Using a pocket rescission could allow Trump to halt congressionally appropriated spending with no input from Congress.
President Donald Trump’s administration is considering a move, called a “pocket rescission,” that would effectively rescind federal funding and potentially bypass congressional approval, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought said on July 27.
The strategy occurs when a president submits a rescission proposal under the Impoundment Control Act—requesting Congress to cancel previously appropriated funds—within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. The funds are withheld during the 45-day congressional review period, and if Congress doesn’t act before the fiscal year ends, the funds expire.
When a rescission request is made outside of the fiscal year-end window, if Congress doesn’t act within the 45 days, the funding is released and spending on the impounded program resumes.
“It’s very possible that we might use pocket rescissions. It’s one of our executive tools. It’s been used before,” Vought told CNN’s “State of the Union.”
Critics say that it’s an overreach of executive power and Congress has also expressed concerns about it, but Vought said “the Government Accountability Office … has said it was legal in the 1970s.”
“That is a fully legal approach to using the Impoundment Control Act, another law [we’re] not too big fans of, to use that to send up a rescissions bill at the end of the year and just have it evaporate at the end of the fiscal year,” Vought said.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 defines the limits of presidential power over federal funding. It prohibits the president from unilaterally canceling funding from a policy or program for ideological or political reasons, a response by Congress to perceived overreaches by President Richard Nixon’s administration. The bill requires the president to submit a request to Congress to cut spending that the administration thinks is no longer necessary or should otherwise be clawed back.
Trump and his allies have questioned the constitutionality of the law, given it is an attempt to set limits on executive power through legislative means. They argue that this violates separation of powers principles and executive prerogative.
By Jackson Richman and Joseph Lord
Read Full Article on TheEpochTimes.com
