297), the President may propose to rescind funding provided in an appropriationsact by transmitting a special message to Congress and obtaining the support of both houses within45 days of continuous session. (1) An Administration draft bill, titled the Legislative Line Item VetoAct of 2006 (LLIVA), was transmitted to Congress on March 6, 2006. Instead of allowing Congress to ignore presidential recommendations for rescissions,"expedited rescission" requires at least one house to vote on the proposals. Expedited Rescission Bills in the 1990s

The expedited rescission approach has attracted support over the years, because it is generallyregarded as transferring less power from Congress to the President than most other approaches thatwould modify the ICA framework. H.R. Overview of Provisions in the Administration's Proposal

On March 7, 2006, a draft expedited rescission bill from the White House, titled theLegislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, was introduced as H.R. Other Expedited Rescission Bills in the 109th Congress

In addition to the administration's proposal (the LLIVA, H.R. H.R. (8) The next day the Rules Committee held a markup and voted 8-4to report an amended version in effectively the same form as that approved by the BudgetCommittee. (9) On June 22,the House approved H.R. 4890, as amended, by vote of 247-172. (10) 
Meanwhile, on June 14, 2006, Senator Judd Gregg, the chair of the Senate BudgetCommittee, and others held a press conference to unveil the Stop Over Spending Act, which containsa modified version of the Legislative Line Item Veto Act in Title I, as well as other budget processreforms. On June 20, the Senate Budget Committee marked up S. 3521 and voted 12-10 to reportthe bill, as amended, favorably. Table 1 , at the end of this report, provides a comparative overview of some major featuresin three expedited rescission bills: (1) H.R. 4890 / S. 2381 as introduced,(2) H.R. 4890 as passed by the House (House approved), and (3) Title I of S. 3521 , as amended and ordered to be reported by the Senate Budget Committee (Senate reported). H.R 4890/ S. 2381 , as introduced, and S. 3521 , as ordered to be reported, would amend Title X of the ICA by striking Part C(Line Item Veto Act of 1996) and inserting the text of the bill. 5667 , contains such provisions.
Under current law, the President may propose to rescind funding provided in anappropriations act by transmitting a special message to Congress. If Congress ignores thepresidential rescission request, or if either house rejects the request, the funds must be released after45 days of continuous session. Instead of allowing Congress to ignore such requests, "expeditedrescission" requires at least one house to vote on presidential proposals. Expedited rescission billshave attracted supporters over the years, because the approach is generally regarded as transferringless power from Congress to the President than most other ways of altering the rescission framework.For three consecutive years in the early 1990s, the House passed an expedited rescission bill.
President George W. Bush has repeatedly called for granting line item veto authority to thePresident, and an Administration draft bill incorporating the expedited rescission approach was sentto Congress on March 6, 2006. That bill, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act (LLIVA) of 2006, wasintroduced the following day as S. 2381 and H.R. 4890 . Other expeditedrescission measures pending in the 109th Congress contain similar provisions, including H.R. 2290 (Section 311), H.R. 4699 , H.R. 5667 (Title I), S. 2372 , and S. 3521 (Title I).
On June 14, 2006, the House Budget Committee voted 24-9 to report H.R. 4890 ,as amended, favorably. The next day the Rules Committee voted 8-4 to report an amended versionin effectively the same form as that approved by the Budget Committee. On June 22, 2006, theHouse approved H.R. 4890 by a vote of 247-172.
Meanwhile, on June 14, 2006, Senator Judd Gregg, the chair of the Senate BudgetCommittee, and others held a press conference to unveil the Stop Over Spending Act, whichcontained a modified version of the LLIVA in Title I, as well as other budget process reforms. OnJune 15, 2006, the bill was introduced as S. 3521 , and on June 20, the Senate BudgetCommittee voted 12-10 to report the bill, as amended, favorably.
This report provides a comparative overview of some major features in three versions of theLLIVA -- H.R. 4890 / S. 2381 as introduced, H.R. 4890 as passedby the House, and Title I of S. 3521 , as ordered to be reported by the Senate BudgetCommittee -- with provisions in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 ( P.L. 104-130 ), which the SupremeCourt held unconstitutional in 1998.
This report will be updated when action is taken regarding any of the relevant bills or as otherevents warrant.