Overview
Title
To provide for across-the-board rescissions of nonsecurity discretionary spending, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 199 is a plan to save money by cutting spending on certain parts of the government each year if they spend too much, but it doesn't include money spent on keeping the country safe.
Summary AI
H. R. 199 aims to reduce nonsecurity discretionary spending by mandating a cut proportional to any excess growth in federal appropriations over one percent from the previous year. The bill applies these spending cuts for fiscal year 2026 and for each year after that, affecting government programs not classified under the security category. Introduced by Ms. Tenney, the bill proposes automatic reductions whenever total annual appropriations surpass the prior fiscal year's amount.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposed legislation, H.R. 199, titled the "Implementing Decreases in Overall Government Expenditures Act" or the "Implementing DOGE Act," aims to mandate budget cuts for certain types of government spending. Specifically, the bill targets nonsecurity discretionary spending, which is subject to reductions if it exceeds a one percent growth from the previous fiscal year. Introduced in the House of Representatives, this bill is designed to enforce fiscal discipline by curbing what it deems excessive spending growth.
General Summary
The Implementing DOGE Act primarily focuses on reducing the federal budget in areas that do not pertain to security. The bill functions by implementing across-the-board spending cuts, known as rescissions, in nonsecurity discretionary areas whenever there is more than a one percent increase in their appropriations compared to the previous year. The methodology for calculating what constitutes "excess growth" is pivotal, as it determines the scope and size of the spending cuts.
Significant Issues
The bill introduces several significant issues that warrant discussion:
Definitional Clarity: Key terms such as "nonsecurity discretionary appropriations" and "excess growth percent" lack specific guidelines for calculation. This introduces ambiguity, which may lead to inconsistent interpretations and applications, affecting how cuts are enforced.
Impact on Vital Programs: Nonsecurity discretionary spending often funds crucial programs in areas such as education, health, and transportation. Without precise criteria to distinguish these from other spending, there is a risk of cutting essential programs unexpectedly and undesirably.
Complexity and Accessibility: References to other legislative acts, such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, add layers of complexity to the bill. This makes it difficult for those without a background in law or government finance to grasp the full implications, impacting transparency and public understanding.
Administrative Challenges: The lengthy definition and criteria surrounding what constitutes a "regular appropriation Act" may result in administrative challenges. These complexities could lead to legal disputes or errors in interpreting the provision, affecting implementation efficiency.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
The broader impact on the public depends on how the proposed cuts affect services and programs that rely on nonsecurity discretionary funding. For individuals who depend on government programs for health, education, or social services, unanticipated cuts could result in reduced access to essential services, adversely affecting quality of life.
Positive impacts might be seen by those advocating for reduced government spending and fiscal restraint. Such stakeholders could argue that the bill encourages responsible budgeting decreases national debt potential, and reallocates resources towards high-priority areas. Conversely, entities that benefit from discretionary spending may view the bill's provisions as overly stringent, limiting their capacity to deliver or expand critical services.
In conclusion, while the bill aims to impose fiscal discipline, its success largely hinges on its application and the clarity of its definitions. Ensuring clear guidelines and considering the potential unintended consequences are crucial to balancing fiscal responsibility with public service needs.
Issues
The term 'excess growth percent' is unclear without specific guidelines on how it is calculated, leading to potential misinterpretations. This lack of clarity could result in inconsistent application, affecting the budgetary balance of programs intended to be preserved. (Section 2(a)(3))
The rescission clause might lead to unintended cuts to essential programs if there is no clear definition of what constitutes 'nonsecurity discretionary appropriations'. This could have significant financial implications, especially for programs that rely heavily on discretionary funding. (Section 2(a)(4), Section 2(b))
The complexity of references to other Acts, such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, may make it challenging for individuals without legal expertise to understand the bill's full repercussions. This affects public transparency and accountability. (Section 2(a)(1), Section 2(a)(2))
The language surrounding the 'regular appropriation Act' is overly complex, with multiple nested elements and references, which could cause difficulties in interpretation and implementation. Ambiguities in this definition may lead to legal challenges or administrative errors. (Section 2(a)(5))
Ambiguity regarding how previous fiscal years' appropriations are determined for the purpose of calculating the 'excess growth percent' might result in disagreements or errors in budget calculations. This could impact fiscal planning and control measures. (Section 2(a)(3))
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.