PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Budget.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 30, 2012
Amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act) to eliminate automatic sequestrations for FY2013.
(The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act was amended by the Budget Control Act of 2011 to revise the discretionary spending limits and reduce the discretionary appropriations and direct spending specified in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act unless a joint committee bill achieving an amount greater than $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction is enacted by January 15, 2012.)
Prohibits the President from issuing a sequestration order to carry out any sequestration that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates is required for FY2013.
People & committees
Rep. Dicks, Norman D. [D-WA-6] · D–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.6716 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.6716 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.6716 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.6716 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.