S-5670-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
Sponsored by Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
What it does
The bill would amend the Impoundment Control Act to require that funds covered by a presidential rescission, reservation, or deferral message be made available in time to be prudently obligated. It would bar deferring or withholding those funds during the 90 days before their availability expires. It would also require budget apportionments to make all funds available, without preconditions such as footnotes, at least 90 days before expiration. Separately, it would declare the September 25, 2026 rescission special message to have no force or effect.
Who benefits
Federal grant recipients, state and local governments, universities, and nonprofits that depend on appropriated funds that could otherwise lapse. Congressional appropriators who want enacted spending levels carried out as written. Agency program staff who would gain clearer apportionment timelines. Recipients of the specific funds in the September 25, 2026 rescission proposal, which the bill would nullify.
Who is hurt
The President and the Office of Management and Budget, which would lose the ability to run out the clock on expiring funds through pocket rescissions or conditional apportionments. Administrations seeking to reduce spending without congressional approval. Agencies that may face pressure to obligate funds quickly, which could risk less careful spending. Taxpayers who favor the rescissions in the voided proposal, since the savings it proposed would not occur.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Congress sets spending levels by law, and that a pocket rescission, which is sent so close to expiration that funds lapse before Congress can act, lets the executive cancel appropriations without congressional approval. They contend the 90-day rules and the ban on apportionment footnotes restore the Impoundment Control Act's 45-day review process, and cite Government Accountability Office findings that impoundments have violated that Act.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the President has a constitutional duty to guard against wasteful spending, and that a 90-day cutoff would force agencies to obligate money they judge unnecessary or unprepared. They contend that voiding a specific, already-transmitted rescission message by statute interferes with the executive's role under the Impoundment Control Act, and note that the executive branch has defended pocket rescissions as consistent with that Act's text.
Constitutional context
The bill implicates Congress's Appropriations Clause power (Art. I, §9, cl. 7) and spending power against the President's duty under the Take Care Clause (Art. II, §3). Train v. City of New York (1975) rejected presidential refusal to spend funds Congress appropriated, but no controlling case addresses pocket rescissions, and the separation-of-powers questions here remain contested. Using a statute to nullify a specific executive message could also be challenged on separation-of-powers grounds.
Checks and balances
The bill would shift power toward Congress and away from the President and OMB over the timing of spending. Existing checks include GAO review of impoundments, the courts, and Congress's power of the purse.
Historical precedent
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was enacted after President Nixon's large-scale impoundments, and Train v. City of New York (1975) upheld Congress's authority over appropriated funds.