S.2138 - Buy-to-Budget Flexibility Act (119th Congress)
Summary
S.2138, the Buy-to-Budget Flexibility Act, aims to modify existing regulations concerning the procurement of end items by federal agencies. Specifically, it seeks to amend Section 3069 of Title 10, United States Code, by removing certain restrictions on agency heads' ability to procure complete end items. The bill was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Sheehy and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
The proposed changes involve striking portions of the existing law that impose constraints on the purchase of end items within budget limitations. This includes removing subsections (b) through (d) of Section 3069 and redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (b).
The intention is to provide greater flexibility to agency heads in managing their budgets and acquiring necessary equipment, potentially streamlining the procurement process.
Expected Effects
The Buy-to-Budget Flexibility Act, if enacted, would likely result in changes to the way federal agencies, particularly those involved in defense, acquire end items. Agency heads would have more discretion in allocating funds for these purchases.
This could lead to faster procurement times and potentially more efficient use of allocated budgets. However, it might also reduce oversight and accountability in the procurement process.
Potential Benefits
- Increased Efficiency: Streamlining the procurement process could lead to faster acquisition of necessary equipment.
- Budget Flexibility: Agency heads gain greater control over their budgets, allowing for more strategic allocation of resources.
- Potential Cost Savings: More flexible purchasing options could result in cost savings through bulk purchases or better negotiation.
- Improved Resource Allocation: Agencies can better align their spending with their specific needs and priorities.
- Modernization: Facilitates quicker adoption of new technologies and equipment, enhancing operational capabilities.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Reduced Oversight: Less restrictive regulations could lead to decreased oversight and accountability in spending.
- Potential for Waste: Increased flexibility might result in inefficient spending or misallocation of resources.
- Risk of Favoritism: Reduced oversight could create opportunities for biased procurement decisions.
- Lack of Transparency: Fewer regulations could make it harder to track and monitor government spending.
- Unintended Consequences: Removing existing safeguards might lead to unforeseen negative impacts on the procurement process.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill primarily concerns budgetary and procurement processes, which fall under the purview of Congress as outlined in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. This section grants Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.
The Buy-to-Budget Flexibility Act does not appear to directly infringe upon any specific constitutional rights or limitations. However, the potential for reduced oversight raises concerns about accountability and transparency in government spending, which indirectly relates to the principles of responsible governance.
Overall, the bill's constitutional alignment is neutral, as it mainly addresses procedural aspects of government operations within the established constitutional framework.
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).