Summary#
This bill repeals section 213 of division C of the Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026. It also restores the earlier law known as section 10 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2005 (listed at 2 U.S.C. 6628), as if section 213 had never been enacted. The repeal is made retroactive to the date that division C originally became law.
- Main change: Remove section 213 of the 2026 continuing appropriations measure and put the previous statute (2 U.S.C. 6628) back in effect.
- Timing: The change is treated as if it were included when the 2026 law was first enacted (retroactive effect).
- Legal effect stated: The bill restores the earlier statutory language “as if” the 2026 provision had not been enacted.
- What is unclear: The bill text does not say what section 213 actually changed or what 2 U.S.C. 6628 currently requires. No explanatory or fiscal material is included with the text provided.
What it means for you#
- Members of Congress and legislative branch offices: This affects whatever legal duties, limits, or permissions were changed by section 213 or by 2 U.S.C. 6628. The bill itself does not describe those duties.
- Federal agencies or contractors: If they were following rules created by section 213, those rules would no longer apply and the prior statute would be in force instead.
- Citizens or businesses: Only people or businesses directly governed by the specific provisions at issue would be affected. The bill text does not identify those groups or describe practical effects.
- General note: Because the text supplied does not explain what section 213 did, it is not possible from this material alone to list concrete day-to-day changes for specific groups.
Expenses#
No publicly available information.
- The bill text does not include a fiscal note or budget estimate.
- It does not identify any new spending, savings, fees, or fines.
- It is possible that restoring prior law could change administrative or compliance costs for agencies or offices affected, but the bill materials supplied do not provide estimates.
Proponents' View#
- The bill appears intended to undo the legal change made by section 213 and restore the pre-2026 statute at 2 U.S.C. 6628.
- A possible argument for the bill is that restoring the earlier statute returns the law to its prior state and removes a provision that sponsors regard as undesirable.
- Because the repeal is retroactive, supporters may view this as fully reversing the effect of the 2026 provision rather than merely replacing it going forward.
Opponents' View#
- One concern is that the bill text does not explain what section 213 did, so it is unclear who would be helped or harmed by the repeal.
- Retroactive changes to law can create legal uncertainty for actions already taken under section 213.
- It is unclear whether restoring the old statute will require agencies or offices to change policies, recover funds, or alter contracts; the bill gives no implementation details.
- The absence of a fiscal or implementation analysis makes it hard to judge costs, enforcement issues, or administrative burdens.