PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, 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.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 21, 2012
Audit the Pentagon Act of 2012 - Requires, on March 2 of FY2013 and each subsequent fiscal year, a 5% reduction in the discretionary budget authority of a federal agency that is identified by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required to have an audited financial statement: (1) that has not submitted a financial statement for the previous fiscal year, or (2) whose statement has not received either an unqualified or a qualified audit opinion by an independent external auditor. Excludes from such reduction accounts for military, reserve and National Guard personnel and the Defense Health Program account of the Department of Defense (DOD). Authorizes the President to waive a reduction in discretionary budget authority if such reduction would harm national security or members of the Armed Forces who are in combat.
Requires a report to Congress listing required DOD reports that would no longer be necessary if the financial statements of DOD were audited with an unqualified opinion or that interfere with DOD's capacity to achieve an audit of its financial statements with an unqualified opinion.
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) congressional defense committees and DOD should not endanger the nation's troops by reducing wounded warrior accounts or vital protection for members of the Armed Forces in harm's way, (2) the valuation of legacy assets by DOD should be simplified without compromising essential controls or generally accepted government auditing standards, and (3) this Act should not be construed to require or permit the declassification of accounting details about classified defense programs and DOD should ensure financial accountability in such programs.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
.
People & committees
Rep. Lee, Barbara [D-CA-9] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, 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 Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, 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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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 H.R.6528 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.6528 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.6528 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.6528 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.