Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: FRIDAY, April 30, 1993                   TAG: 9304300096
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL                    PAGE: A-10   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON                                LENGTH: Medium

PORK-BARREL CONTROL BILL PASSES

The measure, approved 258-157, was an echo of last year's presidential campaign, when voters demanded something be done about sky-high budget deficits and expensive projects lawmakers win for their home districts.

"We have a perception problem we have to deal with," said Rep. Vic Fazio, D-Calif., referring to public distaste for pork-barrel spending. "And what better way to deal with it than incrementally, truly in a conservative way, allowing an experiment . . . to restore public confidence in an institution they believe is out of control."

The Democratic bill would force Congress to vote on presidential requests to kill, or rescind, already enacted spending items. Such requests would survive only if approved by majorities in both chambers. The new requirement would last for only two years.

The president already can propose such rescissions, but they don't take effect unless lawmakers approve them within 45 days. Usually, they die because they are ignored.

Democrats ended up voting for the bill by a 174-70 margin, while Republicans were split: 84 voted "yes" and 86 voted "no." The chamber's lone independent, Rep. Bernard Sanders of Vermont, also voted "no."

Among Virginia's delegation, the bill was supported by Democrats Rick Boucher, Abingdon; Leslie Byrne, Fairfax; James Moran, Alexandria; L.F. Payne, Nelson County; Owen Pickett, Virginia Beach; and Norman Sisisky, Petersburg, and Republicans Herbert Bateman, Newport News and Robert Goodlatte, Roanoke. Opposing it were Robert Scott, D-Newport News; Thomas Bliley, R-Richmond; and Frank Wolf, R-Fairfax County.

Republicans mocked the measure as a sham that would do little more than fool the public into believing something had been accomplished.

"You won't save $10 million in the rest of this Congress" with the Democratic legislation, predicted House Minority Leader Robert Michel, R-Ill. "You wait and see how farcical this proposition is."

House approval of the bill gave Clinton a win - though a small one - on his 100th day in office. His legislative agenda suffered a major setback last week, when his jobs bill was killed by Senate Republicans.

The House-passed measure now moves to the Senate. Its prospects there are unsure because of opposition by Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and the uncertain position of Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, D-Maine.

The bill fell far short of giving the chief executive true line-item veto authority, which Clinton said he supported during his run for the White House. Under that power, a president would be able to veto individual items in spending bills, reversible only by two-thirds majorities of the House and Senate.

But most budget analysts say even full-fledged line-item veto authority would give the president little power to shrink record shortfalls. By most estimates, the authority would mean cuts of a few billion dollars from annual budget gaps now hitting $300 billion.

A Republican effort to give the president the power to veto separate items in spending bills and individual, targeted breaks in tax bills was defeated 219-198.