Anti-Cash Grab Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Nov 18, 2025
Bottom line
The bill undoes a specific provision from a recent appropriations act, aiming to reverse a change that was presumably deemed an inappropriate 'cash grab' and reinstate prior law.
What it actually does
This bill, titled the 'Anti-Cash Grab Act', repeals Section 213 of Division C of the 'Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026' (Public Law 119-37). Concurrently, it restores Section 10 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2005 (2 U.S.C. 6628) as if the repealed Section 213 had never been enacted. The repeal is effective retroactively to the enactment date of Public Law 119-37.
Proponents argue
Supporters of the 'Anti-Cash Grab Act' argue that Section 213 of Public Law 119-37 represented an unwarranted or excessive allocation, benefit, or policy change that was not in the public interest. They contend that its repeal is necessary to correct an overreach, restore fiscal prudence, or eliminate a provision that was perceived as a special interest carve-out. The retroactive effective date ensures that the original provision's effects are fully nullified.
Opponents contend
Opponents of this repeal, if any, would likely argue that Section 213 of Public Law 119-37 served a legitimate and necessary purpose, perhaps providing essential funding, a critical benefit, or addressing a specific policy need. They might contend that repealing it would disrupt established operations, remove justified support, or create unintended negative consequences for the entities or individuals who relied on the original provision.
The bill text is extremely short and can be read in under a minute, making it highly accessible for a quick review.
Section 2(a)
Repeal of Section 213 and Restoration of Prior Law
This section explicitly repeals Section 213 of Division C of the 'Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026' (Public Law 119-37). By doing so, it simultaneously restores Section 10 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2005 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 6628) to its status as if the repealed Section 213 had never been enacted. This effectively erases the legal changes made by Section 213 and reverts to the previous legal framework.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that repealing Section 213 is a necessary corrective action to undo a provision that was deemed inappropriate, fiscally irresponsible, or contrary to public interest. They believe it restores integrity or fairness to the legislative process and federal spending.
Critics contend
Opponents, if any, would contend that Section 213 was enacted for valid reasons and its repeal would undermine important policy goals, disrupt necessary operations, or withdraw justified support from specific programs or beneficiaries.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between maintaining recently enacted law and correcting perceived legislative missteps. It balances the stability of existing statutes against the desire to reverse policies deemed undesirable, potentially impacting those who had adjusted to or benefited from the repealed provision.
The bill's entire operative effect hinges on the content of Section 213 of Public Law 119-37 and Section 10 of 2 U.S.C. 6628. However, S. 3195 itself does not describe what these sections entail, meaning a reader cannot fully understand the impact of the repeal without consulting external legal texts.
Section 2(a) refers to 'section 213 of division C of the Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026 (Public Law 119-37)' and 'section 10 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2005 (2 U.S.C. 6628)'.
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting practice for repeals or amendments, where the assumption is that readers will consult the referenced statutes. It is not necessarily evasive, but it does make the bill opaque to a casual reader without legal research tools.
Case for: This approach streamlines legislative text by avoiding the reprinting of lengthy sections of existing law, making the bill concise and focused on the action of repeal.
Case against: It creates a significant barrier for the public and non-specialist readers to understand the actual policy implications and affected parties without undertaking extensive legal research.
Estimated impact: The total impact is unknown without knowing the content of Section 213. It could range from minor administrative adjustments to significant financial or programmatic changes affecting specific federal agencies, programs, or beneficiaries.