HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Federal Spending Restraint

The House passed a bill (HR 3400) to slow the growth of federal spending by $37.1 billion over five years through fiscal 1998. Drafted by the Administration and House Democrat leaders, the bill is President Clinton’s promised sequel to the $500-billion, five-year deficit-reduction measure approved by Congress in August. It saves $32.5 billion by eliminating 252,000 federal jobs, $2.7 billion by increasing government efficiency and $1.9 billion by rescinding already appropriated funds. The bill differs structurally from the Penny-Kasich alternative (below) in that it does not lower spending ceilings previously set by Congress. Thus it does not “lock in” its savings.

Supporter Barbara B. Kennelly (D-Conn.) said the bill provides “orderly, real deficit reduction while at the same time keeping commitments to the American people already made in the budget process.”

Opponent Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) said supporting the $37.1-billion plan was “a CYA vote, a cover-your-posterior vote,” for members opposed to the Penny-Kasich alternative.

The vote was 272 for and 163 against. A yes vote was to pass the bill.

How They Voted:

Rep. Beilenson (D): Yea

Rep. Dixon (D): Yea

Rep. Harman (D): Yea

Rep. Waxman (D): Yea

Penny-Kasich Deficit Reduction Plan

The House narrowly rejected an alternative to HR 3400 (above) that sought more than twice as much in deficit reduction. This plan by Reps. Timothy J. Penny (D-Minn.) and John R. Kasich (R-Ohio) also differed from the underlying bill by requiring all of the savings to go to lowering the federal deficit. It sought to curb federal red ink by $90.4 billion over five years; nearly half the savings would be achieved by slowing entitlement programs, mainly Medicare. It sought discretionary cuts of $52.5 billion in scores of areas from merging agencies into more efficient units to cutting the legislative branch budget. Penny-Kasich proposed to eliminate 252,000 Civil Service slots, as did the underlying bill, but also would have curbed federal military and civilian retirement benefits.

Supporter Jane Harman (D-Marina del Rey), one of several co-sponsors, said: “I don’t like everything in this amendment. I do not want to reduce certain R & D efforts, funding for the arts, public broadcasting or legal services. And I certainly oppose cutting the defense budget further. But, to regain public trust and to achieve real deficit reduction, nothing should be off-limits.”

Opponent John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) said: “We in Congress are sent here to make sound decisions for our constituents. . . . It is easy to vote for unsound budget cuts. It is infinitely more difficult to craft and vote for sound ones that make sense and will work.”

The vote was 213 for and 219 against. A yes vote was to enact the Penny-Kasich deficit reduction plan.

How They Voted:

Rep. Beilenson (D): Nay

Rep. Dixon (D): Nay

Rep. Harman (D): Yea

Rep. Waxman (D): Nay

Campaign Finance Reform Measure

The House approved a bill to reform congressional campaign financing by putting a voluntary cap on spending and introducing partial public funding. The bill (HR 3) was sent to a House-Senate conference committee.

For House candidates, the bill sets voluntary spending limits of $600,000 per election cycle. Incumbents and challengers accepting them would get up to $200,000 in public vouchers for buying television, radio and newspaper advertising, postage and printed material. A later bill would raise the public money.

Regardless of whether they agree to limit spending, House candidates could receive no more than $200,000 from political action committees (PACs) and up to $200,000 in individual contributions over $200.

The bill drew overwhelming support from Democrats, many of whom like spending limits and want to retain PAC contributions. It was opposed mainly by Republicans, many of whom oppose public financing and want to abolish PAC money from campaigns.

Supporter Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) endorsed spending caps because “we are coming closer and closer to the point where the only people who can get elected are incumbents, millionaires, celebrities and people willing to become indentured servants to the special interests.”

Opponent Nick Smith (R-Mich.) said: “Lobbyist PAC money too often is nothing short of a bribe. . . . The bill that is now before us is a smoke screen because it does not deal with the real problems of special interest lobbyists buying influence.”

The vote was 255 for and 175 against. A yes vote was to pass the bill.

How They Voted:

Rep. Beilenson (D): Yea

Rep. Dixon (D): Yea

Rep. Harman (D): Yea

Rep. Waxman (D): Yea

$18.3 Billion More for S & L Bailout

The House approved the conference report on a bill (S 714) releasing $18.3 billion that is expected to complete the savings and loan bailout. The bill was sent to the White House.

Congress has appropriated about $105 billion since 1989 to cover depositor losses at more than 700 S & Ls that went bankrupt in the 1980s. Uncovered by pay-as-you-go budget rules, the money has come from Treasury borrowing. Congress also has authorized the Resolution Trust Corp. to borrow more than $100 billion in working capital that is to be repaid through the sale of seized assets.

The vote was 235 for and 191 against. A yes vote was to pass the bill. The Senate earlier approved the bill by a vote of 54 to 45.

How They Voted:

Rep. Beilenson (D): Yea

Rep. Dixon (D): Yea

Rep. Harman (D): Yea

Rep. Waxman (D): Yea

Where to Reach Them

Anthony C. Beilenson, 24th District

21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1010, Woodland Hills 91364 (818) 999-1990

Julian C. Dixon, 32nd District

5100 W. Goldleaf Circle, Suite 208, Los Angeles 90056 (213) 678-5424

Jane Harman, 36th District

5200 W. Century Blvd., Suite 960, Los Angeles 90045 (310) 348-8220

Henry A. Waxman, 29th District

8425 W. 3rd St., Suite 400, Los Angeles 90048 (213) 651-1040

Source: Roll Call Report Syndicate