Overview
Title
To provide for across-the-board rescissions of nonsecurity discretionary spending, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 10413 is a plan to help the U.S. government save money by cutting back on spending for things that are not related to safety, like school supplies or park maintenance, if they spend too much more than the year before. Starting in 2026, if they spend over one percent more than last year, the extra amount would be taken away evenly from these non-safety items.
Summary AI
H.R. 10413, known as the “Implementing Decreases in Overall Government Expenditures Act” or “Implementing DOGE Act,” proposes a reduction in nonsecurity discretionary spending by the U.S. government. The bill defines nonsecurity discretionary appropriations as those that are not related to security and are part of the regular annual budget. Starting in 2026, whenever the year's appropriations exceed those of the previous year by more than one percent, the excess growth amount will be rescinded proportionally across relevant appropriations. This bill aims to control spending by rolling back increases beyond a set limit.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the “Implementing Decreases in Overall Government Expenditures Act” or the “Implementing DOGE Act,” seeks to institute budget cuts for certain types of federal spending. Specifically, it targets "nonsecurity discretionary spending," which typically includes funding for programs that do not pertain to defense or national security. Starting in the fiscal year 2026, the bill mandates that if the federal budget's annual appropriations increase more than one percent from the previous fiscal year, the excess growth will be rescinded proportionally from nonsecurity discretionary appropriations.
Significant Issues
One of the primary concerns with this bill is the ambiguity surrounding the term "excess growth percent." Without clear guidelines on how this percentage is calculated, there is room for varied interpretations, which could lead to inconsistent application or legal challenges. Another issue is the definition of "nonsecurity discretionary appropriations." If not precisely defined, crucial programs might face unintended budget cuts, potentially impacting services deemed nonessential in this bill but vital to the public.
The bill's reliance on complex references to other legislation, like the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, makes it challenging for the general public to fully understand its implications. Moreover, the intricate language used in defining a "regular appropriation Act" could lead to confusion regarding its implementation.
Lastly, the mechanism of applying reductions on a pro rata basis raises ethical questions about fairness. Not all programs are equally critical, and a blanket approach might disproportionately affect essential services.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the bill aims to control government spending by reducing the budget growth rate for nonsecurity programs. This could lead to more prudent fiscal management and potentially reduce the national debt over the long term. However, it could also lead to reductions in funding for programs that many individuals rely on, such as education, health, and environmental protection. These cuts might adversely affect the availability and quality of such services.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders in government-funded nonsecurity sectors, this bill could result in significant funding challenges. Organizations and programs in health care, education, infrastructure, and social services might face budget reductions, compelling them to trim services or seek alternative funding sources. Conversely, proponents of reduced government spending might view this legislation as a positive step towards fiscal responsibility. However, the lack of precision in defining key terms and mechanisms could lead to legal challenges, with stakeholders seeking clarity on how the cuts will be administered.
Overall, while the bill could contribute to more sustainable government spending, stakeholders are concerned about its potential impact on vital services and the general public. The ambiguity and complexities within the bill necessitate careful consideration and potentially further refinement to ensure its fair and effective implementation.
Issues
The term 'excess growth percent' in Section 2(a)(3) is ambiguous without specific guidelines on its calculation. This could lead to varying interpretations and legal challenges, impacting how much funding is rescinded.
The rescission clause in Section 2(b) could result in unintended cuts to vital programs if the definition of 'nonsecurity discretionary appropriations' is not clearly defined. Ambiguities about what constitutes 'nonsecurity' could lead to important areas losing funding.
The complexity of references to other Acts within Section 2(a)(1) and Section 2(a)(2) (e.g., Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) might make it difficult for laypersons and even some stakeholders to fully understand the implications, reducing public transparency and trust.
The language in Section 2(a)(5) appears overly complex, particularly in the definition of 'regular appropriation Act', which includes multiple nested elements and references. This could lead to confusion and misinterpretation, affecting its implementation.
There is a potential ethical concern in Section 2(b) about whether the approach of using a pro rata basis for rescissions is fair and equitable, as it might not account for the varying importance of different programs funded by nonsecurity discretionary appropriations.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill gives it two names: it can be officially called the "Implementing Decreases in Overall Government Expenditures Act" or simply the "Implementing DOGE Act."
2. Across-the-board rescissions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section of the bill, the terms are defined for understanding budget-related concepts, such as "budget authority," "discretionary appropriations," and "excess growth percent." It explains that starting from fiscal year 2026, if the annual federal budget increases more than one percent from the previous year, a proportional cut will be made to the nonsecurity discretionary appropriations to reduce the excess growth.