Latest news with #CongressionalBudgetAct
Yahoo
30-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Graham claims sole authority to decide if GOP megabill complies with budget laws
The Senate's presiding Republican chair has ruled that Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has the sole authority to decide if provisions of the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act violate the 1974 Congressional Budget Act or other budget laws, a controversial ruling Democrats tried to overturn but failed. Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), who was presiding over the Senate at the time, ruled that the chair will not sustain any budgetary points of order against the massive bill unless Graham as Budget chair says they are valid objections — drastically limiting the power of Democrats, who are in the minority. Hagerty announced the presiding chair 'must rely on determinations made by the Budget Committee in assessing the budgetary effects' of the 940-page Senate bill, which Graham has determined will not add to future deficits by extending the 2017 tax cuts, according to a 'current policy' baseline. Hagerty said unless Graham asserts that a provision of the bill or an amendment causes a violation of the 1974 Budget Act, the presiding chair will not sustain any budgetary point-of-order objection against the bill. Graham told colleagues that his exercise of power over the bill was justified by Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the Budget Committee, immediately appealed the ruling. He pointed to a letter he received from Congressional Budget Office Director Phillip Swagel asserting the Finance Committee portion of the bill would increase federal deficit by $3.5 trillion between 2025-34 and increase deficits beyond the 10-year budget window, which ends in 2034. 'The ability of the chair to create a phony baseline has never been used in reconciliation, not ever,' Merkley argued. 'This breaks a 51-year tradition of the Senate for honest numbers,' he declared. Merkley's appeal of the chair's ruling empowering Graham failed by a party-line vote; senators rejected it by a vote of 53-47. The Senate is holding a daylong series of amendment and other votes on the GOP tax and spending bill that is expected to culminate with a vote on final passage Monday night. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
30-06-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Graham claims sole authority to decide if GOP megabill complies with budget laws
The Senate's presiding Republican chairman has ruled that Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has the sole authority to decide if provisions of the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act violate the 1974 Congressional Budget Act or other budget laws, a controversial ruling that Democrats tried to overturn but failed. Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), who was presiding over the Senate at the time, ruled that the chair will not sustain any budgetary points of order against the massive bill unless Graham as Budget chairman says they are valid objections — drastically limiting the power of Democrats, who are in the minority. Hagerty announced that the presiding chair 'must rely on determinations made by the Budget Committee in assessing the budgetary effects' of the 940-page Senate bill, which Graham has determined will not add to future deficits by extending the 2017 tax cuts, according to a 'current policy' baseline. Hagerty said that unless Graham asserts that a provision of the bill or an amendment causes a violation of the 1974 Budget Act, the presiding chair will not sustain any budgetary point-of-order objection against the bill. Graham told colleagues that his exercise of power over the bill was justified by Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the Budget Committee, immediately appealed the ruling of the chair. He pointed to a letter he received from Congressional Budget Office Director Phillip Swagel asserting that the Finance portion of the bill would increase federal deficit by $3.5 trillion between 2025 and 2034 and increase deficits beyond the 10-year budget window, which ends in 2034. 'The ability of the chair to create a phony baseline has never been used in reconciliation, not ever,' Merkley argued. 'This breaks a 51-year tradition of the Senate for honest numbers,' he declared. Merkley's appeal of the chair's ruling empowering Graham failed by a party-line vote. Senators rejected it by a vote of 53 to 47. The Senate is holding a day-long series of amendment and other votes on the GOP tax and spending bill that is expected to culminate with a vote on final passage Monday night.
The Hill
29-06-2025
- Business
- The Hill
CBO says tax piece of GOP megabill could violate Senate Byrd Rule
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the tax piece of President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' a core component of his agenda, would add to deficits after 2034, the end of the 10-year budget window, and could therefore violate the Senate's Byrd Rule. Responding in a letter to Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, CBO Director Phillip Swagel, said the congressional scoring agency 'estimates that title VII,' the Finance Committee's portion of the bill, 'increases the deficits in years after 2034.' Democrats will argue that this is a violation of the Senate's Byrd Rule, which determines what legislation is eligible to pass the Senate with a simple-majority vote on the reconciliation fast track. The Byrd Rule requires that legislation considered as a reconciliation package not increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond the 'budget window' covered by the measure. The budget window for the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act spans from 2025 to 2034. Merkley's staff said the Republican bill is out of compliance with the rules of reconciliation by exceeding the spending limits outlined in their budget resolution by trillions of dollars and adding to the deficit beyond the 10-year window. Swagel, who was appointed to his post during Trump's first term, told Merkley that that tax portion of the bill would increase the deficit by nearly $3.5 trillion from 2025 to 2034. Merkley could attempt to raise 60-vote point of order against the bill on the floor in an effort to block the legislation. But Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) feel confident that the tax portion of the bill complies with the Byrd Rule. Thune says Graham has authority under Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act 'to determine baseline numbers for spending and revenue.' Graham has judged the extension of the 2017 expiring Trump tax cuts as a continuation of 'current policy' and therefore as not adding to the deficit. Republicans say they have offset the cost of language to make expired corporate tax cuts permanent by finding more than $1.6 trillion in spending cuts, including an estimated $930 billion in cuts to Medicaid. The bill narrowly advanced in the Senate late Saturday night, teeing it up for an expected final vote on Monday.
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - We need a bipartisan Congress to check presidential power
It is no coincidence that the first article of the U.S. Constitution, the one the Framers prioritized, defines the powers of Congress, not the president. The Framers assumed Congress would play the leading role under the new constitution, as it had through the Continental Congress and the Confederation Congress. As Americans have witnessed since Jan. 20, the Framers assumed wrongly. And it is time to reassess what is best for the nation — the Framers' vision or the powers claimed by President Trump. In the 20th century and early in the 21st century, Congress ceded more power to the presidency in areas such as budget creation, diplomacy, war powers and law enforcement. Popular support accompanied those changes, particularly during the 1930s, the 1960s and the early 2000s as Americans demanded presidents 'get things done.' The first 100 days standard gained popular currency, which forced presidents to act quickly. Additionally, media coverage centered on the person of the president rather than the Congress. The latter appeared as an amorphous blob. No one could speak for the whole Congress. Disturbed by the excesses of the Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon administrations, Congress attempted to claw back some of its power through the War Powers Act, the Congressional Budget Act and the Impoundment Act. It also enacted the legislative veto that allowed Congress to override presidential actions, sometimes by doing nothing. But presidential power began to grow, particularly as divided government became more common. Presidents began to rely on executive orders to enact policy that formerly had been Congress' purview in areas such as gun control. Trump has taken presidential powers to another level entirely. He issued 26 executive orders on his first day. In his first hundred days, he signed 142. Plus, their scope is well beyond those of other presidents. They include gutting whole departments, cutting programs such as public television and public radio, ending DEI programs, authorizing massive immigrant deportation orders, and targeting individuals and corporations he felt harmed him. He has declared these orders are essential due to various national emergencies. The Framers established three branches of government to separate power, but also to check power held by each branch. Presidential power is now out of balance in relation to the other two branches. The trend has been going in that direction for many years, but now, with a president who is anxious to use such power, the effects of that imbalance are glaringly apparent. Some federal judges have checked presidential power by ruling that Trump's actions are unconstitutional or violate statutes. But the Trump administration is counting on the Supreme Court to back them up in most if not all the actions. However, the court may or may not do so, as indicated by its decision in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case directing the administration to facilitate his return. The question of whether to abide by the Supreme Court's decisions has rarely been a live one. But today it is, making many Americans wonder whether the judiciary will be an effective check on a rapacious president. Congress could and should check the president. Some members of Congress are working on legislation to do so. Others should join. But it cannot be partisan. One such recent example of a partisan effort was the Federalist Society's Article I Project, which targeted checking Democratic presidents but has been silent about Republican ones. Members of both parties need to come together to enact legislation that limits presidential powers regardless of who is president. The legislation should not be targeted at particular policies but at reining in presidential power generally to dictate economic policy, punish opponents or ignore congressional appropriations. Congressional Republicans would benefit since Congress would be checking a Democrat in the future and not just a Republican today. Members of Congress swore to uphold the Constitution. Preserving constitutional checks and balances to maintain our democratic system is a large part of that obligation. It is time for Congress to restore the balance in the Constitution the Framers so carefully crafted for our benefit. Richard Davis is a professor emeritus of political science at BYU. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
09-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
We need a bipartisan Congress to check presidential power
It is no coincidence that the first article of the U.S. Constitution, the one the Framers prioritized, defines the powers of Congress, not the president. The Framers assumed Congress would play the leading role under the new constitution, as it had through the Continental Congress and the Confederation Congress. As Americans have witnessed since Jan. 20, the Framers assumed wrongly. And it is time to reassess what is best for the nation — the Framers' vision or the powers claimed by President Trump. In the 20th century and early in the 21st century, Congress ceded more power to the presidency in areas such as budget creation, diplomacy, war powers and law enforcement. Popular support accompanied those changes, particularly during the 1930s, the 1960s and the early 2000s as Americans demanded presidents 'get things done.' The first 100 days standard gained popular currency, which forced presidents to act quickly. Additionally, media coverage centered on the person of the president rather than the Congress. The latter appeared as an amorphous blob. No one could speak for the whole Congress. Disturbed by the excesses of the Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon administrations, Congress attempted to claw back some of its power through the War Powers Act, the Congressional Budget Act and the Impoundment Act. It also enacted the legislative veto that allowed Congress to override presidential actions, sometimes by doing nothing. But presidential power began to grow, particularly as divided government became more common. Presidents began to rely on executive orders to enact policy that formerly had been Congress' purview in areas such as gun control. Trump has taken presidential powers to another level entirely. He issued 26 executive orders on his first day. In his first hundred days, he signed 142. Plus, their scope is well beyond those of other presidents. They include gutting whole departments, cutting programs such as public television and public radio, ending DEI programs, authorizing massive immigrant deportation orders, and targeting individuals and corporations he felt harmed him. He has declared these orders are essential due to various national emergencies. The Framers established three branches of government to separate power, but also to check power held by each branch. Presidential power is now out of balance in relation to the other two branches. The trend has been going in that direction for many years, but now, with a president who is anxious to use such power, the effects of that imbalance are glaringly apparent. Some federal judges have checked presidential power by ruling that Trump's actions are unconstitutional or violate statutes. But the Trump administration is counting on the Supreme Court to back them up in most if not all the actions. However, the court may or may not do so, as indicated by its decision in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case directing the administration to facilitate his return. The question of whether to abide by the Supreme Court's decisions has rarely been a live one. But today it is, making many Americans wonder whether the judiciary will be an effective check on a rapacious president. Congress could and should check the president. Some members of Congress are working on legislation to do so. Others should join. But it cannot be partisan. One such recent example of a partisan effort was the Federalist Society's Article I Project, which targeted checking Democratic presidents but has been silent about Republican ones. Members of both parties need to come together to enact legislation that limits presidential powers regardless of who is president. The legislation should not be targeted at particular policies but at reining in presidential power generally to dictate economic policy, punish opponents or ignore congressional appropriations. Congressional Republicans would benefit since Congress would be checking a Democrat in the future and not just a Republican today. Members of Congress swore to uphold the Constitution. Preserving constitutional checks and balances to maintain our democratic system is a large part of that obligation. It is time for Congress to restore the balance in the Constitution the Framers so carefully crafted for our benefit. Richard Davis is a professor emeritus of political science at BYU.
