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.4966 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.