[DOCID: f:hr505p1.109]
From the House Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
109th Congress Rept. 109-505
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 1
_______________________________________________________________________
LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM
VETO ACT OF 2006
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
to accompany
H.R. 4890
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
June 16, 2006.--Ordered to be printed
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-006 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa, Chairman
JIM RYUN, Kansas JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida Carolina,
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida Ranking Minority Member
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
JO BONNER, Alabama ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey CHET EDWARDS, Texas
J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan LOIS CAPPS, California
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JEB HENSARLING, Texas JIM COOPER, Tennessee
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
PETE SESSIONS, Texas WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho ED CASE, Hawaii
JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire CYNTHIA McKINNEY, Georgia
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
CONNIE MACK, Florida ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas RON KIND, Wisconsin
CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana
JOHN CAMPBELL, California
Professional Staff
James T. Bates, Chief of Staff
Thomas S. Kahn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
PAGE
Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006........................... 1
Introduction..................................................... 9
Summary.......................................................... 15
Background and Purpose........................................... 21
Legislative History.............................................. 25
Key Constitutional Doctrines..................................... 29
Principal Court Decisions........................................ 35
Section by Section Analysis...................................... 41
Hearings......................................................... 55
Votes of the Committee........................................... 57
Other Items Required Under the Rules of the House of
Representatives................................................ 69
Minority Views................................................... 102
109th Congress Rept. 109-505
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 1
======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO ACT OF 2006
_______
June 16, 2006.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Nussle, from the Committee on the Budget, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 4890]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Budget, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 4890) to amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 to provide for the expedited consideration
of certain proposed rescissions of budget authority, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Legislative Line Item Veto Act of
2006''.
SEC. 2. LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO.
(a) In General.--Title X of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) is amended by
striking all of part B (except for sections 1016 and 1013, which are
redesignated as sections 1019 and 1020, respectively) and part C and
inserting the following:
``Part B--Legislative Line Item Veto
``line item veto authority
``Sec. 1011. (a) Proposed Cancellations.--Within 45 calendar days
after the enactment of any bill or joint resolution providing any
discretionary budget authority, item of direct spending, or targeted
tax benefit, the President may propose, in the manner provided in
subsection (b), the cancellation of any dollar amount of such
discretionary budget authority, item of direct spending, or targeted
tax benefit. If the 45 calendar-day period expires during a period
where either House of Congress stands adjourned sine die at the end of
a Congress or for a period greater than 45 calendar days, the President
may propose a cancellation under this section and transmit a special
message under subsection (b) on the first calendar day of session
following such a period of adjournment.
``(b) Transmittal of Special Message.--
``(1) Special message.--
``(A) In general.--The President may transmit to
the Congress a special message proposing to cancel any
dollar amounts of discretionary budget authority, items
of direct spending, or targeted tax benefits.
``(B) Contents of special message.--Each special
message shall specify, with respect to the
discretionary budget authority, items of direct
spending proposed, or targeted tax benefits to be
canceled--
``(i) the dollar amount of discretionary
budget authority, the specific item of direct
spending (that OMB, after consultation with
CBO, estimates to increase budget authority or
outlays as required by section 1017(9)), or the
targeted tax benefit that the President
proposes be canceled;
``(ii) any account, department, or
establishment of the Government to which such
discretionary budget authority is available for
obligation, and the specific project or
governmental functions involved;
``(iii) the reasons why such discretionary
budget authority, item of direct spending, or
targeted tax benefit should be canceled;
``(iv) to the maximum extent practicable,
the estimated fiscal, economic, and budgetary
effect (including the effect on outlays and
receipts in each fiscal year) of the proposed
cancellation;
``(v) to the maximum extent practicable,
all facts, circumstances, and considerations
relating to or bearing upon the proposed
cancellation and the decision to effect the
proposed cancellation, and the estimated effect
of the proposed cancellation upon the objects,
purposes, or programs for which the
discretionary budget authority, item of direct
spending, or the targeted tax benefit is
provided;
``(vi) a numbered list of cancellations to
be included in an approval bill that, if
enacted, would cancel discretionary budget
authority, items of direct spending, or
targeted tax benefits proposed in that special
message; and
``(vii) if the special message is
transmitted subsequent to or at the same time
as another special message, a detailed
explanation why the proposed cancellations are
not substantially similar to any other proposed
cancellation in such other message.
``(C) Duplicative proposals prohibited.--The
President may not propose to cancel the same or
substantially similar discretionary budget authority,
item of direct spending, or targeted tax benefit more
than one time under this Act.
``(D) Maximum number of special messages.--The
President may not transmit to the Congress more than 5
special messages under this subsection related to any
bill or joint resolution described in subsection (a),
but may transmit not more than 10 special messages for
any omnibus budget reconciliation or appropriation
measure.
``(2) Enactment of approval bill.--
``(A) Deficit reduction.--Amounts of budget
authority, items of direct spending, or targeted tax
benefits which are canceled pursuant to enactment of a
bill as provided under this section shall be dedicated
only to reducing the deficit or increasing the surplus.
``(B) Adjustment of levels in the concurrent
resolution on the budget.--Not later than 5 days after
the date of enactment of an approval bill as provided
under this section, the chairs of the Committees on the
Budget of the Senate and the House of Representatives
shall revise allocations and aggregates and other
appropriate levels under the appropriate concurrent
resolution on the budget to reflect the cancellation,
and the applicable committees shall report revised
suballocations pursuant to section 302(b), as
appropriate.
``(C) Adjustments to statutory limits.--After
enactment of an approval bill as provided under this
section, the Office of Management and Budget shall
revise applicable limits under the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as appropriate.
``procedures for expedited consideration
``Sec. 1012. (a) Expedited Consideration.--
``(1) In general.--The majority leader of each House or his
designee shall (by request) introduce an approval bill as
defined in section 1017 not later than the fifth day of session
of that House after the date of receipt of a special message
transmitted to the Congress under section 1011(b).
``(2) Consideration in the house of representatives.--
``(A) Referral and reporting.--Any committee of the
House of Representatives to which an approval bill is
referred shall report it to the House without amendment
not later than the seventh legislative day after the
date of its introduction. If a committee fails to
report the bill within that period or the House has
adopted a concurrent resolution providing for
adjournment sine die at the end of a Congress, it shall
be in order to move that the House discharge the
committee from further consideration of the bill. Such
a motion shall be in order only at a time designated by
the Speaker in the legislative schedule within two
legislative days after the day on which the proponent
announces his intention to offer the motion. Such a
motion shall not be in order after a committee has
reported an approval bill with respect to that special
message or after the House has disposed of a motion to
discharge with respect to that special message. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to its adoption without intervening motion
except twenty minutes of debate equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent. If such a
motion is adopted, the House shall proceed immediately
to consider the approval bill in accordance with
subparagraph (C). A motion to reconsider the vote by
which the motion is disposed of shall not be in order.
``(B) Proceeding to consideration.--After an
approval bill is reported or a committee has been
discharged from further consideration, or the House has
adopted a concurrent resolution providing for
adjournment sine die at the end of a Congress, it shall
be in order to move to proceed to consider the approval
bill in the House. Such a motion shall be in order only
at a time designated by the Speaker in the legislative
schedule within two legislative days after the day on
which the proponent announces his intention to offer
the motion. Such a motion shall not be in order after
the House has disposed of a motion to proceed with
respect to that special message. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its
adoption without intervening motion. A motion to
reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed of
shall not be in order.
``(C) Consideration.--The approval bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against an
approval bill and against its consideration are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
an approval bill to its passage without intervening
motion except five hours of debate equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent and one
motion to limit debate on the bill. A motion to
reconsider the vote on passage of the bill shall not be
in order.
``(D) Senate bill.--An approval bill received from
the Senate shall not be referred to committee.
``(3) Consideration in the senate.--
``(A) Motion to proceed to consideration.--A motion
to proceed to the consideration of a bill under this
subsection in the Senate shall not be debatable. It
shall not be in order to move to reconsider the vote by
which the motion to proceed is agreed to or disagreed
to.
``(B) Limits on debate.--Debate in the Senate on a
bill under this subsection, and all debatable motions
and appeals in connection therewith (including debate
pursuant to subparagraph (D)), shall not exceed 10
hours, equally divided and controlled in the usual
form.
``(C) Appeals.--Debate in the Senate on any
debatable motion or appeal in connection with a bill
under this subsection shall be limited to not more than
1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled in the
usual form.
``(D) Motion to limit debate.--A motion in the
Senate to further limit debate on a bill under this
subsection is not debatable.
``(E) Motion to recommit.--A motion to recommit a
bill under this subsection is not in order.
``(F) Consideration of the house bill.--
``(i) In general.--If the Senate has
received the House companion bill to the bill
introduced in the Senate prior to the vote
required under paragraph (1)(C), then the
Senate may consider, and the vote under
paragraph (1)(C) may occur on, the House
companion bill.
``(ii) Procedure after vote on senate
bill.--If the Senate votes, pursuant to
paragraph (1)(C), on the bill introduced in the
Senate, then immediately following that vote,
or upon receipt of the House companion bill,
the House bill shall be deemed to be
considered, read the third time, and the vote
on passage of the Senate bill shall be
considered to be the vote on the bill received
from the House.
``(b) Amendments Prohibited.--No amendment to, or motion to strike
a provision from, a bill considered under this section shall be in
order in either the Senate or the House of Representatives.
``presidential deferral authority
``Sec. 1013. (a) Temporary Presidential Authority to Withhold
Discretionary Budget Authority.--
``(1) In general.--At the same time as the President
transmits to the Congress a special message pursuant to section
1011(b), the President may direct that any dollar amount of
discretionary budget authority to be canceled in that special
message shall not be made available for obligation for a period
not to exceed 45 calendar days from the date the President
transmits the special message to the Congress.
``(2) Early availability.--The President shall make any
dollar amount of discretionary budget authority deferred
pursuant to paragraph (1) available at a time earlier than the
time specified by the President if the President determines
that continuation of the deferral would not further the
purposes of this Act.
``(b) Temporary Presidential Authority to Suspend Direct
Spending.--
``(1) In general.--At the same time as the President
transmits to the Congress a special message pursuant to section
1011(b), the President may suspend the implementation of any
item of direct spending proposed to be canceled in that special
message for a period not to exceed 45 calendar days from the
date the President transmits the special message to the
Congress.
``(2) Early availability.--The President shall terminate
the suspension of any item of direct spending at a time earlier
than the time specified by the President if the President
determines that continuation of the suspension would not
further the purposes of this Act.
``(c) Temporary Presidential Authority to Suspend a Targeted Tax
Benefit.--
``(1) In general.--At the same time as the President
transmits to the Congress a special message pursuant to section
1011(b), the President may suspend the implementation of any
targeted tax benefit proposed to be repealed in that special
message for a period not to exceed 45 calendar days from the
date the President transmits the special message to the
Congress.
``(2) Early availability.--The President shall terminate
the suspension of any targeted tax benefit at a time earlier
than the time specified by the President if the President
determines that continuation of the suspension would not
further the purposes of this Act.
``(d) Extension of 45-day Period.--The President may transmit to
the Congress not more than one supplemental special message to extend
the period to suspend the implementation of any discretionary budget
authority, item of direct spending, or targeted tax benefit, as
applicable, by an additional 45 calendar days. Any such supplemental
message may not be transmitted to the Congress before the 40th day of
the 45-day period set forth in the preceding message or later than the
last day of such period.
``identification of targeted tax benefits
``Sec. 1014. (a) Statement.--The chairman of the Committee on Ways
and Means of the House of Representatives and the chairman of the
Committee on Finance of the Senate acting jointly (hereafter in this
subsection referred to as the `chairmen') shall review any revenue or
reconciliation bill or joint resolution which includes any amendment to
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is being prepared for filing by
a committee of conference of the two Houses, and shall identify whether
such bill or joint resolution contains any targeted tax benefits. The
chairmen shall provide to the committee of conference a statement
identifying any such targeted tax benefits or declaring that the bill
or joint resolution does not contain any targeted tax benefits. Any
such statement shall be made available to any Member of Congress by the
chairmen immediately upon request.
``(b) Statement Included in Legislation.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other rule of the
House of Representatives or any rule or precedent of the
Senate, any revenue or reconciliation bill or joint resolution
which includes any amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 reported by a committee of conference of the two Houses
may include, as a separate section of such bill or joint
resolution, the information contained in the statement of the
chairmen, but only in the manner set forth in paragraph (2).
``(2) Applicability.--The separate section permitted under
subparagraph (A) shall read as follows: `Section 1021 of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 shall
________ apply to ____________.', with the blank spaces being
filled in with--
``(A) in any case in which the chairmen identify
targeted tax benefits in the statement required under
subsection (a), the word `only' in the first blank
space and a list of all of the specific provisions of
the bill or joint resolution identified by the chairmen
in such statement in the second blank space; or
``(B) in any case in which the chairmen declare
that there are no targeted tax benefits in the
statement required under subsection (a), the word `not'
in the first blank space and the phrase `any provision
of this Act' in the second blank space.
``(c) President's Authority.--If any revenue or reconciliation bill
or joint resolution is signed into law--
``(1) with a separate section described in subsection
(b)(2), then the President may use the authority granted in
this section only with respect to any targeted tax benefit in
that law, if any, identified in such separate section; or
``(2) without a separate section described in subsection
(b)(2), then the President may use the authority granted in
this section with respect to any targeted tax benefit in that
law.
``treatment of cancellations
``Sec. 1015. The cancellation of any dollar amount of discretionary
budget authority, item of direct spending, or targeted tax benefit
shall take effect only upon enactment of the applicable approval bill.
If an approval bill is not enacted into law before the end of the
applicable period under section 1013, then all proposed cancellations
contained in that bill shall be null and void and any such dollar
amount of discretionary budget authority, item of direct spending, or
targeted tax benefit shall be effective as of the original date
provided in the law to which the proposed cancellations applied.
``reports by comptroller general
``Sec. 1016. With respect to each special message under this part,
the Comptroller General shall issue to the Congress a report
determining whether any discretionary budget authority is not made
available for obligation or item of direct spending or targeted tax
benefit continues to be suspended after the deferral authority set
forth in section 1013 of the President has expired.
``definitions
``Sec. 1017. As used in this part:
``(1) Appropriation law.--The term `appropriation law'
means an Act referred to in section 105 of title 1, United
States Code, including any general or special appropriation
Act, or any Act making supplemental, deficiency, or continuing
appropriations, that has been signed into law pursuant to
article I, section 7, of the Constitution of the United States.
``(2) Approval bill.--The term `approval bill' means a bill
or joint resolution which only approves proposed cancellations
of dollar amounts of discretionary budget authority, items of
new direct spending, or targeted tax benefits in a special
message transmitted by the President under this part and--
``(A) the title of which is as follows: `A bill
approving the proposed cancellations transmitted by the
President on ____', the blank space being filled in
with the date of transmission of the relevant special
message and the public law number to which the message
relates;
``(B) which does not have a preamble; and
``(C) which provides only the following after the
enacting clause: `That the Congress approves of
proposed cancellations ____', the blank space being
filled in with a list of the cancellations contained in
the President's special message, `as transmitted by the
President in a special message on ____', the blank
space being filled in with the appropriate date,
`regarding ____.', the blank space being filled in with
the public law number to which the special message
relates;
``(D) which only includes proposed cancellations
that are estimated by CBO to meet the definition of
discretionary budgetary authority or items of direct
spending, or that are identified as targeted tax
benefits pursuant to section 1014;
``(E) if any proposed cancellation other than
discretionary budget authority or targeted tax benefits
is estimated by CBO to not meet the definition of item
of direct spending, then the approval bill shall
include at the end: `The President shall cease the
suspension of the implementation of the following under
section 1013 of the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of
2006: ____', the blank space being filled in with the
list of such proposed cancellations; and
``(F) if no CBO estimate is available, then the
entire list of legislative provisions proposed by the
President is inserted in the second blank space in
subparagraph (C).
``(3) Calendar day.--The term `calendar day' means a
standard 24-hour period beginning at midnight.
``(4) Cancel or cancellation.--The terms `cancel' or
`cancellation' means to prevent--
``(A) budget authority from having legal force or
effect;
``(B) in the case of entitlement authority, to
prevent the specific legal obligation of the United
States from having legal force or effect;
``(C) in the case of the food stamp program, to
prevent the specific provision of law that provides
such benefit from having legal force or effect; or
``(D) a targeted tax benefit from having legal
force or effect; and
to make any necessary, conforming statutory change to ensure
that such targeted tax benefit is not implemented and that any
budgetary resources are appropriately canceled.
``(5) CBO.--The term `CBO' means the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office.
``(6) Direct spending.--The term `direct spending' means--
``(A) budget authority provided by law (other than
an appropriation law);
``(B) entitlement authority; and
``(C) the food stamp program.
``(7) Dollar amount of discretionary budget authority.--(A)
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term `dollar amount
of discretionary budget authority' means the entire dollar
amount of budget authority--
``(i) specified in an appropriation law, or the
entire dollar amount of budget authority or obligation
limitation required to be allocated by a specific
proviso in an appropriation law for which a specific
dollar figure was not included;
``(ii) represented separately in any table, chart,
or explanatory text included in the statement of
managers or the governing committee report accompanying
such law;
``(iii) required to be allocated for a specific
program, project, or activity in a law (other than an
appropriation law) that mandates the expenditure of
budget authority from accounts, programs, projects, or
activities for which budget authority is provided in an
appropriation law;
``(iv) represented by the product of the estimated
procurement cost and the total quantity of items
specified in an appropriation law or included in the
statement of managers or the governing committee report
accompanying such law; or
``(v) represented by the product of the estimated
procurement cost and the total quantity of items
required to be provided in a law (other than an
appropriation law) that mandates the expenditure of
budget authority from accounts, programs, projects, or
activities for which budget authority is provided in an
appropriation law.
``(B) The term `dollar amount of discretionary budget
authority' does not include--
``(i) direct spending;
``(ii) budget authority in an appropriation law
which funds direct spending provided for in other law;
``(iii) any existing budget authority canceled in
an appropriation law; or
``(iv) any restriction, condition, or limitation in
an appropriation law or the accompanying statement of
managers or committee reports on the expenditure of
budget authority for an account, program, project, or
activity, or on activities involving such expenditure.
``(8) Item of direct spending.--The term `item of direct
spending' means any provision of law that results in an
increase in budget authority or outlays for direct spending
relative to the most recent levels calculated consistent with
the methodology used to calculate a baseline under section 257
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985 and included with a budget submission under section
1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, in the first year or
the 5-year period for which the item is effective. However,
such item does not include an extension or reauthorization of
existing direct spending, but instead only refers to provisions
of law that increase such direct spending.
``(9) OMB.--The term `OMB' means the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget.
``(10) Omnibus reconciliation or appropriation measure.--
The term `omnibus reconciliation or appropriation measure'
means--
``(A) in the case of a reconciliation bill, any
such bill that is reported to its House by the
Committee on the Budget; or
``(B) in the case of an appropriation measure, any
such measure that provides appropriations for programs,
projects, or activities falling within 2 or more
section 302(b) suballocations.
``(11) Targeted tax benefit.--(A) The term `targeted tax
benefit' means any revenue-losing provision that provides a
Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to only
one beneficiary (determined with respect to either present law
or any provision of which the provision is a part) under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in any year for which the
provision is in effect;
``(B) for purposes of subparagraph (A)--
``(i) all businesses and associations that are
members of the same controlled group of corporations
(as defined in section 1563(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986) shall be treated as a single beneficiary;
``(ii) all shareholders, partners, members, or
beneficiaries of a corporation, partnership,
association, or trust or estate, respectively, shall be
treated as a single beneficiary;
``(iii) all employees of an employer shall be
treated as a single beneficiary;
``(iv) all qualified plans of an employer shall be
treated as a single beneficiary;
``(v) all beneficiaries of a qualified plan shall
be treated as a single beneficiary;
``(vi) all contributors to a charitable
organization shall be treated as a single beneficiary;
``(vii) all holders of the same bond issue shall be
treated as a single beneficiary; and
``(viii) if a corporation, partnership,
association, trust or estate is the beneficiary of a
provision, the shareholders of the corporation, the
partners of the partnership, the members of the
association, or the beneficiaries of the trust or
estate shall not also be treated as beneficiaries of
such provision;
``(C) for the purpose of this paragraph, the term `revenue-
losing provision' means any provision that is estimated to
result in a reduction in Federal tax revenues (determined with
respect to either present law or any provision of which the
provision is a part) for any one of the two following periods--
``(i) the first fiscal year for which the provision
is effective; or
``(ii) the period of the 5 fiscal years beginning
with the first fiscal year for which the provision is
effective; and
``(D) the terms used in this paragraph shall have the same
meaning as those terms have generally in the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, unless otherwise expressly provided.
``expiration
``Sec. 1018. This title shall have no force or effect on or after
October 1, 2012.''.
SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Exercise of Rulemaking Powers.--Section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``1017'' and inserting
``1012''; and
(2) in subsection (d), by striking ``section 1017'' and
inserting ``section 1012''.
(b) Analysis by Congressional Budget Office.--Section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting ``(a)'' after
``402.'' and by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Upon the receipt of a special message under section 1011
proposing to cancel any item of direct spending, the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office shall prepare an estimate of the savings in
budget authority or outlays resulting from such proposed cancellation
relative to the most recent levels calculated consistent with the
methodology used to calculate a baseline under section 257 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and included
with a budget submission under section 1105(a) of title 31, United
States Code, and transmit such estimate to the chairmen of the
Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives and Senate.''.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--(1) Section 1(a) of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by striking the
last sentence.
(2) Section 1020(c) of such Act (as redesignated) is amended is
amended by striking ``rescinded or that is to be reserved'' and insert
``canceled'' and by striking ``1012'' and inserting ``1011''.
(3) Table of Contents.--The table of contents set forth in section
1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is
amended by striking the contents for parts B and C of title X and
inserting the following:
``Part B--Legislative Line Item Veto
``Sec. 1011. Line item veto authority.
``Sec. 1012. Procedures for expedited consideration.
``Sec. 1013. Presidential deferral authority.
``Sec. 1014. Identification of targeted tax benefits.
``Sec. 1015. Treatment of cancellations.
``Sec. 1016. Reports by Comptroller General.
``Sec. 1017. Definitions.
``Sec. 1018. Expiration.
``Sec. 1019. Suits by Comptroller General.
``Sec. 1020. Proposed deferrals of budget authority.''.
2 (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall take
effect on the date of its enactment and apply only to any dollar amount
of discretionary budget authority, item of direct spending, or targeted
tax benefit provided in an Act enacted on or after the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ABUSE OF PROPOSED CANCELLATIONS.
It is the sense of Congress no President or any executive branch
official should condition the inclusion or exclusion or threaten to
condition the inclusion or exclusion of any proposed cancellation in
any special message under this section upon any vote cast or to be cast
by any Member of either House of Congress.
Introduction
----------
OVERVIEW OF THE LEGISLATION
The concept of a presidential line item veto has long
seemed a common-sense and straight-forward mechanism to help
restrain spending. In its simplest and broadest form, it would
allow the President to identify questionable spending items in
bills passed by Congress, and get them promptly reconsidered,
before the funding starts to flow. Thus it would establish an
additional check against spending items that are excessive,
unnecessary, merely parochial, or otherwise unable to stand on
their own merits.
As is often the case, however, the execution is far more
complicated than the concept.
The Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 addresses each
of the complications, from procedural to practical to
constitutional, and creates a mechanism that will provide
greater accountability and transparency to the process of
spending taxpayers' money. A very brief description of the
manager's amendment for the bill (offered by Mr. Ryan of
Wisconsin), as reported by the Committee on the Budget, is as
follows:
- Line Item Veto Authority. Within 45 days of the enactment of
a law, the President may transmit a special message
proposing to cancel any of three classes of budget
provisions--an amount of discretionary budget authority, a
direct spending item, or a targeted tax benefit. He can
transmit up to five special messages per bill (an exception
is made for omnibus bills), and there is no limitation on
combining the three classes in any given special message.
- Procedures for Expedited Consideration. For each transmittal,
Congress must introduce a bill (termed an ``Approval
Bill'') reflecting the proposed cancellations, bring that
bill to the floor, and have a vote on it. Amendments or
motions to strike provisions, or add provisions, are not
allowed--it must be an up-or-down vote on the entire list
of proposed cancellations.
- Presidential Deferral Authority. While Congress considers
legislation to permanently cancel or repeal spending and
tax provisions, the President may defer discretionary
spending or suspend the implementation of direct spending
or tax provisions. Those budget provisions may be deferred
for no more than 45 calendar days. The President also is
authorized to renew a deferral for an additional 45 days.
- Nature of the Approval Bill. The approval bill must meet
certain conditions. Primary among these is that Congress
defines each cancellation that would produce budget
authority or outlay savings, or would reduce revenue.
- Savings Go to Deficit Reduction. This bill would devote any
savings from the Legislative Line Item Veto Act to deficit
reduction. It would accomplish this primarily by reducing
the limits established in the budget resolution by the
amount of any savings.
Detailed descriptions of the legislation appear elsewhere
in this report.
THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Transition
No one can grasp today's budget situation apart from the
unique moment in history in which it occurs. The Nation's
priorities have changed profoundly and permanently in the past
5 years; and the fiscal challenges of this period reflect the
awkwardness of the adjustment.
By the beginning of 2001, the government had enjoyed 3
consecutive years of growing budget surpluses--after nearly 3
decades of seemingly insoluble deficits. In January that year,
the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] estimated $5.6 trillion
in black ink over the succeeding 10 years. Federal Reserve
Chairman Greenspan warned that the government might pay off all
its debt by mid-decade and still be collecting more cash than
it could spend. Even after enactment of President Bush's 2001
tax relief plan--and with signs of an economic slowdown
beginning to show--CBO still projected surpluses of $3.4
trillion over the next 10 years.
Yet even as myriad interests clamored for larger shares of
these swelling Federal funds, a new and more demanding limit on
spending took hold. Having balanced the overall budget (the
``unified'' budget) every year since 1998, Congress now
insisted on balancing the budget excluding revenue credited to
the Social Security Trust Funds. Since the mid-1980s, critics
had complained that Social Security revenue--which exceeded
annual benefit obligations by substantial amounts--masked the
true size of the government's budget deficits. They also
criticized the ``raiding'' of these dedicated funds to cover
costs other than Social Security payments.
So once the government, in 1999, actually achieved this
balance-excluding-Social Security status--known as balancing
the ``on-budget'' budget--it became an imperative. No statute
required such a discipline; and it had no real impact on the
government's ability to pay Social Security benefits. But it
became a political requirement nonetheless. It became so
important that when the on-budget balance appeared threatened,
the House Budget Committee drafted legislation authorizing the
President to sequester any funds needed to maintain it, and
scheduled a markup--for 11 September 2001.
The Change in Priorities
Understandably and necessarily, on that day the war against
global terrorism took precedence over everything, including
budget discipline--and did so in a bipartisan fashion. Congress
opened its wallet to fund reconstruction in New York and at the
Pentagon, to shore up security measures within the United
States, and to engage the terrorists directly in combat
overseas. Congress and the President also kept commitments to a
wide range of domestic priorities, including education, health,
and veterans' benefits, delivering--among other things--
prescription drug coverage in Medicare. By fiscal year 2006,
Federal outlays in constant dollars were about 27 percent ($491
billion) higher than in 2001.
All this new spending brought with it the inevitable
temptations. For example, fiscal year 2006 appropriations bills
contained roughly 10,000 parochial or special-interest
``earmarks, costing about $29 billion. Nevertheless, the
commitment to budget discipline had been suspended, not
terminated. It began to reawaken with the fiscal year 2004
budget debate, when the administration called for cutting
deficits in half over the subsequent 5 years. Congress accepted
the guideline, adhering to it through congressional budgets up
to the present.
Much of the deficit reduction so far was accomplished
through revenue growth, which has consistently outpaced
estimates despite the acceleration of tax relief. Containing
spending has been harder, especially with the continuing war in
Iraq. Then, of course, came Katrina. The magnitude of the
Nation's worst natural disaster, and the need for prompt
Federal assistance in substantial amounts, threatened to
shatter the fragile restraint that had begun to return. But
Congress did ultimately recover--with a package of entitlement
reforms saving nearly $40 billion over 5 years (up from the
previously planned $35 billion), and an across-the-board
reduction in appropriated spending. This year's budget, as
passed by the House, took further steps, with another round of
entitlement reforms, and the creation of a set-aside fund for
natural disasters--the latter included for the first time ever.
In addition, a lobbying reform bill passed by the House
contains provisions aimed at reining in the use of special-
interest earmarks that increasingly clutter spending bills.
No one budget or budget discipline can permanently master
Congress's budgetary challenges. Progress is incremental. But
each new step adds to those before it, and the gains do
accumulate. The Legislative Line Item Veto Act is another step
along that path.
Impoundments and Rescissions
During his January 1988 State of the Union Address,
President Reagan memorably hefted a 14-pound, 1,053-page
omnibus appropriations bill that Congress had passed near the
end of the previous year. ``Congress shouldn't send another one
of these,'' he admonished. ``No, and if you do, I will not sign
it.''
For several years, the President had urged Congress to pass
a presidential line item veto law. Since 1974, presidents had
been all but powerless to strike the extraneous or wasteful
provisions that Congress tended to load into its spending
bills. A president could only veto an entire bill or accept it
with all its costly baubles. Naturally, the larger the bill,
the worse the problem became, as with the omnibus measure. But
all spending measures were subject to it.
This limitation on presidential budgetary discretion was
partly constitutional: a product broadly of the Constitution's
fundamental (though not absolute) separation of legislative and
executive powers, and specifically the charter's article I
section 7, which prescribes how bills are to become laws. But
the budget reforms of 1974 arguably worsened the problem, by
sharply restricting presidents' longstanding and legitimate
``impoundment'' authority, making even this management practice
all but impossible.
Since the beginning of the republic, presidents have had
the ability to defer or refuse to spend funds provided by
Congress. As noted in testimony to the Budget Committee: ``[I]n
the first Congress, President Washington was given
discretionary spending authority in at least three
appropriations bills to spend as little or as much as he
pleased, up to the limit of those spending authorities; and the
remainder that was left over, if he didn't spend it all, would,
of course, be restored to the Treasury.'' (Testimony of Charles
J. Cooper, 8 June 2006) This authority remained during the 19th
century and early 20th century, though the practice was seldom
used. Still, the Congressional Research Service [CRS]
concludes: ``Virtually all Presidents have impounded funds in a
routine manner as an exercise of executive discretion to
accomplish efficiency in management.'' (CRS, Item Veto and
Expanded Impoundment Proposals, 22 November 2004)
The 1950s and 1960s saw increasing tensions between the
President and Congress over the use of impoundment authority.
Yet it was not until the 1970s that the matter finally
culminated in congressional action.
During his administration, President Nixon imposed a
moratorium on subsidized housing programs, targeted certain
farm programs for elimination, and suspended community
development activities--all frustrating congressional intent.
With the Clean Water Act, he went further. Congress handily
overrode his veto of the act; but the President subsequently
(and flagrantly) impounded funds from it anyway.
That was as much as Congress could stand. So it countered
with a new law (in the midst of Nixon's Watergate troubles),
the Impoundment Control Act (Title X of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act, or ICA) in 1974. The ICA
restricted the President's ability to impound funds, providing
a statutory framework for Congress to review impoundment
actions by the President. It permitted the President to delay
the expenditure of funds (deferral authority) and to cancel
funds (rescission authority). The President was required to
inform Congress of all proposed deferrals and rescissions and
to submit specified information about them.
A rescission action by the President required approval by
both the House and the Senate within 45 days of continuous
session or funds were required to be made available again for
obligation.
These presidential authorities, still in place today, have
proved ineffective. Congress can simply ignore presidential
rescissions, in which case they just fade away. Nothing
requires Congress to act. So various proposals were introduced
during the 101st, 102d, and 103d Congresses to strengthen the
rescission framework. This trend reached a kind of critical
mass in the spring of 1996, with the passage of the Line Item
Veto Act (enacted on 9 April 1996, with an effective date of 1
January 1997).
The constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act was soon
challenged. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court decided in a 6-3
decision that allowing the President to cancel provisions of
enacted law violated the Constitution's presentment clause.
(Detailed discussions of constitutional issues related to the
line item veto and similar measures appear elsewhere in this
report.) There the discussion ended--temporarily.
BENEFITS OF THE LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO ACT OF 2006
The Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 builds on all
previous efforts to strengthen and expedite the rescission
process, refining their terms and practices and correcting
their flaws. The principal advantages of the legislation are
the following:
- Strengthens Current Practices. As noted above, the rescission
process created by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is
rarely used because it is largely ineffective. Congress can
simply ignore rescissions submitted by the president. The
Legislative Line Item Veto Act requires Congress to vote up
or done on a stand-alone bill containing the items the
President seeks to cancel.
- Provides Transparency and Accountability. It is well-known
that earmarks and other special-interest items churn
silently through the legislative mill and often fix
themselves onto massive spending bills that Members never
get an opportunity to read. This bill provides another
opportunity to expose such measures to scrutiny. If they
can stand on their own merits, they will survive.
There is a widespread public perception that the number of
earmarked spending items is excessive. The large number of
earmarks, the lack of transparency, and the lack of a
rigorous justification process make it difficult to assure
taxpayers that their dollars are being spent wisely. This
bill helps Congress alter this course.
- The Bill is Constitutional. Unlike the Line Item Veto Act of
1996, this proposal has been adjudged by legal experts to
be constitutional. It adheres to the procedures of article
I. It keeps legislative and budgetary authority in
Congress. Although it requires Congress to vote on the
President's proposed rescissions, it assures that no law
changes unless and until Congress votes to change it.
- It Is Comprehensive. The act applies the line item veto
process to annual appropriations, items of ``direct
spending'' (entitlements), and targeted tax benefits (as
defined by the Chairmen of the tax-writing committees).
Thus it covers all areas of spending and tax law subject to
earmarking or special-interest spending.
- Taxpayers Are the Principal Beneficiaries. All savings would
be used for deficit reduction, and could not be applied to
augment other spending.
The Committee on the Budget reported the Legislative Line
Item Veto Act of 2006 by a vote of 24-9. Subsequent text in
this report describes the provisions of the measure in detail.
Summary of H.R. 4890, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006
----------
BILL AS INTRODUCED
General Concept
H.R. 4890, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act was
introduced by Cogressman Paul Ryan on 7 March 2006. Under the
bill as introduced, the President is authorized to send to
Congress a request for a rescission of discretionary or
mandatory spending, or a tax provision affecting fewer than 100
taxpayers (10 taxpayers in the case of a transitional relief
provision).
To implement the rescissions and thereby cancel the
spending Congress must vote to approve the proposals, and the
President must sign the joint resolution.
Notwithstanding this requirement, the President has the
authority to defer the spending (or tax benefit) for up to 180
days while Congress considers his recommendations.
Procedure
Expedited procedures are established to accelerate
Congressional consideration of the President's proposal.
The President transmits proposed rescissions to Congress,
and the majority leader in each House introduces a joint
resolution implementing the President's proposed rescissions
within 2 legislative days of the President's transmittal. The
introduced bill is referred to the committee of jurisdiction,
and must be reported without substantive change. (If the
committee fails to act within 5 legislative days of
introduction, it is discharged from consideration.) On the
floor of both the House and the Senate, the resolution is
highly privileged, and debate is limited to 10 hours in the
Senate and 4 hours in the House. A vote on final passage occurs
within 10 days of the bill's introduction.
Application
The President's authority to propose rescissions applies to
three distinct types of provisions:
Discretionary Spending. The President may propose
rescinding a ``dollar amount'' of discretionary spending. This
means he may propose rescinding an entire dollar amount:
specified in an appropriations law; required to be allocated by
an appropriations law despite the absence of a specific dollar
amount in the law; represented in a table, chart, or text in
the committee report or joint statement of managers
accompanying the law; and required by an authorizing statute to
be spent for a specific purpose for which budget authority has
been provided by an appropriations law.
Items of Direct Spending. The President has broad authority
to propose rescissions of direct (i.e., mandatory) spending. An
item of direct spending includes any specific provision of law
that results in a change (not just an increase) in budget
authority or outlays, relative to current law. In addition,
presidential authority to rescind items of direct spending
extends to any direct spending provision enacted after
enactment of H.R. 4890, regardless of when the President
transmits his proposal.
Targeted Tax Benefits. Generally, a targeted tax benefit is
defined as either a revenue-losing provision (relative to
current law) benefiting 100 or fewer taxpayers, or a
transitional relief provision benefiting 10 or fewer taxpayers.
To refine the definition, several exceptions to the general
rule are included. For example, a provision benefiting fewer
than 100 taxpayers is not a targeted tax benefit if it provides
a similar benefit to all taxpayers operating in the same
industry, engaging in the same activity, using the same type of
property, or issuing the same type of investment. In addition,
a set of anti-avoidance rules prevents circumvention of the
100-taxpayer rule through formalistic distinctions--e.g., all
corporations part of the same affiliated group (and therefore
under common control) are treated as a single taxpayer.
SUMMARY OF THE MANAGER'S AMENDMENT
Line Item Veto Authority. Within 45 days of the enactment
of a law, the President may transmit a special message
proposing to cancel any of three classes of budget provisions:
an amount of discretionary budget authority, a direct spending
item or a targeted tax benefit. He can transmit up to five
special messages, and there is no limitation on combining the
three classes in any given special message.
Procedures for Expedited Consideration. Congress must
introduce a bill reflecting the proposed cancellations, bring
that bill to the floor, and have a vote on it. Amendments or
motions to strike provisions, or add provisions, are not
allowed it must be an up or down vote on the entire list of
proposed cancellations.
Presidential Deferral Authority. Parallel to the authority
to propose cancellations is the authority to temporarily
suspend the implementation, or the obligation of certain budget
authority, of budgetary resources and revenue measures. The
President is authorized to withhold spending or suspend
benefits up to 45 days. The President may not withhold or
suspend any dollar amount until he transmits the special
message.
The President may make funds available earlier if he
concludes withholding or suspension of funds would not
``further the purposes'' of the Act. A vote of a House of
Congress on an approval bill that does not receive sufficient
support to pass would be an indication that the deferral should
be ended. The President may renew the deferral for another 45
days if the Congress has not been able to consider the approval
bill in the initial period, though it is not predicated on such
a vote. The renewal period is authorized automatically upon the
transmittal of a supplemental special message.
Definition of the Approval Bill. The introduced approval
bill, in order to effectuate the proposed cancellation of the
budget provisions, must meet certain conditions. Primary among
these is that the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] must
estimate that each cancellation would produce budget authority
or outlay savings. Another criterion is that the President must
not have proposed the same cancellation in a separate special
message either previously or in a contemporaneously transmitted
special message. If two special messages are transmitted at the
same time to the Congress, and those messages do contain the
same proposed cancellation, the majority leader, in introducing
the approval bill for each special message, may choose in which
bill the individual proposed cancellation should be included.
For discretionary rescissions it is generally simple to
identify the budgetary effect of a provision of discretionary
spending. Generally an appropriation of budget authority
follows a straightforward process: ``There are hereby
appropriated'' an amount for a specified purpose.
Under the terms of this act, a proposed cancellation must
propose the rescission of all of a specified appropriation. If
the proposal is to rescind only an amount within the overall
appropriation, the amount of the proposed cancellation must be
identified for a specific purpose in the report or joint
statement accompanying the bill (or a table or chart). In the
unusual circumstance where an appropriation of budget authority
is disputed between CBO and Office of Management and Budget
[OMB] (for instance the year in which the budget authority is
determined to be available), the estimate prepared by CBO
governs the preparation of the approval bill with respect to
that proposed cancellation of discretionary budget authority.
With respect to direct spending, there are unusual cases,
though they occur more frequently than those for discretionary
spending, when OMB, which prepares the special message
initially identifying the items of direct spending, disagrees
with CBO as to the effect legislative provisions might have. In
this circumstance, the cancellation that CBO estimates to have
no budgetary effect is not included in the approval bill
prepared by the majority leader of that House of Congress. If
it is included, the privileged nature of the bill to expedited
consideration could be questioned. Because the CBO estimate
determines whether an item of direct spending has a budgetary
impact, and because both majority leaders are using this
estimate, any approval bill introduced in the House or the
Senate by the leaders will be identical.
For purposes of tax benefits, the approval bill may only
include items from a specified list prepared at the time any
conference report on a tax bill is prepared. A tax bill is
defined as any bill that makes changes to the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, though a targeted tax benefit is revenue oriented
and does not include spending items such as refundable tax
credits (such as the Earned Income Tax Credit).
The specified list of targeted tax benefits is prepared by
the Chairmen of the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means
Committees and inserted into the tax bill that is then sent to
the President. Once that bill is signed into law, the President
may review that portion of the law and choose from the list any
provision he believes is a targeted tax benefit that should be
canceled.
If the chairmen believe there are no targeted tax benefits
included in the tax bill to be enacted into law, then the
section in question provides for a statement that there are no
such benefits, and in such a situation, the President may not
include any proposed cancellations of targeted tax benefits in
a special message related to that public law. This does not
preclude the President from identifying and proposing to cancel
any item of direct spending related to the tax code, such as
refundable tax credits, which are classified as direct
spending. Any item increasing direct spending in such a case
could be a proposed cancellation, but the legislative text of
the proposal may not have an effect on revenue or it would be
considered an inappropriate item to include in the approval
bill.
Again, in any situation where OMB and CBO diverge in their
estimates of the budgetary effects of the proposed
cancellations, the latter shall determine whether a provision
in the numbered list of cancellations proposed by the President
may be included in a bill introduced by the majority leader of
the respective House.
Government Accountability Office. When the President
transmits a special message to the Congress, the Legislative
Line Item Veto Act requires the Comptroller General to prepare
a report determining whether any discretionary budget authority
is not made available for obligation, item of direct spending
or targeted tax benefit continues to be suspended after the
deferral authority expires.
SUMMARY OF THE MAJOR CHANGES MADE BY THE MANAGER'S AMENDMENT
Number and Timing of Special Messages
H.R. 4890 as Introduced. No limit on number or timing.
Manager's Amendment. President may submit 5 special
messages per enacted law, and 10 special messages per enacted
omnibus reconciliation or appropriations law.
Withholding Period for Funds in Requested Rescission
H.R. 4890 as Introduced. 180 day withholding for funds
proposed for rescission.
Manager's Amendment. President is authorized to withhold
spending or suspend benefits up to 45 days. The President may
not withhold or suspend any dollar amount until he transmits
the special message. The President may make funds available
earlier if he concludes withholding or suspension of funds
would not ``further the purposes'' of the act. A vote of a
House of Congress on an approval bill which does not receive
sufficient support to pass would be an indication that the
deferral should be ended. The President may renew the deferral
for another 45 days if the Congress has not been able to
consider the approval bill in the initial period, although his
authority is not predicated on such a vote. The renewal period
is authorized automatically upon the transmittal of a
supplemental special message.
Repeated Submissions of Proposed Cancellations
H.R. 4890 as Introduced. No limit on number of times an
item may be submitted.
Manager's Amendment. President may not resubmit any
proposed cancellation that is the same or substantially similar
to one he has proposed previously.
Tax Application
H.R. 4890 as Introduced. Applies to tax benefits affecting
100 or fewer taxpayers (10 or fewer in the case of transitional
relief). The President determines which provisions meet the
definition of targeted tax benefit.
Manager's Amendment. Applies to tax benefits affecting a
single beneficiary. The amendment includes references to
``targeted tax benefit'' throughout Part B to allow for
consideration of repeal of these benefits under the same
procedure as those for discretionary spending and direct
spending. The Chairmen of the Ways and Means and Finance
Committees identify targeted tax benefits and allows the
President to only rescind those benefits on the list.
Mandatory Spending
H.R. 4890 as Introduced. Allows President to modify
mandatory spending policies.
Manager's Amendment. Does not allow the President to
``modify'' direct spending items or targeted tax benefits, but
does allow limited conforming changes to law to assure direct
spending savings.
Legislative Text
H.R. 4890 as Introduced. A rescission bill is introduced
exactly as proposed by the President.
Manager's Amendment. Defines an ``approval'' bill and
identifies certain criteria the list of proposed cancellations
must meet if they are to be included in that bill--e.g. all
direct spending items must be scored by CBO as reducing budget
authority or outlays.
SUMMARY OF THE AMENDMENTS ADOPTED IN COMMITTEE
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cuellar
Neither the bill as introduced nor the manager's amendment
offered by Mr. Ryan included a ``sunset'' provision, which
means the procedure set out by its terms would be permanent.
Mr. Cuellar offered an amendment to include a specific date on
which the procedure would expire, October 1, 2012. This 6-year
time period does not mean that the Legislative Line Item Veto
Act of 2006 is simply a short-term concept, but rather that it
should be reviewed and if needed revised after that time
period. This sunset builds in a fixed time when the Congress
must reconsider the procedure, determine what has worked and
what, if anything, has not.
The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
Amendment Offered by Mr. McCotter
Mr. Neal offered an amendment to include certain language
within the text of Title X of the Impoundment Control Act of
1974. This language prohibited the President from using his
authority to propose to cancel budgetary provisions of
discretionary budget authority, item of direct spending, or
targeted tax benefits to effect legislative negotiations with
Members of Congress.
Mr. McCotter offered language to replace the text of the
Neal amendment with his own. The McCotter substitute would not
insert language into the Impoundment Control Act but rather
would be a freestanding ``Sense of Congress.''
The language itself bore a resemblance to the Neal
amendment insofar as it expressed the intent of Congress that
the President should not ``condition the inclusion or exclusion
or threaten to condition the inclusion or exclusion of any
proposed cancellation in any special message under this section
upon any vote cast or to be cast by any Member of either House
of Congress.''
Mr. McCotter's substitute amendment was agreed to and the
committee adopted that language as a new section of the
measure.
Background and Purpose
----------
CURRENT LAW
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Title X of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, P.L. 93-344),
established two categories of impoundments: deferrals, or
temporary delays in funding availability; and proposed
rescissions, or permanent cancellations of discretionary budget
authority (should they be agreed to by the U.S. Congress). With
a rescission, the funds must be made available for obligation
unless both Houses of Congress take action to approve the
President's rescission request within 45 days of ``continuous
session.''
Deferral authority is only allowed to the President for
administrative reasons. If he defers budget authority for any
reason, he has to explain to Congress in detail the following:
1. The amount of the budget authority proposed to be
deferred;
2. Any account, department, or establishment of the
Government to which such budget authority is available for
obligation, and the specific project or governmental functions
involved;
3. The period of time during which the budget authority is
proposed to be deferred;
4. The reasons for the proposed deferral, including any
legal authority invoked to justify the proposed deferral;
5. To the maximum extent practicable, the estimated fiscal,
economic, and budgetary effect of the proposed deferral; and
6. All facts, circumstances, and considerations relating to
or bearing upon the proposed deferral and the decision to
effect the proposed deferral, including an analysis of such
facts, circumstances, and considerations in terms of their
application to any legal authority, including specific elements
of legal authority, invoked to justify such proposed deferral,
and to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated effect of
the proposed deferral upon the objects, purposes, and programs
for which the budget authority is provided.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Although the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 retains
the President's deferral authority embodied in current law, the
proposal replaces the current rescission process with a new
procedure to ``cancel'' budgetary provisions. This new
procedure, proposed many times before, is often referred to as
``expedited rescission.''
The President may still transmit, as under current law, to
the Congress a special message to propose to cancel specified
spending or tax provisions (although current law only provides
for special messages to propose the cancellation of
discretionary budget authority). The proposed cancellation
procedure expands the current system, which is confined only to
spending contained in appropriations measures, to include
direct spending and targeted tax benefits.
It also enhances the expedited consideration procedures for
an ``approval'' bill to enact into law the President's proposed
cancellations. Under the current system, although there are
expedited procedures, Congress can easily circumvent the
process. Congress is constitutionally empowered to deactivate
any expedited consideration procedures if either House chooses,
but the process outlined in the proposed bill provides stronger
tools to address wasteful spending and a far more powerful
procedure to require a vote on spending and tax cancellations.
The Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 has the
following main elements:
Line Item Veto Authority. The President is authorized under
this act to transmit a ``special message'' that proposes to
cancel provisions falling into one of three classes of
budgetary provisions--discretionary budget authority, items of
direct spending, or targeted tax benefits. The President must
transmit this message no later than 45 days after signing the
bill to which the cancellations apply into law. He may transmit
no more than five special messages for each public law. The
President may send 10 special messages for an omnibus
appropriations bill or omnibus reconciliation bill signed into
law. Each message may combine, in any fashion the President
determines, the three classes of budgetary provisions.
Procedures for Expedited Consideration. Within 5 days of
receiving a special message, the majority leader of each House
of Congress must introduce an ``approval bill'' that includes
the proposed cancellations. The bill is immediately referred to
the committee or committees of jurisdiction and they have 7
days in which to consider the bill. The committee(s) must
report the bill with or without recommendation, but may not
amend. If a committee cannot or will not report the bill after
that time period, a motion to discharge the committee may be
brought to the floor by any Member of Congress. Upon adoption
of that motion, the bill is considered on the floor. Amendments
or motions to strike provisions, or add provisions, are not
allowed--it must be an up-or-down vote on the entire list of
proposed cancellations.
Presidential Deferral Authority. During the time Congress
is considering the approval bill that will permanently cancel
spending and tax provisions, the President may suspend
discretionary spending or the implementation of direct spending
and tax provisions.
This deferral may last for only 45 calendar days, although
it may be extended for an additional 45 days.
If the 45 days elapse during a time the Congress is in an
extended recess, such as between sessions of Congress, the
President may transmit the message on the first day the
Congress reconvenes.
Definition of an Approval Bill. The approval bill must meet
certain conditions. The Congressional Budget Office must
analyze the proposed cancellations and issue a report to
Congress. Only those items having a legitimate budgetary effect
may be included in the approval bill. Even if the Office of
Management and Budget asserts a provision has a budgetary
effect, if the Congressional Budget Office disagrees, the
proposed cancellation is not included in the approval bill
considered by Congress.
Deficit Reduction. This bill would devote any savings from
the Legislative Line Item Veto Act to deficit reduction. It
would accomplish this primarily by reducing the limits
established in the budget resolution by the amount of any
savings.
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED CHANGES
The Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 provides an
effective mechanism for rooting out and eliminating particular,
unnecessary spending items.
It will provide Congress an additional tool for reducing
unnecessary spending and expressly dedicate any savings
achieved by this procedure to deficit reduction. It brings
transparency and accountability to spending bills, providing a
strong deterrent to wasteful earmark project requests.
The bill establishes the means to more easily consider
unnecessary entitlement spending. That form of spending poses a
great long-term challenge to the Federal budget. The bill
creates an expedited process for Congress to vote on the
President's proposed rescissions of discretionary spending and
other changes in budgetary provisions to reduce Federal
spending. It requires Congress to act on the President's
proposed legislative changes by requiring an up-or-down vote on
his proposed cancellations of discretionary spending, direct
spending, and targeted tax benefits.
Legislative History
----------
BEFORE THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
During the 19th century and early 20th century, U.S.
presidents had the ability to defer or refuse to spend funds
provided by Congress. But the practice was seldom used, and
tended to be employed in a specific manner. According to the
Congressional Research Service: ``Virtually all Presidents have
impounded funds in a routine manner as an exercise of executive
discretion to accomplish efficiency in management.'' (CRS, Item
Veto and Expanded Impoundment Proposals, 22 November 2004.)
That began to change during the administration of President
Franklin D. Roosevelt, who at times refused to spend moneys for
the purposes intended by Congress. The 1950s and 1960s saw
increasing tensions between the President and Congress over the
use of impoundment authority.
But it was not until the 1970s when the matter finally
culminated in congressional action.
THE CLASH WITH NIXON
During his administration, President Nixon imposed a
moratorium on subsidized housing programs, targeted certain
farm programs for elimination, and suspended community
development activities--all frustrating congressional intent.
With the Clean Water Act, he went further. The President
vetoed the bill originally passed by Congress, and Congress
then handily overrode his veto. Yet despite the veto override,
the President imposed an impoundment involving the Clean Water
Act funds.
Congress countered by passing the Impoundment Control Act
(Title X of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control
Act, or ICA) in 1974. The ICA restricted the President's
ability to impound funds, providing a statutory framework for
Congress to review impoundment actions by the President. It
permitted the President to delay the expenditure of funds
(deferral authority) and to cancel funds (rescission
authority). The President was required to inform Congress of
all proposed deferrals and rescissions and to submit specified
information on the same. A rescission action by the President
required approval by both the House and Senate within 45 days
of continuous session or funds were required to be made
available again for obligation.
Various proposals were introduced during the 101st, 102d,
and 103d Congresses to modify the framework for congressional
review of rescissions by the President. More than two dozen
proposals to strengthen the rescission power, or augment it
with a statutorily derived veto, were introduced in the 103d
Congress alone.
RECENT LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
Expedited Rescissions Act of 1993
On 1 April 1993, Congressman John Spratt introduced the
Expedited Rescissions Act of 1993 in the House of
Representatives.
This bill amended the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 to allow the President to transmit to both
Houses of the Congress, for expedited consideration, a special
message that proposed to rescind all or part of any item of
budget authority provided in an appropriation bill.
It would have required that the special message be
transmitted no later than 3 days after the President approved
the appropriation bill and be accompanied by a draft bill that
would, if enacted, rescind the budget authority proposed to be
rescinded. It set out House and Senate procedures for the
expedited consideration of such a proposal.
The bill also would have terminated the President's
authority 2 years following enactment.
On 29 April 1993, the House passed the bill on a recorded
vote of 258-157 (Roll No. 150).
On 5 October 1994, the Senate Committee on the Budget held
a hearing on the measure. It was not considered on the floor of
the U.S. Senate.
Expedited Rescissions Act of 1994
On 17 June 1994, Congressman John Spratt introduced the
Expedited Rescissions Act of 1994.
On 23 June 1994, the Committee on Rules reported the bill.
The bill would have amended the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to allow the President to
transmit to both Houses of the Congress, for expedited
consideration, one or more special messages proposing to
rescind amounts of budget authority or to repeal any targeted
tax benefit provided in a revenue bill.
It would have required the special message be accompanied
by a draft bill or joint resolution that rescinds the budget
authority or repeals the targeted tax benefit.
It also would have required the bill to include a Deficit
Reduction Account. The bill would have allowed the President to
place rescinded amounts in the account. It would have set out
House and Senate procedures for the expedited consideration of
such a proposal.
Kasich Subsitute. An Amendment in the nature of a
substitute was made in order and offered by Representatives
John Kasich and Charles Stenholm. It extended the rescission
procedures to Presidential proposals to repeal ``targeted tax
benefits'' in revenue bills; provided that 50 House Members
could request a vote on a motion to strike an individual
rescission from the President's proposed rescission package and
that the special rescission procedures established by the
substitute were permanent. It also applied the special
rescission procedures proposed by the President to any time
during the year. It did not apply the expedited consideration
procedures to alternative rescission packages proposed by the
Appropriations Committees, and it specified that the President
had the option of earmarking savings from proposed rescissions
for deficit reduction. The amendment was adopted by a vote of
298-121.
On 14 July 1994, the House passed the bill on a recorded
vote of 342-69.
On 5 October 1994, the Senate Committee on the Budget held
hearings on the measure.
The Line Item Veto Act of 1996
Plans for an expanded rescission measure began moving
forward early in the 104th Congress. On 4 January 1995, H.R. 2,
the Line Item Veto Act, was introduced in the House. H.R. 2
granted the President line item veto rescission authority. The
President was authorized to rescind all or part of any
discretionary budget authority or to veto any targeted tax
benefit if the President determined that such rescission: would
help reduce the Federal budget deficit; would not impair any
essential Government functions; and would not harm the national
interest. The President was required to notify the Congress by
special message of such a rescission or veto after enactment of
an appropriations act providing such budget authority, or a
revenue or reconciliation act containing a targeted tax
benefit. H.R. 2, as amended, easily passed the House on 6
February 1995, by a vote of 294-134.
The Senate passed a companion bill, S.4., the Line Item
Veto Act, which promoted a ``separate enrollment'' approach
rather than the enhanced rescission approach favored by the
House. Under this approach, each item of spending would be
enrolled as a separate bill, so the President could address
each separately.
The House and Senate struck a compromise implementing an
enhanced rescission bill, which was signed into law on 9 April
1996 (Public Law 104-130), with an effective date of 1 January
1997. This legislation became known as the Line Item Veto Act
of 1996.
The constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act was soon
challenged. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court decided in a 6-3
decision allowing the President to cancel provisions of enacted
law violated the Constitution's presentment clause.
Key Constitutional Doctrines
----------
The principal doctrines to consider in examining possible
challenges to the Legislative Line Item Veto Act are
``standing,'' ``congressional standing,'' ``delegation of
authority,'' ``separation of powers,'' and ``the presentment
clause.'' These are the same issues examined in the challenge
to the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which was ultimately found
unconstitutional for violating the presentment clause.
SUMMARY OF THE DOCTRINES
Standing. Article III confines the jurisdiction of the
Federal courts to actual cases and controversies. Among the
essential elements of what the Court considers a case or
controversy for purposes of determining if a plaintiff has
standing to bring suit is an injured plaintiff. The requirement
that a plaintiff show that he or she has suffered ``injury in
fact'' is a key requirement of the Court's doctrine of
standing. To meet the requirements of standing, a plaintiff
must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's
allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the
requested relief. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Ct.
3315, 3324.
Congressional Standing. In Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811
(1997)--which concerned the 1996 Line Item Veto Act--the Court
in addressing the matter of standing distinguished between a
personal injury to a private right and an institutional
(injury). The Court viewed the plaintiffs as alleging an
institutional injury: they were injured in their official
capacities as Members of Congress by the alteration of the
effect of their votes and the shifting of power between the
executive and legislative branches. The Court ultimately
determined that the Members of Congress lacked standing to sue,
and remanded the case to the lower court with instructions. The
Members were not granted standing because they had not alleged
a sufficiently concrete injury under article III.
Delegation Doctrine. The delegation doctrine maintains that
broad delegations of authority to the administrative branch of
government are unconstitutional. The delegation doctrine is a
fundamental separation of powers principle that requires the
legislative branch to make the laws. In the words of
Montesquieu, who was taken quite seriously by the Framers:
``When the legislative and executive powers are united in the
same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be
no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same
monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them
in a tyrannical manner.'' Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, Book
XI, Part 6 (G. Bell & Sons, ed., London 1914).
Separation of Powers. The Constitution was crafted with
three branches of government: the legislative (article I), the
executive (article II), and the judicial (article III). The
separation of powers provides a system of shared power known as
checks and balances. Each of these branches has certain powers,
and each of these powers is limited, or checked, by another
branch.
In its opinion in Nixon v. Administrator of General
Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977) the Court considered the charge
of the appellant--President Nixon--of a violation of the
separation of powers. The Court rejected the appellant's
argument that the separation of powers doctrine was an air-
tight, rigidly compartmentalized structure, calling the
interpretation unconvincing and ``archaic.'' The Court
concluded that in determining whether the law in question
(which determined the terms and conditions upon which public
access may be granted to Presidential documents and recordings)
disrupts the proper balance between the branches of government,
the focus must rest on the extent to which the executive branch
is prevented from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned
functions. The Court found that the documents would remain
within the control of the executive branch through the
Administrator of General Services and the archivist, and the
appellant's interpretation of the separation of powers was
incorrect and without merit.
Unlike the Court in Nixon, the Court in Bowsher v. Synar
478 U.S. 714 (1986), did find a violation of the separation of
powers. The Court addressed whether the assignment by Congress
to the Comptroller General of the United States of certain
functions under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 violated the doctrine of separation of
powers. The act (Public Law 99-177), also commonly known as the
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, set a maximum deficit amount for
Federal spending for each of fiscal years 1986 through 1991.
The act required across-the-board cuts in Federal spending to
reach the targeted deficit level and accomplished the automatic
reductions through a process spelled out in section 251. The
Directors of the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] and the
Congressional Budget Office [CBO] were required to report
jointly their deficit estimates and budget reduction
calculations to the Comptroller General, who--after reviewing
the reports--was to submit his conclusions to the President.
The President would then issue a sequestration order mandating
the spending reductions specified by the Comptroller General.
The Court held that the role of the Comptroller General in the
deficit reduction process violated the separation of powers
imposed under the Constitution. The District Court held (478
U.S. 714, 721) that:
[S]ince the powers conferred upon the Comptroller General as
part of the automatic deficit reduction process are
executive powers, which cannot constitutionally be
exercised by an officer removable by Congress, those powers
cannot be exercised and therefore the automatic deficit
reduction process to which they are central cannot be
implemented.
The decision was appealed and was heard by the Supreme
Court pursuant to section 274(b) of the act. The Supreme Court
also held that congressional participation in the removal of
executive officers was unconstitutional.
In Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens
for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, 501 U.S. 252 (1991) the
Supreme Court considered whether or not Congress' retention of
certain management and policy controls violated the separation
of powers. Although Congress vested managing authority for
Washington National and Dulles International Airports in a
regional entity, Congress required that nine Members be
included on a Board of Review that followed operative decisions
made by the Board of Directors for possible veto action. The
Court found that Congress' scheme of congressional control,
including its retention of substantial authority over the
appointment and removal of members of the board, did violate
separation of powers principles because the Board of Review was
found to be acting as an agent of Congress.
Congress passed new legislation that made adjustments to
the control wielded by Congress over the Board of Directors.
The Board of Review no longer retained veto authority over
operative decisions, nor were Members of Congress required to
sit on the Board of Review. But the Board was to comprise of
persons drawn from a list determined by the Speaker of the
House and the President pro tempore of the Senate. The Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia looked beyond the explicit
terms of the revised statute [Hechinger v. Metropolitan
Washington Airports Authority, 36 F.3d 97, 105 (D.C.Cir.1994)]
and took into consideration its practical effect. The court
found that there were practical consequences inherent in the
Board of Review's ability to delay action by the Directors. The
court concluded that the Board of Review still retained the
ability to exercise undue influence over the authority. The
court was particularly concerned by the Board's ability to
delay and possibly overturn decisions made by the authority by
referring the decisions to Congress for review. It concluded
that the revised statute still violated the separation of
powers.
Presentment Clause. The presentment clause contained in
article I, section 7 of the Constitution requires every bill
passed by the House and Senate (bicameral passage), before
becoming law, to be presented to the President, and, if he
disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and
House.
Before the 1996 Line Item Veto Act was struck down,
President Clinton used his veto authority a total of 82 times.
The constitutionality of the veto authority was challenged in
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998). The case
raised the question of whether or not a cancellation of an item
of direct spending in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and a
limited tax benefit in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997--both of
which had already been enacted into law--constituted a
violation of the Constitution's presentment clause. The Court
determined that the actions of the President prevented one
section of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and one section of
the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, from having legal force and
effect. From the Court's perspective, the President had amended
two acts of Congress by repealing a portion of each, and
``repeal of statutes, no less than enactment, must conform with
article I,'' INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 954, 103 S.Ct. 2764,
2785-2786. The Court emphasized that statutory repeals must
conform to the presentment clause's ``single, finely wrought
and exhaustively considered, procedure'' for enacting a law.
The Court determined that the cancellation procedures of the
Line Item Veto Act did not conform to the tenets of the
presentment clause and that nothing in the Constitution
authorized the President to amend or repeal a statute, or
portions of a statute, unilaterally.
HOW H.R. 4890 ADDRESSES CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINES
Delegation of Powers. The Legislative Line Item Veto Act of
2006 has two provisions that may engage the delegation concept:
first, the deferral authority allowed to the President; and
second, the direct influence in the legislative process given
to the executive branch.
The authority provided to the President to defer the
obligation of discretionary spending authority, or the
implementation of an item of direct spending, or a targeted tax
benefit is distinct from legislative authority, because the
discretion granted to the President has no permanent effect on
the statute. Statutes enacted by Congress often provide at
least a modicum of discretion to the executive branch in the
ways budgetary resources are used. The deferral authority is
indistinguishable from this insofar as it allows the President
a set period of time (45 days, with a possible extension of
another 45 days) to determine whether Congress will agree to
cancel a given spending or tax provision. During this deferral
period, the President is allowed to wait before committing the
resources of the U.S. Government, but it is not a permanent
change in law unilaterally carried out by the executive branch,
and hence not legislative in nature.
The second issue arising under the Legislative Line Item
Veto Act is the participation of the President in the
legislative process. First and foremost, the President, by the
nature of the Constitution, is intrinsically involved in the
legislative process even if he is not a formal legislative
actor. The line between legislative and executive is not a
clear or bright one: The President signs legislation; the Vice
President, under certain unusual circumstances, votes in the
Senate--and may preside over the deliberations of that House;
the President proposes legislation often and submits a budget--
as required by Congress--on an annual basis.
The question is whether this act provides the President an
undue amount of influence in the legislative process. In this
case, the President is allowed to provide to the Congress a
proposed list of legislative items in an enacted bill that he
believes it should reconsider. The Congress is under no
obligation through this statute to do so--it merely provides
rules to move the proposal to the front of the line of those
measures considered on the floor of the House or the Senate.
Presentment Clause. The Legislative Line Item Veto Act of
2006 is specifically designed to avoid violating the
presentment clause. With the 1996 Line Item Veto Act, that
clause, as delineated in the Court case previously cited, was
violated because the statute was effectively being amended,
according to the Court, after the fact without congressional
approval. In the case of the Legislative Line Item Veto Act,
however, the President merely proposes that a particular
provision be canceled--he does not do so unilaterally. To
invalidate budgetary resources under this act requires an act
of Congress and the assent of the President, the same as any
other law enacted pursuant to the Constitution of the United
States.
Simply put, the ``presentment'' of a law to the President,
under the Constitution, is undisturbed because only a
subsequently enacted law amends the law under review. This is
indistinguishable from any other exercise of legislative or
executive power.
Principal Court Decisions
----------
(In Reverse Chronological Order)
Clinton v. City of New York. The case of Clinton v. City of
New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), resulted from President
Clinton's decisions to cancel, pursuant to the Line Item Veto
Act of 1996, two provisions in bills that were presented to him
and signed by him: a mandatory spending provision waiving the
Federal Government's right to recoupment of New York State
taxes levied against Medicaid providers and a limited tax
benefit providing capital gains tax relief to certain
agricultural refining and processing companies.
The plaintiff-appellees, claiming injury as a result of
President Clinton's actions, filed suit arguing that the Line
Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the U.S. Constitution. The U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that: first, the appellees had standing to
bring the suit; and second, the act violated the presentment
clause of the Constitution. Therefore, the act was nullified.
In determining that the appellees had standing to bring
suit under article III, the Court first ruled that the
provision of the act that provided for ``expedited review''
(i.e., allowing plaintiffs to skip the step of first appealing
a Federal district court decision to a circuit court, and
instead going straight to the Supreme Court) was available to
governmental and organizational plaintiffs even though the
act's language referred to ``individuals.'' The Court then held
that the appellees satisfied the requirement that they have a
concrete personal stake in having an actual injury redressed,
and therefore that the suits satisfied the ``case and
controversy'' requirement for standing.
Next, the Court ruled that the Line Item Veto Act violated
the presentment clause of the Constitution. From the Court's
perspective, the President had amended two acts of Congress by
repealing a portion of each and ``repeal of statutes, no less
than enactment, must conform with article I''--specifically the
presentment clause of article I, section 7. The Court
considered significant that whereas constitutional veto power
operated before a bill becomes a law, cancellation authority
operated after a bill became law. The Court then emphasized
that statutory repeals must conform to the presentment clause's
``single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered,
procedure'' for enacting a law. The Court determined that the
cancellation procedures of the Line Item Veto Act did not
conform to the tenants of the presentment clause--such as the
requirement that a repeal of a statute be passed by both Houses
of Congress--and that nothing in the Constitution authorized
the President to amend or repeal a statute, or portions of a
statute, unilaterally. Because the cancellation authority
violated article I, section 7, the Court declared the Line Item
Veto Act unconstitutional.
Raines v. Byrd. The Line Item Veto Act was enacted in April
1996 and became effective on 1 January 1997. Six Members of
Congress who had voted against the act brought suit in the
District Court for the District of Columbia challenging its
constitutionality. In Raines v. Byrd, 521 US 811 (1997), the
Court in addressing the matter of standing distinguished
between a personal injury to a private right, and an
institutional one.
The Court viewed the plaintiffs as alleging an
institutional injury: they were injured in their official
capacities by the alteration of the effect of their votes, and
the shifting of the power between the executive and legislative
branches. Although the Court in Raines gave consideration to
Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939)--a case in which Kansas
State legislators were found to have standing to bring suit
against State officials for a claim of vote nullification--it
did not find Coleman to be dispositive in the Raines case.
There were significant differences in the facts of the two
cases. In Coleman the vote was nullified due to a tie breaking
vote cast by the State's lieutenant governor. In Raines, the
vote was not nullified, rather it was simply lost outright. The
Court ultimately determined that the Members of Congress lacked
standing to sue and remanded the case to the lower court with
instructions. The Members were not granted standing because
they had not alleged a sufficiently concrete injury under
article III.
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for
the Abatement of Aircraft Noise. In this 1991 case, the Supreme
Court considered whether or not Congress' retention of certain
management and policy controls violated the separation of
powers.
Although Congress vested managing authority for Washington
National and Dulles International Airports in a regional
entity, Congress required that nine Members be included on a
Board of Review that followed operative decisions made by the
Board of Directors for possible veto action. The Court found
that Congress' scheme of congressional control, including its
retention of substantial authority over the appointment and
removal of members of the board, did violate separation of
powers principles because the Board of Review was found to be
acting as an agent of Congress.
Congress passed new legislation that made adjustments to
the congressional control wielded by Congress over the Board of
Directors. The Board of Review no longer retained veto
authority over operative decisions nor were Members of Congress
required to sit on the Board of Review. But the Board of Review
was to comprise persons on a list determined by the Speaker of
the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia looked
beyond the explicit terms of the revised statute and took into
consideration the practical effect of the statute, Hechinger v.
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, 36 F.3d 97, 105
(D.C.Cir.1994). The court found that there were practical
consequences inherent in the Board of Review's ability to delay
action by the Directors. The court concluded that the Board of
Review still retained the ability to exercise undue influence
over the Authority. The court was particularly concerned by the
Board's ability to delay and possibly overturn decisions made
by the Authority by referring the decisions to Congress for
review. It concluded that the revised statute was still a
violation of the separation of powers.
Bowsher v. Synar. The Court in Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S.
714 (1986), addressed whether the assignment by Congress to the
Comptroller General of the United States of certain functions
under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985 violated the doctrine of separation of powers.
The act (Public Law 99-177), commonly known as the Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings Act, set a maximum deficit amount for Federal
spending for each of fiscal years 1986 through 1991. The act
required across-the-board cuts in Federal spending to reach the
targeted deficit level, and accomplished the automatic
reductions through a process spelled out in section 251.
The Directors of the Office of Management and Budget and
the Congressional Budget Office were required to report jointly
their deficit estimates and budget reduction calculations to
the Comptroller General, who--after reviewing the reports--was
to submit his conclusions to the President. The President would
then issue a sequestration order mandating the spending
reductions specified by the Comptroller General.
The suit challenging the constitutionality of Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings was brought by Congressman Synar, who had voted
against the act. A similar suit was also brought by the
National Treasury Employees Union, who alleged an injury as a
result of the automatic spending reduction of certain cost-of-
living benefits to the union's members. A three-judge district
court concluded that the union had standing because it had
suffered an actual injury as a result of the suspension of
member benefits, and that the Members of Congress had
congressional standing to sue.
One of the issues raised before the district court was
whether the delegation doctrine had been violated. The
delegation doctrine maintains that broad delegations of
authority to the administrative branch of government are
unconstitutional. The court found that while the act delegated
broad authority, delegation of similarly broad authority had
been upheld in the past, thus rejecting the claim under the
delegation doctrine. Nevertheless, the Court held that the role
of the Comptroller General in the deficit reduction process
violated the separation of powers created by the Constitution.
The district court held (478 U.S. 714, 721) that:
``[S]ince the powers conferred upon the Comptroller General
as part of the automatic deficit reduction process are
executive powers, which cannot constitutionally be
exercised by an officer removable by Congress, those powers
cannot be exercised and therefore the automatic deficit
reduction process to which they are central cannot be
implemented.''
The decision was appealed and was heard by the Supreme
Court pursuant to section 274(b) of the act. The Supreme Court
also held that congressional participation in the removal of
executive officers was unconstitutional.
Allen v. Wright. In this 1984 case, parents of public
school children sought injunctive relief to bar the application
of an Internal Revenue Service [IRS] code provision that
granted tax-exempt status to private schools. The parents, who
were African-American, alleged that allowing private schools
that discriminated on the basis of race to receive tax-exempt
status was unlawful.
The parents asserted that they were harmed because the
government's action constituted tangible Federal financial aid
and other support for racially segregated educational
institutions, and fostered and encouraged continued segregation
contrary to the efforts of Federal courts, the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, and local school authorities to
desegregate public school districts that had been operating
racially dual school systems. They asked for an order directing
the IRS to replace its 1975 guidelines with standards
consistent with the requested injunction.
The District Court determined that the plaintiff lacked
standing to sue, and that the requested relief was contrary to
the will expressed by Congress's 1979 ban on strengthening IRS
guidelines. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
reversed, and granted standing on the basis that as African-
American parents they were denigrated by the government's
action in allowing tax-exempt status to a racially segregated
private school.
Article III confines the jurisdiction of the Federal courts
to actual cases and controversies. Among the essential elements
of what the Court considers a case or controversy for purposes
of determining if a plaintiff has standing to bring suit is an
injured plaintiff. After reviewing the case upon writ of
certiorari, the Supreme Court determined that the plaintiff
lacked standing to sue. The Court's analysis of the standing
doctrine considered several judicially self-imposed limits on
the exercise of Federal jurisdiction, such as the general
prohibition on a litigant's raising another person's legal
rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances
more appropriately addressed in the representative branches,
and the requirement that a plaintiff's complaint fall within
the zone of interests protected by the law invoked. The
requirement of standing, however, has a core component,
expressly that a plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly
traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and
likely to be redressed by the requested relief, 454 U.S. at
472. The Court concluded that plaintiff's injury did not
constitute a judicially cognizable injury, and that the alleged
injury was not fairly traceable to the assertedly unlawful
conduct of the IRS.
INS v. Chadha. Mr. Chadha entered the U.S. on a
nonimmigrant student visa. Upon expiration of the visa, Mr.
Chadha did not leave the United States as prescribed by law.
Instead he stayed and was subject to deportation proceedings in
which he was ordered by the Immigration and Naturalization
Service [INS] to show cause why he should not be deported. Mr.
Chadha applied for a suspension from deportation.
The suspension was granted pursuant to Sec. 244(a)(1) of
the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which authorizes the
Attorney General, in his discretion, to suspend deportation.
The suspension was reported to Congress as required by
Sec. 244(c)(1) of the act. The House of Representatives invoked
its authority under Sec. 244(c)(2) which authorizes either
House of Congress, by resolution, to invalidate the decision of
the executive branch, pursuant to authority delegated by
Congress to the Attorney General, to allow a particular
deportable alien to remain in the United States. The House
passed a resolution pursuant to Sec. 244(c)(2) vetoing the
suspension and deportation proceedings were reopened.
Mr. Chadha challenged that Sec. 244(c)(2) was
unconstitutional and moved to terminate the deportation
proceedings. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed the
case for lack of authority to rule on the constitutionality of
the matter. Mr. Chadha then filed a petition for review of the
deportation order in the Court of Appeals. The INS joined Mr.
Chadha arguing that Sec. 244(c)(2) was unconstitutional. The
Court of Appeals held that Sec. 244(c)(2) violated the
constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. The Attorney
General was ordered to cease deportation efforts.
The Supreme Court in 1983 held that Sec. 244(c)(2) was
severable from the remainder of the act and that the action
taken by the House pursuant to Sec. 244(c)(2) was essentially
legislative in purpose and effect, and thus was subject to the
procedural requirements of article I, section 7, for
legislative action. The presentment clause contained in article
I, section 7 of the Constitution requires every bill passed by
the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to
the President, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-
thirds of the Senate and House.
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services. Former
President Nixon brought suit challenging the constitutionality
of the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act
(Public Law 93-526). Nixon v. Administrator of General
Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977). The Supreme Court faced the
issue of whether the act was unconstitutional on its face as a
violation of, among other doctrines, the separation of powers.
Soon after Nixon resigned the presidency, he asked the
Archivist to send 42 million pages of documents and 880 tape
recordings of conversations to him in California. To abrogate
an agreement between Nixon and the Archivist, Congress passed
and President Ford signed the Presidential Recordings and
Materials Preservation Act, requiring the General Services
Administration [GSA] to retain complete possession and control
of the materials, and to issue regulations governing public
access to the materials.
Nixon asserted that Congress impermissibly delegated to a
subordinate executive branch official power over the
President's materials, and therefore infringed on the
separation of powers. The Court rejected this argument out of
hand, finding that President Ford's role in signing the act,
President Carter's intervention in favor of the act, and GSA's
status as an executive branch agency under the President's
direction, provided evidence of official executive branch
involvement in the enacting and implementing the statutory
scheme. The Court held that the separation of powers doctrine
does not require treating the three branches as ``three air-
tight departments,'' and characterized Nixon's view as archaic.
According to the Court, the key concern of separation of powers
is whether a legislative act prevents another branch from
exercising its constitutionally assigned functions.
The Nixon Court went on to explain that only where such a
disruption is possible should the Court enquire whether that
impact is justified by an overriding need to promote the
constitutional objectives of Congress. But because the act
allowed an executive branch agency to retain control of the
materials and provided for safeguards before allowing non-
executive persons to use the materials, the Court found that
the act would not lead to a disruption of the executive
branch's constitutional functions. Therefore, the act did not
infringe upon the executive branch's power and did not violate
the Constitution under the separation of powers doctrine.
Section by Section
----------
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This section names the bill the ``Legislative Line Item
Veto Act of 2006.''
SECTION 2. LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO
Subsection (a) amends Title X of the Congressional Budget
and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 by striking all of part B
(except sections 1016 and 1013, which are designated as
sections 1019 and 1020, respectively). It then inserts the
following new sections:
Section 1011. Cancellation of Budgetary Resources
Pursuant to subsection (a), after the enactment of any bill
or joint resolution providing discretionary budget authority,
or enacting an item of direct spending or a targeted tax
benefit, the President may send a special message to Congress
to cancel any specific provision in one or more of those
budgetary classes. The President, though, must send the message
to Congress within 45 calendar days of the enactment of the new
law.
If the last day of that 45-day period falls on a day in
which the Congress has been adjourned for an extended period
(45 days or more) or if it falls on a day after which the
Congress has adjourned at the end of the second session of that
Congress, then the President's authority to transmit a special
message is extended to the first day the Congress reconvenes.
The President may transmit the special message after the 45-day
period has expired only in those specific circumstances.
The contents of the special message must specify the amount
of budget authority, the specific item of direct spending, or
the targeted tax benefit that the President proposes be
canceled; any account, department, or establishment of the
Government to which such budget authority or item of direct
spending is available for obligation; and the specific project
or governmental functions involved. It rescinds the
discretionary BA or suspends the direct spending or tax
procedures. It must, to the maximum extent practicable, explain
the estimated fiscal, economic, and budgetary effects of the
proposed cancellations.
The special message must include a numbered list of
proposed cancellations--this would take the form of rescissions
of amounts of discretionary budget authority and legislative
language canceling the effects of items of direct spending and
targeted tax benefits (and making appropriate conforming
changes in law). Cancellations of targeted tax benefits must be
drawn from a list of such provisions included in a tax measure,
if such a list is provided. Any provision included in a special
message that is not on that list will not be included in an
approval bill for consideration by Congress.
The President is allowed to transmit to the Congress up to
five special messages for any enacted law. All must be
transmitted within the 45-day period of the signing of the
bill, unless one of the exceptions already noted applies.
The President is not allowed to propose to cancel a
specific budgetary provision more than one time. Although he is
allowed five special messages for each enacted law, he may not
repeatedly send to Congress the same proposed cancellation. Any
savings resulting from cancellations enacted as part of an
approval bill will go toward reducing the deficit.
Any amounts of discretionary budget authority, items of
direct spending, or targeted tax benefits canceled when an
approval bill is signed into law are dedicated to deficit
reduction. After the enactment of an approval bill, the
Chairmen of the Committees on the Budget of the Senate and the
House of Representatives must revise the levels of the
concurrent resolution on the budget in force at the time to
ensure that the savings achieved are not used to finance other
spending, whether discretionary or mandatory (or, in cases of
increased revenues, are not used to reduce other taxes).
Correspondingly, when an approval bill is enacted, the
Office of Management and Budget must revise the discretionary
caps and the PAYGO scorecard to reflect the spending and
revenue changes--if those spending controls are reauthorized so
as to be in force when an approval bill is enacted. PAYGO and
the discretionary caps expired at the end of fiscal year 2002.
Section 1012. Procedures for Expedited Consideration
Subsection (a) requires that, after Congress has received a
special message from the President proposing cancellations, the
majority leader of the House and the Senate respectively (or
their designees) shall introduce a bill to approve such
cancellations within 5 days of session of each applicable
House.
Consideration in the House of Representatives
This subsection requires a committee of the House of
Representatives, to which an approval bill is referred, to
report the bill without amendment within 7 legislative days of
the referral. If a committee does not report the bill within
seven legislative days, any member may make a privileged motion
to discharge the relevant committee or committees from
consideration of the bill.
The Member offering the privileged motion to discharge must
give notice to the House of his or her intent to do so, after
which the Speaker must schedule a time to consider the motion
within the next 2 legislative days. The privileged motion to
discharge is debatable for 20 minutes after which the previous
question is considered as ordered on the motion and a motion to
reconsider the vote on which the motion is disposed of is not
allowed. If the motion is agreed to, the House then moves to
immediate consideration of the approval bill under the
expedited procedures set out in this subsection. If the
approval bill has been reported or a motion to discharge has
already been disposed of, the privileged motion to discharge
provided in this subsection is not in order.
If an approval bill is reported from committee, or it has
been discharged through regular House procedure, then it is in
order for any Member to offer a privileged motion to proceed to
consideration of the bill. It is a highly privileged motion and
provides for the immediate consideration of the bill once
agreed to. The Member offering the privileged motion to proceed
to consideration must give notice to the House of his or her
intent to do so, after which the Speaker must schedule a time
to consider the motion within the next 2 legislative days. If
the motion to proceed to consideration is agreed to, the
approval bill must be immediately considered on the floor.
If the majority leader of the House, or his designee, has
introduced an approval bill and Congress adopts a concurrent
resolution providing for adjournment sine die at the end of a
Congress and that approval bill has either not been reported by
a committee or considered by the House, then it shall be in
order for any Member to immediately give notice of his or her
intention to offer either a privileged motion to discharge that
approval bill from committee or a privileged motion to proceed
to consideration of that approval bill as provided for in this
subsection. When Congress adopts a resolution to adjourn sine
die, that Congress does not immediately end: Certain types of
legislation must still be considered before the Congress
adjourns. If an approval bill has been introduced, and the
House adopts a motion to proceed to consideration, the House
must consider it under the specified procedures of this act. In
this circumstance, it does not matter at what stage the
approval bill is, as long as it has been introduced, a motion
to discharge the bill and bring it to the House floor still
would be in order.
The bill is considered as read. All points of order against
consideration are waived. The previous question is considered
as ordered. Five hours of debate are equally divided. One
motion to limit debate on the bill is in order. A motion to
reconsider the vote on passage is not in order. The bill is not
open to amendments, including motions to strike individual
cancellations.
Finally, an approval bill received from the Senate is not
referred to committee and may be brought up for consideration
as an alternative to the House-introduced bill.
Consideration in the Senate
A motion to proceed to the consideration of a bill in the
Senate under this subsection is not debatable. It is not in
order to move to reconsider the vote. Debate in the Senate on
an approval bill, and all debatable motions and appeals may not
exceed 10 hours, equally divided. Debate on any debatable
motion or appeal in connection with a bill under this
subsection shall be limited to not more than 1 hour, equally
divided and controlled. A motion in the Senate to further limit
debate on a bill under this subsection is not debatable. A
motion to recommit the bill is not in order.
If the Senate receives the House companion bill to the bill
introduced in the Senate before the required vote, then the
Senate may consider and vote on the House companion bill in
lieu of considering and voting on the Senate bill.
If the Senate votes, pursuant to paragraph (1) , on the
bill introduced in the Senate, then immediately following that
vote, or upon receipt of the House companion bill, the House
bill is deemed to be considered and read for the third time,
and the vote on passage of the Senate bill shall be considered
to be the vote on the bill received from the House.
Subsection (b) applies to both the Senate and the House and
makes it clear that no amendment or motion to strike a
provision from an approval bill is allowed to be considered. It
is important the approval bill is not amended in either House
so as to avoid different versions of the measures being passed
by the two Houses of Congress. By avoiding these differences,
the measure's consideration may be further expedited because it
avoids a conference committee.
Section 1013. Presidential Deferral Authority
Subsection (a) affords the President the authority to
choose not to obligate discretionary budget authority, and not
to implement items of direct spending or targeted tax benefits
(under certain limitations) for 45 calendar days beginning on
the day a special message is received by either the House or
the Senate.
The time for this deferral period runs consecutively, so
that from the time the transmittal is received in either the
House or the Senate, the period begins. It ceases after the
45th day after the day of transmittal. This period may,
however, be renewed by the President at his discretion with two
limitations: He may only extend the time period if he sends a
special supplemental message to Congress notifying both Houses
of the need to do so; and he must send that message after the
40th day of the first 45-day period.
A supplemental special message is simply that a supplement
to the initial special message transmitted pursuant to the
authority to defer budgetary provisions, explained in section
1011. The message must notify Congress that the President
intends to extend his deferral authority, which is authorized
under section 1013 of the act, by an additional 45 days.
As part of this supplemental special message, the President
must specifically explain why special circumstances have arisen
so that the original 45-day period is insufficient to
accommodate the proposed cancellations and their consideration
by the Congress. This extension may apply, for example, if
Congress is in an extended recess and has been unable to
consider a bill to approve the cancellations proposed by the
President within the initial 45-day deferral period. Such a
circumstance must be explained in detail in the supplemental
special message.
Under no circumstances is this additional deferral
authority to be used by the President subsequent to the defeat
of an approval bill in either House of Congress. Once Congress
acts on an approval bill, this deferral authority must be
discontinued by the President, even though it is not legally or
constitutionally required, and he must not extend it for the
renewal period. The President cannot transmit a supplemental
special message to Congress subsequent to a negative vote on an
approval bill by either House.
Up to five special messages proposing cancellations of
budgetary provisions may be transmitted for each public law
enacted after this act, but only one supplemental special
message may be transmitted for each of those special messages
for that law. A supplemental special message is an additional
component of the original special message transmitted under the
authority of this act. A supplemental special message does not
count toward the five special messages allowed for each public
law it is not a special message in and of itself. It is merely
an adjunct of a previously transmitted special message. Its
form is not set out specifically through legislative language,
but its requirements and parameters are made clear in this
report.
In addition, the President may submit a valid supplemental
special message only after 40 calendar days have expired during
the initial 45-day deferral period. This is to ensure Congress
has enough time to consider the proposed cancellations before
the President asks for more deferral authority. Though it is
not legally or technically circumscribed, the authority to
renew deferrals would occur during exceptional circumstances
when the Congress has been unable to consider the approval bill
that includes the proposed cancellations.
After the expiration of the 45-day period and absent a
renewal, or after the expiration of the renewal 45-day period,
the budgetary provisions proposed to be canceled and which have
been deferred, must be implemented or obligated, as the case
may be, as is required by the Constitution and the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
As the special supplemental message may not be transmitted
to Congress prior to 40 calendar days after the initial
transmittal, once the 45-day period has expired, no special
supplemental message may be transmitted; the authority to renew
the deferral period has also expired. Hence, should the initial
45-day period expire, and no renewal special supplemental
notice be transmitted during that period, immediately
thereafter, the (for example) budget authority appropriated
must be made available for obligation as if the deferral had
never occurred.
Additionally, once the 45-day period has elapsed without a
supplemental special message having been sent, the option of
sending such a supplemental message is not available. Deferral
authority under this act has entirely expired once the initial
45-day period has ended and no supplemental special message has
been transmitted.
It is understood that the legislative calendar of the
Congress is not relevant for the calculation of this deferral
period, with the singular exception of last day on which the
transmittal of the original special message may occur. If the
Congress has adjourned to a future date when the initial
deferral period expires, the supplemental special message is
unaffected.
Even in the unusual circumstance when a supplemental
special message is transmitted after the second session of a
Congress has adjourned but before the first session of the next
Congress has convened, the Congress still represents the people
of the United States, and the Senate is a continuing body, so
that the communication of such a transmittal is always valid to
extend the deferral authority.
Although the authority to defer spending and certain tax
benefits under the initial 45 days (and any applicable renewal
period) is independent of legislative actions taken by
Congress, it is the intent of the Committee that if a vote is
taken on an approval bill by either House, and one approved
bill is not agreed to by that House, then the suspension of any
provision of law must be revoked and that provision put into
effect as if it had always been effective under the terms of
the public law in which it was originally included.
Out of constitutional concerns, the committee has not
directly tied the suspension/deferral period to a failed vote
or on approval. It does, though, indicate its intent that such
a vote should have that effect. The President must immediately
suspend the deferral of all budgetary provisions included in an
approval bill of proposed cancellations that, after floor
consideration of the bill, has not received the requisite votes
to pass in a House of Congress.
Section 1014. Identification of Targeted Tax Benefits
Subsection (a) requires the Chairman of the House Committee
on Ways and Means and the Chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee to review a bill or joint resolution that amends the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and that a conference committee
is preparing for filing, to determine if it contains any
targeted tax benefits. The two chairmen then must provide to
the conference committee a statement identifying the targeted
tax benefits or declaring that the bill or joint resolution
does not contain any.
Subsection (b) authorizes a conference committee to include
a statement described in subsection (a) as legislative text in
the conference agreement to which the statement applies.
Subsection delineates the President's authority to propose
the cancellation of targeted tax benefits. If any bill or joint
resolution is signed into law, then the President may propose
to cancel only targeted tax benefits identified in the specific
section of the law containing the statement described in
subsection (a). If such a statement is not included in the law,
then the President may apply the statutory definition of
targeted tax benefit to determine which tax provisions he may
propose to cancel.
Section 1015. Treatment of Cancellations
This section makes it clear that a cancellation proposed by
the President must be approved by Congress and signed into law
before the elimination of the spending or tax provision is
effective.
If the approval bill is not agreed to by Congress or is
vetoed by the President, and hence the cancellations are
approved, those spending or tax provisions proposed to be
canceled remain in force and must be put into effect as if the
deferral and the proposed cancellation had never been made.
If the approval bill is agreed to by Congress and signed
into law by the President, and hence the cancellations are not
approved, then the effect is to cause the deficit to be reduced
(or the surplus increased) by the amount of the spending or tax
provision canceled.
Section 1016. Reports by Comptroller General
This section requires the Comptroller General of the
Government Accountability Office to prepare and transmit to
Congress a report for each special message sent by the
President to the Congress.
This report must identify the date on which the special
message was transmitted to the Congress, the public law to
which the special message applies, and the number of special
messages transmitted relative to that public law as of the time
of the preparation of the report.
It must also, if specifically requested by the Chairman of
the House or Senate Budget Committee, the Budget of the House
or the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate,
describe the extent to which a proposed cancellation in the
message is similar to or different from another proposed
cancellation in another special message arising from the same
public law.
The report must assess whether any provision deferred by
the President remains deferred after the authorized period
provided to the President has expired.
This report is intended to be prepared as soon as
practicable after the expiration of the deferral period defined
in the act, which is 45 days without an extension, or 90 days
if the President determines that an extension is necessary.
If an additional 45-day renewal period occurs because of
the President's actions, then the report should note any
reasons or justifications as to why the extension period is
needed.
Section 1017. Definitions
Appropriation Law. The term `appropriation law' means an
Act referred to in section 105 of title 1, United States Code,
including any general or special appropriation Act, or any Act
making supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations,
that has been signed into law pursuant to article I, section 7,
of the Constitution of the United States.
Approval Bill. This means a bill or joint resolution which
only approves proposed cancellations of dollar amounts of
discretionary budget authority, items of new direct spending,
or targeted tax benefits in a special message transmitted by
the President.
The title of the approval bill is as follows: 'A bill
approving the proposed cancellations transmitted by the
President on ____.' Except for the limitations included in this
definition, a bill with this title is entitled to the
privileged status and expedited consideration procedures set
out in this bill.
The blank space is filled in by the sponsor of the bill,
the majority leader of each House of Congress (or designee),
with the date of transmission of the special message and the
public law number to which the message relates. It does not
have a preamble. The bill outlined in the text includes a
numbered list from the President's special message. In
preparing the approval bill, the sponsor may include only
proposed cancellations of spending estimated by CBO to meet the
definition of discretionary budgetary authority or items of
direct spending, and may include only proposed cancellations of
tax provisions determined by the chairmen of the House Ways and
Means and Senate Finance Committees to be targeted tax
benefits. If an approval bill includes a tax provision that has
not been chosen from the prepared list, the bill's privileged
status is jeopardized, and the majority leader will have failed
to fulfill his or her responsibilities under this act. The
Committee understands that this circumstance simply will not
occur under House rules, procedures, precedent, and practice.
It is the intent of the Committee that a bill, even if it
has the appropriate title, should not be conferred the
privileged status of an approval bill if it includes items of
direct spending that do not meet the criteria set out--if a
bill termed an approval bill includes a provision from the
special message that is not estimated by CBO to meet the
appropriate criteria, or an item not in the special message is
included, or the bill in some other fashion does not meet this
definition of an ``approval bill,'' then the measure should not
be accorded the privileged status that is set out for such a
bill. Any bill receiving the expedited procedures provided for
in the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 must strictly
adhere to this definition and follow its parameters.
Proposed cancellations that CBO estimates do not meet the
definition of an item of direct spending are included in a
separate section of the approval bill--but this section
specifies that the President must implement those provisions.
The President must cease any deferral of those provisions, and
must implement them using the effective date of the original
public law in which they were included.
Though an approval bill is intended to allow for only those
provisions that have been estimated as having a budgetary
effect as estimated by CBO, the Committee understands that
there may be a circumstance whereby a CBO estimate is not
available prior to the introduction of the bill. In such a
situation, the entire list of legislative provisions proposed
by the President is inserted in the approval bill. This is only
a contingency to assure the consideration of legislation is not
hindered due to unforeseen circumstances. It is expected that
CBO will be able to estimate the effects of any proposed
cancellations included in an approval bill to allow the sponsor
of such a measure to appropriately draft the language.
Calendar Day. This term means a standard 24-hour period
beginning at midnight.
Cancel or Cancellation. These terms mean to prevent
discretionary budget authority from being obligated, or a
provision of direct spending or targeted tax benefit from being
implemented. These proposed cancellations are included in an
approval bill introduced by the majority leaders of the House
and Senate. The majority leaders of the respective Houses are
required to introduce the approval bills, much as they must
introduce other expedited measures such as trade agreements
considered pursuant to Trade Promotion Authority and measures
considered pursuant to the base realignment and closure
procedures.
A cancellation takes the form of legislative or
appropriations text reflecting a rescission of a specific
amount of discretionary budget authority, or a cancellation of
the legal effects of a direct spending provision (within very
limited confines) or a targeted tax benefit.
For a rescission of discretionary budget authority, a
cancellation is simple--the language included in the special
message merely needs to ``rescind'' a specific amount
reflecting the entire amount of an appropriation, or a smaller
amount of budget authority within an overall amount if there is
an earmark set out in the joint statement or report on the
appropriations bill in question. If there are no earmarks, then
only the entire amount of the appropriation may be rescinded,
not simply an arbitrary amount of the overall level.
In terms of an item of direct spending, the legislative
change proposed by the President--that is, the proposed
``cancellation''--must be narrow in scope: It must only be a
``necessary, conforming statutory change'' and only one that is
to ``ensure that * * * budgetary resources are appropriately
canceled.''
The Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 is not intended
to allow the President to force Congress to consider policy
proposals or interests of the President. Hence, any legislative
text given preferential treatment under this measure must be
narrowly tailored to have a salutary budgetary effect. It is
not an open-ended invitation for a vote on the floor of the
House and Senate for any legislation the President may desire
to propose.
The Committee expects that the special procedure set out in
the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 will be followed by
conferees on any tax bill. That procedure requires the managers
of any bill making changes to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to include a list of items that meet the definition of a
``targeted tax benefit'' in the bill. This list is prepared by
the Chairmen of the Committees on Finance and Ways and Means
and put into legislative language and included in the
applicable measure. Upon enactment, the President may only
choose items from that list to include in his special message
with respect to proposed targeted tax benefit cancellations
that he transmits to Congress for the purposes of this act. The
President may only draft a list of his own choosing if the
Chairmen of the Committees on Finance and Ways and Means do not
include such a list in the tax bill.
If the two chairmen determine there are no targeted tax
benefits in the bill they are preparing, then a statement may
be included in the bill that no such targeted tax benefits
exist and therefore the President is not permitted to transmit
the proposed cancellation of any tax provisions in that bill
which has become public law.
Congressional Budget Office. The term `CBO' means the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
Direct Spending. This term means budget authority provided
by law other than an appropriation law; an entitlement; and the
food stamp program.
Dollar Amount of Discretionary Budget Authority. This term
means the entire dollar amount of budget authority or
obligation limitation: specified in an appropriation law;
required to be allocated by a specific proviso in an
appropriation law for which a specific dollar figure was not
included; represented separately in any table, chart, or
explanatory text included in the statement of managers or the
governing committee report accompanying such law; required to
be allocated for a specific program, project, or activity in a
law (other than an appropriation law) that mandates the
expenditure of budget authority from accounts, programs,
projects, or activities for which budget authority is provided
in an appropriation law; represented by the product of the
estimated procurement cost and the total quantity of items
specified in an appropriation law or included in the statement
of managers or the governing committee report accompanying such
law; or represented by the product of the estimated procurement
cost and the total quantity of items required to be provided in
a law (other than an appropriation law) that mandates the
expenditure of budget authority from accounts, programs,
projects, or activities for which budget authority is provided
in an appropriation law.
The term does not include direct spending; budget authority
in an appropriation law which funds direct spending provided
for in another law; any existing budget authority canceled in
an appropriation law; or any restriction, condition, or
limitation in an appropriation law or the accompanying
statement of managers or committee reports on the expenditure
of budget authority for an account, program, project, or
activity, or on activities involving such expenditure.
Item of Direct Spending. This term means any provision of
law that CBO estimates increases budget authority or outlays
for direct spending relative to the baseline projections of
direct spending made after receipt of the President's budget
submission. An item falls under this definition if it increases
direct spending in the first year or the 5-year period for
which the item is effective. An exception is provided for the
extension or reauthorization of existing direct spending. This
exception refers to specific items of direct spending rather
than the level of direct spending assumed in the baseline.
Accordingly, a reauthorization bill could have no cost in the
aggregate relative to the baseline, but still contain new items
of direct spending that could be proposed to be canceled for
purposes of the legislative line item veto.
Office of Management and Budget. The term `OMB' means the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Omnibus Reconciliation Act. An Omnibus Reconciliation bill
is one reported by the Budget Committee pursuant a directive in
a concurrent budget resolution. It is a multi-jurisdictional
bill with a variety of authorizing committees being directed
through the reconciliation process to make changes to laws in
their jurisdiction. Though traditionally reconciliation bills
have been used to reduce spending, they have also included new
direct spending items and may include targeted tax breaks as
well.
The intent of the act is to target narrowly based direct
spending provisions that are tantamount to discretionary
earmarks, and might not survive narrow legislative scrutiny.
Although this is the case, the text of the act does not prevent
broader new entitlement programs from being proposed for
cancellation by the President.
Omnibus Appropriation Act. An Omnibus Appropriations bill
is defined as any measure providing appropriations falling
within the jurisdiction of 2 or more subcommittees of the
Committee on Appropriations of either House of Congress. In
general, appropriations bills are considered separately as
individual bills, each with a specified amount of budget
authority for the programs the measure funds. Upon occasion,
and due to a variety of reasons, two or more appropriation
bills may be combined, usually at the end of the legislative
season, and enacted as an ``omnibus'' appropriation. Because
these can often be enormous bills, with labyrinthine
appropriations and legislative text, they also merit a larger
number of special messages--10 instead of merely five.
It must be mentioned that ``supplemental'' appropriations
bills are often considered and have multi-jurisdictional
spending components. These would also, generally, include
spending that falls within the jurisdiction of two or more
suballocations made to the subcommittees of the House or the
Senate. Though these bills are generally of a smaller spending
magnitude than those normally considered to be Omnibus bills,
they are often of similar complexity and breadth of spending
provisions. Accordingly, supplementals also merit 10 special
messages instead of 5. Further, they often include
``emergency'' designations which in some circumstances allow
the spending to escape normal budgetary controls. The
Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, however, is an
extraordinary budgetary control, and instead of creating
procedural hurdles to votes on spending bills rather insists on
votes on specific spending items.
In this respect, this bill does not recognize ``emergency''
spending as opposed to ``non-emergency spending,'' but merely
allows certain spending, or targeted tax benefits, to be
reconsidered.
Targeted Tax Benefit. This term means any revenue-losing
provision amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and
benefitting a single taxpayer in any fiscal year for which the
provision is in effect. A revenue-losing provision is any
provision that reduces Federal tax revenues either in the first
fiscal year for which the provision is effective or the period
of the 5 fiscal years beginning with the first fiscal year for
which the provision is effective. The definition of revenue-
losing' includes both provisions that reduce revenue relative
to current law, as well as provisions that reduce revenue
relative a broader provision in the bill in which the provision
is found. The Committee believes that rifle shot transitional
rules that benefit a single taxpayer should constitute targeted
tax benefits. Such special rules have the effect of retaining
current law for a particular taxpayer, despite the fact that a
broader class of taxpayers is affected adversely by the bill.
Thus, they are appropriate candidates for inclusion in approval
bills even if they do not reduce revenue relative to current
law.
For example, a provision in the Tax Reform Act of 1986
included a favorable rule for banks, and also included a
special exception treating certain non-banks as banks for
purposes of the rule. The special exception applied to any
corporation ``if (A) such corporation is a Delaware corporation
incorporated on August 20, 1959, and (B) such corporation was
primarily engaged in the financing of dealer inventory or
consumer purchases on May 29, 1985, and at all times thereafter
before the close of the taxable year.'' Pub. L. No. 99-514, 100
Stat. 2548, sec. 1215(c)(5). If the Chairmen of the Ways and
Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee expected only
a single taxpayer to benefit from this special exception, it
would constitute a targeted tax benefit.
For purposes of applying the single-beneficiary test,
several aggregation rules treat certain groups of taxpayers as
a single taxpayer. All businesses in the same affiliated group,
all shareholders of the same corporation, all partners of the
same partnership, all members of the same association, all
beneficiaries of the same trust or estate, all employees of the
same employer, all beneficiaries of the same qualified plan,
all contributors to the same foundation or charity, and all
holders of the same bond issue are treated as one beneficiary.
In addition, if a corporation, partnership, association, trust,
or estate is the beneficiary of a tax provision, then the
shareholders of the corporation, the partners of the
partnership, the members of the association, or the
beneficiaries of the trust or estate are not also treated as
beneficiaries of the provision. Thus, for example, a provision
excluding from gross income all income of a particular
corporation and all income of any shareholders in that
corporation would be treated as having a single beneficiary.
Section 1018. Sunset
This section provides for an expiration date so that the
Act has no force or effect on or after October 1, 2012.
Effectively, this provides for a sunset of the Legislative Line
Item Veto after 6 years, so after that time, it must be
reconsidered and extended.
SECTION 3. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
Subsection (a) makes certain technical amendments to
Section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Subsection (b) requires the Congressional Budget Office to
prepare an estimate of any special message transmitted by the
President pursuant to the act.
Subsection makes certain clerical amendments. It strikes
the last sentence of Section 1(a) of the Congressional Budget
and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. It also sets out a revised
table of contents as follows:
PART B--LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO
Section 1011. Line item veto authority
Section 1012. Procedures for expedited consideration
Section 1013. Presidential deferral authority
Section 1014. Identification of targeted tax benefits
Section 1015. Treatment of cancellations
Section 1016. Reports by Comptroller General
Section 1017. Definitions
Section 1018. Expiration
Section 1019. Suits by Comptroller General
Section 1020. Proposed Deferrals of budget authority
Subsection (d) explains that the Legislative Line Item Veto
Act only applies to laws enacted on or after this law is
signed.
SECTION 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ABUSE OF PROPOSED CANCELLATIONS
This section sets out a Sense of Congress that the
President should not abuse the authority provided under the
Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006.
Hearings
----------
LINE-ITEM VETO--PERSPECTIVES ON APPLICATIONS AND EFFECTS
On 25 May 2006, the committee held a hearing titled: ``Line
Item Veto--Perspectives on Applications and Effects'' and heard
the following testimony:
Patrick J. Toomey, President, the Club for Growth,
testified that the line-item veto gives Presidents a more
effective check on runaway Federal spending. He believes that
that line item veto is constitutional, is consistent with the
primary conservative value of limited government, and is in the
best interest of taxpayers.
Thomas A. Schatz, President, Citizens Against Government
Waste, testified that the need exists for a constitutional
Presidential line item veto. His rationale included the idea
that Congress has confronted the President repeatedly with
hastily crafted, 11th-hour omnibus bills that cover all or
substantial portions of Federal spending for the year. This
practice inhibits the exercise of the veto, which under such
circumstances would have the effect of closing down the Federal
Government. A line item veto would enhance the President's
budget role. It would make both the legislative and executive
branches more accountable for our tax dollars, as it does on
the State level in 43 States. While some have questioned
whether a line item veto at the Federal level would threaten
the separation of powers, experience with such authority at the
State level indicates that would not be the outcome. The fear,
Schatz explained, that the President could use the veto
authority to expand his power exponentially and upset the
checks and balances between the branches is addressed by
restricting the President's veto power to disapproving specific
line items in appropriations bills. In this way, the line item
veto would not give authority to the President to alter the
budget priorities set by Congress in its spending decisions, as
the veto can only be used to withhold funds for an item.
Edward Lorenzen, Policy Director, the Concord Coalition,
testified that he believes that the proposed modified line item
veto and similar proposals would not address the magnitude of
our fiscal challenges. He testified that budget enforcement
tools such as pay-as-you-go rules for all tax and spending
legislation would reduce the deficit and would have a much
greater impact on fiscal policy. Balancing the budget and
establishing a fiscally sustainable course for the future will
require Congress and the President to confront tough choices
regarding tax and entitlement policy. However, he believes that
granting the President modified line item veto authority could
be a useful tool in improving the accountability of the budget
process and achieving greater public confidence in the budget
process that will be necessary to make the tough choices on
much larger fiscal issues.
James R. Horney, Senior Fellow, Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities testified that he believes the most fundamental
aspect of any line-item veto proposal is to shift power from
the legislative branch to the executive branch. He testified
that it was unwise to further enhance the power of the
executive branch. He also indicated that a line item veto is
not well-suited to getting at the biggest cause of the real,
long-term budget problem--the fact that under current policies
the cost of three big entitlement programs Social Security,
Medicare, and Medicaid are projected to grow at a rate that
will exceed the growth of the economy and revenues.
LINE-ITEM VETO--CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
On 6 June 2006, the committee held a hearing titled ``Line-
Item Veto--Constitutional Issues'' and heard the following
testimony:
Charles J. Cooper, Partner, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC testified
that he believed the Supreme Court's reasoning in striking down
the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 would not apply against the
Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006. In Clinton v. City of
New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), the Court recognized and
enforced the constitutional line established by article I,
section 7, between the power to exercise discretion in the
making, or unmaking, of law and the power to exercise
discretion in the execution of law, which in the spending
context has historically included the power to defer, or to
decline, expenditure of appropriated funds. Congress cannot
constitutionally vest the President with the former, but it can
the latter, and has done so repeatedly throughout our Nation's
history. The powers granted to the President under the
Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 fall safely on the
constitutional side of that line.
Viet D. Dinh, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law
Center testified that he believes that H.R. 4890 satisfies the
Constitution's bicameralism and presentment clauses, and does
not suffer from the defects that doomed the previous line item
veto legislation invalidated by the Supreme Court. He indicated
he believed the act is consistent with the basic principle that
Congress has broad discretion to establish procedures to govern
its internal operations, including by adopting fast-track rules
for the quick consideration of legislation proposed by the
President.
Louis Fischer, Law Library Specialist, Library of Congress,
testified that he believes that although it is useful to
examine judicial precedents in judging the constitutionality of
the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, the proper defender
of the prerogatives of the legislative branch is the
legislator, not the judge. He cited four causes of damage to
the reputation and credibility of Congress: first, recognition
of the inability of Congress to perform its constitutional
duties; second, a public rebuke from the President on spending
the President deems ``unjustified''; third, further public
criticism for failure to enact the President's recommendations;
and fourth, creation of a new tool for the President to coerce
lawmakers and limit their independence.
Votes of the Committee
----------
Clause 3(b) of House Rule XIII requires each committee
report to accompany any bill or resolution of a public
character, to include the total number of votes cast for and
against on each roll call vote, on a motion to report and any
amendments offered to the measure or matter, together with the
names of those voting for and against. Listed below are the
roll call votes taken in the House Budget Committee on the
Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006. On 14 June 2006, the
committee met in open session, a quorum being present.
Chairman Nussle asked unanimous consent that he be
authorized, consistent with clause 4 of House Rule XVI, to
declare a recess at any time during the committee meeting; and,
in addition, the chairman and the ranking member be allotted 20
minutes equally divided to control the time for opening
statements and to allow members to submit written statements
for the record.
There was no objection to the unanimous consent request.
Chairman Nussle asked unanimous consent to dispense with
the first reading of the bill and the bill be considered as
read and open to amendment at any point.
There was no objection to the unanimous consent request.
The committee adopted and ordered reported the Legislative
Line Item Veto Act of 2006. The following votes were taken by
the committee:
1. Mr. Ryan offered an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 4890, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of
2006. The amendment makes changes to the legislation such as
allowing 45 calendar days for the President to transmit special
messages for proposed cancellations to any of the three classes
of budget provisions: an amount of discretionary budget
authority; a direct spending item; and a targeted tax benefit.
It prohibits duplicative proposals. Except for any omnibus
budget reconciliation or appropriation measure, which is
permitted not more than 10 messages, the President is limited
to five special messages that may be transmitted on any bill or
joint resolution. It also limits the amount of deferral time to
45 calendar days allowing for one extension of the deferral
period. It refines the definition of targeted tax benefits in a
manner consistent with appropriations earmarks and allows the
President to make conforming changes to direct spending items
or targeted tax benefits rather than allowing for modifications
of the provisions. The Chairmen of the Ways and Means and
Finance Committees identify a list of targeted tax benefits and
the President may rescind only those benefits on the list. It
defines an approval bill and details the criteria for proposed
cancellations including the requirement that all direct
spending items must be scored by the Congressional Budget
Office as reducing budget authority or outlays.
2. A perfecting amendment was offered by Representatives
Moore, Case, Kind, Capps, Allen, Neal and Cooper to establish a
pay-as-you-go [PAYGO] provision so legislation enacted before
October 1, 2011, affecting direct spending or receipts would
require an offsetting sequestration.
Reserving the right to object, a point of order was raised
by Mr. Putnam that the amendment was not germane.
Unanimous consent was requested by Mr. Moore and received
that all amendments be allowed 10 minutes of debate equally
divided.
Unanimous consent was requested and received by Mr. Edwards
that an additional 5 minutes for debate be allowed for both
sides for the amendment currently under consideration.
Mr. Putnam withdrew his point of order.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13
ayes and 18 noes.
VOTE NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Aye No Present Representative Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. NUSSLE, .......... X ............ Mr. SPRATT, X ......... ...........
Chairman Ranking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RYUN (KS) .......... X ............ Mr. MOORE X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CRENSHAW .......... X ............ Mr. NEAL .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. PUTNAM .......... X ............ Ms. DeLAURO .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WICKER .......... .......... ............ Mr. EDWARDS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HULSHOF .......... X ............ Mr. FORD .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BONNER .......... X ............ Mrs. CAPPS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. GARRETT .......... X ............ Mr. BAIRD X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BARRETT .......... X ............ Mr. COOPER X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCOTTER .......... X ............ Mr. DAVIS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DIAZ-BALART .......... X ............ Mr. JEFFERSON .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HENSARLING .......... X ............ Mr. ALLEN X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LUNGREN .......... X ............ Mr. CASE X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SESSIONS .......... .......... ............ Ms. McKINNEY X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RYAN (WI) .......... X ............ Mr. CUELLAR X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SIMPSON .......... .......... ............ Ms. SCHWARTZ X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BRADLEY .......... X ............ Mr. KIND X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McHENRY .......... ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. MACK .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CONAWAY .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CHOCOLA .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CAMPBELL .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. A perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Cooper to add a
definition for reconciliation to Section 310 of the
Congressional Budget Act.
The amendment was not agreed to by voice vote.
4. A perfecting amendment offered by Representatives Baird
and Cooper to require a two-thirds majority vote in order to
waive the 3-day layover requirement concerning the availability
of reports.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 9
ayes and 19 noes.
VOTE NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Aye No Present Representative Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. NUSSLE, .......... X ............ Mr. SPRATT, X ......... ...........
Chairman Ranking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RYUN (KS) .......... X ............ Mr. MOORE X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CRENSHAW .......... X ............ Mr. NEAL .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. PUTNAM .......... X ............ Ms. DeLAURO .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WICKER .......... .......... ............ Mr. EDWARDS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HULSHOF .......... X ............ Mr. FORD .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BONNER .......... X ............ Mrs. CAPPS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. GARRETT .......... X ............ Mr. BAIRD X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BARRETT .......... X ............ Mr. COOPER X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCOTTER .......... X ............ Mr. DAVIS .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DIAZ-BALART .......... X ............ Mr. JEFFERSON .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HENSARLING .......... X ............ Mr. ALLEN .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LUNGREN .......... X ............ Mr. CASE X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SESSIONS .......... .......... ............ Ms. McKINNEY .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RYAN (WI) .......... X ............ Mr. CUELLAR X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SIMPSON .......... X ............ Ms. SCHWARTZ X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BRADLEY .......... X ............ Mr. KIND .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McHENRY .......... ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. MACK .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CONAWAY .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CHOCOLA .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CAMPBELL .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. A perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Baird to require a
3-day approval bill layover. The amendment was withdrawn.
6. A perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Cooper to change
the way earmarks are treated for the purpose of floor
consideration.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 8
ayes and 19 noes.
VOTE NO. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Aye No Present Representative Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. NUSSLE, .......... X ............ Mr. SPRATT, X ......... ...........
Chairman Ranking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RYUN (KS) .......... X ............ Mr. MOORE X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CRENSHAW .......... X ............ Mr. NEAL .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. PUTNAM .......... X ............ Ms. DeLAURO .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WICKER .......... X ............ Mr. EDWARDS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HULSHOF .......... X ............ Mr. FORD X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BONNER .......... X ............ Mrs. CAPPS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. GARRETT .......... X ............ Mr. BAIRD X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BARRETT .......... X ............ Mr. COOPER X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCOTTER .......... X ............ Mr. DAVIS .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DIAZ-BALART .......... X ............ Mr. JEFFERSON .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HENSARLING .......... X ............ Mr. ALLEN .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LUNGREN .......... .......... ............ Mr. CASE .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SESSIONS .......... .......... ............ Ms. McKINNEY .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RYAN (WI) .......... X ............ Mr. CUELLAR X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SIMPSON .......... X ............ Ms. SCHWARTZ .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BRADLEY .......... X ............ Mr. KIND .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McHENRY .......... ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. MACK .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CONAWAY .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CHOCOLA .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CAMPBELL .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. A perfecting amendment offered by Representatives Capps
and Allen to exempt Social Security from the programs subject
to the cancellation's proposal authority.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 10
ayes and 19 noes.
VOTE NO. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Aye No Present Representative Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. NUSSLE, .......... X ............ Mr. SPRATT, X ......... ...........
Chairman Ranking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RYUN (KS) .......... X ............ Mr. MOORE X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CRENSHAW .......... X ............ Mr. NEAL X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. PUTNAM .......... X ............ Ms. DeLAURO .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WICKER .......... X ............ Mr. EDWARDS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HULSHOF .......... X ............ Mr. FORD X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BONNER .......... X ............ Mrs. CAPPS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. GARRETT .......... X ............ Mr. BAIRD .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BARRETT .......... X ............ Mr. COOPER X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCOTTER .......... X ............ Mr. DAVIS .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DIAZ-BALART .......... X ............ Mr. JEFFERSON .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HENSARLING .......... X ............ Mr. ALLEN X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LUNGREN .......... .......... ............ Mr. CASE X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SESSIONS .......... .......... ............ Ms. McKINNEY .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RYAN (WI) .......... X ............ Mr. CUELLAR X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SIMPSON .......... X ............ Ms. SCHWARTZ .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BRADLEY .......... X ............ Mr. KIND .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McHENRY .......... ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. MACK .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CONAWAY .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CHOCOLA .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CAMPBELL .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. A perfecting amendment offered by Representatives Allen
and Davis to exempt Medicare from the programs subject to the
cancellation's proposal authority.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 9
ayes and 19 noes.
VOTE NO. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Aye No Present Representative Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. NUSSLE, .......... X ............ Mr. SPRATT, X ......... ...........
Chairman Ranking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RYUN (KS) .......... X ............ Mr. MOORE .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CRENSHAW .......... X ............ Mr. NEAL X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. PUTNAM .......... X ............ Ms. DeLAURO X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WICKER .......... X ............ Mr. EDWARDS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HULSHOF .......... X ............ Mr. FORD .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BONNER .......... X ............ Mrs. CAPPS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. GARRETT .......... X ............ Mr. BAIRD .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BARRETT .......... X ............ Mr. COOPER X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCOTTER .......... X ............ Mr. DAVIS .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DIAZ-BALART .......... X ............ Mr. JEFFERSON .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HENSARLING .......... X ............ Mr. ALLEN X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LUNGREN .......... .......... ............ Mr. CASE X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SESSIONS .......... .......... ............ Ms. McKINNEY .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RYAN (WI) .......... X ............ Mr. CUELLAR X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SIMPSON .......... X ............ Ms. SCHWARTZ .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BRADLEY .......... X ............ Mr. KIND .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McHENRY .......... ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. MACK .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CONAWAY .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CHOCOLA .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CAMPBELL .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. A perfecting amendment offered by Representatives
Edwards and Kind that exempts veterans benefits from programs
subject to the cancellation's proposal authority.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 11
ayes and 19 noes.
VOTE NO. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Aye No Present Representative Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. NUSSLE, .......... X ............ Mr. SPRATT, X ......... ...........
Chairman Ranking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RYUN (KS) .......... X ............ Mr. MOORE X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CRENSHAW .......... X ............ Mr. NEAL X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. PUTNAM .......... X ............ Ms. DeLAURO X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WICKER .......... X ............ Mr. EDWARDS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HULSHOF .......... X ............ Mr. FORD .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BONNER .......... X ............ Mrs. CAPPS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. GARRETT .......... X ............ Mr. BAIRD .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BARRETT .......... X ............ Mr. COOPER X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCOTTER .......... X ............ Mr. DAVIS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DIAZ-BALART .......... X ............ Mr. JEFFERSON .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HENSARLING .......... X ............ Mr. ALLEN X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LUNGREN .......... .......... ............ Mr. CASE X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SESSIONS .......... .......... ............ Ms. McKINNEY .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RYAN (WI) .......... X ............ Mr. CUELLAR X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SIMPSON .......... X ............ Ms. SCHWARTZ .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BRADLEY .......... X ............ Mr. KIND .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McHENRY .......... ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. MACK .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CONAWAY .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CHOCOLA .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CAMPBELL .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. A perfecting amendment offered by Representatives
Cooper and Capps to provide for a 2-year sunset provision.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 10
ayes and 18 noes.
VOTE NO. 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Aye No Present Representative Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. NUSSLE, .......... X ............ Mr. SPRATT, X ......... ...........
Chairman Ranking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RYUN (KS) .......... X ............ Mr. MOORE X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CRENSHAW .......... X ............ Mr. NEAL X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. PUTNAM .......... X ............ Ms. DeLAURO X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WICKER .......... X ............ Mr. EDWARDS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HULSHOF .......... X ............ Mr. FORD .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BONNER .......... X ............ Mrs. CAPPS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. GARRETT .......... .......... ............ Mr. BAIRD .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BARRETT .......... X ............ Mr. COOPER X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCOTTER .......... X ............ Mr. DAVIS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DIAZ-BALART .......... X ............ Mr. JEFFERSON .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HENSARLING .......... X ............ Mr. ALLEN X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LUNGREN .......... .......... ............ Mr. CASE X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SESSIONS .......... .......... ............ Ms. McKINNEY .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RYAN (WI) .......... X ............ Mr. CUELLAR .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SIMPSON .......... X ............ Ms. SCHWARTZ .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BRADLEY .......... X ............ Mr. KIND .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McHENRY .......... ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. MACK .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CONAWAY .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CHOCOLA .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CAMPBELL .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. A perfecting amendment offered by Mr.Cuellar to provide
for a 6-year sunset provision.
The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
12. A perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Neal for a
prohibition on Presidential abuse of proposed cancellations. A
substitute amendment to Mr. Neal's amendment was offered by Mr.
McCotter to allow for a Sense of Congress on abuse of proposed
cancellations.
The Chairman asked for and received unanimous consent that
the McCotter amendment to the Neal amendment be accepted.
The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
13. A perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Cooper relating
to the tax provisions. The amendment was not agreed to by a
roll call vote of 12 ayes and 20 noes.
VOTE NO. 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Aye No Present Representative Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. NUSSLE, .......... X ............ Mr. SPRATT, X ......... ...........
Chairman Ranking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RYUN (KS) .......... X ............ Mr. MOORE X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CRENSHAW .......... X ............ Mr. NEAL X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. PUTNAM .......... X ............ Ms. DeLAURO .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WICKER .......... X ............ Mr. EDWARDS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HULSHOF .......... X ............ Mr. FORD .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BONNER .......... X ............ Mrs. CAPPS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. GARRETT .......... X ............ Mr. BAIRD X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BARRETT .......... X ............ Mr. COOPER X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCOTTER .......... X ............ Mr. DAVIS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DIAZ-BALART .......... X ............ Mr. JEFFERSON .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HENSARLING .......... X ............ Mr. ALLEN X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LUNGREN .......... X ............ Mr. CASE X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SESSIONS .......... .......... ............ Ms. McKINNEY .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RYAN (WI) .......... X ............ Mr. CUELLAR X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SIMPSON .......... X ............ Ms. SCHWARTZ .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BRADLEY .......... X ............ Mr. KIND X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McHENRY .......... ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. MACK .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CONAWAY .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CHOCOLA .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CAMPBELL .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. An amendment, in the nature of a substitute, offered by
Mr. Spratt to apply to discretionary budget authority and
target tax benefits and not include items of direct spending
for cancellation consideration. It provided for a 2-year sunset
provision.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 12
ayes and 21 noes.
VOTE NO. 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Aye No Present Representative Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. NUSSLE, .......... X ............ Mr. SPRATT, X ......... ...........
Chairman Ranking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RYUN (KS) .......... X ............ Mr. MOORE X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CRENSHAW .......... X ............ Mr. NEAL .......... X ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. PUTNAM .......... X ............ Ms. DeLAURO .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WICKER .......... X ............ Mr. EDWARDS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HULSHOF .......... X ............ Mr. FORD .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BONNER .......... X ............ Mrs. CAPPS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. GARRETT .......... X ............ Mr. BAIRD X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BARRETT .......... X ............ Mr. COOPER X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCOTTER .......... X ............ Mr. DAVIS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DIAZ-BALART .......... X ............ Mr. JEFFERSON .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HENSARLING .......... X ............ Mr. ALLEN X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LUNGREN .......... X ............ Mr. CASE X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SESSIONS .......... .......... ............ Ms. McKINNEY .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RYAN (WI) .......... X ............ Mr. CUELLAR X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SIMPSON .......... X ............ Ms. SCHWARTZ X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BRADLEY .......... X ............ Mr. KIND X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McHENRY .......... ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. MACK .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CONAWAY .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CHOCOLA .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CAMPBELL .......... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Mr. Ryun made a motion that the committee report the
bill as amended and that the bill do pass.
The motion was agreed to by a roll call vote of 24 ayes and
9 noes.
VOTE NO. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Aye No Present Representative Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. NUSSLE, X .......... ............ Mr. SPRATT, .......... X ...........
Chairman Ranking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RYUN (KS) X .......... ............ Mr. MOORE .......... X ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CRENSHAW X .......... ............ Mr. NEAL .......... X ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. PUTNAM X .......... ............ Ms. DeLAURO .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WICKER X .......... ............ Mr. EDWARDS X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HULSHOF X .......... ............ Mr. FORD .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BONNER X .......... ............ Mrs. CAPPS .......... X ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. GARRETT X .......... ............ Mr. BAIRD .......... X ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BARRETT X .......... ............ Mr. COOPER X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCOTTER X .......... ............ Mr. DAVIS .......... X ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DIAZ-BALART X .......... ............ Mr. JEFFERSON .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HENSARLING X .......... ............ Mr. ALLEN .......... X ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LUNGREN X .......... ............ Mr. CASE X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SESSIONS .......... .......... ............ Ms. McKINNEY .......... ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RYAN (WI) X .......... ............ Mr. CUELLAR X ......... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SIMPSON X .......... ............ Ms. SCHWARTZ .......... X ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BRADLEY X .......... ............ Mr. KIND .......... X ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McHENRY .......... ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. MACK X ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CONAWAY X ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CHOCOLA X ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CAMPBELL X ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ryun made a motion that, pursuant to clause 1 of rule
XXII, the Chairman be authorized to offer such motions as may
be necessary in the House to go to conference with the Senate
and staff be authorized to make any necessary technical and
conforming changes to the bill.
The motion was agreed to without objection.
At the conclusion of the markup after all votes had
occurred, Ms. McKinney requested and received permission to
have a statement inserted into the record she was not in favor
of final passage of the bill.
Other Items Required Under the Rules of the House of Representatives
----------
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee on the Budget's
oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the
body of this report.
BUDGET ACT COMPLIANCE
The provisions of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (relating to estimates of new
budget authority, new spending authority, new credit authority,
or increased or decreased revenues or tax expenditures) are not
considered applicable. The estimate and comparison required to
be prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
under clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and sections 402 and 423 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 submitted to the committee prior to the
filing of this report are as follows:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 16, 2006.
Hon. Jim Nussle,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4890, the
Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them.
Sincerely,
Donald B. Marron, Acting Director.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
1. Bill number: H.R. 4890.
2. Bill title: Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006.
3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee
on the Budget on June 14, 2006.
4. Bill purpose: H.R. 4890 would establish a new expedited
procedure for considering Presidential proposals to cancel
certain spending and tax provisions in newly enacted
legislation. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4890, by itself,
would not have any significant impact on the budget. Any impact
on the budget would depend on the extent of the President's use
of the new cancellation procedure and on future Congressional
actions.
The bill would establish a procedure for the President to
propose canceling specified discretionary budget authority,
items of direct spending, or targeted tax benefits (defined as
any provisions of a revenue bill that provide a Federal tax
benefit to only one beneficiary) and for Congressional
consideration of such proposals. The President would transmit a
special message to both Houses of Congress specifying the
project or governmental functions involved, the reasons for the
proposed cancellations, and--to the extent practicable--the
estimated fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect of the action.
The Congress could then approve or disapprove the President's
proposals in legislation. (If approved, any such proposed
cancellations would then become law.)
Under H.R. 4890, the President could submit up to five
special messages for most acts and joint resolutions, and up to
10 special messages for reconciliation or omnibus appropriation
acts. A message would have to be transmitted to the Congress
within 45 calendar days of enactment of the legislation
containing the items proposed for cancellation. Within 5 days
of receiving a special message, the majority leaders of the
House and Senate (or their designees) would be required to
introduce a bill or joint resolution to approve the proposed
cancellations; that approval bill would be considered under
expedited procedures. H.R. 4890 also would amend the
Congressional Budget Act to require that CBO prepare an
estimate of savings in budget authority and outlays resulting
from any cancellations proposed by the President.
Additionally, the President could withhold discretionary
budget authority proposed for cancellation and suspend items of
direct spending and targeted tax benefits for 45 days from the
date on which a special message is transmitted. For each such
transmittal, the Government Accountability Office would be
required to submit a report to the Congress indicating whether
any delay in obligation of discretionary authority, suspension
of a direct spending item, or suspension of a targeted tax
benefit continued after the President's authority to suspend
them expired.
5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The impact of
H.R. 4890 on future legislation would depend on both the nature
of such legislation and on the actions of the President and the
Congress in implementing the expedited cancellation procedure
in H.R. 4890. Therefore, this bill would not--by itself--have
any significant impact on the Federal budget. CBO estimates
that any additional administrative costs for implementing H.R.
4890 would not be significant because both the executive branch
and the Congress already carry out activities similar to those
that would be involved in preparing and responding to
Presidential budget proposals (including, for example, proposed
rescissions of discretionary appropriations).
H.R. 4890 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and--by
itself--would have no impact on the budgets of state, local, or
tribal governments. Any budgetary impacts would depend on
subsequent legislative action.
PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goals and objectives of this legislation are to
provide both the President and the Congress improved tools to
reconsider spending and tax provisions.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee finds the
constitutional authority for this legislation in article I,
section 8, clause 18, that grants Congress the power to make
all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the powers
vested by Congress in the Constitution of the United States or
in any department or officer thereof.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee report incorporates the
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office pursuant to sections 402 and 423 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
No advisory committee within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act was created by this
legislation.
APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law
104-1).
FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT
The committee adopted as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (Public Law 104-4).
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL AS REPORTED
Pursuant to the terms of the referral of the bill to the
committee, the committee adopted an amendment striking those
provisions which were referred to the committee and inserting
new text.
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the provisions of the bill referred to the committee, as
reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in
italics, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown
in roman):
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET AND IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT OF 1974
SHORT TITLES; TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1. (a) Short Titles.--This Act may be cited as the
``Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974''.
Titles I through IX may be cited as the ``Congressional Budget
Act of 1974''. Parts A and B of title X may be cited as the
``Impoundment Control Act of 1974''. [Part C of title X may be
cited as the ``Line Item Veto Act of 1996''.]
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short titles; table of contents.
* * * * * * *
TITLE X--IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL
* * * * * * *
[Part B--Congressional Consideration of Proposed Rescissions,
Reservations, and Deferrals of Budget Authority
[Sec. 1011. Definitions.
[Sec. 1012. Rescission of budget authority.
[Sec. 1013. Proposed deferrals of budget authority.
[Sec. 1014. Transmission of messages; publication.
[Sec. 1015. Reports by Comptroller General.
[Sec. 1016. Suits by Comptroller General.
[Sec. 1017. Procedure in House and Senate.
[Part C--Line Item Veto
[Sec. 1021. Line item veto authority.
[Sec. 1022. Special messages.
[Sec. 1023. Cancellation effective unless disapproved.
[Sec. 1024. Deficit reduction.
[Sec. 1025. Expedited congressional consideration of disapproval bills.
[Sec. 1026. Definitions.
[Sec. 1027. Identification of limited tax benefits.]
Part B--Legislative Line Item Veto
Sec. 1011. Line item veto authority.
Sec. 1012. Procedures for expedited consideration.
Sec. 1013. Presidential deferral authority.
Sec. 1014. Identification of targeted tax benefits.
Sec. 1015. Treatment of cancellations.
Sec. 1016. Reports by Comptroller General.
Sec. 1017. Definitions.
Sec. 1018. Expiration.
Sec. 1019. Suits by Comptroller General.
Sec. 1020. Proposed deferrals of budget authority.
* * * * * * *
TITLE IV--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS TO IMPROVE FISCAL PROCEDURES
Part A--General Provisions
* * * * * * *
ANALYSIS BY CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
Sec. 402. (a) The Director of the Congressional Budget
Office shall, to the extent practicable, prepare for each bill
or resolution of a public character reported by any committee
of the House of Representatives or the Senate (except the
Committee on Appropriations of each House), and submit to such
committee--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Upon the receipt of a special message under section
1011 proposing to cancel any item of direct spending, the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall prepare an
estimate of the savings in budget authority or outlays
resulting from such proposed cancellation relative to the most
recent levels calculated consistent with the methodology used
to calculate a baseline under section 257 of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and included
with a budget submission under section 1105(a) of title 31,
United States Code, and transmit such estimate to the chairmen
of the Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives
and Senate.
* * * * * * *
TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS; EFFECTIVE DATES
* * * * * * *
EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS
Sec. 904. (a) The provisions of this title and of titles I,
III, IV, and V and the provisions of sections 701, 703, and
[1017] 1012 are enacted by the Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the
House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively,
and as such they shall be considered as part of the
rules of each House, respectively, or of that House to
which they specifically apply, and such rules shall
supersede other rules only to the extent that they are
inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional
right of either House to change such rules (so far as
relating to such House) at any time, in the same
manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any
other rule of such House.
* * * * * * *
(d) Appeals.--
(1) Procedure.--Appeals in the Senate from the
decisions of the Chair relating to any provision of
title III or IV or section [1017] 1012 shall, except as
otherwise provided therein, be limited to 1 hour, to be
equally divided between, and controlled by, the mover
and the manager of the resolution, concurrent
resolution, reconciliation bill, or rescission bill, as
the case may be.
* * * * * * *
TITLE X--IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL
* * * * * * *
[Part B--Congressional Consideration of Proposed Rescissions,
Reservations, and Deferrals of Budget Authority
[DEFINITIONS
[Sec. 1011. For purposes of this part--
[(1) ``deferral of budget authority'' includes--
[(A) withholding or delaying the
obligations or expenditure of budget authority
(whether by establishing reserves or otherwise)
provided for projects or activities; or
[(B) any other type of Executive action or
inaction which effectively precludes the
obligation or expenditure of budget authority,
including authority to obligate by contract in
advance of appropriations as specifically
authorized by law;
[(2) ``Comptroller General'' means the Comptroller
General of the United States;
[(3) ``rescission bill'' means a bill or joint
resolution which only recinds in whole or in part,
budget authority proposed to be rescinded in a special
message transmitted by the President under section
1012, and upon which the Congress completes action
before the end of the first period of 45 calendar days
of continuous session of the Congress after the date on
which the President's message is received by the
Congress;
[(4) ``impoundment resolution'' means a resolution
of the House of Representatives or the Senate which
only expresses its disapproval of a proposed deferral
of budget authority set forth in a special message
transmitted by the President under section 1013; and
[(5) continuity of a session of the Congress shall
be considered as broken only by an adjournment of the
Congress sine die, and the days on which either House
is not in session because of an adjournment of more
than 3 days to a day certain shall be excluded in the
computation of the 45-day period referred to in
paragraph (3) of this section and in section 1012, and
the 25-day periods referred to in sections 1016 and
1017(b)(1). If a special message is transmitted under
section 1012 during any Congress and the last session
of such Congress adjourns sine die before the
expiration of 45 calendar days of continuous session
(or a special message is so transmitted after the last
session of the Congress adjourns sine die), the message
shall be deemed to have been retransmitted on the first
day of the succeeding Congress and the 45-day period
referred to in paragraph (3) of this section and
section 1012 (with respect to such message) shall
commence on the day after such first day.
[RESCISSION OF BUDGET AUTHORITY
[Sec. 1012. (a) Transmittal of Special Message.--Whenever
the President determines that all or part of any budget
authority will not be required to carry out the full objectives
or scope of programs for which it is provided or that such
budget authority should be rescinded for fiscal policy or other
reasons (including the determination of authorized projects or
activities for which budget authority has been provided), or
whenever all or part of budget authority provided for only one
fiscal year is to be reserved from obligation for such fiscal
year, the President shall transmit to both Houses of Congress a
special message specifying--
[(1) the amount of budget authority which he
proposes to be rescinded or which is to be so reserved;
[(2) any account, department, or establishment of
the Government to which such budget authority is
available for obligation, and the specific project or
governmental functions involved;
[(3) the reasons why the budget authority should be
rescinded or is to be so reserved;
[(4) to the maximum extent practicable, the
estimated fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect of the
proposed rescission or of the reservation; and
[(5) all facts, circumstances, and considerations
relating to or bearing upon the proposed rescission or
the reservation and the decision to effect the proposed
rescission or the reservation, and to the maximum
extent practicable, the estimated effect of the
proposed rescission or the reservation upon the
objects, purposes, and programs for which the budget
authority is provided.
[(b) Requirement To Make Available for Obligation.--Any
amount of budget authority proposed to be rescinded or that is
to be reserved as set forth in such special message shall be
made available for obligation unless, within the prescribed 45-
day period, the Congress has completed action on a rescission
bill rescinding all or part of the amount proposed to be
rescinded or that is to be reserved. Funds made available for
obligation under this procedure may not be proposed for
rescission again.
[transmission of messages; publication
[Sec. 1014. (a) Delivery to House and Senate.--Each special
message transmitted under section 1012 or 1013 shall be
transmitted to the House of Representatives and the Senate on
the same day, and shall be delivered to the Clerk of the House
of Representatives if the House is not in session, and to the
Secretary of the Senate if the Senate is not in session. Each
special message so transmitted shall be referred to the
appropriate committee of the House of Representatives and the
Senate. Each such message shall be printed as a document of
each House.
[(b) Delivery to Comptroller General.--A copy of each
special message transmitted under section 1012 or 1013 shall be
transmitted to the Comptroller General on the same day it is
transmitted to the House of Representatives and the Senate. In
order to assist the Congress in the exercise of its functions
under sections 1012 and 1013, the Comptroller General shall
review each such message and inform the House of
Representatives and the Senate as promptly as practicable with
respect to----
[(1) in the case of a special message transmitted
under section 1012, the facts surrounding the proposed
rescission or the reservation of budget authority
(including the probable effects thereof); and
[(2) in the case of a special message transmitted
under section 1013, (A) the facts surrounding each
proposed deferral of budget authority (including the
probable effects thereof) and (B) whether or not (or to
what extent), in his judgment, such proposed deferral
is in accordance with existing statutory authority.
[(c) Transmission of Supplementary Messages.--If any
information contained in a special message transmitted under
section 1012 or 1013 is subsequently revised, the President
shall transmit to both Houses of Congress and the Comptroller
General a supplementary message stating and explaining such
revision. Any such supplementary message shall be delivered,
referred, and printed as provided in subsection (a). The
Comptroller General shall promptly notify the House of
Representatives and the Senate of any change in the information
submitted by him under subsection (b) which may be necessitated
by such revision.
[(d) Printing in Federal Register.--Any special message
transmitted under section 1012 or 1013, and any supplementary
message transmitted under subsection (c), shall be printed in
the first issue of the Federal Register published after such
transmittal.
[(e) Cumulative Reports of Proposed Rescissions,
Reservations, and Deferrals of Budget Authority.--
[(1) The President shall submit a report to the
House of Representatives and the Senate, not later than
the 10th day of each month during a fiscal year,
listing all budget authority for that fiscal year with
respect to which, as of the first day of such month--
[(A) he has transmitted a special message
under section 1012 with respect to a proposed
rescission or a reservation; and
[(B) he has transmitted a special message
under section 1013 proposing a deferral.
Such report shall also contain, with respect to each
such proposed rescission or deferral, or each such
reservation, the information required to be submitted
in the special message with respect thereto under
section 1012 or 1013.
[(2) Each report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall be printed in the first issue of the Federal
Register published after its submission.
[reports by comptroller general
[Sec. 1015. (a) Failure To Transmit Special Message.--If
the Comptroller General finds that the President, the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget, the head of any
department or agency of the United States, or any other officer
or employee of the United States--
[(1) is to establish a reserve or proposes to defer
budget authority with respect to which the President is
required to transmit a special message under section
1012 or 1013; or
[(2) has ordered, permitted, or approved the
establishment of such a reserve or a deferral of budget
authority;
and that the President has failed to transmit a special message
with respect to such reserve or deferral, the Comptroller
General shall make a report on such reserve or deferral and any
available information concerning it to both Houses of Congress.
The provisions of this part shall apply with respect to such
reserve or deferral in the same manner and with the same effect
as if such report of the Comptroller General were a special
message transmitted by the President under section 1012 or
1013, and, for purposes of this part, such report shall be
considered a special message transmitted under section 1012 or
1013.
[(b) Incorrect Classification of Special Message.--If the
President has transmitted a special message to both Houses of
Congress in accordance with section 1012 or 1013, and the
Comptroller General believes that the President so transmitted
the special message in accordance with one of those sections
when the special message should have been transmitted in
accordance with the other of those sections, the Comptroller
General shall make a report to both Houses of the Congress
setting forth his reasons.
[procedure in house and senate
[Sec. 1017. (a) Referral.--Any rescission bill introduced
with respect to a special message or impoundment resolution
introduced with respect to a proposed deferral of budget
authority shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the
House of Representatives or the Senate, as the case may be.
[(b) Discharge of Committee.--
[(1) If the committee to which a rescission bill or
impoundment resolution has been referred has not
reported it at the end of 25 calendar days of
continuous session of the Congress after its
introduction, it is in order to move either to
discharge the committee from further consideration of
the bill or resolution or to discharge the committee
from further consideration of any other rescission bill
with respect to the same special message or impoundment
resolution with respect to the same proposed deferral,
as the case may be, which has been referred to the
committee.
[(2) A motion to discharge may be made only by an
individual favoring the bill or resolution, may be made
only if supported by one-fifth of the Members of the
House involved (a quorum being present), and is highly
privileged in the House and privileged in the Senate
(except that it may not be made after the committee has
reported a bill or resolution with respect to the same
special message or the same proposed deferral, as the
case may be); and debate thereon shall be limited to
not more than 1 hour, the time to be divided in the
House equally between those favoring and those opposing
the bill or resolution, and to be divided in the Senate
equally between, and controlled by, the majority leader
and the minority leader or their designees. An
amendment to the motion is not in order, and it is not
in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the
motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
[(c) Floor Consideration in the House.--
[(1) When the committee of the House of
Representatives has reported, or has been discharged
from further consideration of a rescission bill or
impoundment resolution, it shall at any time thereafter
be in order (even though a previous motion to the same
effect has been disagreed to) to move to proceed to the
consideration of the bill or resolution. The motion
shall be highly privileged and not debatable. An
amendment to the motion shall not be in order, nor
shall it be in order to move to reconsider the vote by
which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
[(2) Debate on a rescission bill or impoundment
resolution shall be limited to not more than 2 hours,
which shall be divided equally between those favoring
and those opposing the bill or resolution. A motion
further to limit debate shall not be debatable. In the
case of an impoundment resolution, no amendment to, or
motion to recommit, the resolution shall be in order.
It shall not be in order to move to reconsider the vote
by which a rescission bill or impoundment resolution is
agreed to or disagreed to.
[(3) Motions to postpone, made with respect to the
consideration of a rescission bill or impoundment
resolution, and motions to proceed to the consideration
of other business, shall be decided without debate.
[(4) All appeals from the decisions of the Chair
relating to the application of the Rules of the House
of Representatives to the procedure relating to any
rescission bill or impoundment resolution shall be
decided without debate.
[(5) Except to the extent specifically provided in
the preceding provisions of this subsection,
consideration of any rescission bill or impoundment
resolution and amendments thereto (or any conference
report thereon) shall be governed by the Rules of the
House of Representatives applicable to other bills and
resolutions, amendments, and conference reports in
similar circumstances.
[(d) Floor Consideration in the Senate.--
[(1) Debate in the Senate on any rescission bill or
impoundment resolution, and all amendments thereto (in
the case of a rescission bill) and debatable motions
and appeals in connection therewith, shall be limited
to not more than 10 hours. The time shall be equally
divided between, and controlled by, the majority leader
and the minority leader or their designees.
[(2) Debate in the Senate on any amendment to a
rescission bill shall be limited to 2 hours, to be
equally divided between, and controlled by, the mover
and the manager of the bill. Debate on any amendment to
an amendment, to such a bill, and debate on any
debatable motion or appeal in connection with such a
bill or an impoundment resolution shall be limited to 1
hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by,
the mover and the manager of the bill or resolution,
except that in the event the manager of the bill or
resolution is in favor in any such amendment, motion,
or appeal, the time in opposition thereto, shall be
controlled by the minority leader or his designee. No
amendment that is not germane to the provisions of a
rescission bill shall be received. Such leaders, or
either of them, may, from the time under their control
on the passage of a rescission bill or impoundment
resolution, allot additional time to any Senator during
the consideration of any amendment, debatable motion,
or appeal.
[(3) A motion to further limit debate is not
debatable. In the case of a rescission bill, a motion
to recommit (except a motion to recommit with
instructions to report back within a specified number
of days, not to exceed 3, not counting any day on which
the Senate is not in session) is not in order. Debate
on any such motion to recommit shall be limited to one
hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by,
the mover and the manager of the concurrent resolution.
In the case of an impoundment resolution, no amendment
or motion to recommit is in order.
[(4) The conference report on any rescission bill
shall be in order in the Senate at any time after the
third day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal
holidays) following the day on which such a conference
report is reported and is available to Members of the
Senate. A motion to proceed to the consideration of the
conference report may be made even though a previous
motion to the same effect has been disagreed to.
[(5) During the consideration in the Senate of the
conference report on any rescission bill, debate shall
be limited to 2 hours, to be equally divided between,
and controlled by, the majority leader and minority
leader or their designees. Debate on any debatable
motion or appeal related to the conference report shall
be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided
between, and controlled by, the mover and the manager
of the conference report.
[(6) Should the conference report be defeated,
debate on any request for a new conference and the
appointment of conferees shall be limited to one hour,
to be equally divided, between, and controlled by, the
manager of the conference report and the minority
leader or his designee, and should any motion be made
to instruct the conferees before the conferees are
named, debate on such motion shall be limited to 30
minutes, to be equally divided between, and controlled
by, the mover and the manager of the conference report.
Debate on any amendment to any such instructions shall
be limited to 20 minutes, to be equally divided
between, and controlled by the mover and the manager of
the conference report. In all cases when the manager of
the conference report is in favor of any motion,
appeal, or amendment, the time in opposition shall be
under the control of the minority leader or his
designee.
[(7) In any case in which there are amendments in
disagreement, time on each amendment shall be limited
to 30 minutes, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the manager of the conference report and
the minority leader or his designee. No amendment that
is not germane to the provisions of such amendments
shall be received.
[Part C--Line Item Veto
[line item veto authority
[Sec. 1021. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the provisions
of parts A and B, and subject to the provisions of this part,
the President may, with respect to any bill or joint resolution
that has been signed into law pursuant to article I, section 7,
of the Constitution of the United States, cancel in whole--
[(1) any dollar amount of discretionary budget
authority;
[(2) any item of new direct spending; or
[(3) any limited tax benefit;
if the President--
[(A) determines that such cancellation will--
[(i) reduce the Federal budget deficit;
[(ii) not impair any essential Government
functions; and
[(iii) not harm the national interest; and
[(B) notifies the Congress of such cancellation by
transmitting a special message, in accordance with
section 1022, within five calendar days (excluding
Sundays) after the enactment of the law providing the
dollar amount of discretionary budget authority, item
of new direct spending, or limited tax benefit that was
canceled.
[(b) Identification of Cancellations.--In identifying
dollar amounts of discretionary budget authority, items of new
direct spending, and limited tax benefits for cancellation, the
President shall--
[(1) consider the legislative history,
construction, and purposes of the law which contains
such dollar amounts, items, or benefits;
[(2) consider any specific sources of information
referenced in such law or, in the absence of specific
sources of information, the best available information;
and
[(3) use the definitions contained in section 1026
in applying this part to the specific provisions of
such law.
[(c) Exception for Disapproval Bills.--The authority
granted by subsection (a) shall not apply to any dollar amount
of discretionary budget authority, item of new direct spending,
or limited tax benefit contained in any law that is a
disapproval bill as defined in section 1026.
[special messages
[Sec. 1022. (a) In General.--For each law from which a
cancellation has been made under this part, the President shall
transmit a single special message to the Congress.
[(b) Contents.--
[(1) The special message shall specify--
[(A) the dollar amount of discretionary
budget authority, item of new direct spending,
or limited tax benefit which has been canceled,
and provide a corresponding reference number
for each cancellation;
[(B) the determinations required under
section 1021(a), together with any supporting
material;
[(C) the reasons for the cancellation;
[(D) to the maximum extent practicable, the
estimated fiscal, economic, and budgetary
effect of the cancellation;
[(E) all facts, circumstances and
considerations relating to or bearing upon the
cancellation, and to the maximum extent
practicable, the estimated effect of the
cancellation upon the objects, purposes and
programs for which the canceled authority was
provided; and
[(F) include the adjustments that will be
made pursuant to section 1024 to the
discretionary spending limits under section
251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 and an evaluation
of the effects of those adjustments upon the
sequestration procedures of section 251 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985.
[(2) In the case of a cancellation of any dollar
amount of discretionary budget authority or item of new
direct spending, the special message shall also
include, if applicable--
[(A) any account, department, or
establishment of the Government for which such
budget authority was to have been available for
obligation and the specific project or
governmental functions involved;
[(B) the specific States and congressional
districts, if any, affected by the
cancellation; and
[(C) the total number of cancellations
imposed during the current session of Congress
on States and congressional districts
identified in subparagraph (B).
[(c) Transmission of Special Messages to House and
Senate.--
[(1) The President shall transmit to the Congress
each special message under this part within five
calendar days (excluding Sundays) after enactment of
the law to which the cancellation applies. Each special
message shall be transmitted to the House of
Representatives and the Senate on the same calendar
day. Such special message shall be delivered to the
Clerk of the House of Representatives if the House is
not in session, and to the Secretary of the Senate if
the Senate is not in session.
[(2) Any special message transmitted under this
part shall be printed in the first issue of the Federal
Register published after such transmittal.
[cancellation effective unless disapproved
[Sec. 1023. (a) In General.--The cancellation of any dollar
amount of discretionary budget authority, item of new direct
spending, or limited tax benefit shall take effect upon receipt
in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the special
message notifying the Congress of the cancellation. If a
disapproval bill for such special message is enacted into law,
then all cancellations disapproved in that law shall be null
and void and any such dollar amount of discretionary budget
authority, item of new direct spending, or limited tax benefit
shall be effective as of the original date provided in the law
to which the cancellation applied.
[(b) Commensurate Reductions in Discretionary Budget
Authority.--Upon the cancellation of a dollar amount of
discretionary budget authority under subsection (a), the total
appropriation for each relevant account of which that dollar
amount is a part shall be simultaneously reduced by the dollar
amount of that cancellation.
[deficit reduction
[Sec. 1024. (a) In General.--
[(1) Discretionary budget authority.--OMB shall,
for each dollar amount of discretionary budget
authority and for each item of new direct spending
canceled from an appropriation law under section
1021(a)--
[(A) reflect the reduction that results
from such cancellation in the estimates
required by section 251(a)(7) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985 in accordance with that Act, including an
estimate of the reduction of the budget
authority and the reduction in outlays flowing
from such reduction of budget authority for
each outyear; and
[(B) include a reduction to the
discretionary spending limits for budget
authority and outlays in accordance with the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985 for each applicable fiscal year set
forth in section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 by
amounts equal to the amounts for each fiscal
year estimated pursuant to subparagraph (A).
[(2) Direct spending and limited tax benefits.--(A)
OMB shall, for each item of new direct spending or
limited tax benefit canceled from a law under section
1021(a), estimate the deficit decrease caused by the
cancellation of such item or benefit in that law and
include such estimate as a separate entry in the report
prepared pursuant to section 252(d) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
[(B) OMB shall not include any change in the
deficit resulting from a cancellation of any item of
new direct spending or limited tax benefit, or the
enactment of a disapproval bill for any such
cancellation, under this part in the estimates and
reports required by sections 252(b) and 254 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
[(b) Adjustments to Spending Limits.--After ten calendar
days (excluding Sundays) after the expiration of the time
period in section 1025(b)(1) for expedited congressional
consideration of a disapproval bill for a special message
containing a cancellation of discretionary budget authority,
OMB shall make the reduction included in subsection (a)(1)(B)
as part of the next sequester report required by section 254 of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
[(c) Exception.--Subsection (b) shall not apply to a
cancellation if a disapproval bill or other law that
disapproves that cancellation is enacted into law prior to 10
calendar days (excluding Sundays) after the expiration of the
time period set forth in section 1025(b)(1).
[(d) Congressional Budget Office Estimates.--As soon as
practicable after the President makes a cancellation from a law
under section 1021(a), the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office shall provide the Committees on the Budget of the House
of Representatives and the Senate with an estimate of the
reduction of the budget authority and the reduction in outlays
flowing from such reduction of budget authority for each
outyear.
[expedited congressional consideration of disapproval bills
[Sec. 1025. (a) Receipt and Referral of Special Message.--
Each special message transmitted under this part shall be
referred to the Committee on the Budget and the appropriate
committee or committees of the Senate and the Committee on the
Budget and the appropriate committee or committees of the House
of Representatives. Each such message shall be printed as a
document of the House of Representatives.
[(b) Time Period for Expedited Procedures.--
[(1) There shall be a congressional review period
of 30 calendar days of session, beginning on the first
calendar day of session after the date on which the
special message is received in the House of
Representatives and the Senate, during which the
procedures contained in this section shall apply to
both Houses of Congress.
[(2) In the House of Representatives the procedures
set forth in this section shall not apply after the end
of the period described in paragraph (1).
[(3) If Congress adjourns at the end of a Congress
prior to the expiration of the period described in
paragraph (1) and a disapproval bill was then pending
in either House of Congress or a committee thereof
(including a conference committee of the two Houses of
Congress), or was pending before the President, a
disapproval bill for the same special message may be
introduced within the first five calendar days of
session of the next Congress and shall be treated as a
disapproval bill under this part, and the time period
described in paragraph (1) shall commence on the day of
introduction of that disapproval bill.
[(c) Introduction of Disapproval Bills.--(1) In order for a
disapproval bill to be considered under the procedures set
forth in this section, the bill must meet the definition of a
disapproval bill and must be introduced no later than the fifth
calendar day of session following the beginning of the period
described in subsection (b)(1).
[(2) In the case of a disapproval bill introduced in the
House of Representatives, such bill shall include in the first
blank space referred to in section 1026(6)(C) a list of the
reference numbers for all cancellations made by the President
in the special message to which such disapproval bill relates.
[(d) Consideration in the House of Representatives.--(1)
Any committee of the House of Representatives to which a
disapproval bill is referred shall report it without amendment,
and with or without recommendation, not later than the seventh
calendar day of session after the date of its introduction. If
any committee fails to report the bill within that period, it
is in order to move that the House discharge the committee from
further consideration of the bill, except that such a motion
may not be made after the committee has reported a disapproval
bill with respect to the same special message. A motion to
discharge may be made only by a Member favoring the bill (but
only at a time or place designated by the Speaker in the
legislative schedule of the day after the calendar day on which
the Member offering the motion announces to the House his
intention to do so and the form of the motion). The motion is
highly privileged. Debate thereon shall be limited to not more
than one hour, the time to be divided in the House equally
between a proponent and an opponent. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption
without intervening motion. A motion to reconsider the vote by
which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in
order.
[(2) After a disapproval bill is reported or a committee
has been discharged from further consideration, it is in order
to move that the House resolve into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill.
If reported and the report has been available for at least one
calendar day, all points of order against the bill and against
consideration of the bill are waived. If discharged, all points
of order against the bill and against consideration of the bill
are waived. The motion is highly privileged. A motion to
reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or
disagreed to shall not be in order. During consideration of the
bill in the Committee of the Whole, the first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall proceed,
shall be confined to the bill, and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent
of the bill. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment
under the five-minute rule. Only one motion to rise shall be in
order, except if offered by the manager. No amendment to the
bill is in order, except any Member if supported by 49 other
Members (a quorum being present) may offer an amendment
striking the reference number or numbers of a cancellation or
cancellations from the bill. Consideration of the bill for
amendment shall not exceed one hour excluding time for recorded
votes and quorum calls. No amendment shall be subject to
further amendment, except pro forma amendments for the purposes
of debate only. At the conclusion of the consideration of the
bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion. A motion to reconsider the vote on passage
of the bill shall not be in order.
[(3) Appeals from decisions of the Chair regarding
application of the rules of the House of Representatives to the
procedure relating to a disapproval bill shall be decided
without debate.
[(4) It shall not be in order to consider under this
subsection more than one disapproval bill for the same special
message except for consideration of a similar Senate bill
(unless the House has already rejected a disapproval bill for
the same special message) or more than one motion to discharge
described in paragraph (1) with respect to a disapproval bill
for that special message.
[(e) Consideration in the Senate.--
[(1) Referral and reporting.--Any disapproval bill
introduced in the Senate shall be referred to the
appropriate committee or committees. A committee to
which a disapproval bill has been referred shall report
the bill not later than the seventh day of session
following the date of introduction of that bill. If any
committee fails to report the bill within that period,
that committee shall be automatically discharged from
further consideration of the bill and the bill shall be
placed on the Calendar.
[(2) Disapproval bill from house.--When the Senate
receives from the House of Representatives a
disapproval bill, such bill shall not be referred to
committee and shall be placed on the Calendar.
[(3) Consideration of single disapproval bill.--
After the Senate has proceeded to the consideration of
a disapproval bill for a special message, then no other
disapproval bill originating in that same House
relating to that same message shall be subject to the
procedures set forth in this subsection.
[(4) Amendments.--
[(A) Amendments in order.--The only
amendments in order to a disapproval bill are--
[(i) an amendment that strikes the
reference number of a cancellation from
the disapproval bill; and
[(ii) an amendment that only
inserts the reference number of a
cancellation included in the special
message to which the disapproval bill
relates that is not already contained
in such bill.
[(B) Waiver or appeal.--An affirmative vote
of three-fifths of the Senators, duly chosen
and sworn, shall be required in the Senate--
[(i) to waive or suspend this
paragraph; or
[(ii) to sustain an appeal of the
ruling of the Chair on a point of order
raised under this paragraph.
[(5) Motion nondebatable.--A motion to proceed to
consideration of a disapproval bill under this
subsection shall not be debatable. It shall not be in
order to move to reconsider the vote by which the
motion to proceed was adopted or rejected, although
subsequent motions to proceed may be made under this
paragraph.
[(6) Limit on consideration.--(A) After no more
than 10 hours of consideration of a disapproval bill,
the Senate shall proceed, without intervening action or
debate (except as permitted under paragraph (9)), to
vote on the final disposition thereof to the exclusion
of all amendments not then pending and to the exclusion
of all motions, except a motion to reconsider or to
table.
[(B) A single motion to extend the time for
consideration under subparagraph (A) for no more than
an additional five hours is in order prior to the
expiration of such time and shall be decided without
debate.
[(C) The time for debate on the disapproval bill
shall be equally divided between the Majority Leader
and the Minority Leader or their designees.
[(7) Debate on amendments.--Debate on any amendment
to a disapproval bill shall be limited to one hour,
equally divided and controlled by the Senator proposing
the amendment and the majority manager, unless the
majority manager is in favor of the amendment, in which
case the minority manager shall be in control of the
time in opposition.
[(8) No motion to recommit.--A motion to recommit a
disapproval bill shall not be in order.
[(9) Disposition of senate disapproval bill.--If
the Senate has read for the third time a disapproval
bill that originated in the Senate, then it shall be in
order at any time thereafter to move to proceed to the
consideration of a disapproval bill for the same
special message received from the House of
Representatives and placed on the Calendar pursuant to
paragraph (2), strike all after the enacting clause,
substitute the text of the Senate disapproval bill,
agree to the Senate amendment, and vote on final
disposition of the House disapproval bill, all without
any intervening action or debate.
[(10) Consideration of house message.--
Consideration in the Senate of all motions, amendments,
or appeals necessary to dispose of a message from the
House of Representatives on a disapproval bill shall be
limited to not more than four hours. Debate on each
motion or amendment shall be limited to 30 minutes.
Debate on any appeal or point of order that is
submitted in connection with the disposition of the
House message shall be limited to 20 minutes. Any time
for debate shall be equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and the majority manager, unless the
majority manager is a proponent of the motion,
amendment, appeal, or point of order, in which case the
minority manager shall be in control of the time in
opposition.
[(f) Consideration in Conference.--
[(1) Convening of conference.--In the case of
disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with
respect to a disapproval bill passed by both Houses,
conferees should be promptly appointed and a conference
promptly convened, if necessary.
[(2) House consideration.--(A) Notwithstanding any
other rule of the House of Representatives, it shall be
in order to consider the report of a committee of
conference relating to a disapproval bill provided such
report has been available for one calendar day
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays,
unless the House is in session on such a day) and the
accompanying statement shall have been filed in the
House.
[(B) Debate in the House of Representatives on the
conference report and any amendments in disagreement on
any disapproval bill shall each be limited to not more
than one hour equally divided and controlled by a
proponent and an opponent. A motion to further limit
debate is not debatable. A motion to recommit the
conference report is not in order, and it is not in
order to move to reconsider the vote by which the
conference report is agreed to or disagreed to.
[(3) Senate consideration.--Consideration in the
Senate of the conference report and any amendments in
disagreement on a disapproval bill shall be limited to
not more than four hours equally divided and controlled
by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their
designees. A motion to recommit the conference report
is not in order.
[(4) Limits on scope.--(A) When a disagreement to
an amendment in the nature of a substitute has been
referred to a conference, the conferees shall report
those cancellations that were included in both the bill
and the amendment, and may report a cancellation
included in either the bill or the amendment, but shall
not include any other matter.
[(B) When a disagreement on an amendment or
amendments of one House to the disapproval bill of the
other House has been referred to a committee of
conference, the conferees shall report those
cancellations upon which both Houses agree and may
report any or all of those cancellations upon which
there is disagreement, but shall not include any other
matter.
[definitions
[Sec. 1026. As used in this part:
[(1) Appropriation law.--The term ``appropriation
law'' means an Act referred to in section 105 of title
1, United States Code, including any general or special
appropriation Act, or any Act making supplemental,
deficiency, or continuing appropriations, that has been
signed into law pursuant to article I, section 7, of
the Constitution of the United States.
[(2) Calendar day.--The term ``calendar day'' means
a standard 24-hour period beginning at midnight.
[(3) Calendar days of session.--The term ``calendar
days of session'' shall mean only those days on which
both Houses of Congress are in session.
[(4) Cancel.--The term ``cancel'' or
``cancellation'' means--
[(A) with respect to any dollar amount of
discretionary budget authority, to rescind;
[(B) with respect to any item of new direct
spending--
[(i) that is budget authority
provided by law (other than an
appropriation law), to prevent such
budget authority from having legal
force or effect;
[(ii) that is entitlement
authority, to prevent the specific
legal obligation of the United States
from having legal force or effect; or
[(iii) through the food stamp
program, to prevent the specific
provision of law that results in an
increase in budget authority or outlays
for that program from having legal
force or effect; and
[(C) with respect to a limited tax benefit,
to prevent the specific provision of law that
provides such benefit from having legal force
or effect.
[(5) Direct spending.--The term ``direct spending''
means--
[(A) budget authority provided by law
(other than an appropriation law);
[(B) entitlement authority; and
[(C) the food stamp program.
[(6) Disapproval bill.--The term ``disapproval
bill'' means a bill or joint resolution which only
disapproves one or more cancellations of dollar amounts
of discretionary budget authority, items of new direct
spending, or limited tax benefits in a special message
transmitted by the President under this part and--
[(A) the title of which is as follows: ``A
bill disapproving the cancellations transmitted
by the President on ____'', the blank space
being filled in with the date of transmission
of the relevant special message and the public
law number to which the message relates;
[(B) which does not have a preamble; and
[(C) which provides only the following
after the enacting clause: ``That Congress
disapproves of cancellations ____'', the blank
space being filled in with a list by reference
number of one or more cancellations contained
in the President's special message, ``as
transmitted by the President in a special
message on ____'', the blank space being filled
in with the appropriate date, ``regarding
____.'', the blank space being filled in with
the public law number to which the special
message relates.
[(7) Dollar amount of discretionary budget
authority.--(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term ``dollar amount of discretionary budget
authority'' means the entire dollar amount of budget
authority--
[(i) specified in an appropriation law, or
the entire dollar amount of budget authority
required to be allocated by a specific proviso
in an appropriation law for which a specific
dollar figure was not included;
[(ii) represented separately in any table,
chart, or explanatory text included in the
statement of managers or the governing
committee report accompanying such law;
[(iii) required to be allocated for a
specific program, project, or activity in a law
(other than an appropriation law) that mandates
the expenditure of budget authority from
accounts, programs, projects, or activities for
which budget authority is provided in an
appropriation law;
[(iv) represented by the product of the
estimated procurement cost and the total
quantity of items specified in an appropriation
law or included in the statement of managers or
the governing committee report accompanying
such law; or
[(v) represented by the product of the
estimated procurement cost and the total
quantity of items required to be provided in a
law (other than an appropriation law) that
mandates the expenditure of budget authority
from accounts, programs, projects, or
activities for which budget authority is
provided in an appropriation law.
[(B) The term ``dollar amount of discretionary
budget authority'' does not include--
[(i) direct spending;
[(ii) budget authority in an appropriation
law which funds direct spending provided for in
other law;
[(iii) any existing budget authority
rescinded or canceled in an appropriation law;
or
[(iv) any restriction, condition, or
limitation in an appropriation law or the
accompanying statement of managers or committee
reports on the expenditure of budget authority
for an account, program, project, or activity,
or on activities involving such expenditure.
[(8) Item of new direct spending.--The term ``item
of new direct spending'' means any specific provision
of law that is estimated to result in an increase in
budget authority or outlays for direct spending
relative to the most recent levels calculated pursuant
to section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985.
[(9) Limited tax benefit.--(A) The term ``limited
tax benefit'' means--
[(i) any revenue-losing provision which
provides a Federal tax deduction, credit,
exclusion, or preference to 100 or fewer
beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 in any fiscal year for which the
provision is in effect; and
[(ii) any Federal tax provision which
provides temporary or permanent transitional
relief for 10 or fewer beneficiaries in any
fiscal year from a change to the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
[(B) A provision shall not be treated as described
in subparagraph (A)(i) if the effect of that provision
is that--
[(i) all persons in the same industry or
engaged in the same type of activity receive
the same treatment;
[(ii) all persons owning the same type of
property, or issuing the same type of
investment, receive the same treatment; or
[(iii) any difference in the treatment of
persons is based solely on--
[(I) in the case of businesses and
associations, the size or form of the
business or association involved;
[(II) in the case of individuals,
general demographic conditions, such as
income, marital status, number of
dependents, or tax return filing
status;
[(III) the amount involved; or
[(IV) a generally-available
election under the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986.
[(C) A provision shall not be treated as described
in subparagraph (A)(ii) if--
[(i) it provides for the retention of prior
law with respect to all binding contracts or
other legally enforceable obligations in
existence on a date contemporaneous with
congressional action specifying such date; or
[(ii) it is a technical correction to
previously enacted legislation that is
estimated to have no revenue effect.
[(D) For purposes of subparagraph (A)--
[(i) all businesses and associations which
are related within the meaning of sections
707(b) and 1563(a) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 shall be treated as a single
beneficiary;
[(ii) all qualified plans of an employer
shall be treated as a single beneficiary;
[(iii) all holders of the same bond issue
shall be treated as a single beneficiary; and
[(iv) if a corporation, partnership,
association, trust or estate is the beneficiary
of a provision, the shareholders of the
corporation, the partners of the partnership,
the members of the association, or the
beneficiaries of the trust or estate shall not
also be treated as beneficiaries of such
provision.
[(E) For purposes of this paragraph, the term
``revenue-losing provision'' means any provision which
results in a reduction in Federal tax revenues for any
one of the two following periods--
[(i) the first fiscal year for which the
provision is effective; or
[(ii) the period of the 5 fiscal years
beginning with the first fiscal year for which
the provision is effective.
[(F) The terms used in this paragraph shall have
the same meaning as those terms have generally in the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, unless otherwise
expressly provided.
[(10) OMB.--The term ``OMB'' means the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget.
[identification of limited tax benefits
[Sec. 1027. (a) Statement by Joint Tax Committee.--The
Joint Committee on Taxation shall review any revenue or
reconciliation bill or joint resolution which includes any
amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is being
prepared for filing by a committee of conference of the two
Houses, and shall identify whether such bill or joint
resolution contains any limited tax benefits. The Joint
Committee on Taxation shall provide to the committee of
conference a statement identifying any such limited tax
benefits or declaring that the bill or joint resolution does
not contain any limited tax benefits. Any such statement shall
be made available to any Member of Congress by the Joint
Committee on Taxation immediately upon request.
[(b) Statement Included in Legislation.--(1)
Notwithstanding any other rule of the House of Representatives
or any rule or precedent of the Senate, any revenue or
reconciliation bill or joint resolution which includes any
amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 reported by a
committee of conference of the two Houses may include, as a
separate section of such bill or joint resolution, the
information contained in the statement of the Joint Committee
on Taxation, but only in the manner set forth in paragraph (2).
[(2) The separate section permitted under paragraph (1)
shall read as follows: ``Section 1021(a)(3) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 shall
____ apply to ______.'', with the blank spaces being filled in
with--
[(A) in any case in which the Joint Committee on
Taxation identifies limited tax benefits in the
statement required under subsection (a), the word
``only'' in the first blank space and a list of all of
the specific provisions of the bill or joint resolution
identified by the Joint Committee on Taxation in such
statement in the second blank space; or
[(B) in any case in which the Joint Committee on
Taxation declares that there are no limited tax
benefits in the statement required under subsection
(a), the word ``not'' in the first blank space and the
phrase ``any provision of this Act'' in the second
blank space.
[(c) President's Authority.--If any revenue or
reconciliation bill or joint resolution is signed into law
pursuant to article I, section 7, of the Constitution of the
United States--
[(1) with a separate section described in
subsection (b)(2), then the President may use the
authority granted in section 1021(a)(3) only to cancel
any limited tax benefit in that law, if any, identified
in such separate section; or
[(2) without a separate section described in
subsection (b)(2), then the President may use the
authority granted in section 1021(a)(3) to cancel any
limited tax benefit in that law that meets the
definition in section 1026.
[(d) Congressional Identifications of Limited Tax
Benefits.--There shall be no judicial review of the
congressional identification under subsections (a) and (b) of a
limited tax benefit in a conference report.]
Part B--Legislative Line Item Veto
LINE ITEM VETO AUTHORITY
Sec. 1011. (a) Proposed Cancellations.--Within 45 calendar
days after the enactment of any bill or joint resolution
providing any discretionary budget authority, item of direct
spending, or targeted tax benefit, the President may propose,
in the manner provided in subsection (b), the cancellation of
any dollar amount of such discretionary budget authority, item
of direct spending, or targeted tax benefit. If the 45
calendar-day period expires during a period where either House
of Congress stands adjourned sine die at the end of a Congress
or for a period greater than 45 calendar days, the President
may propose a cancellation under this section and transmit a
special message under subsection (b) on the first calendar day
of session following such a period of adjournment.
(b) Transmittal of Special Message.--
(1) Special message.--
(A) In general.--The President may transmit
to the Congress a special message proposing to
cancel any dollar amounts of discretionary
budget authority, items of direct spending, or
targeted tax benefits.
(B) Contents of special message.--Each
special message shall specify, with respect to
the discretionary budget authority, items of
direct spending proposed, or targeted tax
benefits to be canceled--
(i) the dollar amount of
discretionary budget authority, the
specific item of direct spending (that
OMB, after consultation with CBO,
estimates to increase budget authority
or outlays as required by section
1017(9)), or the targeted tax benefit
that the President proposes be
canceled;
(ii) any account, department, or
establishment of the Government to
which such discretionary budget
authority is available for obligation,
and the specific project or
governmental functions involved;
(iii) the reasons why such
discretionary budget authority, item of
direct spending, or targeted tax
benefit should be canceled;
(iv) to the maximum extent
practicable, the estimated fiscal,
economic, and budgetary effect
(including the effect on outlays and
receipts in each fiscal year) of the
proposed cancellation;
(v) to the maximum extent
practicable, all facts, circumstances,
and considerations relating to or
bearing upon the proposed cancellation
and the decision to effect the proposed
cancellation, and the estimated effect
of the proposed cancellation upon the
objects, purposes, or programs for
which the discretionary budget
authority, item of direct spending, or
the targeted tax benefit is provided;
(vi) a numbered list of
cancellations to be included in an
approval bill that, if enacted, would
cancel discretionary budget authority,
items of direct spending, or targeted
tax benefits proposed in that special
message; and
(vii) if the special message is
transmitted subsequent to or at the
same time as another special message, a
detailed explanation why the proposed
cancellations are not substantially
similar to any other proposed
cancellation in such other message.
(C) Duplicative proposals prohibited.--The
President may not propose to cancel the same or
substantially similar discretionary budget
authority, item of direct spending, or targeted
tax benefit more than one time under this Act.
(D) Maximum number of special messages.--
The President may not transmit to the Congress
more than 5 special messages under this
subsection related to any bill or joint
resolution described in subsection (a), but may
transmit not more than 10 special messages for
any omnibus budget reconciliation or
appropriation measure.
(2) Enactment of approval bill.--
(A) Deficit reduction.--Amounts of budget
authority, items of direct spending, or
targeted tax benefits which are canceled
pursuant to enactment of a bill as provided
under this section shall be dedicated only to
reducing the deficit or increasing the surplus.
(B) Adjustment of levels in the concurrent
resolution on the budget.--Not later than 5
days after the date of enactment of an approval
bill as provided under this section, the chairs
of the Committees on the Budget of the Senate
and the House of Representatives shall revise
allocations and aggregates and other
appropriate levels under the appropriate
concurrent resolution on the budget to reflect
the cancellation, and the applicable committees
shall report revised suballocations pursuant to
section 302(b), as appropriate.
(C) Adjustments to statutory limits.--After
enactment of an approval bill as provided under
this section, the Office of Management and
Budget shall revise applicable limits under the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985, as appropriate.
PROCEDURES FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION
Sec. 1012. (a) Expedited Consideration.--
(1) In general.--The majority leader of each House
or his designee shall (by request) introduce an
approval bill as defined in section 1017 not later than
the fifth day of session of that House after the date
of receipt of a special message transmitted to the
Congress under section 1011(b).
(2) Consideration in the house of
representatives.--
(A) Referral and reporting.--Any committee
of the House of Representatives to which an
approval bill is referred shall report it to
the House without amendment not later than the
seventh legislative day after the date of its
introduction. If a committee fails to report
the bill within that period or the House has
adopted a concurrent resolution providing for
adjournment sine die at the end of a Congress,
it shall be in order to move that the House
discharge the committee from further
consideration of the bill. Such a motion shall
be in order only at a time designated by the
Speaker in the legislative schedule within two
legislative days after the day on which the
proponent announces his intention to offer the
motion. Such a motion shall not be in order
after a committee has reported an approval bill
with respect to that special message or after
the House has disposed of a motion to discharge
with respect to that special message. The
previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the motion to its adoption without
intervening motion except twenty minutes of
debate equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent. If such a motion is
adopted, the House shall proceed immediately to
consider the approval bill in accordance with
subparagraph (C). A motion to reconsider the
vote by which the motion is disposed of shall
not be in order.
(B) Proceeding to consideration.--After an
approval bill is reported or a committee has
been discharged from further consideration, or
the House has adopted a concurrent resolution
providing for adjournment sine die at the end
of a Congress, it shall be in order to move to
proceed to consider the approval bill in the
House. Such a motion shall be in order only at
a time designated by the Speaker in the
legislative schedule within two legislative
days after the day on which the proponent
announces his intention to offer the motion.
Such a motion shall not be in order after the
House has disposed of a motion to proceed with
respect to that special message. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to its adoption without intervening
motion. A motion to reconsider the vote by
which the motion is disposed of shall not be in
order.
(C) Consideration.--The approval bill shall
be considered as read. All points of order
against an approval bill and against its
consideration are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on an approval
bill to its passage without intervening motion
except five hours of debate equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent and
one motion to limit debate on the bill. A
motion to reconsider the vote on passage of the
bill shall not be in order.
(D) Senate bill.--An approval bill received
from the Senate shall not be referred to
committee.
(3) Consideration in the senate.--
(A) Motion to proceed to consideration.--A
motion to proceed to the consideration of a
bill under this subsection in the Senate shall
not be debatable. It shall not be in order to
move to reconsider the vote by which the motion
to proceed is agreed to or disagreed to.
(B) Limits on debate.--Debate in the Senate
on a bill under this subsection, and all
debatable motions and appeals in connection
therewith (including debate pursuant to
subparagraph (D)), shall not exceed 10 hours,
equally divided and controlled in the usual
form.
(C) Appeals.--Debate in the Senate on any
debatable motion or appeal in connection with a
bill under this subsection shall be limited to
not more than 1 hour, to be equally divided and
controlled in the usual form.
(D) Motion to limit debate.--A motion in
the Senate to further limit debate on a bill
under this subsection is not debatable.
(E) Motion to recommit.--A motion to
recommit a bill under this subsection is not in
order.
(F) Consideration of the house bill.--
(i) In general.--If the Senate has
received the House companion bill to
the bill introduced in the Senate prior
to the vote required under paragraph
(1)(C), then the Senate may consider,
and the vote under paragraph (1)(C) may
occur on, the House companion bill.
(ii) Procedure after vote on senate
bill.--If the Senate votes, pursuant to
paragraph (1)(C), on the bill
introduced in the Senate, then
immediately following that vote, or
upon receipt of the House companion
bill, the House bill shall be deemed to
be considered, read the third time, and
the vote on passage of the Senate bill
shall be considered to be the vote on
the bill received from the House.
(b) Amendments Prohibited.--No amendment to, or motion to
strike a provision from, a bill considered under this section
shall be in order in either the Senate or the House of
Representatives.
PRESIDENTIAL DEFERRAL AUTHORITY
Sec. 1013. (a) Temporary Presidential Authority to Withhold
Discretionary Budget Authority.--
(1) In general.--At the same time as the President
transmits to the Congress a special message pursuant to
section 1011(b), the President may direct that any
dollar amount of discretionary budget authority to be
canceled in that special message shall not be made
available for obligation for a period not to exceed 45
calendar days from the date the President transmits the
special message to the Congress.
(2) Early availability.--The President shall make
any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority
deferred pursuant to paragraph (1) available at a time
earlier than the time specified by the President if the
President determines that continuation of the deferral
would not further the purposes of this Act.
(b) Temporary Presidential Authority to Suspend Direct
Spending.--
(1) In general.--At the same time as the President
transmits to the Congress a special message pursuant to
section 1011(b), the President may suspend the
implementation of any item of direct spending proposed
to be canceled in that special message for a period not
to exceed 45 calendar days from the date the President
transmits the special message to the Congress.
(2) Early availability.--The President shall
terminate the suspension of any item of direct spending
at a time earlier than the time specified by the
President if the President determines that continuation
of the suspension would not further the purposes of
this Act.
(c) Temporary Presidential Authority to Suspend a Targeted
Tax Benefit.--
(1) In general.--At the same time as the President
transmits to the Congress a special message pursuant to
section 1011(b), the President may suspend the
implementation of any targeted tax benefit proposed to
be repealed in that special message for a period not to
exceed 45 calendar days from the date the President
transmits the special message to the Congress.
(2) Early availability.--The President shall
terminate the suspension of any targeted tax benefit at
a time earlier than the time specified by the President
if the President determines that continuation of the
suspension would not further the purposes of this Act.
(d) Extension of 45-day Period.--The President may transmit
to the Congress not more than one supplemental special message
to extend the period to suspend the implementation of any
discretionary budget authority, item of direct spending, or
targeted tax benefit, as applicable, by an additional 45
calendar days. Any such supplemental message may not be
transmitted to the Congress before the 40th day of the 45-day
period set forth in the preceding message or later than the
last day of such period.
IDENTIFICATION OF TARGETED TAX BENEFITS
Sec. 1014. (a) Statement.--The chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the chairman
of the Committee on Finance of the Senate acting jointly
(hereafter in this subsection referred to as the ``chairmen'')
shall review any revenue or reconciliation bill or joint
resolution which includes any amendment to the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 that is being prepared for filing by a committee
of conference of the two Houses, and shall identify whether
such bill or joint resolution contains any targeted tax
benefits. The chairmen shall provide to the committee of
conference a statement identifying any such targeted tax
benefits or declaring that the bill or joint resolution does
not contain any targeted tax benefits. Any such statement shall
be made available to any Member of Congress by the chairmen
immediately upon request.
(b) Statement Included in Legislation.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other rule of
the House of Representatives or any rule or precedent
of the Senate, any revenue or reconciliation bill or
joint resolution which includes any amendment to the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 reported by a committee
of conference of the two Houses may include, as a
separate section of such bill or joint resolution, the
information contained in the statement of the chairmen,
but only in the manner set forth in paragraph (2).
(2) Applicability.--The separate section permitted
under subparagraph (A) shall read as follows: ``Section
1021 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 shall ________ apply to
____________.'', with the blank spaces being filled in
with--
(A) in any case in which the chairmen
identify targeted tax benefits in the statement
required under subsection (a), the word
``only'' in the first blank space and a list of
all of the specific provisions of the bill or
joint resolution identified by the chairmen in
such statement in the second blank space; or
(B) in any case in which the chairmen
declare that there are no targeted tax benefits
in the statement required under subsection (a),
the word ``not'' in the first blank space and
the phrase ``any provision of this Act'' in the
second blank space.
(c) President's Authority.--If any revenue or
reconciliation bill or joint resolution is signed into law--
(1) with a separate section described in subsection
(b)(2), then the President may use the authority
granted in this section only with respect to any
targeted tax benefit in that law, if any, identified in
such separate section; or
(2) without a separate section described in
subsection (b)(2), then the President may use the
authority granted in this section with respect to any
targeted tax benefit in that law.
TREATMENT OF CANCELLATIONS
Sec. 1015. The cancellation of any dollar amount of
discretionary budget authority, item of direct spending, or
targeted tax benefit shall take effect only upon enactment of
the applicable approval bill. If an approval bill is not
enacted into law before the end of the applicable period under
section 1013, then all proposed cancellations contained in that
bill shall be null and void and any such dollar amount of
discretionary budget authority, item of direct spending, or
targeted tax benefit shall be effective as of the original date
provided in the law to which the proposed cancellations
applied.
REPORTS BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL
Sec. 1016. With respect to each special message under this
part, the Comptroller General shall issue to the Congress a
report determining whether any discretionary budget authority
is not made available for obligation or item of direct spending
or targeted tax benefit continues to be suspended after the
deferral authority set forth in section 1013 of the President
has expired.
DEFINITIONS
Sec. 1017. As used in this part:
(1) Appropriation law.--The term ``appropriation
law'' means an Act referred to in section 105 of title
1, United States Code, including any general or special
appropriation Act, or any Act making supplemental,
deficiency, or continuing appropriations, that has been
signed into law pursuant to article I, section 7, of
the Constitution of the United States.
(2) Approval bill.--The term ``approval bill''
means a bill or joint resolution which only approves
proposed cancellations of dollar amounts of
discretionary budget authority, items of new direct
spending, or targeted tax benefits in a special message
transmitted by the President under this part and--
(A) the title of which is as follows: ``A
bill approving the proposed cancellations
transmitted by the President on ____'', the
blank space being filled in with the date of
transmission of the relevant special message
and the public law number to which the message
relates;
(B) which does not have a preamble; and
(C) which provides only the following after
the enacting clause: ``That the Congress
approves of proposed cancellations ____'', the
blank space being filled in with a list of the
cancellations contained in the President's
special message, ``as transmitted by the
President in a special message on ____'', the
blank space being filled in with the
appropriate date, ``regarding ____.'', the
blank space being filled in with the public law
number to which the special message relates;
(D) which only includes proposed
cancellations that are estimated by CBO to meet
the definition of discretionary budgetary
authority or items of direct spending, or that
are identified as targeted tax benefits
pursuant to section 1014;
(E) if any proposed cancellation other than
discretionary budget authority or targeted tax
benefits is estimated by CBO to not meet the
definition of item of direct spending, then the
approval bill shall include at the end: ``The
President shall cease the suspension of the
implementation of the following under section
1013 of the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of
2006: ____'', the blank space being filled in
with the list of such proposed cancellations;
and
(F) if no CBO estimate is available, then
the entire list of legislative provisions
proposed by the President is inserted in the
second blank space in subparagraph (C).
(3) Calendar day.--The term ``calendar day'' means
a standard 24-hour period beginning at midnight.
(4) Cancel or cancellation.--The terms ``cancel''
or ``cancellation'' means to prevent--
(A) budget authority from having legal
force or effect;
(B) in the case of entitlement authority,
to prevent the specific legal obligation of the
United States from having legal force or
effect;
(C) in the case of the food stamp program,
to prevent the specific provision of law that
provides such benefit from having legal force
or effect; or
(D) a targeted tax benefit from having
legal force or effect; and
to make any necessary, conforming statutory change to
ensure that such targeted tax benefit is not
implemented and that any budgetary resources are
appropriately canceled.
(5) CBO.--The term ``CBO'' means the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office.
(6) Direct spending.--The term ``direct spending''
means--
(A) budget authority provided by law (other
than an appropriation law);
(B) entitlement authority; and
(C) the food stamp program.
(7) Dollar amount of discretionary budget
authority.--(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term ``dollar amount of discretionary budget
authority'' means the entire dollar amount of budget
authority--
(i) specified in an appropriation law, or
the entire dollar amount of budget authority or
obligation limitation required to be allocated
by a specific proviso in an appropriation law
for which a specific dollar figure was not
included;
(ii) represented separately in any table,
chart, or explanatory text included in the
statement of managers or the governing
committee report accompanying such law;
(iii) required to be allocated for a
specific program, project, or activity in a law
(other than an appropriation law) that mandates
the expenditure of budget authority from
accounts, programs, projects, or activities for
which budget authority is provided in an
appropriation law;
(iv) represented by the product of the
estimated procurement cost and the total
quantity of items specified in an appropriation
law or included in the statement of managers or
the governing committee report accompanying
such law; or
(v) represented by the product of the
estimated procurement cost and the total
quantity of items required to be provided in a
law (other than an appropriation law) that
mandates the expenditure of budget authority
from accounts, programs, projects, or
activities for which budget authority is
provided in an appropriation law.
(B) The term ``dollar amount of discretionary
budget authority'' does not include--
(i) direct spending;
(ii) budget authority in an appropriation
law which funds direct spending provided for in
other law;
(iii) any existing budget authority
canceled in an appropriation law; or
(iv) any restriction, condition, or
limitation in an appropriation law or the
accompanying statement of managers or committee
reports on the expenditure of budget authority
for an account, program, project, or activity,
or on activities involving such expenditure.
(8) Item of direct spending.--The term ``item of
direct spending'' means any provision of law that
results in an increase in budget authority or outlays
for direct spending relative to the most recent levels
calculated consistent with the methodology used to
calculate a baseline under section 257 of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and
included with a budget submission under section 1105(a)
of title 31, United States Code, in the first year or
the 5-year period for which the item is effective.
However, such item does not include an extension or
reauthorization of existing direct spending, but
instead only refers to provisions of law that increase
such direct spending.
(9) OMB.--The term ``OMB'' means the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget.
(10) Omnibus reconciliation or appropriation
measure.--The term ``omnibus reconciliation or
appropriation measure'' means--
(A) in the case of a reconciliation bill,
any such bill that is reported to its House by
the Committee on the Budget; or
(B) in the case of an appropriation
measure, any such measure that provides
appropriations for programs, projects, or
activities falling within 2 or more section
302(b) suballocations.
(11) Targeted tax benefit.--(A) The term ``targeted
tax benefit'' means any revenue-losing provision that
provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or
preference to only one beneficiary (determined with
respect to either present law or any provision of which
the provision is a part) under the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 in any year for which the provision is in
effect;
(B) for purposes of subparagraph (A)--
(i) all businesses and associations that
are members of the same controlled group of
corporations (as defined in section 1563(a) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) shall be
treated as a single beneficiary;
(ii) all shareholders, partners, members,
or beneficiaries of a corporation, partnership,
association, or trust or estate, respectively,
shall be treated as a single beneficiary;
(iii) all employees of an employer shall be
treated as a single beneficiary;
(iv) all qualified plans of an employer
shall be treated as a single beneficiary;
(v) all beneficiaries of a qualified plan
shall be treated as a single beneficiary;
(vi) all contributors to a charitable
organization shall be treated as a single
beneficiary;
(vii) all holders of the same bond issue
shall be treated as a single beneficiary; and
(viii) if a corporation, partnership,
association, trust or estate is the beneficiary
of a provision, the shareholders of the
corporation, the partners of the partnership,
the members of the association, or the
beneficiaries of the trust or estate shall not
also be treated as beneficiaries of such
provision;
(C) for the purpose of this paragraph, the term
``revenue-losing provision'' means any provision that
is estimated to result in a reduction in Federal tax
revenues (determined with respect to either present law
or any provision of which the provision is a part) for
any one of the two following periods--
(i) the first fiscal year for which the
provision is effective; or
(ii) the period of the 5 fiscal years
beginning with the first fiscal year for which
the provision is effective; and
(D) the terms used in this paragraph shall have the
same meaning as those terms have generally in the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, unless otherwise
expressly provided.
EXPIRATION
Sec. 1018. This title shall have no force or effect on or
after October 1, 2012.
SUITS BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL
Sec. [1016] 1019. If, under this title, budget authority is
required to be made available for obligation and such budget
authority is not made available for obligation, the Comptroller
General is hereby expressly empowered, through attorneys of his
own selection, to bring a civil action in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia to require such
budget authority to be made available for obligation, and such
court is hereby expressly empowered to enter in such civil
action, against any department, agency, officer, or employee of
the United States, any decree, judgment, or order, which may be
necessary or appropriate to make such budget authority
available for obligation. No civil action shall be brought by
the Comptroller General under this section until the expiration
of 25 calendar days of continuous session of the Congress
following the date on which an explanatory statement by the
Comptroller General of the circumstances giving rise to the
action contemplated has been filed with the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the President of the Senate.
PROPOSED DEFERRALS OF BUDGET AUTHORITY
Sec. [1013] 1020. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Exception.--The provisions of this section do not apply
to any budget authority proposed to be [rescinded or that is to
be reserved] canceled as set forth in a special message
required to be transmitted under section [1012] 1011.
VIEWS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Clause 2(l) of rule XI requires each committee to afford a
2-day opportunity for members of the committee to file
additional, minority, or dissenting views and to include the
views in its report. The following views were submitted:
MINORITY VIEWS
The United States faces a serious budget situation--
structural deficits of $300 billion-$400 billion--which this
bill barely addresses. Anything that can help bring the budget
back to balance is worthy of discussion, but even its
proponents do not claim that this bill will balance the budget.
A well crafted expedited power of rescission could be a useful
budget tool, but only if it is part of a framework that
includes real budget enforcement, and these elements are still
missing from this package.
Lack of Budget: First of all, the Congress has abdicated
one of the basic tenets of governing by failing to budget. If
we learned any lesson from the 1990s, it is that we need multi-
year budget plans to bring large structural deficits down. But
for this year, we do not have a concurrent budget resolution,
much less a five-year plan.
PAYGO: Second, if we are in earnest about tools to bring
down the deficit, we have tools that have proved their
effectiveness, specifically, the Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) rules
that worked well in the 1990s but that Congress let lapse in
2002. We are concerned that passage of today's bill by itself
could lessen the likelihood of tougher measures, like PAYGO,
becoming law.
Deficit Reduction: Third, if we are in earnest about
bringing down the deficit, let's put in place rules that work
to reduce the deficit. For example, Congress created the
reconciliation process to make it easier to reduce the deficit
by setting up special procedures for hard-to-pass budget cuts,
yet this Congress now uses reconciliation to pass tax cuts that
enlarge the deficit. We are concerned that this legislation
could result in an increase in the deficit. A president with
this virtual veto power could push a big spending bill, call
members of Congress when a vote was coming up, solicit their
support, and if it was not forthcoming, back up his request
with a veiled threat--the rescission of something that member
dearly wanted.
Enforce Rules: If we are serious about rooting out wasteful
spending--as we think we should be--let's start by enforcing
the requirement already on the books requiring that House
members be given three days to review conference reports before
they are brought up for a vote. The House Rules Committee
routinely waives that rule and rushes bills to the floor hours
or even minutes after multi-billion dollar bills are finalized.
While we are exercising our three-day scrutiny, we should have
a bright light shining on exactly where earmarked spending is
going, yet this bill is silent on earmark reform. If this bill
is an acknowledgment that Congress has failed to oversee
spending, shouldn't we make some effort to correct our own
procedures, rather than just surrendering immense powers to the
president?
What Democrats Support: This bill is an improved version of
the bill as originally filed. But it cedes too much power to
the President, and we think that these powers could still be
pared back, so that the risk of abuse or manipulation is
reduced. We're not opposed to a properly crafted, limited
expedited rescission legislation as one part of a tool kit that
will bring the budget under control. In the 1990s, some
Democrats filed and brought to the floor a balanced bill that
required the President to act swiftly in order to wield a line-
item veto and gave him a clean chance--but only one--to
eliminate a particular item.
This legislation is materially different from what many
Democrats supported in the 1990s. That legislation protected
Social Security and Medicare because it excluded mandatory
spending from its reach. This bill would apply to all mandatory
spending programs. This bill gives the President 45 days to
send the Congress an expedited rescission message. But the
measure in the 1990s gave the president only three calendar
days. The legislation in the 1990s also gave the Congress the
power to amend the President's package and contained a two-year
sunset so that the Congress could assess the value of the bill.
This bill has a six-year sunset and no Congressional power to
amend. Finally, the legislation in the 1990s was proposed when
PAYGO and discretionary spending caps were in force, and was
complementary to those rules.
In Committee markup, Democrats proposed a number of
amendments to improve this bill, including a substitute
amendment (described below). If this bill could be closer to
the form that many Democrats supported in the 1990s, and if we
could add the PAYGO rule that was in force when we considered
expedited rescission in the 1990s, and bar the Rules Committee
from overriding our points of order, some of us might view it
in a different light. But if the goal is deficit reduction, and
the means are transparency, this package has a way to go before
it is worthy of passage.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF SPRATT SUBSTITUTE
Key features:
<bullet> Reinstates statutory two-sided Pay-As-You-Go
(PAYGO) rules for both mandatory spending and revenues.
<bullet> Amends the Budget Act to prevent reconciliation
from being used to make the deficit worse or the surplus
smaller.
<bullet> Enforces the three-day layover requirement in
House rules to give Members adequate time to review
legislation.
<bullet> Adds earmark reform provisions.
<bullet> Deletes all provisions concerning mandatory
spending, thus protecting programs like Social Security,
Medicare, and veterans' benefits.
<bullet> Prohibits the President or executive branch
officials from using the rescission authority as a bargaining
tool to secure votes on other legislation.
<bullet> Provides for a motion to strike in the House and
the Senate, if 100 House Members or 16 Senators propose it. If,
as a result of successful motions to strike, the House and
Senate pass different versions of the rescission bill, then a
conference committee would have only a limited amount of time
to produce a conference report on the bill. If 20 days passed
without a conference report being produced, then the House and
Senate would consider the President's proposed package again--
and this time no amendments would be permitted.
<bullet> Adds a two-year sunset to the bill.
John M. Spratt, Jr.
Dennis Moore.
Harold Ford, Jr.
Lois Capps.
Brian N. Baird.
Artur Davis.
Wm. J. Jefferson.
Tom Allen.
Cynthia McKinney.
Ron Kind.
Allyson Y. Schwartz.
<all>