{
  "id": "R41373",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R41373",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 387454,
      "date": "2011-05-03",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T00:54:58.797456",
      "title": "Expedited Rescission Bills in the 111th and 112th Congresses: Comparisons and Issues",
      "summary": "Under the framework established by the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974 (P.L. 93-344, 88 Stat. 297), the President may propose to rescind funding provided in an appropriations act by transmitting a special message to Congress and obtaining the support of both houses within 45 days of continuous session. If denied congressional approval during this time period, either by Congress ignoring the presidential rescission request or because one or both houses rejected the proposed rescission, the President must make the funding available to executive agencies for obligation and expenditure.\nInstead of allowing Congress to ignore presidential recommendations for rescissions, \u201cexpedited rescission\u201d attempts to require congressional consideration of the rescission and a vote by at least one house on the proposals. If either house disapproves the request, the other house need take no action because approval by both houses is necessary to make the rescission permanent. This approach has attracted support over the years, including several bills introduced in the 111th Congress. On May 24, 2010, President Obama sent to Congress the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010, a draft bill providing for expedited rescission procedures, which was introduced in the 111th Congress as H.R. 5454 and S. 3474. Hearings on expedited rescission proposals were held in both chambers during the 111th Congress.\nOn January 25, 2011, Senator McCain, along with Senator Carper and 21 other original cosponsors, introduced S. 102, the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2011, which is virtually identical to S. 3474 from the 111th Congress, and a related hearing by a Senate subcommittee was held on March 15, 2011. On March 11, 2011, Congressman Van Hollen with 26 cosponsors introduced H.R. 1043, which is virtually identical to H.R. 5454 from the 111th Congress and very similar to S. 102. The two measures pending in the 112th Congress would amend the ICA of 1974 to provide an expedited process for consideration of certain rescission requests from the President. Within 45 days after signing a bill into law, the President would be able to submit a package of rescissions for reducing or eliminating discretionary appropriations or non-entitlement non-appropriated funding contained in the bill as enacted. Such proposed rescissions from the President would be considered as a group and would be subject to expedited procedures in Congress, designed to make an up-or-down vote on the package more likely.\nA variety of issues related to expedited rescission measures that may prove of possible interest to Congress are noted in the report. Under the rubric of budgetary savings, some existing data suggest that enactment of expedited rescission authority for the President would have a relatively small impact on federal spending. Supporters acknowledge that expedited rescission would not be a panacea for deficit reduction, but that it would provide another useful tool for promoting fiscal discipline. The potential deterrent effect of the instrument has also been noted. The possible savings to be realized from expedited rescission depends on the breadth of coverage. In a rescission package subject to expedited congressional consideration, would the President be able to include any item of discretionary spending, and what about new items of direct (mandatory) spending? Would limited tax benefits be subject to cancellation under expedited rescission procedures? Other issues come under the subject of prerogatives of the legislative and the executive branches. Would the expedited procedures result in a President\u2019s spending priorities getting preference over those enacted by Congress? What about implications for relations between the President and Congress, with particular concern about the power of the purse?\n This report will be updated as events warrant.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41373",
          "sha1": "fba6c42dd4041681f44c3f2630584a44aa4098b6",
          "filename": "files/20110503_R41373_fba6c42dd4041681f44c3f2630584a44aa4098b6.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41373",
          "sha1": "1c6a66c981d5f5b5ac232b4961a25b0f55f593d5",
          "filename": "files/20110503_R41373_1c6a66c981d5f5b5ac232b4961a25b0f55f593d5.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Appropriations",
    "Intelligence and National Security"
  ]
}