Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Burchett, Tim [R-TN-2]
- Committees
- Rules Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 10, 2025
Bottom line
H.R. 1979 grants the President enhanced power to propose targeted spending cuts and tax benefit repeals, subject to an expedited, unamendable congressional vote, aiming to reduce the deficit and increase fiscal accountability.
What it actually does
This bill reestablishes a form of legislative line-item veto authority for the President, allowing the President to propose cancellations of specific dollar amounts of discretionary budget authority, items of direct spending, or targeted tax benefits within 30 days of a bill's enactment. These proposed cancellations would then be subject to expedited consideration by Congress through an 'approval bill' that cannot be amended. The President is also granted temporary authority to defer or suspend the implementation of these items for up to 30 days, with a possible 30-day extension, while Congress considers the approval bill.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill provides a crucial tool for fiscal responsibility, allowing the President to target wasteful spending and special interest tax breaks without vetoing entire appropriations bills. They contend it empowers the executive to identify and eliminate specific provisions that contribute to the national debt, thereby promoting deficit reduction and increasing accountability in government spending. Supporters believe it would force Congress to take a direct vote on specific cuts, making the legislative process more transparent and responsive to taxpayer concerns about government efficiency.
Opponents contend
Opponents typically argue that such a legislative line-item veto unconstitutionally shifts legislative power from Congress to the President, undermining the separation of powers and potentially allowing the President to target programs or tax benefits based on political motivations rather than purely fiscal ones. They contend that it could lead to executive overreach, allowing a President to unilaterally alter legislation passed by both houses of Congress. Critics also raise concerns that it could be used to pressure members of Congress on unrelated votes, creating an imbalance in the legislative process.
The bill is moderately complex due to its procedural nature and reliance on existing budget law. An informed reader would need adequate time to understand its implications, which is generally provided by the legislative process, though the expedited consideration mechanism itself compresses the timeframe for congressional action.
Section 2, new Sec. 1011(a)
Presidential Authority to Propose Cancellations
This provision grants the President the authority to propose the cancellation of specific dollar amounts of discretionary budget authority, items of direct spending, or targeted tax benefits within 30 calendar days after any bill or joint resolution providing such items is enacted. This power is limited to a maximum of 10 special messages per bill (or 20 for omnibus measures) and prohibits proposing the same or substantially similar cancellations more than once. This mechanism is designed to allow the President to target specific expenditures or tax breaks for elimination.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this empowers the President to act as a fiscal watchdog, identifying and proposing the elimination of wasteful spending or inefficient tax benefits that might otherwise remain embedded in large legislative packages. This promotes greater accountability and deficit reduction.
Critics contend
Critics contend this provision grants the President too much power, potentially allowing the executive to unilaterally reshape legislation passed by Congress. They argue it could lead to political targeting of specific programs or tax benefits, undermining the legislative branch's constitutional role in appropriations and taxation.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for greater executive control over spending and tax policy to reduce deficits against concerns about maintaining the constitutional separation of powers and preventing executive overreach into legislative prerogatives.
Section 2, new Sec. 1012
Expedited Congressional Consideration of Approval Bills
This section outlines the expedited procedures for Congress to consider an 'approval bill' that would enact the President's proposed cancellations. The majority leader in each House must introduce such a bill within five days of receiving the President's special message. Committees have a limited time to report the bill, and floor consideration in both the House and Senate is subject to strict time limits, with no amendments allowed. This ensures a swift up-or-down vote on the President's proposed cancellations.
Section 2, new Sec. 1013
Presidential Deferral and Suspension Authority
This provision grants the President temporary authority to withhold discretionary budget authority or suspend the implementation of direct spending items or targeted tax benefits for up to 30 calendar days, starting from the date the special message is transmitted to Congress. This deferral can be extended by an additional 30 days with a supplemental message. This allows the President to immediately halt the targeted spending or tax benefit while Congress considers the approval bill, creating immediate fiscal impact.
Section 2, new Sec. 1014
Identification of Targeted Tax Benefits
This section establishes a process for identifying 'targeted tax benefits' that can be subject to presidential cancellation. The Chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee are jointly responsible for reviewing revenue or reconciliation bills and identifying such benefits. Their statement identifying (or declaring the absence of) targeted tax benefits can be included as a separate section in the legislation, which then dictates the scope of the President's cancellation authority for tax provisions in that law. A 'targeted tax benefit' is defined as a revenue-losing provision providing a deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to only one beneficiary.
Section 2, new Sec. 1017
Definitions of Key Terms
This section provides detailed definitions for critical terms used throughout the new Part B, including 'appropriation law,' 'approval bill,' 'calendar day,' 'cancel or cancellation,' 'CBO,' 'direct spending,' 'dollar amount of discretionary budget authority,' 'item of direct spending,' 'OMB,' 'omnibus reconciliation or appropriation measure,' and 'targeted tax benefit.' These definitions are crucial for understanding the scope and mechanics of the legislative line-item veto authority, particularly the specific criteria for what constitutes a 'dollar amount of discretionary budget authority' or a 'targeted tax benefit' eligible for cancellation.
The President may not propose to cancel the same or substantially similar discretionary budget authority, item of direct spending, or targeted tax benefit more than one time under this Act.
Section 2, new Sec. 1011(b)(1)(C)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for preventing repetitive or frivolous actions, ensuring efficiency and preventing abuse of the process.
Case for: This prevents a President from repeatedly targeting the same item, which could be seen as harassment or an attempt to wear down congressional opposition, ensuring the process is used for distinct proposals.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision as it is a common legislative safeguard. However, some might argue that if circumstances change, a previously rejected cancellation might become more appropriate, and this rule could prevent a necessary re-evaluation.
Estimated impact: Prevents redundant presidential proposals, streamlining the process and focusing congressional attention on unique cancellation requests.
The definition of 'item of direct spending' explicitly excludes 'an extension or reauthorization of existing direct spending,' referring instead 'only to provisions of law that increase such direct spending.'
Section 2, new Sec. 1017(8)
Why it matters:This is a technical but important distinction, typical of budget legislation, to precisely define the scope of presidential authority. It prevents the President from targeting ongoing, baseline spending, focusing only on new increases.
Case for: Supporters would argue this prevents the President from using the line-item veto to dismantle existing, established programs by targeting their reauthorizations. It focuses the tool on new spending initiatives that add to the baseline, aligning with a goal of controlling new growth in government.
Case against: Critics might argue that this limitation reduces the effectiveness of the line-item veto as a tool for comprehensive fiscal control, as it cannot be used to address what some might consider wasteful or inefficient existing direct spending that is simply being reauthorized. It creates an artificial distinction that limits the President's ability to address the full scope of direct spending.
Estimated impact: Significantly narrows the scope of direct spending that can be targeted by the President, focusing the authority on new spending increases rather than the continuation of existing programs.