Overview
Title
To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to repeal certain provisions relating to the acceptance and use of contributions for public-private partnerships, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 773 is a plan to change some rules about how money is shared between the government and other helpers to take care of the land. It lets the boss in charge set up special piggybanks for each project, but some old rules that used to help with this are being removed.
Summary AI
H.R. 773 seeks to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 by changing how contributions are used in public-private partnerships for conservation programs. The bill permits the Secretary of Agriculture to create sub-accounts for each conservation program to receive non-federal funds, with the goal of supporting those programs. Additionally, it removes several existing paragraphs detailing previous provisions for these contributions.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Overview of the Bill
House Bill 773 is a legislative proposal aimed at amending the Food Security Act of 1985. The primary focus of the amendment is to change how the acceptance and use of contributions for public-private partnerships, specifically within conservation programs, are managed. The bill permits the Secretary of Agriculture to establish individual sub-accounts for each conservation program to accept non-Federal funds, modifying the language of the existing law to support these changes. It also eliminates several existing provisions that were previously part of the legislative framework.
Key Issues of Concern
One significant issue raised by the bill is the potential ambiguity surrounding what constitutes "non-Federal funds." Without clear definitions or oversight guidelines, this could lead to misinterpretations or exploitation, compromising accountability and fiscal integrity. Additionally, the bill grants broad authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to manage these contributions without outlining specific accountability measures or reporting requirements. This absence of clear oversight could increase the risk of mismanagement or errors.
Another concern is the proposed establishment of separate sub-accounts for each conservation program. While this may offer some benefits in terms of specificity, it might also lead to administrative fragmentation and complexity. This could, in turn, result in inefficiencies and make it more difficult to manage these programs effectively.
By removing paragraphs (3) through (10) from the existing legislation, the bill may eliminate crucial provisions or safeguards. Without further context or explanation, the impact of this removal is uncertain and could potentially weaken the existing regulatory framework.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
For the general public, this bill could directly impact the efficiency and effectiveness of conservation programs. If the changes lead to better-targeted and more efficient use of contributions, the public might benefit from improved environmental and conservation outcomes. However, if the bill results in increased complexity and potential mismanagement, it could negatively affect the quality and reliability of services these programs provide.
Specific stakeholders, such as non-Federal entities contributing funds to conservation programs, might experience both positive and negative impacts. The new system of sub-accounts could offer more transparency and assurance that their contributions are used for specific program purposes. On the other hand, the lack of oversight and reporting requirements may introduce uncertainties and concerns about how contributions are managed and utilized.
For program administrators and those involved in managing conservation efforts, the proposed changes could mean adapting to a new administrative framework. While this presents opportunities for improved program alignment, it also brings challenges associated with potential administrative complexity.
Overall, while the intention of the bill is to streamline funding processes within conservation programs, the lack of clarity and oversight poses risks that need careful consideration by lawmakers, stakeholders, and the public.
Issues
The absence of clear oversight on what qualifies as 'non-Federal funds' as mentioned in Section 1 raises the potential for ambiguity or exploitation, which could negatively affect accountability and fiscal integrity in the administration of these contributions.
The broad authority granted to the Secretary without specific accountability measures or reporting requirements as outlined in Section 1 can lead to potential mismanagement or errors in handling contributions, which poses risks for transparency and misallocation of resources.
The establishment of sub-accounts for each conservation program as proposed in Section 1 could lead to fragmentation and complexity in administration, potentially resulting in inefficiencies and increased difficulty in managing these programs effectively.
The removal of paragraphs (3) through (10) in Section 1 eliminates possibly critical provisions or safeguards whose impact is uncertain without further context, which could unintentionally weaken the regulatory framework governing these partnerships.
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. Acceptance and use of contributions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Food Security Act of 1985 to allow the Secretary of Agriculture to create separate accounts for each conservation program to receive non-Federal funds, and updates the language to reflect these changes by removing references to the previous system and deleting outdated provisions.