Senate Passes Line-Item Veto; House OK Likely

WASHINGTON —  In a move that would shift power from the legislative branch to the White House, the Senate passed a landmark measure Wednesday granting presidents authority to veto individual spending items in bills.

By a vote of 69 to 31, the Senate approved legislation giving the executive branch a powerful tool that all modern presidents have requested but all previous Congresses had denied them.

The House is expected to pass the measure, a compromise worked out between differing House and Senate versions of the legislation, without difficulty Friday and send it to President Clinton, who has said that he is eager to sign it.

Sponsors hailed the bill as an extraordinary gesture by Congress to voluntarily surrender some of its power over the federal purse strings in an effort to restrict the kind of excessive federal spending that has resulted in a $3.7-trillion debt.

“In effect, we’re taking action against our interest,” said Senate Majority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.). “We are showing that we can rise above politics and take an action because it will be the right thing to do for our country.”

The law would allow the president to cut out individual programs in appropriation bills, cancel targeted tax benefits aimed at 100 or fewer beneficiaries or eliminate spending on new entitlement programs.

“The president can no longer say, ‘I didn’t like having to spend on that wasteful project, but it was part of a larger bill I just couldn’t say no to,’ ” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has worked for a line-item veto for 10 years. “Under a line-item veto, no one can hide.”

Under the current system, influential legislators regularly insert so-called pork-barrel funding into popular bills to obtain benefits for their state or district.

Opponents of the line-item measure warned that it would disturb the delicate balance of power struck by the Founding Fathers.

“The control of the purse is the foundation of our constitutional system of checks and balances,” Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) said. “The control over the purse is the ultimate power to be exercised by the legislative branch to check the executive.”

Calling Congress’ action “rank heresy,” Byrd accused his colleagues of acting to usher in a new order in which a president could use the device to pressure Congress into rubber-stamping his or her agenda by threatening to kill legislators’ pet projects if they defy the White House.

“What senator is willing to surrender his independence of thought and action and speech to an already powerful executive?” Byrd asked.

Congressional efforts to grant presidents line-item veto authority date to 1876. But never before has Congress agreed to cede such control to the president.

The decision by Republicans to support the measure with a Democrat in the White House may reflect public frustration about the ballooning federal debt. Under the measure, any savings that result from line-item vetoes would be earmarked for deficit reduction.

McCain said that the success reflects Congress’ understanding of “the growing discontent with the way that Congress does business.”

“It’s one way for us to fulfill our pledge to American taxpayers for less Washington spending,” said Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.).

Before scheduling the vote in the Senate, Dole and Clinton agreed that the new power will not go into effect until Jan. 1, 1997--after they have squared off in the election. They also agreed that the measure could go into effect later this year if the White House and Congress agree on a seven-year plan to balance the budget and enact it into law.

The president’s new authority would not be completely unchecked. Under the measure, Congress could pass legislation to restore line items excised by the president. Such legislation, however, could be vetoed, with a two-thirds majority of both chambers required to override.

The measure would have to be renewed by Congress after eight years.

Across the country, 43 governors have line-item veto authority, and studies show that many use it to supplant legislators’ spending priorities with their own.

Experts disagree on whether Congress is overstepping its statutory authority by granting the president such authority, and court challenges are expected. Some analysts believe that a constitutional amendment would be necessary to authorize such an expansion of executive powers, but drafters of the measure tried to frame it so that any court challenges would fail.

“We’ve had a lot of constitutional scholars look at this legislation and give us a thumbs-up on it,” said Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.).

The U.S. Judicial Conference has voiced opposition to the line-item veto measure. In a letter to Congress this week, the conference, which makes policy for the federal courts, complained that it would weaken the power of the judiciary relative to the executive branch, by providing a way for the president to veto its budget without giving the judiciary any recourse.

The House and Senate had passed their initial versions of the legislation a year ago, and representatives of the two chambers have been meeting sporadically since then to reconcile the differences.