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.