In 2006, members of the United States Congress raised concerns regarding President George W. Bush’s use of signing statements, to indicate that he would not enforce provisions of laws that he signed. This has been viewed as effectively a line-item veto by the president, raising constitutional issues regarding the practice.[4]
In his 2006 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush requested that Congress give him the line item veto authority.
On June 22, 2006, the United States House of Representatives passed a bill (H.R. 4890) that would call for a six-year line-item veto to cut down on the “pork barrel spending” associated with Congressional lawmaking. The bill stopped short of granting a full line-item veto like the one passed in the 1990s, and instead allows the President to send a bill back to Congress within 45 days for another vote to affirm rider bills. The bill passed 247-172 in the Republican-controlled House. The bill has yet to be considered in the Senate.[5]
Supporters of the presidential line-item veto power contend that it would serve to cut down on frivolous government spending, and that media scrutiny would protect against abuse. Opponents argue that it would violate the separation of powers. See Clinton v. City of New York for additional material on current events.