Overview
Title
To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to reduce the fiscal year 2025 discretionary spending limit for revised nonsecurity category, to rescind funds appropriated for the Department of Commerce Nonrecurring Expenses Fund, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 10446 is a plan to change how much money the government can spend on certain things in 2025, setting a new limit of $597 billion, and it also takes back some money that wasn't used by a part of the government that deals with business stuff without very clear rules on how that's decided.
Summary AI
H.R. 10446 aims to modify the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 by lowering the 2025 discretionary spending limit for the revised nonsecurity category to $597 billion. Additionally, it permanently rescinds unused funds that were allocated to the Department of Commerce Nonrecurring Expenses Fund according to the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. The bill includes clauses to ensure these budget changes are not counted for certain fiscal reporting requirements.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "Disaster Offset and Government Efficiency Act," aims to revise budgetary rules set by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. Specifically, it seeks to change the fiscal year 2025 discretionary spending limits for nonsecurity programs to a total of $597 billion. Additionally, this bill proposes the rescission, or withdrawal, of unused funds previously allocated to the Department of Commerce's Nonrecurring Expenses Fund, as established by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. The Act also exempts these budgetary changes from certain federal budget law calculations.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the main concerns with the bill lies in its decision to increase the spending cap for nonsecurity programs to $597 billion without providing a clear rationale or context for this specific figure. This raises questions about the necessity or prudence of the increase, considering potential taxpayer burdens and its effects on government funding allocations.
Furthermore, the bill proposes to rescind unobligated funds from the Department of Commerce without disclosing the specific amount or criteria for determining which funds fall into that category. This ambiguity could lead to substantial operational challenges, potentially affecting the Department's ability to fulfill its intended functions or complete planned projects.
The removal of specific subparagraphs from an existing law, without a clear explanation, creates potential gaps in fiscal policy comprehension and its application, leading to legal and financial uncertainties. Lastly, exempting these budget changes from certain budgetary calculations might obscure their real fiscal impacts, making it challenging to understand and evaluate broader budgetary implications accurately.
Impact on the Public
The implications of this bill are manifold. By setting a new spending limit without a transparent rationale, it could feasibly alter the scope and effectiveness of government programs that fall under the nonsecurity category. This might translate into either enhanced public services or, conversely, inefficient allocation of taxpayer dollars where funds could have been better used elsewhere.
Regarding the rescission of funds from the Department of Commerce, the public might experience indirect effects, especially if this action undermines the department's ability to support economic development, innovation, and related initiatives. This could have secondary economic ramifications if planned programs or support structures fall away as a result.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For government agencies, this bill could mean operational adjustments, especially for those affected by the redefined spending limits and fund rescissions. Agencies like the Department of Commerce, directly impacted by the rescission, may need to reassess their financial management and re-prioritize projects, potentially affecting their workforce and stakeholders who rely on their funding or services.
Taxpayers might face changes in the services they receive daily from these federal entities if budget reallocations affect program efficiency or accessibility. Accountability issues could arise given the complicated removal of certain legislative subparagraphs, necessitating closer monitoring and adjustments by legal and financial analysts.
Overall, while the bill attempts to address government efficiency and fiscal responsibility, the lack of clarity and detail in certain areas could create more questions than solutions, affecting a wide range of interests from federal bodies to ordinary citizens.
Financial Assessment
The bill H.R. 10446 is focused primarily on modifying financial aspects related to federal spending and budgeting. The proposed changes involve adjusting spending limits and rescinding certain funds, aiming for efficiency and budgetary control. However, these modifications raise several questions and concerns related to clarity, justification, and potential impact.
Discretionary Spending Limit
The bill seeks to change the 2025 discretionary spending limit for the nonsecurity category to $597 billion. This adjustment requires attention as it represents a substantial sum, and the rationale for its exact figure is not clarified in the text. Generally, such adjustments could have significant implications for federal programs and taxpayers if the amount is either too restrictive or excessive. The lack of context or supporting explanation for why this figure was chosen raises concerns about whether it accurately reflects the needs of federal spending for the fiscal year 2025.
Rescission of Department of Commerce Funds
Another significant financial reference in the bill involves the rescission of unobligated funds from the Department of Commerce's Nonrecurring Expenses Fund. Here, the bill indicates that a certain amount of funds initially set aside for specific purposes is no longer required. The permanent rescission means these funds are effectively removed from the department's budget without any explicit account of how much money is being taken back or how these funds were categorized as "unobligated." This can lead to ambiguity, potentially affecting the Department of Commerce's ability to fulfill its planned activities, thereby impacting its operational efficiency.
Lack of Explanation for Changes
The bill also involves striking certain subparagraphs and modifying how the revised security category is defined and managed. These changes lack detailed explanation or justification, which might lead to legal and financial uncertainties. Such omissions could create gaps in understanding the broader implications on fiscal policy and spending limits.
Budgetary Effects and Exclusion
Lastly, the bill includes provisions ensuring that these rescissions and adjustments do not count towards certain fiscal analyses under existing budgetary laws. While this might be a technical necessity, it could obscure the actual financial impact of these decisions, leading to a potential misrepresentation of fiscal health in budget reports and analyses.
Overall, H.R. 10446 proposes significant financial changes that necessitate a thorough understanding of their rationale and potential repercussions. The ambiguity and lack of detailed financial context in the bill may obstruct transparent decision-making and public engagement regarding federal spending priorities and efficiencies.
Issues
The amendment in Section 2 specifying the new dollar amount of '$597,000,000,000' lacks context or justification for this specific figure, raising concerns about whether this amount is necessary or excessive. This could have significant financial implications for the fiscal year 2025 discretionary spending limit, affecting taxpayers and government programs.
Section 3 involves the rescission of unobligated funds from the Department of Commerce Nonrecurring Expenses Fund without specifying the exact amount or criteria for determining which funds are considered 'unobligated.' This lack of clarity could create ambiguity and operational challenges for the Department of Commerce, potentially impacting its planned projects and efficiency.
The removal of certain subparagraphs (A and B) from subsection (e)(1) in Section 2 lacks a provided rationale, which may create gaps in understanding the potential impacts on fiscal policy or spending limits, leading to legal and financial uncertainties.
The amendment in Section 2 modifies language related to the 'revised security category' without defining what this category entails, which could lead to ambiguity in the application of the spending limit, affecting legal interpretation and enforcement.
There is a risk in Section 3 that the rescission of unobligated funds might lead to unmet needs or projects within the Department of Commerce that were previously planned or expected, which could have broader economic and operational impacts.
The complexity of the reference to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and specific subsections in Section 2 could reduce accessibility and transparency for individuals not familiar with the Act, impacting public understanding and engagement.
The exemption from budgetary effects considerations in Section 3(b) could potentially misrepresent the true fiscal impact of the rescission, affecting broader budgetary analyses and economic planning.
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 section indicates that this Act is called the “Disaster Offset and Government Efficiency Act.”
2. Revision of fiscal year 2025 discretionary spending limit for revised nonsecurity category Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section changes the law to increase the spending limit for nonsecurity programs in 2025 to $597 billion and alters how spending calculations are made for the security category by removing certain parts of the previous text.
Money References
- Section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(c)(10)(B)) is amended— (1) in subsection (c)(10)(B), by striking the dollar amount and inserting “$597,000,000,000”; and (2) in subsection (e)(1)— (A) by striking “, as follows:” and inserting “for the revised security category, the amount calculated for such category in section (d)(1)(A).”; and (B) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B). ---
3. Rescission of amounts appropriated for Department of Commerce Nonrecurring Expenses Fund Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section explains that any unused money allocated to the Department of Commerce Nonrecurring Expenses Fund by a certain 2023 law is now permanently taken back. Additionally, this action won't affect certain budgetary calculations under other federal budget laws.