Referred to the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 4, 1995
Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 1995 - Grants the President legislative line item veto rescission authority. Authorizes the President to rescind all or part of any budget authority if the President determines that such rescission: (1) would help balance the Federal budget, reduce the Federal budget deficit, or reduce the public debt; (2) will not impair any essential Government functions; (3) will not harm the national interest; and (4) will directly contribute to the purpose of this Act of limiting discretionary spending in FY 1996 or 1997. Requires the President to notify the Congress of such a rescission by special message after enactment of appropriations legislation for FY 1996 or 1997. Makes such a rescission effective unless the Congress enacts a rescission disapproval bill. Describes: (1) information to be included in the President's message; and (2) procedures to govern consideration of rescission disapproval legislation in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology.
Referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.128 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.128 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.128 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.128 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.