Overview
Title
To establish a budgetary level reduction schedule, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 143 is a plan to save money by cutting funds for U.S. government programs that don't have official approval. If a program isn't approved, it will lose some money each year until it stops, but if the program gets approved on time, it won't lose money.
Summary AI
H.R. 143, also known as the "Unauthorized Spending Accountability Act," proposes a schedule to reduce the budget for government programs in the United States that operate without current authorization. Starting in fiscal year 2026, unauthorized programs would see a 10% budget cut the year after their authorization expires, with further reductions of 15% in the second and third years if still unauthorized. If a program remains unauthorized for three years, it would be terminated. Programs may avoid these cuts if they are reauthorized with a funding period of no more than three years.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The bill titled "Unauthorized Spending Accountability Act," introduced in the House of Representatives, is aimed at establishing a structured method to reduce the budget for government programs that lack proper authorization. Initiating in fiscal year 2026, the proposal outlines a recurring three-year cycle to incrementally cut funding for these unauthorized programs. If a program remains unauthorized for three consecutive years, it will be terminated.
Summary of Significant Issues
A core concern is the lack of clarity in defining what constitutes an "unauthorized program." This ambiguity may lead to uncertainties about which programs are subjected to funding cuts, potentially affecting crucial services without clear pathways for reauthorization. Another issue is the absence of a robust oversight mechanism to regularly assess the impacts of these budget reductions, possibly resulting in unintended consequences for critical programs. Additionally, the proposal does not address the economic or social repercussions of funding cuts, which may be significant, especially for essential services.
Moreover, the bill does not provide guidance on managing leftover funds after the termination of a program, posing a risk of inefficient allocation or misuse of resources. The process for reauthorizing programs remains vague, potentially causing delays and underfunding, harming programs that serve public interests.
Broad Public Impact
The bill's implementation could lead to significant reductions in funding for government programs considered unauthorized. While the goal is to ensure fiscal accountability, these cuts might lead to a decrease in available services for the public, especially in sectors dependent upon federal funding. Without a defined mechanism for oversight, certain programs may discontinue services crucial to vulnerable populations.
On the other hand, reducing funding for unauthorized programs could free up resources for projects with clearer accountability and authorization, potentially improving overall governmental efficiency. However, the public may also see setbacks as critical services face budget constraints or terminations.
Specific Stakeholder Impact
Government Agencies: Agencies responsible for managing affected programs may face challenges due to abrupt funding reductions. This could lead to downsizing or cancellation of projects that have not received timely reauthorization, affecting workforce stability and project continuity.
Beneficiaries of Government Programs: Individuals and communities relying on services provided by potentially unauthorized programs might experience disruptions in service availability. This group could include public housing residents, students, or Medicaid recipients, who depend on consistent support.
Congressional Committees: The bill may increase the workload for committees tasked with reauthorizing programs. There is potential for administrative bottlenecks if reauthorization procedures are not clearly stated and streamlined.
Policy Experts and Advocates: These stakeholders might be called to seek clarifications and propose amendments to ensure that vital programs remain funded and effectively managed. They may also advocate for clearer guidelines to mitigate negative impacts on service provision.
In summary, while the "Unauthorized Spending Accountability Act" focuses on budgetary restraint and accountability, its implications could be double-edged, potentially improving fiscal management but risking the well-being of specific populations and parts of federal operations that fail to secure timely reauthorization. Clear guidelines and carefully crafted reauthorization pathways could help mitigate unintended adverse effects of the bill's implementation.
Issues
The definition of 'unauthorized program' is vague and may lead to uncertainties about which programs are affected by reductions, potentially impacting funding for essential services without clear guidance on reauthorization pathways (Sections 2 and 3).
The proposed budgetary level reduction cycle lacks a clear mechanism for oversight or review, risking unintentional or harmful reductions to critical programs without regular assessment of the reductions' impacts (Sections 2, 3, and 4).
Economic or social impacts of the reductions on affected programs are not addressed, which could pose significant concerns, especially for programs providing critical services (Section 3).
There is no specific guidance on managing unobligated funds after program termination, leading to potential misuse or inefficiency in utilizing remaining resources (Section 4).
The process and criteria for program reauthorization are unclear, risking administrative delays and potential underfunding of important programs, which might be detrimental if not addressed promptly (Sections 3 and 4).
There is a potential loophole wherein repeated reauthorizations with a sunset provision could bypass intended budgetary constraints, undermining the accountability the Act seeks to establish (Section 5).
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
In Section 1 of the bill, it states that the Act can be officially called the "Unauthorized Spending Accountability Act."
2. Establishment of budgetary level reduction schedule Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text establishes a recurring three-year schedule to reduce budget levels for programs without authorization starting in 2026, as per the Act. It includes definitions for terms like "budgetary level," "expiring fiscal year," and "unauthorized program," and it applies even to programs that lacked authorization before 2026 if they received funding in 2026.
3. Reduction in budgetary level for unauthorized programs Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, if a program is unauthorized, its funding level is reduced by 10% in the budget for the year after its authorization expires. If it remains unauthorized for the next two years, its funding is further reduced by 15% each year. The revised budget levels are then sent to the relevant budget committees in Congress.
4. Termination of unauthorized programs after third unauthorized year Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Any program that is not authorized for three years in a row will be automatically stopped, and its leftover funds can only be used to settle previous obligations. No further funds can be used unless Congress explicitly reauthorizes the program for up to another three years.
5. Exemption from budgetary level reduction Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Any program that is reauthorized during the fiscal year, which otherwise would cause a budget cut, will not be subject to budget reduction if it meets specific reauthorization terms, including a limit of three years for funding approval.