Overview
Title
To amend title 10, United States Code, to prohibit Department of Defense special Government employees from obligating or expending Federal funds while carrying out their official duties, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
In this bill, some people who help the Department of Defense plan and make decisions aren't allowed to spend the government's money directly to avoid any funny business, but the bill needs to make sure the rules are super clear and fair.
Summary AI
H. R. 9483, known as the “Preventing Corruption in Advisory Roles Act,” aims to amend title 10 of the United States Code. The bill proposes to prohibit special Government employees within the Department of Defense from using or spending Federal funds while performing their official duties. This legislation intends to ensure more ethical conduct and prevent potential conflicts of interest among these advisory roles.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "Preventing Corruption in Advisory Roles Act," aims to amend title 10 of the United States Code. Its primary focus is to restrict special Government employees within the Department of Defense (DoD) from obligating or spending Federal funds while performing their official duties. This change introduces a new section, §1590, within Chapter 81 of title 10, specifically prohibiting such financial activities by these employees. The goal appears to be the prevention of potential corruption or financial mismanagement within advisory roles in the DoD.
Summary of Significant Issues
One major issue identified in the bill is the broad phrase "Notwithstanding any other provision of law," which could potentially lead to conflicts with existing legal frameworks. This illustrates a lack of clarity as to how the new rule might interrelate or clash with current legal requirements.
Moreover, the prohibition is confined solely to the Department of Defense. This raises questions about the choice to limit the scope to one department and whether similar practices in other federal departments warrant scrutiny. The bill references the term ‘special Government employee’ defined in another section of the U.S. Code, which could cause confusion due to its omission in the bill’s text itself. This might leave stakeholders puzzled about who exactly falls under the bill’s regulations.
Another significant concern is the absence of penalties or enforcement mechanisms for those who might violate this prohibition. Without specifying the consequences for non-compliance, the bill’s effectiveness might be compromised. Additionally, the language used around what constitutes “official duties” is somewhat ambiguous, possibly leading to varied interpretations and inconsistencies in applying the prohibition.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Broadly, the public might view this legislation as a step towards enhancing transparency and accountability in government expenditure, particularly in the sensitive area of defense. By aiming to prevent financial malpractices, the bill could contribute to increased trust in federal spending policies.
For the DoD, this bill might impose restrictions on the operational flexibility of certain roles. Special Government employees who have traditionally engaged in budgeting or fund allocation as part of their duties may find their activities limited, potentially impacting the department's efficiency and responsiveness.
Special Government employees themselves are key stakeholders directly impacted. They could experience increased scrutiny and limitations on their professional roles, potentially leading to reduced autonomy and influence.
Overall, while the intent behind the bill appears to promote ethical conduct and deter misuse of funds, significant ambiguity and lack of enforcement clarity could hinder its objectives. Addressing these issues would be crucial for realizing its potential benefits while minimizing any unintended negative implications on departmental operations.
Issues
The phrase 'Notwithstanding any other provision of law' in Section 2 might be too broad and potentially lead to conflicts with existing legal frameworks, resulting in legal uncertainties or unintended consequences.
The bill limits the prohibition on obligating or expending Federal funds only to the Department of Defense, as stated in Sections 2 and 1590, which raises questions about the rationale for not extending this restriction to other federal departments and whether the focus on the Department of Defense is justified.
The definition of 'special Government employee' is referenced in Section 202(a) of title 18, as mentioned in Sections 2 and 1590, but not actually included in the bill, which could cause confusion and ambiguity regarding who is covered by the prohibition.
Section 1590 lacks clarity on enforcement mechanisms or consequences for violations of the prohibition, which could result in potential non-compliance and limit the effectiveness of the bill.
There is a lack of clarity in Section 2 and Section 1590 regarding what constitutes 'official duties,' potentially leading to varied interpretations and inconsistent application of the prohibition.
The bill does not mention any penalties for violations of the prohibition in Sections 2 and 1590, which may hinder its enforceability and effectiveness in preventing abuses related to the expenditure of Federal funds.
The bill might unintentionally restrict necessary operational expenses for roles that require special Government employees to utilize Federal funds, as seen in Section 1590, without providing clear guidelines for exceptions.
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 act states its official name, which is the “Preventing Corruption in Advisory Roles Act.”
2. Prohibiting DOD special Government employees from spending Federal funds Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress is proposing a law that would prevent special Government employees working in the Department of Defense from using or obligating any Federal funds while performing their official duties. This new rule would be added to Chapter 81 of title 10 of the United States Code.
1590. Prohibition on special Government employees from obligations or expending Federal funds Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
A special Government employee working in the Department of Defense is not allowed to use or commit any Federal funds while performing their official duties, regardless of other laws.