PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Sep 13, 2012
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
National Security and Job Protection Act - Makes the effective date of this Act contingent upon enactment of: (1) the reconciliation Act with certain spending reductions for a specified deficit reduction contemplated by H.Con.Res. 112, as passed by the House of Representatives on March 16, 2012; or (2) similar legislation that achieves outlay reductions within five years after enactment that equal or exceed specified outlay reductions flowing from the budget authority reductions required by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act), as in force immediately before enactment of this Act, as it applies to direct spending in the defense function for FY2013 combined with the outlay reductions flowing from the across-the-board decrease in discretionary spending made by this Act.
Amends the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act to abolish 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 issue an order to eliminate the breach, if any, identified in such report.
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).
Provides that, if the legislation referred to above is enacted and achieves the outlay reductions specified, and those reductions exceed the outlay reductions flowing from the spending budget authority reductions required by the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, the direct spending reductions for the nonsecurity category for FY2013 (otherwise required to be reduced) shall be reduced by the difference.
Requires the President by October 15, 2012, to transmit to Congress a legislative proposal that meets such requirements.
People & committees
Rep. West, Allen B. [R-FL-22] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 223 - 196 (Roll no. 577). (text: CR H5957)
House roll call 577 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 223 - 196 (Roll no. 577).(text: CR H5957)
House roll call 577 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 170 - 247 (Roll no. 576).
House roll call 576 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H5968)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Van Hollen motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment to strike sections 3 and 4 in the bill and replace with a new section outlining conditional elimination of sequestration and requirements of deficet reduction legislation.
Mr. Van Hollen moved to recommit with instructions to The Budget. (consideration: CR H5967-5969; text: CR H5967)
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H5956-5969)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 6365.
The rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 117 and H.R. 6365, under a closed rule for both measures. Each are debatable for one hour. In both cases all points of order against provisions in the measure are waived, and in each case, one motion to recommit, with or without instructions is made in order.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 778. (consideration: CR H5956-5969)
Referred to the House Committee on the 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.6365 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.6365 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.6365 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.6365 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.