Overview
Title
To repeal and rescind any unobligated balances under sections 70002 and 70003 of the Inflation Reduction Act, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
S. 913 wants to take back money that hasn't been used yet from certain parts of a big law called the Inflation Reduction Act. It's like if a parent decided not to spend the leftover money from their grocery shopping.
Summary AI
S. 913 seeks to eliminate and cancel any unspent funds allocated under sections 70002 and 70003 of the Inflation Reduction Act. The bill is titled the “Return to Sender Act” and was introduced by Ms. Ernst in the United States Senate. If passed, this legislation would effectively repeal these sections of the Inflation Reduction Act.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
Senate Bill 913, introduced during the 119th Congress, proposes to repeal and rescind any funds that have not been allocated under sections 70002 and 70003 of the Inflation Reduction Act. Known as the "Return to Sender Act," this legislation seeks to take back funds that have been appropriated but not yet obligated for use. The bill does not specify alternative uses for these rescinded funds; it simply nullifies the provision of funds in the specified sections of the existing law.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues arise within the text of this bill. First, there is an ambiguity surrounding the term "unobligated balances," as the bill does not define what these balances pertain to or how they are calculated. This could lead to confusion about the scope of what is being rescinded. Additionally, the bill does not specify the exact amount of funds involved, leaving the financial impact unclear.
The text also lacks explanation concerning the impact and reasoning for repealing these funds, providing no details on which programs or projects might be affected by such rescission. This absence of context makes it difficult to evaluate who might benefit or suffer as a result. Moreover, the phrase "as of the date of enactment of this Act" could present timing and implementation ambiguities.
Potential Impact on the Public
If enacted, this bill could have varied implications for the public. The original sections of the Inflation Reduction Act were likely intended to support specific initiatives or programs. Rescinding these funds might halt the progress of such projects, potentially affecting economic sectors or public services that depend on them. However, without detailed explanations, it is challenging for the public to assess how different programs could be impacted directly.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders, the bill could have both negative and positive effects. On one hand, governmental or non-governmental organizations tied to programs funded by sections 70002 and 70003 might face financial shortfalls, potentially leading to project delays or program cancellations. This could affect employment, research, and development efforts involved with these initiatives.
On the other hand, if the withdrawn funds are redirected elsewhere, sectors that benefit could view this as a positive development. However, without explicit detail in the legislation regarding the intended re-allocation or savings from these rescissions, it's unclear which stakeholders might benefit. Overall, clarity on these issues would be necessary to understand the full scope of potential advantages or disadvantages ensuing from this language.
In summary, while the bill proposes significant fiscal policy changes, its impact remains vague due to a lack of specific definitions, monetary figures, and justifications for rescission. Comprehensive context and transparency are crucial for stakeholders and the general public to gauge the bill's implications effectively.
Issues
Ambiguity in 'unobligated balances': The term 'unobligated balances' in Section 2 lacks clarity without further context as it does not specify what these balances pertain to or how they are calculated, potentially leading to misunderstandings about the financial aspects of the bill.
Lack of clarity on the impact: Section 2 fails to explain the potential impact of rescinding these funds, such as which programs or projects might be affected. This omission makes it difficult to assess the broader implications of the bill.
Omission of specific amounts: The text in Section 2 does not specify the exact amount of funds being rescinded, making it challenging to evaluate the financial impact and transparency of the legislative action.
No justification for repeal: Section 2 lacks any justification or explanation for why these funds are being rescinded and why these specific sections of Public Law 117-169 are targeted, which might lead to questions about the motivations behind the bill.
Potential ambiguity in 'date of enactment': The phrase 'as of the date of enactment of this Act' in Section 2 might create confusion if not clearly defined within the broader context of the bill, potentially affecting the implementation timeline.
The section only includes the title of the Act and lacks substantive content: Section 1 merely provides the title 'Return to Sender Act' without any context or description of what the Act entails, leading to ambiguity about its purpose and implications.
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 establishes its short title as the “Return to Sender Act”.
2. Repeal and rescission of funds Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill cancels and takes back any money that was not yet spent from certain sections of the Inflation Reduction Act.