Russ Feingold: “this issue is not simple, nor is it easy. If it were, there would be a larger consensus on how we should proceed in this…”

“this issue is not simple, nor is it easy. If it were, there would be a larger consensus on how we should proceed in this area, if at all. I supported the version of S. 4 that passed this body--the so-called separate enrollment approach. Though that legislation was flawed, I was willing to support that experimental line-item veto authority to provide the President with some additional authority to eliminate inappropriate spending. I do not believe the line-item veto is the whole answer to our deficit problem, or even most of the answer, but it certainly can be part of the answer. The legislation before us today, too, is flawed, but I am willing to give this new mechanism a chance to work, and to see it tested over the next several years. Like the version of S. 4 that passed the Senate, this measure also has a so-called sunset clause which terminates the expanded veto authority unless Congress takes action. If the Congress decides, which it may well do, that we have gone too far in delegating authority to the President, the sunset clause will make it much easier to terminate the experiment, if necessary. The burden will be on those who want to retain the authority. Mr. President, in the end, that sunset clause allowed me to support a measure with which I am far from satisfied. Without a sunset clause, Congress would have to pass a bill to repeal the line-item veto authority.”