Summary: Since enactment of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, all presidents have proposed rescissions--permanent cancellation of budget authority. GAO testified that the experience of the last 19 years shows that presidents have used the rescission process, as intended, to advance their own priorities in spending cuts. But Congress has also increasingly used rescissions to express its own view of changing priorities. As Congress has come to embrace an equivalent or greater amount of reductions as proposed by presidents, the debate has shifted from deciding whether to cut to deciding where to cut. Given the relatively small influence rescissions can have on the budget totals and deficits of today's magnitude, rescissions cannot be expected to serve as a significant deficit reduction or spending limitation tool. Rather, they can more appropriately be viewed as a way for the President and Congress to debate and resolve their differences on cutting specific programs. Proposals to change this process should be viewed in the context of their effect on the relative balance of power in this debate. For example, enhanced rescission authority would significantly strengthen the President's hand, which could very well change the outcome of that debate.
