House Rejects Funding Bill Paid by Across-Board Cuts

WASHINGTON â€”  In a sharp setback for Democratic congressional leaders, the House Wednesday failed to approve a $4.7-billion measure providing emergency funds for the homeless, the war on drugs, reparations for Japanese-Americans interned during World War II and other programs.

On a key 252-172 vote, members defeated a controversial amendment by Majority Leader Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) that would have paid for the new spending by ordering across-the-board budget cuts in most federal programs, including defense.

Despite pleas by Foley that House members approve the bill and “show fiscal restraint,� a coalition of 92 Democrats opposed to cuts in defense and domestic programs joined with Republicans in sending the proposal back to the House Appropriations Committee, where it will be redrafted.

“I think that, in their guts, members just didn’t want to make these budget cuts,� said Rep. Leon E. Panetta (D-Monterey), chairman of the House Budget Committee.

Panetta predicted that decisions about new funds for the homeless, Japanese-American internees and the other programs now probably will become part of deliberations over the 1990 budget.

Before the vote, President Bush had threatened to veto the legislation, saying that it would add to the budget deficit. During the debate, Republicans released a letter from Defense Secretary Dick Cheney which said that the proposed defense cuts, totaling some $1.7 billion, would cause “enormous damage� to military programs.

Democrats had brushed aside these threats, saying that the legislation addressed “dire emergencies� that had not been met in the 1989 budget. House leaders voiced confidence that the bill would pass and some members said privately that they looked forward to a confrontation over the issue with the Bush Administration.

Instead, Wednesday’s defeat raised speculation that the ethics controversy surrounding House Speaker Jim Wright of Texas had caused political erosion among Democrats who generally support such leadership proposals. Although he denied that Wright’s troubles caused Wednesday’s setback, Rep. William H. Gray III (D-Pa.) conceded that the inquiry into the Speaker’s financial affairs has taken a toll because “we haven’t been real focused legislatively lately.�

Others said that the vote revealed a lack of cohesion among House Democrats. Panetta, for example, was critical that members had not been consulted about Foley’s budget-cutting proposal, which had been drawn up a day before the vote on the emergency bill, without committee hearings.

“When you shift the responsibility (for making budget cuts) away from committees to the House floor, chaos generally results,� he said.

Controversy over the emergency legislation surfaced several weeks ago, when Democrats added $2.6 billion in additional programs to a $2.1-billion emergency funding bill that Bush had sent to Congress. Bush’s bill contained funds for veterans programs and for the cost of fighting last year’s forest fires in Western states.

The Democratic version added $821 million for anti-drug law enforcement programs, $250 million for reparation payments to Japanese-Americans who were interned during World War II, $153 million for the homeless, $100 million to bring additional refugees from the Soviet Union and Asia to the United States, $88 million for public housing and other programs.

However, the more expensive bill drew immediate criticism from Panetta, Bush and others, who said that it violated a bipartisan budget agreement that was drafted two weeks ago. On Tuesday, Foley unveiled a proposal to pay for the new programs in the emergency legislation. Under his plan, most federal programs would be cut by 0.57%, a reduction that would save $2.6 billion.

Panetta agreed to support the bill, but other Democrats balked at the new cuts for domestic and defense programs. Rep. William H. Natcher (D-Ky.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee for labor, health and human services and education, said that Foley’s proposal would slash funding for a variety of programs, ranging from inner-city education to AIDS research.