This week on Facing the Future, we talked with Rachel Snyderman, Managing Director of Economic Policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, about a new issue brief on the impoundment process. She answered some commonly asked questions on how the process works and the relative authorities granted to the legislative and executive branches.
“When we’re talking about impoundment,” Snyderman said, “we are talking about the rules of the road as prescribed by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. That law did not take away powers existing to the President prior to that, but rather specified the procedures through which the President could by law request of Congress changes to annually appropriated and previously approved funding by Congress if they differed with the Administration’s policy or economic goals.”
Snyderman detailed the two fast-track mechanisms available to a President who wants to impound funds already approved by Congress outside of the normal budget process, outside of the President’s budget request and the annual appropriations process
The two mechanisms are deferral and rescission. They have different requirements, Snyderman explained, “So first, the President can defer spending. This is when the President temporarily pauses discretionary funding with the explicit intent that that funding is going to be spent in full at some point throughout the fiscal year,” she said, “But sometimes the executive branch will defer funding. If, for example, they know that disaster spending can be lumpy. You want to ensure that you have enough funding to make it through hurricane season without requesting a supplemental. Or sometimes there might be a situation where Federal agencies need to undergo remodeling, and so, want to ensure that funding is then apportioned to agencies. Those are deferrals [that] are used when there is a specific cost, savings or efficiency mechanism, but always with the intent that that money is going to be spent in full at some point throughout the fiscal year.”
She explained further, “The second mechanism is rescissions. If the President and the executive branch come in, and have a change in policy goals that differ from previously approved discretionary funding, they can request of congress to decrease or rescind certain funding. What they will do is put together a special package of different spending across the federal government that they would like congress to decrease or eliminate. That will go to both the House and Senate appropriations committees and then to the floor for a full vote. They have 45 days for a simple majority vote up or down on that package. but those rescissions will only go into law if congress approves them. If congress chooses to do nothing. if congress does not approve that rescission package, then the funding that was temporarily paused must then be apportioned to the agencies and spent.”
Snyderman pointed to an enforcement provision in the law. “If congress and the President do not agree on whether the President has used his impoundment authority within the bounds of the law, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) can step in and provide oversight to ensure that the Executive Branch is acting in accordance with the Impoundment Control Act. The GAO also has the authority to sue the executive branch to ensure that funding that is temporarily paused will be apportioned to agencies and spent,”she said.
Hear more on Facing the Future. Concord Coalition Executive Director Bob Bixby hosts the program each week on WKXL in Concord N.H., and it is also available via podcast. Join us as The Concord Coalition team discusses issues relating to national fiscal policy with budget experts, industry leaders, and elected officials. Past broadcasts are available here. You can subscribe to the podcast on Spotify, Pandora, iTunes, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, or with an RSS feed. Follow Facing the Future on Facebook, and watch videos from past episodes on The Concord Coalition YouTube channel.
