To repeal the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
- Bill Number
- H.R. 1180
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Economics and Public Finance
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-02-11: Referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Last Updated
- 2026-06-11T23:26:38Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This bill, H.R. 1180, seeks to repeal the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, a law that restricts the president's ability to withhold or delay spending funds that Congress has already approved through appropriations. The goal is to eliminate these restrictions, potentially giving the executive branch greater flexibility in managing federal spending.
Key Provisions
- Repeal Clause: The bill contains a single section that fully repeals the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (codified in 2 U.S.C. 681 et seq.), effective upon enactment.
- No additional provisions are included; the bill is straightforward and does not introduce new rules or procedures.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was enacted to prevent presidents from unilaterally refusing to spend appropriated funds (a practice called "impoundment"), which had been used by previous administrations to influence policy without congressional approval.
- Repealing it would remove requirements for the president to notify Congress of proposed impoundments and eliminate the congressional mechanisms (like rescission procedures) for reviewing and approving such actions.
- This restores the pre-1974 status quo, where the executive had broader discretion to impound funds, subject only to potential court challenges.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Federal agencies could face uncertainty in funding for programs, as the president might delay or withhold spending, potentially disrupting operations or priorities set by Congress.
- On Citizens: Individuals and groups relying on federal programs (e.g., education, healthcare, infrastructure) might experience inconsistent service delivery if funds are impounded, affecting access to benefits or services.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though impoundment of foreign aid or diplomatic funding could indirectly strain U.S. commitments abroad.
- Overall, it could lead to more executive-driven budgeting, potentially reducing congressional oversight of how taxpayer money is spent.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Executive Branch: The president and administration gain significant authority over budget execution, allowing for policy adjustments without congressional hurdles.
- Congress: Lawmakers, particularly those on budget and appropriations committees, lose a key tool to enforce spending decisions, potentially weakening their "power of the purse" (constitutional authority over federal funds).
- Federal Agencies and Programs: Entities like the Department of Defense, Health and Human Services, or environmental agencies could see funding variability.
- Citizens and Advocacy Groups: Taxpayers, beneficiaries of federal programs, and interest groups (e.g., environmental or social welfare organizations) may be indirectly affected through changes in program funding.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Constitutional: Raises questions about separation of powers under Article I (Congress's spending authority) and Article II (executive faithful execution of laws). Without the Act, disputes over impoundment might shift to the courts, potentially leading to litigation similar to historical cases like Train v. City of New York (1975), which upheld congressional spending mandates.
- Legal: Removes statutory limits on impoundment, but the president would still be bound by the Antideficiency Act (prohibiting spending beyond appropriations) and potential judicial review for violating congressional intent.
- Political: Could intensify partisan debates over fiscal policy, empowering a president aligned with one party to redirect funds away from congressionally favored programs. Introduced by a group of Republican representatives, it reflects ongoing tensions between branches but carries no inherent bias in the bill text itself. If passed, it might prompt future legislation to restore or modify controls.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9]
Cosponsors (25)
Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3], Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5], Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15], Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19], Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-4], Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1], Rep. Higgins, Clay [R-LA-3], Rep. Burlison, Eric [R-MO-7], Rep. Burchett, Tim [R-TN-2], Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21], Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22], Rep. Crane, Elijah [R-AZ-2], Rep. Hunt, Wesley [R-TX-38], Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17], Rep. Harris, Mark [R-NC-8], Rep. Tiffany, Thomas P. [R-WI-7], Rep. Greene, Marjorie Taylor [R-GA-14], Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14], Rep. Harris, Andy [R-MD-1], Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-9], Rep. Gill, Brandon [R-TX-26], Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2], Rep. Cline, Ben [R-VA-6], Rep. Mills, Cory [R-FL-7], Rep. Spartz, Victoria [R-IN-5]
Recent Actions
- 2025-02-11: Referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-02-11: Referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-02-11: Introduced in House
- 2025-02-11: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- To repeal the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. — issued 2025-02-11 — PDF (1 pages)