View source for Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974

{{short description|United States law on role of Congress in budgeting}}
{{Use American English|date=May 2023}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=May 2023}}
{{Infobox U.S. legislation
| name = Budget Act of 1974
| fullname = An Act to establish a new congressional budget process; to establish Committees on the Budget in each House; to establish a Congressional Budget Office; to establish a procedure providing congressional control over the impoundment of funds by the executive branch; and for other purposes.
| acronym = 
| nickname = 
| enacted by = 93rd
| effective date = July 12, 1974
| public law url = http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-88/pdf/STATUTE-88-Pg297.pdf
| cite public law = 93-344
| cite statutes at large = {{USStat|88|297}}
| acts amended = 
| title amended = [[Title 2 of the United States Code|2 U.S.C.: Congress]]
| sections created = 
| sections amended = 
| leghisturl = https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-bill/07130
| introducedin = House
| introducedbill = {{USBill|93|HR|7130}}
| introducedby = [[Al Ullman]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]-[[Oregon|OR]])
| introduceddate = April 18, 1973
| committees = [[United States House Committee on Rules|House Rules]]
| passedbody1 = House
| passeddate1 = December 5, 1973
| passedvote1 = [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/93-1973/h466 386-23]
| passedbody2 = Senate
| passeddate2 = March 22, 1974
| passedvote2 = [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/93-1974/s675 80-0], in lieu of S. 1541
| conferencedate = June 11, 1974
| passedbody3 = House
| passeddate3 = June 18, 1974
| passedvote3 = [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/93-1974/h746 401-6]
| passedbody4 = Senate
| passeddate4 = June 21, 1974
| passedvote4 = [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/93-1974/s854 75-0]
| signedpresident = [[Richard Nixon]]
| signeddate = July 12, 1974
| amendments = [[Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget Act]]<br>[[Budget Control Act of 2011]]
| SCOTUS cases = ''[[Train v. City of New York]]''
| unsignedpresident = 
| vetoedpresident = 
}}
The '''Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974'''{{efn|{{USPL|93|344}}, {{USStat|88|297}}, {{USC3|2|601|688}}; officially titled ''An Act to establish a new congressional budget process; to establish Committees on the Budget in each House; to establish a Congressional Budget Office; to establish a procedure providing congressional control over the impoundment of funds by the executive branch; and for other purposes.''}} ('''ICA''') is a [[United States federal law]] that governs the role of the [[United States Congress|Congress]] in the [[United States budget process]].

Titles I through IX of the law are also known as the '''Congressional Budget Act of 1974'''.  

==Congressional budget process==
Titles I through IX of the law are known as the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.  Title II created the [[Congressional Budget Office]]. Title III governs the procedures by which Congress annually adopts a budget resolution, a [[concurrent resolution]] that is not signed by the [[President of the United States|president]], which sets fiscal policy for the Congress.  This budget resolution sets limits on revenues and spending that may be enforced in Congress through procedural objections called [[point of order|points of order]]. The budget resolution can also specify that a [[Reconciliation (United States Congress)|budget reconciliation bill]] be written, which the Congress will then consider under expedited procedures.

== Later amendments ==
The act has been amended several times, including provisions in the [[Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget Act|Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985]], the [[Budget Enforcement Act of 1990]], and the [[Balanced Budget Act of 1997]]. The original 1974 legislation, however, remains the basic blueprint for budget procedures today.

== Byrd Rule ==
{{further|Reconciliation (United States Congress)}}
The limitation on debate that prevents a budget reconciliation bill from being [[filibuster]]ed in the Senate (requiring a three-fifths vote to end debate) led to frequent attempts to attach amendments unrelated to the budget to the reconciliation bills. In response, the budget reconciliation acts of 1985, 1986, and 1990 adopted the "Byrd Rule" (Section 313 of the Budget Act).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/RL30862.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101202021810/http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/RL30862.pdf |archive-date=December 2, 2010 |title=The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate's "Byrd Rule" |publisher=U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Rules}}</ref> The Byrd Rule allows Senators to raise points of order (which can be waived by a three-fifths majority of Senators<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0405/041805ol.htm |title=Byrd Brains |first=David |last=Baumann |publisher=NationalJournal |date=April 18, 2005 |access-date=July 5, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120119095000/http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0405/041805ol.htm |archive-date=January 19, 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref>) against provisions in the reconciliation bills that are "extraneous".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/byrd_rule.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101205015541/http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/byrd_rule.htm |archive-date=December 5, 2010 |title=Summary of the Byrd rule |publisher=U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Rules}}</ref>

Provisions are considered extraneous if they:

# do not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
# produce changes in outlays or revenue which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
# are outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
# increase outlays or decrease revenue if the provision's title, as a whole, fails to achieve the Senate reporting committee's reconciliation instructions;
# increase net outlays or decrease revenue during a [[fiscal year]] after the years covered by the reconciliation bill unless the provision's title, as a whole, remains budget neutral; or
# contain recommendations regarding the [[Social Security (United States)|OASDI (social security)]] trust funds.

=== Sunset provisions ===
{{further|Sunset provision#Budget Act and the Byrd Rule}}
Since the reconciliation bill may cover as many as ten years, the fifth provision can have the effect of requiring that any tax cut or spending increase must be approved by a three-fifths majority, or else the law must return to its previous state after ten years. This is responsible for the use of [[sunset clause]]s in several recent budget acts, when proposed tax cuts commanded majority support but not the necessary three-fifths majority to suspend the Byrd Rule. For example, many of the provisions of the [[Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001]] and the [[Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003]] would have expired as soon as fiscal year 2010 if not extended. The provisions that were to expire including the $1000 per child tax credit, the 10% income tax bracket for low-income workers, and the deduction for state and local sales taxes paid. The expiration dates in those Acts were inserted in order to avoid Byrd Rule points of order. Provisions against which a Byrd Rule point of order is sustained are colloquially referred to as "Byrd droppings".{{cn|date=April 2018}}

==Impoundment==
Title X of the Act, also known as the '''Impoundment Control Act of 1974''', specifies that the president may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within forty-five days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on the request and has ignored most presidential requests.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/02C17B.txt |title=2 USC Chapter 17B – Impoundment Control |work=US Code |publisher=US House of Representatives |accessdate=August 20, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110306013143/http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/02C17B.txt |archive-date=March 6, 2011 }}</ref> In response, some{{who?|date=April 2018}} have called for a [[line item veto]] to strengthen the rescission power and force Congress to vote on the disputed funds.

The Act was passed because Congressional representatives thought that [[President Nixon]] had abused his power of [[Impoundment of appropriated funds|impoundment]] by withholding funds for programs he opposed. The Act, especially after ''[[Train v. City of New York]]'' (1975), effectively removed the presidential power of impoundment.<ref>420 U.S. 35 (1975).</ref>

In late November 2019, the Impoundment Control Act made news during the [[Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump|Trump impeachment investigation]], when two budget office staffers resigned over their concerns over apparent improprieties regarding the [[Trump–Ukraine scandal|hold of approved Ukraine military funds]]. Among the concerns was the questionable transfer of decision-making authority to Michael Duffey, a political appointee.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/trump-constitutional-house-mcgahn-omb-giuliani-seal-salt-1.38946590|title=1600: Constitutional clash commences next week|last=Janison|first=Dan|date=November 26, 2019|website=Newsday|language=en|access-date=November 27, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/house/472207-state-dept-official-describes-frantic-effort-to-save-recalled-ukraine|title=State Dept. official describes frantic effort to save recalled Ukraine ambassador|last=Byrnes|first=Jesse|date=November 26, 2019|website=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]|language=en|access-date=November 27, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/11/26/trump-impoundment-control-act|title=Did Trump Violate Impoundment Control Act In Ukraine Affair?|date=November 26, 2019|website=[[Wbur.org]] |language=en|access-date=November 27, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/11/26/two-omb-officials-resigned-voicing-concerns-over-ukraine-aid-hold-official-testifies/|title=Two OMB officials resigned in part over concerns about Ukraine aid hold, official testifies|date=November 26, 2019|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|access-date=November 26, 2019}}</ref> Further emails released showed that Acting Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) [[Elaine McCusker]] emailed the [[White House]] [[Office of Management and Budget]] expressing her concerns beginning in July 2019 that the White House withholding funds from Ukraine could be a violation of the Impoundment Control Act.<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |title=Emails Show Pentagon Official's Concerns Over Ukraine Aid Freeze |date=January 2, 2020 |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/emails-show-pentagon-officials-concerns-over-ukraine-aid-freeze-11578009019 }}</ref>

On January 16, 2020, the [[Government Accountability Office]] (GAO) issued a decision on the "Matter of: Office of Management and Budget—Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance." The GAO report found: 

<blockquote>"In the summer of 2019, OMB withheld from obligation approximately $214 million appropriated to DOD for security assistance to Ukraine. (...) OMB withheld amounts by issuing a series of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances for the [[Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative]] (USAI) unavailable for obligation. (...) Pursuant to our role under the ICA, we are issuing this decision. (...) we conclude that OMB withheld the funds from obligation for an unauthorized reason in violation of the ICA.1 See 2 U.S.C. § 684. We also question actions regarding funds appropriated to the Department of State (State) for security assistance to Ukraine."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf|title=Decision, Matter of: Office of Management and Budget—Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance|last=Armstrong|first=Thomas H.|date=January 16, 2020|website=gao.gov|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200116162512/https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf|archive-date=January 16, 2020|access-date=January 16, 2020|quote=In the summer of 2019, OMB withheld from obligation approximately $214 million appropriated to DOD for security assistance to Ukraine. See Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019, Pub. L. No. 115-245, div. A, title IX, § 9013, 132 Stat. 2981, 3044–45 (Sept. 28, 2018). OMB withheld amounts by issuing a series of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) unavailable for obligation. See Letter from General Counsel, OMB, to General Counsel, GAO (Dec. 11, 2019) (OMB Response), at 1–2. Pursuant to our role under the ICA, we are issuing this decision. Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-344, title X, § 1015, 88 Stat. 297, 336 (July 12, 1974), codified at 2 U.S.C. § 686. As explained below, we conclude that OMB withheld the funds from obligation for an unauthorized reason in violation of the ICA.1 See 2 U.S.C. § 684. We also question actions regarding funds appropriated to the Department of State (State) for security assistance to Ukraine.}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/ukraine-docs/gao-report-backs-private-pentagon-conclusions-that-trump-broke-the-law-on-ukraine/|title=GAO report backs private Pentagon conclusions that Trump broke the law on Ukraine|last=Smith|first=R. Jeffrey|date=January 16, 2020|website=Center for Public Integrity|language=en-us|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200116215022/https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/ukraine-docs/gao-report-backs-private-pentagon-conclusions-that-trump-broke-the-law-on-ukraine/|archive-date=January 16, 2020|access-date=January 26, 2020|quote=OMB's actions did not comply with any of the exceptions to the law’s demand that a president carry out congressional spending orders, the GAO said in its nine-page report. "OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted," the report states. "Therefore we conclude that OMB violated" the act.}}</ref></blockquote> The [[Center for Public Integrity]] found that "OMB's actions did not comply with any of the exceptions to the law's demand that a president carry out congressional spending orders, the GAO said in its nine-page report. 'OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted,' the report states. 'Therefore we conclude that OMB violated' the act."<ref name=":0" />

The ability of the President to impound funds again came into question during the [[2025 United States federal government grant pause]]<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hals |first=Tom |last2=Sullivan |first2=Andy |date=January 28, 2025 |title=Explainer: Trump's spending pause and its legality |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/does-trump-administrations-spending-pause-violate-us-law-2025-01-28/ |access-date=January 28, 2025 |website=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> resulting in 39 investigations by the GAO.<ref>[https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/22/trump-administration-violated-impoundment-law-gao-finds-00365728 politico.com]</ref><ref>[https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/04/white-house-dot-gao-ev-funding-00384230 politico.com]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Reconciliation (United States Congress)]]

==Notes==
{{notelist}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Further reading==
*{{cite book |last=Dauster |first=William G. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9INpk4FAfasC |title=Budget Process Law Annotated: 1993 Edition |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=[[United States Government Printing Office|Government Printing Office]] |year=1993 |isbn=0-16-041726-0 }}
*{{cite book |chapter=The Congressional Budget Process |title=Fiscal Challenges: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Budget Policy |url=https://archive.org/details/fiscalchallenges00garr |url-access=limited |editor-link=Elizabeth Garrett |editor-first=Elizabeth |editor-last=Garrett |editor2-first=Howell |editor2-last=Jackson |editor3-first=Elizabeth |editor3-last=Graddy |pages=[https://archive.org/details/fiscalchallenges00garr/page/n19 4]–38 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-521-87731-2 }}
*{{cite journal |first=Joseph J. |last=Hogan |year=1985 |title=Ten Years After: The US Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 |journal=[[Public Administration (journal)|Public Administration]] |volume=63 |issue=2 |pages=133–149 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9299.1985.tb00896.x }}
*{{cite news |url=https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/10/richard-nixon-congressional-budget-control-act-history-000282/ |date=October 21, 2015 |first=Kevin |last=Kosar |title=So... this is Nixon's Fault? |work=[[Politico]] }}
*{{cite journal |first=Wm. Bradford |last=Middlekauff |title=Twisting the President's Arm: The Impoundment Control Act as a Tool for Enforcing the Principle of Appropriation Expenditure |journal=[[Yale Law Journal]] |volume=100 |issue=1 |year=1990 |pages=209–228 |doi=10.2307/796769 |jstor=796769 |url=https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7306&context=ylj |url-access=subscription }}
*{{cite book|last=Pfiffner|first=James P|title=The President, the Budget, and Congress: Impoundment and the 1974 Budget Act|year=1979|publisher=Westview Press|isbn=0-89158-495-1|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/presidentbudgetc0000pfif}}

*{{cite web |author-link=Alan Frumin |last=Frumin |first=Alan S. |title=Congressional Budget |url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-RIDDICK-1992/pdf/GPO-RIDDICK-1992-34.pdf |work=Riddick's Senate Procedure |series=502–642 |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=Government Printing Office |year=1992 }}
*{{cite web |last=Keith |first=Robert |url=http://budget.house.gov/crs-reports/98-721.pdf |archive-date=May 14, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090514022409/http://budget.house.gov/crs-reports/98-721.pdf |title=Introduction to the Federal Budget Process |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=[[Congressional Research Service]] |year=2008 }}
*{{cite web |author=The Peter G. Peterson Foundation |url=http://pgpf.org/issues/spending/2014/07/qa-congressional-budget-and-impoundment-control-act-of-1974 |title=Q&A: Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 |date=July 9, 2014 |author-link=The Peter G. Peterson Foundation }}
*{{cite web |author=U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on the Budget |url=https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-114HPRT96107/pdf/CPRT-114HPRT96107.pdf |title=Compendium of Laws and Rules Relating to the Congressional Budget Process }}

==External links==
* [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-10356/uslm/COMPS-10356.xml Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974] as amended ([https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-10356/pdf/COMPS-10356.pdf PDF]/[https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/COMPS-10356/ details]) in the [[United States Government Publishing Office|GPO]] [https://www.govinfo.gov/help/comps Statute Compilations collection]

{{Presidency of Richard Nixon}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Congressional Budget And Impoundment Control Act Of 1974}}
[[Category:United States federal budgets]]
[[Category:United States federal government administration legislation|Budget and Impoundment Control Act]]
[[Category:1974 in American law]]