Clinton Signs Line-Item Veto Bill Into Law

The new line-item veto law will give presidents a power over federal spending that they have coveted since the administration of Ulysses S. Grant. And it marks the biggest victory so far for the GOP effort to implement its campaign manifesto, the “contract with America.”

Yet as President Clinton signed the measure into law Tuesday, analysts of both parties acknowledged that its powers have been overstated--and that chief executives will often be reluctant to use it at all for fear of political consequences.

The measure, which cleared Congress after about 200 attempts, enables presidents to cut individual items from spending bills, thereby reducing wasteful “pork” without vetoing an entire measure. Congress can reinstate an item by a two-thirds vote of both houses under the law, which goes into effect Jan. 1.

This authority will clearly give presidents added leverage to negotiate with members of Congress over their priorities, especially in situations where the members have small projects that their constituents dearly want.

Yet this new power is limited by the fact that it is derived from a narrowly cast statute, rather than the broad constitutional amendment advocates, such as President Reagan, had long sought.

The law will not enable a president to make much of a dent in the deficit--though this was called its most important use by advocates. That is because the bill exempts most tax legislation and all existing entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, which make up two-thirds of the federal budget.

Even some administration aides acknowledged that presidents will often find it more of a burden than a boon because of the political costs of eliminating spending for popular, but questionable, purposes.

If Clinton had had the line-item veto last fall, for example, he would have found it difficult to cut out the extra $493 billion that Congress voted to give him in defense appropriations for B-2 bombers. Though his administration had called the extra spending a luxury that “we do not need and cannot afford,” a Clinton line-item veto would have risked the wrath of politically vital California.

Clinton signed the appropriations bill, arguing that--despite its flaws--the money it provided for peacekeeping operations in Bosnia was needed.

“This isn’t an easy tool for a president to use,” said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a supporter of the measure who used a similar power when he was governor of Delaware. “It’s a two-edged sword.”

One White House aide, generally a fan of the bill, conceded that it would thrust on presidents a discomfiting responsibility on items that until now usually have slipped into bills unnoticed.

“Suddenly in a system famous for its lack of accountability, one person gets to stand up and say, ‘I don’t want this’--and take all the grief that comes with that,” the aide said.

Noting that even small rebuffs would be long remembered in the regions they affect, he added: “I don’t think people have thought through all the politics of this.”

The measure still must survive a Supreme Court review on the question of whether its gift of new presidential prerogatives violates the constitutional separation of powers. There are constitutional experts on both sides of the issue.

Analysts who have studied the issue believe that it will be several years before the impact of the law is clear, because of the many different ways it could come into play between Congress and the president.

Many observers expect that it will most often be applied when a president approaches individual members of Congress to propose a “log-rolling” deal that would give the member some parochial spending item in return for support on a presidential priority.

This has generally been the experience in the 43 states where governors have had similar authority.

Another factor that will discourage its frequent use is the “lock box” language providing that money saved by any line-item veto cannot be spent on something else but must go to deficit reduction. The president and lawmakers also, of course, are restrained by caps on discretionary spending from deal-making that would increase appropriations.

But some analysts believe that the White House could start quietly arranging deals to “reprogram” funds, shifting money from purposes the president does not like to those he favors.

Clinton argued Tuesday that just having this power is likely to keep lawmakers from trying to slip through spending items of dubious value. And clearly some members of Congress will want to avoid proposing appropriations for a frivolous-sounding purpose that the president could hold up to public ridicule.

But in other cases, members of Congress could try an end run around the president. If they believe a spending item--a defense project, for example--has popular support, they could simply draft the bill using language that would exempt it from the line-item veto--a tactic that could boomerang.

Congress also could try to avoid the veto, following a trend already underway, by not specifying how appropriated money is to be spent, leaving the details to various departments.

One senior Republican aide predicted another way that Congress could try to avoid the veto would be by expressing its desires for specific spending in letters to executive agencies, rather than in legislation or committee appropriation reports.

The result of this, the aide said, “would be less, not more, accountability.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

How It Works

The line-item veto permits the president to strike individual items from spending bills or other bills.

Takes effect: Jan. 1, 1997

First likely target: Fall of 1997, when completed appropriations bills start reaching the president.

Vetoes: Require two-thirds vote of both houses.

Savings: A “lock-box” provision provides that any money saved must go to deficit reduction.

Expiration date: Line-item bill will be eliminated after eight years if it is not renewed.