HEARING
ON

"H.R. 4890 – LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO ACT OF 2006 "

---

INDEX | TESTIMONY

---

Date: March 15, 2006
Time: 10:00 am
Room: H-313, The Capitol

WITNESSES

Panel 1

The Honorable Paul D. Ryan (R-WI)
Sponsor – H.R.4890, Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006

Mr. Joel D. Kaplan
Deputy Director, Office of Management and Budget

Panel 2

The Honorable Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Chairman, House Committee on Appropriations

Mr. Donald B. Marron
Director (Acting), Congressional Budget Office

 

PURPOSE OF THE HEARING

The hearing before the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget process will focus on President Bush’s March 6, 2006 proposal for an expedited rescission process.  Legislation addressing this proposal was introduced on March 7, 2006, sponsored by Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) (H.R.4890: The Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006). 

This subcommittee last held hearings on rescissions and the Line Item Veto in 1999, following the Supreme Court decision in Clinton v. City of New York to strike down the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. 

History of Rescissions

Rescission authority has been a controversial mainstay of the budget and appropriations process since passage of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA).  While nearly 2/3 of rescissions have been propounded by Congress, usually to offset supplemental spending, several Presidents have proposed and achieved rescissions since the passage of the ICA. 

The United States has seen a long history of either the Executive or Legislative branches of government offering proposals in this subject area since 1876.  At the time, President Grant requested that the Congress allow him a line item veto to stem what he believed was an excessive rise in the amount of provisions contained in appropriations bills.  On several occasions before and after the implementation of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, Congress has tried, with varying degrees of success, to pass rescission authority.

Proponents of the line-item veto have argued that the fundamental problem with existing rescission authority has been the lack of a rigorous process to address the President’s rescission proposals in both Houses.  Under the ICA, if both Houses of Congress do not act on a President’s rescission request within 45 days of “continuous session,” funding must be dispersed.

Additionally, rescission authority has developed into two separate categories: expanded rescission which allows greater, independent authority to alter legislation passed by the Congress and signed by the President (for example, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996), and expedited rescission that ensures that the Rules of both Houses provide for a mandatory review of discretionary spending in an appropriate timeframe. 

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996

As previously stated, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 has been the subject of hearings in this Subcommittee in 1998 and 1999.  Testimony and debate in those hearings focused on both the effect of the act in practice and the aftermath of the ruling by the Supreme Court striking the law. 

The Line Item Veto Act expanded the President’s rescission authority.  Senator Robert Byrd (WV) and other Members of Congress immediately challenged the act, but the Supreme Court set aside the challenge, ruling that Members of Congress lacked the proper legal standing to contest the law. 

However, in Clinton v. City of New York, the Supreme Court ruled that the Line Item Veto Act was, indeed, unconstitutional.

“Our decision rests on the narrow ground that the procedures authorized by the Line Item Veto Act are not authorized by the Constitution.”

As such, the Supreme Court rendered that particular type of expanded rescission authority impermissible, barring a constitutional amendment.

Expedited Rescission

The Constitutionality of expedited rescission authority has yet to be challenged in Federal court and the basic tenets have been in practice and available to the Legislative and Executive branches since the ICA in 1974. 

Specifically, expedited rescission seems to elude the constitutional traps of expanded rescission; Article 1, section 7, clause 2 (the Presentment clause) and Article 2, section 3.

First, expedited rescission follows traditional procedure with regard to how a bill becomes a law, neither expanding the veto powers of the President nor removing the authority of the Congress over the power of the purse.  Secondly, the President is not able to go above and beyond his power to “recommend” legislation to the Congress for its consideration.

The legislation recently introduced by Rep. Ryan changes the rules of the House and Senate to expedite consideration of proposed rescissions by the President.  The bill would require the approval by a simple majority of both Houses, without amendment, and with limited debate, of the President’s “package of rescissions.”

Recent Action/Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 (H.R.4890)

Since 1998, several proposals have been introduced in both the House and the Senate that would provide for various forms of expedited rescission authority or for a Constitutional Amendment to allow expanded rescission authority.  At no time have any of these proposals been considered by either House as “stand-alone” measures.  On many occasions however, rescission authority has been voted down by the House in amendments dealing with the issue of budget process reform. 

H.R.4890, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 was introduced by Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) on March 7, 2006.  Following the legislative proposal of the President, H.R.4890 seeks to amend the ICA to provide for expedited consideration of certain rescissions of budget authority or cancellation of targeted tax benefits proposed by the President. The bill also grants the President authority to withhold funds proposed for rescission or to suspend execution of direct spending for up to 180 days.

The recent attention by President Bush and the introduction of H.R.4890 by Rep. Ryan have led this Subcommittee to schedule a hearing to investigate the appropriateness of free-standing expedited rescission authority proposals.