H.R.773 - 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. (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.773 proposes to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 by repealing certain provisions related to the acceptance and use of contributions for public-private partnerships. Specifically, it modifies Section 1241(f) of the Act, which concerns the establishment and management of contribution accounts for conservation programs. The bill aims to remove the emphasis on public-private partnerships in this context and instead focuses on allowing the Secretary of Agriculture to establish sub-accounts for each conservation program to accept non-Federal funds.
Expected Effects
The likely effect of this bill is a shift in how conservation programs are funded, moving away from a reliance on formal public-private partnerships. It would give the Secretary of Agriculture more direct control over the acceptance and use of non-Federal contributions for these programs. The removal of specific paragraphs (3) through (10) suggests a streamlining of the process and potentially a reduction in the administrative burden associated with managing these contributions.
Potential Benefits
- Increased Flexibility: The Secretary of Agriculture gains more flexibility in managing conservation program funding.
- Streamlined Processes: Removing specific paragraphs could simplify the administrative processes for accepting and using contributions.
- Direct Funding: Conservation programs can receive direct funding through sub-accounts, potentially speeding up project implementation.
- Focus on Conservation: Resources are directed towards conservation programs administered by the Secretary under subtitle D.
Potential Disadvantages
- Reduced Public-Private Partnerships: The bill shifts away from encouraging public-private partnerships, potentially reducing overall funding and innovation.
- Potential for Reduced Oversight: Removing specific paragraphs could reduce oversight and accountability in the use of funds.
- Dependence on Non-Federal Funds: Increased reliance on non-Federal funds could make conservation programs more vulnerable to fluctuations in private donations.
- Unintended Consequences: Changes to established funding mechanisms may have unforeseen impacts on program effectiveness.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill appears to align with the general welfare clause of the Constitution (Preamble). Congress has the power to legislate on matters related to agriculture and conservation. The specific changes proposed in H.R.773 do not seem to infringe upon any specific constitutional rights or limitations. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to collect taxes and provide for the general welfare of the United States, which implicitly includes the power to manage and direct funding for agricultural and conservation programs.
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).