I know no one who has a greater commitment to that, a highly principled commitment to that, than Russ Feingold.

Can you identify any use for presidential rescission authority if the President cannot get a vote in Congress?

We need to begin easing off of the accelerator with one foot and start tapping the brakes with the other foot, as we begin to slow the growth in spending and again begin to grow revenues.

Every year, as Senator Feingold has said, Congress passes a number of spending bills, and, not surprisingly, these bills sometimes include spending on items which many of us would consider of marginal value, some even wasteful, and which…

We need to find a better way to reduce wasteful spending without jeopardizing the funding for our top priorities.

I think speaking from the Concord Coalition's point of view, the value in enhanced rescission is the deterrent effect it would have.

I really cannot understand why line-item veto is good enough for 41 States, but when it comes to the Federal level a much tamer expedited rescission authority is viewed by some as an unacceptable shift in power from one branch to another.

The Constitution does not give Congress a blank check to spend tax dollars on anything that it wants.

I am not sure I can say what the reasons are behind President Bush's decision.

I would rather, if this is as aggressive as you can get through the House and Senate, then I would support it because any small adjustment there that even on the margin helps control it I think is a good thing.

One of the findings that you presented in your testimony is that line-item veto authority is used much more frequently during periods of economic stress and hardship.

Do you think it is fair to say that if S. 907 was to pass, then for the bill to survive judicial review the courts would have to address the constitutionality of both fast-track authority and the President's existing rescission authority?

Senator Carper's bill also includes the same types that are in the Impoundment Control Act.

I am not a prolific earmarker. I am actually a piker compared to most.

I do not think it would be a major shift.

the threat of voting on a rescission would at least help to deter legislators from trying to advance wasteful spending in the first place.

Mr. Chairman, successive Presidents have asked Congress to provide them with the line-item veto.

I believe you said that he never used it in 8 years.