H.R.3454 - Protecting Our Constitution and Communities Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.3454, the "Protecting Our Constitution and Communities Act," aims to amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The bill seeks to provide a private right of action for violations of the Act, allowing individuals and entities to sue the government for withholding budget authority. It also clarifies the definition of "contingencies" and enhances the authority of the Comptroller General in interpreting and enforcing the Act.
Expected Effects
The bill's passage would likely lead to increased scrutiny of executive branch spending decisions and potentially more litigation related to impoundment of funds. It could also empower Congress by reinforcing its power of the purse and limiting the President's ability to unilaterally withhold funds. This may result in greater accountability and adherence to congressional appropriations.
Potential Benefits
- Empowers individuals and entities to challenge unlawful withholding of funds.
- Reinforces Congress's constitutional power of the purse.
- Increases accountability of the executive branch in spending decisions.
- Provides a legal remedy for those harmed by impoundments.
- Clarifies the definition of contingencies, reducing ambiguity.
Potential Disadvantages
- Could lead to increased litigation and burden the court system.
- May create uncertainty in budget execution due to potential legal challenges.
- Could politicize the budget process further.
- Potential for frivolous lawsuits.
- May hinder the executive branch's ability to respond to genuine unforeseen emergencies if the definition of 'contingencies' is too restrictive.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill aims to reinforce Article I of the Constitution, which vests legislative power, including the power of the purse, in Congress. It also references Article II, Section 3, which requires the President to faithfully execute the laws. The bill's findings cite Supreme Court cases like Kendall v. United States ex Rel. Stokes and Train v. City of New York, supporting the principle that the President cannot unilaterally refuse to spend appropriated funds. By providing a private right of action, the bill seeks to ensure that the executive branch adheres to congressional appropriations, aligning with the separation of powers principle.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).