What Is a Pocket Rescission? A Plain-Language Guide to the Debate
Right now this term is being thrown around in the press with little explanation or context. So, here is that context and both sides of the debate around them.
First, if you have not read the previous blog from mid-August on Continuing Resolutions, you should probably start there.
Second, it is important that you understand that many of these processes, both around Congress and the president, are tied to rigid timelines. When a part of the process allows the time to run out, often the result is what’s known as a ‘pocket veto’ or ‘pocket rescission’, more on both below.
The most frequently used term is Pocket Veto. This is when the president allows for time to run out for him to sign a bill into law and Congress is not in session to overrule that veto, resulting in the bill not becoming law. This bill may be reintroduced in a future session, but this effort is essentially defeated by letting the clock run out.
Today we are talking about a Pocket Rescission. In this context too, ‘pocket’ denotes a timeline expiring before an action can be taken. Here we are talking about appropriated funds. The President, on Friday September 25, issued a press release which indicated he was rescinding nearly $1 Billion in funds appropriated by Congress to HHS, DHS, DOJ, Education, Commerce, Treasury, and HUD for programs not in line with the administration's priorities. Congress has 45 days to respond to the President’s request.
The timing of this announcement is critical. If Congress wanted to step in to prevent this from occurring, they can’t: the House has already recessed and any legislative response would require both chambers. Every dollar in an appropriation has an expiration date. Some dollars are ‘1 year’ money, others have longer periods during which they can be used. The timing of this announcement pulls money back a mere 5 days before the end of the federal fiscal year which is also the expiration of these funds. Five days is not nearly enough time to utilize these funds for other purposes either.
Bottom line, the pocket rescission ensures that the dollars allocated for these programs will not be used before they expire in a few days.
Finally, there is an ongoing debate whether this action is legal. Both sides of the argument point to laws that may or may not allow this process within the law. Whether you agree with one side or the other, the facts are these: the President has disallowed money to be spent on programs that were funded by Congress and approved by him.
Want more detail? Sources from the experts.