Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006: Background and Comparison of Versions

CRS Report for Congress
Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006:
Background and Comparison of Versions
July 5, 2006
Virginia A. McMurtry
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division


Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006: Background and
Comparison of Versions
Summary
Under current law, the President may propose to rescind funding provided in an
appropriations act by transmitting a special message to Congress. If Congress
ignores the presidential rescission request, or if either house rejects the request, the
funds must be released after 45 days of continuous session. Instead of allowing
Congress to ignore such requests, “expedited rescission” requires at least one house
to vote on presidential proposals. Expedited rescission bills have attracted supporters
over the years, because the approach is generally regarded as transferring less power
from Congress to the President than most other ways of altering the rescission
framework. For three consecutive years in the early 1990s, the House passed an
expedited rescission bill.
President George W. Bush has repeatedly called for granting line item veto
authority to the President, and an Administration draft bill incorporating the
expedited rescission approach was sent to Congress on March 6, 2006. That bill, the
Legislative Line Item Veto Act (LLIVA) of 2006, was introduced the following day
as S. 2381 and H.R. 4890. Other expedited rescission measures pending in the 109th
Congress contain similar provisions, including H.R. 2290 (Section 311), H.R. 4699,
H.R. 5667 (Title I), S. 2372, and S. 3521 (Title I).
On June 14, 2006, the House Budget Committee voted 24-9 to report H.R. 4890,
as amended, favorably. The next day the Rules Committee voted 8-4 to report an
amended version in effectively the same form as that approved by the Budget
Committee. On June 22, 2006, the House approved H.R. 4890 by a vote of 247-172.
Meanwhile, on June 14, 2006, Senator Judd Gregg, the chair of the Senate
Budget Committee, and others held a press conference to unveil the Stop Over
Spending Act, which contained a modified version of the LLIVA in Title I, as well
as other budget process reforms. On June 15, 2006, the bill was introduced as S.

3521, and on June 20, the Senate Budget Committee voted 12-10 to report the bill,


as amended, favorably.
This report provides a comparative overview of some major features in three
versions of the LLIVA — H.R. 4890/S. 2381 as introduced, H.R. 4890 as passed by
the House, and Title I of S. 3521, as ordered to be reported by the Senate Budget
Committee — with provisions in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-130),
which the Supreme Court held unconstitutional in 1998.
This report will be updated when action is taken regarding any of the relevant
bills or as other events warrant.



Contents
Background ......................................................1
Expedited Rescission Bills in the 1990s............................2
Overview of Provisions in the Administration’s Proposal..................3
Other Expedited Rescission Bills in the 109th Congress....................4
Comparison of Expedited Rescission Bills..............................6
Some Concluding Thoughts..........................................8
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Selected Provisions in Three Versions of the
Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 and the Line Item Veto
Act of 1996 .................................................10



Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006:
Background and Comparison of Versions
Background
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 has to make the funding available to executive agencies for
obligation and expenditure.
President George W. Bush had access to the item veto as Governor of Texas and
has called repeatedly for similar authority for the President. For example, in his State
of the Union address on January 31, 2006, he said, “We can tackle this problem [of
too many special interest ‘earmark’ projects] together, if you pass the line-item
veto.”1 An Administration draft bill, titled the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of

2006 (LLIVA), was transmitted to Congress on March 6, 2006.


Instead of allowing Congress to ignore presidential recommendations for
rescissions, “expedited rescission” requires at least one house to vote 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. In contrast, “enhanced rescission,” briefly available under the Line Item
Veto Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-130, 110 Stat. 1200), altered the rescission framework2
to create a presumption favoring the President. Under enhanced rescission, spending
reductions identified in special presidential messages remain permanently cancelled
unless Congress enacts a disapproval bill. Should the President veto that disapproval
bill, a two-thirds majority in both chambers would be needed to override the veto.


1 Constitutions in 43 states provide an item veto to allow the Governor to eliminate discrete
items in a bill before signing the measure into law, but a constitutional amendment would
be necessary to give the President such “true” line item veto authority. Various statutory
alternatives such as expedited rescission are sometimes referred to as giving the President
a “line item veto”; this is not entirely accurate, but calls attention to some functional
similarities.
2 The Supreme Court struck down this previous statutory effort, to create item-veto-like
authority for the President via enhanced rescission, in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S.

417 (1998).



Expedited rescission bills focus on procedural changes in Congress and typically
contain a detailed schedule to ensure immediate introduction of a measure to approve
the Presidents’s rescission request, prompt reporting by committee or automatic
discharge, special limits on floor amendments and debate, and so on. Under
expedited rescission, congressional approval is still necessary to rescind the funding,
but the fast-track procedures help to encourage an up-or-down vote on the President’s
proposal.
Expedited Rescission Bills in the 1990s
The expedited rescission approach has attracted support over the years, because
it is generally regarded as transferring less power from Congress to the President than
most other approaches that would modify the ICA framework. In 1992, 1993, and

1994, the House passed an expedited rescission bill each year.3 In the 102nd


Congress, H.R. 2164, passed by the House in 1992, would have allowed the President
to transmit special rescission messages within three days of signing an appropriations
act; each message could have proposed rescissions from one act. A proposed
rescission could not have reduced a program below the budget level of the previous
year or by more than 25% for a new program. The bill included expedited
procedures to encourage a floor vote within 10 days of introduction, with no
amendments allowed.
In the 103rd Congress, H.R. 1578, as passed by the House in 1993, had no limit
on the amount that could be rescinded, allowing the President to request rescission
of 100% of a program’s funding, thereby effectively eliminating it. H.R. 1578 also
contained provisions for expedited judicial review. In a significant departure from
previous expedited rescission measures, H.R. 1578, as approved by the House,
detailed fast-track procedures for expedited consideration of a rescission’s substitute,
as reported by the Appropriations Committee, to provide an alternative to the
President’s package.
In the second session of the 103rd Congress, H.R. 4600 came to the floor and
passed the House in 1994 with a substitute amendment, characterized by its
supporters as strengthened expedited rescission. H.R. 4600, as approved by the
House, would have allowed submission of a special rescission message at any time,
but retained the requirement to prepare a separate special message and accompanying
draft bill for each appropriations subcommittee having jurisdiction over accounts in
a given appropriations act from which rescissions were requested. Further, H.R.
4600 would have authorized special messages from the President proposing the
repeal of any targeted tax benefit within 20 days following enactment. During floor
consideration under the expedited procedures, a motion to strike any proposed


3 For further discussion of efforts to grant the President expanded impoundment authority
and of related floor votes, see CRS Issue Brief IB89148, Item Veto and Expanded
Impoundment Proposals (hereafter cited as CRS Issue Brief IB89148); and CRS Report
RL30223, Presidential Rescission Authority: Efforts to Modify the 1974 Framework, both
by Virginia A. McMurtry. As described therein, the Senate voted on bills using other
approaches, such as enhanced rescission.

rescission or repeal of targeted tax benefit would have been in order if supported by

50 Members in the House, or by 15 in the Senate.


Overview of Provisions in the
Administration’s Proposal
On March 7, 2006, a draft expedited rescission bill from the White House, titled
the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, was introduced as H.R. 4890 and S.
2381. In addition to the existing rescission authority accorded the President under
the 1974 ICA framework, the Administration bill proposed to amend the ICA by
inserting a new “Part C — Legislative Line Item Veto.” The provisions would
authorize the President, in a special message to Congress, to propose (1) rescission
of any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority in an appropriations act; (2)
rescission of any item, in whole or part, of direct spending; or (3) repeal of targeted
tax benefits. The contents of the special message were specified, including a draft
bill to approve the President’s request. The LLIVA would grant the President
considerable flexibility in the submission and packaging of the special messages.
There are no time constraints, and a single message may include any number of
rescissions. Further, the LLIVA does not stipulate that a special message be confined
to a single public law; therefore, one message may encompass budget authority or
items of direct spending from several laws. Any amounts rescinded must be used for
deficit reduction. Within five days of enactment of a rescission approval bill, the
chairmen of the Budget Committees would be required to adjust committee
allocations accordingly, and the Office of Management and Budget would be
required to adjust spending caps under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act (P.L. 99-177, 99 Stat. 1037).4
Under the bill, rescission requests from the President would be considered under
fast-track procedures. The President’s proposed bill could be introduced by the
House and Senate leadership within two days following receipt of the special
message, after which any Member could introduce the President’s proposal. The
committee to which the bill is referred would have five days to report the bill without
substantive revision, and with or without recommendation; if the reporting deadline
were not met, the committee would be automatically discharged from consideration
of the bill and the bill would be placed on the calendar. A vote on final passage
would have to occur by the 10th day of session following introduction of the approval
bill. Debate would be limited to four hours in the House and 10 hours in the Senate.
No amendments to the approval bill would be in order in either chamber. Additional
expedited procedural rules are detailed for consideration of the approval bill.
The LLIVA as introduced would allow the President to withhold any budget
authority proposed for rescission for up to 180 days following transmittal of the
special message. Likewise, the President could suspend the execution of any item
of direct spending contained in a special message for 180 days. The legislation


4 Currently, spending caps exist for conservation spending for fiscal year 2006 and for
highway and mass transit spending through fiscal year 2009. The mechanisms to enforce
such caps, however, expired at the end of fiscal year 2002.

would allow, but not require, the President to release the funds before the expiration
of the 180 days.
The provisions allowing the President to withhold funds proposed for rescission
or to suspend the execution of an item of direct spending for 180 days have not been
previously seen in expedited rescission bills. Supporters of these provisions contend
that they would provide for a temporary withholding or suspension until Congress
has a chance to consider a President’s request, and that such a mechanism is
necessary so that Congress would have the opportunity to act on a President’s
rescission proposal received just before an extended recess or period of adjournment.
Others see these provisions as subject to abuse and unnecessary, with the expedited
procedures in LLIVA usually ensuring a final vote on the President’s request within
a month. Therefore, in their view, a period considerably shorter than 180 days would
suffice to give Congress the opportunity to act on a special message. They also point
out that there is nothing in the bill that would prohibit the President from initiating
multiple 180-day withholding periods.
Critics of the 180-day withholding mechanism view the provisions as arguably
sanctioning the return of policy deferrals, originally provided for in the ICA, subject
to a one-house veto, but invalidated by the INS. v. Chadha (462 U.S. 919 (1983)) and
City of New Haven v. United States (809 F.2d 900, D.C. Cir. 1987) decisions, as well
as the statutory provisions in P.L. 100-119.5 Supporters of the 180-day provision
stress that this is the maximum period that the funding could be deferred, and the bill
language would allow the President to release the funds earlier “if the President
determines that continuation of the deferral would not further the purposes of this
Act.” The language, however, would not require early release of funds, even if one
chamber voted to reject the approval bill.
Language in the LLIVA states that its provisions are severable. For purposes of
judicial review, this means that if a court found a portion of the measure to be
unconstitutional, the remainder of its provisions would remain in force. The act
would become effective upon signing and would apply only to spending or tax
provisions contained in bills enacted after its passage.
Other Expedited Rescission Bills
in the 109th Congress
In addition to the administration’s proposal (the LLIVA, H.R. 4890/ S. 2381),
several other measures with expedited rescission provisions have been introduced in
the 109th Congress. An omnibus budget reform measure, H.R. 2290, introduced by
Representative Jeb Hensarling and others on May 11, 2005, contains provisions for
expedited rescission in Section 311, “Enhanced Consideration of Certain Proposed
Rescissions.” The provisions would authorize the President to propose a rescission
of any budget authority in an appropriations act that he identifies as “wasteful.”


5 For further discussion of policy deferrals, see CRS Issue Brief IB89148. For further
discussion of possible constitutional issues, see CRS Report RL33365, Line Item Veto: A
Constitutional Analysis of Recent Proposals, by Morton Rosenberg.

Along with the proposed rescission, the President could also propose to reduce the
appropriate discretionary spending limits for new budget authority and outlays under
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 by an amount not
exceeding the proposed rescission. Provisions for the special message and
accompanying draft approval bill are similar to those in the LLIVA; however, H.R.

2290 would limit the President to just one message for each appropriations act,


unless the act included accounts falling within the jurisdiction of more than one
appropriations subcommittee, in which case the President would send a separate
special message and accompanying draft bill for accounts within the jurisdiction of
each subcommittee.6
Representative Mark Udall has introduced three expedited rescission measures
in the 109th Congress,7 the most recent of which — H.R. 4699 — was introduced on
February 1, 2006. The stated purpose of the bill, the “Stimulating Leadership in
Cutting Expenditures Act (or SLICE Act) of 2006,” is “to enable the President to
require Congress to debate and vote on certain presidential proposals for reducing
spending.” The provisions for special messages and expedited procedures in H.R.

4699 would apply to any budget authority provided in an appropriations act or in P.L.


109-59 (119 Stat. 1144, the Omnibus Transportation Authorization Act). As seen in
previous measures, the President could submit more than one special message and
approval bill if the appropriations act contained accounts under the jurisdiction of
more than one appropriations subcommittee. For messages proposing rescission of
funds provided in the transportation act, the draft bill would be broken down into
sections corresponding to specific projects.
Senator John Kerry introduced S. 2372, the Expedited Budget Item Veto Review
Act of 2006, on March 6, 2006. This bill is similar in coverage to the Line Item Veto
Act of 1996. S. 2372 would allow the President to suspend and propose for
cancellation (1) any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority, (2) any item of
new direct spending, and (3) any limited tax benefit. Not later than three calendar
days after the date of enactment of the applicable law, the President could submit a
special message proposing such cancellations and a draft bill for each item to be
cancelled. Provisions for identifying limited tax benefits also reflect those in the
1996 law. Expedited procedures would seek to ensure a vote on final passage of an
approval bill by the close of the 10th legislative day following its introduction. Items
proposed for cancellation in a special message would be made available for
obligation or take effect on the date upon which the draft bill accompanying the
special message were to be defeated in either the House or the Senate.


6 A floor amendment containing similar provisions for expedited rescission was considered
by the House in the 108th Congress and rejected by a vote of 174-237. See CRS Issue Brief
IB89148.
7 The other expedited rescission bills introduced by Mr. Udall are less comprehensive than
H.R. 4699. The first measure, H.R. 982, the Expedited Rescissions Act of 2005, introduced
on Feb. 17, 2005, provides for rescission of budget authority only in appropriations acts.
H.R. 3966, also titled the SLICE Act and introduced on Sept. 29, 2005, provides for
rescission of budget authority both in appropriations acts enacted before Jan. 1, 2006, and
in P.L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, in order to offset spending for natural disasters occurring
during 2005.

Representative John Spratt, ranking minority member on the House Budget
Committee, introduced H.R. 5667 on June 21, 2006. Title I of this omnibus reform
bill provides for a legislative line item veto, with features similar to the expedited
rescission bills receiving floor consideration in the House in the 1990s. H.R. 5667
would allow the President to propose cancellation of discretionary spending and
limited tax benefit provisions, but direct (mandatory) spending would not be covered.
There would be one special message allowed per bill and expedited procedures for
congressional consideration of the President’s proposals. Like earlier bills, H.R.
5667 would allow 100 members in the House and 16 members in the Senate to seek
a separate vote on a spending item or tax provision in the cancellation package, but
no other amendments would be in order.
Comparison of Expedited Rescission Bills
On June 14, 2006, the House Budget Committee held a markup of H.R. 4890
(the Administration’s expedited rescission proposal as introduced in the House) and8
voted 24-9 to report the bill favorably, as amended. The next day the Rules
Committee held a markup and voted 8-4 to report an amended version in effectively9
the same form as that approved by the Budget Committee. On June 22, the House
approved H.R. 4890, as amended, by vote of 247-172.10
Meanwhile, on June 14, 2006, Senator Judd Gregg, the chair of the Senate
Budget Committee, and others held a press conference to unveil the Stop Over
Spending Act, which contains a modified version of the Legislative Line Item Veto
Act in Title I, as well as other budget process reforms. On June 15, 2006, Senator
Gregg and others introduced the bill as S. 3521. On June 20, the Senate Budget
Committee marked up S. 3521 and voted 12-10 to report the bill, as amended,
favorably.
Table 1, at the end of this report, provides a comparative overview of some
major features in three expedited rescission bills: (1) H.R. 4890/S. 2381 as
introduced, (2) H.R. 4890 as passed by the House (House approved), and (3) Title I
of S. 3521, as amended and ordered to be reported by the Senate Budget Committee
(Senate reported). The table also includes relevant provisions in the Line Item Veto
Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-130), which was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1998.
As indicated in the table, there are some noteworthy differences among the
versions. Some features in H.R. 4890/S. 2381 as introduced have been modified in


8 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Budget, Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006,
report to accompany H.R. 4890, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 109-505, part 1 (Washington:
GPO, 2006, 104 p.
9 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, report
to accompany H.R. 4890, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 109-505, part 2 (Washington: GPO,

2006), 59 p.


10 “Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006,” debate and vote in the House, Congressional
Record, daily edition, vol.152, June 22, 2006, pp. H4433-41, H4467-93.

the House-approved and Senate Budget Committee bills to lessen the President’s
flexibility. For example, the original bills had no deadline for submission of special
rescission messages and no limit on the number of special messages. The House-
passed version of H.R 4890 would require submission of special messages within 45
calendar days of enactment of the law that contained the amounts/provisions
proposed for cancellation; S. 3521, as ordered to be reported, would allow the
submission of a special message up to one year following enactment. Further, the
Senate Budget Committee version would limit the President to four special messages
per calendar year, whereas the House-passed version would set a limit of five special
messages per act, or 10 for omnibus measures. With respect to these features, the
House-passed version would be more permissive in terms of the total number of
special messages, whereas the Senate bill would be more lenient in the timing of their
submissions.
The period for withholding of funds after submission of a special message is
another feature on which the bills differ. As introduced, the LLIVA would allow the
President to withhold funds for up to 180 calendar days despite any congressional
action. S. 3521 would limit withholding to 45 calendar days, as would the House-
passed version. However, the House-passed version would allow the President a 45-
day extension, for a total withholding period of up to 90 days. In addition, the
LLIVA, as introduced, included no sunset termination date, whereas the House-
passed version provides that the expedited rescission authority would expire after six
years (October 1, 2012), and S. 3521, as ordered to be reported, stipulates termination
after four years (December 31, 2010).
Some changes in H.R. 4890 as passed by the House and in S. 3521 as ordered
to be reported may generate new concerns. Both versions appear to narrow the range
of possible targeted tax benefits that may be proposed for cancellation when
compared to the Administration’s proposal. H.R. 4890/S. 2381, as introduced, along
with provisions in P.L. 104-130, would have covered revenue-losing measures
affecting 100 or fewer beneficiaries. The House-passed version of H.R. 4890 would
apply only to a revenue-losing provision affecting a single beneficiary,11 whereas S.
3521, as ordered to be reported, defines targeted tax benefits as affecting a particular
or limited group of taxpayers (thereby placing its scope somewhere between the
Administration’s proposal and the House-passed version). Also, the Senate Budget
Committee version and the 1996 act would require the Joint Committee on Taxation
to identify the targeted tax benefits; the House-passed version would require the
chairmen of the Ways and Means and Finance Committees to identify such
provisions. The President could only propose a rescission of such identified tax
benefits. H.R. 4890/S. 2381 as introduced would allow the President to propose any
targeted tax benefit that he identified.
Another change in the House-passed version of interest is its relationship to the
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (known as ICA, Title X of P.L. 93-344). The
version approved by the House would repeal the ICA, except for Section 1013
(deferral authority for the President) and Section 1016 (suits by the Comptroller


11 Although the bill uses the term “single beneficiary,” it defines the term in such a way that
it could be broader than a single taxpayer.

General). H.R 4890/S. 2381, as introduced, and S. 3521, as ordered to be reported,
would amend Title X of the ICA by striking Part C (Line Item Veto Act of 1996) and
inserting the text of the bill. At issue is whether the framework for expedited
rescissions in the current bills would augment, or replace, rescission authority
accorded the President under the ICA to propose rescissions at any time, but with the
release of funds after 45 legislative days absent congressional approval.
There were no further substantive changes to H.R. 4890, as amended, during
floor consideration. A manager’s amendment offered by Representative Paul Ryan
was adopted as part of the special rule for consideration, however. In response to
apparent concerns raised by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
the amendment added clarifying language that any amount cancelled that came from
a trust fund or special fund would be returned to the fund from which it originally
derived, rather than revert to the General Fund for deficit reduction.12 With this
exception, all of the changes in H.R. 4890, as approved by the House, occurred
during committee markups.
With respect to S. 3521 as ordered to be reported, a manager’s amendment
offered by Senator Gregg at markup and approved by voice vote made changes in
Title I regarding the legislative line item veto, among other things.13 In its current
form, the bill would prohibit the President from resubmitting items of direct spending
or targeted tax benefits previously rejected by Congress, but would allow
resubmission of proposed cancellations if Congress fails to complete action on them
due to adjournment. The amendment also proposes to reduce the period during
which the President may suspend new direct spending or targeted tax benefits if the
cancellation proposal is submitted after the effective date of the provisions.
Otherwise, features included in Table 1 under S. 3521 as ordered to be reported were
unchanged from those in the bill as introduced.
Some Concluding Thoughts
The provisions for expedited consideration of special messages from the
President proposing rescissions of funds have remained quite similar over the years.
Various versions of expedited rescission bills pending in the 109th Congress all seek
to ensure a vote on final passage of the approval bill within 10 days after its
introduction in the chamber. In the early 1990s, there were bills with provisions to
allow for consideration of a substitute package of rescissions reported by the
Appropriations Committee as an alternative to the President’s package, or to allow
a motion to strike a particular rescission from the approval bill with sufficient


12 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4890,
Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, report to accompany H.Res. 886, 109th Cong., 2nd
sess., H.Rept. 109-518 (Washington: GPO, 2006), 2 p.
13 “Panel Approved Broad Budget Process Overhaul,” by Steven T. Dennis, CQ Committee
Coverage, Senate Budget Committee Markup, June 20, 2006, available electronically at
[http://www.cq.com/display.do? dockey=/cqonline/p r o d / d a ta/docs/html/committees/109/c
ommittees109-200606 2000226570.html @c ommittees&metapub=CQ-COMMIT T EEMA
RK UPS&searchIndex=0&seqNum=1].

support. None of the expedited rescission bills in the 109th Congress, except H.R.

5667, contains such provisions.


Expedited rescission bills have differed in scope of coverage over the years.
Some earlier bills confined the special messages to proposed rescissions of
discretionary budget authority (appropriations). Subsequently, items of direct
spending (entitlements) and limited or targeted tax benefits were added. In the 109th
Congress, H.R. 4699 would add certain transportation projects to the universe of
possible cancellations available to the President. The LLIVA in all three versions
considered here would grant the President among the most expansive scopes of
coverage seen in an expedited rescission bill, by encompassing rescission of any
dollar amount of discretionary budget authority or of any new item of direct
spending.
The Line Item Veto Act of 1996, with its enhanced rescission framework, was
considered even by some of its supporters to have possible constitutional flaws, and
the measure contained provisions for expedited judicial review. In contrast,
observers tend to view the expedited rescission approach, at least as applied to items
of discretionary spending, as passing muster on constitutional grounds. The
severability provision in the LLIVA creates further statutory insulation; if one
provision were to be found unconstitutional, the remainder of the act would not be
affected. For example, if one type of cancellation, such as targeted tax benefits, were
to be overturned, the President’s authority to submit special rescission messages for
expedited consideration, covering items of discretionary budget authority or direct
spending, might continue to be available.
In considering prospects for further action on expedited rescission bills, one
might wish to keep in mind the continuing involvement of the Bush Administration
in seeking enactment of some version of the LLIVA in the 109th Congress. On June
27, 2006, after meeting with a group of Senators at the White House to discuss line
item veto legislation, the President called upon the Senate to join the House and
quickly pass the line item veto, so he could sign it into law. According to a White
House press release, the President wants the item veto to “target pork in large
spending bills. It is an essential part of the President’s strategy to reform the budget
process and enhance fiscal discipline.” 14


14 White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Fact Sheet: the Legislative Line-Item Veto:
Constitutional, Effective, and Bipartisan,” June 27, 2006, available electronically at
[ ht t p: / / www.whi t e house.gov/ news/ r el eases/ 2006/ 06/ 20060627-2.ht ml ] .

CRS-10
Table 1. Comparison of Selected Provisions in Three Versions of the Legislative Line Item
Veto Act of 2006 and the Line Item Veto Act of 1996
S. 3521, Title I,
Nature of provisionP.L. 104-130Line Item Veto Act of 1996H.R. 4890/S. 2381, as introducedH.R. 4890, as passed by the Houseordered to be reported in
Senate
pose of billTo give the President line itemTo provide for the expeditedTo provide for the expeditedTo enable the President and
veto authority with respect toconsideration of certainconsideration of certainCongress to rescind wasteful
appropriations, new directproposed rescissions of budgetproposed rescissions of budgetspending in an expedited
spending, and limited taxauthority.authority.manner.
iki/CRS-RL33517b e ne fits.
g/wationship to ImpoundmentAdded a new Part C to containTitle X amended by striking PartTitle X amended by striking allTitle X amended by striking Part
s.orrol Act (known as ICA,the Line Item Veto Act of 1996.C and inserting text of this act.of Part B (except for SectionsC, and inserting text of this act.
leak 1013 and 1016, redesignated as
Sections 1019 and 1020) and all
://wikiof Part C, and inserting text of
httpthis act.
adline for submission ofWithin five days (SundaysNone.Within 45 days of enactment ofWithin one year of the date of
ecial rescission orexcluded) after enactment ofa law containing (1) the amountenactment of (1) any amount of
lation messagesthe law providing such amount,of discretionary budgetdiscretionary budget authority,
item, or tax benefit.authority, (2) the item of direct(2) item of direct spending, or
spending, or (3) the targeted tax(3) targeted tax benefit.


b e ne fit.

CRS-11
S. 3521, Title I,
Nature of provisionP.L. 104-130Line Item Veto Act of 1996H.R. 4890/S. 2381, as introducedH.R. 4890, as passed by the Houseordered to be reported in
Senate
esident may proposeYes, amounts in appropriationsYes, amounts in appropriationsYes, amounts in appropriationsYes, amounts in appropriations
scission of discretionaryacts or represented separately inacts or represented separately inacts or represented separately inacts or represented separately in
endingmanagers statement, managers statement, managers statement, managers statement,
committee reports, et al.committee reports, et al.committee reports, et al.committee reports, et al.
esident may propose toYes, may propose to rescindYes, may modify or rescind anyYes, may propose to rescindYes, may propose to rescind
fy/rescind directitems of new direct spending, items of direct spending, new direct spending provisionsnew items of direct spending,
andatory) spendingincluding entitlement authorityincluding entitlement authoritythat would result in spendingmeaning budget authority
iki/CRS-RL33517and the food stamp program.and the food stamp program.increases. Does not cover extension or reauthorization ofprovided by law other thanappropriations acts, mandatory
g/wexisting direct spending.spending provided in
s.orappropriations acts, and
leakentitlement authority.
://wikiesident may propose to cancelYes, any revenue-losingYes, any revenue-losingYes, any revenue-losingYes, any revenue-losing
httpenefitsprovision affecting 100 or fewerprovision affecting 100 or fewerprovision affecting a singleprovision affecting a particular
beneficiaries. Joint Committeebeneficiaries, as identified bybeneficiary. Chairmen of Waysor limited group of taxpayers.
on Taxation to compile listing ofthe President. and Means and FinanceJoint Committee on Taxation to
applicable provisions.Committees to identify suchidentify such provisions.


provisio ns.

CRS-12
S. 3521, Title I,
Nature of provisionP.L. 104-130Line Item Veto Act of 1996H.R. 4890/S. 2381, as introducedH.R. 4890, as passed by the Houseordered to be reported in
Senate
special message andFor each law from which aNot addressed.Limit of five special messagesLimit of four special messages
aft billcancellation is made, Presidentfor each regular act and 10per calendar year. One may be
may transmit a single message.messages for an omnibus budgetsubmitted with President’s
reconciliation or appropriationbudget and up to three at other
measure. No restriction ontimes. No restriction on
combining the three types ofcombining the three types of
cancellations in the samecancellations in the same
me ssa ge . me ssa ge .
iki/CRS-RL33517
g/wriatim rescissions possibleNo, because of three-dayYes, resubmission of sameNo, submission of duplicativePresident may resubmit a
s.ordeadline for submittingrescission not addressed.proposals in messages isproposed rescission one more
leakmessage.prohibited.time under either Part B (ICA)
or Part C (LLIVA). Prohibits
://wikiresubmission of direct spending
httpor targeted tax benefits
previously rejected by Congress.
Allows President to resubmit
proposed cancellations if
Congress fails to complete
action on them due to
a d j o ur nme nt .



CRS-13
S. 3521, Title I,
Nature of provisionP.L. 104-130Line Item Veto Act of 1996H.R. 4890/S. 2381, as introducedH.R. 4890, as passed by the Houseordered to be reported in
Senate
oduction of bill approving orCancellations remain in effectChamber leadership to introduceChamber leadership to introduceChamber leadership to introduce
approving requestsunless disapproved by Congress.approval bill within two days ofapproval bill within two days ofapproval bill within two days of
For disapproval bill to have fast-receiving message, or thereafterreceiving message, or thereafterreceiving message, or thereafter
track procedures, must beany Member may introduceany Member may introduceany Member may introduce
introduced within five calendarapproval bill.approval bill.approval bill.
days of session after receipt of
the special message.
iki/CRS-RL33517t-track provisions for floortionYes, including one hour generaldebate and one hour for Yes, debate on bill not to exceedfour hours in House and 10Yes, debate on bill not to exceedfive hours in House and 10Yes, debate on bill not to exceedfour hours in House and 10
g/wamendments in House, and 10hours in Senate. Floor votehours in Senate.hours in Senate. Floor vote
s.orhours of total debate in Senate.must occur within 10 days aftermust occur within 10 days after
leakintroduction of bill.introduction of bill.
://wikidments/motion to strikeAmendments to strike aAmendments are prohibited inAmendments are prohibited inAmendments are prohibited in
httpwedcancellation number or insert aboth chambers, and divisions areboth chambers, and divisions areboth chambers, and divisions are
number allowed in Senate, orprohibited in the House.prohibited in the House.prohibited in the House.
with support of 50 Members in
Ho use.
e of Proposed CancellationNot addressed.Not addressed.Sense of the Congress provisionNot addressed.


thoritythat no President or other
executive branch official should
threaten to condition the
inclusion or exclusion of any
proposed cancellation under this
act to any Member’s vote in
Co ngr e ss.

CRS-14
S. 3521, Title I,
Nature of provisionP.L. 104-130Line Item Veto Act of 1996H.R. 4890/S. 2381, as introducedH.R. 4890, as passed by the Houseordered to be reported in
Senate
ngs must be used for deficitYes, if disapproval bill is notYes, amounts rescinded shall beYes, amounts rescinded shall beYes, amounts rescinded shall be
ductionenacted within 30 days ofdedicated only to deficitdedicated only to deficitdedicated only to deficit
session, 10 days later a lockboxreduction and not be used as anreduction and not be used as anreduction and not be used as an
mechanism goes into effect tooffset for other spendingoffset for other spendingoffset for other spending
ensure that deficit reductionincreases. Provisions forincreases. Any amountsincreases. Provisions for
occurs.adjustment of committeecancelled which came from adjustment of committee
allocations and budgetary caps.trust or special funds wouldallocations and budgetary caps.
return to original fund rather
iki/CRS-RL33517than the general fund.Provisions for adjustment of
g/wcommittee allocations and
s.orbudgetary caps.
leak
esident may withholdNot an issue. Cancellations areYes, for a period not to exceedYes, for a period not to exceedYes, for a period not to exceed
://wikiendingpermanent absent enactment of a180 calendar days from the45 calendar days from the45 calendar days from receipt of
httpdisapproval bill.transmittal of the specialtransmittal of the specialthe special message, President
message, President maymessage, President maymay withhold discretionary
withhold discretionary budgetwithhold discretionary budgetbudget authority, and suspend
authority or execution of directauthority, or suspend executionexecution of any item of direct
spending proposed forof items of direct spending orspending or targeted tax benefit
cancellation.targeted tax benefits proposedproposed for cancellation.
for cancellation. The PresidentPeriod reduced if item of direct
may extend the period forspending or targeted tax benefit
another 45 days; suchis already in force prior to
supplemental message to beproposed cancellation.


submitted between days 40 and
45 in the original period.

CRS-15
S. 3521, Title I,
Nature of provisionP.L. 104-130Line Item Veto Act of 1996H.R. 4890/S. 2381, as introducedH.R. 4890, as passed by the Houseordered to be reported in
Senate
ease of fundsIf disapproval bill is enacted, thePresident may make spendingPresident may make spendingPresident may make spending
provision(s) that had beenavailable for obligation or allowavailable for obligation or allowavailable for obligation or allow
cancelled take effect as of theexecution of the new directexecution of the new directexecution of the new direct
date of the original law. spending earlier than specified ifspending or targeted tax benefitspending earlier than specified if
he determines that continuationearlier than specified if hehe determines that continuation
of the deferral or of thedetermines that continuation ofof the deferral or of the
suspension would not further thethe deferral or of the suspensionsuspension would not further the
purposes of this act.would not further the purposespurposes of this act.
iki/CRS-RL33517of this act.
g/wet provisionYes, act provided forNone specified.Yes, expires after six yearsYes, expires after four years
s.ortermination after eight years. (October 1, 2012).(December 31, 2010).


leak
://wiki
http