[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 34 (Thursday, March 16, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2335-S2336]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 2443. A bill to grant the power to the President to reduce budget 
authority; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in his final State of the Union Address, 
President Reagan stood for the last time before both Houses of Congress 
and asked for line-item veto authority for future Presidents.
  On that evening, the President had with him three pieces of 
legislation: an

[[Page S2336]]

appropriations bill that was 1,053 pages long and weighed 14 pounds; a 
budget reconciliation bill that was 1,186 pages long and weighed 15 
pounds; and a continuing resolution that was 1,057 pages long and 
weighed 14 pounds. President Reagan slammed down on the lectern the 43 
pounds of paper and ink, which represented 1 trillion dollars' worth of 
spending. He did so to emphasize the magnitude of wasteful spending in 
the bills--spending that the President could not stop unless he was 
willing to veto each piece of legislation in its entirety. In the case 
of the continuing resolution, that would have meant that the Federal 
government would shut down.
  Almost 20 years later we are in exactly the same situation we were in 
when President Reagan said to Congress, ``Let's help ensure our future 
of prosperity by giving the President a tool that, though I will not 
get use to use it, is one I know future Presidents of either party must 
have. Give the President the same authority that 43 Governors use in 
their States: the right to reach into massive appropriation bills, pare 
away the waste, and enforce budget discipline. Let's approve the line-
item veto.''
  Last week, President Bush rightly renewed Ronald Reagan's call for 
line-item veto authority by sending to Congress a legislative proposal 
for a form of line-item veto authority known as expedited rescission. 
That proposal was introduced as the Line Item Rescission Act of 2006 
shortly after the President offered it. I am an original cosponsor of 
that legislation, which would authorize the President to propose 
spending and targeted tax benefits that would ultimately have to be 
approved by a majority of each House of Congress. The Line Item 
Rescission Act is one way to give the President more authority to 
impose fiscal restraint, and if it were enacted it would constitute a 
significant move in Washington, DC, towards fiscal discipline.
  Today, I am introducing the Separate Enrollment and Line Item Veto 
Act of 2006 to present what I believe is a stronger approach to 
granting the President true line-item veto power. Under this proposal, 
which is crafted to ensure its constitutionality, each item of every 
appropriation measure and authorization measure containing new direct 
spending or new targeted tax benefits passed by Congress would be 
separately enrolled. The President would then be able to consider each 
item as a separate bill and would have the power to veto items that, as 
President Bush has said, constitute unneeded spending that reflects 
special interests instead of the people's interest.
  We must keep in mind that even strong line-item veto authority will 
not solve all of our fiscal problems. We also desperately need to 
reform our earmarking process and our lobbying practices--and we must 
remember that it is ultimately Congress's responsibility to control 
spending. However, granting the President line-item veto authority 
would go a long way toward restoring credibility to a system ravaged by 
congressional waste and special interest pork. I look forward to the 
Senate's consideration of line-item veto legislation, and I trust that 
Congress will act on such legislation soon.
                                 ______