How Will Clinton Use His Line-Item Veto?

Spate of appropriations bills offers possible targets for president's new veto power

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Sep. 2) -- With Congress scheduled to work on 13 annual appropriations bills this fall, many expect President Bill Clinton to brandish his new line-item veto power once again. Though it faces imminent constitutional challenge, the new law promises, at least in the short run, to alter the dynamics of federal budgeting in as-yet unknown ways.

Will the president use the line-item veto as "a tool designed to fight against waste and unjustifiable expenditures," as he said Aug. 11, or as a way to pressure individual lawmakers to support his priorities? Or as a way simply to cancel spending priorities he disagrees with, which under the old system he might have been forced to accept?

The line-item veto, passed in the 104th Congress, allows the president to cancel individual spending and certain tax items, without vetoing the entire bill, subject to Congress' override within 30 days. Clinton first used the line-item veto Aug. 11, singling out three provisions from the tax and budget bills he signed Aug. 5.

A possible target from the upcoming appropriations bills is funding for the B-2 stealth bomber. Though Clinton asked for $174 million, the House bill contains $505 million.

Given the heat his first line-item vetoes produced, however, the president is likely to act cautiously. There's even speculation that, if the economy stays strong and deficits continue to decline, Clinton's case for striking spending items could be weakened.

Meanwhile, opponents, who see the measure as an improper shift of power from the legislative branch to the executive, are expected to file a constitutional challenge this fall.

Until then, the administration plans to exercise its prerogative.

"We will move forward in the expectation that the statute will be held to be constitutional as we look at other bills that are presented," White House budget director Franklin Raines told reporters. "It is our fundamental belief it is a constitutional statute and one that has great history behind it."

The Supreme Court in June struck down a previous challenge by six senators on grounds the lawmakers lacked legal standing to sue.

In Other News:

Tuesday Sept. 2, 1997