Latest news with #GovernmentAccountabilityOffice
The Hill
3 days ago
- Business
- The Hill
Trump team's ‘pocket rescission' idea runs into GOP opposition
Some Republicans in Congress are uneasy about the possibility the Trump administration will use a 'pocket rescission' to claw back already approved government funding as fears of a fall shutdown rise. The Trump administration has already clawed back funds through the use of a rescissions package that passed both chambers of Congress, and some GOP lawmakers are concerned about having to vote on a second, possibly politically tougher, package of cuts. But these lawmakers say the use of pocket rescissions, an idea floated by the White House's budget chief that could yank back money without input from lawmakers, could create bad feelings not only with Democrats, but also with Republicans. 'Pocket rescissions, I think, are unconstitutional,' said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), a spending cardinal, this week. 'So, just like impoundment, I think, is unconstitutional.' 'So we'll see how it goes,' he said. Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought referred to pocket rescissions as 'one of the executive tools' that are 'on the table' earlier this month, as the administration continues a sweeping operation aimed at reducing federal spending. 'The president was elected to get us to balance, to deal with our fiscal situation, and we're going to use all of the tools that are there depending on the situation, and as we move through the year,' he said at an event. However, he also noted then that the administration hasn't yet 'made a determination to use it in part because we're making progress during the normal course of business with Congress.' Trump became the first president in decades to successfully claw back funds through the special rescissions process, with the GOP-led Congress agreeing to pull back about $9 billion in previously allocated funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) lays out rules governing that process and allows the administration to temporarily withhold funding for 45 days while Congress considers the request. If Congress opts not to approve the request in the timeframe, the funds must be released. Under a pocket rescission, however, experts say the president would send the same type of request to Congress, but do so within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. The targeted funds could then essentially be held until the clock runs out and they expire. Vought has described the tactic as 'no different than a normal rescission, except for the timing of when it occurs.' 'A pocket rescission occurs later in the end of the fiscal year, within 45 days of the time that you have to hold the funding, and then the money evaporates at the end of the fiscal year,' he said. But some budget experts have strongly pushed back on the budget chief's characterization, arguing the tactic is 'illegal' and undermines the intent of the ICA. The Government Accountability Office also said during Trump's first presidential term that the law does not allow 'the withholding of funds through their date of expiration.' 'It is a method through which [Vought] would get to impound funds against congressional intent,' said Bobby Kogan, a former Senate budget aide and senior director of federal budget policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, in a recent interview. 'Pocket rescission says, 'Well, what if I send up a request 45 days before the end of the fiscal year, then even if Congress says no, I can still end all funding for the rest of the year, right?'' he argued. 'Like that's the concept behind a pocket rescission. Profoundly illegal because it would allow you to impound funds without congressional approval, which is illegal.' At the same time, other experts have argued impoundment law is murky on the matter and have described the tactic as a potential loophole. Some have defended the administration's interpretation of the law and argue lawmakers would have prohibited the maneuver over the years if they wanted to. Not all Republicans are certain about the legality of the use of pocket rescissions, however. 'I don't know. I haven't researched it,' Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a senior appropriator and former attorney, said this week when asked by reporters whether pocket rescissions were legal. 'I'd prefer that we not do it that way.' The Louisiana Republican, who has been pushing for the White House to work with Congress to get more rescissions packages out the door, instead said it 'wouldn't bother' him if the administration sent 'a rescission package a week and spell out in detail what they want to propose we cut.' There's been concern from members on both sides of the aisle that the administration's plans to continue to claw back federal funding with only GOP support could threaten bipartisan funding talks for fiscal 2026. But Republican rifts over the president's latest rescissions requests were also an issue. The party clashed over potential cuts to programs like the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and public broadcasting dollars that help fund not only PBS and NPR, but also local stations some Republicans say their constituents depend on. Under the pocket rescissions strategy, experts say the administration could reduce some funding by strategically holding up appropriations set to expire at the end of the fiscal year. If Congress chooses not to approve the administration's request for cuts, it could still provide funding for the program as part of a deal to keep the government open past September. Congress often opts to keep government funding levels mostly the same at the start of a new fiscal year to buy time for a larger deal updating funding levels. But experts have emphasized that would be 'new funding,' noting funding an account was denied at the end of the fiscal year as part of a pocket rescission likely would not roll over into the next. Asked whether another rescissions plan could worsen the outlook for a funding deal for fiscal 2026, House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said this week that 'the only thing that would worry me is if Congress didn't get a chance to vote on it, that's the key thing.' 'I don't want to see things up here that get jammed where Congress doesn't vote.' Cole was asked whether he was referring to pocket rescissions. 'I don't care procedurally what you want to call it,' he responded. 'I expect Congress to vote on these things, and you know that would worry me, and I know that would worry my colleagues in the other chamber, on both sides of the aisle, certainly worry my Democratic colleagues here.' 'And there's a lot of Republican concern about this too,' he added.
Epoch Times
5 days ago
- Automotive
- Epoch Times
Fewer Than 400 EV Charging Ports Built Despite $7.5 Billion Biden Funding: Watchdog
Less than 400 additional electric vehicle (EV) public charging ports have been installed in the United States following billions of dollars of allocated funding under the Biden administration for building charging infrastructure, said a July 22 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021, signed into law by then-President Joe Biden, appropriated $7.5 billion in funding for two programs—the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program (NEVI) and the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program (CFI). The funds were aimed at supporting the development of public EV charging infrastructure.
New York Times
6 days ago
- Business
- New York Times
Agriculture Department to Move Most Remaining Washington Workers Out of City
The Agriculture Department will move most of its Washington-based employees outside the nation's capital, the agency announced Thursday. Brooke L. Rollins, the agriculture secretary, said in a memo that the agency would keep no more than 2,000 of the 4,600 members of its current Washington work force at offices in the area, instead spreading employees across five regional hubs. The memo also outlined plans to consolidate or eliminate local offices for subagencies focused on research, statistics, nutrition, forestry and conservation. 'President Trump was elected to make real change in Washington, and we are doing just that by moving our key services outside the Beltway and into great American cities across the country,' Ms. Rollins said in a statement. The vast majority of Agriculture Department employees already work outside the Washington area, spread across the country to assist farmers, conduct research and inspect animal and plant health. The agency's headquarters, though, are on the National Mall and house offices focused on civil rights, congressional relations and watchdog functions in addition to support staff. Ms. Rollins noted that more than 15,000 Agriculture Department employees — about 15 percent of the department's work force of about 100,000 — had taken buyouts. The consolidations and relocations will almost certainly lead to more exits. When the Agriculture Department moved two research agencies from Washington to Kansas City in 2019, each lost more than half of its staff before eventually recovering, according to the Government Accountability Office. The hubs will be Raleigh, N.C.; Kansas City, Mo.; Indianapolis; Fort Collins, Colo.; and Salt Lake City — all cities that already have regional offices. According to the memo, the Agriculture Department will also vacate, over the course of several years, the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center — a 115 year-old facility in Maryland that has contributed to improving the shelf life of butter, developing pesticides and creating new varieties of vegetables and fruits. The American Federation of Government Employees, a union of federal employees, criticized the move. 'This administration is moving at breakneck speed to slash the size of the federal government, often with little thought into the consequences this will have on the American people who rely on the services our members deliver,' Everett Kelley, the union's president, said in a statement.
Hindustan Times
6 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Trump, Coke and the Sugar Cartel
President Trump is pressing Coca-Cola to make its U.S. soft drinks with cane sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup, and on Tuesday the company said it will launch Mr. Trump's preferred version as a new product this fall. Consumers will decide if it succeeds, but if Mr. Trump wants to help, he could dismantle U.S. sugar protectionism that gives corn syrup a cost advantage. This episode is a collision between MAGA-style economics and populist nutrition. Scientific authorities generally say there isn't a big health difference between corn syrup and sugar, and the important thing is not to chug too much of either. A soda isn't carrot juice, no matter the sweetener. Yet Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called corn syrup 'a formula for making you obese and diabetic.' He's a man of the left who blames America's health problems on big corporations. Soda aficionados also say they can taste the difference, which is what Mr. Trump seemed to cite. 'I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so,' he wrote on Truth Social. 'This will be a very good move by them—You'll see. It's just better!' Having ended the Ukraine and Gaza wars, Mr. Trump apparently has the time to tell soda makers what to put in their bottles. Coca-Cola's statement was that it plans to sell 'an offering made with U.S. cane sugar,' but as a 'complement' to its existing U.S. lineup. In other words, corn syrup isn't being phased out. Since it's cheaper, that's no surprise. The federal government props up sugar prices to the benefit of U.S. producers, particularly but not exclusively in Florida, by meddling in markets with a complicated tariff-quota system. 'In 2022, U.S. wholesale refined sugar prices were more than double the world price,' the Government Accountability Office said in 2023. Its report cited estimates that U.S. sugar producers get a protectionist windfall of $1.4 billion to $2.7 billion a year. But sugar users 'lose an estimated $2.5 billion to $3.5 billion of consumer benefit,' making it a net loss. Also, high U.S. sugar prices are another incentive for confectioners and food manufacturers to set up shop elsewhere. It's classic protectionism: The government gives concentrated benefits to sugar producers. The costs are borne by everybody, but they are diffuse. The program is a net loss for the country, but the subsidized industry becomes influential and will spend money in politics to preserve its take. The downstream jobs that never get created because of the protectionist policies don't have anyone to stand up for them, because they don't exist. By the way, Mr. Trump is threatening to levy a new 50% tariff on imports from Brazil. What does the U.S. buy from there? Cane sugar.
Epoch Times
6 days ago
- Health
- Epoch Times
HHS Violated Law by Withholding Head Start Program Funding: GAO Report
The federal government broke the law when it temporarily withheld funding for the Head Start early education program for low-income children, a nonpartisan government watchdog said in a report released on July 23. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in its report that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) violated the law by 'withholding funds from expenditure' for the program between Jan. 20 and April 15, 2025.
