Overview
Title
To amend the title 18, United States Code, to increase the penalties for theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds and to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to require audits under the summer food service program.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 8584 is like a rulebook that makes punishments more serious if someone steals or takes a bribe from programs that use government money, and it says they need special check-ups every year to make sure the meal programs for kids in the summer are doing things right.
Summary AI
H.R. 8584 is a bill introduced in the House of Representatives that seeks to amend existing U.S. laws to increase penalties for theft or bribery involving programs that receive federal funds. Specifically, it proposes to strengthen the punishment under Section 666 of Title 18 of the United States Code by raising the maximum prison term from 10 to 20 years and introducing larger fines based on the greater of $250,000 or twice the value of the stolen property. Additionally, the bill requires that accounts and records under the summer food service program, as outlined in the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, be audited each year by an independent third-party auditor who would report directly to the Secretary.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Overview of the Bill
The bill titled the "Stop Fraud in Federal Programs Act of 2024" proposes amendments to two significant areas of U.S. law: the penalties for theft or bribery concerning programs that receive federal funds, and audit requirements for the Summer Food Service Program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. Broadly, this legislation seeks to enhance penalties for financial crimes involving federal programs and increase oversight in food assistance programs for children.
Significant Issues
Increased Penalties for Financial Crimes
A notable provision in the bill is the proposed alteration to Section 666 of Title 18, United States Code. It aims to heighten the penalties for theft and bribery associated with federally funded programs. The maximum imprisonment term would be raised from 10 to 20 years, and fines could be significantly higher, determined by either a set minimum of $250,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the crime.
Concerns: - There is no outlined justification for these increased penalties, nor any evidence presented to suggest that they would effectively deter crime. - The potential for overly severe fines could lead to disproportionate punishment, raising ethical concerns about fairness and equity in the justice system.
Audit Requirements for Summer Food Service Program
The bill requires annual audits by independent third-party auditors for institutions involved in the Summer Food Service Program. The results of these audits must be directly reported to the Secretary, enhancing transparency and oversight.
Concerns: - There are no specified qualifications for third-party auditors, leading to potential inconsistencies in audit quality. - The bill does not clarify which party is responsible for the financial costs of these audits, posing a potential burden on smaller service institutions. - There is ambiguity in certain terms and no clear follow-up actions if audits reveal discrepancies.
Potential Impact on the Public
General Public
Broadly, the bill could influence the public by striving to ensure that federal funds are utilized correctly and effectively, reducing fraud and bribery. The public might benefit from tightened enforcement of laws related to federal funds, potentially leading to better service delivery in programs that rely on these funds.
Specific Stakeholders
Service Institutions: These organizations might face additional financial and administrative burdens due to the mandatory audits. Smaller institutions, in particular, could be disproportionately affected if they need to bear the costs of audits without additional support or clarification on financial responsibility.
Legal Community: Lawyers and legal experts might have different interpretations due to the complexity and potential vagueness of the language used in the bill, particularly regarding the definition of a "covered amount" for fines.
Recipients of Federal Programs: Individuals and communities that benefit from federal programs might see improved service as a result of increased oversight and deterrence of financial crimes.
Conclusion
While the "Stop Fraud in Federal Programs Act of 2024" aims to enhance oversight and penalties regarding federal funds, it presents significant issues that require further clarity and justification to ensure fair and effective implementation. The lack of specific guidelines regarding audit practices and penalties could lead to unintended negative consequences for some stakeholders, suggesting a need for careful reconsideration and refinement of the bill's language and provisions.
Financial Assessment
The bill, H.R. 8584, introduces several changes relating to financial penalties associated with fraudulent activities involving programs that receive federal funds. Additionally, it makes modifications to how financial oversight, particularly audits, are conducted within the summer food service program.
Financial Penalties for Theft or Bribery
A key financial element of the bill is the amendment to Section 666 of Title 18, United States Code. This amendment revises the penalties for theft or bribery related to federally funded programs. The fines for such offenses will now be calculated based on a "covered amount". This covered amount is defined as the greater of two options:
- $250,000, or
- Twice the value of the property or items involved in the offense.
This structure can lead to substantial financial penalties, especially in cases involving high-value assets. The $250,000 baseline ensures that even smaller-scale offenses face significant fines. However, the provision to double the value of the involved assets could result in disproportionately punitive fines, especially if the involved property is of considerably high value. This potential for severe penalties raises concerns regarding fairness and proportionality within the legal system, which is highlighted among the identified issues.
Impact on Service Programs
In regards to auditing requirements, the bill mandates that service institutions involved in the summer food service program undergo annual audits by an independent third-party auditor. This requirement does not specify who will bear the financial responsibility for conducting these audits. The omission of this detail may impose financial challenges on smaller service institutions, which might not have the resources to independently fund such audits. The lack of clarity regarding financial responsibility is a critical procedural issue noted among the identified concerns.
Moreover, the bill ensures that the audit results are sent directly to the Secretary, aiming for transparency in fund usage. However, without explicit guidelines on auditor qualifications or an established funding mechanism, there might be inconsistencies in audit enforcement and quality.
Considerations and Potential Impacts
The revised penalty framework addresses the need for stringent deterrence against fraud involving federal funds. Nevertheless, the lack of established guidelines for the qualifications or selection process for third-party auditors, along with unspecified financial liabilities for mandatory audits, presents operational and fairness concerns. Thus, while the bill attempts to tighten financial accountability, the ambiguities surrounding the financial aspects could lead to varied interpretations and uneven impact on smaller entities. These factors should be carefully considered to balance rigorous oversight with equitable application.
Issues
The amendment in Section 2 introduces a 'covered amount' which involves a multiplication factor for fines. This could lead to excessively severe penalties that might be disproportionately high compared to the offense. This issue could raise legal and ethical concerns regarding the fairness of the penalty structure.
In Section 2, the legislation changes the maximum imprisonment term for offenses from 10 years to 20 years without providing clear justification or showing that such an increase is necessary or effective. This could be viewed as disproportionate punishment and may be controversial from a legal and ethical perspective.
Section 2 allows fines to be the greater of $250,000 or twice the value of property involved, which might result in substantial differences in penalties that are not commensurate with the offense's severity. This could cause concern regarding equity in the law's application.
The requirements in Section 3 for third-party audits under the summer food service program do not specify necessary qualifications or certifications for auditors, potentially leading to variable audit quality. This lack of specificity might result in inconsistent enforcement and oversight, which is a significant procedural concern.
Section 3 fails to mention the financial responsibility for these audits, which may impose an additional burden on smaller service institutions. This could lead to financial strains and might be a significant concern for institutions with limited resources.
The definition of 'third-party auditor' in Section 3 excludes 'a service institution or sponsor organization' but lacks clarity, creating potential for misinterpretation which could affect who conducts the audits. This ambiguity can lead to operational challenges and inconsistencies.
Section 2 uses complex legal language, especially in defining the 'covered amount' with numerous cross-references, which may hinder clear understanding for stakeholders, raising concerns about transparency and accessibility of the law.
Section 3 does not specify consequences or next steps if an audit uncovers discrepancies, omitting important procedural guidance which might lead to ineffective enforcement and accountability issues.
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 provides the short title of the Act, stating that it can be referred to as the “Stop Fraud in Federal Programs Act of 2024”.
2. Penalties for theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the penalties for theft or bribery related to programs receiving federal funds by increasing the maximum imprisonment term from 10 to 20 years and defining a "covered amount" for fines as either $250,000 or double the value of the stolen or bribed property, whichever is greater.
Money References
- Section 666 of title 18, United States Code, is amended— (1) in subsection (a), by striking “fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both” and inserting “fined a covered amount, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both”; and (2) in subsection (d)— (A) in paragraph (4), by striking “and” at the end; (B) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and (C) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following: “(5) the term ‘covered amount’ means the greater of— “(A) $250,000; and “(B) with respect to a person subject to this section, the amount of value of the property or things of value determined with respect to such person under paragraphs (1)(A)(i), (1)(B), and (2) of subsection (a), multiplied by 2; and”. ---
3. Required audits under the summer food service program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 3 of the bill mandates that each service institution participating in the Summer Food Service Program must have their financial accounts and records audited every year by an independent third-party auditor. The results of these audits must be submitted directly to the Secretary, and the auditor cannot be part of the service institution or sponsor organization.