Some Senators Cool to Line-Item Veto Proposal

WASHINGTON —  A widely backed proposal to give the President “line-item veto” power over parts of spending bills met a frosty reception from some senators Tuesday with one opponent saying it would amount to “a mighty shift of power from the Congress to the President.”

Sen. Mack Mattingly (R-Ga.) has 46 co-sponsors for his bill that would allow item vetoes on a two-year trial basis. He told the Senate Rules Committee that the move would give President Reagan another tool to cut spending and the federal deficit.

But the committee chairman, Sen. Charles McC. Mathias Jr. (R-Md.), contended that the change would “dramatically alter the constitutionally mandated relationship of the Congress to the executive.” He said there were better ways to cut spending.

“The President has asserted he wants this line-item veto power in order to reduce the deficit and balance the budget,” Mathias said. “Why then, doesn’t the President simply send to the Congress a balanced budget? Why does the President send to the Congress budgets that are over $200 billion in the red?”

Met With Strong Opposition

Sen. Mark O. Hatfield (R-Ore.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, also strongly opposed the veto proposal. “It is a simple solution on its face, but it is very wrong,” he said.

“The item veto will not lead to significant deficit reduction,” Hatfield added. “It may not result in any budget savings. What it will do is unnecessarily and inadvisably change the relationship of the President and the Congress.”

Mattingly’s proposal would not amend the Constitution, which gives the President power to veto entire bills passed by Congress. It would instead authorize congressional clerks to break down individual parts of spending bills into smaller measures after passage so that each could be vetoed or signed individually.

Mathias said most spending would not be covered, including Social Security and other trust fund programs. Hatfield said less than 15% of the total budget, the non-defense domestic discretionary spending items, would be covered--and he argued that such spending is the only part of the budget that has been going down in recent years.