[House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House]
[Chapter 7. Budget Process]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 187]]

 
                        CHAPTER 7 - BUDGET PROCESS

                              HOUSE PRACTICE

  Sec.  1. In General; Legislative Background
  Sec.  2. Committee Jurisdiction; Reports and Estimates
  Sec.  3. The Budget Timetable
  Sec.  4. Budget Resolutions; Consideration and Debate
  Sec.  5. -- Amendments to Resolutions
  Sec.  6. -- Debate on Conference Reports
  Sec.  7. -- Budget Resolution to Precede Consideration of Related 
  Legislation
  Sec.  8. Reconciliation Procedures
  Sec.  9. Adherence to Budget Resolution Spending and Revenue Levels
  Sec. 10. Other Spending Controls
  Sec. 11. -- Sequestration
  Sec. 12. -- New Contract Authority; New Borrowing Authority 
  (Sec. 401(a))
  Sec. 13. -- New Entitlement Authority (Sec. 401(b))
  Sec. 14. Social Security Funds
  Sec. 15. The Budget Process and the Public Debt Limit
  Sec. 16. Impoundments Generally
  Sec. 17. -- Rescissions; Line Item Veto
  Sec. 18. -- Deferrals
  Sec. 19. Unfunded Mandates
        Research References
          Deschler Ch 13 Sec. 21
          Manual Sec. Sec. 169, 720, 748, 853, 990, 1127-1130
          Budget and Accounting Act of 1921
          Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
          Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
            (Gramm-Rudman)
          Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation 
            Act of 1987
          Budget Enforcement Act of 1990
          Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
          Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
          Budget Enforcement Act of 1997

[[Page 188]]

          Manual on the Federal Budget Process, Congressional Research 
            Service, Aug. 28, 1998


  Sec. 1 . In General; Legislative Background

                                 Generally

      There are three stages in the complex process by which the 
  Congress allocates the fiscal resources of the Federal government. 
  First, there is an authorization process, under which Federal programs 
  are created in response to national needs. Second, there is an 
  appropriations process under which funding is provided for those 
  programs. See Appropriations. Finally, there is a congressional budget 
  process that annually establishes an overall fiscal policy of spending 
  and revenues and that institutes a complex web of procedures to 
  enforce those budgetary decisions. The overall fiscal policy is 
  established by the annual adoption of a concurrent resolution on the 
  budget. The congressional budget process includes the development and 
  consideration of reconciliation legislation to implement its most 
  significant budget policies. These three stages are not necessarily 
  considered or completed in chronological order.
      The enforcement of budgetary decisions encompasses both 
  congressional and executive actions. Such enforcement is rooted 
  principally in two statutes--the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (the 
  Budget Act) and the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
  of 1985 (Gramm-Rudman). The Budget Act permits enforcement through 
  parliamentary points of order against legislation violating its 
  requirements and procedures. However, the enforcement mechanisms are 
  not automatically applied; and timely points of order from the floor 
  are required to bring them into play. Gramm-Rudman provides automatic 
  procedures (called sequestration) to enforce spending. Procedures 
  enforcing discretionary spending limits and deficit targets (sections 
  251 and 253 of Gramm-Rudman) expired on September 30, 2002. Procedures 
  to enforce direct spending and receipts (section 252 of Gramm-Rudman), 
  although textually still in law, have no effect. Sec. 11, infra.

                   The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921

      Budget reform began with the passage of the Budget and Accounting 
  Act of 1921. That Act established a new budget system that permitted 
  all items relating to a department to be brought together in the same 
  bill; required the President to submit an annual national budget to 
  Congress in place of the previous uncoordinated agency submissions; 
  created the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to assist him in 
  this respect; and estab

[[Page 189]]

  lished the General Accounting Office and made it the principal 
  auditing arm of the Federal government. 31 USC Sec. 1101.

                   The Congressional Budget Act of 1974

      Until 1974 the Congress lacked a comprehensive uniform mechanism 
  for establishing priorities among its budgetary goals and for 
  determining national economic policy regarding the Federal budget. 
  Responsibility for the Budget remained fragmented throughout the 
  Congress. The size of the budget, and the size of the surplus or 
  deficit, were not subject to effective controls. To address these 
  problems, both Houses enacted over President Nixon's veto the 
  Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Deschler Ch 
  13 Sec. 21. The Act (2 USC Sec. 601) consisted of 10 titles that 
  established:

     New committees on the budget in both the House and the Senate, 
         and a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) designed to improve 
         Congress' informational and analytical resources with respect 
         to the budgetary process.
     A timetable and controls for various phases of the 
         congressional budget process centered on a concurrent 
         resolution on the budget to be adopted before legislative 
         consideration of revenue or spending bills.
     Various enforcement procedures and provided for program review 
         and evaluation.
     Standardized budget terminology.
     Procedures for congressional review of Presidential 
         impoundment actions.

      Titles I through IX constitute the Congressional Budget Act of 
  1974 and title X constitutes the Impoundment Control Act. The Unfunded 
  Mandates Reform Act of 1995 added a new part B to title IV of the 
  Budget Act.
      The central purpose of the process established by the Budget Act 
  is to coordinate the various revenue and spending decisions that are 
  made in separate tax, appropriations, and legislative measures.

       The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985

      The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
  (Gramm-Rudman) made further significant changes in the budget process, 
  and in the Budget Act procedures. 2 USC Sec. 900. Conceived as a 
  statutory response to the burgeoning Federal deficit, Gramm-Rudman 
  instituted a single binding budget resolution, binding committee 
  allocations, reconciliation, and enforcement of spending through 
  sequestration. Gramm-Rudman included provisions amending the Budget 
  Act to permit a new point of order against legislation exceeding the 
  appropriate committee allocation (Sec. 302(f) of the Budget Act), 
  exempting the title II Social Security program from rec

[[Page 190]]

  onciliation (Sec. 310(g) of the Budget Act), and precluding the 
  breaching of budget authority or outlay ceilings or revenue floors, 
  with certain exceptions (Sec. 311 of the Budget Act). Pursuant to 
  section 275 of Gramm-Rudman, several provisions of Gramm-Rudman 
  expired on September 30, 2002, including two provisions providing for 
  sequestration to enforce discretionary spending (section 251) and 
  deficit targets (section 253).

         Budget Enforcement Act of 1990; Revisions and Extensions

      The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (BEA of 1990) revised the 
  Gramm-Rudman deficit targets, made deficit targets adjustable, and 
  extended the sequestration process. It set limitations on distinct 
  categories of discretionary spending and created paygo to require that 
  increases in direct spending or decreases in revenues due to 
  legislative action be offset, so that there would be no net increase 
  in the deficit. Sec. Sec. 10-13, infra.

                      Budget Enforcement Act of 1997

      The Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (BEA of 1997) extended the 
  discretionary spending limits and paygo process through fiscal year 
  2002 and changed the congressional budget process.


  Sec. 2 . Committee Jurisdiction; Reports and Estimates

                   Committee on the Budget Jurisdiction

      To implement the congressional budget process, the Budget Act 
  created the Senate and House Budget Committees and CBO. 2 USC 
  Sec. 601. The Budget Committees were authorized to draft the 
  concurrent resolution on the budget. Unlike the authorizing and 
  appropriating committees, which focus on individual Federal programs, 
  the Budget Committees focus on the Federal budget as a whole and on 
  how it affects the national economy.
      Rule X clause 1(e) gives the House Budget Committee jurisdiction 
  over matters relating to the congressional budget, including 
  concurrent resolutions on the budget and measures on budget process 
  and on the enforcement of budget controls. Manual Sec. 720. Section 
  310 of the Budget Act provides conditions for the reporting by the 
  Budget Committees of reconciliation measures.
      Section 306 of the Budget Act prohibits the consideration in 
  either House of a bill or resolution dealing with a matter within the 
  jurisdiction

[[Page 191]]

  of its Committee on the Budget if not reported from that committee or 
  discharged therefrom. The following were held to violate this section:

     An amendment directing that certain lease-purchase agreements 
         be scored on an annual basis for budget purposes. 106-1, July 
         19, 1999, p ____.
     An amendment designating an appropriation as ``emergency 
         spending'' within the meaning of the budget-enforcement laws. 
         106-1, Sept. 8, 1999, p ____.

      The 107th and 108th Congresses adopted an order of the House to 
  confine the point of order under section 306 to bills and joint 
  resolutions only. 107-1, H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p ____; 108-1, H. 
  Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p ____.

                      Committee on Rules Jurisdiction

      The Committee on Rules has the special oversight function of 
  review of the budget process. Rule X clause 3(i). Under section 301(c) 
  of the Budget Act, the Speaker must refer a concurrent resolution on 
  the budget reported from the Committee on the Budget sequentially to 
  the Committee on Rules for not more than five legislative days if it 
  includes any procedure or matter having the effect of changing a rule 
  of the House. After such a referral, an additional one-day layover 
  follows the report of the Committee on Rules. Sec. 305(a)(1) of the 
  Budget Act. In modern practice, this sequential referral is obviated 
  in favor of the perusal by the Committee on Rules when reporting a 
  special order of business governing consideration of the budget 
  resolution. This process allows the Committee on Rules to review 
  suggested rules changes. In the 108th Congress, composition of the 
  Committee on the Budget was changed to include one member of the 
  Committee on Rules. Rule X clause 5(a)(2).

            Committee Reports; Cost Estimates and Scorekeeping

      CBO provides economic and programmatic analyses and cost 
  information on most reported public bills and resolutions. Under the 
  Budget Act, five-year cost estimates are prepared and published in the 
  reports accompanying these bills. Sec. Sec. 308(a)(1)(B), 402 of the 
  Budget Act. A committee cost estimate identifying certain spending 
  authority as recurring annually and indefinitely was held necessarily 
  to address the five-year period required by this section. Manual 
  Sec. 844.
      Committee reports on legislation providing new budget authority or 
  a change in revenues or tax expenditures are required to contain the 
  estimates and other detailed information mandated by section 308(a) of 
  the Budget Act. The information mandated by section 308(a) also is 
  required under House rule XIII clause 3(c), except that the estimates 
  with respect to new

[[Page 192]]

  budget authority must include, when practicable, a comparison of the 
  total estimated funding level for the relevant program (or programs) 
  to the appropriate levels under current law. Manual Sec. 840.
      If a bill providing new budget authority is reported without an 
  estimate of its cost, a point of order under rule XIII clauses 3(c)(2) 
  and 3(c)(3) (requiring that an estimate under sections 308 and 402 of 
  the Budget Act be included in the report) may be made against 
  consideration of the bill. However, a special order for the 
  consideration of a bill that ``self-executes'' the adoption of an 
  amendment providing new budget authority into a bill to be 
  subsequently considered does not, itself, provide new budget authority 
  within the meaning of section 308 of the Budget Act (so as to require 
  a report by the Committee on Rules to include such a cost estimate). 
  Manual Sec. 1127.
      The Director of CBO is required to issue to the committees of the 
  House and the Senate monthly reports detailing and tabulating the 
  progress of congressional action on specified bills and resolutions. 
  Sec. 308(b)(1) of the Budget Act. The Budget Committees of each House 
  are required to prepare budget ``scorekeeping'' reports and to make 
  them available frequently enough to provide Members of each House with 
  an accurate representation of the current status of congressional 
  consideration of the budget. Sec. 308(b)(2) of the Budget Act.
      For a discussion of committee allocations, see Sec. 9, infra.


  Sec. 3 . The Budget Timetable

      Section 300 of the Budget Act includes a nonmandatory timetable 
  for various stages of the congressional budget process:

     On or before first Monday in February--President submits his 
         budget to Congress

      Note: Additional time for submission of the President's budget can 
  be provided by law. Shortly after its submission, the two Budget 
  Committees begin hearings on the budget, the economic assumptions upon 
  which it is based, the economy in general, and national budget 
  priorities.

     On or before February 15--CBO submits annual report to the 
         Budget Committees

      Note: This report deals primarily with overall economic and fiscal 
  policy and alternative budget levels and national budget priorities.

     Not later than six weeks after President submits his budget--
         committees submit views and estimates to Budget Committees

      Note: These reports provide the Budget Committees with an early 
  and comprehensive indication of committee leg

[[Page 193]]

  islative planning. These reports include estimates of new budget 
  authority and outlays.

     On or before April 1--Senate Budget Committee reports 
         concurrent resolution
     On or before April 15--Congress completes action on concurrent 
         resolution on the budget

      Note: Congress may revise its budget resolution before the end of 
  the appropriate fiscal year (section 304 of the Budget Act); although 
  this may be done at any point, the Congress in some years has followed 
  the practice of revising the budget plan for the current fiscal year 
  as part of the budget resolution for the ensuing fiscal year.

     May 15--Annual appropriation bills may be considered in the 
         House

      Note: General appropriation bills, and amendments thereto, may be 
  considered in the House after May 15 even if a budget resolution for 
  the ensuing fiscal year has yet to be agreed to. Sec. 303(b)(2) of the 
  Budget Act.

     On or before June 10--House Committee on Appropriations 
         reports last annual appropriation bill
     June 15--Congress completes action on reconciliation 
         legislation

      Note: The mandatory June 15 deadline was repealed by the BEA of 
  1990. However, the Congress may not adjourn for more than three 
  calendar days during the month of July until the House has completed 
  action on the reconciliation legislation (Sec. 310(f) of the Budget 
  Act) and the 13 general appropriation bills (Sec. 309 of the Budget 
  Act).

     On or before June 30--House completes action on annual 
         appropriation bills
     October 1--Fiscal year begins

      Note: The fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 
  30. If action on appropriation bills has not been completed by October 
  1, Congress may pass a ``continuing resolution'' to provide 
  appropriations on a temporary basis until the regular appropriation 
  bills are enacted.

      Deadlines for other stages in the budget process, such as 
  notification of adjustment in maximum deficit amounts, the President's 
  mid-session budget review, and various CBO and OMB sequestration 
  reports, were provided for in section 254(a) of Gramm-Rudman. Other 
  than October 1 (beginning of new fiscal year), the dates established 
  in section 300 are targets to be met each year. Failure to meet the 
  targets does not inhibit consideration of measures beyond those dates.
      Under rule X clause 2(d), each standing committee must submit its 
  oversight plans for the Congress to the Committees on Government 
  Reform and House Administration by February 15 of the first session. 
  These plans

[[Page 194]]

  must be reported to the House by the Committee on Government Reform by 
  March 31 of the session. Rule X clause 2(d).


  Sec. 4 . Budget Resolutions; Consideration and Debate

                                 Generally

      The budget resolution is a concurrent resolution; as such it is 
  not a law. It serves as an internal framework for Congress in its 
  action on separate revenue, spending, and other budget-related 
  measures. The content of budget resolutions and accompanying reports 
  is governed by section 301 of the Budget Act. Budget resolutions set 
  forth budgetary levels for the upcoming fiscal year and for at least 
  the four succeeding fiscal years, including amounts for total spending 
  and total revenues. The budget resolution gives the Congress a 
  mechanism for establishing Federal spending priorities. The budget 
  resolution accomplishes this by dividing up Federal spending among 
  various ``major functional categories,'' such as national defense, 
  agriculture, and health. Manual Sec. 1127.
      Section 301(b)(4) of the Budget Act permits a concurrent 
  resolution on the budget to ``set forth such other matters, and 
  require such other procedures, relating to the budget, as may be 
  appropriate to carry out the purposes of [the] Act.'' This provision 
  is sometimes referred to as the ``elastic clause.'' Textually, the 
  ``other matters'' and ``procedures'' admitted by this section must: 
  (1) relate to the budget; and (2) be appropriate to carry out the 
  purposes of the Budget Act.

      Note: Matter included under the ``elastic clause'' must not 
  include matter that would destroy the privilege of the concurrent 
  resolution on the budget, such as by effecting a special order of 
  business. The only matter in the nature of a special order of business 
  that may be included in a privileged concurrent resolution on the 
  budget is a reconciliation directive. Reconciliation, see Sec. 8, 
  infra.

                    Consideration of Budget Resolutions

      A concurrent resolution on the budget that has been reported as 
  privileged pursuant to rule XIII clause 5(a) is privileged for 
  consideration under procedures set forth in section 305 of the Budget 
  Act, but those procedures do not apply to unreported budget 
  resolutions. 98-2, Apr. 5, 1984, pp 7992, 7993. The House may vary the 
  parameters of consideration by unanimous consent, by suspension of the 
  rules, or by adoption of a special rule, because the statutory 
  provisions concerned were enacted as exercises of the rulemaking 
  powers of the House and the Senate, respectively, under the 
  Constitution. Sec. 904(a) of the Budget Act. It is customary for the 
  House to vary

[[Page 195]]

  the parameters for consideration of a budget resolution by adopting a 
  special rule recommended by the Committee on Rules. In recent 
  Congresses such rules have permitted only designated amendments in the 
  nature of substitutes, and perfecting amendments have been precluded. 
  See, e.g., 103-2, H. Res. 384, Mar. 10, 1994, p 4346; 107-1, H. Res. 
  100, Mar. 28, 2001, p ____.
        In addition to the Budget Act, concurrent resolutions on the 
  budget for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 included a point of 
  order against consideration in the House or Senate of a concurrent 
  resolution on the budget for the following fiscal year, or any 
  amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that set forth a 
  deficit for any fiscal year (as determined by the Budget Committee). 
  106-1, sec. 201, H. Con. Res. 68; 106-2, sec. 201, H. Con. Res. 290.
      Section 305(a)(1) of the Budget Act requires a three-day layover 
  period that starts when the report on the resolution first becomes 
  available to the Members. Rule XIII clause 4(a). Section 305(a) of the 
  Budget Act also provides for consideration in the Committee of the 
  Whole; limits general debate to not more than ten hours, with up to an 
  additional four hours permitted on economic goals and policies; and 
  provides for consideration of amendments under the five-minute rule. 
  Sec. 5, infra. After the Committee of the Whole rises and reports the 
  resolution back to the House, the previous question is considered as 
  ordered on the resolution and any amendments thereto to final passage 
  without intervening motion. Neither a motion to recommit the 
  resolution nor a motion to reconsider is in order. Sec. 305(a)(2)-(5) 
  of the Budget Act. The question having been put on final adoption of 
  the resolution, the yeas and nays are considered as ordered. Rule XX 
  clause 10.
      A budget resolution being considered in Committee of the Whole has 
  been held subject to a motion to rise and report the resolution back 
  to the House with the recommendation that the resolving clause be 
  stricken. 103-1, Mar. 18, 1993, p 5658. However, the motion to 
  recommit pending House concurrence under rule XVIII clause 9 would not 
  be in order under section 305(a) of the Budget Act.
      A budget resolution may under some circumstances be divided so as 
  to permit a separate vote on particular sections therein. Manual 
  Sec. 921. The question of adoption of a budget resolution containing 
  one section revising the congressional budget for the fiscal year, 
  preceded by sections setting forth budget targets for ensuing fiscal 
  years as well as reconciliation instructions, and followed by a final 
  section on reporting of certain fiscal information, was divided on the 
  demand of a Member for two separate votes (1) on the first and final 
  portions of the resolution and then (2) on the separable section in 
  between. 96-2, May 7, 1980, pp 10185-87. The rule providing

[[Page 196]]

  for the consideration of a budget resolution normally precludes a 
  demand for a division. See, e.g., 107-1, H. Res. 100, Mar. 28, 2001, p 
  ____.


  Sec. 5 . -- Amendments to Resolutions

                                 Generally

      Under section 305(a)(5) of the Budget Act, amendments to budget 
  resolutions are considered in the Committee of the Whole under the 
  five-minute rule in accordance with rule XVIII. Under rule XVIII 
  clause 10, the resolution is open to amendment at any point, so that 
  the Committee of the Whole may amend the functional categories section 
  before consideration of the total budget allocations. Manual 
  Sec. 1127.

              Amendments to Achieve Mathematical Consistency

      Rule XVIII clause 10 requires, with certain exceptions, that 
  amendments to concurrent resolutions on the budget be mathematically 
  consistent. Under this rule, amendments making changes in budget 
  authority and outlay aggregate totals must be accompanied by 
  comparable changes in functional categories. A point of order will lie 
  against an amendment to the resolution increasing the aggregates and a 
  functional category for budget authority and outlays but not changing 
  the amount of the deficit. However, an amendment that only transfers 
  an amount of budget authority from one functional category to 
  another--that is, reduces one category by a certain amount and adds 
  the same amount to another category--need make no changes in the 
  aggregates to achieve mathematical consistency. 96-1, May 8, 1979, p 
  10271.
      An amendment to achieve mathematical consistency throughout the 
  resolution may either change the functional categories to conform with 
  the aggregates, or vice versa, and if such an amendment is offered and 
  rejected, another amendment in different form to achieve mathematical 
  consistency may be offered. 96-1, May 14, 1979, pp 10967-75. Under 
  section 305(a)(5) of the Budget Act, an amendment or amendments to 
  achieve mathematic consistency can be offered at any time up to final 
  passage. These consistency requirements should be read in light of 
  provisions contained in budget resolutions of the 106th Congress. See, 
  e.g., 106-1, Sec. 201, H. Con. Res. 68, Apr. 14, 1999, p ____. Those 
  provisions established points of order against a budget resolution, or 
  amendment thereto, setting forth a deficit for any fiscal year.
      A change in the public debt limit from that figure reported by the 
  Committee on the Budget is not in order, except as part of an 
  amendment offered

[[Page 197]]

  at the direction of the Committee on the Budget to achieve 
  mathematical consistency. Rule XVIII clause 10. Public debt limit, see 
  Sec. 15, infra.

                                Germaneness

      Unless protected by special rule, an amendment to a concurrent 
  resolution on the budget must be germane to the text of the 
  resolution. An amendment expressing the sense of Congress that the 
  Impoundment Control Act be repealed for a fiscal year and calling for 
  a review of the Budget Act and the budget process has been conceded to 
  be not germane. 96-2, Nov. 18, 1980, p 30026.


  Sec. 6 . -- Debate on Conference Reports

      Unless limited by a special rule, there can be up to five hours of 
  debate in the House on a conference report on a concurrent resolution 
  on the budget under section 305(a)(6) of the Budget Act, to be equally 
  divided between the majority and minority parties. Where the conferees 
  report in total disagreement, debate on the motion to dispose of the 
  amendment in disagreement is not governed by the statute and is 
  instead considered under the general ``hour'' rule in the House. See, 
  e.g., 95-2, May 17, 1978, p 14117.


  Sec. 7 . -- Budget Resolution to Precede Consideration of Related 
            Legislation

      Section 303 of the Budget Act precludes consideration of certain 
  budget-related legislation for a fiscal year until the budget 
  resolution for that year has been adopted by both Houses. The essence 
  of this section is timing. It reflects a judgment that legislative 
  decisions on expenditures and revenues for the coming fiscal year 
  should await the adoption of the budget resolution for that year. 101-
  2, July 25, 1990, p 19161. Legislation ruled out under section 303 has 
  included:

     A conference report containing new spending authority in the 
         form of entitlements to become effective in fiscal years 1978 
         through 1980, where the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
         those fiscal years had not yet been adopted. Manual Sec. 1127.
     An amendment providing new entitlement authority to become 
         effective in a fiscal year before adoption of the budget 
         resolution for that year. Manual Sec. 1127.
     An amendment providing new budget authority for a fiscal year, 
         before adoption of a budget resolution for that year. Manual 
         Sec. 1127.
     A motion to recommit proposing an amendment providing an 
         increase in revenues for a fiscal year before adoption of a 
         budget resolution for that year. 105-2, July 24, 1998, p ____.


[[Page 198]]



      A section 303 point of order lies only against a bill or joint 
  resolution that has been reported. Sec. 303(b)(3) of the Budget Act. 
  However, a section 303 point of order may lie against an amendment to 
  an unreported measure. 105-2, July 24, 1998, p ____. In that instance 
  an amendment striking a revenue provision in a pending unreported bill 
  and proposing to insert an alternative revenue provision was held to 
  violate section 303.
      Waivers of section 303 of the Budget Act have been provided 
  pursuant to a special rule from the Committee on Rules. See Sec. 4, 
  supra. Section 303 does not apply after April 15 if the measure would 
  not increase the deficit or lower revenues below the aggregate level 
  of Federal revenues set forth in the concurrent resolution on the 
  budget. Sec. 302(g) of the Budget Act.


  Sec. 8 . Reconciliation Procedures

      Section 301(b)(2) of the Budget Act provides for the inclusion of 
  reconciliation instructions in a budget resolution and for the 
  reporting and consideration of reconciliation legislation. 
  Reconciliation instructions direct committees to recommend changes in 
  existing law to achieve the goals in spending or revenues contemplated 
  by the budget resolution. If reconciliation instructs more than one 
  committee in each House, then all committees instructed are to submit 
  their recommendations to their respective Budget Committees. The 
  Budget Committees then assemble, without substantive revision, all the 
  recommendations into one bill for action by the House or Senate. 
  Sec. 310 of the Budget Act. Reconciliation instructions may 
  contemplate several reconciliation bills, including a bill that 
  reduces revenues. See, e.g., 104-2, May 21, 1996, p 11939-41 (decision 
  of Chair sustained on appeal in the Senate); 106-1, H. Con. Res. 68, 
  Mar. 25, 1999, p ____ (House adoption of budget resolution). Section 
  310 provides expedited consideration in both Houses of reconciliation 
  legislation, provided the reconciliation bill has been reported as 
  privileged pursuant to rule XIII clause 5(a). However, it is customary 
  for the House to vary the parameters for consideration of a 
  reconciliation bill by adopting a special order of business resolution 
  recommended by the Committee on Rules. See, e.g., 107-1, H. Res. 142, 
  May 16, 2001, p ____.
      Section 310(c)(1)(A) of the Budget Act permits committees, in 
  meeting their reconciliation targets, to alternatively substitute 
  revenue and spending changes by up to 20 percent of the sum of the 
  absolute value of reconciled changes as long as the result does not 
  increase the deficit relative to the reconciliation instructions. 
  Section 310(d) of the Budget Act requires that amendments offered to 
  reconciliation legislation in either the House or the Senate must not 
  increase the level of deficit (if any) in the resolution. In

[[Page 199]]

  order to meet this requirement, an amendment reducing revenues or 
  increasing spending must offset deficit increases by equivalent 
  revenue increases or spending cuts. Manual on the Federal Budget 
  Process, CRS, Aug. 28, 1998, p 79. Section 313 of the Budget Act 
  addresses the subject of ``extraneous'' material in a reconciliation 
  bill--the so-called ``Byrd Rule.'' The enforcement of this section 
  applies only in the Senate but can be directed against matter 
  originating in the House.


  Sec. 9 . Adherence to Budget Resolution Spending and Revenue Levels

      The various parliamentary enforcement mechanisms established in 
  the Budget Act--those sections establishing points of order against 
  consideration of certain propositions--constitute rules of the House 
  and, as such, are liable to waiver by unanimous consent, by suspension 
  of the rules, or by adoption of a special rule. It is not unusual for 
  the House to waive such a point of order by adopting a special order 
  of business resolution recommended by the Committee on Rules.

    Adherence to Total Spending and Revenue Levels (Sec. 311(a) of the 
                                Budget Act)

      With certain exceptions, section 311(a) of the Budget Act 
  precludes specified measures--including amendments and conference 
  reports--that would cause total budget authority or total outlays to 
  exceed, or total revenues to be below, the level set forth in the 
  budget resolution. The provision is enforced by points of order 
  against the consideration of reported measures that would breach the 
  ``appropriate levels'' of total new budget authority or total outlays 
  or total revenues in the budget resolution. A section 311(a) point of 
  order does not lie against consideration of an unreported measure. 
  104-1, Mar. 21, 1995, p 8491.
      The House has adopted resolutions to ``deem'' budget resolutions 
  to be in place for temporary enforcement. These ``deemers'' have been 
  in either a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules or as a 
  separate order in an opening-day resolution adopting the standing 
  rules for a Congress. See, e.g., 105-2, H. Res. 477, June 19, 1998, p 
  ____; 106-1, sec. 2(a)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p ____; 107-2, H. 
  Res. 428, May 22, 2002, p ____; 108-1, H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p 
  ____.
      In the 108th Congress, the House adopted a special rule permitting 
  the former chairman of the Committee on the Budget to place in the 
  Congressional Record section 302(a) allocations under the budget 
  resolution that were ``deemed'' in place. Before his election as 
  chairman in the 108th Congress, the Member who served as chairman of 
  the Committee on the Budget

[[Page 200]]

  in the 107th Congress was given such permission because the Budget 
  Committee was not constituted before the House considered measures 
  subject to enforcement under the Budget Act. 108-1, H. Res. 14, Jan. 
  8, 2003, p ____.
      The Chair has sustained points of order under section 311(a) of 
  the Budget Act in the following instances:

     An amendment striking a rescission of existing budget 
         authority where its effect would be to increase the net new 
         budget authority in the bill in breach of the applicable total. 
         97-1, May 12, 1981, p 9314.
     An amendment reducing revenues for the fiscal year below the 
         total level of revenues contained in the concurrent resolution 
         on the budget for that year. See 94-2, Oct. 1, 1976, pp 34554-
         57.
     A motion to amend a Senate amendment providing new budget 
         authority for official mail costs to be available immediately 
         where the applicable total of new budget authority contained in 
         the budget resolution had already been exceeded and where the 
         Committee on Appropriations had exceeded its section 302(a) 
         allocation (thereby rendering the section 311(b) exception 
         inapplicable). 101-1, Sept. 28, 1989, p 22267.

            Committee Allocations (Sec. 302 of the Budget Act)

      Section 302(a) of the Budget Act provides for an allocation to 
  each committee of ``appropriate levels'' of new budget authority and 
  outlays, which are published in the joint statement of managers 
  accompanying a conference report on the budget resolution.
       Each committee is allocated an overall level for discretionary 
  spending that is consistent with the congressional budget plan. Under 
  section 302(b) of the Budget Act, the Committee on Appropriations of 
  each House then subdivides its allocations among its subcommittees. 
  Section 302(c) of the Budget Act precludes consideration of an 
  appropriation measure until that committee has made its suballocation 
  under section 302(b). Points of order under section 302(c) apply 
  separately to the consideration of bills and amendments. Thus, a 
  waiver of points of order against consideration of an unreported 
  appropriation bill before filing of a report from the Committee on 
  Appropriations allocating new budget authority among its subcommittees 
  does not extend to an amendment providing new budget authority in 
  addition to the amounts contained in the bill. 100-1, July 13, 1987, p 
  19514; 108-1, Jan. 8, 2003, p ____.
      Any Member may raise a point of order under section 302(f) of the 
  Budget Act against a reported bill, amendment, or conference report 
  that would exceed the relevant committee allocation. An amendment that 
  provides no new budget authority or outlays but instead results in 
  outlay savings is not subject to a point of order under these 
  provisions. 100-1, June

[[Page 201]]

  30, 1987, p 18308. The Chair has sustained points of order under 
  section 302(f) of the Budget Act in the following instances:

    An amendment to a general appropriation bill proposing to 
         strike a provision scored as negative budget authority and thus 
         providing new budget authority in excess of the relevant 
         allocation under section 302(b) of the Budget Act. 106-2, June 
         13, 2000, p ____.
     An amendment to a general appropriation bill proposing to 
         strike a provision stating that a specified increment of new 
         discretionary budget authority provided by the bill would 
         ``become available for obligation only upon the enactment of 
         future appropriations legislation,'' thus causing the bill to 
         provide additional new discretionary budget authority in that 
         incremental amount in excess of the relevant 302(b) allocation. 
         104-2, June 26, 1996, p 15563.
     A motion to recommit a bill with instructions proposing to 
         provide new budget authority in excess of the relevant 302(a) 
         allocation. 106-2, June 28, 2000, p ____.

      In the 108th Congress, the House adopted a special rule permitting 
  the former chairman of the Committee on the Budget to place in the 
  Congressional Record section 302(a) allocations under a budget 
  resolution that were ``deemed'' adopted by the House. Before his 
  election as chairman in the 108th Congress, the Member who served as 
  chairman of the Committee on the Budget in the 107th Congress was 
  given such permission because the Budget Committee was not constituted 
  before the House considered measures subject to enforcement under 
  section 302(a) of the Budget Act. 108-1, H. Res. 14, Jan. 8, 2003, p 
  ____; see Sec. 9, supra.

                       The Section 311(b) Exception

      As noted above, section 311(a) of the Budget Act precludes 
  Congress from considering legislation that would cause total revenues 
  to fall below, or total new budget authority or total outlays to 
  exceed, the appropriate level set forth in the budget resolution. 
  However, section 311(a) does not apply in the House to spending 
  legislation if the committee reporting the measure has stayed within 
  its allocation of new budget authority. See Sec. 311(c) of the Budget 
  Act. Accordingly, the House may take up any spending measure that is 
  within the appropriate committee allocations, even if (solely due to 
  excessive spending within another committee's jurisdiction) it would 
  cause total spending to be exceeded.

                            Emergency Spending

      Before the expiration of section 251 of Gramm-Rudman, section 314 
  of the Budget Act provided automatic adjustments to budget aggregates 
  and discretionary spending limits set forth in the concurrent 
  resolution on the budget and to the relevant committee allocations 
  under section 302(a) of the

[[Page 202]]

  Budget Act for appropriations designated as an emergency pursuant to 
  section 251(b)(2)(A). Such designation permitted emergency spending 
  notwithstanding the enforcement mechanisms contained in sections 
  311(a) and 302(f) of the Budget Act, although the designation did not 
  automatically cause a corresponding adjustment to a section 302(b) 
  allocation of a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. An 
  emergency designation of direct spending or receipts pursuant to 
  section 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
  Act is still possible and may cause adjustments under section 314 of 
  the Budget Act as described herein. However, because the sequestration 
  procedures outlined in section 252(e) are no longer viable, such 
  emergency designation is unlikely. Sequestration to enforce 
  discretionary spending limits also has expired with the expiration of 
  section 251, although that feature of the law could be reinvigorated 
  in the 108th Congress.

             Chair Guided by Committee on the Budget Estimates

      When the Chair decides questions of order under titles III and IV 
  of the Budget Act, section 312(a) of the Budget Act requires him to 
  rely on estimates provided by the Committee on the Budget in 
  determining levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct sending, 
  new entitlement authority, and revenues for a fiscal year. See, e.g., 
  106-2, June 8, 2000, p ____.


  Sec. 10 . Other Spending Controls

                                 Generally

      For a detailed explanation of deficit targets, discretionary 
  spending limits, and the paygo process, see the Manual on the Federal 
  Budget Process, CRS, Aug. 28, 1998.


  Sec. 11 . -- Sequestration

      Sequestration (an automatic spending reduction process) involves 
  the issuance of a Presidential order that permanently cancels 
  budgetary authority (except for special funds and trust funds) for the 
  purpose of achieving a required amount of outlay savings. 
  Sequestration orders are automatically triggered by OMB reports 
  mandated under Gramm-Rudman. Gramm-Rudman provided multiple 
  sequestration procedures. However, two of those procedures (section 
  251, to enforce the discretionary spending limits, and section 253, to 
  enforce deficit targets) expired on September 30, 2002. Sec. 275 of 
  Gramm-Rudman. The sequestration procedures under section 252 of Gramm-
  Rudman, although textually still in law, have no effect. Sections 251-
  253 of Gramm-Rudman could be reinvigorated in the 108th Congress.

[[Page 203]]

                Modification or Suspension of Sequestration

      OMB having issued a final sequestration report for a fiscal year, 
  the Majority Leader of either House may under Sec. 258A(a) of Gramm-
  Rudman introduce a timely joint resolution directing the President to 
  modify his most recent sequestration order or to provide an 
  alternative to reduce the deficit for such fiscal year. The issuance 
  of a ``low growth'' report by CBO may also trigger a joint resolution 
  suspending the relevant enforcement provisions of titles III and IV of 
  the Budget Act. Sec. 258(a) of Gramm-Rudman. For an example of such a 
  resolution, see 102-1, S.J. Res. 44, Jan. 23, 1991, p 2128.
      A sequestration ordered by the President for fiscal year 1990 was 
  rescinded by the Congress when it adopted a deficit-reducing 
  reconciliation bill for that year. In this instance, initial 
  sequestration reports for fiscal year 1990 were issued by the 
  Directors of both CBO and OMB. Accordingly, the President issued an 
  initial sequestration order directing that the reductions specified in 
  the OMB report be made on a provisional basis. A final sequestration 
  order was then issued by the President. The Omnibus Budget 
  Reconciliation Act of 1989 included provisions to rescind the orders 
  and restore the sequestered funds. It also reduced the deficit by 
  achieving certain other savings.

                          Discretionary Spending

      The currently expired section 251 of Gramm-Rudman imposed limits 
  on discretionary spending. The limits applied to new budget authority 
  and outlays provided in annual appropriations Acts (except for certain 
  mandatory programs funded in those Acts). A breach in either type of 
  limit would cause a sequester under section 251. Section 251(b)(1) of 
  Gramm-Rudman set forth a detailed procedure for the periodic, 
  automatic adjustment of the discretionary spending limits. Adjustments 
  were made for various factors, including changes in accounting 
  concepts and inflation. The 108th Congress could reinvigorate section 
  251.

                              Direct Spending

      A conventional authorization establishes or continues a government 
  agency or program. Although it may limit the amount of budget 
  authority that may be appropriated for that purpose, the authorized 
  funds are available only to the extent provided for in appropriation 
  Acts originated by the Committee on Appropriations. Deschler Ch 25 
  Sec. 2.13; see Appropriations. Spending legislation that circumvents 
  the appropriations process is called ``direct spending'' (sometimes 
  referred to as ``mandatory spending''). Under section 250(c)(8) of 
  Gramm-Rudman, direct spending includes the fol

[[Page 204]]

  lowing: (1) budget authority provided by law other than appropriation 
  Acts; (2) entitlement authority; and (3) the food stamp program.
      Direct spending is not capped but operates under Gramm-Rudman's 
  so-called paygo process (section 252 of Gramm-Rudman), which requires 
  that direct spending and revenue legislation enacted be deficit 
  neutral. However, section 252, although textually still in law, has no 
  effect, although it could be reinvigorated in the 108th Congress.


  Sec. 12 . -- New Contract Authority; New Borrowing Authority 
            (Sec. 401(a))

      New budget authority provided by law other than appropriation Acts 
  may take the form of new contract authority or new authority to incur 
  indebtedness (often referred to as ``borrowing authority'').
      With certain exceptions, section 401(a) of the Budget Act requires 
  new contract authority and new authority to incur indebtedness to be 
  effective only as provided in appropriation Acts. The various 
  authorities referred to in section 401(a) of the Budget Act do not 
  apply to bills that provide legislative authorizations that are 
  subject to the appropriations process. A conference report authorizing 
  the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to borrow funds by 
  issuing government notes as a public debt transaction, not subject to 
  amounts specified in advance in appropriation Acts, was conceded to 
  violate section 401(a) of the Budget Act and was ruled out on a point 
  of order. 94-2, Sept. 27, 1976, p 32655. Whether or not an amendment 
  to a pending measure violates section 401(a) of the Budget Act is 
  determined by its marginal effect on the pending measure (rather than 
  current law). See 102-2, Mar. 26, 1992, p 7183.


  Sec. 13 . -- Entitlement Authority (Sec. 401(b))

      Section 401(b) of the Budget Act precludes ``new entitlement 
  authority'' that becomes effective during the current fiscal year. 
  Entitlement authority is the authority to make payments to a person or 
  government under a provision of law that obligates the United States 
  to make such payments to those who meet the requirements established 
  by that law, including the food stamp program. Sec. 3(9) of the Budget 
  Act; Manual Sec. 1127. The Chair contemplates immediate enactment to 
  determine when an entitlement takes effect. Manual Sec. 1127.

[[Page 205]]

      The following examples have been held to provide new entitlement 
  authority within the meaning of the Budget Act:

     A conference report requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to 
         pay a cost of transporting agricultural commodities to major 
         disaster areas.
     A Senate amendment requiring the Secretary of Labor to certify 
         a new group of workers as eligible for adjustment assistance 
         under the Trade Act of 1974.
     An amendment enlarging the class of persons eligible for a 
         government subsidy.

  Manual Sec. 1127.

      The following examples have been held not to provide new 
  entitlement authority within the meaning of the Budget Act:

     A provision requiring payments to individuals meeting certain 
         qualifications but also requiring such payments to be ratably 
         reduced to the amounts of appropriations actually made if sums 
         appropriated pursuant thereto are insufficient.
     An amendment establishing a new executive position at a 
         specified compensation level but subjecting its salary to the 
         appropriation process.

  Manual Sec. 1127.

      In recent Congresses, the House has adopted a an order of the 
  House excluding Federal compensation from the definition of 
  entitlement authority. See, e.g., H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p ____.

            Points of Order under Section 401 of the Budget Act

      A point of order under section 401 lies against a reported bill or 
  joint resolution and not against an unreported measure. Manual 
  Sec. 1127. The spending authorities subject to constraints under 
  section 401, as forms of direct spending, are also subject to the 
  spending constraints on new budget authority under sections 302(f), 
  303, and 311(a) of the Budget Act. The paygo provisions of section 252 
  of Gramm-Rudman have constrained legislation providing direct spending 
  and receipts. However, section 252, although textually still in law, 
  has no effect. It could be reinvigorated in the 108th Congress. Manual 
  Sec. 1127.


  Sec. 14 . Social Security Funds

      Receipts and disbursements of the Social Security trust funds are 
  not to be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or as 
  deficit or surplus. Under section 13301 of the BEA of 1990, the off-
  budget status of these programs applies for purposes of the 
  President's budget, the congressional budget, and under Gramm-Rudman. 
  Manual Sec. 1129. Section 13302 of the BEA of 1990 creates a ``fire 
  wall'' point of order in the House to pro

[[Page 206]]

  hibit the consideration of legislation that would change certain 
  balances of the Social Security trust funds over specified periods. 
  Manual Sec. 1129.
      Section 310(g) of the Budget Act prohibits the consideration of 
  reconciliation legislation that contains recommendations with respect 
  to the title II program under the Social Security Act (OASDI).


  Sec. 15 . The Budget Process and the Public Debt Limit

      A limit on the public debt is fixed by law. 31 USC Sec. 3101. The 
  public debt limit may be changed by enactment of a bill or joint 
  resolution. See, e.g., 101-2, H.R. 5350, Aug. 4, 1990; the Omnibus 
  Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Such a joint resolution may be 
  generated automatically under rule XXVII upon adoption by Congress of 
  a concurrent resolution on the budget that sets forth a level of the 
  public debt that is different from the statutory limit. Rule XXVII was 
  first adopted in the 96th Congress. It was rendered inoperative on 
  occasion. See, e.g., 104-1, H. Res. 149, May 17, 1995, pp 13275, 
  13276; 105-1, H. Res. 152, May 20, 1997, p ____. It was repealed in 
  the 107th Congress and reinstated in the 108th Congress. Manual 
  Sec. 1104.
      Section 301(a)(5) of the Budget Act requires the budget resolution 
  to set forth the appropriate level for the public debt. Under rule 
  XVIII clause 10(c)(1), it is not in order to consider an amendment to 
  the budget resolution that proposes to change the appropriate level 
  for the public debt. Reconciliation directives relative to changes in 
  the public debt may be included in the concurrent resolution on the 
  budget under section 310(a)(3) of the Budget Act.


  Sec. 16 . Impoundments Generally

             Executive Branch Authority; Types of Impoundments

      The executive branch has no inherent power to impound appropriated 
  funds. In the absence of express congressional authorization to 
  withhold funds appropriated for implementation of a legislative 
  program, the executive branch must spend all the funds. Kennedy v. 
  Mathews, 413 F. Supp. 1240 (D.D.C. 1976); see also Train v. City of 
  New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975). Accordingly, if the controlling statute 
  gives the officials in question no discretion to withhold the funds, a 
  court may grant injunctive relief directing that they be made 
  available. Kennedy, 413 F. Supp. 1245.
      The impoundment of appropriated funds may be proposed by the 
  President pursuant to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Manual 
  Sec. 1130(6A). Two types of impoundments are referred to by this 
  statute: (1) rescissions, which are the permanent cancellation of 
  spending, and (2) deferrals, which

[[Page 207]]

  impose a temporary delay in spending. Sec. Sec. 1012, 1013 of the 
  Impoundment Control Act; 2 USC Sec. 681.
      The Impoundment Control Act was enacted by Congress in an effort 
  to control the budgetary impoundment powers asserted by the President. 
  As the court noted in City of New Haven, Conn. v. United States, 634 
  F. Supp. 1449 (D.D.C. 1986), in the early 1970's the President began 
  to use impoundments as a means of shaping domestic policy, withholding 
  funds from various programs he did not favor. The legality of these 
  impoundments was repeatedly litigated, and by 1974, impoundments had 
  been vitiated in many cases. See, e.g., National Council of Community 
  Mental Health Centers, Inc. v. Weinberger, 361 F. Supp. 897 (D.D.C. 
  1973) (public health funds).


  Sec. 17 . -- Rescissions; Line Item Veto

                       Under Impoundment Control Act

      Under the Impoundment Control Act, the President may propose to 
  rescind all or part of the budget authority Congress has appropriated 
  for a particular program. To propose a rescission, the President must 
  send a special message to Congress detailing the amount of the 
  proposed rescission, the reasons for it, and a summary of the effects 
  the rescission would have on the programs involved. Sec. 1012(a) of 
  the Impoundment Control Act. Under the Act, Congress then has 45 days 
  within which to approve the proposed rescission by a ``rescission 
  bill'' that must be passed by both Houses. Sec. 1012(b) of the 
  Impoundment Control Act. If the rescission bill is not approved, the 
  President must allow the full amount appropriated to be spent. City of 
  New Haven, Conn. v. United States, 634 F. Supp. 1449, 1452 (D.D.C. 
  1986).
      The 45-day period prescribed by the Act applies only to the 
  initial consideration of the bill; the consideration of a conference 
  report on such a bill is subject only to the general rules of the 
  House relating to conference reports and is not prevented by the 
  expiration of the 45-day period following the initial consideration of 
  the bill. Manual Sec. 1130(6A).
      The Impoundment Control Act sets forth detailed procedures 
  expediting and governing the consideration of a rescission bill 
  introduced under its provisions. Sec. 1017(a)-(c) of the Impoundment 
  Control Act. These procedures are rarely invoked in the modern 
  practice, and the ``rescission bill'' referred to in the Act is not 
  the only means by which the House may take action on such a matter. 
  The House may address the question through other legislation without 
  following the procedures set forth in section 1017 of the Impoundment 
  Control Act. 94-1, Mar. 25, 1975, p 8484.

[[Page 208]]

      Rescissions of prior appropriations are often reported in general 
  appropriation bills, and the inclusion of rescission language by the 
  Committee on Appropriations is excepted from the prohibition against 
  provisions ``changing existing law'' under rule XXI clause 2(b). See 
  Manual Sec. Sec. 1038, 1043, 1052. However, this exception does not 
  extend to amendments or to the rescission of contract authority 
  provided by a law other than an appropriations Act. Manual Sec. 1052.

                         Under Line Item Veto Act

      Enhanced rescission authority was given to the President on April 
  9, 1996, with the enactment of the Line Item Veto Act. This new 
  authority first became effective in the 105th Congress. It added a new 
  part C to title X of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 
  Act of 1974. 2 USC Sec. 631.
      In Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), the Supreme 
  Court held that the cancellation procedures of the Line Item Veto Act 
  violated the presentment clause of article I, section 7 of the 
  Constitution. During the period between January 1, 1997 (the effective 
  date of the Act), and the Court decision, the President exercised his 
  authority under the Act to cancel dollar amounts of discretionary 
  budget authority (see e.g., H. Doc. 105-147), new direct spending (H. 
  Doc. 105-115), and limited tax benefits (H. Doc. 105-116). 
  Cancellations were effective unless disapproved by law.
      Although the congressional review procedures remain in the law, 
  the Court decision makes it unlikely that they will be invoked. The 
  procedures may be summarized as follows: The cancellations were 
  transmitted to the Congress by Presidential message within five 
  calendar days after the enactment of the law to which the cancellation 
  applied. The Act provided for a congressional review period of 30 
  calendar days of session with expedited House consideration of bills 
  disapproving the cancellations, including: (1) prescribing the text; 
  (2) referral to committee with directions to report within seven 
  calendar days subject to a motion to discharge; (3) consideration of a 
  disapproval bill in the Committee of the Whole with no amendment in 
  order (except that a Member, supported by 49 other Members, could 
  offer an amendment striking cancellations from the bill), and 
  consideration of the bill for amendment limited to one hour; and (4) 
  one-calendar-day availability for a conference report. 
  Sec. Sec. 1025(d), 1025(f), 1026(6) of the Impoundment Control Act. 
  The Act also provided for expedited procedures in the Senate.

[[Page 209]]

  Sec. 18 . -- Deferrals

      Under section 1013(a) of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the 
  President must notify Congress of the proposed deferral of any budget 
  authority, the reasons for the deferral, the impact the deferral will 
  have on the programs involved, and ``any legal authority invoked to 
  justify the proposed deferral.'' 2 USC Sec. 684(a).
      Until 1986 the Act was used frequently as the basis for 
  Presidential deferral proposals and for their consideration by the 
  Congress. Section 1013 of the Impoundment Control Act allows a 
  deferral to be overridden by a resolution of disapproval passed by 
  either House. Congress could reject the proposal by one-House veto or 
  in subsequent legislation. Today, the Congress may disapprove a 
  deferral only through the enactment of a law (often an appropriation 
  Act). It may not do so through a resolution of disapproval only by one 
  House under court rulings. Manual Sec. 1130 (Congressional Disapproval 
  Provisions Contained in Public Laws).
      In 1986 a suit was brought to contest the validity of certain 
  deferrals proposed by the President under section 1013 of the 
  Impoundment Control Act. In November 1985, the President had signed 
  the fiscal year 1986 appropriations bill for the Department of Housing 
  and Urban Development, which appropriated funds for certain community 
  development programs. In February 1986, the President sent impoundment 
  notices to Congress pursuant to the Act announcing his deferrals of 
  the expenditure of funds for the programs at issue. The plaintiffs in 
  the suit included various cities, community groups, and Members of 
  Congress. The plaintiffs challenged as unconstitutional the provision 
  allowing a so-called one-House legislative veto of impoundments 
  proposed by the President, such vetoes having been declared 
  unconstitutional under the Supreme Court decision in Immigration and 
  Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 103 (1983). The 
  plaintiffs argued that the unconstitutional legislative veto provision 
  contained in section 1013 rendered the entire section invalid, leaving 
  the President without statutory authority on which to base the 
  deferrals in question. After analyzing the intent of Congress in 
  enacting section 1013, the District Court for the District of Columbia 
  held that the section's unconstitutional legislative veto provision 
  was inseverable from the remainder of the section. City of New Haven, 
  Conn. v. United States, 634 F. Supp. 1449 (D.D.C. 1986). Accordingly, 
  the court declared section 1013 void in its entirety and ordered the 
  defendants to make the deferred funds available for obligation. City 
  of New Haven, 634 F. Supp. 1460. The judgment of the District Court in 
  striking down section 1013 in its entirety was affirmed by the U.S. 
  Court of Ap

[[Page 210]]

  peals. City of New Haven, Conn. v. United States, 809 F.2d 900 (D.C. 
  Cir. 1987).
      In 1987, after section 1013 of the Impoundment Control Act was 
  declared unconstitutional, the Act was amended to exclude the one-
  House legislative veto procedure, and limitations were placed on the 
  purposes for which deferrals could be made. Section 1013 of the 
  Impoundment Control Act now permits deferrals only in three specified 
  situations: ``to provide for contingencies,'' ``to achieve savings 
  made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater 
  efficiency of operations,'' or ``as specifically provided by law.'' 
  The same language is used in the Anti-Deficiency Act. 31 USC 
  Sec. 1512(c)(1). The purpose of such language was to preclude the 
  President from invoking section 1013 as authority for implementing 
  ``policy'' impoundments, while preserving the President's authority to 
  implement routine ``programmatic'' impoundments. City of New Haven, 
  Conn. v. United States, 809 F.2d 906 (note).

                           Unreported Deferrals

      Section 1015(a) of the Impoundment Control Act (2 USC Sec. 686(a)) 
  requires the Comptroller General to report to the Congress whenever he 
  finds that any officer or employee of the United States has ordered, 
  permitted, or approved a reserve or deferral of budget authority, and 
  the President has not transmitted a special impoundment message with 
  respect to such reserve or deferral.


  Sec. 19 . Unfunded Mandates

      The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 added a new part B to 
  title IV of the Budget Act that imposes several requirements on 
  committees with respect to ``Federal mandates,'' establishes points of 
  order to enforce those requirements, and precludes the consideration 
  of a rule or order waiving such points of order in the House. 2 USC 
  Sec. Sec. 658-658g. Section 425 of the Budget Act establishes a point 
  of order against consideration of a bill, joint resolution, amendment, 
  motion, or conference report containing unfunded intergovernmental 
  mandates. Section 426(a) of the Budget Act establishes a point of 
  order against consideration of any rule or order that waives the 
  application of section 425. Points of order under sections 425 and 
  426(a) of the Budget Act are disposed of by the House voting on the 
  question of consideration. Manual Sec. 1127.
      Section 426(b) of the Budget Act requires a Member raising a point 
  of order under section 425 to specify the precise language upon which 
  the point of order is based. Debate on the point of order is on the 
  question of consideration of the underlying text that is the subject 
  of the point of order.

[[Page 211]]

   The Members controlling debate on the point of order may reserve 
  their time, and a manager of a measure who controls time for debate 
  against the point of order has the right to close debate. A point of 
  order under section 426 against consideration of a resolution 
  providing a special order of business that waives section 425 or self-
  executes the adoption of an amendment must be made when the special 
  order is called up and comes too late after the resolution has been 
  adopted. A point of order under section 425 against consideration of a 
  bill is properly raised pending the Speaker's declaration that the 
  House resolve into the Committee of the Whole for such consideration. 
  Manual Sec. 1127.
      Under rule XVIII clause 11, an amendment proposing only to strike 
  an unfunded Federal intergovernmental mandate from a bill in the 
  Committee of the Whole may be precluded only by specific terms of a 
  special order of the House. Manual Sec. 991.