{
  "id": "RL33869",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL33869",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 362190,
      "date": "2010-05-26",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T01:39:52.136763",
      "title": "Rescission Actions Since 1974: Review and Assessment of the Record",
      "summary": "The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) was included as Title X of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, signed into law on June 12, 1974 (88 Stat. 332). Under the ICA, unless Congress takes action to approve a rescission request from the President within the 45-day review period prescribed by the law, the funds must be released. With respect to a presidential rescission message, Congress may approve more or less than the amount requested by the President. In addition, absent a specific request from the President, Congress on its own accord may initiate rescission actions, by cancelling previously appropriated funds in a subsequent law.\nAccording to data compiled by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), from FY1974 through FY2008, Presidents requested 1,178 rescissions under the ICA, totaling somewhat over $76 billion. Close to a third of the proposals were approved by Congress, with approximately 40% of the total dollar amount of presidential rescission requests ($25 billion) enacted by Congress. The sum of rescissions requested by the President and subsequently enacted exceeded $1 billion in only four of the 35-plus years (FY1981, FY1982, FY1992 and FY1994). During this period Congress initiated 1,880 rescission actions amounting to $197.1 billion, nearly eight times the total of presidentially requested rescission subsequently enacted, reflecting a trend toward an increasing number of rescissions being initiated by Congress.\nThe Line Item Veto Act of 1996 (P.L. 93-344), in effect for less than eighteen months before being overturned by the Supreme Court in 1998, gave the President enhanced rescission authority by reversing the burden of action regarding rescission proposals; cancellations of the President became permanent unless disapproved by Congress (ultimately requiring rejection by a 2/3 majority in both chambers). During this time, the President also had authority to cancel new items of direct spending and certain targeted tax benefits as well as items of discretionary spending. Figures from the Congressional Budget Office indicate that the 82 cancellations made by President Clinton in FY1998 (including those overturned) totaled some $355 million, with a projected five-year savings just under $1 billion. President Clinton\u2019s use of the short-lived enhanced rescission authority thus was not notably different from the prior annual record of presidential rescissions under the ICA framework.\nDuring his two terms in office, President George W. Bush sent no formal ICA rescission requests to Congress, but some controversy developed over his use of alternative means to propose spending reductions. President Bush, while evidently reluctant to use existing rescission authority contained in the ICA, called repeatedly for enactment of a measure that would give the President greater authority to reject items of spending. Such a bill passed the House in the 109th Congress and was reported in the Senate. A contentious issue is whether such a measure might give preference to presidential spending priorities over congressional spending priorities, arguably affecting the legislative power of the purse.\nDuring his first year in office, President Barack Obama sent no formal ICA rescission requests to Congress. On May 24, 2010, however, the President transmitted to Congress a draft proposal, the \u201cReducing Unnecessary Spending Act,\u201d which would establish expedited procedures for congressional consideration of certain rescission messages. \nThis 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/RL33869",
          "sha1": "c16927462ea4eb22baecc860c9f338337cef6ac9",
          "filename": "files/20100526_RL33869_c16927462ea4eb22baecc860c9f338337cef6ac9.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33869",
          "sha1": "f1233c24f4c0fdc02353ca40682217f6134a2e2d",
          "filename": "files/20100526_RL33869_f1233c24f4c0fdc02353ca40682217f6134a2e2d.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc806257/",
      "id": "RL33869_2008Mar14",
      "date": "2008-03-14",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Rescission Actions Since 1974: Review and Assessment of the Record",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20080314_RL33869_da93aba30639e85f0b4c5f7951a86c68ae6f0a20.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20080314_RL33869_da93aba30639e85f0b4c5f7951a86c68ae6f0a20.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}