Sections

Clinton signs long-sought line-item veto legislation

Opponents accused Congress of surrendering a precious piece of its constitutional prerogative to spend the people's money. Federal employees immediately filed a court challenge.

Tipping his hat to Republican and Democratic predecessors, Clinton kept four pens used in the signing and dispatched them to former Presidents Reagan, Ford, Carter and Bush -- all of whom had pleaded for the power to slash specific provisions from spending bills.

"Their successors will be able to use this power that they long sought to eliminate waste from the federal budget," said Clinton, who won't be able to use the line-item veto unless re-elected.

The bipartisan bill will be a fixture in the presidential election, with Clinton and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) both claiming credit. "It will help put Washington on a pork-free diet," Dole said yesterday.

Clinton, who seldom used the line-item veto as Arkansas' governor, noted that 43 of the nation's 50 governors can carve away at budget bills. "They have used it well and without any upsetting of the constitutional framework," Clinton said.

Under the new law, presidents can sign spending bills and -- within five days -- cancel specific items, including appropriations, narrowly targeted tax breaks covering 100 or fewer people and new or expanded entitlements.

It does away with a requirement, in place since the nation's founding, that a president must approve or reject legislation in its entirety.

Congress still gets the last word on spending: A line-item veto can be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress.

The bill, part of the GOP "Contract With America," passed Congress easily despite a history of failure. Congress has guarded its spending powers, turning back more than 200 attempts in the last 120 years to give presidents a line-item veto.

Rep. Marge Roukema (R-N.J.) said the bill will prompt "more partisan bickering, legislative horse-trading and even more pork-barrel spending."

She noted that a line-item veto can be sustained with the support of just 34 senators. "In the real world of Washington politics, this gives the president a new tool to punish and reward lawmakers by threatening to line-item veto spending in their districts," Roukema said.

Federal judges are concerned the courts would have no recourse if the president vetoes their budget. The judges say that would improperly weaken the judiciary's standing among the federal government's three branches.

And a federal employees union said it fears "a hostile president" will veto pay raises for bureaucrats. The National Treasury Employees' Union filed suit in U.S. District Court, calling the law "a device that subverts the Constitution's separation of powers."

Clinton said Congress' power to override line-item vetoes will protect against a president abusing the new tool. Presidents also will be wary of the public scrutiny that comes with the issuance of a veto, he said.

Seated at his desk flanked by bill supporters, Clinton said, "For years, presidents of both parties have pounded this very desk in frustration at having to sign necessary legislation that contains special-interest boondoggles, tax loopholes and pure pork."

Ronald Reagan made the same case more than 10 years ago. Pleading for a line-item veto, he said: "Then I'll make the cuts; I'll take the responsibility -- and the heat ... and I'll enjoy it."

Clinton has long supported the measure. But as Arkansas' governor, he used a line-item veto just nine times in 10 years -- a period in which about 2,500 spending bills crossed his desk.

Clinton suggested yesterday that the line-item veto may not be used much in Washington. The veto threat alone, he said, should keep a lot of fat out of the budget.

"The exercise of this veto -- or even the possibility of its exercise -- will throw a spotlight of public scrutiny onto the darkest corners of the federal budget," Clinton said.

White House press secretary Mike McCurry ticked off several instances in which Clinton signed a spending bill and publicly expressed reservations with specific items. Two examples: $70 million in military construction that the Pentagon deemed unnecessary and spending on the "Star Wars" missile defense system.