[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 80 (Tuesday, May 25, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4222-S4223]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 3423. A bill to provide the President with expedited consideration 
of proposals for cancellation of certain budget items; to the Committee 
on the Budget.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Veto Wasteful 
Spending and Protect Taxpayers Act of 2010 which establishes a 
constitutional line-item veto by creating an expedited rescissions 
process.
  Yesterday, the Obama administration unveiled the Reduce Unnecessary 
Spending Act of 2010. This legislation is very similar to my proposal 
which I first introduced in 2006. They both provide for an expedited 
rescission process. The line-item veto is not a panacea for record 
level deficits, but it will provide the President with the necessary 
tool to reduce wasteful spending.

[[Page S4223]]

  Both bills will give the President the ability to target projects 
that have been added in spending bills that benefit special interests 
or are not necessary. I applaud President Obama for addressing this 
issue.
  I have been a long-time advocate of the line-item veto. It has been a 
successful tool at the state level and I think it can effectively 
reduce spending on the Federal level. We have made progress with 
earmark reform and I think expedited rescission would result in further 
spending reductions.
  The major difference between my legislation and the Administration's 
proposal is that the Veto Wasteful Spending and Protect Taxpayers Act 
of 2010 would allow the President to suspend and propose cancellation 
for discretionary spending, new direct spending, and limited tax 
benefits. The Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010 focuses on 
discretionary spending. If we really want to tackle wasteful spending, 
I think we need to look at new entitlement spending and limited tax 
benefits, not just discretionary spending.
  In 1996, the Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law 
the Line Item Veto Act, P.L. 104-130. Two years later, however, in 
Clinton v. City of New York the Supreme Court concluded that the method 
used to give the President line-item veto authority was 
unconstitutional. The Court noted that presidents may only sign or veto 
entire acts of Congress. The Constitution does not authorize presidents 
to enact, to amend or to repeal statutes.
  We can restore the line item veto and be consistent with the 
Constitution. The key difference between what I am proposing and what 
the Supreme Court struck down is the legal effect of the President's 
actions. The Line Item Veto Act allowed the President to cancel 
provisions in their entirety, but the Supreme Court rejected this 
arrangement. My legislation will empower the President to suspend 
provisions until the Congress decides to approve or disapprove the 
suspension of that provision with an up or down vote. The provisions 
are not cancelled out of the legislation. I believe this change 
addresses the Supreme Court's concerns. My legislation also does not 
include a mechanism which allows a provision to be suspended for a 
lengthy time period.
  Under the Veto Wasteful Spending and Protect Taxpayers Act of 2010, 
the President has 10 calendar days to submit to Congress a special 
message. The President may transmit two messages per bill, but a 
provision may only be proposed for suspension or cancellation one time. 
The House and Senate would consider the special message under a special 
process which does not allow for amendments or motions to strike.
  I believe that the line-item veto is a valuable tool that should be 
made available to any President regardless of political party. For this 
reason, the Veto Wasteful Spending and Protect Taxpayers Act of 2010 is 
permanent, rather than sunsetting after a few years.
  It is time to reinstate the line-item veto. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to return to the 
President the authority to rein in wasteful spending.
                                 ______