Road Veto Upset Despite Reagan’s Capitol Hill Visit : He Fails to Sway a Single Republican Holdout as Bill and Metro Rail Pass

The Senate Thursday overrode President Reagan’s veto of major highway legislation, despite a dramatic last-minute pilgrimage by the President to Capitol Hill in which he failed to sway a single Republican holdout.

White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater quoted Reagan as having told Republican senators: “I beg you for your vote. Give us your vote and let us stand as the majority that can run this party.”

But even after their intense 1 1/2-hour session with the President behind closed doors, 13 of the Senate’s 46 Republicans remained on the same side as Senate Democrats. That was just enough to form the two-thirds majority--a 67-33 vote--necessary to override a veto that Reagan had made a major test of his leadership. The heavily Democratic House had voted overwhelmingly earlier this week to override the veto.

Measure Now Law

The $88-billion measure, which became law with the Senate vote, allows the federal government to spend up to $870 million on Los Angeles’ proposed Metro Rail subway system and gives states the ability to raise the speed limit to 65 m.p.h. on rural interstate highways. It also funds improvements and construction of highways, bridges, harbors and parking facilities in scores of individual congressional districts.

However, the significance of the five-year legislation had grown beyond those provisions. With his veto, Reagan had made the politically popular bill a gauge of his ability to work his will over Congress after such setbacks as the Iran- contra scandal and the congressional elections that had returned control of the Senate to the Democrats last fall.

“I knew in advance that the battle would be tough, and the odds were long,” Reagan said in a statement after the vote. “But we cannot retreat from our commitment to a responsible budget. My efforts to control spending are not diminished and I remain firm in my pledge to the American taxpayers to speak out against such budgetary excesses.”

Vote Meant Painful Choice

For many Republicans, the vote meant a painful choice between coming to their President’s defense and sending home millions of federal dollars to those who elected them. In addition, highway lobbyists had warned that the veto could mean a loss of 800,000 jobs.

The bill “meant safety, it meant jobs and it was within the (budget) limits,” said Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.), one of those who told Reagan no.

Thursday’s vote reversed a preliminary victory the President had won Wednesday. In that vote, supporters of the bill fell one short of the required two-thirds majority and gave the first indication that 13 Republicans were prepared to oppose Reagan.

Senate Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) quickly used a parliamentary maneuver to reopen the vote, and Sen. Terry Sanford (D-N.C.), the President’s lone Democratic supporter, later decided to reverse his position.

That left the count 67 to 33, and that is where it remained.

The outcome was a personal blow to the President but also demonstrated cohesiveness among Senate Democrats as they use their new majority to reorganize some of the priorities that had been set under the Reagan Administration. Some senators said it does not bode well for Reagan as he prepares for major battles with the Democrats later this year over arms control, funding for Nicaragua’s contras and other issues.

But Sen. George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) contended that it was not a total loss for Reagan. At a time when the President’s handling of the Iran-contra affair has provoked sharp criticism of his hands-off management style, Mitchell said, the override vote was “an opportunity for the President to demonstrate aggressive personal involvement in government. . . . He tried and he failed. There’s no shame in that.”

A White House lobbyist added: “Next time around, when (a bill that Reagan opposes) comes along, it will be a factor to consider.”

Most senators viewed the override as just the first of many veto clashes to come with Reagan over spending in the next two years. Democrats noted that the President earlier this year had lost when he tried to kill a clean water bill.

‘Two Strikes Against Him’

“He has two strikes against him now,” Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said. “One more strike and he’ll be out. It shows his political judgment is way off. He obviously doesn’t know how to pick his fights anymore.”

But Republicans insisted that, even though Reagan had made the override a major test, it was not an accurate measure of the President’s strength in Congress. Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (R-Conn.) pointed out that just two weeks ago Reagan won Senate approval for continued aid to the Nicaraguan rebels.

“He won one on contras; he lost one on highways,” said Weicker, one of the 13 Republicans who voted against Reagan. “The presidency wasn’t on the line with the highway bill.”

Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) said the President decided to come to Capitol Hill despite Dole’s warning that the odds were “100 to 1” against his changing any votes.

‘Heightening the Stakes’

The meeting with lawmakers--only the seventh in Reagan’s six years in office but his third in the last three weeks--had the effect of “heightening the stakes” for the President, Majority Leader Byrd said.

Although Reagan had backed the speed-limit increase--which had been endorsed by key officials in California and could affect 1,300 of the state’s 4,000 freeway miles--he objected to the spending levels in the bill. He called it a “budget buster,” despite the fact that it was within the guidelines of the congressional budget resolution.

He took particular issue with more than 100 so-called “demonstration projects” in the bill, a dramatic increase from the handful that have been included in past legislation. Those projects have special political appeal because funds spent on them are not counted against the funding that states receive under the regular federal formula. States must provide only a 20% funding match for those projects.

Pork-Barrel Politics

Reagan and other critics argued that demonstration projects, ostensibly funded to test new methods and theories of transportation-related construction, amount to nothing more than old-fashioned pork-barrel politics. They complained that such projects replace a formula which attempts to distribute funds according to a state’s needs with a system of political favoritism.

The President also singled out Metro Rail, which will get the largest single part of the overall mass-transit allocation, as an unwise use of federal money.

Supporters of the new law noted that the bulk of its funds--$76.4 billion of the total $87.9 billion--come not from the general Treasury, but from the federal Highway Trust Fund. That fund is sustained by gasoline taxes and other revenues earmarked for road improvement and mass transit.

Staff writer James Gerstenzang contributed to this story.