Can someone here answer this question: Does a veto effectively lift the spending limit?

[leveymg]

(ON EDIT: The consensus over at another board is that the notion that Obama could simply veto the Bill is bogus and was founded in the McConnell plan, which is for all intents and purposes, DOA. We're now down to a passable Bill or Obama invoking the 14th Amendment, which would be problematic.)

It's been suggested here that if Obama simply vetoes the spending limit Bill that comes to him, that will effectively raise the cap, and all's well that ends well. That suggestion seems to be supported by the language of a Reuter's report that appeared about two weeks ago.

Here's what started this. Someone posted: "(If) Obama vetoes, by his veto the ceiling is raised. That is why Boehner had to walk out of the meeting."

That didn't seem to jive with what everyone seems to think is a crisis surrounding the debt limit talks. So I did some checking and found a Reuters report from 07/12. It makes reference to a "Resolution of Disapproval", which if not passed by 2/3 majority would lead to the debt ceiling being raised. Maybe, if this is indeed correct, this really is simple - in which case this whole thing has been little more than highly-divisive and destructive Kibuki theater in Washington.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE7646S620110712?irpc=932
Obama would formally request an increase in the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, which Congress would reject through a "resolution of disapproval.

Obama would then veto that resolution and send it back to Congress. If Congress failed to muster the two-thirds vote needed to override a veto, the debt ceiling would effectively be lifted by the amount Obama had requested.

Head-slap. Then, it occurred to me, what's the point in Obama offering to trade away SS and Medicare for GOP cooperation in the debt limit Bill and some tax increases if all he needs to do is veto the Bill? And, today we learn that Majority Leader Reid offered the Republicans $2.4T in spending cuts. Why make these offers if the debt limit is going to get raised anyway by Presidential veto? Head scratching.

***

I only wish it were as simple as a giant head-fake. Let me explain.

I don't think a veto automatically lifts the debt ceiling. If only it were so easy . . . or is there something that fundamental that hasn't been discussed here?

The same poster at DU offered another "insight" into the process: "Just a simple ONE LINE LEGISLATION would be drafted after that veto, lifting the debt ceiling. Back to square one."

To which I responded, "But, doesn't that one-line resolution have to be passed by both Houses? Back to square-1? No? Doesn't that just leave the current debt limit in place, if Congress doesn't approve it?"

The other poster concluded, "With Democrats and GOP they can squeek it by the house... How many are there in the Teabag caucus?"

Geez, if this is so, that means that it would take a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress to override Obama's veto of the Bill. And, according to that theory, under the Resolution of Disapproval law, any debt limit increase Obama proposed becomes law if the opposition can't muster a 2/3 majority in both the Senate and the House to override. Don't worry, be happy.

It's just too simple. As they say, if it seems too good to be true . . .

So, I looked further, and this is what I think I found. The Resolution of Disapproval mechanism only applies to agency actions, but since raising the debt limit is statutory, rather than something the Treasury does on its own as a rules change, this mechanism does not apply. Does anyone out there know the answer to this?

Here's the Section of the US Code that References "Joint Resolution of Disapproval". This applies to agency rules - question 1, is the debt limit statutory or an agency rule - if it's statutory, this doesn't apply. Also, Sec. 801 does not appear to apply to changes in major agency rules, but only to minor agency actions or actions pursuant to an existing major rule.

Can anyone clarify this for us, please?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/usc_sec_05_00000801... [br />

TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 8 > § 801
Prev | Next
§ 801. Congressional review
How Current is This?
(a)
(1)
(A) Before a rule can take effect, the Federal agency promulgating such rule shall submit to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General a report containing—
(i) a copy of the rule;
(ii) a concise general statement relating to the rule, including whether it is a major rule; and
(iii) the proposed effective date of the rule.
(B) On the date of the submission of the report under subparagraph (A), the Federal agency promulgating the rule shall submit to the Comptroller General and make available to each House of Congress—
(i) a complete copy of the cost-benefit analysis of the rule, if any;
(ii) the agency’s actions relevant to sections 603, 604, 605, 607, and 609;
(iii) the agency’s actions relevant to sections 202, 203, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995; and
(iv) any other relevant information or requirements under any other Act and any relevant Executive orders.
(C) Upon receipt of a report submitted under subparagraph (A), each House shall provide copies of the report to the chairman and ranking member of each standing committee with jurisdiction under the rules of the House of Representatives or the Senate to report a bill to amend the provision of law under which the rule is issued.
(2)
(A) The Comptroller General shall provide a report on each major rule to the committees of jurisdiction in each House of the Congress by the end of 15 calendar days after the submission or publication date as provided in section 802 (b)(2). The report of the Comptroller General shall include an assessment of the agency’s compliance with procedural steps required by paragraph (1)(B).
(B) Federal agencies shall cooperate with the Comptroller General by providing information relevant to the Comptroller General’s report under subparagraph (A).
(3) A major rule relating to a report submitted under paragraph (1) shall take effect on the latest of—
(A) the later of the date occurring 60 days after the date on which—
(i) the Congress receives the report submitted under paragraph (1); or
(ii) the rule is published in the Federal Register, if so published;
(B) if the Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval described in section 802 relating to the rule, and the President signs a veto of such resolution, the earlier date—
(i) on which either House of Congress votes and fails to override the veto of the President; or
(ii) occurring 30 session days after the date on which the Congress received the veto and objections of the President; or
(C) the date the rule would have otherwise taken effect, if not for this section (unless a joint resolution of disapproval under section 802 is enacted).
(4) Except for a major rule, a rule shall take effect as otherwise provided by law after submission to Congress under paragraph (1).
(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), the effective date of a rule shall not be delayed by operation of this chapter beyond the date on which either House of Congress votes to reject a joint resolution of disapproval under section 802.
(b)
(1) A rule shall not take effect (or continue), if the Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval, described under section 802, of the rule.
(2) A rule that does not take effect (or does not continue) under paragraph (1) may not be reissued in substantially the same form, and a new rule that is substantially the same as such a rule may not be issued, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule.
(c)
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section (except subject to paragraph (3)), a rule that would not take effect by reason of subsection (a)(3) may take effect, if the President makes a determination under paragraph (2) and submits written notice of such determination to the Congress.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies to a determination made by the President by Executive order that the rule should take effect because such rule is—
(A) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency;
(B) necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws;
(C) necessary for national security; or
(D) issued pursuant to any statute implementing an international trade agreement.
(3) An exercise by the President of the authority under this subsection shall have no effect on the procedures under section 802 or the effect of a joint resolution of disapproval under this section.
(d)
(1) In addition to the opportunity for review otherwise provided under this chapter, in the case of any rule for which a report was submitted in accordance with subsection (a)(1)(A) during the period beginning on the date occurring—
(A) in the case of the Senate, 60 session days, or
(B) in the case of the House of Representatives, 60 legislative days,
before the date the Congress adjourns a session of Congress through the date on which the same or succeeding Congress first convenes its next session, section 802 shall apply to such rule in the succeeding session of Congress.
(2)
(A) In applying section 802 for purposes of such additional review, a rule described under paragraph (1) shall be treated as though—
(i) such rule were published in the Federal Register (as a rule that shall take effect) on—
(I) in the case of the Senate, the 15th session day, or
(II) in the case of the House of Representatives, the 15th legislative day,
after the succeeding session of Congress first convenes; and
(ii) a report on such rule were submitted to Congress under subsection (a)(1) on such date.
(B) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to affect the requirement under subsection (a)(1) that a report shall be submitted to Congress before a rule can take effect.
(3) A rule described under paragraph (1) shall take effect as otherwise provided by law (including other subsections of this section).
(e)
(1) For purposes of this subsection, section 802 shall also apply to any major rule promulgated between March 1, 1996, and the date of the enactment of this chapter.
(2) In applying section 802 for purposes of Congressional review, a rule described under paragraph (1) shall be treated as though—
(A) such rule were published in the Federal Register on the date of enactment of this chapter; and
(B) a report on such rule were submitted to Congress under subsection (a)(1) on such date.
(3) The effectiveness of a rule described under paragraph (1) shall be as otherwise provided by law, unless the rule is made of no force or effect under section 802.
(f) Any rule that takes effect and later is made of no force or effect by enactment of a joint resolution under section 802 shall be treated as though such rule had never taken effect.
(g) If the Congress does not enact a joint resolution of disapproval under section 802 respecting a rule, no court or agency may infer any intent of the Congress from any action or inaction of the Congress with regard to such rule, related statute, or joint resolution of disapproval.

My tentative conclusion is that raising the debt limit requires an Act of Congress, so it is not an agency action that is subject to a Joint Resolution of Disapproval. I believe that is clear from the following: http://www.concordcoalition.org/issue-briefs/2011/0708/...

In 1939, Congress eliminated separate limits on bonds and other types of debt and created the first aggregate limit covering nearly all public debt.<1> Today, debt incurred by the Treasury continues to be subject to an overall statutory limit set by Congress. Congress has established in law the maximum amount of debt the federal government may issue. This limit has not been tied to any particular fiscal policy goal, such as keeping the debt stable as a percentage of the economy. For that reason, it has had little effect on the nation's underlying spending and tax policies.

The Treasury does not have legal authority to issue any debt above this statutory limit. To avert a default on its credit obligations or a shutdown of government operations, occasionally it is necessary to raise the limit. The current statutory debt limit, $14.294 trillion, was established on February 12, 2010. As of June 30, the debt was only $25 million below this limit.

Anyone?