Russ Feingold: “I will oppose the amendment offered by our colleague, the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg. I support the…”

“I will oppose the amendment offered by our colleague, the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg. I support the concept of what is called a ``line item veto,'' more accurately described as an expedited Presidential rescission. But the proposal offered today has some fundamental flaws that prevent me from voting for it. There are a number of problems with the amendment before us, but let me call the body's attention to two of these flaws. First, the proposal goes far beyond the supposed target of this newly proposed authority; namely, unauthorized earmarks. When the line item veto is discussed, invariably it is the unauthorized earmark that is held up as the principal rationale justifying this new Presidential authority, and rightly so. The explosion in unauthorized earmarks over the last decade and more is a strong argument in favor of providing the President with additional authority in this area. But the amendment before us goes far beyond targeting earmarks. The Gregg amendment would allow the President to use the proposed expedited rescission authority to eliminate new provisions of programs like Medicare and Social Security, hardly measures that anyone would consider an earmark. Second, the proposal has too great a potential for political gaming.”