Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Reinstates advance refunding of tax-exempt municipal bonds by repealing the amendments made by section 13532 of Public Law 115–97. The bill restores prior law as if that section had never been enacted, and takes effect on enactment.
Municipal savings versus federal revenue loss
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive statute that uses a direct repeal mechanism to restore prior tax law; it is legally specific about what is changed and when the change takes effect but omits fiscal, transitional, and accountability detail.
Reinstates advance refunding of tax-exempt municipal bonds by repealing the amendments made by section 13532 of Public Law 115–97.
The bill restores prior law as if that section had never been enacted, and takes effect on enactment.
Technically narrow and bipartisan-appealing but creates unoffset revenue loss; more likely as part of a larger package than standalone.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive statute that uses a direct repeal mechanism to restore prior tax law; it is legally specific about what is changed and when the change takes effect but omits fiscal, transitional, and accountability detail.
Municipal savings versus federal revenue loss
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Municipal savings versus federal revenue loss
Likely cautiously supportive because it can lower borrowing costs for local governments and expand funding for public infrastructure and services.
Concerned about federal revenue loss and that the primary beneficiaries may be wealthier bondholders.
Would seek safeguards so benefits reach underserved communities and public projects.
Views the bill as a pragmatic tool to lower costs for states and localities and to facilitate infrastructure refinancing.
Supportive if accompanied by transparency, limited scope, and offsets to address federal revenue impact.
Concerned about moral hazard and fiscal effects without safeguards.
Skeptical because it restores a tax preference that lowers federal revenue and appears to favor investors.
Some support possible because it aids local governments and infrastructure without direct federal spending.
Would insist on strict limits, offsets, or targeting before supporting.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow and bipartisan-appealing but creates unoffset revenue loss; more likely as part of a larger package than standalone.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Municipal savings versus federal revenue loss
Technically narrow and bipartisan-appealing but creates unoffset revenue loss; more likely as part of a larger package than standalone.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive statute that uses a direct repeal mechanism to restore prior tax law; it is legally specific about what is changed and when the cha…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.