Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (Feb. 8, 2006), is a United States budget bill.
Contents |
[edit] Background
Senate bill S. 1932 passed the Senate, with a tie-breaking vote cast by Vice President Dick Cheney, and House bill H.R. 4241 passed the House. The Senate bill was signed by President George W. Bush on February 8, 2006.[1]
The act saves nearly $40 billion over five years from mandatory spending programs through slowing the growth in spending for Medicare and Medicaid, changing student loan formulas, and other measures.
The reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program was also contained in the bill.
[edit] Dispute over status of the law
A dispute arose over whether both houses of Congress had approved the same bill. Those contending that the bill is not a law argue there were different versions of the same bill, neither of which was approved by both the House and the Senate. They argue that the document signed by the President would not have the force of law, on the ground that the enacting process bypassed the Bicameral Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Congressional leaders and administration officials point to an 1892 Supreme Court case, Field v. Clark (), which said the dispute — over differing versions of a bill that were certified by both chambers — was not a matter for the courts to decide.[2]
The difference between the two versions is the provision regarding the length of time that Medicare would be required to pay for durable medical equipment such as wheelchairs and oxygen equipment like CPAP machines. The Senate version of the bill restricted payments to 13 months while the House version provided for 36 months, a $2 billion difference.[2] Just prior to the filing of the bill in the House, a change was required to alter these time periods, in three places the number 13 was changed to 36, by hand in the offices controlled by the Speaker.[citation needed] The change was needed to assure the requisite number of votes for passage in the Senate. This hand written drafting change gave rise to an error made by the Senate clerk later in the process.[citation needed]
The discrepancy resulted from what officials have called a clerical error in the transmittal of the text between the Houses.[citation needed] After the bill was filed in the House of Representatives and voted on, it was sent to the Senate. In that chamber, the bill was considered again. Several provisions were stricken due to a point of order under section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act.[citation needed] This necessitated return to the House to again be voted on. In preparing the text for return to the House, certain numbers related to payments in the Medicare program for certain durable medical equipment were changed by mistake.[citation needed] The House voted on a resolution concurring in this Senate amendment (with the legitimately stricken provisions), but the text presented contained the erroneous number changes.[citation needed] The approval resolution was passed in the House and the text of the bill with errors in it was returned to the Senate for the preparation to be presented to the President. There, the mistaken numbers were corrected prior to the transmittal to the President.[citation needed] The bill as originally intended was signed into law, but some dispute remains[citation needed] as to whether both Houses of Congress passed the same legislation. The clerical mistake has given rise to several legal challenges to the law, generally from those who disagree with the policies included therein.
Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) wrote a letter to Nancy Pelosi on February 14, 2006 saying three experts he consulted (Professor Gerhardt, Professor Dorf, Professor Raskin) said the law was clearly unconstitutional.[3]
Several entities brought lawsuits challenging the law.[4] Public Citizen, a legislative watchdog group, filed suit in US District Court for the District of Columbia. Attorney James Zeigler filed a similar suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. A case brought by an education finance company, OneSimpleLoan, is currently before the Supreme Court of the United States, Docket No. 07-492, on a petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[4] Representative John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and ten other members of the House of Representatives sued President Bush (see Conyers v. Bush), the Cabinet Secretaries, and others in an action in district court in Detroit; the case was dismissed on November 6, 2006, citing the representatives' lack of standing.[5]
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ As has been the case with certain other U.S. budget laws, the official title of this Act bears a year date that is different from the year in which it was signed into law. Compare the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, which was signed into law in April of 1986.
- ^ a b Weisman, Jonathan. "Spending Measure Not a Law, Suit Says", Washington Post, 2006-03-22, p. A04. Retrieved on 2006-11-28.
- ^ Seven page PDF letter from Henry Waxman to Nancy Pelosi written on February 14, 2006
- ^ a b Young, Jeffrey. "Budget-typo plaintiffs see long road ahead", The Hill, 2006-07-27. Retrieved on 2006-11-28.
- ^ Associated Press. "Judge Dismisses Budget Bill Lawsuit", ABC News, 2006-11-06. Retrieved on 2006-11-28.
