Analysis: Dems oppose modest veto plan

[Ron Burgundy]

AP - The Senate is moving toward its first vote in more than a decade on the line-item veto, and it's remarkable how much has changed — particularly the positions of many of the major players.

At issue is a watered-down GOP measure that would allow a president to scrutinize spending bills he signs into law for questionable items and then submit cuts, or rescissions, to Congress for a vote. Unlike the current system, Congress couldn't simply ignore the cuts — if both Houses voted to approve them, they'd go into effect.

Put forward by Sen. Judd Gregg (news, bio, voting record), R-N.H., it's far weaker than the line-item veto power a GOP-dominated Congress gave President Clinton in 1996. Under that bill, before it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1998, Clinton's line-item vetoes automatically went into effect unless overturned by a two-thirds vote of both House and Senate.

Still, debate on Gregg's plan already has whipped up passions. Most adamant in opposition is Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., who assaulted the idea last week and again Monday as an attack on Congress' control over the federal purse strings.

"Make no mistake, this line-item veto authority would grant tremendous — and dangerous — new power to the president," Byrd said. "He would have unchecked authority to imperil congressional power over the purse, a power that the constitutional framers felt was absolutely vital to reining in an overzealous president."

But in seeking to derail Gregg's bill, Byrd is effectively filibustering a version of the line-item veto that is similar to one he backed 12 years ago.

That measure, written by then-Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., was offered as an alternative to a GOP version requiring a two-thirds vote to override presidential line-item vetoes. Thirty-seven Senate Democrats voted for the proposition, including 20 Democrats still serving. Among them: Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada and Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (news, bio, voting record) of North Dakota.

Nineteen Democrats, including liberal stalwarts like Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) and John Kerry of Massachusetts, voted for the stronger GOP version; 11 are still in the Senate.

Daschle's plan, Byrd said at the time, "does not result in any shift of power from the legislative branch to the executive. It is clear cut. It gives the president the opportunity to get a vote."

Gregg mirrored those arguments Monday and said Democrats should join him if they want to be consistent with their previous votes.

"This basically gives no power to the Executive Branch other than to ask the Congress to take another look ... and vote again," Gregg said. "So one would presume that folks who voted for the line-item veto back in 1995, unless they've changed their view, would be supportive."

You might imagine Gregg's a big fan of the watered-down line-item veto. He's not. He told reporters last summer that it would have "very little impact" on the budget deficit.

And as chairman of the Budget Committee last year, Gregg rebuffed pleas from GOP leaders and the Bush White House to move a comparable plan through his committee as a stand-alone bill. He instead embedded his line-item plan in a much more controversial bill to overhaul the budget process — which died without reaching the floor.

Among Democrats, Kerry still backs the idea. So do Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., Evan Bayh (news, bio, voting record), D-Ind., Tom Carper, D-Del., and Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record), D-Neb., among others. But since Gregg's "Second Look at Wasteful Spending" plan is being offered as an amendment to a bill to increase the minimum wage, some of those Democrats are likely to oppose it. A vote is expected Wednesday.

Old-school Republicans such as Ted Stevens (news, bio, voting record) of Alaska and Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record) of New Mexico have also changed their minds on the line-item veto after Clinton used it to kill military construction projects.

The idea behind the line-item veto is that wasteful "pork barrel" spending would be vulnerable since Congress might vote to reject such items once they were no longer protected by their inclusion in bigger bills that the president had little choice but to sign.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Andrew Taylor covers budget issues for The Associated Press.

___

On the Net:

Senate Budget Committee: http://budget.senate.gov/

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_on_go_co/line_item_veto [link]