From BE's link:
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
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. In response, some 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 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.
In late November 2019, the Impoundment Control Act made news during the
Trump impeachment investigation, when two budget office staffers resigned over their concerns over apparent improprieties regarding the
hold of approved Ukraine military funds. Among the concerns was the questionable transfer of decision-making authority to Michael Duffey, a political appointee. 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 fund from Ukraine could be a violation of the Impoundment Control Act.
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:
"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."
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."
