Congress and the Nation, 1981-1984, Vol. VI: The 97th and 98th Congresses

Books

Edited by: CQ Press

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Copyright

    View Copyright Page

  • Appendix

    Appendix

    1981 Key Votes

    Senate
    1. Anti-Busing Rider

    The Senate Sept. 16 invoked cloture and approved the most far-reaching anti-busing curb to date when it adopted an amendment to the Justice Department authorization bill (S 951).

    The 61-36 cloture vote cut off a filibuster led by Lowell P. Weicker Jr., R-Conn. The vote was the first successful cloture effort out of five attempts since Weicker launched his filibuster in June, meeting the requirement of three-fifths of total Senate membership (60) needed to cut off debate. The breakdown on the vote was: R 36-16; D 25-20 (ND 11-19, SD 14-1).

    The Senate then adopted the anti-busing amendment of J. Bennett Johnston, D-La., by a vote of 60-39.

    The Johnston amendment would bar federal judges from ordering busing except in very narrow circumstances. It also would allow the attorney general to file lawsuits on behalf of students who believed they had been bused in violation of the standards set out in the Johnston proposal, opening the way for overturning existing busing orders.

    The Johnston proposal was attached to another amendment to S 951, sponsored by Jesse Helms, R-N.C. This proposal would prevent the Justice Department from spending money to bring any legal action that could lead, directly or indirectly, to court-ordered busing.

    With outnumbered opponents of the anti-busing proposals employing delaying tactics, the Senate did not pass S 951 before the first session of the 97th Congress ended.

    2. Saudi AWACS

    The Reagan administration based its Middle East policy on what it called a “strategic consensus” among nations there that the Soviet Union posed the primary threat to them, notwithstanding their regional disputes.

    To improve U.S. relations with oil giant Saudi Arabia, in part to nurture the Middle East consensus it perceived, the administration decided in the spring of 1981 to sell Saudi Arabia five sophisticated Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) radar planes and other military equipment.

    The decision posed the first major test in Congress of President Reagan's authority in foreign policy.

    Israel strongly opposed the AWACS sale, viewing it as a threat to Israeli air superiority in the Middle East, and the American Jewish community began to campaign against it from the moment the administration acknowledged its plans.

    Critics in Congress said it was unwise to entrust the secrets of the computer-assisted AWACS surveillance system to a nation that often had opposed U.S. policy in the Middle East and whose ruling royal family was seen as vulnerable to being overthrown.

    Saudi Arabia cast the deal as a test of U.S.-Saudi relations. The administration argued that Saudi air defenses must be bolstered to protect Saudi oil fields along the eastern coast of the Arabian Peninsula — the source of much of the industrial West's oil supplies.

    Reagan's problem was that Congress could veto the AWACS sale under a law giving it the right to block major arms deals by passing a concurrent resolution within 30 days of receiving formal notice.

    Formal notice of the deal was delivered on Oct. 1, giving Congress until Oct. 30 to veto the sale.

    The House passed a resolution of disapproval (H Con Res 194) on Oct. 14 by an overwhelming vote of 301-111. (House key vote 4)

    But Reagan won on the issue after he put his personal prestige on the line. He argued that a congressional veto would undermine his authority to conduct foreign policy, and the Senate rejected H Con Res 194 on Oct. 28 by a dramatic vote of 48-52: R 12-41; D 36-11 (ND 28-4, SD 8-7).

    3. MX Missile

    In its first vote on the issue since 1979, the Senate April 7 tabled an amendment that would have made a symbolic reduction in funds for the MX mobile intercontinental missile.

    At the time of the vote, the administration was reviewing alternative approaches to keeping the new missile hidden from Soviet observation.

    Critics of the missile saw that review as the ideal time to force a reconsideration of the basic premise behind deploying the MX: that a new, more accurate U.S. missile was needed because existing land-based missiles were vulnerable to a Soviet first strike.

    Most Armed Services Committee members and senior Air Force officers favored the mobile basing technique proposed by President Carter, under which each MX would be shuttled among nearly two dozen hidden launch sites.

    During Senate consideration of a fiscal 1981 defense supplemental authorizations bill (S 694), Larry Pressler, R-S.D., offered an amendment that would have deleted $7 million for research related to MX.

    Pressler said the amendment would be a “clear signal” to the Pentagon and the administration that Congress was concerned about the missile and wanted to know how it would be based before voting funds for it.

    Opponents of the amendment said that it would, instead, send a signal to the Soviet Union that the United States was not serious about modernizing its nuclear forces.

    The Senate tabled (killed) the Pressler amendment on a 79-15 vote: R 44-6; D 35-9 (ND 20-9, SD 15-0).

    4. Tenn-Tom Waterway

    Since the 1940s, powerful members of Congress had fought first to authorize and then to appropriate money for the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway.

    By 1981 about $1 billion had already been spent on the 232-mile inland canal, designed to connect the Tennessee River with the Tombigbee River and enable barges to navigate from Appalachian coal fields to the seaport of Mobile, Ala.

    Environmentalists opposed the project as damaging and taxpayer organizations said it was too costly. They warned that “Tenn-Tom,” as it was called, would cost $3 billion by the time it was finished.

    When the Senate considered the fiscal 1982 energy and water appropriations bill (HR 4144) Nov. 4, a bipartisan group of senators tried to delete the $189 million in the bill for the canal.

    Led by Charles H. Percy, R-Ill., and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., they argued that the project was consuming too much of the money available for water projects. They said supporters of the project were overstating the benefits, and called it an “economic dinosaur.”

    Supporters said the canal was too near finished to be abandoned. They said it was needed to get coal to the sea for export, and estimated that it would generate $145 million a year in commerce.

    The supporters insisted the total cost of the project would be only $1.8 billion, and charged that opponents were misrepresenting it. They said the railroads were behind efforts to kill the waterway to stifle competition for coal transportation.

    J. Bennett Johnston, D-La., led the floor debate against Percy's amendment while 80-year-old John C. Stennis, D-Miss., the waterway's principal supporter over the years, twisted arms for votes. Percy's amendment to delete the funding for the waterway was defeated 46-48: R 27-21; D 19-27 (ND 17-14, SD 2-13).

    The vote was the closest opponents of the project had ever come to winning, although Johnston said the vote was not as close as it appeared because six senators who voted against Tenn-Tom had promised to switch their votes if necessary to save the project.

    Senators said after the vote that backers of the project had suggested to uncommitted senators that they support Tenn-Tom if they wanted support for other projects in which they were interested. They also played on affection for Stennis, suggesting that saving Tenn-Tom would help his re-election chances.

    While a majority of House freshmen voted to kill Tenn-Tom (House key vote 7), senators first elected in 1980 opposed Percy's amendment 7-11. The new members' votes were crucial because seven senators who had supported the project in the past voted to kill it in 1981.

    5. Clinch River Breeder Reactor

    In the 1970s the proposed Clinch River (Tenn.) breeder reactor had become a symbol in the fight over the future of nuclear power.

    Anti-nuclear groups had long fought the reactor, and President Carter tried for four years to kill the project, which was designed to generate electricity while producing more plutonium fuel than it used. Carter worried that the plutonium could be stolen and used to make nuclear weapons.

    But Congress continued to fund the program. By 1981 more than $1 billion had been spent of a total cost now estimated to be at least $3.2 billion, and construction had not even begun.

    President Reagan's budget director, David A. Stockman, had strenuously opposed the project as uneconomical when he was a member of Congress, and left funding for Clinch River out of the president's fiscal 1982 budget. But Senate Majority Leader Howard H. Baker Jr., R-Tenn., persuaded Reagan to request $254 million for it.

    The Senate Appropriations Committee included $180 million for the reactor in the fiscal 1982 energy and water appropriations bill (HR 4144).

    When the measure came to the Senate floor Nov. 4, Dale Bumpers, D-Ark., and Gordon J. Humphrey, R-N.H., tried to kill the project. They called it an economic white elephant that would be technologically obsolete by the time it was completed.

    But their amendment to delete the $180 million was first amended to cut only $90 million and then tabled (killed) by a vote of 48-46: R 36-14; D 12-32 (ND 4-26, SD 8-6). It was the closest Clinch River opponents had ever come to killing the project.

    While budget-conscious freshmen House members voted 36-34 to kill the project (House key vote 8), Baker managed to persuade 14 of the 18 new Senate members to vote with him to support it.

    Opponents managed a second vote the next day, but lost again by a five-vote margin. That day Baker had Vice President George Bush standing by to vote to save the project in case of a tie.

    6. Abortion

    The long-running fight over government funding of abortions for poor women was effectively ended when the Senate voted to bar such abortions except when needed to save a mother's life.

    The vote was crucial because the Senate, over the years, had been a bastion of support for abortion funding. The House long had backed the so-called Hyde amendment (named for its sponsor, Rep. Henry J. Hyde, R-Ill.) to bar Medicaid funding of abortions in non-life-threatening situations.

    Past House-Senate disputes over the Hyde amendment had produced lengthy deadlocks in conference. Compromises between the two bodies had allowed payment for abortions when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest.

    The new Senate Republican majority, including many members who were elected on strong anti-abortion platforms, moved decisively against abortion funding.

    Despite attempts by Republican leaders to keep a supplemental appropriations bill (HR 3512) free from controversial legislative provisions, the Senate restored the Hyde amendment May 21 by a 52-43 vote: R 33-19; D 19-24 (ND 12-18, SD 7-6).

    Debate on the amendment opened old wounds within the Republican Party, which had been deeply divided over the abortion funding issue.

    Bob Packwood, R-Ore., a leading spokesman for abortion funding, accused Hyde amendment supporters of seeking to impose a “Cotton Mather mentality” on the country But Jesse Helms, R-N.C., said the anti-abortion movement would not forgive those who voted against the Hyde amendment.

    7. Debt Limit Increase

    An increase in the federal debt limit was an unlikely candidate for fiscally conservative President Reagan's first legislative victory. But on Feb. 6 the Senate approved a measure (HR 1553) that raised the debt ceiling to $985 billion through Sept. 30, 1982, thus providing President Reagan with his maiden Capitol Hill success.

    The Senate vote was 73-18: R 46-3; D 27-15 (ND 20-7, SD 7-8).

    The vote cleared the bill for the president's signature since the House had approved it a day earlier by a 305-104 margin. (House key vote 9)

    Had Congress failed to act, the outstanding debt would have hit the existing $935.1 billion ceiling by mid-February, leaving the government unable to meet its borrowing needs.

    Just before the Senate vote on the measure, Finance Committee Chairman Robert Dole, R-Kan., joked that there had “been a lot of rapid conversion around here on this issue.”

    Republicans who in the past had opposed debt limit increases, charging that they were “fiscally irresponsible,” acceded to the request of their president and voted for the bill. It was really leftover business from the Carter administration, they claimed.

    8. Budget Cut Instructions

    Budget reconciliation was the vehicle that moved President Reagan's philosophy of fiscal austerity from rhetoric to reality. And Senate action on April 2 to instruct Senate committees to cut $36.9 billion from fiscal 1982 spending was the first major step toward enactment of his budget-cutting proposals.

    Under reconciliation, the spending cut instructions went to 14 authorizing and appropriations committees, where members were required to change existing programs to make the required savings.

    Without waiting for action on the first fiscal 1982 budget resolution, the Senate adopted separate reconciliation instructions (S Con Res 9) by an 88-10 vote: R 51-1; D 37-9 (ND 22-9, SD 15-0).

    Senate leaders — including Majority Leader Howard H. Baker Jr., R-Tenn., and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M. — and budget director David A. Stockman agreed that using reconciliation would put the administration's budget-cutting efforts on the fast track.

    Together they were able to keep most Republicans united behind the spending reductions. On the final vote only one GOP senator — Lowell P. Weicker Jr., R-Conn., voted “no.”

    The Democrats, however, were deeply divided. Because many of the more conservative members of the party frequently voted with the Republicans, liberal Democrats did not come close to winning adoption of the more than 20 amendments they introduced.

    9. Social Security

    When President Reagan May 12 announced proposals to cut Social Security benefits, congressional Democrats saw a political opportunity they could not pass up.

    Congress was in the midst of one of the biggest budget battles ever and the minority party, buoyed by public outrage at the proposed cuts in Social Security, repeatedly charged the administration with balancing its budget on the backs of the elderly.

    For Republicans, the issue proved to be an embarrassing one.

    The first major rebuff of the administration's plans came only a week after they were announced. On May 20 Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., offered a “sense of the Senate” amendment to a fiscal 1981 supplemental appropriations bill (HR 3512) condemning Reagan's plans as “a breach of faith” with the American elderly. It also stated that Congress would not “precipitously and unfairly” cut Social Security benefits.

    The amendment was tabled (killed) by a vote of 49-48: R 48-2; D 1-46 (ND 0-32, SD 1-14).

    Almost immediately after that vote, however, the Senate unanimously adopted a toned-down version of the amendment that promised Congress would not make any more cuts in the financially troubled program than were necessary to keep it solvent.

    Reagan eventually withdrew his proposals and Congress passed a stopgap measure (HR 4331) to keep Social Security's largest trust fund, Old-Age and Survivors' Insurance, from going broke in 1982. At the end of the session, Senate Minority Leader Robert c. Byrd, D-W.Va., labeled the defeat of the administration's Social Security plans “a victory where victories, for Democrats, appear to be scarce.”

    10. Tax Indexing

    During floor debate on President Reagan's individual and business tax cut package (H J Res 266), Senate Republicans added a provision intended to put an automatic cap on the growth of government spending for years to come.

    The Finance Committee amendment, requiring that individual income taxes be indexed annually beginning in 1985 to offset the effects of inflation, was adopted July 16 by a vote of 57-40: R 43-8, D 14-32 (ND 11-20, SD 3-12).

    The measure was vigorously opposed by Democrats and some Republicans who charged it would tie the hands of both the administration and Congress in making future budget and tax decisions.

    But proponents argued that the government unfairly received a tax “bonus” each year as inflation pushed individuals into higher and higher tax brackets. They said such built-in revenue growth made it too easy for Congress to spend more taxpayers' money.

    While lauded at the time as a major victory for fiscal conservatism, indexing soon appeared to be a possible victim of the government spending it was designed to contain. By the end of the year, projections of annual budget deficits approaching $200 billion made some economists and politicians skeptical that indexing would ever take effect.

    11. Targeting Tax Cuts

    One of the two major components of President Reagan's tax cut program — accelerated write-offs for capital investment — enjoyed fairly broad Senate support. But his proposed 23 percent across-the-board cut in individual income taxes became the primary target for Democratic opposition to the bill — and to the administration's entire economic philosophy.

    Many Democrats charged that because income taxes were progressive the bulk of the reduction would be enjoyed by the wealthy, while the poor and middle class would hardly benefit at all. In addition, they said, the cut would mean a loss of $196 billion in tax revenues over the following three years, seriously jeopardizing the goal of a balanced budget in 1984.

    The administration and its Republican defenders said the tax cuts would spur enough economic growth to solve many of the country's fiscal problems.

    Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, D-S.C., July 23 offered an amendment to the tax bill (H J Res 266) that included a one-year, 10 percent cut in individual income taxes, with much of the relief targeted to those earning under $50,000. He said his cut was more likely than the president's to result in a balanced 1984 budget.

    However, public and congressional support was strong for giving the new administration and its revolutionary supply-side tax policies a chance. The amendment was rejected 26-71: R 0-51; D-26-20 (ND 20-12, SD 6-8).

    12. Congressional Pay Raise

    Seeking to avoid politically embarrassing votes in the future, the Senate approved a permanent funding mechanism for pay raises for members of Congress. The action made it much more likely, although not certain, that members will get future pay raises along with other federal employees.

    Congressional salaries have risen very slowly in recent years because members of Congress have been extremely reluctant to go on record in favor of giving themselves more money. Amendments to annual legislative appropriations bills have frozen the pay at $60,622.50 a year since 1979.

    During conference action on a continuing appropriations resolution (H J Res 325), the House proposed that members get a 4.8 percent pay raise. That was rejected by Senate conferees. However, conferees agreed to establish a permanent appropriation for congressional pay increases.

    When the conference report came to the Senate Sept. 30, the permanent appropriation provision was approved by a 48-44 vote: R 37-13; D 11-31 (ND 7-22, SD 4-9).

    As under existing law, the president in the future will propose annual cost-of-living increases for federal employees, including members of Congress. Congress still could reject those proposals.

    If the presidential pay proposal is approved, however, the money for increased congressional salaries will automatically be spent from the Treasury. There will no longer be a need to include funds for the raise in the legislative appropriations measure.

    13. Oil Decontrol

    One of President Reagan's first actions after taking office was his Jan. 28 decontrol of oil prices. Under a plan proposed by his predecessor, President Carter, some controls would have remained in effect until Sept. 30, 1981.

    Reagan said allowing the free market to determine oil prices would stimulate production and encourage conservation. The administration predicted only a moderate rise in oil and gasoline prices as a result of deregulation, but critics of the action were outraged.

    Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, other members of Congress, labor unions and consumer groups filed suit to block the decontrol order, but their effort was rejected by a federal court March 4.

    Metzenbaum admitted he did not have the votes to overturn Reagan's order, but he insisted on a vote to force Republican senators to put a “stamp of approval” on the action. He said that would let the voters know which senators supported higher prices for gasoline and fuel oil.

    When the Senate March 10 considered a bill (S 573) extending antitrust exemptions for oil companies participating in the International Energy Agency, Metzenbaum offered an amendment to nullify Reagan's decontrol order. Although floor debate was one-sided in support of the amendment (opponents knew they had the votes to kill it and did not bother to speak at length on the issue), the amendment was rejected 24-68: R 3-47; D 21-21 (ND 18-10, SD 3-11).

    Senators supporting the amendment were mostly liberals from the Midwest and Northeast, areas that had been hit hard by rising fuel prices.

    14. Tobacco Price Supports

    For the first time in decades, Congress voted on whether tobacco price supports and strict marketing regulations should continue. The politically powerful program survived, but only by a few votes in the Senate.

    President Reagan's budget-cutting and deregulation drives provided new arguments and new allies in Congress for the health groups and liberal members who had attacked the tobacco program before. A further embarrassment for the program was testimony, at an International Trade Commission hearing, that government-owned tobacco stocks were deteriorating in warehouses, at considerable cost to taxpayers.

    Tobacco's opponents said that when the White House stressed a free-market approach, it was time to end what amounted to a federal monopoly for certain farmers to grow the crop.

    Food stamp reductions and cost-cutting in farm and other programs prompted some members to say that tobacco also should bear its share of the budget cuts.

    Tobacco's advocates declared the program was essential to the economy of the rural South. They suggested that without the program, cigarette smoking and its related health problems might grow because cheap tobacco would flood the market. The problem with deteriorating stocks could be cured, they said, by discouraging tobacco imports.

    Tobacco's opponents thought they had just enough votes to kill or substantially change the program when the Senate considered the omnibus farm bill (S 884). But when tobacco votes were pushed into evening hours Sept. 17 during debate on the farm bill, their slender margins of victory vanished.

    First the Senate refused to kill the program outright by 53-42. Then it narrowly rejected, by a 48-45 vote, an amendment by Sen. Thomas F. Eagleton, D-Mo., that would have replaced the fixed support price with discretionary authority for the agriculture secretary to lower support prices. The fixed price support was one of the program's most attractive features for growers.

    On Sept. 18, Eagleton tried again with a similar amendment but lost when the amendment was tabled (killed) by a vote of 41-40: R 28-17; D 13-23 (ND 6-20, SD 7-3). The Senate then passed the farm bill.

    The House later defeated an anti-tobacco amendment but added a recommendation to the farm bill that the program should be run without cost to taxpayers.

    15. Dairy Price Supports

    President Reagan prevailed in an early test of his policy proposals March 27 when Congress canceled a scheduled increase in dairy price supports.

    Under the dairy program, the government is required to buy in the form of dry milk, butter and cheese, all the dairy products farmers are unable to sell at a price equal to the support price. The support price was due to be increased April 1 from its current level of $13.10 per hundredweight to $14.00.

    The Reagan administration argued that the existing support price was so high that it stimulated dairymen to produce more milk, butter and cheese than Americans would buy. The scheduled increase would raise consumer prices and feed inflation, administration officials said.

    Opponents insisted that low feed and livestock prices, not the federal program, had boosted production. They held that foregoing the April 1 price increase would mean small- to moderate-sized dairy operations would have to fold.

    Dairy lobbyists disagreed on whether to fight the cancellation directly, but they coalesced around amendments that would have delayed congressional action.

    A key amendment by Sen. John Melcher, D-Mont., to sharply curtail imports of a milk protein called casein would have caused serious jurisdictional problems and delays in the House. Melcher argued that imports of casein contributed to overproduction by disrupting the domestic market.

    The administration objected that Melcher's amendment would invite trade retaliation from foreign purchasers of American farm products.

    The Republican leadership initially lost a motion to table (kill) Melcher's amendment and kept the dairy bill (S 509) off the Senate floor for a week.

    But by March 24, the administration had mustered enough support to defeat the amendment on a 38-60 vote: R 7-45; D 31-15 (ND 19-12, SD 12-3), and the bill later passed by 88-5.

    16. B-1 Bomber

    By a wider than expected margin, the Senate Dec. 3 turned down an amendment to the fiscal 1982 defense appropriations bill (HR 4995) that would have shifted funds from production of the B-1 bomber to a long list of conventional weapons and combat-readiness improvements.

    Criticism of President Carter's 1977 decision to cancel the B-1 program long had been a staple of Republican political oratory. But by Oct. 2, when President Reagan announced his decision to buy 100 of the planes, some Republicans voiced second thoughts about the program because of its cost — estimated by some at $40 billion — and skyrocketing predictions of the fiscal 1982 deficit.

    Some critics charged that existing B-52s could penetrate Soviet defenses for nearly as long as the B-1s and that a radical new kind of bomber called “stealth” could be in service by 1990 to replace the B-52. The stealth plane would be designed to avoid Soviet detection gear.

    The administration won over Republican skeptics in mid-November by arguing that the cost of modernizing and operating the B-52s would almost equal the cost of buying and operating the B-1s.

    Intertwined with the B-1 issue on this vote was an effort by Senate Democrats to forge a party alternative to Reagan's defense program. Defense specialists spanning a broad band of the party's political spectrum used the defense bill to attack the administration for funding exotic nuclear weapons by diverting funds from the combat readiness of conventional forces.

    On a series of votes on amendments to the bill, the Senate split along nearly straight party lines, with most Democrats backing various “readiness” increases.

    When several of those efforts were linked to an attack on the B-1, the consolidated amendment lost the support of many Democrats who supported the new bomber, and was rejected 28-66: R 5-43; D 23-23 (ND 18-13, SD 5-10).

    House
    1. Earned Income Limit

    The House rejected by a wide margin Oct. 28 a proposal to relax a restriction in the House ethics code on the amount of outside income House members could earn in addition to their official salaries.

    The proposal (H Res 251), drafted by House Rules Committee Chairman Richard Bolling, D-Mo., would have raised the ceiling on a member's outside earned income from 15 percent to 40 percent of the member's official salary. The increase would have applied to members' earnings for 1981 through 1983, after which the ceiling would have reverted to 15 percent.

    The vote to reject the proposal meant that at their current annual salary of $60,662.50, members continued to be bound by a cap of $9,099.37 a year in outside earned income. Under the Bolling proposal, the ceiling would have risen to $24,265 a year.

    The relaxation of the rule appeared to enjoy widespread support and was backed by House leaders on both sides of the aisle. Spurring supporters on was the Senate's total elimination of similar restrictions on senators' outside earned income.

    But in an emotional debate, opponents cited the difficulty of voting for a “backdoor pay raise” during a time of widespread budget cutting and argued that the move would weaken the ethics code.

    Finally, defeat of Bolling's proposal was assured when opponents forced a recorded vote on the matter. The resolution was rejected 147-271: R 73-112; D 74-159 (ND 49-107, SD 25-52).

    But less than two months later, when a recorded vote was avoided, the House reversed itself and approved a similar relaxation of the outside income rule.

    On Dec. 15, the day before the end of the first session, the House approved by unanimous consent a request by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., that the earned income ceiling be raised from 15 percent to 30 percent, beginning in 1981. That proposal (H Res 305) sailed through in about 10 seconds.

    2. Legal Services Corporation

    The House ignored a proposal by the Reagan administration to abolish the Legal Services Corporation and on June 18 voted 245-137 to reauthorize the agency for two years at $241 million annually.

    HR 3480 passed with some Republican support, although GOP members voted overwhelmingly against reauthorization: R 59-116; D 186-21 (ND 137-3, SD 49-18).

    President Reagan wanted to abolish the 7-year-old corporation and let states provide legal services to the poor through social services block grants.

    That plan met with strong opposition from LSC supporters inside and outside Congress. They argued that states — even with help from the private bar — would be unable to provide meaningful legal representation to the poor.

    The vote on final passage did not reflect the intensity of the three-day debate on the bill. A number of amendments were adopted restricting the activities of LSC lawyers. These included a ban on so-called “class action” lawsuits against local, state or federal government agencies, restrictions on the type of aliens who can be represented and a tougher ban on lobbying activities.

    3. Voting Rights Act

    Signaling its support for a strong bill (HR 3112) to extend the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the House Oct. 5 rejected an amendment that would have changed the forum for hearing certain voting discrimination cases.

    The amendment sponsored by M. Caldwell Butler, R-Va., would have required that cases involving jurisdictions covered by key enforcement provisions of the act be heard by three-judge federal panels in those jurisdictions. The amendment specified that none of the judges could be from the jurisdiction involved in the suit.

    Under current law, such suits are heard by a three-judge panel in the District of Columbia.

    Proponents of the amendment contended that it was burdensome and unnecessary to hear voting cases in Washington, D.C. They argued that there are good federal judges all over the country who are capable of properly handling a voting discrimination case.

    Opponents of the amendment contended that it was important to have uniformity in voting-rights decisions and that all cases should be heard by one court. They noted further that the D.C. court had developed expertise in this area of the law.

    Supporters of a strong extension bill knew that HR 3112 was out of danger when the Butler amendment was defeated handily by a 132-277 vote: R 102-75; D 30-202 (ND 4-153, SD 26-49).

    4. Saudi AWACS

    The Reagan administration based its Middle East policy on what it called a “strategic consensus” among nations there that the Soviet Union posed the primary threat to them, notwithstanding their regional disputes.

    To improve U.S. relations with oil giant Saudi Arabia, in part to nurture the Middle East consensus it perceived, the administration decided in the spring of 1981 to sell Saudi Arabia five sophisticated Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) radar planes and other military equipment.

    The decision posed the first major test in Congress of President Reagan's authority in foreign policy.

    Israel strongly opposed the AWACS sale, viewing it as a threat to Israeli air superiority in the Middle East, and the American Jewish community began to campaign against it from the moment the administration acknowledged its plans.

    Critics in Congress said it was unwise to entrust the secrets of the computer-assisted AWACS surveillance system to a nation that often had opposed U.S. policy in the Middle East and whose ruling royal family was seen as vulnerable to being overthrown.

    Saudi Arabia cast the deal as a test of U.S.-Saudi relations. The administration argued that Saudi air defenses must be bolstered to protect Saudi oil fields along the eastern coast of the Arabian Peninsula — the source of much of the industrial West's oil supplies.

    Reagan's problem was that Congress could veto the AWACS sale under a law giving it the right to block major arms deals by passing a concurrent resolution within 30 days of receiving formal notice.

    Formal notice of the deal was delivered on Oct. 1, giving Congress until Oct. 30 to veto the sale.

    The House passed a resolution of disapproval (H Con Res 194) on Oct. 14 by an overwhelming vote of 301-111: R 108-78; D 193-33 (ND 149-5, SD 44-28).

    But Reagan won on the issue after he put his personal prestige on the line. He argued that a congressional veto would undermine his authority to conduct foreign policy, and the Senate failed by a dramatic 48-52 vote on Oct. 28 to pass H Con Res 194. (Senate key vote 2)

    5. B-1 Bomber

    After a narrow victory in the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, House critics of the B-1 bomber were swamped 3-1 on Nov. 18 when they tried to delete $1.8 billion in B-1 procurement funds from the defense appropriations bill (HR 4995).

    B-1 critics argued that the plane would not long be able to penetrate Soviet air defenses and that it would drain funds from development of a new “stealth” bomber, designed to evade Soviet radar.

    But supporters of the B-1 — which President Carter had canceled in June 1977 and President Reagan revived in October 1981 — cited much more optimistic assessments of the B-1's effectiveness against Soviet defenses. And they warned that the technical feasibility of a stealth bomber remained uncertain.

    What likely would have been a victory for B-1 supporters in any case became a cinch when Reagan announced a nuclear arms-control proposal to Moscow a few hours before the B-1 vote. B-1 supporters insisted that a vote against the plane would undermine the U.S. bargaining position in arms control talks with the Russians.

    The amendment to delete B-1 funds was rejected 142-263: R 21-157; D 121-106 (ND 111-42, SD 10-64).

    6. MX Missile

    What might have been a much closer fight became a 2-1 rout when House critics of the MX missile tried Nov. 18 to delete the program from the defense appropriations bill (HR 4995) hours after President Reagan made his nuclear arms reduction proposal to the Soviet Union.

    Republicans and conservative House Democrats stampeded to support both the MX and the B-1 bomber as a symbol of their backing for the president's initiative and to ensure that he would have “bargaining chips” in dealing with Moscow.

    MX opponents insisted that continued work on the missile should await selection of a final basing technique, which Reagan had deferred until 1984. The final design of the missile would be affected by whether it was launched from an airplane or from deep underground, they said, citing two possible basing techniques.

    But the bargaining-chip argument pervaded the debate on an amendment to delete some $1.9 billion for the MX from the defense bill, and the amendment was rejected 139-264: R 27-151; D 112-113 (ND 103-48, SD 9-65).

    7. Tenn-Tom Waterway

    Serving notice that they were less inclined than in the past to go along automatically with funding of costly water projects, House members came closer to killing funding for the 232-mile Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway than ever before.

    With budgetary concerns added to longstanding environmental objections, opponents of the canal managed to come within 20 votes of killing it.

    Concentrating on fiscally conservative freshman members, lobbyists from environmental and taxpayer groups worked for several weeks lining up votes against “Tenn-Tom,” the costliest water project in the nation's history.

    When the fiscal 1982 energy and water appropriations bill (HR 4144) came to the House floor July 23, freshman members helped lead the move to delete the $189 million in funding for Tenn-Tom from the bill.

    Although the freshmen voted 42-30 for the amendment, enough veteran members stuck with the project to save it, and the amendment failed, 198-208: R 108-70; D 90-138 (ND 82-70, SD 8-68).

    As in the Senate (Senate key vote 4), opponents of Tenn-Tom argued that the waterway would cost $3 billion and produce few economic benefits. They said it would be better to kill the canal and have “half a white elephant” than a whole one. Supporters countered that the project would cost only $1.8 billion and claimed the benefits would be substantial.

    8. Clinch River Breeder Reactor

    Just as on the Tenn-Tom Waterway vote, economy-minded House freshmen came closer to killing the funding for the Clinch River (Tenn.) breeder reactor than ever before.

    Freshman members had persuaded the House Science Committee to deauthorize the project in May, but that decision was overturned in the massive budget reconciliation bill (HR 3982) in June. The freshmen tried again July 24 when funding for Clinch River came to the House floor in the fiscal 1982 energy and water appropriations bill (HR 4144).

    While proponents argued that the project would pay for itself through the sale of electricity and that the $1 billion already spent on it would be wasted if it were killed, opponents insisted the breeder reactor could not be justified on economic grounds.

    Freshman members voted 36-34 for an amendment to delete the $228 million for the project from the bill, but the rest of the House was not persuaded and the amendment was rejected 186-206: R 70-104; D 116-102 (ND 107-38, SD 9-64).

    Twenty-eight members, mostly conservative Republicans, who had voted for the project in 1979 voted against it July 24; however, 20 members (19 of them Democrats) who had voted to kill the project in 1979 voted July 24 to continue it.

    9. Debt Limit Increase

    For the first time in many of their careers, House Republicans joined Democrats on Feb. 5 to approve a measure (HR 1553) raising the public debt limit to $985 billion through Sept. 30, 1982. The vote was 305-104: R 150-36; D 155-68 (ND 112-37, SD 43-31).

    The Senate passed the bill a day later, clearing the bill. (Senate key vote 7)

    It was President Reagan's first legislative victory.

    Without an increase in the debt ceiling, the outstanding debt would have hit the existing $935.1 billion limit by mid-February, thus preventing the government from meeting its borrowing needs.

    GOP members, who often had called a vote to increase the debt limit “fiscally irresponsible,” argued that this was merely leftover business from the Carter administration. Marjorie S. Holt, R-Md., justified fiscal conservatives' support for the debt limit increase by noting: “I see for the first time some glimmer of hope that we will bring federal spending under control.”

    10. Budget Cut Instructions

    The May 7 House vote to accept the administration-backed Gramm-Latta budget-cutting plan was both a political and a budget milestone.

    It was the first formal endorsement in the Democratic-controlled House of Reagan's campaign mandate to slash federal spending.

    With the help of 63 Democrats, the House voted 253-176 — R 190-0; D 63-176 (ND 17-144, SD 46-32) — to order its authorizing committees to come up with $36.6 billion in spending cuts for fiscal 1982.

    These reconciliation instructions were included in the first budget resolution (H Con Res 115) that set a fiscal 1982 spending target of $688.8 billion, contemplated a $31 billion deficit and provided room for the president's proposed $51.3 billion tax cut.

    The cuts made under reconciliation would be permanent cuts in authorizations, and signaled a shift in power from the traditional purse-string stronghold — the Appropriations Committee — to the Budget and authorizing committees.

    In accepting the Gramm-Latta substitute to the budget resolution, the House turned aside the product of its own Budget Committee, which had called for slightly higher spending but a smaller tax cut.

    The chief difference between the two measures, however, was that the Budget Committee's reconciliation plan followed the more traditional use of reconciliation. It called for authorizing committees to cut $15.8 billion in fiscal 1982 spending and $23.6 billion in cuts from programs funded by appropriations, which could be changed in future years.

    11. Reconciliation Budget Cuts

    In a stunning victory for the Reagan administration, the House voted on June 26 to overturn the work of its authorizing and Budget committees and instead accept an administration-backed package of $37.3 billion in budget cuts known as Gramm-Latta II.

    The narrow 217-211 victory on the GOP alternative to the budget reconciliation bill (HR 3982) was achieved with the help of 29 hard-core conservative Democrats, thus solidifying the coalition that would put into place the entire Reagan economic program. The complete vote breakdown: R 188-2; D 29-209 (ND 3-157, SD 26-52).

    Before the vote to substitute the Gramm-Latta provisions, Delbert L. Latta, R-Ohio, a cosponsor of the amendment and ranking GOP member of the House Budget Committee, framed the vote this way: “It is a question of whether we can turn the country around economically or not.”

    Members of both political parties, however, were upset with the almost complete lack of details about the Gramm-Latta proposal before the vote was taken. The package of cuts covered the entire spectrum of federal programs — save defense.

    “This has been a terrible way to legislate, but we have no alternatives,” lamented Barber B. Conable Jr., R-N.Y.

    There were two reasons the administration felt it necessary to draft a substitute for the $37.6 billion package agreed to by the authorizing committees and compiled by the Budget Committee. First, the Republicans claimed, the committees had failed to cut back entitlement programs. In addition, they said, the authorizing panels had not gone far enough to fold many categorical social programs together into block grants.

    12. Tax Cuts

    The Democratic-controlled House proved the major battleground for the administration's controversial plans to reduce individual income and business investment taxes.

    The Ways and Means Committee attempted to fashion an alternative to Reagan's tax-cut proposals that would appeal to both waivering conservative Democrats — who had defected to back the administration on an earlier budget vote — and party liberals.

    Their package (HR 4242) called for a two-year, 15 percent cut in individual income taxes skewed to help those earning below $50,000 a year. An additional 10 percent cut during the third year would have been triggered if the economy performed well. The bill also would have cut corporate income tax rates, as well as provided for accelerated depreciation.

    The administration proposed a 23 percent across-the-board cut in individual income taxes and accelerated depreciation for business.

    But in a fierce bidding war for votes, special tax breaks were added to both packages, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish between the two. With a heavy, last-minute lobbying effort by the administration, a number of crucial Democratic votes were wooed to the Republican side.

    The administration-backed substitute to the committee bill, offered by Barber B. Conable Jr., R-N.Y., and conservative Democrat Kent Hance, Texas, was adopted July 29 by a vote of 238-195: R 190-1; D 48-194 (ND 12-151, SD 36-43).

    13. Social Security Minimum

    After President Reagan told a joint session of Congress Feb. 18 that “the full retirement benefits” of 36 million Social Security recipients would “be continued,” Democrats sought to hold him to his word. They condemned his proposal three weeks later to eliminate the $122 minimum monthly benefit for some 3 million Social Security recipients as a cruel reversal of policy.

    Despite the public furor over the cut and growing Republican apprehension, both houses went ahead and separately agreed to cut the benefit as part of a budget reconciliation bill (HR 3982). But when it came time for final approval of the conference agreement, House members balked.

    As a result of negotiations between House and Senate leaders eager to resolve the budget issue, House Rules Committee Chairman Richard Bolling, D-Mo., proposed a rule July 31 to allow consideration of both the reconciliation conference agreement and a bill (HR 4331) to restore the full minimum benefit.

    By a vote of 271-151: R 166-21; D 105-130 (ND 56-101, SD 49-29), the House agreed to end debate and the possibility of further amendment on the rule, thus paving the way for passage of the rule, HR 4331, and the conference report.

    Although most Democrats expressed support for the minimum benefit, many voted against ending debate because they opposed the entire reconciliation package.

    The Senate voted Oct. 15 to restore the minimum payment for some current recipients, and after a lengthy conference Congress agreed to keep the benefit for all current recipients. However, it extended the Social Security payroll tax to the first six months of sick pay to cover most of the $6.1 billion cost for 1982-86 of restoring the benefit.

    14. Social Program Spending

    The House coalition that had passed President Reagan's economic program cracked on the issue of direct spending cuts in social programs.

    More than three dozen Republicans deserted their party leadership to oppose a motion to cut spending in the $87.2 billion appropriations bill for the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education (HR 4560). Reagan Sept. 24 had called for new cuts in fiscal 1982 spending.

    On Oct. 6, Ralph Regula, R-Ohio, offered a motion to recommit the bill to the Appropriations Committee to make reductions in spending. His motion — the first test of congressional support for Reagan's revised budget — was rejected 168-249: R 140-39; D 28-210 (ND 3-157, SD 25-53).

    The vote showed the potential power of the “Gypsy Moths,” a group of moderate House GOP members, mostly from the Northeast and Midwest. These Frost Belt Republicans opposed cuts in programs, such as job training and fuel assistance to the poor, that were particularly helpful to their districts, many of which were facing economic hard times.

    Gypsy Moth Carl D. Pursell, R-Mich., said the group did not want further social spending cuts without accompanying reductions in other areas. “I don't think we can make the [budget] balancing act by just touching this bill,” he told the House. “We want to see a quid pro quo on cuts in [such programs as] defense, water projects and tobacco.”

    15. Foreign Aid Appropriations

    Always an unpopular program, foreign aid was the subject of especially rancorous disputes in a year when domestic spending was being cut deeply.

    Congress was hamstrung in trying to fashion a foreign aid program by a fundamental disagreement in the House between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats over the ratio of military-to-development aid.

    The Reagan administration asked Congress to substantially increase U.S. military aid while stringing out contributions to some international development banks to reduce federal spending.

    The House Appropriations Committee reported its aid appropriations bill (HR 4559) on Sept. 22. But the dispute over military vs. development aid made Democrats reluctant to bring the measure to the floor.

    The stalemate was broken after a fight between President Reagan and Congress in late November over a stopgap funding measure for most of the federal government.

    Reagan challenged Congress to accept its responsibility to pass the appropriations bills. House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr., D-Mass., responded that the House had passed all its appropriations bills except for HR 4559. O'Neill promised to get HR 4559 to the floor if Reagan would round up enough GOP votes to pass it.

    Reagan and Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig Jr. then made personal appeals to House Republicans to get the aid bill through Congress.

    The House finally took up HR 4559 on Dec. 11 and handled it in whirlwind fashion, with key Republicans leading the fight for it by stressing the national security role of foreign aid.

    The House passed the bill by a vote of 199-166. GOP members voted 84-87 against it. But enough of them supported the measure to get it through the House with the help of a majority of Democrats, who voted for it 115-79 (ND 95-36, SD 20-43).

    Both houses cleared the conference report on HR 4559 on Dec. 16, marking the first time Congress had cleared a foreign aid appropriations bill since 1978.

    16. Omnibus Farm Bill

    Fierce competition for a share of the federal pie shattered the historic coalition of farm groups and slowed work on the four-year renewal of farm programs (S 884). The Senate passed a bill meeting President Reagan's stringent budget specifications, but the House passed a far more costly version.

    The conference dragged on for six weeks while the administration adamantly held out for revisions and unhappy House members choked down substantial cuts in their bill.

    The final conference agreement was approved amid such bitterness that some key House members like Thomas S. Foley, D-Wash., Democraic whip and former Agriculture Committee chairman, withheld support until the last.

    The Senate adopted the conference report Dec. 10 by a vote of 68-31.

    But the painful process continued in the House until the last night of the session on Dec. 16, when the House narrowly cleared the bill for the president by a vote of 205-203: R 125-59; D 80-144 (ND 27-121, SD 53-23).

    The two-vote margin reflected the strong pressures on members. Many wanted the bill to pass because the alternatives — having to revert to antiquated and expensive permanent farm laws or to face the 1982 elections with a farm bill rewrite — were worse. But they also wanted the record to show they opposed it because consumer groups, food processors and certain farm interests objected strenuously.

    Dairymen opposed provisions that expressed their minimum supports in dollars instead of percentages of parity, the controversial farm inflation index. Wheat growers also were disturbed by support levels that some felt did not protect them from inflation.

    Consumer groups objected that peanut and sugar provisions would cost American families billions of dollars. But sugar, peanut, corn, cotton, rice and soybean groups all backed the bill.

    The administration had successfully followed a strategy, according to budget director David A. Stockman, of dividing the farm coalition to hold down program increases that farmers wanted.

    1. Justice Department Authorization

    S 951 Johnston, D-La., motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Helms, R-N.C.-Johnston amendment to prohibit federal courts in most instances from ordering school busing for racial balance. Motion agreed to 61-36: R 36-16; D 25-20 (ND 1119, SD 14-1), Sept. 16, 1981. A three-fifths vote (60) of the full Senate is required to invoke cloture.

    2. Saudi AWACS

    H Con Res 194 Adoption of the concurrent resolution disapproving the proposal by President Reagan to sell Saudi Arabia an $8.5 billion package of military equipment consisting of five E-3A Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) radar planes, 1,177 AIM-9L Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, 101 sets of conformal fuel tanks for F-15 fighter planes and six to eight KC-707 tanker aircraft. Rejected 48-52: R 12-41; D 36-11 (ND 28-4, SD 8-7), Oct. 28, 1981. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    3. Fiscal 1981 Supplemental Defense Authorization

    S 694 Tower, R-Texas, motion to table (kill) the Pressler, R-S.D., amendment to delete $7 million for research related to the MX missile. Motion agreed to 79-15: R 44-6; D 35-9 (ND 20-9, SD 15-0), April 7, 1981.

    4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, Fiscal 1982

    HR 4144 Percy, R-Ill., amendment to delete $189 million for the continued construction of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. The effect would be to cancel the project. Rejected 46-48: R 27-21; D 19-27 (ND 17-14, SD 2-13), Nov. 4, 1981. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's positions.

    5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, Fiscal 1982

    HR 4144 Johnston, D-La., motion to table (kill) the Bumpers, D-Ark., amendment as amended by the Tsongas, D-Mass., amendment, to reduce by half ($90 million) the appropriation for the Clinch River (Tenn.) nuclear breeder reactor. Motion agreed to 48-46: R 36-14; D 12-32 (ND 4-26, SD 8-6), Nov. 4, 1981. “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    6. Fiscal 1981 Supplemental Appropriations

    HR 3512 Helms, R-N.C., motion to table (kill) the Appropriations Committee amendment to delete House-passed language prohibiting Medicaid funding of abortions except when needed to save the mother's life. (The effect of the motion was to restore the House prohibition to the bill.) Motion agreed to 52-43: R 33-19: D 19-24 (ND 12-18. SD 7-6) May 21, 1981. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    7. Debt Limit Increase

    HR 1553 Passage of the bill to increase the public debt limit to $985 billion through Sept. 30, 1981. Passed (thus cleared for the president) 73-18: R 46-3; D 27-15 (ND 20-7: SD 7-8), Feb. 6, 1981. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    8. Budget Reconciliation Instructions

    S Con Res 9 Adoption of the concurrent resolution to instruct 14 Senate authorizing and appropriations committees to cut $36.9 billion from 1982 spending. Adopted 88-10: R 51-1; D 37-9 (ND 22-9, SD April 2, 1981. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    9. Fiscal 1981 Supplemental Appropriations

    HR 3512 Hatfield, R-Ore., motion to table (kill) the Moynihan, D-N.Y., amendment stating the sense of the Senate in opposition to President Reagan's proposed reductions on Social Security benefits. Motion agreed to 49-48: R 48-2; D 1-46 (ND 0-32, SD 1-14), May 20, 1981. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    10. Tax Cuts

    H J Res 266 Finance Committee amendment to require, beginning in 1985, that individual income taxes be adjusted, or indexed, annually to offset the effects of inflation. Adopted 57-40: R 43-8; D 14-32 (ND 11-20, SD 3-12), July 16, 1981.

    11. Tax Cuts

    H J Res 266 Hollings, D-S.C., amendment to the Finance Committee bill limiting the size of personal tax reductions and targeting them to middle-income taxpayers in order to achieve a balanced budget by 1984. Rejected 26-71: R 0-51; D 26-20 (ND 20-12, SD 6-8), July 22, 1981. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    12. Fiscal 1982 Continuing Appropriations

    H J Res 325 Hatfield, R-Ore., motion to accept language proposed by House-Senate conferees to provide for a permanent appropriation of funds for congressional pay increases, when recommended by the president and upheld by Congress. Motion agreed to 48-44: R 37-13; D 11-31 (ND 7-22, SD 4-9), Sept. 30, 1981.

    13. Oil Industry Antitrust Exemption

    S 573 Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, amendment to nullify President Reagan's Jan. 28 order terminating immediately all remaining controls on oil and gasoline. Rejected 24-68: R 3-47; D 21-21 (ND 18-10; SD 3-11), March 10, 1981. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position. (The bill, to extend through Sept. 30, 1981, antitrust exemptions for oil companies participating in the programs of the International Energy Agency, subsequently was passed by voice vote.)

    14. Agriculture and Food Act of 1981

    S 884 Huddleston, D-Ky., motion to table (kill) the Eagleton, D-Mo., amendment to allow the agriculture secretary to establish price support levels for certain grades of tobacco deemed by the secretary to be in excessive supply and non-competitive, except that the level may not go below 75 percent of the level established for the 1982 crop of that kind of tobacco. Motion agreed to 41-40: R 28-17; D 13-23 (ND 6-20, SD 7-3), Sept. 18, 1981.

    15. Milk Price Supports

    S 509 Melcher, D-Mont., amendment to establish a quota on the importation of casein products into the United States. Rejected 38-60: R 7-45; D 31-15 (ND 19-12, SD 12-3), March 24, 1981. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    16. Defense Appropriations, Fiscal 1982

    HR 4995 Hollings, D-S.C., amendment to delete from the bill $2.429 billion for research on and procurement of the B-1B bomber, and to distribute the money among other accounts. Rejected 28-66: R 5-43; D 23-23 (ND 18-13, SD 5-10), Dec. 3, 1981. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    1. House Earned Income Limit

    H Res 251 Adoption of the resolution to increase the limitation on House members' outside earned income from 15 percent to 40 percent of their official salary, and to increase the limit on each individual honorarium payment for a speech, article or personal appearance from $1,000 to $2,000, for calendar years 1981 through 1983. Rejected 147-271: R 73-112; D 74-159 (ND 49-107, SD 25-52), Oct. 28, 1981.

    2. Legal Services Corporation

    HR 3480 Passage of the bill to reauthorize the Legal Services Corporation for fiscal 1982–83, at $241 million annually. Passed 245-137: R 59-116; D 186-21 (ND 137-3, SD 49-18), June 18, 1981. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    3. Voting Rights Act Extension

    HR 3112 Butler, R-Va., amendment to allow three-judge federal district courts to hear petitions by jurisdictions seeking to bail out from coverage of the Voting Rights Act. Rejected 132-277: R 102-75; D 30-202 (ND 4-153, SD 26-49), Oct. 5, 1981.

    4. Disapproving AWACS Sale

    H Con Res 194 Adoption of the concurrent resolution disapproving the sale to Saudi Arabia of Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) radar planes, conformal fuel tanks for F-15 aircraft, AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles and KC-707 aerial refueling aircraft. Adopted 301-111: R 108-78; D 193-33 (ND 149-5, SD 44-28), Oct. 14, 1981. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    5. Defense Department Appropriations, Fiscal 1982

    HR 4995 Addabbo, D-N.Y., amendment to delete $1.801 billion from Air Force procurement intended for the B-1 bomber. Rejected 142-263: R 21-157; D 121-106 (ND 111-42, SD 10-64), Nov. 18, 1981. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    6. Defense Department Appropriations, Fiscal 1982

    HR 4995 Addabbo, D-N.Y., amendment to delete $1,913,200,000 in Air Force research, development, test and evaluation funds for the MX missile and basing system. Rejected 139-264: R 27-151; D 112-113 (ND 103-48, SD 9-65), Nov. 18, 1981. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, Fiscal 1982

    HR 4144 Pritchard, R-Wash., amendment, to the Myers, R-Ind., amendment, to delete $189 million for the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. Rejected 198-208: R 108-70; D 90-138 (ND 82-70, SD 8-68), July 23, 1981. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    8. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, Fiscal 1982

    HR 4144 Coughlin, R-Pa., amendment to delete $228 million for the Clinch River (Tenn.) nuclear breeder reactor. Rejected 186-206: R 70-104; D 116-102 (ND 107-38, SD 9-64), July 24, 1981. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    9. Debt Limit Increase

    HR 1553 Passage of the bill to increase the public debt limit to $985 billion through Sept. 30, 1981. Passed 305-104: R 150-36; D 155-68 (ND 112-37, SD 43-31), Feb. 5, 1981. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    10. Fiscal 1982 Budget Targets

    H Con Res 115 Latta, R-Ohio, substitute, to the resolution as reported by the Budget Committee, to decrease budget authority by $23.1 billion, outlays by $25.7 billion and revenues by $31.1 billion, resulting in a $31 billion deficit for fiscal 1982. Adopted 253-176: R 190-0; D 63-176 (ND 17-144, SD 46-32), May 7, 1981. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    11. Budget Reconciliation

    HR 3982 Latta, R-Ohio, amendments, considered en bloc, to strike parts of six titles of the bill recommended by the following committees — Agriculture; Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs; Education and Labor; Post Office and Civil Service; Science and Technology; and Ways and Means — and to substitute provisions endorsed by President Reagan. Adopted 217-211: R 188-2; D 29-209 (ND 3-157, SD 26-52), June 26, 1981. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    12. Tax Cuts

    HR 4242 Conable, R-N.Y., substitute amendment to the bill to reduce individual income tax rates by 25 percent across-the-board over three years, to index tax rates beginning in 1985 and to provide business and investment tax incentives. Adopted 238-195: R 190-1; D 48-194 (ND 12-151, SD 36-43), July 29, 1981. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    13. Minimum Social Security Benefits/Budget Reconciliation

    HR 4331/HR 3982 Bolling, D-Mo., motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 203) providing for consideration of 1) the bill (HR 4331) to amend the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (HR 3982) to restore minimum Social Security benefits and 2) the reconciliation act conference report. Motion agreed to 271-151: R 166-21; D 105-130 (ND 56-101, SD 49-29), July 31, 1981.

    14. Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations, Fiscal 1982

    HR 4560 Regula, R-Ohio, motion to recommit the bill to the Appropriations Committee. Rejected 168-249: R 140-39; D 28-210 (ND 3-157; SD 25-53), Oct. 6, 1981. (The bill, appropriating $87,181,250,000 for the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies, subsequently was passed by voice vote.) A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    15. Foreign Aid Appropriations, Fiscal 1982

    HR 4559 Passage of the bill to appropriate $7,440,280,064 for foreign aid and related programs in fiscal 1982. Passed 199-166: R 84-87; D 115-79 (ND 95-36, SD 20-43), Dec. 11, 1981. (The president had requested $7,775,098,683.)

    16. Agriculture and Food Act of 1981

    S 884 Adoption of the conference report on the bill to reauthorize for four years price support and other farm programs and, for one year, food stamps. Adopted 205-203: R 125-59; D 80-144 (ND 27-121, SD 53-23), Dec. 16, 1981. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    Appendix

    1982 Key Votes

    Senate
    1. Fiscal 1983 Budget

    Congress gave short shrift to President Reagan's fiscal 1983 budget, in marked contrast to its ratification of Reagan's initial budget in 1981. But it took the lawmakers months to fashion their own substitute for the president's blueprint, which had called for further sweeping cuts in domestic spending combined with unprecedented increases in military programs.

    Senate Republicans ultimately succeeded May 21 in pushing through their fiscal 1983 budget proposal (S Con Res 92) on a near party-line vote of 49-43: R 46-2; D 3-41 (ND 1-28, SD 2-13).

    Senate action followed the collapse of prolonged efforts by White House and bipartisan congressional negotiators to draft a compromise plan. The White House agreed to some concessions only after the Republican-controlled Senate Budget Committee unanimously repudiated the president's budget and prepared to report a budget resolution the administration did not support.

    Senate Republicans successfully fended off Democratic attempts to restore funding for many domestic programs and to repeal the third installment of the 1981 individual income tax cut. But in order to secure passage, GOP leaders acceded to pressure from moderate Republicans and partisan sniping from Democrats to eliminate from the resolution reported by the Budget Committee a proposal to reduce the cost of Social Security benefits by $40 billion over three years.

    The Senate-passed resolution called for $784.3 billion in spending, $668.4 billion in revenues and a $115.9 billion deficit in fiscal 1983. The measure included reconciliation instructions that required Senate and House committees to recommend legislative savings to meet the resolution's deficit reduction targets.

    The House June 10 adopted a Republican substitute for President Reagan's fiscal 1983 budget by a narrow 220-207 margin. (House key vote 3)

    2. Emergency Housing Aid

    Senate Republicans signaled their willingness to break with President Reagan over providing aid to the troubled economy when they voted May 27 for a $5.1 billion housing aid program. Despite Reagan's strong opposition to the housing industry “bailout,” the Senate approved the amendment offered by Richard G. Lugar, R-Ind., by a vote of 69-23: R 29-20; D 40-3 (ND 27-1, SD 13-2).

    The amendment to the fiscal 1982 “urgent” supplemental appropriations bill (HR 5922) would have provided mortgage interest rate assistance to buyers of new homes. It would have allowed families with incomes of up to $37,000 a year to get subsidies to lower their interest rate by up to 4 percentage points on mortgages of up to $77,600.

    Under heavy political pressure to do something about high unemployment in an election year, Lugar and other Republican backers of the amendment argued that high interest rates were preventing all but the wealthiest families from being able to buy a new home. They said interest rate subsidies would spur new construction, create up to 700,000 new jobs and help lead the economy out of its deep recession.

    Although the aid was reduced to $3 billion in conference with the House, which had passed a $1 billion housing measure, Reagan followed through on his threat to veto the bill, and the housing program never went into effect. (House key vote 1)

    3. Tobacco Price Supports

    The perils-of-Pauline existence of the tobacco price-support program was illustrated by a July 14 Senate vote of 49-47: R 29-23; D 20-24 (ND 7-23, SD 13-1) to preserve the program's permanent status in law.

    The vote came the week before the Senate soundly overrode tobacco state efforts to kill a plan to double the excise taxes on cigarettes and then adopted a conciliatory compromise to repeal the increase on Sept. 30, 1985.

    At issue July 14 was an industry-backed bill (HR 6590) designed to silence tobacco's critics by making new assessments on tobacco growers to help pay the costs of the price-support program. The vote killed an amendment by Sen. Thomas F. Eagleton, D-Mo., that would have ended tobacco's permanent authorization by continuing it just through 1985, when other major commodity programs were scheduled to expire.

    Permanent status in the past helped tobacco allies evade debate and votes on the program. Nevertheless, foes had become more and more vocal, criticizing what they called a politically protected “feudal” system of federal allotments and quotas, which amounted to licenses to grow the lucrative crop.

    In 1981, critics forced a series of votes on the program. At one point the Senate came within 11 votes of canceling the program altogether, and the 1981 farm bill (PL 97-98) required that the program be operated at no net cost to the Treasury.

    4. Western Water Law

    Moving to end a longstanding fight between environmentalists and Western farmers, Congress rewrote an 80 year-old law governing the use of federal irrigation water on private farm land. The bill cleared by Congress raised price farmers pay for some of the water and greatly increased the number of federally irrigated acres an individual could farm.

    Advocates said the changes recognized modern farming practices in Western states that were served by federal water reclamation projects. They also claimed that the new law would encourage water conservation and the development of smaller farms, as environmentalists wanted. But angry environmental groups were not satisfied and called the measure a sellout to large corporate farms, some of which controlled thousands of cheaply irrigated acres.

    Acting on those objections, Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, delayed floor action on the measure for several days, using quorum calls and other dilatory tactics. He broke off his mini-filibuster only when bill sponsors agreed to offer a compromise amendment raising prices for some of the water above those of the committee bill and reducing new farm acreage limits somewhat. On July 16, the Senate adopted the compromise by a 60-5 vote.

    With the logjam broken, the Senate then passed the bill (HR 5539) by a 49-13 vote, clearing the way for a House-Senate conference and enactment of the law: R 30-3; D 19-10 (ND 12-10, SD 7-9).

    5. Tax/Spending Reconciliation

    One of the most difficult pieces of legislation to be enacted in the 97th Congress was a bill (HR 4961) to raise taxes $98.3 billion and to cut spending $17.5 billion over three years.

    Not only did it come shortly before the midterm elections, but support of the measure meant an about-face for many members from the tax-cutting themes they had espoused the year before. In addition, provisions calling for higher tobacco taxes and the withholding of tax from interest and dividend income proved particularly troublesome to many members.

    But in the end, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Robert Dole, R-Kan., was able to push a carefully crafted package through the reluctant Senate. He did so in part by threatening to take the bill back to committee and substitute even more unpopular tax hikes for any provisions defeated on the floor.

    Members were caught in a bind since they already had voted to raise the $98.3 billion as a deficit-reducing measure in the fiscal 1983 budget resolution (S Con Res 92) adopted May 21. (Senate key vote 1)

    The final vote on passage of the bill early July 23 was close — 50-47: R 49-3; D 1-44 (ND 0-30, SD 1-14). Democrats, with the exception of Independent Harry F. Byrd Jr., Va., who caucused with the minority party, did nothing to help Republicans out of their fiscal predicament.

    That left the House with two choices: to come up with its own tax-increase package or go directly to conference with the Senate. By a 208-197 vote, the House July 28 opted to proceed to conference. (House key vote 5)

    6. Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment

    Balanced-budget lobbying groups and Senate fiscal conservatives scored a victory Aug. 4 as the Senate approved a proposed constitutional amendment (S J Res 58) requiring a balanced federal budget except in times of declared war or when three-fifths of the Congress agreed to deficit spending. The vote was also a victory for President Reagan, who endorsed the amendment even as he presided over record deficits.

    The vote was 69-31, two more than the two-thirds of those present and voting (67 in this case) required to pass a constitutional amendment: R 47-7; D 22-24 (ND 9-22, SD 13-2).

    Despite election-year jitters and pressure from Reagan, the House subsequently defeated the balanced budget amendment 236-187, 46 votes short of the two-thirds required. (House key vote 9)

    S J Res 58 won the backing of Robert Dole, R-Kan., chairman of the Finance Committee, and Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the Budget Committee, although Domenici did not support the measure until he secured a package of amendments he said added more flexibility to the amendment. Appropriations Chairman Mark O. Hatfield, R-Ore., also voted for the measure.

    Proponents contended that a constitutional amendment was needed to force fiscal discipline upon Congress. But opponents said the amendment was unworkable and complained that while Congress would have to adopt a balanced budget, the president could submit a document with deficit spending.

    Opponents conceded at the outset, however, that their fight was a tough one. They said many senators were unwilling to oppose the amendment publicly because it would look like a vote against the concept of balanced budgets.

    7. Cap on Federal COLAs

    Efforts to limit automatic cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) in federal retirement programs illustrated the difficulties confronting Congress as it set out to curb spending under government entitlement programs, which guarantee a certain level of benefits to all persons who meet the requirements set by law.

    Although the fiscal 1983 budget resolution (S Con Res 92) had recommended a 4 percent cap on COLAs for federal and military retirees to meet its deficit reduction requirements, a more modest limit on COLA spending barely squeaked through Congress as part of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1982.

    The Senate Aug. 4 narrowly defeated by a 48-51 vote — R 10-44; D 38-7 (ND 30-1, SD 8-6) — an amendment to eliminate a 4 percent COLA cap for federal and military retirees from its version of the reconciliation bill (S 2774).

    The Senate action came one day after the House snubbed its reconciliation instructions by refusing to impose the COLA cap. Senate-House conferees ultimately settled on a plan to delay federal COLA increases by one month in each of the next three years and to cut in half COLAs for federal retirees under age 62, for three-year budget savings of $4.1 billion.

    Budget leaders applauded the move as a first step toward controlling automatic increases in Social Security and other federal benefit programs. “This is a historic change,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M.

    8. Veto Override

    Smacking President Reagan with his first significant budget defeat, Congress Sept. 10 overrode his Aug. 28 veto of a $14.2 billion supplemental appropriations bill (HR 6863) that he called a “budget buster.”

    Reagan objected that the bill cut his request for defense spending while providing $918 million too much for social spending — money he had not requested and some of which he had previously vetoed.

    Members of Congress denied the bill was a budget buster. They pointed out that it was nearly $2 billion under Reagan's total request for additional fiscal 1982 funding. Congress, they said, had simply put its own stamp on the spending priorities, allowing less for the military and more for education and jobs for senior citizens.

    Returning from its Labor Day recess, the House voted to override the veto Sept. 9 by a vote of 301-117. (House key vote 7)

    Worried by the unexpectedly strong override vote in the House, the White House lobbied furiously to get senators to stick with the president. It even arranged to have several flown back to Washington for the vote. But despite Reagan's personal pleas to many senators and the presence of Vice President George Bush in the chamber, the Republican-controlled Senate Sept. 10 also voted to override. The margin was as close as it could get — 60-30, the exact two-thirds majority required: R 21-26; D 39-4 (ND 31-0, SD 8-4).

    Appropriations Committee Chairman Mark O. Hatfield, R-Ore., who had caught a late-night flight from Oregon to lead the Senate fight for the override, said Reagan had acted on “very poor advice.”

    Of the 11 Republican senators up for re-election in 1982, seven voted against Reagan, two voted with him and two were absent.

    9. Abortion

    Efforts to pass anti-abortion legislation came to a halt in the Senate Sept. 15 after members grew weary of a filibuster and voted to lay aside a proposal designed to virtually ban abortion.

    The vote marked the end of an 18-month drive by a handful of senators and interest groups who had hoped that the Republican takeover of the Senate in the 97th Congress would result in legislation sharply restricting a woman's right to an abortion.

    The showdown came on an anti-abortion amendment by Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., to unrelated debt limit legislation (H J Res 520). A week-long effort by President Reagan in support of the Helms proposal was to no avail, as one-third of the Senate's Republicans voted with a majority of its Democrats to kill the amendment.

    The vote on the motion to table, and thus kill, the Helms anti-abortion amendment, which technically was an amendment to a separate Helms school prayer amendment to the debt bill, was 47-46: R 18-33; D 29-13 (ND 22-7, SD 7-6).

    The underlying school prayer amendment was derailed Sept. 23 when the Senate by a 79-16 vote adopted a motion by Majority Leader Howard H. Baker Jr., R-Tenn., to recommit the debt ceiling measure to the Finance Committee with instructions to strip off all amendments.

    Throughout the six-week Senate debate on abortion and school prayer, opponents labeled both Helms amendments “court-stripping” proposals, charging they would unwisely and unconstitutionally infringe upon the power of the federal courts to review laws enacted by the states and Congress.

    10. Senators' Income Limits

    In 1977, as a condition for taking a $12,900 pay raise, both House and Senate agreed to strict ethics codes for members. One provision in both codes limited the outside earnings of senators and representatives to 15 percent of their salaries.

    This limit was to apply only to earned income, such as honoraria for speeches or legal work, not to unearned income, such as dividend payments. A separate 1976 law (PL 94-283) had limited the net amount members could receive in honoraria for speeches, appearances or articles to $25,000 annually.

    However, in 1979, when the 15 percent limit on outside income in the Senate was to take effect, members voted to delay the effective date until Jan. 1, 1983.

    And in 1981, Congress repealed the $25,000 honoraria limit. Some senators earned as much as $48,000 during that year.

    As the 1983 effective date for the 15 percent limit approached, the Senate Dec. 14, with little debate, approved a resolution (S Res 512) abolishing that restriction as well. The vote was 54-38: R 39-12; D 15-26 (ND 9-19, SD 6-7).

    Fourteen senators who had voted for the 15 percent limit in 1977 switched in 1982 and voted to abolish it.

    No House action was required. The change meant that senators could earn as much as they chose beyond their Senate salary by giving speeches, practicing law or any other legal means.

    The Senate's decision also laid the groundwork for a salary deal with the House. As part of the second continuing resolution (H J Res 631), representatives, who retained a 30 percent limit on outside income, got a 15 percent pay raise. Senators got no raise but had no ceilings on outside income. (House key vote 12)

    11. MX Missile

    President Reagan won the Senate round of his battle to begin production of the MX missile, but only after he had substantially compromised with congressional critics of the so-called “dense pack” basing method.

    On Nov. 22, Reagan proposed deployment of 100 MXs in heavily armored underground silos close together. He argued that attacking Soviet missile warheads would destroy each other while leaving most of the MXs unscathed.

    He argued that the new, more powerful land-based MX missile was needed to offset Moscow's arsenal of ICBM warheads, which were more numerous and more powerful than current U.S. weapons. He also maintained that the Russians would agree to reduce their nuclear arsenals only if confronted by clear indications that the United States would match Soviet forces if no arms control agreement was reached.

    The House voted Dec. 7 against appropriating money for procurement of the missile. (House key vote 11)

    On Dec. 15, the Senate Appropriations Committee adopted 16-12 an amendment that left the MX procurement money in the second fiscal 1983 continuing resolution (H J Res 631) that contained appropriations for the Defense Department, but barred its expenditure until Congress approved an MX basing method by concurrent resolution.

    The White House and senior senators of both parties who supported MX then drafted an amendment to the committee provision that would guarantee congressional action within 45 days of the time the president submitted a report to Congress on dense pack and various alternative basing methods.

    This would preclude a filibuster against a resolution to approve a basing method.

    On Dec. 17, the Senate adopted the administration-sanctioned amendment 56-42: R 41-12; D 15-30 (ND 6-24, SD 9-6).

    12. Clinch River Breeder Reactor

    Twice in 1982, the Senate by a one-vote margin chose to continue funding for the controversial Clinch River nuclear breeder reactor.

    The votes were a test of strength for Senate Majority Leader Howard H. Baker Jr., R-Tenn., whose state was the home of the Clinch River site. Support for the project in both houses of Congress had been declining in recent years, and traditionally pro-nuclear conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation had gone on record against it.

    “If it were not for the majority leader, if it were not being built in his state, it would long ago have been terminated,” Dale Bumpers, D-Ark., said Dec. 17, after the Senate upheld the project for the second time. Baker reportedly herded some of his Republican colleagues who were reluctant to take a stand on the issue onto the Senate floor during the final minutes of the vote.

    That vote came just three days after the House had voted 217-196 to kill Clinch River. (House key vote 13)

    A compromise agreement later was worked out in conference that continued funding at the 1982 level for engineering and site preparation but prohibited construction of any major facilities.

    The Clinch River project, authorized in 1970, was designed to demonstrate the feasibility of breeder reactors — nuclear power reactors that run on plutonium and create, as a byproduct, more plutonium than they consume. The reactor originally was scheduled to be completed in 1983 but because of controversy and delays, ground was not broken until September 1982. Official cost estimates of the project soared from $700 million to $3.6 billion, while the need for the reactor became more difficult to demonstrate.

    The Senate first took up the issue Sept. 29, when it defeated a Bumpers amendment to delete Clinch River funds from the first fiscal 1983 continuing appropriations resolution (H J Res 599). After losing by a single vote then, opponents hoped they could win the vote on the second continuing resolution (H J Res 631) in December. But the Appropriations Committee amendment reinstating the Clinch River funds, which had been deleted by the House, passed 49-48: R 38-14; D 11-34 (ND 4-26, SD 7-8).

    13. Doctors, Federal Trade Commission

    Congressional allies of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) blocked an attempt to exempt doctors and other professionals from agency jurisdiction.

    Their success came seven months after both the House and Senate overwhelmingly vetoed an FTC rule requiring used-car dealers to disclose information about auto defects.

    The American Medical Association (AMA) had lobbied successfully to include the exemption for doctors and other state-regulated professionals in a House-passed authorization bill and a Senate committee bill. The AMA said that Congress had not given the FTC authority to regulate doctors and that the agency had interfered with quality of care issues.

    Administration officials, the FTC and others argued that the FTC had authority to regulate anti-competitive business practices of professionals, such as price-setting and boycotts, and should be allowed to retain that power.

    Opponents of the exemption blocked it on three fronts: an FTC authorization, a regular appropriations bill and the second fiscal 1983 continuing appropriations resolution.

    They prevented Senate consideration of an FTC authorization bill that contained the exemption, thereby avoiding a House-Senate conference on the authorization.

    Then because there was no authorization, the supporters succeeded in getting the House to delete FTC funds from the regular fiscal 1983 State, Justice, Commerce appropriations (HR 6957). That prevented new FTC restrictions, including the exemption for professionals, from being attached to the appropriations bill.

    However, the second fiscal 1983 continuing appropriations resolution then before the Senate (H J Res 631) included FTC monies and continued some existing curbs, such as the congressional veto over agency rules. The measure also contained a provision by Warren B. Rudman, R-N.H., allowing the FTC to regulate doctors as long as it did not interfere with state laws governing professional training and experience requirements. Rudman, an opponent of the exemption for professionals, argued that no group should be above the law.

    In a session that began Dec. 16, James A. McClure, R-Idaho, offered an amendment to bar the use of FTC funds to regulate professionals. The Senate by a vote of 59-37 adopted a Rudman motion to table, or kill, the McClure amendment: R 31-21; D 28-16 (ND 23-7, SD 5-9).

    That allowed the Senate to go to conference with the House with only the less restrictive Rudman language under consideration. When the provision was dropped by the conferees, FTC supporters claimed victory, as did the AMA, which opposed the Rudman provision because even with its qualifications, it gave explicit congressional approval to FTC regulation of professionals.

    14. Job Creation

    Reacting to a mounting unemployment rate and Democratic election gains, the Senate Appropriations Committee added $1.2 billion for jobs under a variety of public works programs to its version of the second fiscal 1983 continuing appropriations resolution (H J Res 631).

    Appropriations Committee Chairman Mark O. Hatfield, R-Ore., argued that “this was the only opportunity the Senate will have” in the lame-duck session to show its concern about jobs.

    But Budget Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M., called the jobs money “pork-barrel personified.” He said the Senate should not engage in a bidding war with the House, which had included $5.4 billion for job creation in its version of the funding bill.

    Domenici, along with Majority Leader Howard H. Baker Jr., R-Tenn., and Finance Committee Chairman Robert Dole, R-Kan., sought to delete the $1.2 billion for jobs during floor action early Dec. 17. Their amendment was defeated 46-50: R 39-12; D 7-38 (ND 3-27, SD 4-11).

    In the House, a Republican motion to recommit the continuing resolution to the Appropriations Committee with instructions to delete the $5.4 billion for jobs programs was rejected 191-215. (House key vote 14)

    Although both the Senate and House versions of the continuing resolution thus included money for jobs programs, conferees bowed to President Reagan's veto threats and dropped the jobs funding from the final measure.

    15. Highway-Gas Tax Bill

    A series of filibusters and a host of amendments threatened Senate passage of a bill to raise gasoline taxes for the first time since 1959. The legislation (HR 6211) increasing highway taxes to finance highway, bridge and mass transit improvements had been wrapped in the aura of a jobs bill, winning both bipartisan congressional support and the backing of the president.

    In contrast to the House, which had comfortably approved the package one day after a 197-194 vote Dec. 6 on adoption of a rule for its consideration, the Senate staggered through days and nights of marathon sessions punctuated by bitter debate before passing its version of the bill in a session that began Dec. 20. (House key vote 10)

    The filibusters started as soon as the Senate began considering the bill Dec. 10. It was unclear whether there would be enough time in the lame-duck session for the Senate to pass the bill and go to conference with the House.

    Supporters contended that the bill was necessary to complete the Interstate Highway System, repair the nation's deteriorating transportation infrastructure and help create more than 300,000 new jobs. Under the measure, the gas tax was increased a nickel, to a total of 9 cents a gallon, to raise an additional $5.5 billion a year to help pay for the improvements. Heavy trucks also had to pay higher taxes.

    Four Republicans — Jesse Helms, N.C., John P. East, N.C., Gordon J. Humphrey, N.H., and Don Nickles, Okla. — objected to the tax increases, contending that a recession was a bad time to hike taxes.

    Their tactics forced a series of time-consuming parliamentary manuevers that left tempers frayed and prompted intensified lobbying by the administration and highway interests. Finally, the Senate passed the bill 56-34: R 35-15; D 21-19 (ND 14-12, SD 7-7).

    The Senate version authorized about $70 billion for highways through fiscal 1987 and about $12 billion for mass transit through fiscal 1985, and increased gas and other highway taxes.

    A conference report authorizing more than $71 billion for highways and mass transit over four years was adopted by the House Dec. 21. Filbusters continued to delay Senate action until Dec. 23, when it adopted the report.

    House
    1. Emergency Housing Aid

    Facing growing pressure to do something for the recession-hit housing industry, House Democratic leaders agreed to back a $1 billion mortgage interest rate subsidy program. The measure, added as an amendment to the fiscal 1982 “urgent” supplemental appropriations bill (HR 5922), was adopted May 12 by a vote of 343-67: R 128-52; D 215-15 (ND 149-6, SD 66-9).

    The amendment was the first in a series of job-creation proposals pushed by House Democrats in 1982 in an effort to counter rapidly rising unemployment.

    Actually, the Democratic leadership initially did not want to include the program in the supplemental funding bill, which contained a number of time-sensitive appropriations needed to keep government agencies in operation. President Reagan opposed the housing “bailout,” and it seemed destined to lead to a veto of the whole bill.

    But the amendment was needed to forestall House approval of a Republican-backed amendment that threatened one of the pet projects of Majority Leader Jim Wright, D-Texas: the synthetic fuels program. Thomas B. Evans Jr., R-Del., and Tom Corcoran, R-Ill., were proposing an amendment to take $1 billion from funds already appropriated for the synfuels program, to be used to create low-interest housing loans.

    When it appeared that the House would approve the Evans-Corcoran amendment, the Democrats came up with their own housing aid program that did not take money from synfuels. With strong lobbying support from the housing industry, the amendment carried easily.

    The Senate subsequently passed a $5.1 billion housing aid program. (Senate key vote 2)

    Conferees compromised on a $3 billion program, but Reagan carried out his veto threat and the program never became law.

    2. Medicare Funding

    In a clear-cut guns vs. butter vote that led to defeat of the first fiscal 1983 budget resolution (H Con Res 345), the House May 27 agreed to increase Medicare outlays by $4.85 billion while cutting defense spending by the same amount.

    The 228-196 vote — R 64-125; D 164-71 (ND 136-20, SD 28-51) — came on an amendment offered by Mary Rose Oakar, D-Ohio, to the administration-backed substitute for the resolution.

    Democrats saw in the Oakar amendment a chance to cast their Republican colleagues as people who would “choose a 40-year-old battleship over their 80-year-old mother,” as one Democrat put it. Republicans who opposed defense cuts were nonetheless reluctant to be portrayed as voting against the elderly in an election year.

    House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel, R-Ill., said adoption of the Oakar amendment was the “margin of difference” that meant defeat for the GOP budget plan. The Oakar amendment also was added to the other major budget alternatives the House was considering, all of which went down to defeat May 27–28.

    3. Fiscal 1983 Budget

    On its second attempt to pass a budget resolution, the House June 10 adopted a Republican substitute for President Reagan's fiscal 1983 budget, which had been sent to the floor by the House Budget Committee (H Con Res 352). This was the final repudiation of the Reagan budget.

    The Senate May 21 had adopted its own version of a fiscal 1983 budget resolution by a vote of 49-43. (Senate key vote 1)

    By squeezing the deficit below $100 billion and maintaining party discipline, House Republican leaders eked out a narrow 220-207 — R 174-15; D 46-192 (ND 9-151, SD 37-41) — victory for the substitute, named after the ranking Republican member of the Budget Committee, Delbert L. Latta, Ohio. The specter of continued stalemate and fiscal chaos helped assure approval of the resolution, which subsequently passed by a 219-206 margin.

    The measure called for $765.17 billion in spending, $665.90 billion in revenues and a $99.27 billion deficit in fiscal 1983. The House resolution followed the same pattern as the Senate version — making further cuts in entitlement and discretionary domestic spending while allowing sizable increases for defense and maintaining the third installment of the 1981 individual income tax cut.

    4. Chemical Weapons

    The House July 22 rejected an administration move to begin production of a new type of lethal, chemical weapons called “binary munitions.”

    The administration maintained that the new weapons were needed to prod the Soviet Union to negotiate a chemical weapons ban and to deter use of the large Soviet chemical weapons arsenal. Current U.S. chemical weapons were inadequate for either purpose, the administration argued, because they were becoming unsafe to handle due to internal chemical reactions.

    But opponents of production of binary weapons warned that production of the new arms would surrender the valuable propaganda leverage the United States had gained by abstaining from chemical weapons production for the past 13 years. Most of the opponents also maintained that the new weapons were militarily unnecessary. Existing chemical weapons stocks were sufficient to force enemy troops to don clumsy and tiring protective suits and masks, they said.

    The showdown came during debate on the fiscal 1983 defense authorization bill (HR 6030) when the House in effect rejected the administration position 192-225: R 112-72; D 80-153 (ND 27-132, SD 53-21).

    5. Tax Increases

    With an election looming in November, House Democrats gladly let the Republican-controlled Senate take the lead in putting together a tax-increase bill to help reduce the federal budget deficit. (Senate key vote 5)

    Even though the Constitution requires all tax legislation to originate in the House, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill., made it clear early on that he saw the deficit as a Republican problem and raising taxes as a Republican responsibility.

    When the Senate did produce its own package July 22, it was attached to a minor House-passed measure (HR 4961) to address the technical niceties of the Constitution.

    That left the House with two choices: to come up with its own tax-increase package or to go directly to conference with the Senate. After a short-lived attempt to produce a tax-hike plan within Ways and Means, Rostenkowski decided it was hopeless. Even if one could pass the committee, floor passage looked doubtful.

    The committee agreed to bypass the House and go directly to conference on the Senate bill. The House agreed July 28 by a vote of 208-197: R 44-137; D 164-60 (ND 116-35, SD 48-25).

    Despite considerable rhetoric that the House was shirking its constitutional duties, many members were relieved that they would not have their fingerprints on the politically troublesome legislation.

    6. Nuclear Freeze

    The administration averted by the narrowest of margins a major symbolic rebuff to its nuclear arms policy when the House Aug. 5 rejected a call for a nuclear weapons “freeze.”

    The freeze proposal had its roots in a far-flung grass-roots movement that had swelled through the spring, fueled largely by doubts that the administration was seriously committed to seeking arms control agreements with Moscow.

    As reported by the House Foreign Affairs Committee in late June, the freeze resolution (H J Res 521) called on the United States and Soviet Union to decide “when and how to achieve a mutual verifiable freeze” on the testing, production and deployment of nuclear arms.

    This was a direct challenge to the administration's position that the U.S.-Soviet nuclear balance currently was tilted to Moscow's advantage.

    The administration and congressional backers drafted an alternative that also called for a “freeze,” but with the qualification that it be at “equal and substantially reduced levels,” thus endorsing Reagan's position that the current U.S. nuclear weapons deficit would have to be erased in any arms control agreement.

    Despite ferocious White House lobbying, Reagan's position prevailed in the House by a margin of only two votes. A switch by one member would have created a tie that would have defeated the administration's alternative.

    The administration-backed substitute was approved 204-202: R 151-27; D 53-175 (ND 11-149, SD 42-26).

    7. Veto Override

    When President Reagan vetoed a $14.2 billion fiscal 1982 supplemental appropriations bill (HR 6863) Aug. 28, he called it a budget buster. While cutting his request for defense spending, he said, the measure contained $918 million for social spending that he had not requested and some of which had been in previously vetoed bills.

    But members of Congress insisted the president was simply wrong in his accounting. They noted that the bill was nearly $2 billion under his total request for additional fiscal 1982 funding, and said they supported increased funding for education and for jobs for senior citizens.

    When the House returned from its Labor Day recess, a sizable bloc of angry Republicans joined unified Democrats in supplying the two-thirds majority for the House to override the veto. They did it with 22 votes to spare. The Sept. 9 vote to override the president was 301-117: R 81-104; D 220-13 (ND 157-1, SD 63-12).

    The Senate made the override stick the next day by a vote of 60-30. It was Reagan's first significant budget defeat, (Senate key vote 8)

    The president tried to block the override in the House, promising members he would sign a subsequent bill containing employment money for the elderly and that he would not seek additional funds for defense. But the promises came too late for many members who had already committed themselves while in their districts to vote to override. Senior citizen groups and education organizations had lobbied hard for the override.

    Helping to lead the House effort against Reagan was Rep. Silvio O. Conte, Mass., the senior Republican on the Appropriations Committee. Calling the veto an affront to Congress, Conte said, “You just don't have 435 robots up here in Congress that are going to vote in lockstep.”

    8. Pipeline Sanctions

    A close vote in the House of Representatives helped prod President Reagan to drop his most visible effort to punish the Soviet Union for its interference in Poland. The vote may also have sparked a reassessment by Congress and the administration of the effectiveness of conducting economic war for political purposes.

    The key vote was on Sept. 29, when the House voted 206-203 to weaken a bill (HR 6838) that would have forced Reagan to lift the most controversial of a series of economic sanctions he had imposed on the Soviet Union. A broad range of members in both parties complained that the sanctions hurt American workers and businesses more than the Soviets. The breakdown on the vote was R 124-57; D 82-146 (ND 41-111, SD 41-35).

    The closeness of the vote demonstrated the depth of congressional unhappiness with an important element of Reagan's foreign policy. Administration officials lobbied vigorously against the bill, arguing that passage of the measure would undercut negotiations then under way between the United States and its European allies on trade with the Soviets.

    The sanctions prohibited American companies, their foreign subsidiaries and foreign companies using U.S. licenses from selling to the Soviet Union equipment or technology for the transmission or refining of oil and gas. One goal of the sanctions was to prevent the Soviets from using U.S. technology to build a 2,600-mile natural gas pipeline from Siberia to Western Europe.

    Reagan himself lifted the pipeline-related sanctions on Nov. 13, saying they had accomplished the purpose of demonstrating U.S. concern with Soviet pressure on Poland. Reagan also said the United States and its Western allies had agreed to conduct a study of ways to limit future trade that bolstered the Soviet economy.

    Administration critics, however, said Reagan was merely heeding the signal he had been given by the House vote: that there was little political support for the sanctions, which had failed to change Soviet behavior and had ruptured relations between the United States and its closest allies.

    American business leaders said the failure of the sanctions on those counts should make the Reagan administration more hesitant in the future to use trade as a political weapon.

    9. Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment

    Despite pressure from President Reagan and pre-election jitters, the House Oct. 1 rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget (H J Res 350).

    The vote on the measure was 236-187, 46 short of the two-thirds majority of those present and voting (282 in this case) required to pass a constitutional amendment: R 167-20; D 69-167 (ND 12-147, SD 57-20).

    The vote ended a three-day struggle that featured some arm-twisting by Vice President George Bush and an appearance by President Reagan Sept. 30 to drum up support for the amendment.

    The maneuvering had begun in earnest Sept. 29 when a group of Republicans led by Bush and Barber B. Conable Jr., R-N.Y., rounded up the last 16 signatures on a discharge petition that pried H J Res 350 from a hostile House Judiciary Committee that had kept the legislation buried for a year.

    The Senate Aug. 4 had approved its own version of a balanced budget amendment by a 69-31 vote, two more than the two-thirds required. (Senate key vote 6)

    Giving impetus to the drive for a balanced budget amendment was a seven-year-old effort by outside groups led by the National Taxpayers Union to force the calling of a constitutional convention to consider a balanced budget proposal.

    Under Article V of the Constitution, a convention must be called if two-thirds of the states (34) request one. At the end of 1982, 31 states had made such a request, although there was no agreement on whether all 31 convention calls were valid.

    10. Highway-Gas Tax Bill

    The opposition of the trucking industry to substantial increases in highway-use taxes for heavy trucks posed a strong threat to House passage of legislation to raise funds for highway, bridge and mass transit improvements.

    The bill raised fuel taxes a nickel, for a total of 9 cents a gallon, and increased the maximum highway use tax for from $240. an 80,000-pound truck to $2,000, up from $240.

    Truckers, contending that the tax increases were too severe, lobbied intensely against the bill. Although there was general backing for the legislation (HR 6211), a fragile coalition of cities, road builders, public transit operators, Republicans, Democrats, administration officials and others was not sure that the House would be able to pass the measure.

    Members opposing the truck or fuel taxes attacked the rule (H Res 620) because it allowed amendments to the highway and transit portions of the bill but not to the tax title. They almost succeeded in blocking floor consideration. The rule was adopted Dec. 6 by 197-194: R 59-114; D 138-80 (ND 112-34, SD 26-46).

    The bill's supporters, who argued that significant changes in the taxes would jeopardize passage, breathed easier when the House accepted the tax title by a vote of 236-169 at 12:30 a.m., Dec. 7. The House later passed the bill by a 262-143 vote.

    In the Senate, a filibuster by a handful of opponents led by Jesse Helms, R-N.C., delayed action on the gas tax bill until just before Christmas. But the measure finally passed Dec. 21 by a 56-34 vote. (Senate key vote 15)

    11. MX Missile

    The House vote Dec. 7 against initial procurement of MX missiles marked the first time that either house of Congress had voted against a major nuclear arms program requested by a president.

    Despite strong White House objections, the House deleted from the fiscal 1983 defense appropriations bill (HR 7355) $988 million earmarked for procurement of the first five production line versions of the MX.

    The large House majority included liberals who long had opposed MX in any form, for fear that it would elicit from Moscow a further escalation in the arms race. But they were joined by moderates and conservatives who were alarmed at the cost of Reagan's defense buildup and suspicious of the technical feasibility of the so-called “dense pack” basing method for the missile.

    In this technique, announced by Reagan on Nov. 22, 100 MXs would be placed close together in heavily armored underground silos. The administration argued that explosions from attacking Soviet missile warheads would destroy other Soviet missiles while leaving most of the MXs unscathed.

    Reagan argued that the new, more powerful land-based missile was needed to offset Moscow's arsenal of ICBM warheads, which are more numerous and more powerful than current U.S. weapons. And he said that the new missile was needed to give the Russians an incentive to agree to nuclear arms reductions.

    The vote against MX procurement was 245-176: R 50-138; D 195-38 (ND 151-7, SD 44-31).

    The Senate Dec. 17 returned MX procurement money to the second fiscal 1983 continuing appropriations resolution but barred its expenditure unless Congress approved a basing mode. (Senate key vote 11)

    12. House Pay Raise

    After more than three years without a pay raise, Congress in December 1982 gave House members a 15 percent increase, bringing salaries to $69,800 a year. Senators stayed at the old rate of $60,662.50.

    In October, as part of the first fiscal 1983 continuing appropriations resolution (H J Res 599) Congress had voted to cap its pay, blocking what members then believed would be a 4 percent raise. The resolution, however, was to expire Dec. 17.

    While Congress was in its post-election recess, confusion arose over the exact size of the raise members would get if the cap were lifted. The General Accounting Office ruled Dec. 10 that the increase actually would be 27.2 percent. The higher figure included several cost-of-living raises from previous years that Congress had voted not to take.

    The issue came to a House vote Dec. 14 as part of the second fiscal 1983 continuing resolution (H J Res 631. Supporters of a raise offered an amendment limiting it to 15 percent — about $9,100. Faced with a raise of either 27.2 percent or 15 percent, the House supported the lower figure on a 303-109 vote.

    But then Bob Traxler, D-Mich., offered an amendment to continue the freeze on congressional pay, keeping salaries at $60,662.50.

    Only because of substantial help from lame-duck members, who no longer had to answer to the voters, the Traxler amendment failed on a tie, 208-208: R 121-65; D 87-143 (ND 46-109, SD 41-34).

    The 71 lame ducks who voted on the Traxler amendment opposed it by 2-to-1, 24-47. While Republicans voted 121-65 for the amendment, 48 Republican lame ducks voted 21-27 against it.

    The pay raise for House members but not senators was contained in the final version of the bill. The Senate agreed not to take a raise for itself, but senators retained their prerogative to earn unlimited amounts in outside income. (Senate key vote 10)

    The result was the first time that representatives had made more than senators. Since the 1st Congress in 1789, members of both chambers had been paid the same, except for one year, 1795–96, when senators were paid $7 a day and representatives $6.

    13. Clinch River Breeder Reactor

    More than a decade of House support for the controversial Clinch River nuclear breeder reactor ended Dec. 14 when members voted 217-196 to deny funds for the project.

    Environmentalists were jubilant. They had opposed the project since its inception, questioning its safety and arguing that it would increase supplies of plutonium that could be used to manufacture nuclear weapons.

    But it was budget concerns that finally led the House to reverse its stance on the breeder. Expressing the sentiment of many members who had backed the project previously but voted against it in 1982, Phil Gramm, D-Texas, said, “I have supported Clinch River since I first came to Congress. But as we look at the budget deficit, we have got to set a new higher standard for spending.”

    The House action was reversed by the Senate three days later, by a one-vote margin, but it nevertheless marked a watershed in the history of the breeder reactor. (Senate key vote 12)

    The Clinch River project, located near Oak Ridge, Tenn., was authorized in 1970. It was designed to demonstrate the feasibility of breeder reactors — nuclear power reactors that run on plutonium and create as a byproduct more plutonium than they consume. The reactor originally was scheduled for completion in 1983, but it was surrounded by controversy and plagued with delays. Ground was not broken until September 1982. In the meantime, official cost estimates soared from $700 million to $3.6 billion; more than $1.3 billion already had been spent.

    The need for the project also had become more difficult to demonstrate. The growth in electricity demand, once expected to rise at a long-term average of 7 percent a year, was projected in 1982 to rise at an average pace of 3 percent a year. And new uranium deposits had been found, reducing fears of a fuel shortage for traditional — and less costly — light water reactors.

    Faced with these circumstances, 19 Republicans and 16 Democrats who had supported funding for Clinch River in 1981 voted against it in 1982. The amendment by Lawrence Coughlin, R-Pa., to bar the use of funds for the project was attached to the second fiscal 1983 continuing appropriations resolution (H J Res 631) by a vote of 217-196: R 80-102; D 137-94 (ND 121-33, SD 16-61).

    14. Job Creation

    The House Appropriations Committee included $5.4 billion for jobs programs in its version of the second fiscal 1983 continuing appropriations resolution (H J Res 631).

    In addition to adding funds for existing programs, the measure provided $1 billion for a new jobs program to be run by the Labor Department and $50 million for emergency food and shelter to be distributed by private voluntary agencies.

    Many House Republicans opposed the jobs program on grounds that it was a scattershot approach, with a little money for projects in almost every congressional district. They also argued that President Reagan would veto the bill if the funds were included.

    A Republican motion to recommit the bill to the Appropriations Committee with instructions to delete the $5.4 billion in jobs money failed Dec. 14 on a 191-215 vote: R 171-7; D 20-208 (ND 2-150, SD 18-58).

    Although the Senate version of the resolution also included money for jobs programs, conferees dropped the jobs funding from the final measure to avert a presidential veto. (Senate key vote 14)

    15. Auto Domestic Content Requirements

    As unemployment rose during 1982, so did protectionist sentiment in Congress.

    Most of the legislative proposals were directed toward Japan, whose exports to the United States during the year exceeded its imports from the United States by more than $20 billion. “While Japanese cars invade our highways, American workers pay for the defense of Japan,” complained Rep. Don J. Pease, D-Ohio.

    The most drastic piece of protectionist legislation considered during the year was the domestic content bill (HR 5133). Drafted by the United Auto Workers union (UAW), the measure would have required all companies selling more than 100,000 cars a year in the United States to use a certain proportion of U.S. labor and parts. Toyota and Nissan (Datsun), the major Japanese manufacturers, would have been forced to use 70 to 75 percent domestic content in the cars they sell here. Toyo Kogyo (Mazda) and Honda would have had to achieve ratios of between 20 and 40 percent.

    The bill came under heavy attack from the Reagan administration and from free-traders in Congress. U.S. Trade Representative William E. Brock III called it “the worst piece of economic legislation since the 1930s.”

    But the UAW lobbied fervently for the bill, and the opposition was much less intense. On Dec. 15, the measure passed the House by a vote of 215-188: R 44-130; D 171-58 (ND 132-20, SD 39-38).

    The vote was largely a symbolic one. Even the bill's supporters admitted that it had little chance of passing the Senate in the closing days of the lame-duck session. But they argued that House passage would send a clear signal to Japan, encouraging that nation to change its trading practices.

    The signal, however, was made considerably less clear by an amendment successfully sponsored by lame-duck Rep. Millicent Fenwick, R-N.J. Fenwick's amendment said the measure should not “supersede” any “treaty, international convention or agreement on tariffs and trade.” The bill's opponents said the domestic content requirements clearly violated the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and therefore Fenwick's amendment “gutted” the bill.

    16. Gorsuch Contempt of Congress

    Congress and the Reagan administration were at loggerheads on environmental issues for most of the 97th Congress. But a Dec. 16 House vote to cite Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Anne M. Gorsuch for contempt of Congress escalated that underlying political conflict into a constitutional showdown. Gorsuch was the highest ranking executive branch official to be cited for contempt of Congress.

    Especially in the Democratic-controlled House, members accused the Reagan administration of failing to enforce adequately major provisions of environmental laws that Congress had passed during the 1970s.

    The contempt vote grew out of efforts by two House subcommittees to oversee EPA enforcement of the 1980 “superfund” law for cleanup of abandoned hazardous waste dumps. On written orders from President Reagan, Gorsuch withheld enforcement documents subpoenaed by the House Public Works and Transportation Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight.

    The disputed documents included enforcement strategies, legal analysis, witness lists and “settlement considerations.” The administration claimed its pursuit of pending cases could be jeopardized if the documents were to become public or fall into the hands of defendants. Subcommittee Chairman Elliott H. Levitas, D-Ga., said that early evidence showed companies responsible for hazardous waste dumping were not being held liable for their full share of cleanup costs and that the documents were needed “to find out whether sweetheart deals are being made.”

    More than one-third of all House Republicans voting on the contempt resolution (H Res 632) joined most Democrats in the final vote of 259-105: R 55-101; D 204-4 (ND 145-2, SD 59-2). Some of those Republicans said protection of congressional prerogatives outweighed their loyalty to the party leadership or the administration.

    Instead of referring the charge against Gorsuch to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia for presentation to a grand jury, the procedure called for under the criminal contempt statute, the Justice Department filed a civil suit seeking to block further action on the House citation. The House Dec. 30 filed a motion seeking dismissal of that suit, claiming all constitutional issues involved in the separation-of-powers clash could be resolved in the course of proceedings on the criminal contempt charge.

    1. First Budget Resolution, Fiscal 1983

    S Con Res 92 Adoption of the concurrent resolution to set budget targets for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 1983, as follows: budget authority, $835.7 billion; outlays, $784.3 billion; revenues, $668.4 billion; and deficit, $115.9 billion. The resolution also set preliminary goals for fiscal 1984–85, revised binding budget levels for fiscal 1982 and included reconciliation instructions requiring Senate and House committees to recommend legislative savings to meet the budget targets. Adopted 49-43: R 46-2; D 3-41 (ND 1-28, SD 2-13), May 21, 1982.

    2. Urgent Supplemental Appropriations, Fiscal 1982

    HR 5922 Lugar, R-Ind., amendment to establish a new subsidy program to provide mortgages at below-market interest rates for buyers of new homes. The amendment contained a fiscal 1982 appropriation of $5.1 billion. Adopted 69-23: R 29-20; D 40-3 (ND 27-1, SD 13-2), May 27, 1982. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    3. Tobacco Program Revisions

    HR 6590 Baker, R-Tenn., motion to table (kill) the Eagleton, D-Mo., amendment to authorize tobacco price support loans through 1985 (thus ending permanent authorization for these loans). Motion agreed to 49-47: R 29-23; D 20-24 (ND 7-23, SD 13-1), July 14, 1982.

    4. Reclamation Law Amendments

    HR 5539 Passage of the bill to increase acreage limitations for farms irrigated by water from reclamation projects, to raise the price for some of that water, and to make other changes in federal reclamation laws. Passed 49-13: R 30-3; D 19-10 (ND 12-10, SD 7-0), July 16, 1982.

    5. Budget Reconciliation Tax Increases/Spending Cuts

    HR 4961 Passage of the bill to increase taxes $99 billion for fiscal years 1983–85 and to cut welfare, Medicare and Medicaid spending $17 billion for the same three years, in compliance with reconciliation instructions in the fiscal 1983 budget resolution (S Con Res 92). Passed 50-47: R 49-3; D 1-44 (ND 0-30, SD 1-14), in the session which began July 22, 1982.

    6. Balanced Budget/Tax Limitation Amendment

    S J Res 58 Passage of the joint resolution to propose an amendment to the Constitution to require a balanced budget at the beginning of each fiscal year unless a three-fifths majority of Congress agreed to deficit spending. The amendment could be waived during the time of a declared war. Passed 69-31: R 47-7; D 22-24 (ND 9-22, SD 13-2), Aug. 4, 1982. A two-thirds majority of those present and voting (67 in this case) of both houses is required for passage of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    7. Omnibus Reconciliation Act

    S 2774 Riegle, D-Mich., amendment to delete provisions that would impose a 4 percent cap on cost-of-living adjustments for federal and military retirees but retain the cap for members of Congress who retire after the date of the bill's enactment. Rejected 48-51: R 10-44; D 38-7 (ND 30-1, SD 8-6), Aug. 4, 1982.

    8. Supplemental Appropriations, Fiscal 1982

    HR 6863 Passage, over President Reagan's Aug. 28 veto, of the bill to appropriate $14,578,111,924 in new fiscal 1982 budget authority for federal military and civilian pay raises, commodity credit programs, defense and other programs, and to rescind $400,846,000 in previously appropriated funds. Passed (thus enacted into law) 60-30: R 21-26; D 39-4 (ND 31-0, SD 8-4), Sept. 10, 1982. A two-thirds majority of those present and voting (60 in this case) of both houses is required to override a veto. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position. (The House voted to override the veto the previous day (see vote 7, p. 906).)

    9. Temporary Debt Limit Increase

    H J Res 520 Hayakawa, R-Calif., motion to table (kill) the Helms, R-N.C., amendment designed to ban abortion, which was an amendment to the Helms amendment (stripping the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to review any case involving voluntary prayers in public schools) to the committee version of the bill. Motion agreed to 47-46: R 18-33; D 29-13 (ND 22-7, SD 7-6), Sept. 15, 1982.

    10. Outside Income of Senators

    S Res 512 Adoption of the resolution to abolish the limit in the Senate rules on the total income senators may receive from outside sources, including money for speeches and articles. Adopted 54-38: R 39-12; D 15-26 (ND 9-19, SD 6-7), Dec. 14, 1982.

    11. Continuing Appropriations, Fiscal 1983/MX Missile

    H J Res 631 Jackson, D-Wash., amendment to bar the use of funds in the bill for procurement of the MX missile until Congress by concurrent resolution had approved a basing mode for it; set out procedures for congressional consideration of the concurrent resolution, and required the president to submit a detailed report on basing mode options to Congress by March 1, 1983. Adopted 56-42: R 41-12; D 15-30 (ND 6-24, SD 9-6), in the session which began Dec. 16, 1982. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    12. Continuing Appropriations, Fiscal 1983/Clinch River

    H J Res 631 Appropriations Committee amendment to drop the House-approved provision in the bill eliminating construction funds for the Clinch River (Tenn.) nuclear breeder reactor. Adopted 49-48: R 38-14; D 11-34 (ND 4-26, SD 7-8), in the session which began Dec. 16, 1982. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    13. Continuing Appropriations, Fiscal 1983/Federal Trade Commission

    H J Res 631 Rudman, R-N.H., motion to table (kill) the McClure, R-Idaho, amendment to bar the use of funds by the Federal Trade Commission to investigate or make rules relating to the medical or other professions that were licensed and regulated by the states. Motion agreed to 59-37: R 31-21; D 28-16 (ND 23-7, SD 5-9), in the session which began Dec. 16, 1982. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    14. Continuing Appropriations, Fiscal 1983

    H J Res 631 Domenici, R-N.M., amendment to delete the section of the joint resolution providing $1.2 billion for public works jobs. Rejected 46-50: R 39-12; D 7-38 (ND 3-27. SD 4-11), in the session which began Dec. 16, 1982. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    15. Transportation Assistance Act of 1982

    HR 6211 Passage of the bill to authorize approximately $70 billion for highways through fiscal 1987 and approximately $12 billion for transit through fiscal 1985, and increase gasoline and other highway taxes. Passed 56-34: R 35-15; D 21-19 (ND 14-12, SD 7-7), in the session which began Dec. 20, 1982. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    1. Urgent Supplemental Appropriations, Fiscal 1982

    HR 5922 Boland, D-Mass., amendment to provide $1 billion to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for mortgage interest subsidy payments to home buyers with family income not exceeding 130 percent of the median income for their area. Adopted 343-67: R 128-52; D 215-15 (ND 149-6, SD 66-9), May 12, 1982.

    2. First Budget Resolution, Fiscal 1983

    H Con Res 345 Oakar, D-Ohio, amendment, to the Latta, R-Ohio, substitute, to increase budget authority by $400 million and outlays by $4.85 billion for health programs in fiscal 1983 to accommodate Medicare funding at current services levels, and to make corresponding reductions in defense programs. Adopted 228-196: R 64-125; D 164-71 (ND 136-20, SD 28-51), May 27, 1982.

    3. First Budget Resolution, Fiscal 1983

    H Con Res 352 Latta, R-Ohio, substitute for the president's fiscal 1983 budget submission, to set budget targets for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 1983, as follows: budget authority, $800.38 billion; outlays, $765.17 billion; revenues, $665.9 billion; and deficit, $99.27 billion. Adopted 220-207: R 174-15; D 46-192-(ND 9-151, SD 37-41), June 10, 1982.

    4. Defense Department Authorizations, Fiscal 1983

    HR 6030 Courter, R-N.J., substitute for the Zablocki, D-Wis., amendment, to ban the production of binary munitions unless one existing chemical weapon were destroyed for each new binary weapon built. Rejected 192-225: R 112-72; D 80-153 (ND 27-132, SD 53-21), July 22, 1982. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position. (The Zablocki amendment to delete $54 million earmarked for procurement of binary chemical munitions and barring the use of any authorized funds for that program subsequently was adopted.)

    5. Budget Reconciliation Tax Increases/Spending Cuts

    HR 4961 Rostenkowski, D-Ill., motion to disagree to the Senate amendments to the bill and to agree to a conference requested by the Senate. Motion agreed to 208-197: R 44-137; D 164-60 (ND 116-35, SD 48-25), July 28, 1982.

    6. Nuclear Arms Freeze

    H J Res 521 Broomfield, R-Mich., substitute to call for a nuclear weapons freeze by the United States and the Soviet Union at equal and substantially reduced levels. Adopted 204-202: R 151-27; D 53-175 (ND 11-149, SD 42-26), Aug. 5, 1982. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position. (As reported, the resolution had called for the United States and the Soviet Union to decide when and how to implement an immediate freeze on nuclear arms.)

    7. Supplemental Appropriations, Fiscal 1982

    HR 6863 Passage, over President Reagan's Aug. 28 veto, of the bill to appropriate $14,578,111,924 in new fiscal 1982 budget authority for federal military and civilian pay raises, commodity credit programs, defense and other programs, and to rescind $400,846,000 in previously appropriated funds. Passed 301-117: R 81-104; D 220-13 (ND 157-1, SD 63-12), Sept. 9, 1982. A two-thirds majority of those present and voting (279 in this case) of both houses is required to override a veto. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position. (The Senate also voted to override the veto (see vote 8. p. 12-C), so the bill was enacted.)

    8. Soviet Economic Sanctions

    HR 6838 Broomfield, R-Mich., motion to recommit the bill to the Foreign Affairs Committee with instructions to insert an amendment repealing economic sanctions against the Soviet Union 90 days after enactment of the bill, provided that during that period the president certified to Congress that the Soviet Union was not using forced labor on certain construction projects. The original bill would have immediately repealed economic sanctions against the Soviet Union. Motion agreed to 206-203: R 124-57; D 82-146 (ND 41-111, SD 41-35), Sept. 29, 1982. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    9. Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment

    H J Res 350 Passage of the joint resolution to propose an amendment to the Constitution to require Congress to adopt a balanced federal budget every year, except in time of war, unless a three-fifths majority of Congress agreed to deficit spending. Rejected 236-187: R 167-20; D 69-167 (ND 12-147, SD 57-20), Oct. 1, 1982. A two-thirds majority of those present and voting (282 in this case) of both houses is required for passage of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    10. Transportation Assistance Act of 1982

    HR 6211 Adoption of the rule (H Res 620) providing for House floor consideration of the bill to authorize funds for highway and mass transit programs for fiscal 1983–1986 and to increase gasoline and other highway taxes. Adopted 197-194: R 59-114; D 138-80 (ND 112-34, SD 26-46), Dec. 6, 1982.

    11. Department of Defense Appropriations, Fiscal 1983

    HR 7355 Addabbo, D-N.Y., amendment to delete $988 million for procurement of five MX missiles. Adopted 245-176: R 50-138; D 195-38 (ND 151-7, SD 44-31), Dec. 7, 1982. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    12. Continuing Appropriations, Fiscal 1983/Pay Raise

    H J Res 631 Traxler, D-Mich., amendment to retain the existing cap on salaries of members of Congress at $60,662.50 a year. Rejected 208-208: R 121-65; D 87-143 (ND 46-109, SD 41-34), Dec. 14, 1982.

    13. Continuing Appropriations, Fiscal 1983/Clinch River

    H J Res 631 Coughlin, R-Pa., amendment to bar use of funds provided by the joint resolution for research and development, design or construction of the Clinch River breeder reactor. Adopted 217-196: R 80-102; D 137-94 (ND 121-33, SD 16-61), Dec. 14, 1982. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    14. Continuing Appropriations, Fiscal 1983/Jobs

    H J Res 631 Conte, R-Mass., motion to recommit the joint resolution to the Appropriations Committee with instructions to delete jobs program funding (Title II) and add $44 million in funding for Radio Liberty. Motion rejected 191-215: R 171-7; D 20-208 (ND 2-150, SD 18-58), Dec. 14, 1982. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    15. Automobile Domestic Content Requirements

    HR 5133 Passage of the bill to require automakers to use set percentages of U.S. labor and parts in automobiles they sell in the United States. Passed 215-188: R 44-130; D 171-58 (ND 132-20, SD 39-38), Dec. 15, 1982. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    16. Contempt of Congress Proceedings Against Anne M. Gorsuch

    H Res 632 Adoption of the resolution to cite Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Anne M. Gorsuch for contempt of Congress for refusing to furnish certain documents under subpoena to the House Public Works and Transportation Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. Adopted 259-105: R 55-101; D 204-4 (ND 145-2, SD 59-2), Dec. 16, 1982.

    Appendix

    1983 Key Votes

    Senate
    1. Anti-Recession Assistance

    Double-digit unemployment resulting from the worst recession since World War II stimulated a variety of emergency relief proposals early in the 1983 session. Attempting to capitalize on what they saw as a traditional Democratic issue, Democratic members of Congress tried to beef up a limited job stimulus and humanitarian aid package announced by President Reagan Feb. 16.

    During floor debate March 11, Senate Democrats proposed a nearly $1.7 billion increase in a $3.7 billion emergency relief measure (HR 1718) reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Offered by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Democratic Task Force on Emergency Human Needs, the amendment would have added $1.3 billion for job creation and human services, including $1 billion for community development block grants, and $390 million for health and humanitarian relief.

    Supporters claimed Levin's proposals would create an additional 280,000 jobs. “We're trying to take care of the millions of people whose basic needs have not been met,” said Alan J. Dixon, D-Ill.

    But the Republican-controlled Senate rejected the plan on a near party-line vote of 34-53: R 2-46; D 32-7 (ND 25-4, SD 7-3).

    A $4.6 billion jobs and relief package cleared Congress March 24 as part of a $15.6 billion supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal 1983. The final House-Senate compromise was scaled specifically to stay within limits acceptable to the Reagan administration.

    2. Fiscal 1984 Budget

    Defying President Reagan and the GOP leadership, moderate Republicans and Democrats won Senate passage May 19 of a fiscal 1984 budget blueprint that increased taxes and domestic spending while slowing the defense buildup sought by the president and cutting $14.5 billion from his revised deficit estimates.

    The Senate approved its budget resolution (S Con Res 27) at the end of a grueling session during which members twice rejected a leadership plan that had the reluctant support of the president and initially turned down the budget they ultimately adopted. Final approval came after Budget Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M., and other opponents of the plan switched their votes to keep the nine-year-old congressional budget process from collapsing. The final tally was 50-49: R 21-32; D 29-17 (ND 24-8, SD 5-9).

    The House-passed budget resolution called on Congress to approve much higher tax increases, a lower rate of defense spending, and significantly higher domestic spending than the Senate budget plan. (House key vote 2)

    3. Senators' Pay Raise

    The Senate June 16 voted to give senators a 15 percent pay raise, increasing their annual salaries from $60,662.50 to $69,800. The $9,138 pay hike, which took effect July 1, 1983, put senators at the same salary level as House members. The House raised members' pay in December 1982.

    At the same time, the Senate approved a 30 percent cap, effective Jan. 1, 1984, on the honoraria income senators may receive for speeches, articles and appearances. The $20,940 annual limit already applied to all outside income earned by House members.

    The pay raise and honoraria cap were included in an amendment to a fiscal 1983 supplemental appropriations bill (HR 3069 — PL 98-63) that Congress cleared July 29. The Senate agreed to the pay raise by a vote of 49-47: R 29-25; D 20-22 (ND 16-13, SD 4-9).

    Although senators did not take a pay raise when House members did in 1982, they had no cap on their honoraria earnings. After honoraria reports for 1982 were made public in May, showing that 19 senators received more than $40,000 each, the House attached an amendment to HR 3069 extending the 30 percent cap to senators. The Senate Appropriations Committee eliminated the honoraria limit, but the full Senate reversed that action June 9, imposing the cap while rejecting amendments to raise senators' pay. Finally, on June 16, Henry M. Jackson, D-Wash., offered the successful amendment that raised salaries and capped honoraria.

    Despite frequent complaints that their salaries were insufficient to support homes in their states and in the Washington, D.C., area, members were reluctant to approve pay hikes. Of senators up for re-election in 1984, 24 voted against the pay raise and seven supported it.

    4. Abortion

    The Senate June 28 rejected a proposed constitutional amendment designed to overturn the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion legal.

    The vote on the amendment (S J Res 3) was 49-50, with Jesse Helms, R-N.C., voting present. This was 18 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass an amendment. Republicans voted almost 2-1 in favor of the proposal, while Democrats opposed it by almost the same ratio: R 34-19; D 15-31 (ND 7-25, SD 8-6).

    The Senate action on S J Res 3 marked the first time either house of Congress had voted on a constitutional amendment aimed at overturning the Supreme Court's abortion ruling.

    Sponsored by Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, the measure simply stated: “A right to abortion is not secured by this Constitution.” By knocking out the constitutional underpinnings for abortion rights, it was designed to authorize Congress and the states to pass new laws to restrict or prohibit abortion.

    The anti-abortion movement was split on the strategy behind S J Res 3. Some favored Hatch's approach, while others — led by Helms — thought Congress should pass a statute defining a fetus as a “person” with the same constitutionally guaranteed right to life as any other person. This would require only a simple majority vote in Congress, and no ratification by the states.

    Neither the House nor its Judiciary Committee acted on any comparable abortion amendment or bill in 1983.

    5. Chemical Weapons

    The Senate July 13 approved Reagan administration plans to begin manufacturing lethal chemical weapons for the first time since 1969, but only by the narrowest of margins, with Vice President George Bush casting a tie-breaking vote. It was the first time since 1977 that the vice president had cast a Senate vote.

    At stake were new types of nerve gas bombs and artillery shells, called “binary munitions.” The administration insisted that binary production was needed to deter Moscow's use of its large arsenal of chemical weapons and to provide an incentive for Soviet agreement to a ban on chemical weapons. Existing U.S. chemical weapons were inadequate, they said, because they were dangerous for U.S. troops to handle and were losing some of their potency because of chemical deterioration.

    Opponents countered that the new weapons were militarily superfluous since there was a large enough supply of usable U.S. chemical weapons to force enemy troops to don clumsy protective suits and masks. Moreover, they argued, production of new chemical weapons would surrender the propaganda advantage the United States had earned from 14 years' abstention from chemical weapons production.

    The key Senate vote on the issue came on a motion to table (and thus kill) an amendment to delete binary weapons production funds from the fiscal 1984 defense authorization bill (S 675). The motion was agreed to 50-49: R 35-17; D 14-32 (ND 5-27, SD 9-5), with Vice President Bush casting the deciding “yea” vote to break a 49-49 tie.

    The scenario was replayed Nov. 8, when an amendment adding the nerve gas funds to the fiscal 1984 defense appropriations bill (HR 4185) was agreed to 47-46. Again, Bush cast the deciding vote for binary production.

    Although the nerve gas provision remained in the authorization bill, it was ultimately deleted — at the insistence of the House — from HR 4185, the defense appropriations measure. (House key vote 15)

    6. Interest and Dividend Withholding

    Months of pressure from the banking industry and the public persuaded Congress to undo a tax reform it had approved only a year earlier: a requirement for 10 percent withholding of taxes on interest and dividend income.

    The banking industry stimulated a massive letter-writing campaign against the plan, arguing that the withholding requirement would impose an unfair financial burden on honest taxpayers, as well as banks.

    Opponents of repeal countered that the banks were deceiving the American public by portraying withholding as a new tax, rather than as a means of enforcing tax laws already on the books, but the lobbying campaign paid off.

    Sealing a major victory for the banks, the Senate July 28 cleared a withholding repeal measure (HR 2973) by a vote of 90-7: R 51-2; D 39-5 (ND 25-5, SD 14-0).

    President Reagan, who initially vowed to veto a withholding repealer, yielded when it became clear that such a veto almost certainly would be overridden. The addition of stiffer withholding compliance requirements, plus inclusion of the trade and tax portions of his Caribbean Basin Initiative, helped ensure Reagan's approval of the bill.

    7. Coal Leasing

    A collapse of Senate support for the coal-leasing policies of Interior Secretary James G. Watt was evident in a Sept. 20 vote to impose a moratorium on federal coal leasing.

    The vote came on an amendment offered by Dale Bumpers, D-Ark., to the fiscal 1984 Interior Department appropriations bill (HR 3363 — PL 98-146). That amendment barred the use of funds in the bill for any leasing of coal on federal lands until 90 days after a study commission created to review leasing policies reported its recommendations. It was adopted 63-33: R 23-29, D 40-4 (ND 29-1, SD 11-3).

    Bumpers charged that Watt's leasing program was selling too much coal too fast, and bringing less than the fair market value of the coal as a return to the Treasury.

    Twice in the preceding year, the Senate had narrowly rejected similar Bumpers amendments. The first vote came Dec. 14, 1982, when a leasing-ban rider to the fiscal 1983 Interior appropriations bill (PL 97-394) was rejected 47-48. On June 14, 1983, the Senate by 48-51 rejected a similar amendment to a fiscal 1983 supplemental appropriations measure (HR 3069 — PL 98-63).

    Those two votes split along party lines, with most Republicans backing Watt and most Democrats opposing him. Thirteen of the 16 senators who switched to Bumpers' side between June 14 and Sept. 20 were Republicans.

    The House had approved a slightly different version of the coal-leasing ban, but the variances were easily reconciled in conference.

    On Sept. 21, the day after the Senate vote, Watt sparked an uproar by characterizing his appointees to the leasing study commission as “a black … a woman, two Jews and a cripple.”

    That remark proved to be the last straw for many Republican senators, who feared Watt's penchant for politically damaging remarks was harming their own prospects as well as President Reagan's. With his Senate support eroding rapidly, Watt resigned Oct. 9.

    8. Marines in Lebanon

    In late August, the first combat casualties among U.S. Marines in Lebanon prompted members of Congress to question U.S. policies and goals in that troubled country. President Reagan had sent more than 1,200 Marines to Lebanon in 1982 to serve in a multinational peacekeeping force.

    To calm growing fears on Capitol Hill, Reagan in early September conducted private negotiations with key congressional leaders. The result was an agreement among Reagan, House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr., D-Mass., and Senate Majority Leader Howard H. Baker Jr., R-Tenn. Reagan agreed to sign legislation specifically invoking for the first time the major provision of the 1973 War Powers Resolution (PL 93-148) that required congressional approval for U.S. troops to be stationed in combat situations for more than 60 to 90 days. In return, O'Neill and Baker agreed to authorize the Marines to stay in Lebanon for an additional 18 months.

    The compromise agreement was put into a joint resolution, which the House passed, 270-161, on Sept. 28. (House key vote 9)

    When the Senate took up the measure (S J Res 159, as amended) the following day, the ultimate outcome was not seriously in doubt, but it was uncertain how many Republican senators would oppose the resolution. Senate Democrats, unable to reach an agreement with Reagan during separate negotiations, had refused to accept the Reagan-O'Neill-Baker compromise.

    As it happened, the vote broke almost purely along party lines. After rejecting several amendments offered by Democrats to tighten limits on the mission of the Marines, the Senate passed the resolution 54-46: R 52-3; D 2-43 (ND 2-29, SD 0-14).

    On Oct. 23, just 11 days after Reagan signed the resolution into law (PL 98-119), terrorist bombings in Beirut killed 239 Marines, sailors and soldiers and 58 French paratroopers. Efforts to revise or revoke the Lebanon resolution in the wake of the bombings fell short in both houses.

    9. Education Spending

    Senators supporting more money for federal education programs came up short Oct. 4 during debate over the fiscal 1984 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education appropriations bill (HR 3913 — PL 98-139). An amendment by Bill Bradley, D-N.J., Ernest F. Hollings, D-S.C., and Robert T. Stafford, R-Vt., that would have added $559 million to the bill's $13.5 billion total for Department of Education programs was killed on a procedural move.

    House Democrats succeeded Sept. 22 in adding $300 million in education and job training programs to the House-passed version of HR 3913. But education supporters in the Senate met with less success.

    Led by Bradley, the amendment's backers argued that the extra money would bring the bill's total up to spending levels contained in the fiscal 1984 budget approved by the Senate in May. They were beaten back, however, by the Republican manager of the bill, Lowell P. Weicker Jr., Conn., himself a longtime supporter of increased funding for education. Weicker used the threat of a presidential veto to win enough support to kill the Bradley amendment with a parliamentary maneuver.

    The Bradley amendment was ruled out of order by the chair because it would have increased funding above authorized levels, a judgment immediately appealed by Bradley. His appeal was tabled (killed) by a 50-45 party-line vote: R 49-5; D 1-40 (ND 1-26, SD 0-14).

    10. Martin Luther King Holiday

    After a two-day debate that was alternately bitter and eloquent, the Senate Oct. 19 overcame a recalcitrant conservative minority led by Jesse Helms, R-N.C., and voted to declare the third Monday in January, beginning in 1986, a legal public holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the civil rights leader assassinated in 1968.

    The bill (HR 3706) passed by a vote of 78-22: R 37-18; D 41-4 (ND 28-3, SD 13-1).

    Setting aside earlier opposition to the legislation, President Reagan signed it into law (PL 98-144) at a ceremony in the Rose Garden. The ceremony, attended by leaders of the civil rights establishment, was indicative of the symbolism the measure had taken on. Supporters argued that creation of the holiday honored not only King, but the entire civil rights movement as well. Leaders of the Aug. 27 march on Washington commemorating the 20th anniversary of King's “I have a dream” speech, made creation of the holiday a priority.

    The House passed the bill relatively quickly, by a 338-90 vote Aug. 2. The Senate leadership then placed it directly on the calendar, where it could be brought up at any time.

    Majority Leader Howard H. Baker Jr., R-Tenn., tried to bring it up just before the August recess, but decided not to when Helms indicated he would begin a lengthy debate.

    While some opponents argued against the cost of a 10th public holiday, others, especially Helms, suggested King was not worthy of the singular recognition a legal holiday would confer. When the measure came up after the recess, Helms began a brief filibuster, based on allegations that King had ties with the Communist Party. Along with several conservative groups, Helms sued demanding release of FBI documents on King, sealed until the year 2027 by a court order. However, a federal judge refused to break the seal.

    Helms and his allies attempted to send HR 3706 to the Judiciary Committee for hearings and offered numerous amendments to the bill, but all their efforts fell by lopsided margins.

    However, concern about the cost of additional federal holidays did lead the Senate to pass a separate measure limiting to 10 the number of legal public holidays.

    11. Clinch River Breeder Reactor

    Congress in 1983 voted not to provide any more funds for the construction of the controversial Clinch River Breeder Reactor project. The apparent death of the demonstration nuclear power plant came after a series of votes over the preceding three years showed steadily dwindling support for the plutonium-powered project near Oak Ridge, Tenn.

    Before the decisive vote was cast by the Senate Oct. 26, both the House and Senate Appropriations committees had declined to recommend fiscal 1984 funding, and the House May 12 had voted overwhelmingly against the Clinch River project.

    Thus, when the Senate voted on a proposal to provide $1.5 billion to complete the federal share of payments under a new funding scheme, Clinch River's demise was not completely unexpected.

    Opponents were concerned that Majority Leader Howard H. Baker Jr., R-Tenn., the project's godfather,would once more be able to prevail on his colleagues to support the project. But Baker did not argue in its defense during floor debate — leaving that task to Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman James A. McClure, R-Idaho.

    Unmoved by McClure's arguments, the Senate turned down the Clinch River funding, which was contained in an amendment to a fiscal 1984 supplemental appropriations bill (HR 3959). The vote, on a motion to table the amendment, was 56-40: R 23-30; D 33-10 (ND 26-4, SD 7-6).

    Both sides said they believed concern over the ultimate cost of the project, which was authorized by Congress in 1970, was the deciding factor in its defeat. The federal government had already spent $1.6 billion on the project.

    12. Nuclear Freeze

    In its first vote on the issue, the Senate Oct. 31 turned aside a resolution calling for a mutual and verifiable freeze on the testing, production and deployment of U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons.

    The resolution had earned widespread, grass-roots backing since late 1981. A heavily amended version of it was passed by the House in May. (House key vote 3)

    Freeze advocates argued that a rough balance currently existed between U.S. and Soviet nuclear forces, with each sufficient to deter an attack by the other. U.S. advantages in bombers and missile-firing submarines offset Soviet advantages in the number and size of land-based ICBMs, they maintained. By this logic, President Reagan's planned nuclear buildup was not only unnecessary but dangerous, because of its emphasis on missiles such as the MX, accurate enough to threaten a first strike on armored Soviet missile launchers.

    Opponents warned that a freeze would block the replacement of older American weapons with modern ones. They also argued a freeze would bar the development of new weapons — such as the small, single-warhead ICBM dubbed “Midgetman” — that might make the nuclear balance more stable.

    The fundamental objection to the freeze by many administration officials and others rested on the belief that ICBMs were unique among nuclear weapons because of the short time within which they could deliver a surprise attack. From that premise, it followed that the Soviet advantages in ICBMs could not be tolerated nor would Moscow agree to reduce its ICBM force unless threatened by similar U.S. weapons — particularly, the MX missile, which a freeze would prevent.

    The freeze was offered as an amendment to the bill (H J Res 308) increasing the ceiling on the national debt. A motion to table (and thus kill) the amendment was agreed to 58-40: R 46-7; D 12-33 (ND 3-28, SD 9-5).

    13. Debt Limit/Deficit Control

    Senators anxious to press their case for deficit control measures succeeded Oct. 31 in defeating an urgent increase in the public debt limit sought by the Reagan administration. The vote was 39-56: R 28-25; D 11-31 (ND 10-19, SD 1-12).

    Conservative Republicans led the attack on the legislation (H J Res 308), without which the government could not continue to borrow money to pay its bills. They hoped to force action on bold steps to reduce federal spending — including enhanced presidential authority to impound, or withhold from spending, funds appropriated by Congress.

    The GOP conservatives were joined by members of both parties who hoped to pressure Congress in the waning days of the session to agree on a major package of spending cuts and administration-opposed tax increases. That deficit-reduction effort failed, however, and before adjourning for the year the Senate joined the House in approving a $1.49 trillion debt limit measure.

    14. MX Missile

    The Senate Nov. 7 decisively rejected an effort to bar funding for production of the MX missile, the centerpiece of the Reagan administration's nuclear arms buildup.

    The vote came just six days after the House, by a much tighter nine-vote margin, had likewise voted to keep $2.1 billion in MX money in the fiscal 1984 defense appropriations bill (HR 4185). The funds were earmarked to build the first 21 production-line versions of the big ICBM. (House key vote 10)

    The missile, which was flight-tested for the first time in June, would carry 10 nuclear warheads, each with enough power and accuracy to destroy armored Soviet missile launchers and command posts.

    The administration insisted the MX was needed to offset a Soviet force of more than 600 ICBMs of comparable power and accuracy. It argued that such land-based missiles cast a political influence far more powerful than other nuclear weapons and, accordingly, that continued Soviet advantages in the number and power of ICBMs could not be tolerated.

    Members who shared this view were joined in supporting MX by others who were more skeptical about the importance of MX, but were willing to support it in return for a shift by the administration to arms control negotiating positions deemed more likely to win Soviet agreement.

    MX opponents argued that the missile would destabilize the U.S.-Soviet nuclear balance. They said MX would threaten the ICBMs that comprised the bulk of the Soviet nuclear force while itself being vulnerable to Soviet attack, since it would be deployed in existing U.S. missile silos.

    They also rejected claims that ICBMs enjoyed unique diplomatic potency compared with other nuclear weapons, and insisted that superior U.S. bombers and missile submarines offset any Soviet advantage in land-based missiles.

    The key Senate vote on the missile came on a motion offered by Sen. Dale Bumpers, D-Ark., to delete from HR 4185 the $2.1 billion earmarked to begin MX production. That amendment was rejected 37-56: R 6-46; D 31-10 (ND 24-3, SD 7-7).

    House
    1. Social Security

    Acting on one of the sensitive issues left unresolved by the National Commission on Social Security Reform, the House March 9 voted to raise the normal Social Security retirement age gradually from 65 to 67 between the year 2000 and 2027. It thus rejected a Ways and Means Committee plan to reduce initial benefit levels beginning in 2000 and raise payroll taxes beginning in 2015. The vote was 228-202: R 152-14; D 76-188 (ND 23-152, SD 53-36).

    The choice between raising the retirement age and increasing taxes to help maintain long-term solvency of the Social Security system had been one of the main points of controversy surrounding the crisis over Social Security financing. The bipartisan reform commission had been unable to reach agreement on measures to deal with the system's long-range problems.

    The Senate ultimately went along with the House in approving a two-year increase in the retirement age. In other respects, the Social Security financing bill (HR 1900) closely paralleled the Jan. 15 recommendations of the bipartisan reform commission.

    2. Fiscal 1984 Budget

    After two years as mere onlookers, House Democrats scored a major budget victory March 23, when the House approved the first budget resolution for fiscal 1984 (H Con Res 91). The vote was 229-196: R 4-160; D 225-36 (ND 168-6, SD 57-30).

    The budget plan adopted by the House was essentially a Democratic political manifesto. Conceived by the entire Democratic membership, it added approximately $33 billion in domestic spending to the president's fiscal 1984 requests. Much of that money was earmarked for human needs programs that were significantly cut in the fiscal 1982 and 1983 budgets.

    To pay for these programs, the plan reduced the president's proposed rate of growth in defense spending from 10 percent to 4 percent. And it also called for $30 billion in additional revenues in fiscal 1984. Reagan opposed tax increases.

    The Republicans charged that the plan was a return to the old policies of “tax and tax, spend and spend.” But they were unable to contrive a plan of their own and unwilling to bring the president's original budget up for a vote. The vacuum left by the Republicans allowed conservative Democratic “Boll Weevils,” who had voted with the Republicans in 1981–82, to return to the fold and vote with their party leadership.

    The Republican-controlled Senate also reordered Reagan's budget priorities. (Senate key vote 2)

    3. Nuclear Freeze

    The House May 4 approved a resolution (H J Res 13) calling for negotiation of a mutual and verifiable freeze on the testing, production and deployment of U.S. and Soviet nuclear arms. But the measure passed only after days of debate spread over three months and the adoption of several amendments intended by freeze opponents to mute its impact on Reagan administration nuclear arms policy.

    The Senate later rejected a slightly different version of the freeze resolution. (Senate key vote 12)

    Freeze advocates insisted that U.S. and Soviet nuclear forces currently were in overall balance and that a freeze was the only way to prevent escalation of the race by both sides to deploy new or improved weapons. In addition, they warned that both military establishments planned new weapons, such as the MX missile, that would make the nuclear balance more unstable because they would be sufficiently fast and accurate to threaten a first strike.

    The administration opposed a freeze, arguing it would block new U.S. programs that were needed both to replace obsolescent weapons and to give Moscow an incentive to agree to substantial mutual reductions in the U.S. and Soviet nuclear arsenals. To freeze the arsenals at this point merely would cement Soviet advantages, officials said.

    Freeze critics, succeeded in attaching some amendments, including one specifying that any freeze agreement would expire if it did not lead to substantial reductions in the U.S. and Soviet missile forces.

    The amended resolution was passed by a 278-149 vote: R 60-106; D 218-43 (ND 168-4, SD 50-39).

    4. Emergency Mortgage Aid

    As part of an effort to provide federal anti-recession aid — and to distance itself from the Republican administration — the Democratic leadership in the House pushed for passage of a measure providing $760 million in fiscal 1983 for a temporary loan program to help unemployed homeowners meet mortgage payments. The bill also included $100 million in fiscal 1984 funding for emergency shelter for the homeless.

    Debate on the bill (HR 1983) was bitter and partisan. The House considered it May 11, after weeks in which the leadership pulled the measure from the schedule because it lacked the votes needed for passage. Opponents argued the program was too expensive in a time of high deficits and would eventually lead to the creation of a new entitlement program.

    To make it more palatable to doubting members, House Democrats agreed to tighten eligibility requirements for the temporary loan program.

    The House narrowly rejected an attempt by Buddy Roemer, D-La., to gut the bill by stripping out the loan program and simply asking lenders to practice forbearance. It then voted 216-196 for the program: R 6-155; D 210-41 (ND 158-8, SD 52-33).

    However, the mortgage assistance program never became law. The Senate Banking Committee agreed to a loan guarantee program and included it in its housing authorization bill (S 1338). But the final housing authorization, which cleared Congress Nov. 18, omitted mortgage assistance.

    In addition, an appropriation for mortgage assistance loans, passed by the House, was dropped in conference with the Senate. Shelter for the homeless was authorized, however, at $60 million.

    5. Clean Air Act Sanctions

    The House defused a political time bomb June 2 when it voted to bar the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from imposing penalties on communities that had missed a Dec. 31, 1982, deadline for meeting national clean air standards.

    The Reagan administration had threatened to impose the sanctions on some 218 communities around the nation. Environmentalists charged the administration was trying to pressure lawmakers into moving on a long-stalled reauthorization of the Clean Air Act in hopes that a new version would ease a range of existing anti-pollution requirements.

    Congress had been deadlocked for more than two years on competing proposals to rewrite the law.

    Neither side had been willing to allow a simple extension of the air quality deadlines without getting other concessions it wanted. But in a surprise move, the House June 2 voted a one-year moratorium on the penalties, 227-136: R 89-50; D 138-86 (ND 88-58, SD 50-28).

    The vote was on an amendment prohibiting use of funds in the fiscal 1984 Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill (HR 3133) to impose the sanctions.

    The vote fractured most existing coalitions on clean air issues, cutting across parties, regions and regulatory philosophies. The amendment was offered by William E. Dannemeyer, R-Calif., an advocate of Reagan administration environmental policies who usually was aligned with conservative and industry forces seeking relaxation of the Clean Air Act.

    But it also won support from a number of House members who favored the existing law.

    The moratorium on penalties was included in the version of the bill passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Reagan July 12. Its adoption put an end to efforts to move a Clean Air Act reauthorization in the first session of the 98th Congress.

    6. Covert Action in Nicaragua

    In their one symbolic challenge to President Reagan's foreign policy, House Democrats twice voted to end “covert” U.S. aid to some 10,000 guerrillas fighting to overthrow the leftist government of Nicaragua. Congress had not publicly questioned a secret CIA operation since 1976, when it forced the Ford administration to drop its support for a pro-Western faction fighting for control of Angola.

    The Democrats insisted the covert aid in Nicaragua violated international law, undermined U.S. credibility as a peacemaker in Central America and actually strengthened the Nicaraguan government's support among its own people. Administration officials gave varying reasons for the aid. First, they said it was aimed at interdicting the flow of arms through Nicaragua to leftist guerrillas in El Salvador and elsewhere in Central America. Later, they said the covert aid was forcing the Sandinista government in Nicaragua to “turn inward” and thus reduce its support for the Salvadoran guerrillas.

    The House first took a stand against the covert aid on July 28, when it passed a bill (HR 2760) terminating the aid at a secret date and substituting for it a program to openly help nations in Central America combat cross-border arms shipments. The vote was 228-195: R 18-145; D 210-50 (ND 163-9, SD 47-41).

    The GOP-controlled Senate refused to follow suit, and Reagan and Congress ultimately reached a compromise on the issue. Congress provided $24 million to continue the covert aid in fiscal 1984, but Reagan was required to seek congressional approval for additional funds.

    7. IMF Participation

    President Reagan had to fight with his fellow Republicans and court House Democrats to win approval for an increase in the U.S. contribution to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The effort nearly backfired, however, after Democrats who had sided with the president on a key amendment were attacked by Republicans.

    The $8.4 billion U.S. share of a nearly $32 billion IMF increase finally cleared Congress as part of an unrelated measure.

    The IMF increase was needed to provide short-term aid to debt-ridden developing countries, and proponents said failure to approve it could cause a drop in world trade and possibly a global financial collapse. Opponents, however, called the increase a “big-bank bailout,” a rescue operation for banking institutions that had imprudently made huge loans to countries burdened with debt.

    The House originally passed the IMF increase (HR 2957) Aug. 3 on a 217-211 vote: R 72-94; D 145-117 (ND 106-68, SD 39-49).

    But some Democrats later threatened to withdraw their support for the bill to protest a Republican press release criticizing their votes against an amendment that was also opposed by the president. Reagan ultimately sent a thank-you letter to every Democrat who supported him on the amendment.

    A second obstacle to the IMF increase was the refusal of House Democrats to go to conference on the bill until the Senate agreed to an unrelated housing authorization. A deal was struck late in the session that combined the IMF measure with the housing bill as a single amendment to the conference report on a supplemental fiscal 1984 appropriations bill (HR 3959).

    8. Coal Slurry Pipeline

    By a surprising margin, the House Sept. 27 rejected a bill (HR 1010) giving the right of federal eminent domain to qualified coal slurry pipeline companies.

    It was the first time in five years that such legislation had reached the House floor. In 1978, a similar bill was defeated 161-246. Coal slurry backers believed support for the idea had increased substantially since then.

    But the tally of 182-235: R 85-75; D 97-160 (ND 52-120, SD 45-40) showed the continued lobbying muscle of the railroads, which in many areas enjoyed a virtual monopoly on coal transportation. They were joined by a number of farmers' organizations in fighting the bill.

    Sen. J. Bennett Johnston, D-La., chief sponsor of a similar Senate bill (S 267), assessed the margin of the House vote and declined to press for Senate consideration of his measure.

    Several pipeline companies proposed to carry coal slurry, fine particles of pulverized coal mixed with water, from Western states, southern Illinois and the Appalachian Mountains to power plants as much as 1,500 miles away.

    Federal eminent domain rights were viewed as crucial to the development of the slurry industry. Only one slurry line was currently in operation; other efforts to obtain the needed rights of way had been blocked, often by railroads.

    Supporters argued that moving coal via pipelines would result in lower electricity costs to consumers. But the railroads contended that coal slurry pipelines would deprive them of much-needed revenue, and farmers' groups were concerned the railroads would recoup by charging higher costs for transporting farm goods.

    9. Marines in Lebanon

    The backing of Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr., D-Mass., was the key that led to House passage Sept. 28 of a controversial resolution (H J Res 364) allowing President Reagan to keep U.S. Marines in Lebanon until early 1985.

    Reagan had sent more than 1,200 Marines to Lebanon in 1982 to serve in a multinational peacekeeping force. Congress accepted that action without question until several Marines were killed by sniper and artillery fire in late August and early September 1983.

    With congressional concern on the rise, Reagan in early September conducted private negotiations with O'Neill and Senate Majority Leader Howard H. Baker Jr., R-Tenn. As a result, Reagan agreed to sign legislation specifically invoking for the first time the major provision of the 1973 War Powers Resolution (PL 93-148), which required congressional approval for U.S. troops to be stationed in combat situations for more than 60–90 days. In return, O'Neill and Baker agreed to authorize the Marines to stay in Lebanon for an additional 18 months.

    The House passed the compromise agreement Sept. 28 after rejecting an effort by some Democrats to force an earlier withdrawal of the Marines. Nearly half the Democrats in the House went along with O'Neill and supported the agreement. The vote was 270-161: R 140-27; D 130-134 (ND 70-105, SD 60-29).

    The Senate passed its version of the resolution (S J Res 159, as amended) the next day, 54-46. The House accepted the Senate's slightly different version later that day, clearing it for the president. (Senate key vote 8)

    Reagan signed the bill into law (PL 98-119) on Oct. 12. Just 11 days later, terrorist bombings in Beirut killed 241 Marines, sailors and soldiers and 58 French paratroopers. Efforts to revise or revoke the Lebanon resolution in the wake of the bombings fell short in both houses.

    10. MX Missile

    The House Nov. 1 approved production of the first 21 MX missiles by a margin of only nine votes.

    The Senate followed suit by a far wider margin Nov. 7, assuring inclusion of $2.1 billion for MX in the fiscal 1984 defense appropriations bill. (Senate key vote 14)

    The administration viewed the missile as the most significant element of its nuclear buildup. The planned deployment of 100 MXs, each with 10 very accurate warheads, would pose the same threat to armored Soviet missile silos that the Soviet Union's missile force currently posed to U.S. missiles. Only that kind of threat would give Moscow an incentive to negotiate substantial mutual reductions in such large, multi-warhead ICBMs, some MX supporters insisted.

    They were joined by a small group of moderate Democrats who were less certain that MX was required in its own right, but who were willing to support, it in return for a moderation of administration arms control policy.

    MX opponents warned that the missile would make the U.S.-Soviet nuclear balance dangerously unstable because of the threat it posed to Soviet ICBMs. They argued the MX threat might tempt Moscow to launch its land-based missiles — which comprise the bulk of its nuclear arsenal — at the first, possibly erroneous sign of a U.S. attack.

    If a new U.S. ICBM were needed, some MX foes argued, it should be a small missile that could be made relatively invulnerable to Soviet attack — unlike the large silo-based MXs — by being carried around in a mobile launcher. Such a smaller missile — dubbed Midgetman — would have to carry only a single warhead and thus would remove uncertainty introduced into the current nuclear balance by each ICBM's ability to destroy several enemy missiles, thus conferring a potential advantage to whichever side launched its missiles first.

    The key House vote on the missile came on an amendment to delete from the fiscal 1984 defense appropriations bill (HR 4185) $2.1 billion for 21 MX missiles. The amendment was rejected 208-217: R 18-145; D 190-72 (ND 156-18, SD 34-54).

    11. Social Programs Spending

    Seeking to restore domestic spending cuts made in 1981, House Democratic leaders Nov. 8 produced an amendment to a stopgap spending bill adding $997.7 million for education, job training, low-income energy assistance and other social programs.

    The amendment to the second fiscal 1984 continuing resolution (H J Res 403) was offered by Majority Leader Jim Wright, D-Texas. Supporters said the proposal would force Congress and Reagan to decide whether to back up with hard cash their expressed concern over the state of American education. Democratic leaders also wanted to force Reagan to choose between more domestic spending or a veto of politically popular programs.

    Reagan adamantly opposed the extra money, and Republicans demanded separate votes on the various components of the Wright amendment. In those votes, the House adopted more money for vocational education, schooling for immigrant children, community health centers, job training, child nutrition and other services, rejecting only a section providing $43 million for science centers at three universities.

    After deleting the money for science centers, the House approved the remaining $954.4 million in the Wright amendment as a package. The vote was 254-155: R 22-134; D 232-21 (ND 162-7, SD 70-14).

    Although the Wright amendment was adopted, the entire continuing resolution was rejected later that night by a 203-206 vote. The defeat came when impatient freshman Democrats mounted a symbolic protest against the stalemate on deficit reduction legislation and joined Republicans to reject the stopgap money bill.

    When the House considered a new continuing resolution (H J Res 413) Nov. 10, the Wright amendment again was accepted. But the Senate voted 53-36 against the extra domestic money.

    With Reagan threatening to veto the continuing resolution because of the Wright money, House and Senate conferees Nov. 11 trimmed the $954.4 million down to $98.7 million. The money was divided among education for the handicapped, vocational rehabilitation, immigrant education, college student aid, community health centers, colleges for the deaf and emergency shelters for the homeless. Reagan signed H J Res 413 (PL 98-151) Nov. 14.

    12. Dairy Program

    Faced with an expensive, continuously growing dairy surplus, the House Nov. 9 had a clear choice between two alternative methods of dealing with the problem. It endorsed a plan, pushed by the dairy industry, to pay dairy farmers for the first time to cut back production. For years, the federal government had compensated crop farmers for holding down production, but there had been no payments on a national scale to dairymen for producing less milk.

    The House rejected an alternative plan to authorize immediate, sharp cuts in federal dairy price supports. The support establishes the price paid by the federal dairy program for surplus milk. Advocates said price support cuts in past years had reduced surplus production and would do so again; they called the 15-month payment program an expensive mistake, and said dairy farmers would figure out ways to collect the payments without permanently reducing productive capacity.

    But the House rejected these arguments, and the price support cut, proposed by Barber B. Conable Jr., R-N.Y., lost 174-250: R 97-65; D 77-185 (ND 52-122, SD 25-63).

    The House subsequently passed the payment plan (HR 4196). Its supporters noted dairy farmers themselves would be financing part of the program, and they argued that family dairy farms should be protected from unreasonable economic shocks associated with production cuts.

    The administration initially backed the payment plan, but Agriculture Secretary John R. Block later announced he preferred Conable's price support cut. The American Farm Bureau Federation, consumer representatives and livestock producers also lined up behind Conable.

    The paid diversion plan was controversial enough that the House emphatically refused in mid-October to let sponsors scoot a Senate-passed version (HR 3385) straight through to conference, without amendments. But when the bill came up a second time Nov. 9, dairy lobbyists had mustered enough support from key Democratic leaders — and from commodity groups benefiting from other provisions dealing with tobacco program changes, egg production and drought relief — to soundly defeat Conable's amendment.

    13. Universal Telephone Service

    A $4 million lobbying campaign by the American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (AT&T) failed Nov. 10 when the House rejected by a party-line vote a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) plan to raise local phone rates.

    The FCC had proposed levying a flat charge of $2 per month for residential users and $6 per month per line for small-business users, beginning Jan. 1, 1984, for the right of access to long-distance service. The fees would rise in the future.

    The FCC and AT&T argued the access charges were essential to the success of the scheduled Jan. 1, 1984, court-ordered breakup of AT&T.

    Under the existing system, local telephone companies received some $6.5 billion a year from interstate long-distance tolls to help cover the costs of wires, poles and other equipment. After Jan. 1, when the local companies separated from AT&T, they no longer would get that subsidy.

    The FCC plan would shift the subsidy to local users. AT&T, the FCC and their Republican allies argued that unless long-distance users were relieved of the burden of paying the subsidy, allowing long-distance rates to fall, the large firms that make the bulk of long-distance calls would turn to new technologies to set up their own communications networks. The result, they said, would shrink the rate base, requiring local phone users to pay higher rates in the long run.

    The bill under consideration (HR 4102) would prohibit the FCC from imposing the access charge on residential customers and business users that had only one line, and would require long-distance users to continue to pay part of the costs of the wires, poles and other facilities shared with local users.

    The bill's sponsor, Timothy E. Wirth, D-Colo., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications, and his allies argued that the FCC plan was unfair. They said it would shift a cost properly borne by long-distance callers to local users and would charge local users for the right to use long-distance even if they made no such calls. They contended phone service would become so expensive that the poor and some rural citizens could not afford it.

    The key vote came when the House rejected by 142-264 a substitute bill offered by Tom Tauke, R-Iowa, that would have let the FCC phase in the access charges at lower levels than the $2 a month the FCC planned. The vote was 142-264: R 134-19; D 8-245 (ND 1-169, SD 7-76).

    The House went on to pass the bill by voice vote, but final action on the issue awaited Senate action on a milder bill (S 1660) that would delay the FCC plan for two years.

    14. Equal Rights Amendment

    The House Democratic leadership tried to revive the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) Nov. 15 by putting the proposal on a parliamentary fast track, but the tactic angered a number of House members and the ERA failed.

    The vote on H J Res 1 was 278-147, six short of the two-thirds majority required to pass it. Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the ERA, while Republicans voted against the measure by a 2-1 margin: R 53-109; D 225-38 (ND 164-13, SD 61-25).

    The wording of H J Res 1 was identical to that of an earlier ERA that died June 30, 1982, three states short of the three-fourths (38) needed to ratify it: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

    Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr., D-Mass., took the unusual step of bringing the ERA to the floor under suspension of the rules, a procedure that allows only 40 minutes' debate and no amendments. Generally, it is reserved for non-controversial measures.

    O'Neill and ERA sponsors feared that if H J Res 1 went to the floor under normal procedures, amendments would be adopted making it inapplicable to abortion policy, the military draft and military combat regulations, among other areas of existing law. Realizing that such amendments would make the ERA unacceptable to many of its supporters, they opted to send the proposal to the floor under a procedure barring amendments entirely.

    The ERA was a priority issue for many women's groups, and Democrats hoped the sharp partisan divergence on the amendment would weigh heavily in the 1984 elections.

    Although ERA hearings were held in a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, that panel took no action on the proposal in 1983.

    15. Nerve Gas Production

    For the third time in two years, the House Nov. 15 voted against resuming the production of lethal chemical weapons. It instructed conferees on the fiscal 1984 defense appropriations bill (HR 4185) to oppose adamantly $124.4 million for production of so-called “binary munitions.” These are aerial bombs and artillery shells designed to dispense lethal nerve gas.

    The administration insisted Moscow's use of its large stocks of chemical weapons could be deterred only if U.S. forces possessed comparable weapons. And officials also contended that only a viable U.S. chemical weapons threat would induce Moscow to negotiate a chemical weapons ban.

    Binary weapons opponents insisted that existing U.S. chemical weapons would be adequate in case of a conflict. Critics also argued that, because of the widespread revulsion against chemical weapons, U.S. binary production would surrender a propaganda advantage that Washington reaped from its own 14-year abstention from chemical weapons production, while Soviet forces and allies were widely believed to have used such weapons in Afghanistan, Laos and Cambodia.

    The key vote was on an amendment to a motion to instruct the House conferees that had the effect of insisting on the House position of denying production funding for the nerve gas weapons. The amendment was agreed to 258-166: R 60-103; D 198-63 (ND 162-12, SD 36-51).

    16. Tax Increases

    The House killed any chance for consideration of a limited $8 billion tax increase measure (HR 4170) during the 1983 session when it refused Nov. 17 to approve the rule governing floor consideration of the measure. The vote against the rule was 204-214: R 13-149; D 191-65 (ND 147-23, SD 44-42).

    Many House Democrats believed that they could co-opt the deficit-reduction issue by urging increases in taxes. President Reagan, however, was unequivocal in his opposition to tax increases of any size.

    House leaders were lukewarm toward the measure. Although they ultimately backed the effort, they saw little to be gained by approving a controversial tax bill that the Senate was unlikely to approve and the president would certainly veto.

    The chief controversy over the bill, which was drafted in part to meet fiscal 1984 deficit-reduction requirements, involved proposed limits on tax-exempt industrial development bonds (IDBs). Other provisions of the bill would extend the mortgage revenue bond program, revamp the taxation of life insurance companies, give statutory tax exemption to most existing fringe benefits, and restrict the use of sale/lease-back schemes by non-profit entities.

    1. Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, Fiscal 1983/Jobs

    HR 1718 Levin, D-Mich., amendment to add $1.665 billion for job creation, emergency food and shelter assistance and emergency health assistance. Rejected 34-53: R 2-46; D 32-7 (ND 25-4, SD 7-3), March 11, 1983.

    2. First Budget Resolution, Fiscal 1984

    S Con Res 27 Adoption of the concurrent resolution to set fiscal 1984 budget targets as follows: budget authority, $914.7 billion; outlays, $849.7 billion; revenues, $671.1 billion; and deficit, $178.6 billion. Adopted 50-49: R 21-32; D 29-17 (ND 24-8, SD 5-9), May 19, 1983.

    3. Supplemental Appropriations, Fiscal 1983

    HR. 3069 Jackson, D-Wash., amendment to raise senators' salaries to $69,800 beginning July 1, 1983, and, beginning Jan. 1, 1984, to limit the acceptance of honoraria to 30 percent of pay. Adopted 49-47: R 29-25; D 20-22 (ND 16-13, SD 4-9), June 16, 1983.

    4. Human Life Federalism Amendment

    S J Res 3 Passage of the joint resolution to propose an amendment to the Constitution that would overturn the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal. Rejected 49-50: R 34-19; D 15-31 (ND 7-25, SD 8-6), June 28, 1983. A two-thirds majority of those present and voting (67 in this case) of both houses is required for passage of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    5. Omnibus Defense Authorizations

    S 675 Tower, R-Texas, motion to table (kill) the Pryor, D-Ark., amendment to prohibit the production of lethal binary chemical munitions and related production facilities. Motion agreed to 50-49: R 35-17; D 14-32 (ND 5-27, SD 9-5), July 13, 1983, with Vice President Bush casting a “yea” vote to break the 49-49 tie. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    6. Interest and Dividend Tax Withholding/Caribbean Basin Initiative

    HR 2973 Adoption of the conference report on the bill to repeal interest and dividend withholding requirements due to take effect Aug. 5; to impose new tax compliance requirements and penalties; and to provide trade and tax incentives to certain Caribbean nations. Adopted (thus cleared for the president) 90-7: R 51-2; D 39-5 (ND 25-5, SD 14-0), July 28, 1983.

    7. Interior Appropriations, Fiscal 1984

    HR 3363 Bumpers, D-Ark., amendment to ban all further coal leasing on federal lands until 90 days after a special commission created to study the Interior Department's coal leasing policies has completed its report. Adopted 63-33: R 23-29; D 40-4 (ND 29-1, SD 11-3), Sept. 20, 1983.

    8. Multinational Force in Lebanon

    S J Res 159 Passage of the joint resolution to provide statutory authorization under the War Powers Resolution for continued U.S. participation in the multinational peacekeeping force in Lebanon for up to 18 months after the enactment of the resolution. Passed 54-46: R 52-3; D 2-43 (ND 2-29, SD 0-14), Sept. 29, 1983. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    9. Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations, Fiscal 1984

    HR 3913 Weicker, R-Conn., motion to table (kill) the Bradley, D-N.J., appeal of the chair's ruling that a Bradley amendment to add $559 million for education programs was out of order because it would have increased funding above authorized levels. Motion agreed to 50-45: R 49-5; D 1-40 (ND 1-26, SD 0-14), Oct. 4, 1983. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    10. Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday

    HR 3706 Passage of the bill to declare the third Monday in January a legal public holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr. Passed 78-22: R 37-18; D 41-4 (ND 28-3, SD 13-1), Oct. 19, 1983.

    11. Supplemental Appropriations, Fiscal 1984

    HR 3959 Humphrey, R-N.H., motion to table (kill) the Senate Appropriations Committee amendment to add $1.5 billion to the bill to complete the Clinch River breeder reactor in Tennessee. Motion agreed to 56-40: R 23-30; D 33-10 (ND 26-4, SD 7-6), Oct. 26, 1983.

    12. Debt Limit Increase

    H J Res 308 Dole, R-Kan., motion to table (kill) the Kennedy, D-Mass., amendment to call for a mutual and verifiable freeze on and reduction in nuclear weapons. Motion agreed to 58-40: R 46-7; D 12-33 (ND 3-28, SD 9-5), Oct. 31, 1983. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    13. Debt Limit Increase

    H J Res 308 Passage of the bill to increase the public debt limit to $1.45 trillion, from $1.389 trillion. Rejected 39-56: R 28-25; D 11-31 (ND 10-19, SD 1-12), Oct. 31, 1983.

    14. Defense Department Appropriations, Fiscal 1984

    HR 4185 Bumpers, D-Ark., amendment to delete $2.1 billion for 21 MX missiles. Rejected 37-56: R 6-46; D 31-10 (ND 24-3, SD 7-7), Nov. 7, 1983. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    1. Social Security Act Amendments

    HR 1900 Pickle, D-Texas, amendment to gradually raise the normal Social Security retirement age from 65 to 67 after the year 2000, and to delete provisions of the Ways and Means Committee bill that would reduce initial benefit levels beginning in the year 2000 and raise payroll taxes beginning in the year 2015. Adopted 228-202: R 152-14; D 76-188 (ND 23-152, SD 53-36), March 9, 1983. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    2. First Budget Resolution, Fiscal 1984

    H Con Res 91 Adoption of the first concurrent budget resolution to set spending and revenue targets for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 1984, as follows: budget authority, $936.55 billion; outlays, $863.55 billion; revenues, $689.1 billion; and deficit, $174.45 billion. The resolution also set preliminary goals for fiscal 1985–86, revised budget levels for fiscal 1983 and included reconciliation instructions requiring House committees to recommend legislative savings to meet the budget targets. Adopted 229-196: R 4-160; D 225-36 (ND 168-6, SD 57-30), March 23, 1983.

    3. Nuclear Freeze

    H J Res 13 Passage of the joint resolution calling for a mutual and verifiable freeze on and reduction in nuclear weapons. Passed 278-149: R 60-106; D 218-43 (ND 168-4, SD 50-39), May 4, 1983. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    4. Emergency Housing Assistance Act

    HR 1983 Passage of the bill to authorize $760 million in fiscal 1983 for a temporary loan program to help unemployed homeowners make their mortgage payments, and $100 million in fiscal 1984 for emergency shelter for the homeless. Passed 216-196: R 6-155; D 210-41 (ND 158-8, SD 52-33), May 11, 1983. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    5. Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations, Fiscal 1984

    HR 3133 Dannemeyer, R-Calif., amendment to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from using any funds provided by the bill to impose sanctions on any area for failing to attain any national ambient air quality standard established under the Clean Air Act. Adopted 227-136: R 89-50; D 138-86 (ND 88-58, SD 50-28), June 2, 1983.

    6. Prohibition on Covert Action in Nicaragua

    HR 2760 Passage of the bill to prohibit, at a classified date specified by the House Intelligence Committee, support by U.S. intelligence agencies for military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua and to authorize $30 million in fiscal 1983 and $50 million in fiscal 1984 to help friendly countries in Central America interdict cross-border shipments of arms to anti-government forces in the region. The bill also directed the president to seek action by the Organization of American States to resolve the conflicts in Central America and to seek an agreement by the government of Nicaragua to halt its support for anti-government forces in the region. Passed 228-195: R 18-145; D 210-50 (ND 163-9, SD 47-41), July 28, 1983. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    7. International Recovery and Financial Stability Act

    HR 2957 Passage of the bill to authorize an $8.4 billion increase in U.S. participation in the International Monetary Fund, extend for two years with some changes the authority for the Export-Import Bank, and provide multilateral development aid. Passed 217-211: R 72-94; D 145-117 (ND 106-68, SD 39-49), Aug. 3, 1983. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    8. Coal Pipeline Act

    HR 1010 Passage of the bill to grant federal power of eminent domain to certified coal slurry pipeline companies. Rejected 182-235: R 85-75; D 97-160 (ND 52-120, SD 45-40), Sept. 27, 1983.

    9. Multinational Force in Lebanon

    H J Res 364 Passage of the joint resolution to provide statutory authorization under the War Powers Resolution for continued U.S. participation in the multinational peacekeeping force in Lebanon for up to 18 months after the enactment of the resolution. Passed 270-161: R 140-27; D 130-134 (ND 70-105, SD 60-29), Sept. 28, 1983. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    10. Defense Department Appropriations, Fiscal 1984

    HR 4185 Addabbo, D-N.Y., amendment to delete $2.1 billion for procurement of 21 MX missiles. Rejected 208-217: R 18-145; D 190-72 (ND 156-18, SD 34-54), Nov. 1, 1983. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    11. Continuing Appropriations, Fiscal 1984

    H J Res 403 Wright, D-Texas, amendment to increase funding in the bill by approximately $955 million for an assortment of programs, most of them concerning education. Adopted 254-155: R 22-134; D 232-21 (ND 162-7, SD 70-14), Nov. 8, 1983. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    12. Dairy Production Stabilization

    HR 4196 Conable, R-N.Y., substitute to authorize the secretary of agriculture to reduce the existing $13.10 (per hundred pounds) federal dairy support by as much as $1.50, and to repeal two existing dairy assessments, each 50 cents per hundred pounds. Rejected 174-250: R 97-65; D 77-185 (ND 52-122, SD 25-63), Nov. 9, 1983. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    13. Universal Telephone Service

    HR 4102 Tauke, R-Iowa, substitute to phase in, rather than ban, the Federal Communications Commission plan to impose an access charge on residential and small business telephone users for the right to long-distance service, but only as of Jan. 1, 1985, rather than April 3, 1984, and at levels of no more than $1 a month the first year, rather than $2, rising to $4 a month by 1988. Rejected 142-264: R 134-19; D 8-245 (ND 1-169, SD 7-76), Nov. 10, 1983.

    14. Equal Rights Amendment

    H J Res 1 Rodino, D-N.J., motion to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution to propose an amendment to the Constitution declaring, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” Motion rejected 278-147: R 53-109; D 225-38 (ND 164-13, SD 61-25), Nov. 15, 1983. A two-thirds majority of those present and voting (284 in this case) is required for passage under suspension of the rules. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    15. Defense Department Appropriations, Fiscal 1984

    HR 4185 Porter, R-Ill., amendment, to the Young, R-Fla., motion to instruct House conferees, to insist on the House position, namely opposition to $124.4 million for production facilities for and procurement of chemical munitions. Motion agreed to 258-166: R 60-103; D 198-63 (ND 162-12, SD 36-51), Nov. 15, 1983. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    16. Tax Reform Act

    HR 4170 Adoption of the rule (H Res 376) providing for House floor consideration of the bill to raise $8 billion in revenues over fiscal 1984–86 through a variety of changes in tax law. The main elements of the bill dealt with mortgage revenue bonds, industrial development bonds, fringe benefits, tax simplification, curbs on sale/lease-back schemes by non-profit groups and the taxation of life insurance companies. The bill also made substantial savings in the Medicare program and revised administration of the Social Security Disability Insurance program. Rejected 204-214: R 13-149; D 191-65 (ND 147-23, SD 44-42), Nov. 17, 1983.

    Appendix

    1984 Key Votes

    Senate
    1. School Prayer

    The Senate March 20 rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to permit organized, recited prayer in public schools and other public places. It was the first time since 1970 that the Senate had voted on a constitutional amendment on school prayer; then, a similar though not identical proposal was rejected.

    The House did not consider any constitutional amendment on prayer in 1984.

    The vote on the Senate proposal (S J Res 73) was 56-44, 11 shy of the two-thirds majority required. Republicans voted for the amendment 37-18, while Democrats opposed it, 19-26 (ND 6-25, SD 13-1).

    The vote was a setback for President Reagan, who had lobbied for the amendment, and for fundamentalist Christian groups, which had pressed for a constitutional amendment to overturn a series of Supreme Court decisions since 1962 that barred prayers and Bible readings in the public schools.

    Before voting on S J Res 73, the Senate defeated, 81-15, an alternative proposal that would have allowed group silent prayer in public schools.

    The defeat of the prayer amendment resulted in a strategy shift by proponents of school prayer. Within weeks, they turned their attention to enacting a law to allow student religious groups to meet in public schools on the same terms as other student groups. (House key vote 6)

    2. Farm Bill

    The administration won a qualified victory after trying for more than a year to halt scheduled increases in a major type of crop price support, target prices. What began as a thrift measure became, for many members, an election-year cornucopia of concessions to farmers by the time it cleared the House April 3.

    Still, the target price freeze (HR 4072 — PL 98-258) was an achievement for the administration because it meant that bidding on future levels for the important price support program would start at lower levels in 1985, when Congress was scheduled to reauthorize farm programs in an omnibus farm bill.

    The target price program provided cash to farmers when market prices for major crops dropped below statutory “targets.” In its 1981 farm bill the administration had sought, without success, to end the program. By 1983, administration officials were urging Congress to halt the expensive annual boosts in the targets, arguing that they encouraged farmers to overproduce for surplus-glutted markets.

    Farm lobbyists told the administration they would give up the scheduled support increases if they got something in return.

    The basic bill was negotiated in private sessions with the administration and farm-state senators; progress occasionally stalled as commodity groups voiced new requests. As the Senate was winding up debate on the bill, a final adjustment for rice producers was being completed off the floor. The freeze bill passed the Senate March 22 on a 78-10 vote, with Republicans voting 50-2, Democrats 28-8 (ND 20-4, SD 8-4). By that time, it had acquired paid acreage reductions for crops in 1985 (with early payments to participants in 1984), liberalized loan terms for Farmers Home Administration borrowers, and administration commitments to boost farm exports and food donations abroad.

    The final version of the farm measure emerged from the House-Senate conference little changed from the Senate-passed bill.

    3. El Salvador Aid

    Nearly three years after the Reagan administration began providing substantial amounts of military aid to help the government of El Salvador fight leftist guerrillas, the Senate in March and April held its first major debate on U.S. policy in the region.

    Pending before the Senate, as it acted on an “urgent” fiscal 1984 supplemental appropriations bill (H J Res 492 — PL 98-332) was a Reagan request for $92.7 million in military aid to the Salvadoran regime, on top of $64.8 million that Congress had approved previously for the year. Early during Senate consideration of the issue, the administration settled for a compromise figure of $61.75 million, negotiated by Daniel K. Inouye, D-Hawaii. But other Democrats, among them leading critics of Reagan's policies in Central America, pressed for a much lower figure of $21 million, which they said was enough to keep the Salvadoran army supplied through that country's presidential election in May.

    On April 2, the Senate rejected an amendment by Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., that would have allowed only $21 million in additional Salvador aid. The vote was 25-63: R 2-48; D 23-15 (ND 21-5, SD 2-10).

    Coupled with House approval on May 10 of a foreign aid authorizations bill (HR 5119) containing all of Reagan's requests for El Salvador, the Senate's April 2 vote helped end a longstanding debate in Congress about the wisdom of U.S. involvement in the civil war in that country.

    Congress eventually approved the $61.75 million included in the urgent supplemental, plus another $70 million for El Salvador in a later supplemental (HR 6040 — PL 98-396), bringing the total for fiscal 1984 to $196.55 million. (House key vote 5)

    4. Troops in El Salvador

    During Senate debate on the “urgent” supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal 1984 (H J Res 492 — PL 98-332), a majority of Democrats decided to put that chamber on record on the question of limiting the president's discretion to send combat troops to Central America. Reagan long had insisted that he had no intention of involving U.S. forces directly in Central America's civil wars. But some Democrats expressed a belief that Reagan would send troops to the region to avert the spread of communism, and they wanted Congress to play a direct role in any such decision.

    The Senate on March 29 rejected, by wide margins, two proposals by Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., requiring congressional authorization for the introduction of combat troops in Central America.

    Early in April, most Senate Democrats reached agreement on another proposal that would have required the president to seek congressional authorization before sending combat troops into or over El Salvador. An exception would be made if introduction of troops was needed immediately to evacuate U.S. citizens. On April 4, Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., offered that proposal as an amendment to H J Res 492, and it was tabled on a 59-36 vote: R 49-5; D 10-31 (ND 2-25, SD 8-6). Because the amendment had support from a broad range of Democrats, it was the clearest test in 1984 of congressional sentiment on the issue of direct U.S. involvement in Central America's wars.

    5. Tax Indexing

    Ever since Congress agreed in 1981 to index federal income taxes to offset the effects of inflation, Democrats and some moderate Republicans had been trying to repeal or delay the law, set to go into effect in 1985. They had argued that a country with annual budget deficits approaching $200 billion could ill afford to reduce taxes approximately $51 billion over the next three years.

    But they had been defeated every time — in part because of Reagan's strong support of indexing. He repeatedly threatened to veto any change in indexing or the across-the-board income tax cuts in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.

    In a last attempt to change indexing before it went into effect, Sen. John H. Chafee, R-R.I., proposed an amendment to the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (HR 2163) to delay the Jan. 1, 1985, effective date for three years. Critics argued that the delay would hit middle-income taxpayers the hardest. But Chafee replied that the best way to help “the taxpayers of this country is to reduce the deficit.”

    His arguments failed to convince most of his GOP colleagues and even some Democrats, whose standard-bearer Walter F. Mondale had made an indexing delay part of his economic program. A motion by Finance Committee Chairman Robert Dole, R-Kan., to table (kill) Chafee's amendment was agreed to April 10, 57-38: R 46-7; D 11-31 (ND 8-22, SD 3-9).

    6. Real Estate Taxes

    Congress tried again, as it had done for the past three years, to help reduce the federal deficit by raising revenues through a hodgepodge of tax measures, including some to close loopholes and improve taxpayer compliance. As before, legislators faced strong lobbying pressure from interest groups to back away from proposed tax hikes.

    A key challenge to 1984 efforts came from the real estate industry, which objected to a Finance Committee proposal to increase from 15 to 20 years the minimum time period over which a building could be depreciated, or written off against taxes. Proponents of the change argued that the shorter time period was overly generous and had spurred the growth of abusive real estate tax shelters. Opponents argued that a 20-year depreciation requirement would inhibit investment in real estate.

    But the influence of the real estate industry was evident during the Senate floor debate on the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (HR 2163), which included provisions to raise $47.7 billion in taxes through fiscal year 1987. An amendment by Rudy Boschwitz, R-Minn., to set the real estate depreciation period at 20 years in 1984, 19 years in 1985 and 18 years thereafter was adopted early April 13, 62-19: R 37-8; D 25-11 (ND 17-10, SD 8-1). To help offset revenue losses, the Boschwitz amendment included a provision to reduce tax credits for the rehabilitation of old buildings.

    Finance Committee Chairman Robert Dole, R-Kan., who had fought to keep the committee package intact, said: “You do around here what you have the votes to do. The point is [the real estate interests] have the votes.”

    In conference, the rehabilitation tax credit change was dropped and the real estate depreciation period was set at 18 years (PL 98-369).

    7. Deficit-Reduction Plan

    In the culmination of four weeks of bitter debate, the Senate on May 17 accepted a modified deficit-reduction package backed by Reagan and the Senate GOP leadership. The plan was adopted 65-32: R 53-0; D 12-32 (ND 6-24, SD 6-8). But the margin of approval belied the intensity of the chamber's struggle over budget-cutting proposals.

    Acceptance of the “Rose Garden” plan, so called because Reagan endorsed it in the White House Rose Garden March 15, was guaranteed once Senate Majority Leader Howard H. Baker Jr., R-Tenn., and White House officials struck a deal with GOP dissidents who had been pressing for higher domestic spending.

    Proposals aimed at trimming federal deficits were debated at length in both the House and Senate. The House approved a measure to slash deficits by $182 billion through 1987. The Rose Garden plan called for $140 billion in deficit cuts through the same period. (House key vote 3)

    Key components of the Senate plan were three-year spending caps on defense and domestic spending. Under the caps, military spending authority would rise by 7 percent annually; the budget for other discretionary spending would be $139.8 billion in fiscal 1985, $144.3 billion in fiscal 1986 and $151.5 billion in fiscal 1987. Taxes would increase by $47.7 billion under the Senate plan, about the same as in the House budget. The House budget called for annual defense spending to rise at a 3.5 percent rate, adjusted for inflation.

    Passage of the Rose Garden plan was preceded by close votes on several alternative spending cut/tax increase measures. In one plan, Senate Democrats sought to cut deficits by $204 billion; among the provisions were limiting defense growth to 4 percent and delaying tax indexing for two years. That plan failed May 8 on a 49-49 tie. On May 10 the Senate, 48-46, shelved a plan supported by GOP moderates that would have combined the defense and domestic spending caps and given appropriating committees some leeway in shifting money from defense to social programs.

    The GOP leadership broke the logjam May 16 when it convinced five moderate Republicans to support a proposal adding $2 billion to the non-defense appropriations cap. The Senate accepted the plan, 62-37.

    The Rose Garden plan vote came the next day on an amendment to HR 2163, a miscellaneous trade bill. The tax provisions were added to HR 4170 (PL 98-369); the spending targets were incorporated in S Con Res 106.

    House-Senate agreement on defense spending hung up resolution of spending questions until the closing days of the session.

    8. Anti-Missile Defense

    By a margin of two votes, the Senate on June 13 killed an amendment that would have trimmed $100 million from Reagan's proposal to develop a space-based defense against Soviet ballistic missiles. This was the first vote taken in either house on Reagan's “strategic defense initiative” — which critics had labeled “Star Wars.”

    The vote came on an amendment to the fiscal 1985 defense authorization bill (S 2723). Reagan requested $1.78 billion for development of the anti-missile project and the Senate Armed Services Committee had trimmed the amount to $1.63 billion. An amendment by Charles H. Percy, R-Ill., that would have further reduced the amount was tabled, and thus killed, 47-45: R 40-10; D 7-35 (ND 3-26, SD 4-9).

    When Reagan called for the initiative in a televised address on March 23, 1983, he set the sweeping goal of making nuclear weapons “impotent and obsolete.” Many observers took this statement to mean that the new program would substitute a “leak-proof” defense for the long-standing U.S. policy of deterring Soviet attack by threat of nuclear retaliation.

    Critics of Reagan's Star Wars plan argued almost unanimously that a perfect defense would be impossible. At best, they warned, a U.S. effort to develop such weapons would extend the arms race to outer space and shatter the 1972 U.S.-Soviet treaty limiting anti-missile defenses.

    There was no corresponding floor vote in the House, where opponents of Reagan's plans for new weapons in space concentrated on trying to block tests of the anti-satellite (ASAT) missile. The House version of the fiscal 1985 defense appropriations bill slashed funding for the anti-missile plan to $1.1 billion. The final appropriations compromise was $1.4 billion.

    9. MX Missile

    The Senate June 14 approved continued production of MX intercontinental missiles, but only by the vote of Vice President George Bush. Bush broke a 48-48 tie, to table, and thus kill, an amendment to the fiscal 1985 defense authorization bill (S 2723) that would have barred production of additional MXs in fiscal 1985.

    In 1983, Congress had narrowly approved production of the first 21 MXs.

    Though barring production of more missiles in fiscal 1985, the June 14 amendment would have approved several hundred million dollars in MX-related procurement funds so that the missile production line would be kept available to resume production if the missile were approved in fiscal 1986. The precise mechanics of the amendment were obscure, but its intent was clear: it gave senators a chance to register their unhappiness with Reagan's MX plan without taking political responsibility for voting to kill the program.

    MX, which would be the first U.S. long-range ballistic missile with enough power and accuracy to attack armored Soviet missile launchers and command posts, had been the centerpiece of the administration's nuclear arms program. The administration argued that the rapidity with which they could hit their targets gave ICBMs much more symbolic “clout” than other nuclear weapons and that the current Soviet advantage in such weapons was intolerable.

    Most MX opponents rejected the administration's focus on land-based missiles such as the MX, arguing that Soviet advantages in such weapons could be offset by U.S. advantages in other kinds of nuclear arms. Moreover, they said, since MX would be deployed in existing missile silos, which were vulnerable to Soviet attack, the new and more powerful missile would simply increase Moscow's incentive to launch a first strike in case of a severe superpower crisis.

    The GOP-led Senate clearly was not prepared to vote to kill MX: Shortly before the key vote, it voted 55-41 to kill an amendment that would have denied MX production funds in fiscal 1985. But by abandoning in early 1983 the long search for an invulnerable way to deploy MX, Reagan paved the way for a weakening of support for the program reflected in the June 14 vote to table the anti-production amendment: R 43-10; D 5-38 (ND 2-28, SD 3-10) with Bush casting a “yea” vote to break the 48-48 tie.

    The House had voted to block additional MX production unless Congress voted in 1985 to allow it. (House key vote 9)

    The final compromise allowed production of a second batch of 21 MXs if Congress passed two resolutions approving that move in the spring of 1985.

    10. Aid to Nicaraguan ‘Contras’

    For Congress and the Reagan administration, the most contentious foreign policy issue was the so-called “secret” war in Nicaragua. Since early 1982, thousands of U.S.-paid and equipped guerrillas, called “contras,” were battling the leftist government of Nicaragua. The House Democratic leadership in 1983 staked out a clear position in opposition to the war. But until early 1984, the administration had backing for the war from key Democrats in the Senate, especially from members of the Intelligence Committee.

    In April, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., disclosed on the Senate floor that the CIA had helped the contras mine three Nicaraguan harbors. Goldwater and other committee members were outraged, not so much by the mining as by the fact that the CIA had not notified them in advance.

    The immediate product of that outrage was the Senate's adoption on April 10 of a non-binding statement opposing the mining. Also as a result of the mining, several Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee — among them committee Vice Chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan, N.Y., and former Chairman Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii — decided to drop their support for the Nicaraguan war.

    On June 18, as the Senate was debating the fiscal 1985 defense authorizations bill (S 2723), Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., offered an amendment stating that the bill did not authorize U.S. aid to the contras. To that amendment, Inouye offered a substitute authorizing $2 million to move the contras out of Nicaragua and $4 million for their “humanitarian support” once they left.

    The Senate tabled the underlying Kennedy amendment, taking with it Inouye's substitute proposal, by a vote of 58-38: R 48-6; D 10-32 (ND 2-26, SD 8-6). Nevertheless, the vote showed that support for the Nicaraguan war was fading in the Senate. Among the 38 who opposed the war were five Intelligence Committee members who previously had backed it: Moynihan; Inouye; Lloyd Bentsen, D-Texas; Walter D. Huddleston, D-Ky., and William S. Cohen, R-Maine.

    A week later, on June 25, the Senate voted 88-1 to delete Reagan's pending request for $21 million to continue aid to the contras through fiscal 1984. In October, conferees on a fiscal 1985 continuing appropriations resolution (H J Res 648 — PL 98-473) decided to bar any aid to the contras until March 1985. (House key vote 8)

    11. Drunken Driving

    Faced with an intense lobbying effort by relatives of victims of drunken driving, Congress acted to pressure states into raising their minimum drinking age to 21. The law (HR 4616 — PL 98-363) would withhold a portion of federal highway funds if a state did not set its minimum drinking age at 21 by 1987.

    When the proposal surfaced in a House committee early in 1984, it was opposed by the administration as an infringement on states' rights. The administration argued that establishing the legal drinking age had been a state prerogative, and 27 states allowed people younger than 21 to purchase or possess alcohol.

    Nevertheless, in June the House added to a highway funding bill an amendment that would withhold certain funds from states that did not have a 21-year limit. As Congress raced toward the July 4 recess, prospects for enactment were clouded because floor action on the Senate's highway bill had been blocked by various disputes.

    A group called Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) and a number of other organizations continued their crusade backing a national drinking age limit, maintaining that the varying laws created a patchwork quilt of “blood borders” that let young people drive across state lines to drink in states with low minimum ages, causing accidents on their way home.

    The mothers buttonholed legislators like veteran campaigners, creating an atmosphere that Sen. Gordon J. Humphrey, R-N.H., called “a public relations effort over the last 10 days which has panicked half the town.” The president switched position and supported the legislation.

    The path for the legislation was cleared June 21 when senators reached a compromise that combined the withholding of funds if the 21-year limit was not established and providing incentive grants for states to establish other safety programs. When the compromise came up on the Senate floor June 26 in the form of an amendment offered by Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J., it was opposed by a handful of members who opposed the coercive approach of withholding funds, and by some who thought it unfairly discriminated against an age group.

    But after rejecting an attempt to substitute a financial incentive program for the punitive approach, the Senate whisked the Lautenberg amendment through by a vote of 81-16: R 45-10; D 36-6 (ND 25-3, SD 11-3). Two days later the House agreed to the Senate amendment, clearing the measure for the president.

    12. Appropriations Holdup

    Upset with Senate unwillingness to resolve defense spending issues and angered at the chamber's virtual dismissal of the congressional budget process, Democrats led by Lawton Chiles, D-Fla., stopped the chamber's work for a week in early August. The first attempt to limit the Democratic filibuster failed, 54-31: R 46-3; D 8-28 (ND 4-20, SD 4-8). Although a second motion to cut off debate succeeded, the Democrats' ploy eventually forced the GOP leadership to agree to negotiations with the House leaders on Pentagon spending.

    The Democratic filibuster began Aug. 1, when Chiles objected to a motion to waive provisions of the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (PL 93-344) and take up the fiscal 1985 agriculture appropriations bill (HR 5743). The act required Congress to adopt a budget resolution before considering appropriations bills. The Senate had previously agreed to waive the Budget Act to debate fiscal 1985 funding bills; the House May 22 approved a blanket waiver for all 1985 appropriations bills.

    A House-Senate conference on the budget resolution (H Con Res 280) had stalled over setting a fiscal 1985 spending level for defense. The Senate plan envisioned a 7 percent increase; the House plan, 3.5 percent.

    Chiles' crusade struck a chord among his colleagues, and Majority Leader Howard H. Baker Jr., R-Tenn., Aug. 6 fell six votes short of the necessary 60 to cut off the Chiles-led filibuster.

    Cloture was invoked Aug. 8, 68-30, but Chiles immediately threatened to object to a Budget Act waiver when the GOP leadership put the District of Columbia appropriations bill on the schedule.

    Chiles Aug. 9 suggested that the defense spending impasse could be broken at a “summit” meeting of the Republican and Democratic leadership and the chairmen of the Budget and defense authorizing committees and the Defense appropriations subcommittees. Baker, faced with Chiles' vow to continue objecting to budget waiver, endorsed the summit meeting proposal, and Chiles withdrew his filibuster threat.

    13. Civil Rights

    Civil rights advocates were stymied in an effort to pass legislation ensuring that no part of an institution receiving federal funds could discriminate on the basis of race, sex, age or handicap.

    The bill (HR 5490, S 2568) would have overturned the Supreme Court's Feb. 28 ruling in Grove City College v. Bell, which narrowed the reach of Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments. The court ruled that the law's ban on sex bias in any education “program or activity” receiving federal funds applied only to the program getting aid and not to the entire institution. Three other laws barring discrimination on race, age or handicap had similar wording, and civil rights lawyers warned that the court's ruling could restrict their enforcement as well. The Grove City bill would have amended all four laws to make clear that any “recipient” of aid, not just the program or activity involved, would have to conform to the anti-bias laws.

    The House passed HR 5490 by a 375-32 margin June 26. But in the Senate, opponents led by Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, kept S 2568 bottled up in the Labor and Human Resources Committee. Majority Leader Howard H. Baker Jr., R-Tenn., refused to call up the House version for floor debate, so supporters of the measure sought to attach the measure to the fiscal 1985 continuing appropriations resolution (H J Res 648).

    The key vote came Sept. 27 when Minority Leader Robert c. Byrd, D-W.Va., offered the civil rights measure as an amendment to H J Res 648 and asked the Senate to determine whether the amendment, a legislative proposal, was “germane” to the funding bill. The Senate decided that it was germane, and therefore eligible for further action, by a vote of 51-48: R 12-42; D 39-6 (ND 30-1, SD 9-5).

    However, Hatch had offered amendments to the funding bill on school busing, gun control and tuition tax credits. The Senate became tied in a procedural knot, with these issues obstructing movement on the funding bill. After four days, Sen. Bob Packwood, R-Ore., a chief sponsor of the civil rights bill, moved to table, and thus kill, the Grove City amendment. His motion was agreed to 53-45, ending the civil rights fight for the 98th Congress. The other amendments then fell.

    House
    1. Handicapped Infants

    Entering a touchy area of medical and ethical controversy, the House Feb. 2 approved legislation (HR 1904 — PL 98-457) designed to protect severely handicapped infants from medical neglect.

    Backed by the administration, right-to-life groups and advocates for the disabled, the legislation was drafted in response to widely publicized “Baby Doe” cases, in which doctors and families had withheld medical treatment and care that handicapped infants needed to stay alive.

    HR 1904 required states, as a condition of receiving federal aid for child abuse prevention programs, to have procedures for reporting cases in which handicapped infants were denied treatment for life-threatening conditions. The American Medical Association (AMA) and other critics saw the bill as an unwarranted government intrusion in the decisions of families and physicians.

    The key House vote came on an amendment by Rod Chandler, R-Wash., to strike the “Baby Doe” language and instead require the Department of Health and Human Services to issue guidelines for hospitals that wanted to set up advisory panels on the treatment of handicapped babies.

    The Chandler amendment, supported by the AMA and other medical organizations, was rejected by the House 182-231: R 31-131; D 151-100 (ND 97-69, SD 54-31).

    The opposition of many medical groups to the bill was later blunted, when the Senate adopted a revised version that made clear that doctors would not have to take heroic steps to save the life of an infant if treatment would be futile. But even the compromise language, which was largely incorporated by a conference committee into the final version of the bill, did not go far enough to win the support of the AMA.

    2. Water Project Cost-Sharing

    The administration and Western states triumphed March 20 when the House voted against asking local beneficiaries of federal dams in the West to help pay for safety repairs. The vote, which pitted region against region, came on an amendment that substituted a mostly federal payment formula for a beneficiary-pays formula sought by environmentalists and taxpayer groups.

    The amendment was adopted 194-192: R 75-73; D 119-119 (ND 61-91, SD 58-28).

    This was a crucial vote on the cost-sharing issue, which had split Congress for at least eight years and stopped the authorization of most new water projects. The bill in question (HR 1652) authorized $650 million in work to repair and rebuild unsafe, aging dams located largely in the West.

    The vote represented a turnaround from April 29, 1982, when the House by 212-140 adopted a user-pays amendment to a similar dam repair bill. But the House was following the lead of Reagan, who had done his own about-face on cost-sharing for dam safety projects. The president's switch, outlined in a Jan. 24 policy statement, seemed a direct response to the pleas of Republicans from the West, a bastion of Reagan support in the 1980 election. Fifteen Western GOP senators had warned Reagan in 1983 that his re-election hopes, and their own, could be damaged by policies that appeared “anti-West” and “anti-water.”

    The House's vote was partly offset by the Senate, which approved a version with some cost-sharing requirements after filibuster threats by Howard M. Metzenbaum, D-Ohio. That version was enacted (PL 98-404).

    3. Adoption of the Budget Resolution

    House approval of a fiscal 1985 budget resolution capped an effort by House Democratic leaders to devise a deficit-cutting strategy that would be easy to explain to constituents and exhibit the party's commitment to fiscal discipline. The vote was 250-168: R 21-139; D 229-29 (ND 159-13, SD 70-16).

    The resolution (H Con Res 280) did nothing to reduce federal deficits; rather, it set fiscal targets. Once adopted April 5, however, it led the way to House approval of a measure (HR 4170 — PL 98-369) raising $49.2 billion in taxes through fiscal 1987, and other deficit-cutting measures. H Con Res 280 envisioned deficit reductions totaling $182 billion through 1987. The Senate's “Rose Garden” plan called for cuts of $140 billion through the same period. (Senate key vote 7)

    The plan's key feature was the “pay-as-you-go” concept, which barred spending boosts above inflation, except for defense and a small number of programs for the poor, for which there would have to be offsetting tax hikes. Republicans attacked pay-as-you-go as a “simple sham,” but the scheme's apparent appeal as prudent budgeting and the Democratic leaders' backing ensured its approval.

    The plan called for defense spending to grow at 3.5 percent a year, adjusted for inflation. Differences with the GOP-led Senate, whose package would have raised Pentagon spending 7 percent a year, blocked consideration of the budget resolution until the end of the session.

    4. Physician Fee Freeze

    Having previously clamped new Medicare spending limits on hospitals and raised beneficiaries' out-of-pocket costs, Congress in 1984 turned to doctors to cut costs of the financially troubled program.

    The basic plan — a freeze on increases in Medicare payments to doctors — was backed by congressional leaders, the administration and the American Medical Association (AMA).

    But the AMA objected vehemently to a related “mandatory assignment” plan that would force doctors to accept the “frozen” Medicare fees as full payment for their services. (Assignment, optional under existing law, meant that a doctor would bill Medicare directly and accept program payment as full reimbursement for his services. The law also permitted doctors to bill Medicare beneficiaries directly, charging more than Medicare would pay and requiring the beneficiary to pay the difference.)

    The House in April rejected freeze plans, both with mandatory assignment provisions and without. Yet by June, Congress had approved a Medicare fee freeze along with a “voluntary” assignment plan that levied substantial financial penalties on doctors who did not accept assignment. Both were included in a larger “deficit reduction” tax and spending-cut bill (HR 4170 — PL 98-369), cleared by the Senate June 27.

    When the House debated an earlier version of the bill (HR 5394) on April 12, Rep. Andrew Jacobs Jr., D-Ind., proposed a yearlong freeze on Medicare physician fees for inpatient hospital care, with provisions that would have effectively deprived doctors of hospital admitting privileges if they refused assignment. Jacobs offered the amendment on the floor after failing to get majority support for it in the Ways and Means Committee.

    Opponents argued that assignment would harm elderly Medicare beneficiaries by discouraging doctors from treating them. And, they said, assignment would not in itself save the government any money. (Government savings from the freeze had been estimated at nearly a billion dollars.)

    Supporters said mandatory assignment was essential to keep doctors from raising their fees despite the freeze and passing along the extra cost to Medicare patients.

    But the House rejected Jacobs' plan by voice vote. It then rejected by 172-242 a Republican motion to recommit the bill to committee with instructions to add a freeze on both inpatient and outpatient fees for Medicare, without mandatory assignment. The vote on recommittal reflected mixed motives. Some members were unwilling to freeze the doctor fees without an assignment plan to protect Medicare patients against higher costs.

    The recommittal motion also forced a rare choice between competing health priorities because it also would have struck from the bill a new Medicaid child health initiative that was backed by the Democratic leadership.

    And finally, a vote to recommit is generally viewed by the majority as an undesirable surrender to the minority. The 172-242 vote against the recommittal motion split along party lines: R 157-2; D 15-240 (ND 3-170, SD 12-70).

    The Senate subsequently included in its deficit reduction plan a one-year Medicare fee freeze, with a new voluntary assignment program and a modified second-year freeze for doctors not participating in assignment.

    That plan also disturbed the AMA, but the final bill coupled a “voluntary” plan with a 15-month Medicare freeze on both inpatient and outpatient services. Doctors staying out of the assignment plan were still subject to the freeze and faced penalties in future calculations of Medicare fees at the end of the freeze. The AMA subsequently filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the assignment provisions.

    5. El Salvador Aid

    On May 6, voters in El Salvador went to the polls and made José Napoleón Duarte, leader of the center-left Christian Democratic Party, their first freely elected president in some 50 years.

    Four days later, members of the U.S. House of Representatives cast their first votes in three years on the issue of U.S. military aid to El Salvador. The result was a close, but decisive, victory for Reagan's program of increasing financial backing of the Salvadoran regime.

    The key vote came as the House was considering a bill (HR 5119) authorizing foreign aid programs in fiscal 1984–85. The House adopted an amendment by William S. Broomfield, R-Mich., approving all the aid Reagan sought for El Salvador and other Central American countries. The vote was 212-208: R 156-8; D 56-200 (ND 7-167, SD 49-33).

    The immediate effect of the vote was to break a political logjam on another piece of legislation — an “urgent” supplemental spending bill (H J Res 492) including $61.75 million for El Salvador. Over the longer term, the vote demonstrated that members of Congress were willing to give Duarte enough aid to keep his government afloat in its battle against leftist guerrillas. (Senate key vote 3)

    6. Religious Groups in Schools

    In the wake of the Senate's rejection of a constitutional amendment to allow prayer in public schools, controversy over religion in the schools shifted to another legislative battleground. (Senate key vote 1)

    An administration-backed bill (HR 5345) to allow student religious groups to meet in public high schools was narrowly defeated by the House May 15. Another version of the so-called “equal access” proposal later cleared Congress (HR 1310 — PL 98-377), but only after supporters agreed to several key changes to address criticisms made during House debate on HR 5345.

    HR 5345 would have cut off federal funds to high schools that refused to allow religious groups to meet on school premises if other student organizations were granted such access. Critics saw it as a “back door” effort to bring prayer into the schools. But supporters of HR 5345 included some members who opposed the prayer amendment; many in Congress saw the access bill as a way to show constituents that they were not hostile to religion.

    HR 5345 garnered a majority of votes, but it fell short of the two-thirds margin needed to pass because it had been brought up under special procedures that barred amendments. The House vote was 270-151: R 147-17; D 123-134 (ND 47-122, SD 76-12).

    In later Senate action, a companion school access proposal was redrawn to extend the bill's protections to political and other student groups — not just religious ones. That and other changes blunted the opposition of some critics who objected to singling out religious groups for special protection. The revised Senate proposal was cleared by Congress as an amendment to a popular education bill.

    7. Anti-Satellite Test Ban

    By a hefty margin, the House voted for a moratorium on tests of the anti-satellite (ASAT) missile against a target in space, so long as Moscow observed a similar restriction.

    Pointing out that the Soviet Union had tested ASAT weapons about 20 times since the late 1960s, the administration argued that a similar U.S. weapon was needed to give the Russians an incentive to negotiate the mutual abolition of ASATs. But that argument was clouded by the administration's insistence that the U.S. ASAT was needed to neutralize some Soviet satellites that could guide Soviet weapons against U.S. units in case of war.

    ASAT opponents argued that the current Soviet version was primitive and could not be used in any realistic military scenario to blind U.S. satellites. However, they warned, U.S. deployment of its superior weapon would move Moscow to develop an equally capable ASAT. This would threaten communications satellites, on which the United States was more dependent than was Moscow. Accordingly, the critics argued, it would be worth allowing the Russians a symbolic monopoly on ASATs in hopes of averting development of effective anti-satellite arms.

    The key House vote came May 23 on an amendment to the fiscal 1985 defense authorization bill that was adopted 238-181: R 39-122; D 199-59 (ND 162-10, SD 37-49).

    The Senate voted to bar ASAT target tests unless the president certified his willingness to negotiate “the strictest possible limits” on the weapons. The final version of the defense authorization bill (HR 5167) allowed only two “successful” ASAT target tests in fiscal 1985. The final defense appropriations measure, included in an omnibus continuing resolution (H J Res 648 — PL 98-473) barred any target tests until March 1, 1985, and allowed only three tests in the remainder of the fiscal year.

    8. Aid to Nicaraguan ‘Contras’

    Reaffirming its opposition to the U.S.-backed war in Nicaragua, the House on May 24 rejected Reagan's request for $21 million to continue aiding Nicaraguan rebels in fiscal 1984. The vote was 241-177: R 24-132; D 217-45 (ND 169-6, SD 48-39).

    The Democratic-controlled House had voted twice in 1983 against CIA aid to several thousand guerrillas, called “contras,” who were battling to overthrow the leftist government of Nicaragua. Coupled with diminishing support in the Senate for aiding the rebels, the May 24 vote on a 1984 supplemental funding bill (H J Res 492) forced Reagan to back down on his request. The vote also gave House leaders a strong hand in negotiations later on aid to the contras for fiscal 1985. With House leaders refusing to back down, the administration was forced to accept a prohibition on further aid until February, 1985. (Senate key vote 10)

    9. MX Missile

    A yearlong campaign against the MX missile finally eked out a two-vote margin of victory on the night of May 31. The House adopted an amendment to the defense authorization bill (HR 5167) barring production of additional MX missiles in fiscal 1985 unless Congress adopted a joint resolution after April 1, 1985, approving the move.

    MX production had been the administration's highest political priority among many controversial nuclear arms issues. According to the administration, it was imperative to break the Soviets' monopoly on large, accurate, land-based missiles to persuade them to negotiate sharp reductions in their arsenal of more than 600 such weapons.

    Opponents warned that since MX could attack Soviet missiles but would itself be vulnerable to Soviet attack, the nuclear balance would be much less stable if MX were deployed. In a series of votes in 1983, an intense, grass-roots lobbying campaign closed in on the MX.

    On May 15, 1984, an effort to kill outright MX procurement failed by six votes. But two weeks later, after the House Democratic leadership lent new horsepower to the anti-MX campaign, the amendment blocking MX production until after a vote in the spring of 1985 was adopted 199-197: R 17-141; D 182-56 (ND 149-15, SD 33-41).

    The Senate had narrowly agreed to production of 21 of the 40 MXs Reagan had requested. In the end, Congress approved 21 missiles, but barred use of the funds unless it passed two joint resolutions of approval next March.

    10. Immigration

    In a dramatic June 20 roll call, the House passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill by a five-vote margin. The controversial measure (HR 1510) had been working its way through the legislative process since 1981, and had twice passed the Senate, but this was the first time the House had voted on the legislation.

    The legislation was designed to stem the flood of illegal immigration into the United States, primarily by penalizing employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. At the same time, it would have permitted millions of individuals already in the United States illegally to obtain legal status.

    The vote was a cliffhanger, seesawing for most of the 15-minute roll call. Only in the final seconds did proponents edge ahead, 216-211: R 91-73; D 125-138 (ND 76-98, SD 49-40).

    The vote produced an unusual coalition, with some liberal Democrats joining conservatives of both parties in opposing the bill. The liberal Democrats sided with Hispanic members, who charged that employer sanctions would make businesses reluctant to hire any worker who appeared foreign or spoke with an accent. Conservatives opposing the measure disliked its amnesty provisions.

    The closeness of the vote on final passage was a surprise, because amendments considered during the debate had been adopted or rejected, as sponsors had wished, by comfortable margins. However, the narrow victory reflected the deep divisions among members of Congress over how to rewrite immigration laws. Despite a monthlong House-Senate conference in September, members of the two chambers could not reach an accord on a final compromise version. The measure died in the conference committee as the 98th Congress drew to a close.

    11. Synfuels Corporation Cutback

    In an unexpected defeat for House Majority Leader Jim Wright, D-Texas, and a victory for the Reagan administration, the House July 25 demanded a say on the fate of the trouble-plagued U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corporation (SFC). The House defeated a rule for consideration of the Interior appropriations bill (HR 5973) that would have barred any amendments to rescind SFC funds.

    The vote was 148-261: R 21-135; D 127-126 (ND 66-101, SD 61-25).

    The White House May 14 had asked Congress to rescind $9.5 billion in SFC funds, roughly two-thirds of its available money. A rash of resignations that came amid charges of mismanagement and conflict-of-interest had left the SFC without a quorum and virtually paralyzed.

    Set up in 1980 after a decade of oil supply disruptions, the SFC was meant to encourage commercialization of fuels made from coal, shale, and tar sands by giving loans and price supports to private companies. But the corporation was slow to spend the $20 billion Congress gave it, and firms began withdrawing project proposals as oil prices dropped.

    Wright, an SFC backer, made a speech supporting the rule and buttonholed members at the door during the vote. David A. Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, called some members before the vote, asking them to oppose the rule.

    Defeat of a rule having House leadership backing was relatively uncommon. It was only the second time in the 98th Congress that such a rule had been rejected.

    Congress stripped $2 billion from the corporation as part of its deficit-reduction package (HR 4170 — PL 98-369) and another $5.375 billion as part of the fiscal 1984 continuing resolution, H J Res 648 (PL 98-473).

    12. Education Spending

    House Republicans challenged Democrats to live up to their campaign promises of fiscal restraint when a five-year omnibus education bill (HR 11) came to the House floor July 26.

    But with support for education looming as another election-year issue, the House rejected an amendment by Bill Goodling, R-Pa., to cut the amount authorized by the bill from about $1.7 billion to $974 million in fiscal 1985.

    Republicans reminded Democrats of the “new realism” about federal spending that Walter F. Mondale had promised just one week earlier, when he accepted the Democratic presidential nomination.

    Goodling said his proposal would have authorized $33.6 million more than was appropriated in 1984 for the 10 education programs included in the bill, but his amendment was rejected 169-233: R 133-20; D 36-213 (ND 13-154, SD 23-59).

    After turning down that proposal, Democrats introduced their own amendment to scale back spending levels — although not as far as Goodling had proposed. As amended and approved by the House, the bill authorized $1.32 billion in fiscal 1985.

    Before clearing Congress and being signed by the president, however, the bill's 1985 price tag was further trimmed in conference with the Senate to about $1.2 billion (PL 98-511).

    13. Superfund Right to Sue

    The House voted Aug. 9 against giving citizens the right to sue in federal court for damages caused by hazardous-waste dumping, yielding to opposition from the Reagan administration and chemical and insurance companies.

    The issue came up during floor consideration of a bill (HR 5640) to renew the “superfund” hazardous-waste cleanup law. The citizen's right to sue had been included in the version of the bill reported by the House Energy Committee, but the House adopted an amendment by Harold S. Sawyer, R-Mich., to strike that provision, 208-200: R 135-22; D 73-178 (ND 23-146, SD 50-32).

    The vote went to the heart of one of the most controversial aspects of the superfund renewal — whether and how to compensate victims of incidents such as the one at Love Canal in New York, where residents were faced with medical problems and houses they could not live in.

    The Energy Committee language would have allowed citizens to sue dumpers in federal court for compensation in such cases. Currently, citizens could sue under liability laws in most states, but standards of proof and other legal obstacles made such suits very hard to win.

    The House vote was uncluttered by the issue of whether the federal government could afford to compensate victims.

    The superfund renewal bill was eventually passed by the House but died in the Senate.

    14. Crime

    In a move that capped a yearlong GOP drive to force a House vote on a comprehensive anti-crime package, the House Sept. 25 voted to send the fiscal 1985 continuing appropriations resolution (H J Res 648 — PL 98-473) back to committee with instructions to attach the crime legislation to it. The vote was 243-166: R 154-3; D 89-163 (ND 35-134, SD 54-29).

    That vote effectively ensured that the crime legislation, which Reagan backed, would clear the 98th Congress. The Senate had passed the crime package by a 91-1 vote on Feb. 2. But advocates of the Senate measure had been frustrated by the House Judiciary Committee's bill-by-bill approach to crime, and by its failure to act on key elements of the package until late in the session. They decided the procedural move was the best way to guarantee action.

    The Senate kept the crime provisions in its version of H J Res 648, and a compromise that actually expanded the package was cleared Oct. 11 as part of the final funding bill.

    The crime package included provisions that overhauled federal sentencing procedures, requiring judges to stay within guidelines to be drawn up by a special commission; authorized pretrial detention of suspects deemed dangerous to the community; tightened the definition of insanity; stiffened penalties for drug trafficking; prohibited trafficking in goods bearing counterfeit trademarks; re-established a program of anti-crime grants for the states; authorized federal aid to victims of crime and set stiff new penalties for terrorist activities.

    15. Duty-Free Exports

    The House flirted with handing the Reagan administration a major trade defeat, before rejecting a proposal that would have dropped Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea from a program that gave special treatment to exports from developing nations. The Oct. 3 vote was 174-233: R 14-142; D 160-91 (ND 128-38, SD 32-53).

    The amendment, offered by Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo., to an omnibus trade package (HR 3398), would have made the three nations ineligible for the generalized system of preferences (GSP), which permitted some exports from Third World nations to enter the United States duty-free. The trio received more than half the GSP benefits offered by Washington.

    Administration officials argued that the carrot of duty-free status was needed to entice beneficiaries to open their markets to U.S. goods, stop counterfeiting U.S. products and meet U.S. standards of worker rights. They also stressed GSP's importance to developing nations and industrialized countries with similar programs as a symbol of the U.S. commitment to free trade.

    However, many lawmakers objected to “giving away” benefits to the three countries, which competed vigorously with the United States.

    In the final version of HR 3398 benefits to the comparatively wealthier developing nations were phased out. The program was renewed for eight and one-half years, instead of the 10 years requested by the administration. And, for the first time, benefits were tied to recipients' steps to comply with U.S. requirements to lower trade barriers.

    16. Export Administration Act/South Africa

    Defying the Senate and White House, the House Oct. 11 insisted upon a ban on new commercial bank loans to the South African government to protest the racial policy of apartheid. The vote was 269-62: R 96-50; D 173-12 (ND 121-2, SD 52-10). It effectively killed plans to renew the Export Administration Act.

    The ban had been agreed to in a House-Senate conference on the original version of a bill (S 979). However, after the conference deadlocked, the Senate Oct. 10 approved a last-ditch compromise bill (HR 4230) that gave up one provision the Senate wanted — greater Pentagon review of export licenses — and one proposal the House insisted on — the ban on bank loans.

    However, the House members voted to restore the ban, knowing that it probably would kill the bill in the Senate.

    The administration strongly opposed the ban, preferring inducements, rather than sanctions, to prod South Africa to overturn its policy of separating the races.

    Seventeen members of the Black Caucus voted present to protest the ban as too mild.

    1. Constitutional Amendment on School Prayer

    S J Res 73 Passage of the joint resolution to propose an amendment to the Constitution to permit organized, recited prayer in public schools and other public places. Rejected 56-44: R 37-18; D 19-26 (ND 6-25, SD 13-1), March 20, 1984. A two-thirds majority of those present and voting (67 in this case) of both houses is required for passage of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    2. Agricultural Programs Adjustment Act

    HR 4072 Passage of the bill to cut target prices for wheat in 1984 and 1985 and to freeze 1985 target prices for corn, cotton and rice at 1984 levels. It also set terms for a wheat acreage reduction program in 1984 and 1985, required acreage reduction programs in 1985 for corn, cotton and rice if certain levels of surpluses were reached, enlarged farm credit programs, authorized changes in disaster loan programs and expanded farm export programs. Passed 78-10: R 50-2; D 28-8 (ND 20-4, SD 8-4), March 22, 1984. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    3. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal 1984 Urgent Supplemental Appropriations

    H J Res 492 Kennedy, D-Mass., amendment to cut funding for military assistance to El Salvador from $61.75 million to $21 million. Rejected 25-63: R 2-48; D 23-15 (ND 21-5, SD 2-10), April 2, 1984. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    4. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal 1984 Urgent Supplemental Appropriations

    H J Res 492 Baker, R-Tenn., motion to table (kill) the Leahy, D-Vt., amendment to require congressional authorization for the introduction of combat troops in or over El Salvador. Motion agreed to 59-36: R 49-5; D 10-31 (ND 2-25, SD 8-6), April 4, 1984. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    5. Deficit Reduction

    HR 2163 Dole, R-Kan., motion to table (kill) the Chafee, R-R.I., amendment to the Dole, R-Kan., amendment, to delay until Jan. 1, 1988, the effective date for indexing tax brackets to offset inflation. Motion agreed to 57-38: R 46-7; D 11-31 (ND 8-22, SD 3-9), April 10, 1984. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position. (The Dole amendment, to raise $48 billion in new tax revenues through fiscal 1987, subsequently was adopted 76-5.)

    6. Deficit Reduction

    HR 2163 Boschwitz, R-Minn., amendment to the Dole, R-Kan., amendment, to change the current 15-year depreciation life for real property to 20 years in 1984, 19 years in 1985 and 18 years thereafter, and to reduce the investment tax credits available for rehabilitation of old buildings. Adopted 62-19: R 37-8; D 25-11 (ND 17-10, SD 8-1), in the session that began April 12, 1984. (The Dole amendment, to raise $48 billion in new tax revenues through fiscal 1987, subsequently was adopted 76-5.)

    7. Deficit Reduction

    HR 2163 Baker, R-Tenn., amendment to reduce federal deficits by $140 billion through fiscal 1987 by increasing taxes, limiting the increases in military spending, cutting federal benefit and other non-defense programs. Adopted 65-32: R 53-0; D 12-32 (ND 6-24, SD 6-8), May 17, 1984. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    8. Omnibus Defense Authorization

    S 2723 Tower, R-Texas, motion to table (kill) the Percy, R-Ill., amendment to reduce by $100 million the amount authorized for the strategic defense initiative. Motion agreed to 47-45: R 40-10; D 7-35 (ND 3-26, SD 4-9), June 13, 1984. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    9. Omnibus Defense Authorization

    S 2723 Tower, R-Texas, motion to table (kill) the Moynihan, D-N.Y., amendment to produce no additional MX missiles in fiscal 1985 but to keep the MX production line ready for production pending completion of a new study of the mobile, single-warhead “Midgetman” missile. Motion agreed to 49-48: R 43-10; D 5-38 (ND 2-28, SD 3-10), June 14, 1984, with Vice President Bush casting a “yea” vote to break the 48-48 tie. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    10. Omnibus Defense Authorization

    S 2723 Tower, R-Texas, motion to table (kill) the Kennedy, D-Mass., amendment to provide that nothing in the bill shall be construed as authorization for funds to assist insurgent military forces in Nicaragua (the so-called “contras”). Motion agreed to 58-38: R 48-6; D 10-32 (ND 2-26, SD 8-6), June 18, 1984. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    11. Motor Vehicle Safety/Minimum Drinking Age

    HR 4616 Lautenberg, D-N.J., amendment to withhold a percentage of highway funds from states whose minimum drinking ages are under 21 and to provide incentives for other actions aimed at reducing drunken driving. Adopted 81-16: R 45-10; D 36-6 (ND 25-3, SD 11-3), June 26, 1984. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    12. Agriculture Appropriations, Fiscal 1985

    HR 5743 Baker, R-Tenn., motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Baker motion to waive provisions of the Congressional Budget Act that would bar consideration of an appropriations bill prior to adoption of the conference report on the first budget resolution. Motion rejected 54-31: R 46-3; D 8-28 (ND 4-20, SD 4-8), Aug. 6, 1984. A three-fifths majority vote (60) of the total Senate is required to invoke cloture.

    13. Continuing Appropriations, Fiscal 1985

    H J Res 648 Judgment of the Senate whether the Byrd, D-W.Va., amendment to attach S 2568, civil rights legislation overturning the Supreme Court's ruling in Grove City College v. Bell, to the continuing appropriations resolution was germane. Ruled germane 51-48: R 12-42; D 39-6 (ND 30-1, SD 9-5), Sept. 27, 1984.

    1. Child Abuse Amendments

    HR 1904 Chandler, R-Wash., substitute to the Murphy, D-Pa., amendment, to strike language requiring states that receive federal child-protection grants to ensure that severely handicapped infants receive adequate medical treatment and nutrition, and instead to establish a study commission and require the Department of Health and Human Services to issue guidelines for hospitals that want to establish advisory panels on the treatment of the handicapped infants. Rejected 182-231: R 31-131; D 151-100 (ND 97-69, SD 54-31), Feb. 2, 1984. (The Murphy amendment, clarifying the intent of the infant-protection provisions, subsequently was adopted by voice vote.) A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    2. Reclamation Dam Safety

    HR 1652 Kazen, D-Texas, substitute to the Solomon, R-N.Y., amendment, to require reimbursement only for new project benefits by local users and beneficiaries of projects in the bill, which authorized an additional $650 million for safety-related repair of dams administered by the Bureau of Reclamation. Adopted 194-192: R 75-73; D 119-119 (ND 61-91, SD 58-28), March 20, 1984. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    3. First Budget Resolution, Fiscal 1985

    H Con Res 280 Adoption of the first concurrent budget resolution for fiscal 1985 to set targets for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 1985, as follows: budget authority, $1,002.1 billion; outlays, $918.2 billion; revenues, $742.7 billion; and deficit, $174.5 billion. The resolution also set preliminary goals for fiscal 1986–87, revised budget levels for fiscal 1984 and included reconciliation instructions requiring House and Senate committees to recommend legislative savings to meet the budget targets. Adopted 250-168: R 21-139; D 229-29 (ND 159-13, SD 70-16), April 5, 1984.

    4. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

    HR 5394 Moore, R-La., motion to recommit the bill to the House Ways and Means Committee with instructions to include provisions imposing a one-year physician fee freeze for Medicare services and to strike provisions in the measure that increased spending. Motion rejected 172-242: R 157-2; D 15-240 (ND 3-170, SD 12-70), April 12, 1984.

    5. Foreign Assistance Authorization

    HR 5119 Broomfield, R-Mich., amendment to authorize President Reagan's requests for military, economic and development aid for Central American countries in fiscal 1984–85, and to allow military aid for El Salvador in fiscal 1985 if the president certified to Congress that the government had made “demonstrated progress” on human rights and other issues. Adopted 212-208: R 156-8; D 56-200 (ND 7-167, SD 49-33), May 10, 1984. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    6. Equal Access Act

    HR 5345 Perkins, D-Ky., motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to allow student religious groups to meet in public secondary schools during non-class hours if other groups do so. Motion rejected 270-151: R 147-17; D 123-134 (ND 47-122, SD 76-12), May 15, 1984. A two-thirds majority of those present and voting (281 in this case) is required for passage under suspension of the rules. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    7. Department of Defense Authorization

    HR 5167 Gore, D-Tenn., amendment to the Brown, D-Calif., amendment, to provide that no funds may be used to test the anti-satellite missile (ASAT) against a target in space unless the Soviet Union conducts a test of its ASAT after enactment of the bill. Adopted 238-181: R 39-122; D 199-59 (ND 162-10, SD 37-49), May 23, 1984. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    8. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal 1984 Urgent Supplemental Appropriations

    H J Res 492 Boland, D-Mass., motion that the House recede from its disagreement to the Senate amendment providing $21 million in covert aid to Nicaraguan rebels, with an amendment providing no funds for Nicaraguan rebels. Motion agreed to 241-177: R 24-132; D 217-45 (ND 169-6, SD 48-39), May 24, 1984. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    9. Department of Defense Authorization

    HR 5167 Bennett, D-Fla., amendment to the Dickinson, R-Ala., amendment, to prohibit the obligation of funds appropriated for production of MX missiles unless Congress had given its approval by passing a joint resolution after April 1, 1985. Adopted 199-197: R 17-141; D 182-56 (ND 149-15, SD 33-41), May 31, 1984. (The Dickinson amendment, as amended, subsequently was adopted 198-197.) A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    10. Immigration Reform and Control Act

    HR 1510 Passage of the bill to revise immigration laws to impose sanctions on employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens, provide legal status for many illegal aliens already in the United States, expand an existing temporary foreign worker program, create a new guest-worker program and overhaul procedures for handling asylum, deportation and exclusion cases. Passed 216-211: R 91-73; D 125- 138 (ND 76-98, SD 49-40), June 20, 1984. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    11. Interior Appropriations, Fiscal 1985

    HR 5973 Adoption of the rule (H Res 551) providing for House floor consideration of the bill to make fiscal 1985 appropriations for the Interior Department and related agencies. H Res 551 would not have waived points of order against amendments to rescind appropriated funds from the U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corporation. Rejected 148-261: R 21-135; D 127-126 (ND 66-101, SD 61-25), July 25, 1984. A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    12. Education Amendments/School Prayer

    HR 11 Goodling, R-Pa., perfecting amendment to the Ford, D-Mich., substitute for the Goodling amendment to reduce fiscal 1985 authorizations for education programs in the bill from $1.7 billion to $974 million. The perfecting amendment was identical to the original Goodling proposal that the Ford substitute would have blocked from coming to a vote. Rejected 169-233: R 133-20; D 36-213 (ND 13-154, SD 23-59), July 26, 1984.

    13. Superfund Expansion

    HR 5640 Sawyer, R-Mich., amendment to delete from the bill a section giving citizens the right to sue in federal court for damages caused by hazardous-waste dumping. Adopted 208-200: R 135-22; D 73-178 (ND 23-146, SD 50-32), Aug. 9, 1984.

    14. Continuing Appropriations, Fiscal 1985

    H J Res 648 Lungren, R-Calif., motion to recommit the joint resolution to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to attach the provisions of HR 5963, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. Motion agreed to 243-166: R 154-3; D 89-163 (ND 35-134, SD 54-29), Sept. 25, 1984. A “yea” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    15. Generalized System of Preferences Renewal Act

    HR 6023 Gephardt, D-Mo., amendment to remove Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea from the list of countries eligible for duty-free treatment under the generalized system of preferences. Rejected 174-233: R 14-142; D 160-91 (ND 128-38, SD 32-53), Oct. 3, 1984. (The bill subsequently was passed by voice vote.) A “nay” was a vote supporting the president's position.

    16. Export Administration Act

    HR 4230 Fascell, D-Fla., motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment to ban U.S. commercial bank loans to the government of South Africa. Motion agreed to 269-62: R 96-50; D 173-12 (ND 121-2, SD 52-10), Oct. 11, 1984.

    Appendix

    Congress and Its Members

    Senate Membership in the 97th Congress
    Lineup as of Jan. 3, 1981: Republicans 53, Democrats 471

    ALABAMA
    • Howell Heflin (D)
    • Jeremiah Denton (R)
    ALASKA
    • Frank H. Murkowski (R)
    • Ted Stevens (R)
    ARIZONA
    • Dennis DeConcini (D)
    • Barry Goldwater (R)
    ARKANSAS
    • Dale Bumpers (D)
    • David Pryor (D)
    CALIFORNIA
    • Alan Cranston (D)
    • S. I.
      Sam
      Hayakawa (R)
    COLORADO
    • Gary Hart (D)
    • William L. Armstrong (R)
    CONNECTICUT
    • Christopher J. Dodd (D)
    • Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (R)
    DELAWARE
    • Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)
    • William V. Roth Jr. (R)
    FLORIDA
    • Lawton Chiles (D)
    • Paula Hawkins (R)
    GEORGIA
    • Sam Nunn (D)
    • Mack Mattingly (R)
    HAWAII
    • Daniel K. Inouye (D)
    • Spark M. Matsunaga (D)
    IDAHO
    • James A. McClure (R)
    • Steven D. Symms (R)
    ILLINOIS
    • Alan J. Dixon (D)
    • Charles H. Percy (R)
    INDIANA
    • Richard G. Lugar (R)
    • Dan Quayle (R)
    IOWA
    • Charles E. Grassley (R)
    • Roger W. Jepsen (R)
    KANSAS
    • Robert Dole (R)
    • Nancy Landon Kassebaum (R)
    KENTUCKY
    • Wendell H. Ford (D)
    • Walter
      Dee
      Huddleston (D)
    LOUISIANA
    • J. Bennett Johnston (D)
    • Russell B. Long (D)
    MAINE
    • George J. Mitchell (D)
    • William S. Cohen (R)
    MARYLAND
    • Paul S. Sarbanes (D)
    • Charles McC. Mathias Jr. (R)
    MASSACHUSETTS
    • Edward M. Kennedy (D)
    • Paul E. Tsongas (D)
    MICHIGAN
    • Carl Levin (D)
    • Donald W. Riegle Jr. (D)
    MINNESOTA
    • Rudy Boschwitz (R)
    • David Durenberger (R)
    MISSISSIPPI
    • John C. Stennis (D)
    • Thad Cochran (R)
    MISSOURI
    • Thomas F. Eagleton (D)
    • John C. Danforth (R)
    MONTANA
    • Max Baucus (D)
    • John Melcher (D)
    NEBRASKA
    • J. James Exon (D)
    • Edward Zorinsky (D)
    NEVADA
    • Howard W. Cannon (D)
    • Paul Laxalt (R)
    NEW HAMPSHIRE
    • Gordon J. Humphrey (R)
    • Warren Rudman (R)
    NEW JERSEY
    • Bill Bradley (D)
    • Harrison A. Williams Jr. (D) (resigned March 11, 1982)
    • Nicholas F. Brady (R) (sworn in April 20, 1982; resigned Dec. 27, 1982)
    • Frank Lautenberg (D) (sworn in Dec. 27, 1982)
    NEW MEXICO
    • Pete V. Domenici (R)
    • Harrison
      Jack
      Schmitt (R)
    NEW YORK
    • Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D)
    • Alfonse M. D'Amato (R)
    NORTH CAROLINA
    • John P. East (R)
    • Jesse Helms (R)
    NORTH DAKOTA
    • Quentin N. Burdick (D)
    • Mark Andrews (R)
    OHIO
    • John Glenn (D)
    • Howard M. Metzenbaum (D)
    OKLAHOMA
    • David L. Boren (D)
    • Don Nickles (R)
    OREGON
    • Mark O. Hatfield (R)
    • Bob Packwood (R)
    PENNSYLVANIA
    • John Heinz (R)
    • Arlen Specter (R)
    RHODE ISLAND
    • Claiborne Pell (D)
    • John H. Chafee (R)
    SOUTH CAROLINA
    • Ernest F. Hollings (D)
    • Strom Thurmond (R)
    SOUTH DAKOTA
    • James Abdnor (R)
    • Larry Pressler (R)
    TENNESSEE
    • Jim Sasser (D)
    • Howard H. Baker Jr. (R)
    TEXAS
    • Lloyd Bentsen (D)
    • John Tower (R)
    UTAH
    • Jake Garn (R)
    • Orrin G. Hatch (R)
    VERMONT
    • Patrick J. Leahy (D)
    • Robert T. Stafford (R)
    VIRGINIA
    • Harry F. Byrd Jr. (I)
    • John W. Warner (R)
    WASHINGTON
    • Henry M. Jackson (D)
    • Slade Gorton (R)
    WEST VIRGINIA
    • Robert C. Byrd (D)
    • Jennings Randolph (D)
    WISCONSIN
    • William Proxmire (D)
    • Robert W. Kasten Jr. (R)
    WYOMING
    • Alan K. Simpson (R)
    • Malcolm Wallop (R)

    Includes Byrd, Va., elected as an independent.

    House Membership in the 97th Congress
    Lineup as of Jan. 3, 1981: Republicans 192, Democrats 2431

    ALABAMA
    • 1. Jack Edwards (R)
    • 2. William L. Dickinson (R)
    • 3. Bill Nichols (D)
    • 4. Tom Bevill (D)
    • 5. Ronnie G. Flippo (D)
    • 6. Albert Lee Smith Jr. (R)
    • 7. Richard C. Shelby (D)
    ALASKA

    AL Don Young (R)

    ARIZONA
    • 1. John J. Rhodes (R)
    • 2. Morris K. Udall (D)
    • 3. Bob Stump (D)
    • 4. Eldon Rudd (R)
    ARKANSAS
    • 1. Bill Alexander (D)
    • 2. Ed Bethune (R)
    • 3. John Paul Hammerschmidt (R)
    • 4. Beryl Anthony Jr. (D)
    CALIFORNIA
    • 1. Eugene A. Chappie (R)
    • 2. Don H. Clausen (R)
    • 3. Robert T. Matsui (D)
    • 4. Vic Fazio (D)
    • 5. John L. Burton (D)
    • 6. Phillip Burton (D)
    • 7. George Miller (D)
    • 8. Ronald V. Dellums (D)
    • 9. Fortney H.
      Pete
      Stark (D)
    • 10. Don Edwards (D)
    • 11. Tom Lantos (D)
    • 12. Paul N. McCloskey Jr. (R)
    • 13. Norman Y. Mineta (D)
    • 14. Norman D. Shumway (R)
    • 15. Tony Coelho (D)
    • 16. Leon E. Panetta (D)
    • 17. Charles
      Chip
      Pashayan Jr. (R)
    • 18. William M. Thomas (R)
    • 19. Robert J. Lagomarsino (R)
    • 20. Barry M. Goldwater Jr. (R)
    • 21. Bobbi Fiedler (R)
    • 22. Carlos J. Moorhead (R)
    • 23. Anthony C. Beilenson (D)
    • 24. Henry A. Waxman (D)
    • 25. Edward R. Roybal (D)
    • 26. John H. Rousselot (R)
    • 27. Robert K. Dornan (R)
    • 28. Julian C. Dixon (D)
    • 29. Augustus F. Hawkins (D)
    • 30. George E. Danielson (D) (resigned March 9, 1982)
    • Matthew G. Martinez (D) (sworn in July 15, 1982)
    • 31. Mervyn M. Dymally (D)
    • 32. Glenn M. Anderson (D)
    • 33. Wayne Grisham (R)
    • 34. Dan Lungren (R)
    • 35. David Dreier (R)
    • 36. George E. Brown Jr. (D)
    • 37. Jerry Lewis (R)
    • 38. Jerry M. Patterson (D)
    • 39. William E. Dannemeyer (R)
    • 40. Robert E. Badham (R)
    • 41. Bill Lowery (R)
    • 42. Duncan L. Hunter (R)
    • 43. Clair W. Burgener (R)
    COLORADO
    • 1. Patricia Schroeder (D)
    • 2. Timothy E. Wirth (D)
    • 3. Ray Kogovsek (D)
    • 4. Hank Brown (R)
    • 5. Ken Kramer (R)
    CONNECTICUT
    • 1. William R. Cotter (D) (died Sept. 8, 1981)
    • Barbara B. Kennelly (D) (sworn in Jan. 25, 1982)
    • 2. Samuel Gejdenson (D)
    • 3. Lawrence J. DeNardis (R)
    • 4. Stewart B. McKinney (R)
    • 5. William R. Ratchford (D)
    • 6. Toby Moffett (D)
    DELAWARE

    AL Thomas B. Evans Jr. (R)

    FLORIDA
    • 1. Earl Hutto (D)
    • 2. Don Fuqua (D)
    • 3. Charles E. Bennett (D)
    • 4. Bill Chappell Jr. (D)
    • 5. Bill McCollum (R)
    • 6. C. W. Bill Young (R)
    • 7. Sam Gibbons (D)
    • 8. Andy Ireland (D)
    • 9. Bill Nelson (D)
    • 10. L. A.
      Skip
      Bafalis (R)
    • 11. Dan Mica (D)
    • 12. Clay Shaw (R)
    • 13. William Lehman (D)
    • 14. Claude Pepper (D)
    • 15. Dante B. Fascell (D)
    GEORGIA
    • 1. Bo Ginn (D)
    • 2. Charles F. Hatcher (D)
    • 3. Jack Brinkley (D)
    • 4. Elliott H. Levitas (D)
    • 5. Wyche Fowler Jr. (D)
    • 6. Newt Gingrich (R)
    • 7. Larry P. McDonald (D)
    • 8. Billy Lee Evans (D)
    • 9. Ed Jenkins (D)
    • 10. Doug Barnard (D)
    HAWAII
    • 1. Cecil Heftel (D)
    • 2. Daniel K. Akaka (D)
    IDAHO
    • 1. Larry Craig (R)
    • 2. George Hansen (R)
    ILLINOIS
    • 1. Harold Washington (D)
    • 2. Gus Savage (D)
    • 3. Marty Russo (D)
    • 4. Edward J. Derwinski (R)
    • 5. John G. Fary (D)
    • 6. Henry J. Hyde (R)
    • 7. Cardiss Collins (D)
    • 8. Dan Rostenkowski (D)
    • 9. Sidney R. Yates (D)
    • 10. John E. Porter (R)
    • 11. Frank Annunzio (D)
    • 12. Philip M. Crane (R)
    • 13. Robert McClory (R)
    • 14. John N. Erlenborn (R)
    • 15. Tom Corcoran (R)
    • 16. Lynn M. Martin (R)
    • 17. George M. O'Brien (R)
    • 18. Robert H. Michel (R)
    • 19. Tom Railsback (R)
    • 20. Paul Findley (R)
    • 21. Edward R. Madigan (R)
    • 22. Daniel B. Crane (R)
    • 23. Melvin Price (D)
    • 24. Paul Simon (D)
    INDIANA
    • 1. Adam Benjamin Jr. (D) (died Sept. 7, 1982)
    • Katie Hall (D) (sworn in Nov. 29, 1982)
    • 2. Floyd Fithian (D)
    • 3. John P. Hiler (R)
    • 4. Daniel R. Coats (R)
    • 5. Elwood Hillis (R)
    • 6. David W. Evans (D)
    • 7. John T. Myers (R)
    • 8. H. Joel Deckard (R)
    • 9. Lee H. Hamilton (D)
    • 10. Phil Sharp (D)
    • 11. Andy Jacobs Jr. (D)
    IOWA
    • 1. Jim Leach (R)
    • 2. Tom Tauke (R)
    • 3. Cooper Evans (R)
    • 4. Neal Smith (D)
    • 5. Tom Harkin (D)
    • 6. Berkley Bedell (D)
    KANSAS
    • 1. Pat Roberts (R)
    • 2. Jim Jeffries (R)
    • 3. Larry Winn Jr. (R)
    • 4. Dan Glickman (D)
    • 5. Bob Whittaker (R)
    KENTUCKY
    • 1. Carroll Hubbard Jr. (D)
    • 2. William H. Natcher (D)
    • 3. Romano L. Mazzoli (D)
    • 4. Gene Snyder (R)
    • 5. Harold Rogers (R)
    • 6. Larry J. Hopkins (R)
    • 7. Carl D. Perkins (D)
    LOUISIANA
    • 1. Robert L. Livingston (R)
    • 2. Lindy Boggs (D)
    • 3. W. J.
      Billy
      Tauzin (D)
    • 4. Buddy Roemer (D)
    • 5. Jerry Huckaby (D)
    • 6. W. Henson Moore (R)
    • 7. John B. Breaux (D)
    • 8. Gillis W. Long (D)
    MAINE
    • 1. David F. Emery (R)
    • 2. Olympia J. Snowe (R)
    MARYLAND
    • 1. Roy Dyson (D)
    • 2. Clarence D. Long (D)
    • 3. Barbara A. Mikulski (D)
    • 4. Marjorie S. Holt (R)
    • 5. Gladys Noon Spellman (D) (seat declared vacant Feb. 24, 1981)
    • Steny Hoyer (D) (sworn in June 3, 1981)
    • 6. Beverly B. Byron (D)
    • 7. Parren J. Mitchell (D)
    • 8. Michael D. Barnes (D)
    MASSACHUSETTS
    • 1. Silvio O. Conte (R)
    • 2. Edward P. Boland (D)
    • 3. Joseph D. Early (D)
    • 4. Barney Frank (D)
    • 5. James M. Shannon (D)
    • 6. Nicholas Mavroules (D)
    • 7. Edward J. Markey (D)
    • 8. Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. (D)
    • 9. Joe Moakley (D)
    • 10. Margaret M. Heckler (R)
    • 11. Brian J. Donnelly (D)
    • 12. Gerry E. Studds (D)
    MICHIGAN
    • 1. John Conyers Jr. (D)
    • 2. Carl D. Pursell (R)
    • 3. Howard Wolpe (D)
    • 4. David A. Stockman (R) (resigned Jan. 27, 1981)
    • Mark Siljander (R) (sworn in April 28, 1981)
    • 5. Harold S. Sawyer (R)
    • 6. Jim Dunn (R)
    • 7. Dale E. Kildee (D)
    • 8. Bob Traxler (D)
    • 9. Guy Vander Jagt (R)
    • 10. Don Albosta (D)
    • 11. Robert W. Davis (R)
    • 12. David E. Bonior (D)
    • 13. George W. Crockett Jr. (D)
    • 14. Dennis M. Hertel (D)
    • 15. William D. Ford (D)
    • 16. John D. Dingell (D)
    • 17. William M. Brodhead (D)
    • 18. James J. Blanchard (D)
    • 19. William S. Broomfield (R)
    MINNESOTA
    • 1. Arlen Erdahl (R)
    • 2. Tom Hagedorn (R)
    • 3. Bill Frenzel (R)
    • 4. Bruce F. Vento (D)
    • 5. Martin Olav Sabo (D)
    • 6. Vin Weber (R)
    • 7. Arlan Stangeland (R)
    • 8. James L. Oberstar (D)
    MISSISSIPPI
    • 1. Jamie L. Whitten (D)
    • 2. David R. Bowen (D)
    • 3. G. V.
      Sonny
      Montgomery (D)
    • 4. Jon C. Hinson (R) (resigned April 13, 1981)
    • Wayne Dowdy (D) (sworn in July 9, 1981)
    • 5. Trent Lott (R)
    MISSOURI
    • 1. William Clay (D)
    • 2. Robert A. Young (D)
    • 3. Richard A. Gephardt (D)
    • 4. Ike Skelton (D)
    • 5. Richard Bolling (D)
    • 6. E. Thomas Coleman (R)
    • 7. Gene Taylor (R)
    • 8. Wendell Bailey (R)
    • 9. Harold L. Volkmer (D)
    • 10. Bill Emerson (R)
    MONTANA
    • 1. Pat Williams (D)
    • 2. Ron Marlenee (R)
    NEBRASKA
    • 1. Douglas K. Bereuter (R)
    • 2. Hal Daub (R)
    • 3. Virginia Smith (R)
    NEVADA

    AL Jim Santini (D)

    NEW HAMPSHIRE
    • 1. Norman E. D'Amours (D)
    • 2. Judd Gregg (R)
    NEW JERSEY
    • 1. James J. Florio (D)
    • 2. William J. Hughes (D)
    • 3. James J. Howard (D)
    • 4. Christopher H. Smith (R)
    • 5. Millicent Fenwick (R)
    • 6. Edwin B. Forsythe (R)
    • 7. Marge Roukema (R)
    • 8. Robert A. Roe (D)
    • 9. Harold C. Hollenbeck (R)
    • 10. Peter W. Rodino Jr. (D)
    • 11. Joseph G. Minish (D)
    • 12. Matthew J. Rinaldo (R)
    • 13. Jim Courter (R)
    • 14. Frank J. Guarini (D)
    • 15. Bernard J. Dwyer (D)
    NEW MEXICO
    • 1. Manuel Lujan Jr. (R)
    • 2. Joe Skeen (R)
    NEW YORK
    • 1. William Carney (R)
    • 2. Thomas J. Downey (D)
    • 3. Gregory W. Carman (R)
    • 4. Norman F. Lent (R)
    • 5. Raymond J. McGrath (R)
    • 6. John LeBoutillier (R)
    • 7. Joseph P. Addabbo (D)
    • 8. Benjamin S. Rosenthal (D)
    • 9. Geraldine A. Ferraro (D)
    • 10. Mario Biaggi (D)
    • 11. James H. Scheuer (D)
    • 12. Shirley Chisholm (D)
    • 13. Stephen J. Solarz (D)
    • 14. Fred Richmond (D) (resigned Aug. 25, 1982)
    • 15. Leo C. Zeferetti (D)
    • 16. Charles E. Schumer (D)
    • 17. Guy V. Molinari (R)
    • 18. S. William Green (R)
    • 19. Charles B. Rangel (D)
    • 20. Ted Weiss (D)
    • 21. Robert Garcia (D)
    • 22. Jonathan B. Bingham (D)
    • 23. Peter A. Peyser (D)
    • 24. Richard L. Ottinger (D)
    • 25. Hamilton Fish Jr. (R)
    • 26. Benjamin A. Gilman (R)
    • 27. Matthew F. McHugh (D)
    • 28. Samuel S. Stratton (D)
    • 29. Gerald B. Solomon (R)
    • 30. David O'B. Martin (R)
    • 31. Donald J. Mitchell (R)
    • 32. George Wortley (R)
    • 33. Gary A. Lee (R)
    • 34. Frank Horton (R)
    • 35. Barber B. Conable Jr. (R)
    • 36. John J. LaFalce (D)
    • 37. Henry J. Nowak (D)
    • 38. Jack F. Kemp (R)
    • 39. Stanley N. Lundine (D)
    NORTH CAROLINA
    • 1. Walter B. Jones (D)
    • 2. L. H. Fountain (D)
    • 3. Charles Whitley (D)
    • 4. Ike F. Andrews (D)
    • 5. Stephen L. Neal (D)
    • 6. Eugene Johnston (R)
    • 7. Charlie Rose (D)
    • 8. W. G.
      Bill
      Hefner (D)
    • 9. James G. Martin (R)
    • 10. James T. Broyhill (R)
    • 11. William M. Hendon (R)
    NORTH DAKOTA

    AL Byron L. Dorgan (D)

    OHIO
    • 1. Bill Gradison (R)
    • 2. Thomas A. Luken (D)
    • 3. Tony P. Hall (D)
    • 4. Tennyson Guyer (R) (died April 12, 1981)
    • Michael G. Oxley (R) (sworn in July 21, 1981)
    • 5. Delbert L. Latta (R)
    • 6. Bob McEwen (R)
    • 7. Clarence J. Brown (R)
    • 8. Thomas N. Kindness (R)
    • 9. Ed Weber (R)
    • 10. Clarence E. Miller (R)
    • 11. J. William Stanton (R)
    • 12. Robert N. Shamansky (D)
    • 13. Don J. Pease (D)
    • 14. John F. Seiberling (D)
    • 15. Chalmers P. Wylie (R)
    • 16. Ralph S. Regula (R)
    • 17. John M. Ashbrook (R) (died April 24, 1982)
    • Jean S. Ashbrook (R) (sworn in July 12, 1982)
    • 18. Douglas Applegate (D)
    • 19. Lyle Williams (R)
    • 20. Mary Rose Oakar (D)
    • 21. Louis Stokes (D)
    • 22. Dennis E. Eckart (D)
    • 23. Ronald M. Mottl (D)
    OKLAHOMA
    • 1. James R. Jones (D)
    • 2. Mike Synar (D)
    • 3. Wes Watkins (D)
    • 4. Dave McCurdy (D)
    • 5. Mickey Edwards (R)
    • 6. Glenn English (D)
    OREGON
    • 1. Les AuCoin (D)
    • 2. Denny Smith (R)
    • 3. Ron Wyden (D)
    • 4. James Weaver (D)
    PENNSYLVANIA
    • 1. Thomas M. Foglietta (I)
    • 2. William H. Gray III (D)
    • 3. Raymond F. Lederer (D) (resigned May 5, 1981)
    • Joseph F. Smith (D) (sworn in July 28, 1981)
    • 4. Charles F. Dougherty (R)
    • 5. Richard T. Schulze (R)
    • 6. Gus Yatron (D)
    • 7. Robert W. Edgar (D)
    • 8. James K. Coyne (R)
    • 9. Bud Shuster (R)
    • 10. Joseph M. McDade (R)
    • 11. James L. Nelligan (R)
    • 12. John P. Murtha (D)
    • 13. Lawrence Coughlin (R)
    • 14. William J. Coyne (D)
    • 15. Don Ritter (R)
    • 16. Robert S. Walker (R)
    • 17. Allen E. Ertel (D)
    • 18. Doug Walgren (D)
    • 19. Bill Goodling (R)
    • 20. Joseph M. Gaydos (D)
    • 21. Don Bailey (D)
    • 22. Austin J. Murphy (D)
    • 23. William F. Clinger Jr. (R)
    • 24. Marc L. Marks (R)
    • 25. Eugene V. Atkinson (D) (switched to Republican Party Oct. 14, 1981)
    RHODE ISLAND
    • 1. Fernand J. St Germain (D)
    • 2. Claudine Schneider (R)
    SOUTH CAROLINA
    • 1. Thomas F. Hartnett (R)
    • 2. Floyd Spence (R)
    • 3. Butler Derrick (D)
    • 4. Carroll A. Campbell Jr. (R)
    • 5. Ken Holland (D)
    • 6. John L. Napier (R)
    SOUTH DAKOTA
    • 1. Thomas A. Daschle (D)
    • 2. Clint Roberts (R)
    TENNESSEE
    • 1. James H. Quillen (R)
    • 2. John J. Duncan (R)
    • 3. Marilyn Lloyd Bouquard (D) 1
    • 4. Albert Gore Jr. (D)
    • 5. Bill Boner (D)
    • 6. Robin L. Beard Jr. (R)
    • 7. Ed Jones (D)
    • 8. Harold E. Ford (D)
    TEXAS
    • 1. Sam B. Hall Jr. (D)
    • 2. Charles Wilson (D)
    • 3. James M. Collins (R)
    • 4. Ralph M. Hall (D)
    • 5. Jim Mattox (D)
    • 6. Phil Gramm (D)
    • 7. Bill Archer (R)
    • 8. Jack Fields (R)
    • 9. Jack Brooks (D)
    • 10. J. J. Pickle (D)
    • 11. Marvin Leath (D)
    • 12. Jim Wright (D)
    • 13. Jack Hightower (D)
    • 14. William N. Patman (D)
    • 15. E.
      Kika
      de la Garza (D)
    • 16. Richard C. White (D)
    • 17. Charles W. Stenholm (D)
    • 18. Mickey Leland (D)
    • 19. Kent Hance (D)
    • 20. Henry B. Gonzalez (D)
    • 21. Tom Loeffler (R)
    • 22. Ron Paul (R)
    • 23. Abraham Kazen Jr. (D)
    • 24. Martin Frost (D)
    UTAH
    • 1. James V. Hansen (R)
    • 2. Dan Marriott (R)
    VERMONT
    • AL James M. Jeffords (R)
    VIRGINIA
    • 1. Paul S. Trible Jr. (R)
    • 2. G. William Whitehurst (R)
    • 3. Thomas J. Bliley Jr. (R)
    • 4. Robert W. Daniel Jr. (R)
    • 5. Dan Daniel (D)
    • 6. M. Caldwell Butler (R)
    • 7. J. Kenneth Robinson (R)
    • 8. Stanford E. Parris (R)
    • 9. William C. Wampler (R)
    • 10. Frank R. Wolf (R)
    WASHINGTON
    • 1. Joel Pritchard (R)
    • 2. Al Swift (D)
    • 3. Don Bonker (D)
    • 4. Sid Morrison (R)
    • 5. Thomas S. Foley (D)
    • 6. Norman D. Dicks (D)
    • 7. Mike Lowry (D)
    WEST VIRGINIA
    • 1. Robert H. Mollohan (D)
    • 2. Cleve Benedict (R)
    • 3. Mick Staton (R)
    • 4. Nick J. Rahall (D)
    WISCONSIN
    • 1. Les Aspin (D)
    • 2. Robert W. Kastenmeier (D)
    • 3. Steven Gunderson (R)
    • 4. Clement J. Zablocki (D)
    • 5. Henry S. Reuss (D)
    • 6. Thomas E. Petri (R)
    • 7. David R. Obey (D)
    • 8. Toby Roth (R)
    • 9. F. James Sensenbrenner (R)
    WYOMING
    • AL Richard B. Cheney (R)

    Includes Foglietta, Pa., elected as an independent.Also known as Marilyn Lloyd.

    Membership Changes, 97th and 98th Congresses
    97th Congress

    Senate

    House

    98th Congress

    Senate

    House

    Senate Membership in the 98th Congress
    Lineup as of Jan. 3, 1983: Republicans 54, Democrats 46

    ALABAMA
    • Howell Heflin (D)
    • Jeremiah Denton (R)
    ALASKA
    • Frank H. Murkowski (R)
    • Ted Stevens (R)
    ARIZONA
    • Dennis DeConcini (D)
    • Barry Goldwater (R)
    ARKANSAS
    • Dale Bumpers (D)
    • David Pryor (D)
    CALIFORNIA
    • Alan Cranston (D)
    • Pete Wilson (R)
    COLORADO
    • Gary Hart (D)
    • William L. Armstrong (R)
    CONNECTICUT
    • Christopher J. Dodd (D)
    • Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (R)
    DELAWARE
    • Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)
    • William V. Roth Jr. (R)
    FLORIDA
    • Lawton Chiles (D)
    • Paula Hawkins (R)
    GEORGIA
    • Sam Nunn (D)
    • Mack Mattingly (R)
    HAWAII
    • Daniel K. Inouye (D)
    • Spark M. Matsunaga (D)
    IDAHO
    • James A. McClure (R)
    • Steven D. Symms (R)
    ILLINOIS
    • Alan J. Dixon (D)
    • Charles H. Percy (R)
    INDIANA
    • Richard G. Lugar (R)
    • Dan Quayle (R)
    IOWA
    • Charles E. Grassley (R)
    • Roger W. Jepsen (R)
    KANSAS
    • Robert Dole (R)
    • Nancy Landon Kassebaum (R)
    KENTUCKY
    • Wendell H. Ford (D)
    • Walter D. Huddleston (D)
    LOUISIANA
    • J. Bennett Johnston (D)
    • Russell B. Long (D)
    MAINE
    • George J. Mitchell (D)
    • William S. Cohen (R)
    MARYLAND
    • Paul S. Sarbanes (D)
    • Charles McC. Mathias Jr. (R)
    MASSACHUSETTS
    • Edward M. Kennedy (D)
    • Paul E. Tsongas (D)
    MICHIGAN
    • Carl Levin (D)
    • Donald W. Riegle Jr. (D)
    MINNESOTA
    • Rudy Boschwitz (R)
    • David Durenberger (R)
    MISSISSIPPI
    • John C. Stennis (D)
    • Thad Cochran (R)
    MISSOURI
    • Thomas F. Eagleton (D)
    • John C. Danforth (R)
    MONTANA
    • Max Baucus (D)
    • John Melcher (D)
    NEBRASKA
    • J. James Exon (D)
    • Edward Zorinsky (D)
    NEVADA
    • Chic Hecht (R)
    • Paul Laxalt (R)
    NEW HAMPSHIRE
    • Gordon J. Humphrey (R)
    • Warren B. Rudman (R)
    NEW JERSEY
    • Bill Bradley (D)
    • Frank R. Lautenberg (D)
    NEW MEXICO
    • Jeff Bingaman (D)
    • Pete V. Domenici (R)
    NEW YORK
    • Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D)
    • Alfonse M. D'Amato (R)
    NORTH CAROLINA
    • John P. East (R)
    • Jesse Helms (R)
    NORTH DAKOTA
    • Quentin N. Burdick (D)
    • Mark Andrews (R)
    OHIO
    • John Glenn (D)
    • Howard M. Metzenbaum (D)
    OKLAHOMA
    • David L. Boren (D)
    • Don Nickles (R)
    OREGON
    • Mark O. Hatfield (R)
    • Bob Packwood (R)
    PENNSYLVANIA
    • John Heinz (R)
    • Arlen Specter (R)
    RHODE ISLAND
    • Claiborne Pell (D)
    • John H. Chafee (R)
    SOUTH CAROLINA
    • Ernest F. Hollings (D)
    • Strom Thurmond (R)
    SOUTH DAKOTA
    • James Abdnor (R)
    • Larry Pressler (R)
    TENNESSEE
    • Jim Sasser (D)
    • Howard H. Baker Jr. (R)
    TEXAS
    • Lloyd Bentsen (D)
    • John Tower (R)
    UTAH
    • Jake Garn (R)
    • Orrin G. Hatch (R)
    VERMONT
    • Patrick J. Leahy (D)
    • Robert T. Stafford (R)
    VIRGINIA
    • Paul S. Trible Jr. (R)
    • John W. Warner (R)
    WASHINGTON
    • Henry M. Jackson (D) (died Sept. 1, 1983)
    • Slade Gorton (R)
    • Daniel J. Evans (R) (sworn in Sept. 12, 1983)
    WEST VIRGINIA
    • Robert C. Byrd (D)
    • Jennings Randolph (D)
    WISCONSIN
    • William Proxmire (D)
    • Robert W. Kasten Jr. (R)
    WYOMING
    • Alan K. Simpson (R)
    • Malcolm Wallop (R)
    House Membership in the 98th Congress
    Lineup as of Jan. 3, 1983: Republicans 165, Democrats 269, Vacancy 1

    ALABAMA
    • 1. Jack Edwards (R)
    • 2. William L. Dickinson (R)
    • 3. Bill Nichols (D)
    • 4. Tom Bevill (D)
    • 5. Ronnie G. Flippo (D)
    • 6. Ben Erdreich (D)
    • 7. Richard C. Shelby (D)
    ALASKA

    AL Don Young (R)

    ARIZONA
    • 1. John McCain (R)
    • 2. Morris K. Udall (D)
    • 3. Bob Stump (R)
    • 4. Eldon Rudd (R)
    • 5. Jim McNulty (D)
    ARKANSAS
    • 1. Bill Alexander (D)
    • 2. Ed Bethune (R)
    • 3. John Paul Hammerschmidt (R)
    • 4. Beryl Anthony Jr. (D)
    CALIFORNIA
    • 1. Douglas H. Bosco (D)
    • 2. Gene Chappie (R)
    • 3. Robert T. Matsui (D)
    • 4. Vic Fazio (D)
    • 5. Phillip Burton (D) (died April 10, 1983)
    • Sala Burton (D) (sworn in June 28, 1983)
    • 6. Barbara Boxer (D)
    • 7. George Miller (D)
    • 8. Ronald V. Dellums (D)
    • 9. Fortney H.
      Pete
      Stark (D)
    • 10. Don Edwards (D)
    • 11. Tom Lantos (D)
    • 12. Ed Zschau (R)
    • 13. Norman Y. Mineta (D)
    • 14. Norman D. Shumway (R)
    • 15. Tony Coelho (D)
    • 16. Leon E. Panetta (D)
    • 17. Charles Pashayan Jr. (R)
    • 18. Richard Lehman (D)
    • 19. Robert J. Lagomarsino (R)
    • 20. William M. Thomas (R)
    • 21. Bobbi Fiedler (R)
    • 22. Carlos J. Moorhead (R)
    • 23. Anthony C. Beilenson (D)
    • 24. Henry A. Waxman (D)
    • 25. Edward R. Roybal (D)
    • 26. Howard L. Berman (D)
    • 27. Mel Levine (D)
    • 28. Julian C. Dixon (D)
    • 29. Augustus F. Hawkins (D)
    • 30. Matthew G. Martinez (D)
    • 31. Mervyn M. Dymally (D)
    • 32. Glenn M. Anderson (D)
    • 33. David Dreier (R)
    • 34. Esteban Torres (D)
    • 35. Jerry Lewis (R)
    • 36. George E. Brown Jr. (D)
    • 37. Al McCandless (R)
    • 38. Jerry M. Patterson (D)
    • 39. William E. Dannemeyer (R)
    • 40. Robert E. Badham (R)
    • 41. Bill Lowery (R)
    • 42. Dan Lungren (R)
    • 43. Ron Packard (R)
    • 44. Jim Bates (D)
    • 45. Duncan L. Hunter (R)
    COLORADO
    • 1. Patricia Schroeder (D)
    • 2. Timothy E. Wirth (D)
    • 3. Ray Kogovsek (D)
    • 4. Hank Brown (R)
    • 5. Ken Kramer (R)
    • 6. Jack Swigert (R) (died Dec. 27, 1982)
    • Daniel L. Schaefer (R) (sworn in April 7, 1983)
    CONNECTICUT
    • 1. Barbara B. Kennelly (D)
    • 2. Sam Gejdenson (D)
    • 3. Bruce A. Morrison (D)
    • 4. Stewart B. McKinney (R)
    • 5. William R. Ratchford (D)
    • 6. Nancy L. Johnson (R)
    DELAWARE

    AL Thomas R. Carper (D)

    FLORIDA
    • 1. Earl Hutto (D)
    • 2. Don Fuqua (D)
    • 3. Charles E. Bennett (D)
    • 4. Bill Chappell Jr. (D)
    • 5. Bill McCollum (R)
    • 6. Kenneth H. MacKay (D)
    • 7. Sam Gibbons (D)
    • 8. C.W. Bill Young (R)
    • 9. Michael Bilirakis (R)
    • 10. Andy Ireland (D) (switched to Republican Party July 5, 1984)
    • 11. Bill Nelson (D)
    • 12. Tom Lewis (R)
    • 13. Connie Mack III (R)
    • 14. Daniel A. Mica (D)
    • 15. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (R)
    • 16. Larry Smith (D)
    • 17. William Lehman (D)
    • 18. Claude Pepper (D)
    • 19. Dante B. Fascell (D)
    GEORGIA
    • 1. Lindsay Thomas (D)
    • 2. Charles Hatcher (D)
    • 3. Richard Ray (D)
    • 4. Elliott H. Levitas (D)
    • 5. Wyche Fowler Jr. (D)
    • 6. Newt Gingrich (R)
    • 7. Larry P. McDonald (D) (died Sept. 1, 1983)
    • George W.
      Buddy
      Darden (D) (sworn in Nov. 10, 1983)
    • 8. J. Roy Rowland (D)
    • 9. Ed Jenkins (D)
    • 10. Doug Barnard Jr. (D)
    HAWAII
    • 1. Cecil Heftel (D)
    • 2. Daniel K. Akaka (D)
    IDAHO
    • 1. Larry E. Craig (R)
    • 2. George Hansen (R)
    ILLINOIS
    • 1. Harold Washington (D) (resigned April 30, 1983)
    • Charles A. Hayes (D) (sworn in Sept. 12, 1983)
    • 2. Gus Savage (D)
    • 3. Marty Russo (D)
    • 4. George M. O'Brien (R)
    • 5. William O. Lipinski (D)
    • 6. Henry J. Hyde (R)
    • 7. Cardiss Collins (D)
    • 8. Dan Rostenkowski (D)
    • 9. Sidney R. Yates (D)
    • 10. John Edward Porter (R)
    • 11. Frank Annunzio (D)
    • 12. Philip M. Crane (R)
    • 13. John N. Erlenborn (R)
    • 14. Tom Corcoran (R)
    • 15. Edward R. Madigan (R)
    • 16. Lynn Martin (R)
    • 17. Lane Evans (D)
    • 18. Robert H. Michel (R)
    • 19. Daniel B. Crane (R)
    • 20. Richard J. Durbin (D)
    • 21. Melvin Price (D)
    • 22. Paul Simon (D)
    INDIANA
    • 1. Katie Hall (D)
    • 2. Philip R. Sharp (D)
    • 3. John Hiler (R)
    • 4. Dan Coats (R)
    • 5. Elwood Hillis (R)
    • 6. Dan Burton (R)
    • 7. John T. Myers (R)
    • 8. Francis X. McCloskey (D)
    • 9. Lee H. Hamilton (D)
    • 10. Andrew Jacobs Jr. (D)
    IOWA
    • 1. Jim Leach (R)
    • 2. Tom Tauke (R)
    • 3. Cooper Evans (R)
    • 4. Neal Smith (D)
    • 5. Tom Harkin (D)
    • 6. Berkley Bedell (D)
    KANSAS
    • 1. Pat Roberts (R)
    • 2. Jim Slattery (D)
    • 3. Larry Winn Jr. (R)
    • 4. Dan Glickman (D)
    • 5. Bob Whittaker (R)
    KENTUCKY
    • 1. Carroll Hubbard Jr. (D)
    • 2. William H. Natcher (D)
    • 3. Romano L. Mazzoli (D)
    • 4. Gene Snyder (R)
    • 5. Harold Rogers (R)
    • 6. Larry J. Hopkins (R)
    • 7. Carl D. Perkins (D) 1(died Aug. 3, 1984)
    LOUISIANA
    • 1. Bob Livingston (R)
    • 2. Lindy (Mrs. Hale) Boggs (D)
    • 3. W. J.
      Billy
      Tauzin (D)
    • 4. Buddy Roemer (D)
    • 5. Jerry Huckaby (D)
    • 6. Henson Moore (R)
    • 7. John B. Breaux (D)
    • 8. Gillis W. Long (D)
    MAINE
    • 1. John R. McKernan Jr. (R)
    • 2. Olympia J. Snowe (R)
    MARYLAND
    • 1. Roy Dyson (D)
    • 2. Clarence D. Long (D)
    • 3. Barbara A. Mikulski (D)
    • 4. Marjorie S. Holt (R)
    • 5. Steny H. Hoyer (D)
    • 6. Beverly B. Byron (D)
    • 7. Parren J. Mitchell (D)
    • 8. Michael D. Barnes (D)
    MASSACHUSETTS
    • 1. Silvio O. Conte (R)
    • 2. Edward P. Boland (D)
    • 3. Joseph D. Early (D)
    • 4. Barney Frank (D)
    • 5. James M. Shannon (D)
    • 6. Nicholas Mavroules (D)
    • 7. Edward J. Markey (D)
    • 8. Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. (D)
    • 9. Joe Moakley (D)
    • 10. Gerry E. Studds (D)
    • 11. Brian J. Donnelly (D)
    MICHIGAN
    • 1. John Conyers Jr. (D)
    • 2. Carl D. Pursell (R)
    • 3. Howard Wolpe (D)
    • 4. Mark Siljander (R)
    • 5. Harold S. Sawyer (R)
    • 6. Bob Carr (D)
    • 7. Dale E. Kildee (D)
    • 8. Bob Traxler (D)
    • 9. Guy Vander Jagt (R)
    • 10. Don Albosta (D)
    • 11. Robert W. Davis (R)
    • 12. David E. Bonior (D)
    • 13. George W. Crockett Jr. (D)
    • 14. Dennis M. Hertel (D)
    • 15. William D. Ford (D)
    • 16. John D. Dingell (D)
    • 17. Sander Levin (D)
    • 18. William S. Broomfield (R)
    MINNESOTA
    • 1. Timothy J. Penny (D)
    • 2. Vin Weber (R)
    • 3. Bill Frenzel (R)
    • 4. Bruce F. Vento (D)
    • 5. Martin Olav Sabo (D)
    • 6. Gerry Sikorski (D)
    • 7. Arlan Stangeland (R)
    • 8. James L. Oberstar (D)
    MISSISSIPPI
    • 1. Jamie L. Whitten (D)
    • 2. Webb Franklin (R)
    • 3. G. V.
      Sonny
      Montgomery (D)
    • 4. Wayne Dowdy (D)
    • 5. Trent Lott (R)
    MISSOURI
    • 1. William Clay (D)
    • 2. Robert A. Young (D)
    • 3. Richard A. Gephardt (D)
    • 4. Ike Skelton (D)
    • 5. Alan Wheat (D)
    • 6. E. Thomas Coleman (R)
    • 7. Gene Taylor (R)
    • 8. Bill Emerson (R)
    • 9. Harold L. Volkmer (D)
    MONTANA
    • 1. Pat Williams (D)
    • 2. Ron Marlenee (R)
    NEBRASKA
    • 1. Douglas K. Bereuter (R)
    • 2. Hal Daub (R)
    • 3. Virginia Smith (R)
    NEVADA
    • 1. Harry Reid (D)
    • 2. Barbara Vucanovich (R)
    NEW HAMPSHIRE
    • 1. Norman E. D'Amours (D)
    • 2. Judd Gregg (R)
    NEW JERSEY
    • 1. James J. Florio (D)
    • 2. William J. Hughes (D)
    • 3. James J. Howard (D)
    • 4. Christopher H. Smith (R)
    • 5. Marge Roukema (R)
    • 6. Bernard J. Dwyer (D)
    • 7. Matthew J. Rinaldo (R)
    • 8. Robert A. Roe (D)
    • 9. Robert G. Torricelli (D)
    • 10. Peter W. Rodino Jr. (D)
    • 11. Joseph G. Minish (D)
    • 12. Jim Courter (R)
    • 13. Edwin B. Forsythe (R)1(died March 29, 1984)
    • 14. Frank J. Guarini (D)
    NEW MEXICO
    • 1. Manuel Lujan Jr. (R)
    • 2. Joe Skeen (R)
    • 3. Bill Richardson (D)
    NEW YORK
    • 1. William Carney (R)
    • 2. Thomas J. Downey (D)
    • 3. Robert J. Mrazek (D)
    • 4. Norman F. Lent (R)
    • 5. Raymond J. McGrath (R)
    • 6. Joseph P. Addabbo (D)
    • 7. Benjamin S. Rosenthal (D) (died Jan. 4, 1983)
    • Gary L. Ackerman (D) (sworn in March 2, 1983)
    • 8. James H. Scheuer (D)
    • 9. Geraldine A. Ferraro (D)
    • 10. Charles E. Schumer (D)
    • 11. Edolphus Towns (D)
    • 12. Major R. Owens (D)
    • 13. Stephen J. Solarz (D)
    • 14. Guy V. Molinari (R)
    • 15. Bill Green (R)
    • 16. Charles B. Rangel (D)
    • 17. Ted Weiss (D)
    • 18. Robert Garcia (D)
    • 19. Mario Biaggi (D)
    • 20. Richard L. Ottinger (D)
    • 21. Hamilton Fish Jr. (R)
    • 22. Benjamin A. Gilman (R)
    • 23. Samuel S. Stratton (D)
    • 24. Gerald B. H. Solomon (R)
    • 25. Sherwood L. Boehlert (R)
    • 26. David O'B. Martin (R)
    • 27. George C. Wortley (R)
    • 28. Matthew F. McHugh (D)
    • 29. Frank Horton (R)
    • 30. Barber B. Conable Jr. (R)
    • 31. Jack F. Kemp (R)
    • 32. John J. LaFalce (D)
    • 33. Henry J. Nowak (D)
    • 34. Stanley N. Lundine (D)
    NORTH CAROLINA
    • 1. Walter B. Jones (D)
    • 2. I. T.
      Tim
      Valentine Jr. (D)
    • 3. Charles Whitley (D)
    • 4. Ike Andrews (D)
    • 5. Stephen L. Neal (D)
    • 6. Charles Robin Britt (D)
    • 7. Charlie Rose (D)
    • 8. W. G.
      Bill
      Hefner (D)
    • 9. James G. Martin (R)
    • 10. James T. Broyhill (R)
    • 11. James McClure Clarke (D)
    NORTH DAKOTA

    AL Byron L. Dorgan (D)

    OHIO
    • 1. Thomas A. Luken (D)
    • 2. Bill Gradison (R)
    • 3. Tony P. Hall (D)
    • 4. Michael G. Oxley (R)
    • 5. Delbert L. Latta (R)
    • 6. Bob McEwen (R)
    • 7. Michael Dewine (R)
    • 8. Thomas N. Kindness (R)
    • 9. Marcy Kaptur (D)
    • 10. Clarence E. Miller (R)
    • 11. Dennis E. Eckart (D)
    • 12. John R. Kasich (R)
    • 13. Don J. Pease (D)
    • 14. John F. Seiberling (D)
    • 15. Chalmers P. Wylie (R)
    • 16. Ralph Regula (R)
    • 17. Lyle Williams (R)
    • 18. Douglas Applegate (D)
    • 19. Edward F. Feighan (D)
    • 20. Mary Rose Oakar (D)
    • 21. Louis Stokes (D)
    OKLAHOMA
    • 1. James R. Jones (D)
    • 2. Mike Synar (D)
    • 3. Wes Watkins (D)
    • 4. Dave McCurdy (D)
    • 5. Mickey Edwards (R)
    • 6. Glenn English (D)
    OREGON
    • 1. Les AuCoin (D)
    • 2. Bob Smith (R)
    • 3. Ron Wyden (D)
    • 4. James Weaver (D)
    • 5. Denny Smith (R)
    PENNSYLVANIA
    • 1. Thomas M. Foglietta (D)
    • 2. William H. Gray III (D)
    • 3. Robert A. Borski (D)
    • 4. Joseph P. Kolter (D)
    • 5. Richard T. Schulze (R)
    • 6. Gus Yatron (D)
    • 7. Robert W. Edgar (D)
    • 8. Peter H. Kostmayer (D)
    • 9. Bud Shuster (R)
    • 10. Joseph M. McDade (R)
    • 11. Frank Harrison (D)
    • 12. John P. Murtha (D)
    • 13. Lawrence Coughlin (R)
    • 14. William J. Coyne (D)
    • 15. Don Ritter (R)
    • 16. Robert S. Walker (R)
    • 17. George W. Gekas (R)
    • 18. Doug Walgren (D)
    • 19. Bill Goodling (R)
    • 20. Joseph M. Gaydos (D)
    • 21. Thomas J. Ridge (R)
    • 22. Austin J. Murphy (D)
    • 23. William F. Clinger Jr. (R)
    RHODE ISLAND
    • 1. Fernand J. St Germain (D)
    • 2. Claudine Schneider (R)
    SOUTH CAROLINA
    • 1. Thomas F. Hartnett (R)
    • 2. Floyd Spence (R)
    • 3. Butler Derrick (D)
    • 4. Carroll A. Campbell Jr. (R)
    • 5. John Spratt (D)
    • 6. Robert M. Tallon Jr. (D)
    SOUTH DAKOTA

    AL Thomas A. Daschle (D)

    TENNESSEE
    • 1. James H. Quillen (R)
    • 2. John J. Duncan (R)
    • 3. Marilyn Lloyd (D)1
    • 4. Jim Cooper (D)
    • 5. Bill Boner (D)
    • 6. Albert Gore Jr. (D)
    • 7. Don Sundquist (R)
    • 8. Ed Jones (D)
    • 9. Harold E. Ford (D)
    TEXAS
    • 1. Sam B. Hall Jr. (D)
    • 2. Charles Wilson (D)
    • 3. Steve Bartlett (R)
    • 4. Ralph M. Hall (D)
    • 5. John Bryant (D)
    • 6. Phil Gramm (D) (resigned Jan. 5, 1983)
    • Phil Gramm (R) (sworn in Feb. 22, 1983)
    • 7. Bill Archer (R)
    • 8. Jack Fields (R)
    • 9. Jack Brooks (D)
    • 10. J. J. Pickle (D)
    • 11. Marvin Leath (D)
    • 12. Jim Wright (D)
    • 13. Jack Hightower (D)
    • 14. Bill Patman (D)
    • 15. E.
      Kika
      de la Garza (D)
    • 16. Ronald Coleman (D)
    • 17. Charles W. Stenholm (D)
    • 18. Mickey Leland (D)
    • 19. Kent Hance (D)
    • 20. Henry B. Gonzalez (D)
    • 21. Tom Loeffler (R)
    • 22. Ron Paul (R)
    • 23. Abraham Kazen Jr. (D)
    • 24. Martin Frost (D)
    • 25. Mike Andrews (D)
    • 26. Tom Vandergriff (D)
    • 27. Solomon P. Ortiz (D)
    UTAH
    • 1. James V. Hansen (R)
    • 2. Dan Marriott (R)
    • 3. Howard C. Nielson (R)
    VERMONT

    AL James M. Jeffords (R)

    VIRGINIA
    • 1. Herbert H. Bateman (R)
    • 2. G. William Whitehurst (R)
    • 3. Thomas J. Bliley Jr. (R)
    • 4. Norman Sisisky (D)
    • 5. Dan Daniel (D)
    • 6. James R. Olin (D)
    • 7. J. Kenneth Robinson (R)
    • 8. Stan Parris (R)
    • 9. Frederick C. Boucher (D)
    • 10. Frank R. Wolf (R)
    WASHINGTON
    • 1. Joel Pritchard (R)
    • 2. Al Swift (D)
    • 3. Don Bonker (D)
    • 4. Sid Morrison (R)
    • 5. Thomas S. Foley (D)
    • 6. Norman D. Dicks (D)
    • 7. Mike Lowry (D)
    • 8. Rodney Chandler (R)
    WEST VIRGINIA
    • 1. Alan B. Mollohan (D)
    • 2. Harley O. Staggers Jr. (D)
    • 3. Bob Wise (D)
    • 4. Nick J. Rahall II (D)
    WISCONSIN
    • 1. Les Aspin (D)
    • 2. Robert W. Kastenmeier (D)
    • 3. Steve Gunderson (R)
    • 4. Clement J. Zablocki (D) (died Dec. 3, 1983)
    • Gerald D. Kleczka (D) (sworn in April 10, 1984)
    • 5. Jim Moody (D)
    • 6. Thomas E. Petri (R)
    • 7. David R. Obey (D)
    • 8. Toby Roth (R)
    • 9. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R)
    WYOMING

    AL Dick Cheney (R)

    Carl C. Perkins, D, was elected Nov. 6, 1984, to fill Perkins' remaining term and to the 99th Congress. He was sworn in Jan. 3, 1985.H. James Saxton, R, was elected Nov. 6, 1984, to fill Forsythe's remaining term and to the 99th Congress. He was sworn in Jan. 3, 1985.Marilyn Lloyd was known as Marilyn Lloyd Bouquard in the 97th Congress.

    Members of Congress: 1981-85

    The names in this index include, alphabetically, all senators, representatives, resident commissioners and territorial delegates who served in the 97th and 98th Congresses — from 1981 to 1985.

    The material is organized as follows: name; relationship to other members and presidents and vice presidents; party; state (of service); date of birth; date of death (if applicable); congressional service; service as president, vice president, member of the Cabinet or Supreme Court, governor, Speaker of the House, president pro tempore of the Senate and chairman of the Democratic or Republican National Committee. If the member changed parties during his or her congressional service, party designation appearing after the member's name is that which applied at the end of such service and further breakdown is included after dates of congressional service. Party designation is multiple only if the member was elected by two or more parties at the same time. Where service date is left open, member was still serving in the 99th Congress.

    Dates of service are inclusive, starting in year of service and ending when service ends. Under the Constitution, terms of service since 1934 have been from Jan. 3 to Jan. 3. In actual practice, members often have been sworn in on other dates at the beginning of a Congress. Exact date is shown (where available) if member began or ended his service in mid-term.

    The major sources for the following list were the Congressional Directory and Congressional Quarterly's Almanac, Guide to Congress, Guide to U.S. Elections and Weekly Report.

    In the list, D Stands for Democrat; I, Independent; L, Liberal; New Prog., New Progressive; and R, Republican.

    A
    ABDNOR

    James (R S.D.) Feb. 13, 1923-—; House 1973-81; Senate 1981-—.

    ACKERMAN

    Gary L. (D N.Y.) Nov. 19, 1942-—; House March 2, 1983-—.

    ADDABBO

    Joseph P. (D N.Y.) March 17, 1925-—; House 1961-—.

    AKAKA

    Daniel K. (D Hawaii) Sept. 11, 1924-—; House 1977-—.

    ALBOSTA

    Donald Joseph (D Mich.) Dec. 5, 1925-—; House 1979-85.

    ALEXANDER

    William Vollie Jr. (D Ark.) Jan. 16, 1934-—; House 1969-—.

    ANDERSON

    Glenn M. (D Calif.) Feb. 21, 1913-—; House 1969-—.

    ANDREWS

    Ike Franklin (D N.C.) Sept. 2, 1925-—; House 1973-85.

    ANDREWS

    Mark (R N.D.) May 19, 1926-—; House Oct. 22, 1963-81; Senate 1981-—.

    ANDREWS

    Michael Allen (D Texas) Feb. 7, 1944-—; House 1983-—.

    ANNUNZIO

    Frank (D Ill.) Jan. 12, 1915-—; House 1965-—.

    ANTHONY

    Beryl Franklin Jr. (D Ark.) Feb. 21, 1938-—; House 1979-—.

    APPLEGATE

    Douglas (D Ohio) March 27, 1928-—; House 1977-—.

    ARCHER

    William Reynolds Jr. (R Texas) March 22, 1928-—; House 1971-—.

    ARMSTRONG

    William Lester (R Colo.) March 16, 1937-—; House 1973-79; Senate 1979-—.

    ASHBROOK

    Jean S. (widow of John Milan Ashbrook) (R Ohio) Sept. 21, 1934-—; House July 12, 1982-83.

    ASHBROOK

    John Milan (son of William Albert Ashbrook) (R Ohio) Sept. 21, 1928-April 24, 1982; House 1961-April 24, 1982.

    ASPIN

    Les (D Wis.) July 21, 1938-—; House 1971-—.

    ATKINSON

    Eugene Vincent (R Pa.) April 5, 1927-—; House 1979-83 (1979-Oct. 14, 1981 Democrat; Oct. 14, 1981-83 Republican.)

    AuCOIN

    Les (D Ore.) Oct. 21, 1942-—; House 1975-—.

    B
    BADHAM

    Robert E. (R Calif.) June 9, 1929-—; House 1977-—.

    BAFALIS

    Louis Arthur (R Fla.) Sept. 28, 1929-—; House 1973-83.

    BAILEY

    Donald Allen (D Pa.) July 21, 1945-—; House 1979-83.

    BAILEY

    Wendell (R Mo.) July 31, 1940-—; House 1981-83.

    BAKER

    Howard Henry Jr. (son of Howard Henry Baker and Irene B. Baker, son-in-law of Everett McKinley Dirksen) (R Tenn.) Nov. 15, 1925-—; Senate 1967-85; Senate majority leader 1981-85.

    BARNARD

    D. Douglas Jr. (D Ga.) March 20, 1922-—; House 1977-—.

    BARNES

    Michael Darr (D Md.) Sept. 3, 1943-—; House 1979-—.

    BARTLETT

    Steve (R Texas) Sept. 19, 1947-—; House 1983-—.

    BATEMAN

    Herbert H. (R Va.) Aug. 7, 1928-—; House 1983-—.

    BATES

    Jim (D Calif.) July 21, 1941-—; House 1983-—.

    BAUCUS

    Max Sieben (D Mont.) Dec. 11, 1941-—; House 1975-Dec. 14, 1978; Senate Dec. 15, 1978-—.

    BEARD

    Robin Leo Jr. (R Tenn.) Aug. 21, 1939-—; House 1973-83.

    BEDELL

    Berkley Warren (D Iowa) March 5, 1921-—; House 1975-—.

    BEILENSON

    Anthony Charles (D Calif.) Oct. 26, 1932-—; House 1977-—.

    BENEDICT

    Cleve (R W. Va.) March 21, 1935-—; House 1981-83.

    BENJAMIN

    Adam Jr. (D Ind.) Aug. 6, 1935- Sept. 7, 1982; House 1977-Sept. 7, 1982.

    BENNETT

    Charles Edward (D Fla.) Dec. 2, 1910-—; House 1949-—.

    BENTSEN

    Lloyd Millard Jr. (D Texas) Feb. 11, 1921-—; House Dec. 4, 1948-55; Senate 1971-—.

    BEREUTER

    Douglas K. (R Neb.) Oct. 6, 1939-—; House 1979-—.

    BERMAN

    Howard L. (D Calif.) April 15, 1941-—; House 1983-—.

    BETHUNE

    Edwin Ruthvin (R Ark.) Dec. 19, 1934-—; House 1979-85.

    BEVILL

    Tom (D Ala.) March 27, 1921-—; House 1967-—.

    BIAGGI

    Mario (D N.Y.) Oct. 26, 1917-—; House 1969-—.

    BIDEN

    Joseph Robinette Jr. (D Del.) Nov. 20, 1942-—; Senate 1973-—.

    BILIRAKIS

    Michael (R Fla.) July 16, 1930-—; House 1983-—.

    BINGAMAN

    Jeff (D N.M.) Oct. 3, 1943-—; Senate 1983-—.

    BINGHAM

    Jonathan Brewster (son of Hiram Bingham) (D N.Y.) April 24, 1914-—; House 1965-83.

    BLANCHARD

    James Johnston (D Mich.) Aug. 8, 1942-—; House 1975-83; Gov. 1983-—.

    BLILEY

    Thomas J. Jr. (R Va.) Jan. 28, 1932-—; House 1981-—.

    BOEHLERT

    Sherwood L. (D N.Y.) June 28, 1936-—; House 1983-—.

    BOGGS

    Corinne Claiborne (widow of Thomas Hale Boggs Sr.) (D La.) March 13, 1916-—; House March 20, 1973-—.

    BOLAND

    Edward Patrick (D Mass.) Oct. 1, 1911-—; House 1953-—.

    BOLLING

    Richard Walker (D Mo.) May 17, 1916-—; House 1949-83.

    BONER

    William Hill (D Tenn.) Feb. 14, 1945-—; House 1979-—.

    BONIOR

    David Edward (D Mich.) June 6, 1945-—; House 1977-—.

    BONKER

    Don Leroy (D Wash.) March 7, 1937-—; House 1975-—.

    BOREN

    David Lyle (son of Lyle H. Boren) (D Okla.) April 21, 1941-—; Senate 1979-—; Gov. 1975-79.

    BORSKI

    Robert Anthony Jr. (D Pa.) Oct. 20, 1948-—; House 1983-—.

    BOSCHWITZ

    Rudolf Eli (R Minn.) Nov. 7, 1930-—; Senate Dec. 30, 1978-—.

    BOSCO

    Douglas H. (D Calif.) July 28, 1946-—; House 1983-—.

    BOUCHER

    Frederick C. (D Va.) Aug. 1, 1946-—; House 1983-—.

    BOWEN

    David Reece (D Miss.) Oct. 21, 1932-—; House 1973-83.

    BOXER

    Barbara (D Calif.) Nov. 11, 1940-—; House 1983-—.

    BRADLEY

    William Warren (D N.J.) July 28, 1943-—; Senate 1979-—.

    BRADY

    Nicholas (R N.J.) April 11, 1930-—; Senate April 20, 1982-Dec. 27, 1982.

    BREAUX

    John Berlinger (D La.) March 1, 1944-—; House Sept. 30, 1972-—.

    BRINKLEY

    Jack Thomas (D Ga.) Dec. 22, 1930-—; House 1967-83.

    BRITT

    Charles Robin (D N.C.) June 29, 1942-—; House 1983-85.

    BRODHEAD

    William McNulty (D Mich.) Sept. 12, 1941-—; House 1975-83.

    BROOKS

    Jack Bascom (D Texas) Dec. 18, 1922-—; House 1953-—.

    BROOMFIELD

    William S. (R Mich.) April 28, 1922-—; House 1957-—.

    BROWN

    Clarence J. Jr. (son of Clarence J. Brown) (R Ohio) June 18, 1927-—; House Nov. 2, 1965-83.

    BROWN

    George E. Jr. (D Calif.) March 6, 1920-—; House 1963-71, 1973-—.

    BROWN

    Hank (R Colo.) Feb. 12, 1940-—; House 1981-—.

    BROYHILL

    James T. (R N.C.) Aug. 19, 1927-—; House 1963-—.

    BRYANT

    John Wiley (D Texas) Feb. 22, 1947-—; House 1983-—.

    BUMPERS

    Dale (D Ark.) Aug. 12, 1925-—; Senate 1975-—; Gov. 1971-75.

    BURDICK

    Quentin Northrop (son of Usher Lloyd Burdick, brother-in-law of Robert Woodrow Levering) (D N.D.) June 19, 1908-—; House 1959-Aug. 8, 1960; Senate Aug. 8, 1960-—.

    BURGENER

    Clair Walter (R Calif.) Dec. 5, 1921-—; House 1973-83.

    BURTON

    Danny Lee (R Ind.) June 21, 1938-—; House 1983-—.

    BURTON

    John Lowell (brother of Phillip Burton) (D Calif.) Dec. 15, 1932-—; House June 25, 1974-83.

    BURTON

    Phillip (brother of John Lowell Burton) (D Calif.) June 1, 1926-April 10, 1983; House Feb. 18, 1964-April 10, 1983.

    BURTON

    Sala (widow of Phillip Burton) (D Calif.) April 1, 1925-—; House June 28, 1983-—.

    BUTLER

    Manley Caldwell (R Va.) June 2, 1925-—; House Nov. 7, 1972-83.

    BYRD

    Harry Flood Jr. (son of Harry Flood Byrd) (I Va.) Dec. 20, 1914-—; Senate Nov. 12, 1965-83; (1965-71 Democrat, 1971-83 Independent).

    BYRD

    Robert Carlyle (D W. Va.) Jan. 15, 1918-—; House 1953-59; Senate 1959-—; Senate majority leader 1977-81.

    BYRON

    Beverly Barton Butcher (widow of Goodloe Edgar Bryon) (D Md.) July 26, 1932-—; House 1979-—.

    C
    CAMPBELL

    Carroll Ashmore Jr. (R S.C.) July 24, 1940-—; House 1979-—.

    CANNON

    Howard Walter (D Nev.) Jan. 26, 1912-—; Senate 1959-83.

    CARMAN

    Gregory W. (R N.Y.) Jan. 31, 1937-—; House 1981-83.

    CARNEY

    William (R N.Y.) July 1, 1942-—; House 1979-—.

    CARPER

    Thomas Richard (D Del.) Jan. 23, 1947-—; House 1983-—.

    CARR

    Milton Robert (D Mich.) March 27, 1943-—; House 1975-81, 1983-—.

    CHAFEE

    John Hubbard (R R.I.) Oct. 22, 1922-—; Senate Dec. 29, 1976-—; Gov. 1963-69.

    CHANDLER

    Rodney (R Wash.) July 13, 1942-—; House 1983-—.

    CHAPPELL

    William Venroe Jr. (D Fla.) Feb. 3, 1922-—; House 1969-—.

    CHAPPIE

    Eugene A. (R Calif.) March 21, 1920-—; House 1981-—.

    CHENEY

    Richard Bruce (R Wyo.) Jan. 30, 1941-—; House 1979-—.

    CHILES

    Lawton Mainor Jr. (D Fla.) April 3, 1930-—; Senate 1971-—.

    CHISHOLM

    Shirley Anita (D N.Y.) Nov. 30, 1924-—; House 1969-83.

    CLARKE

    James McClure (D N.C.) June 12, 1917-—; House 1983-85.

    CLAUSEN

    Don Holst (R Calif.) April 27, 1923-— House Jan. 22, 1963-83.

    CLAY

    William Lacey (D Mo.) April 30, 1931-—; House 1969-—.

    CLINGER

    William Floyd Jr. (R Pa.) April 4, 1929-—; House 1979-—.

    COATS

    Daniel R. (R Ind.) May 16, 1943-—; House 1981-—.

    COCHRAN

    William Thad (R Miss.) Dec. 7, 1937-—; House 1973-Dec. 26, 1978; Senate Dec. 27, 1978-—.

    COELHO

    Anthony Lee (D Calif.) June 15, 1942-—; House 1979-—.

    COHEN

    William Sebastian (R Maine) Aug. 28, 1940-—; House 1973-79; Senate 1979-—.

    COLEMAN

    E. Thomas (R Mo.) May 29, 1943-—; House Nov. 2, 1976-—.

    COLEMAN

    Ronald D. (D Texas) Nov. 29, 1941-—; House 1983-—.

    COLLINS

    Cardiss (widow of George Washington Collins) (D Ill.) Sept. 24, 1931-—; House June 5, 1973-—.

    COLLINS

    James M. (R Texas) April 29, 1916-—; House Aug. 24, 1968-83.

    CONABLE

    Barber B. Jr. (R N.Y.) Nov. 2, 1922-—; House 1965-85.

    CONTE

    Silvio Otto (R Mass.) Nov. 9, 1921-—; House 1959-—.

    CONYERS

    John Jr. (D Mich.) May 16, 1929-—; House 1965-—.

    COOPER

    James Haynes Shofner (D Tenn.) June 19, 1954-—; House 1983-—.

    CORCORAN

    Thomas J. (R Ill.) May 23, 1939-—; House 1977-85.

    CORRADA del RIO

    Baltasar (New Prog. P.R.) April 10, 1935-—; House (Res. Comm.) 1977-85.

    COTTER

    William Ross (D Conn.) July 18, 1926-Sept. 8, 1981; House 1971-Sept. 8, 1981.

    COUGHLIN

    Robert Lawrence (nephew of Clarence Dennis Coughlin) (R Pa.) April 11, 1929-—; House 1969-—.

    COURTER

    James Andrew (R N.J.) Oct. 14, 1941-—; House 1979-—.

    COYNE

    James K. (R Pa.) Nov. 17, 1946-—; House 1981-83.

    COYNE

    William J. (D Pa.) Aug. 24, 1936-—; House 1981-—.

    CRAIG

    Larry E. (R Idaho) July 20, 1945-—; House 1981-—.

    CRANE

    Daniel Bever (brother of Philip Miller Crane) (R Ill.) Jan. 10, 1936-—; House 1979-85.

    CRANE

    Philip Miller (brother of Daniel Bever Crane) (R Ill.) Nov. 3, 1930-—; House Nov. 25, 1969-—.

    CRANSTON

    Alan (D Calif.) June 19, 1914-—; Senate 1969-—.

    CROCKETT

    George W. Jr. (D Mich.) Aug. 10, 1909-—; House Nov. 12, 1980-—.

    D
    D'AMATO

    Alfonse M. (R N.Y.) Aug. 1, 1937-—; Senate 1981-—.

    D'AMOURS

    Norman Edward (D N.H.) Oct. 14, 1937-—; House 1975-85.

    DANFORTH

    John Claggett (R Mo.) Sept. 5, 1936-—; Senate Dec. 27, 1976-—.

    DANIEL

    Robert Williams Jr. (R Va.) March 17, 1936-—; House 1973-83.

    DANIEL

    W. C. (Dan) (D Va.) May 12, 1914-—; House 1969-—.

    DANIELSON

    George Elmore (D Calif.) Feb. 20, 1915-—; House 1971-March 9, 1982.

    DANNEMEYER

    William Edward (R Calif.) Sept. 22, 1929-—; House 1979-—.

    DARDEN

    George (Buddy) (D Ga.) Nov. 22, 1943-—; House Nov. 10, 1983-—.

    DASCHLE

    Thomas Andrew (D S.D.) Dec. 9, 1947-—; House 1979-—.

    DAUB

    Harold J. Jr. (R Neb.) April 23, 1941-—; House 1981-—.

    DAVIS

    Robert William (R Mich.) July 31, 1932-—; House 1979-—.

    DECKARD

    H. Joel (R Ind.) March 7, 1942-—; House 1979-83.

    DeCONCINI

    Dennis (D Ariz.) May 8, 1937-—; Senate 1977-—.

    DE LA GARZA II

    Eligio (D Texas) Sept. 22, 1927-—; House 1965-—.

    DELLUMS

    Ronald V. (D Calif.) Nov. 24, 1935-—; House 1971-—.

    DE LUGO

    Ron (D V.I.) Aug. 2, 1930-—; House (Terr. Del.) 1973-79, 1981-—.

    DeNARDIS

    Lawrence J. (R Conn.) March 18, 1938-—; House 1981-83.

    DENTON

    Jeremiah (R Ala.) July 15, 1924-—; Senate 1981-—.

    DERRICK

    Butler Carson Jr. (D S.C.) Sept. 30, 1936-—; House 1975-—.

    DERWINSKI

    Edward Joseph (R Ill.) Sept. 15, 1926-—; House 1959-83.

    DeWINE

    Michael (R Ohio) Jan. 5, 1947-—; House 1983-—.

    DICKINSON

    William Louis (R Ala.) June 5, 1925-—; House 1965-—.

    DICKS

    Norman Devalois (D Wash.) Dec. 16, 1940-—; House 1977-—.

    DINGELL

    John David Jr. (son of John David Dingell) (D Mich.) July 8, 1926-—; House Dec. 13, 1955-—.

    DIXON

    Alan J. (D Ill.) July 7, 1927-—; Senate 1981-—.

    DIXON

    Julian Carey (D Calif.) Aug. 8, 1934-—; House 1979-—.

    DODD

    Christopher John (son of Thomas Joseph Dodd) (D Conn.) May 27, 1944-—; House 1975-81; Senate 1981-—.

    DOLE

    Robert J. (R Kan.) July 22, 1923-—; House 1961-69; Senate 1969-—; Chrmn. Rep. Nat. Comm. 1971-73; Senate majority leader 1985-—.

    DOMENICI

    Pete Vichi (R N.M.) May 7, 1932-—; Senate 1973-—.

    DONNELLY

    Brian Joseph (D Mass.) March 2, 1947-—; House 1979-—.

    DORGAN

    Byron L. (D N.D.) May 14, 1942-—; House 1981-—.

    DORNAN

    Robert Kenneth (R Calif.) April 3, 1933-—; House 1977-83, 1985-—.

    DOUGHERTY

    Charles Francis (R Pa.) June 26, 1937-—; House 1979-83.

    DOWDY

    Wayne (D Miss.) July 27, 1943-—; House July 9, 1981-—.

    DOWNEY

    Thomas Joseph (D N.Y.) Jan. 28, 1949-—; House 1975-—.

    DREIER

    David T. (R Calif.) July 5, 1952-—; House 1981-—.

    DUNCAN

    John J. (R Tenn.) March 24, 1919-—; House 1965-—.

    DUNN

    Jim (R Mich.) July 21, 1943-—; House 1981-83.

    DURBIN

    Richard Joseph (D Ill.) Nov. 21, 1944-—; House 1983-—.

    DURENBERGER

    David Ferdinand (R Minn.) Aug. 19, 1934-—; Senate Nov. 8, 1978-—.

    DWYER

    Bernard J. (D N.J.) Jan. 24, 1921-—; House 1981-—.

    DYMALLY

    Mervyn M. (D Calif.) May 12, 1926-—; House 1981-—.

    DYSON

    Roy (D Md.) Nov. 15, 1948-—; House 1981-—.

    E
    EAGLETON

    Thomas F. (D Mo.) Sept. 4, 1929-—; Senate Dec. 28, 1968-—.

    EARLY

    Joseph Daniel (D Mass.) Jan. 31, 1933-—; House 1975-—.

    EAST

    John P. (R N.C.) May 5, 1931-—; Senate 1981-—.

    ECKART

    Dennis E. (D Ohio) April 6, 1950-—; House 1981-—.

    EDGAR

    Robert William (D Pa.) May 29, 1943-—; House 1975-—.

    EDWARDS

    Don (D Calif.) Jan. 6, 1915-—; House 1963-—.

    EDWARDS

    Jack (William Jackson) (R Ala.) Sept. 20, 1928-—; House 1965-85.

    EDWARDS

    Marvin H. (R Okla.) July 12, 1937-—; House 1977-—.

    EMERSON

    William (R Mo.) Jan. 1, 1938-—; House 1981-—.

    EMERY

    David Farnham (R Maine) Sept. 1, 1948-—; House 1975-83.

    ENGLISH

    Glenn Lee Jr. (D Okla.) Nov. 30, 1940-—; House 1975-—.

    ERDAHL

    Arlen Ingolf (R Minn.) Feb 27, 1931-—; House 1979-83.

    ERDREICH

    Ben (D Ala.) Dec. 9, 1938-—; House 1983-—.

    ERLENBORN

    John Neal (R Ill.) Feb. 8, 1927-—; House 1965-85.

    ERTEL

    Allen Edward (D Pa.) Nov. 7, 1936-—; House 1977-83.

    EVANS

    Billy Lee (D Ga.) Nov. 10, 1941-—; House 1977-83.

    EVANS

    Cooper (R Iowa) May 26, 1924-—; House 1981-—.

    EVANS

    Daniel J. (R Wash.) Oct. 16, 1925-—; Senate Sept. 12, 1983-—.

    EVANS

    David Walter (D Ind.) Aug. 17, 1946-—; House 1975-83.

    EVANS

    Lane (D Ill.) Aug. 4, 1951-—; House 1983-—.

    EVANS

    Thomas Beverley Jr. (R Del.) Nov. 5, 1931-—; House 1977-83; Co-Chrmn. Rep. Nat. Comm. 1971-73.

    EXON

    John James (D Neb.) Aug. 9, 1921-—; Senate 1979-—; Gov. 1971-79.

    F
    FARY

    John George (D Ill.) April 11, 1911-June 7, 1984; House July 8, 1975-83.

    FASCELL

    Dante Bruno (D Fla.) March 9, 1917-—; House 1955-—.

    FAUNTROY

    Walter Edward (D D.C.) Feb. 6, 1933-—; House (Delegate) March 23, 1971-—.

    FAZIO

    Victor Herbert (D Calif.) Oct. 11, 1942-—; House 1979-—.

    FEIGHAN

    Edward Farrell (nephew of Michael Aloysius Feighan) (D Ohio) Oct. 22, 1947-—; House 1983-—.

    FENWICK

    Millicent Hammond (R N.J.) Feb. 25, 1910-—; House 1975-83.

    FERRARO

    Geraldine Anne (D N.Y.) Aug. 26, 1935-—; House 1979-85.

    FIEDLER

    Bobbi (R Calif.) April 22, 1937-—; House 1981-—.

    FIELDS

    Jack (R Texas) Feb. 3, 1952-—; House 1981-—.

    FINDLEY

    Paul (R Ill.) June 23, 1921-—; House 1961-83.

    FISH

    Hamilton Jr. (son of Hamilton Fish Jr. born in 1888; grandson of Hamilton Fish born in 1849, great-grandson of Hamilton Fish born in 1808) (R N.Y.) June 3, 1926-—; House 1969-—.

    FITHIAN

    Floyd James (D Ind.) Nov. 3, 1928-—; House 1975-83.

    FLIPPO

    Ronnie G. (D Ala.) Aug. 15, 1937-—; House 1977-—.

    FLORIO

    James Joseph (D N.J.) Aug. 29, 1937-—; House 1975-—.

    FOGLIETTA

    Thomas M. (I Pa.) Dec. 3, 1928-—; House 1981-—.

    FOLEY

    Thomas Stephen (D Wash.) March 6, 1929-—; House 1965-—.

    FORD

    Harold Eugene (D Tenn.) May 20, 1945-—; House 1975-—.

    FORD

    Wendell Hampton (D Ky.) Sept. 8, 1924-—; Senate Dec. 28, 1974-—; Gov. 1971-74.

    FORD

    William David (D Mich.) Aug. 6, 1927-—; House 1965-—.

    FORSYTHE

    Edwin Bell (R N.J.) Jan. 17, 1916-March 29, 1984; House Nov. 3, 1970-March 29, 1984.

    FOUNTAIN

    Lawrence H. (D N.C.) April 23, 1913-—; House 1953-83.

    FOWLER

    William Wyche Jr. (D Ga.) Oct. 6, 1940-—; House April 6, 1977-—.

    FRANK

    Barney (D Mass.) March 31, 1940-—; House 1981-—.

    FRANKLIN

    William Webster (R Miss.) Dec. 13, 1941-—; House 1983-—.

    FRENZEL

    William E. (R Minn.) July 31, 1928-—; House 1971-—.

    FROST

    Jonas Martin III (D Texas) Jan. 1, 1942-—; House 1979-—.

    FUQUA

    Don (D Fla.) Aug. 20, 1933-—; House 1963-—.

    G
    GARCIA

    Robert (D N.Y.) Jan. 9, 1933-—; House Feb. 21, 1978-—.

    GARN

    Edwin Jacob (R Utah) Oct. 12, 1932-—; Senate Dec. 21, 1974-—.

    GAYDOS

    Joseph M. (D Pa.) July 3, 1926-—; House Nov. 5, 1968-—.

    GEJDENSON

    Samuel (D Conn.) May 20, 1948-—; House 1981-—.

    GEKAS

    George William (R Pa.) April 14, 1930-—; House 1983-—.

    GEPHARDT

    Richard Andrew (D Mo.) Jan. 31, 1941-—; House 1977-—.

    GIBBONS

    Sam M. (D Fla.) Jan. 20, 1920-—; House 1963-—.

    GILMAN

    Benjamin Arthur (R N.Y.) Dec. 6, 1922-—; House 1973-—.

    GINGRICH

    Newton Leroy (R Ga.) June 17, 1943-—; House 1979-—.

    GINN

    Ronald Bryan (D Ga.) May 31, 1934-—; House 1973-83.

    GLENN

    John Herschel Jr. (D Ohio) July 18, 1921-—; Senate Dec. 24, 1974-—.

    GLICKMAN

    Daniel Robert (D Kan.) Nov. 24, 1944-—; House 1977-—.

    GOLDWATER

    Barry Morris (father of Barry Morris Goldwater Jr.) (R Ariz.) Jan. 1, 1909-—; Senate 1953-65, 1969-—.

    GOLDWATER

    Barry Morris Jr. (son of Barry Morris Goldwater) (R Calif.) July 15, 1938-—; House April 29, 1969-83.

    GONZALEZ

    Henry B. (D Texas) May 3, 1916-—; House Nov. 4, 1961-—.

    GOODLING

    William Franklin (son of George Atlee Goodling) (R Pa.) Dec. 5, 1927-—; House 1975-—.

    GORE

    Albert Arnold Jr. (son of Albert Arnold Gore) (D Tenn.) March 31, 1948-—; House 1977-85; Senate 1985-—.

    GORTON

    Slade (R Wash.) Jan. 8, 1928-—; Senate 1981-—.

    GRADISON

    Willis David Jr. (R Ohio) Dec. 28, 1928-—; House 1975-—.

    GRAMM

    William Philip (R Texas) July 8, 1942-—; House 1979-85; Senate 1985-— (1979-Jan. 5, 1983, Democrat; Feb. 22, 1983-— Republican).

    GRASSLEY

    Charles Ernest (R Iowa) Sept. 17, 1933-—; House 1975-81; Senate 1981-—.

    GRAY

    William H. III (D Pa.) Aug. 20, 1941-—; House 1979-—.

    GREEN

    Sedgwick William (R N.Y.) Oct. 16, 1929-—; House Feb. 21, 1978-—.

    GREGG

    Judd (R N.H.) Feb. 14, 1947-—; House 1981-—.

    GRISHAM

    Wayne Richard (R Calif.) Jan. 10, 1923-—; House 1979-83.

    GUARINI

    Frank Joseph (D N.J.) Aug. 20, 1924-—; House 1979-—.

    GUNDERSON

    Steven (R Wis.) May 10, 1951-—; House 1981-—.

    GUYER

    Tennyson (R Ohio) Nov. 29, 1913-April 12, 1981; House 1973-April 12, 1981.

    H
    HAGEDORN

    Thomas Michael (R Minn.) Nov. 27, 1943-—; House 1975-83.

    HALL

    Katie Beatrice Green (D Ind.) April 3, 1938-—; House Nov. 29, 1982-—.

    HALL

    Ralph M. (D Texas) May 3, 1923-—; House 1981-—.

    HALL

    Sam Blakeley Jr. (D Texas) Jan. 11, 1924-—; House June 19, 1976-May 27, 1985.

    HALL

    Tony Patrick (D Ohio) Jan. 16, 1942-—; House 1979-—.

    HAMILTON

    Lee Herbert (D Ind.) April 20, 1931-—; House 1965-—.

    HAMMERSCHMIDT

    John Paul (R Ark.) May 4, 1922-—; House 1967-—.

    HANCE

    Kent Ronald (D Texas) Nov. 14, 1942-—; House 1979-85.

    HANSEN

    George Vernon (R Idaho) Sept. 14, 1930-—; House 1965-69, 1975-85.

    HANSEN

    James V. (R Utah) Aug. 14, 1932-—; House 1981-—.

    HARKIN

    Thomas Richard (D Iowa) Nov. 19, 1939-—; House 1975-85; Senate 1985-—.

    HARRISON

    Frank (D Pa.) Feb. 2, 1940-—; House 1983-85.

    HART

    Gary Warren (D Colo.) Nov. 28, 1937-—; Senate 1975-—.

    HARTNETT

    Thomas F. (R S.C.) Aug. 7, 1941-—; House 1981-—.

    HATCH

    Orrin Grant (R Utah) March 22, 1934-—; Senate 1977-—.

    HATCHER

    Charles F. (D Ga.) July 1, 1939-—; House 1981-—.

    HATFIELD

    Mark Odom (R Ore.) July 12, 1922-—; Senate Jan. 10, 1967-—; Gov. 1959-67.

    HAWKINS

    Augustus F. (D Calif.) Aug. 31, 1907-—; House 1963-—.

    HAWKINS

    Paula (R Fla.) Jan. 24, 1927-—; Senate 1981-—.

    HAYAKAWA

    Samuel Ichiye (R Calif.) July 18, 1906-—; Senate Jan. 2, 1977-83.

    HAYES

    Charles Arthur (D Ill.) Feb. 17, 1918-—; House Sept. 12, 1983-—.

    HECHT

    Chic (R Nev.) Nov. 30, 1928-—; Senate 1983-—.

    HECKLER

    Margaret M. (R Mass.) June 21, 1931-—; House 1967-83; Secy. Health and Human Services 1983-—.

    HEFLIN

    Howell Thomas (D Ala.) June 19, 1921-—; Senate 1979-—.

    HEFNER

    Willie Gathrel (D N.C.) April 11, 1930-—; House 1975-—.

    HEFTEL

    Cecil (D Hawaii) Sept. 30, 1924-—; House 1977-—.

    HEINZ

    Henry John III (R Pa.) Oct. 23, 1938-—; House Nov. 2, 1971-77; Senate 1977-—.

    HELMS

    Jesse Alexander (R N.C.) Oct. 18, 1921-—; Senate 1973-—.

    HENDON

    William A. (R N.C.) Nov. 9, 1944-—; House 1981-83, 1985-—.

    HERTEL

    Dennis M. (D Mich.) Dec. 7, 1938-—; House 1981-—.

    HIGHTOWER

    Jack English (D Texas) Sept. 6, 1926-—; House 1975-85.

    HILER

    John P. (R Ind.) April 24, 1953-—; House 1981-—.

    HILLIS

    Elwood Haynes (R Ind.) March 6, 1926-—; House 1971-—.

    HINSON

    Jon C. (R Miss.) March 16, 1942-—; House 1979-April 13, 1981.

    HOLLAND

    Kenneth Lamar (D S.C.) Nov. 24, 1934-—; House 1975-83.

    HOLLENBECK

    Harold Capistran (R N.J.) Dec. 29, 1938-—; House 1977-83.

    HOLLINGS

    Ernest F. (D S.C.) Jan. 1, 1922-—; Senate Nov. 9, 1966-—; Gov. 1959-63.

    HOLT

    Marjorie Sewell (R Md.) Sept. 17, 1920-—; House 1973-—.

    HOPKINS

    Larry Jones (R Ky.) Oct. 25, 1933-—; House 1979-—.

    HORTON

    Frank Jefferson (R N.Y.) Dec. 12, 1919-—; House 1963-—.

    HOWARD

    James John (D N.J.) July 24, 1927-—; House 1965-—.

    HOYER

    Steny (D Md.) June 14, 1939-—; House June 3, 1981-—.

    HUBBARD

    Carroll Jr. (D Ky.) July 7, 1937-—; House 1975-—.

    HUCKABY

    Thomas Jerry (D La.) July 19, 1941-—; House 1977-—.

    HUDDLESTON

    Walter Darlington (D Ky.) April 15, 1926-—; Senate 1973-85.

    HUGHES

    William John (D N.J.) Oct. 17, 1932-—; House 1975-—.

    HUMPHREY

    Gordon J. (R N.H.) Oct. 7, 1940-—; Senate 1979-—.

    HUNTER

    Duncan L. (R Calif.) May 31, 1948-—; House 1981-—.

    HUTTO

    Earl Dewitt (D Fla.) May 12, 1926-—; House 1979-—.

    HYDE

    Henry John (R Ill.) April 18, 1924-—; House 1975-—.

    I
    INOUYE

    Daniel Ken (D Hawaii) Sept. 7, 1924-—; House Aug. 21, 1959-63; Senate 1963-—.

    IRELAND

    Andrew P. (R Fla.) Aug. 23, 1930-—; House 1977-— (1977-July 5, 1984, Democrat; July 5, 1984-—, Republican).

    J
    JACKSON

    Henry Martin (D Wash.) May 31, 1912-Sept. 1, 1983; House 1941-53; Senate 1953-Sept. 1, 1983; Chrmn. Dem. Nat. Comm. 1960-61.

    JACOBS

    Andrew Jr. (son of Andrew Jacobs Sr., husband of Martha Elizabeth Keys) (D Ind.) Feb. 24, 1932-—; House 1965-73, 1975-—.

    JEFFORDS

    James Merrill (R Vt.) May 11, 1934-—; House 1975-—.

    JEFFRIES

    James Edmund (R Kan.) June 1, 1925-—; House 1979-83.

    JENKINS

    Edgar Lanier (D Ga.) Jan. 4, 1933-—; House 1977-—.

    JEPSEN

    Roger William (R Iowa) Dec. 23, 1928-—; Senate 1979-85.

    JOHNSON

    Nancy Lee (R Conn.) Jan. 5, 1935-—; House 1983-—.

    JOHNSTON

    John Bennett Jr. (D La.) June 10, 1932-—; Senate Nov. 14, 1972-—.

    JOHNSTON

    W. Eugene (R N.C.) March 3, 1936-—; House 1981-83.

    JONES

    Ed (D Tenn.) April 20, 1912-—; House March 25, 1969-—.

    JONES

    James Robert (D Okla.) May 5, 1939-—; House 1973-—.

    JONES

    Walter B. (D N.C.) Aug. 19, 1913-—; House Feb. 5, 1966-—.

    K
    KAPTUR

    Marcia Carolyn (D Ohio) June 17, 1946-—; House 1983-—.

    KASICH

    John R. (R Ohio) May 13, 1952-—; House 1983-—.

    KASSEBAUM

    Nancy Landon (R Kan.) July 29, 1932-—; Senate Dec. 23, 1978-—.

    KASTEN

    Robert Walter Jr. (R Wis.) June 19, 1942-—; House 1975-79; Senate 1981-—.

    KASTENMEIER

    Robert William (D Wis.) Jan. 24, 1924-—; House 1959-—.

    KAZEN

    Abraham Jr. (D Texas) Jan. 17, 1919-—; House 1967-85.

    KEMP

    Jack French (R N.Y.) July 13, 1935-—; House 1971-—.

    KENNEDY

    Edward Moore (brother of John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Robert Francis Kennedy, grandson of John Francis Fitzgerald) (D Mass.) Feb. 22, 1932-—; Senate Nov. 7, 1962-—.

    KENNELLY

    Barbara Bailey (D Conn.) July 10, 1936-—; House Jan. 25, 1982-—.

    KILDEE

    Dale Edward (D Mich.) Sept. 16, 1929-—; House 1977-—.

    KINDNESS

    Thomas Norman (R Ohio) Aug. 26, 1929-—; House 1975-—.

    KLECZKA

    Gerald (D Wis.) Nov. 26, 1943-—; House Apr. 10, 1984-—.

    KOLTER

    Joseph Paul (D Pa.) Sept. 3, 1926-—; House 1983-—.

    KOGOVSEK

    Raymond Peter (D Colo.) Aug. 19, 1941-—; House 1979-85.

    KOSTMAYER

    Peter Houston (D Pa.) Sept. 27, 1946-—; House 1977-81, 1983-—.

    KRAMER

    Kenneth Bentley (R Colo.) Feb. 19, 1942-—; House 1979-—.

    L
    LAFALCE

    John Joseph (D N.Y.) Oct. 6, 1939-—; House 1975-—.

    LAGOMARSINO

    Robert John (R Calif.) Sept. 4, 1926-—; House March 5, 1974-—.

    LANTOS

    Tom (D Calif.) Feb. 1, 1928-—; House 1981-—.

    LATTA

    Delbert Leroy (R Ohio) March 5, 1920-—; House 1959-—.

    LAUTENBERG

    Frank R. (D N.J.) Jan. 23, 1924-—; Senate Dec. 27, 1982-—.

    LAXALT

    Paul Dominique (R Nev.) Aug. 2, 1922-—; Senate Dec. 18, 1974-—; Gov. 1967-71.

    LEACH

    James A. S. (R Iowa) Oct. 15, 1942-—; House 1977-—.

    LEAHY

    Patrick Joseph (D Vt.) March 31, 1940-—; Senate 1975-—.

    LEATH

    James Marvin (D Texas) May 6, 1931-—; House 1979-—.

    LeBOUTILLIER

    John (R N.Y.) May 26, 1953-—; House 1981-83.

    LEDERER

    Raymond Francis (D Pa.) May 19, 1938-—; House 1977-May 5, 1981.

    LEE

    Gary A. (R N.Y.) Aug. 18, 1933-—; House 1979-83.

    LEHMAN

    Richard Henry (D Calif.) July 20, 1948-—; House 1983-—.

    LEHMAN

    William (D Fla.) Oct. 4, 1913-—; House 1973-—.

    LELAND

    George Thomas (Mickey) (D Texas) Nov. 27, 1944-—; House 1979-—.

    LENT

    Norman Frederick (R N.Y.) March 23, 1931-—; House 1971-—.

    LEVIN

    Carl Milton (brother of Sander Martin Levin) (D Mich.) June 28, 1934-—; Senate 1979-—.

    LEVIN

    Sander Martin (brother of Carl Milton Levin) (D Mich.) Sept. 6, 1931-—; House 1983-—.

    LEVINE

    Mel (D Calif.) June 7, 1943-—; House 1983-—.

    LEVITAS

    Elliott Harris (D Ga.) Dec. 26, 1930-—; House 1975-85.

    LEWIS

    Jerry (R Calif.) Oct. 21, 1934-—; House 1979-—.

    LEWIS

    Thomas F. (R Fla.) Oct. 26, 1924-—; House 1983-—.

    LIPINSKI

    William Oliver (D Ill.) Dec. 22, 1937-—; House 1983-—.

    LIVINGSTON

    Robert (Bob) Linligthgow Jr. (R La.) April 30, 1943-—; House Sept. 7, 1977-—.

    LLOYD

    Marilyn Laird (known as Marilyn Lloyd Bouquard in the 97th Congress) (D Tenn.) Jan. 3, 1929-—; House 1975-—.

    LOEFFLER

    Thomas Gilbert (R Texas) Aug. 1, 1946-—; House 1979-—.

    LONG

    Clarence Dickinson (D Md.) Dec. 11, 1908-—; House 1963-85.

    LONG

    Gillis William (cousin of Huey Pierce Long, Rose McConnell Long, Russell Billiu Long and George Shannon Long) (D La.) May 4, 1923-Jan. 20, 1985; House 1963-65, 1973-Jan. 20, 1985.

    LONG

    Russell Billiu (son of Huey Pierce Long and Rose McConnell Long, nephew of George Shannon Long) (D La.) Nov. 3, 1918-—; Senate Dec. 31, 1948-—.

    LOTT

    Chester Trent (R Miss.) Oct. 9, 1941-—; House 1973-—.

    LOWERY

    Bill (R Calif.) May 2, 1947-—; House 1981-—.

    LOWRY

    Michael E. (D Wash.) March 8, 1939-—; House 1979-—.

    LUGAR

    Richard Green (R Ind.) April 4, 1932-—; Senate 1977-—.

    LUJAN

    Manuel Jr. (R N.M.) May 12, 1928-—; House 1969-—.

    LUKEN

    Thomas Andrew (D Ohio) July 9, 1925-—; House March 5, 1974-75, 1977-—.

    LUNDINE

    Stanley N. (D N.Y.) Feb. 4, 1939-—; House March 8, 1976-—.

    LUNGREN

    Daniel Edward (R Calif.) Sept. 22, 1946-—; House 1979-—.

    M
    MACK

    Connie III (R Fla.) Oct. 29, 1940-—; House 1983-—.

    MacKAY

    Kenneth Hood (D Fla.) March 22, 1933-—; House 1983-—.

    MADIGAN

    Edward Rell (R Ill.) Jan. 13, 1936-—; House 1973-—.

    MARKEY

    Edward John (D Mass.) July 11, 1946-—; House Nov. 2, 1976-85.

    MARKS

    Marc Lincoln (R Pa.) Feb. 12, 1927-—; House 1977-83.

    MARLENEE

    Ronald Charles (R Mont.) Aug. 8, 1935-—; House 1977-—.

    MARRIOTT

    David Daniel (R Utah) Nov. 2, 1939-—; House 1977-85.

    MARTIN

    David O'B. (R N.Y.) April 26, 1944-—; House 1981-—.

    MARTIN

    James Grubbs (R N.C.) Dec. 11, 1935-—; House 1973-85; Gov. 1985-—.

    MARTIN

    Lynn Morley (R Ill.) Dec. 26, 1939-—; House 1981-—.

    MARTINEZ

    Matthew G. (D Calif.) Feb. 14, 1929-—; House July 15, 1982-—.

    MATHIAS

    Charles McC. Jr. (R Md.) July 24, 1922-—; House 1961-69; Senate 1969-—.

    MATSUI

    Robert Takeo (D Calif.) Sept. 17, 1941-—; House 1979-—.

    MATSUNAGA

    Spark Masayuki (D Hawaii) Oct. 8, 1916-—; House 1963-77; Senate 1977-—.

    MATTINGLY

    Mack (R Ga.) Jan. 7, 1931-—; Senate 1981-—.

    MATTOX

    James Albon (D Texas) Aug. 29, 1943-—; House 1977-83.

    MAVROULES

    Nicholas (D Mass.) Nov. 1, 1929-—; House 1979-—.

    MAZZOLI

    Romano Louis (D Ky.) Nov. 2, 1932-—; House 1971-—.

    McCAIN

    John Sidney II (R Ariz.) Aug. 29, 1936-—; House 1983-—.

    McCANDLESS

    Alfred A. (R Calif.) July 23, 1927-—; House 1983-—.

    McCLORY

    Robert (R Ill.) Jan. 31, 1908-—; House 1963-83.

    McCLOSKEY

    Francis X. (D Ind.) June 12, 1939-—; House 1983-—.

    McCLOSKEY

    Paul N. (Pete) Jr. (R Calif.) Sept. 29, 1927-—; House Dec. 12, 1967-83.

    McCLURE

    James A. (R Idaho) Dec. 27, 1924-—; House 1967-73; Senate 1973-—.

    McCOLLUM

    Bill (R Fla.) July 12, 1944-—; House 1981-—.

    McCURDY

    David K. (D Okla.) March 30, 1950-—; House 1981-—.

    McDADE

    Joseph Michael (R Pa.) Sept. 29, 1931-—; House 1963-—.

    McDONALD

    Lawrence Patton (D Ga.) April 1, 1935-Sept. 1, 1983; House 1975-Sept. 1, 1983.

    McEWEN

    Robert D. (R Ohio) Jan. 12, 1950-—; House 1981-—.

    McGRATH

    Raymond J. (R N.Y.) March 27, 1941-—; House 1981-—.

    McHUGH

    Matthew Francis (D N.Y.) Dec. 6, 1938-—; House 1975-—.

    McKERNAN

    John R. Jr. (R Maine) May 20, 1948-—; House 1983-—.

    McKINNEY

    Stewart Brett (R Conn.) Jan. 30, 1931-—; House 1971-—.

    McNULTY

    James Francis Jr. (D Ariz.) Oct. 18, 1925-—; House 1983-85.

    MELCHER

    John (D Mont.) Sept. 6, 1924-—; House June 24, 1969-77; Senate 1977-—.

    METZENBAUM

    Howard Morton (D Ohio) June 4, 1917-—; Senate Jan. 4-Dec. 23, 1974, Dec. 29, 1976-—.

    MICA

    Daniel Andrew (D Fla.) Feb. 4, 1944-—; House 1979-—.

    MICHEL

    Robert Henry (R Ill.) March 2, 1923-—; House 1957-—.

    MIKULSKI

    Barbara Ann (D Md.) July 20, 1936-—; House 1977-—.

    MILLER

    Clarence E. (R Ohio) Nov. 1, 1917-—; House 1967-—.

    MILLER

    George (D Calif.) May 17, 1945-—; House 1975-—.

    MINETA

    Norman Yoshio (D Calif.) Nov. 12, 1931-—; House 1975-—.

    MINISH

    Joseph George (D N.J.) Sept. 1, 1916-—; House 1963-85.

    MITCHELL

    Donald Jerome (R N.Y.) May 8, 1923-—; House 1973-83.

    MITCHELL

    George John (D Maine) Aug. 20, 1933-—; Senate May 19, 1980-—.

    MITCHELL

    Parren James (D Md.) April 29, 1922-—; House 1971-—.

    MOAKLEY

    John Joseph (D Mass.) April 27, 1927-—; House 1973-— (1973-75 Independent Democrat, 1975-— Democrat).

    MOFFETT

    Anthony Joseph (D Conn.) Aug. 18, 1944-—; House 1975-83.

    MOLINARI

    Guy V. (R N.Y.) Nov. 23, 1928-—; House 1981-—.

    MOLLOHAN

    Alan B. (son of Robert Homer Mollohan) (D W.Va.) May 14, 1943-—; House 1983-—.

    MOLLOHAN

    Robert Homer (father of Alan B. Mollohan) (D W.Va.) Sept. 18, 1909-—; House 1953-57, 1969-83.

    MONTGOMERY

    Gillespie V. (D Miss.) Aug. 5, 1920-—; House 1967-—.

    MOODY

    Jim (D Wis.) Sept. 2, 1935-—; House 1983-—.

    MOORE

    William Henson (R La.) Oct. 4, 1939-—; House Jan. 7, 1975-—.

    MOORHEAD

    Carlos John (R Calif.) May 6, 1922-—; House 1973-—.

    MORRISON

    Bruce A. (D Conn.) Oct. 8, 1944-—; House 1983-—.

    MORRISON

    Sid (R Wash.) May 13, 1933-—; House 1981-—.

    MOTTL

    Ronald Milton (D Ohio) Feb. 6, 1934-—; House 1975-83.

    MOYNIHAN

    Daniel Patrick (D N.Y.) March 16, 1927-—; Senate 1977-—.

    MRAZEK

    Robert J. (D N.Y.) Nov. 5, 1945-—; House 1983-—.

    MURKOWSKI

    Frank H. (R Alaska) March 28, 1933-—; Senate 1981-—.

    MURPHY

    Austin J. (D Pa.) June 17, 1927-—; House 1977-—.

    MURTHA

    John Patrick Jr. (D Pa.) Jan. 17, 1932-—; House Feb. 5, 1974-—.

    MYERS

    John Thomas (R Ind.) Feb. 8, 1927-—; House 1967-—.

    N
    NAPIER

    John L. (R S.C.) May 16, 1947-—; House 1981-83.

    NATCHER

    William Huston (D Ky.) Sept. 11, 1909-—; House Aug. 1, 1953-—.

    NEAL

    Stephen Lybrook (D N.C.) Nov. 7, 1934-—; House 1975-—.

    NELLIGAN

    James L. (R Pa.) Feb. 14, 1929-—; House 1981-83.

    NELSON

    Clarence William (Bill) (D Fla.) Sept. 29, 1942-—; House 1979-—.

    NICHOLS

    William (D Ala.) Oct. 16, 1918-—; House 1967-—.

    NICKLES

    Donald L. (R Okla.) Dec. 6, 1948-—; Senate 1981-—.

    NIELSON

    Howard Curtis (R Utah) Sept. 12, 1924-—; House 1983-—.

    NOWAK

    Henry James (D N.Y.) Feb. 21, 1935-—; House 1975-—.

    NUNN

    Samuel Augustus (D Ga.) Sept. 8, 1938-—; Senate Nov. 8, 1972-—.

    O
    OAKAR

    Mary Rose (D Ohio) March 5, 1940-—; House 1977-—.

    OBERSTAR

    James Louis (D Minn.) Sept. 10, 1934-—; House 1975-85.

    OBEY

    David Ross (D Wis.) Oct. 3, 1938-—; House April 1, 1969-—.

    O'BRIEN

    George Miller (R Ill.) June 17, 1917-—; House 1973-—.

    OLIN

    James R. (D Va.) Feb. 28, 1920-—; House 1983-—.

    O'NEILL

    Thomas Phillip Jr. (D Mass.) Dec. 9, 1912-—; House 1953-—; House majority leader 1973-77; Speaker 1977-—.

    ORTIZ

    Solomon Porfirio (D Texas) June 3, 1937-—; House 1983-—.

    OTTINGER

    Richard Lawrence (D N.Y.) Jan. 27, 1929-—; House 1965-71, 1975-85.

    OWENS

    Major Robert Odell (D N.Y.) June 28, 1936-—; House 1983-—.

    OXLEY

    Michael Garver (R Ohio) Feb. 11, 1944-—; House July 21, 1981-—.

    P
    PACKARD

    Ron (R Calif.) Jan. 19, 1931-—; House 1983-—.

    PACKWOOD

    Robert William (R Ore.) Sept. 11, 1932-—; Senate 1969-—.

    PANETTA

    Leon Edward (D Calif.) June 28, 1938-—; House 1977-—.

    PARRIS

    Stanford E. (R Va.) Sept. 9, 1929-—; House 1973-75; House 1981-—.

    PASHAYAN

    Charles Sahag (Chip) Jr. (R Calif.) March 27, 1941-—; House 1979-—.

    PATMAN

    William N. (D Texas) March 26, 1927-—; House 1981-85.

    PATTERSON

    Jerry Mumford (D Calif.) Oct. 25, 1934-—; House 1975-85.

    PAUL

    Ronald Ernest (R Texas) Aug. 20, 1935-—; House April 3, 1976-77, 1979-85.

    PEASE

    Donald James (D Ohio) Sept. 26, 1931-—; House 1977-—.

    PELL

    Claiborne de Borda (son of Herbert Claiborne Pell Jr.) (D R.I.) Nov. 22, 1918-—; Senate 1961-—.

    PENNY

    Timothy J. (D Minn.) Nov. 19, 1951-—; House 1983-—.

    PEPPER

    Claude Denson (D Fla.) Sept. 8, 1900-—; Senate Nov. 4, 1936-51; House 1963-—.

    PERCY

    Charles Harting (R Ill.) Sept. 27, 1919-—; Senate 1967-85.

    PERKINS

    Carl Dewey (D Ky.) Oct. 15, 1912-Aug. 3, 1984; House 1949-Aug. 3, 1984.

    PERKINS

    Carl C.

    Chris
    (son of Carl Dewey Perkins) (D Ky.) Aug. 6, 1954-—; House 1985-—.

    PETRI

    Thomas E. (R Wis.) May 28, 1940-—; House April 9, 1979-—.

    PEYSER

    Peter A. (D N.Y.) Sept. 7, 1921-—; House 1971-77, 1979-83.

    PICKLE

    J. J. (Jake) (D Texas) Oct. 11, 1913-—; House Dec. 21, 1963-—.

    PORTER

    John Edward (R Ill.) June 1, 1935-—; House Jan. 24, 1980-—.

    PRESSLER

    Larry Lee (R S.D.) March 29, 1942-—; House 1975-79; Senate 1979-—.

    PRICE

    Charles Melvin (D Ill.) Jan. 1, 1905-—; House 1945-—.

    PRITCHARD

    Joel McFee (R Wash.) May 5, 1925-—; House 1973-85.

    PROXMIRE

    William (D Wis.) Nov. 11, 1915-—; Senate Aug. 28, 1957-—.

    PRYOR

    David Hampton (D Ark.) Aug. 29, 1934-—; House Nov. 8, 1966-73; Senate 1979-—; Gov. 1975-79.

    PURSELL

    Carl Duane (R Mich.) Dec. 19, 1932-—; House 1977-—.

    Q
    QUAYLE

    James Danforth (R Ind.) Feb. 4, 1947-—; House 1977-81; Senate 1981-—.

    QUILLEN

    James H. (Jimmy) (R Tenn.) Jan. 11, 1916-—; House 1963-—.

    R
    RAHALL

    Nick Joe II (D W.Va.) May 20, 1949-—; House 1977-—.

    RAILSBACK

    Thomas F. (R Ill.) Jan. 22, 1932-—; House 1967-83.

    RANDOLPH

    Jennings (D W.Va.) March 8, 1902-—; House 1933-47; Senate Nov. 5, 1958-85.

    RANGEL

    Charles Bernard (D N.Y.) June 1, 1930-—; House 1971-—.

    RATCHFORD

    William Richard (D Conn.) May 24, 1934-—; House 1979-85.

    RAY

    Richard Belmont (D Ga.) Feb. 2, 1927-—; House 1983-—.

    REGULA

    Ralph Strauss (R Ohio) Dec. 3, 1924-—; House 1973-—.

    REID

    Harry (D Nev.) Dec. 2, 1939-—; House 1983-—.

    REUSS

    Henry Schoellkopf (D Wis.) Feb. 22, 1912-—; House 1955-83.

    RHODES

    John Jacob (R Ariz.) Sept. 18, 1916-—; House 1953-83.

    RICHARDSON

    William Blaine (D N.M.) Nov. 15, 1947-—; House 1983-—.

    RICHMOND

    Frederick William (D N.Y.) Nov. 15, 1923-—; House 1975-Aug. 25, 1982.

    RIDGE

    Thomas Joseph (R Pa.) Aug. 26, 1945-—; House 1983-—.

    RIEGLE

    Donald Wayne Jr. (D Mich.) Feb. 4, 1938-—; House 1967-Dec. 30, 1976; Senate Dec. 30, 1976-— (1967-Feb. 27, 1973 Republican; Feb. 27, 1973-— Democrat).

    RINALDO

    Matthew John (R N.J.) Sept. 1, 1931-—; House 1973-—.

    RITTER

    Donald Lawrence (R Pa.) Oct. 21, 1940-—; House 1979-—.

    ROBERTS

    Clint (R S.D.) Jan. 30, 1935-—; House 1981-83.

    ROBERTS

    Pat (R Kan.) April 20, 1936-—; House 1981-—.

    ROBINSON

    James Kenneth (R Va.) May 14, 1916-—; House 1971-85.

    RODINO

    Peter Wallace Jr. (D N.J.) June 7, 1909-—; House 1949-—.

    ROE

    Robert A. (D N.J.) Feb. 28, 1924-—; House Nov. 4, 1969-—.

    ROEMER

    Buddy (D La.) Oct. 4, 1943-—; House 1981-—.

    ROGERS

    Harold (R Ky.) Dec. 31, 1937-—; House 1981-—.

    ROSE

    Charles Gradison III (D N.C.) Aug. 10, 1939-—; House 1973-—.

    ROSENTHAL

    Benjamin S. (D/L N.Y.) June 8, 1923-Jan. 4, 1983; House Feb. 20, 1962-Jan. 4, 1983.

    ROSTENKOWSKI

    Daniel David (Dan) (D Ill.) Jan. 2, 1928-—; House 1959-—.

    ROTH

    Tobias A. (R Wis.) Oct. 10, 1938-—; House 1979-—.

    ROTH

    William V. Jr. (R Del.) July 22, 1921-—; House 1967-Dec. 31, 1970; Senate Jan. 1, 1971-—.

    ROUKEMA

    Marge (R N.J.) Sept. 19, 1929-—; House 1981-—.

    ROUSSELOT

    John Harbin (R Calif.) Nov. 1, 1927-—; House 1961-63, June 30, 1970-83.

    ROWLAND

    James Roy Jr. (D Ga.) Feb. 3, 1926-—; House 1983-—.

    ROYBAL

    Edward R. (D Calif.) Feb. 10, 1916-—; House 1963-—.

    RUDD

    Eldon Dean (R Ariz.) July 15, 1920-—; House 1977-—.

    RUDMAN

    Warren (R N.H.) May 13, 1930-—; Senate Dec. 29, 1980-—.

    RUSSO

    Martin Anthony (D Ill.) Jan. 23, 1944-—; House 1975-—.

    S
    SABO

    Martin Olav (D Minn.) Feb. 28, 1938-—; House 1979-—.

    ST GERMAIN

    Fernand Joseph (D R.I.) Jan. 9, 1928-—; House 1961-—.

    SANTINI

    James David (D Nev.) Aug. 13, 1937-—; House 1975-83.

    SARBANES

    Paul Spyros (D Md.) Feb. 3, 1933-—; House 1971-77; Senate 1977-—.

    SASSER

    James Ralph (D Tenn.) Sept. 30, 1931-—; Senate 1977-—.

    SAVAGE

    Gus (D Ill.) Oct. 30, 1925-—; House 1981-—.

    SAWYER

    Harold S. (R Mich.) March 21, 1920-—; House 1977-85.

    SAXTON

    H. James (R N.J.) Jan. 22, 1943-—; House 1985-—.

    SCHAEFER

    Daniel L. (R Colo.) Jan. 25, 1936-—; House April 7, 1983-—.

    SCHEUER

    James Haas (D N.Y.) Feb. 6, 1920-—; House 1965-73, 1975-—.

    SCHMITT

    Harrison Hagan (R N.M.) July 3, 1935-—; Senate 1977-83.

    SCHNEIDER

    Claudine (R R.I.) March 25, 1947-—; House 1981-—.

    SCHROEDER

    Patricia Scott (D Colo.) July 30, 1940-—; House 1973-—.

    SCHULZE

    Richard Taylor (R Pa.) Aug. 7, 1929-—; House 1975-—.

    SCHUMER

    Charles E. (D N.Y.) Nov. 23, 1951-—; House 1981-—.

    SEIBERLING

    John Frederick (D Ohio) Sept. 8, 1918-—; House 1971-—.

    SENSENBRENNER

    Frank James Jr. (R Wis.) June 14, 1943-—; House 1979-—.

    SHAMANSKY

    Robert N. (D Ohio) April 18, 1927-—; House 1981-83.

    SHANNON

    James Michael (D Mass.) April 4, 1952-—; House 1979-85.

    SHARP

    Philip Riley (D Ind.) July 15, 1942-—; House 1975-—.

    SHAW

    E. Clay (R Fla.) April 19, 1939-—; House 1981-—.

    SHELBY

    Richard Craig (D Ala.) May 6, 1934-—; House 1979-—.

    SHUMWAY

    Norman David (R Calif.) July 28, 1934-—; House 1979-—.

    SHUSTER

    E. G. (Bud) (R Pa.) Jan. 23, 1932-—; House 1973-—.

    SIKORSKI

    Gerry (D Minn.) April 26, 1948-—; House 1983-—.

    SILJANDER

    Mark Deli (R Mich.) June 11, 1951-—; House April 28, 1981-—.

    SIMON

    Paul Martin (D Ill.) Nov. 29, 1928-—; House 1975-85; Senate 1985-—.

    SIMPSON

    Alan Kooi (R Wyo.) Sept. 2, 1931-—; Senate Jan. 1, 1979-—.

    SISISKY

    Norman (D Va.) June 9, 1927-—; House 1983-—.

    SKEEN

    Joseph R. (R N.M.) June 30, 1927-—; House 1981-—.

    SKELTON

    Ike N. (D Mo.) Dec. 20, 1931-—; House 1977-—.

    SLATTERY

    James Charles (D Kan.) Aug. 4, 1948-—; House 1983-—.

    SMITH

    Albert Lee (R Ala.) Aug. 31, 1931-—; House 1981-83.

    SMITH

    Christopher H. (R N.J.) March 4, 1953-—; House 1981-—.

    SMITH

    Denny (R Ore.) Jan. 19, 1938-—; House 1981-—.

    SMITH

    Joseph F. (D Pa.) Jan. 24, 1920-—; House July 28, 1981-—.

    SMITH

    Lawrence Jack (D Fla.) April 25, 1941-—; House 1983-—.

    SMITH

    Neal Edward (D Iowa) March 23, 1920-—; House 1959-—.

    SMITH

    Robert Freeman (R Ore.) June 16, 1931-—; House 1983-—.

    SMITH

    Virginia Dodd (R Neb.) June 30, 1911-—; House 1975-—.

    SNOWE

    Olympia Jean Bouchles (R Maine) Feb. 21, 1947-—; House 1979-—.

    SNYDER

    Marion Gene (R Ky.) Jan. 26, 1928-—; House 1963-65, 1967-—.

    SOLARZ

    Stephen Joshua (D N.Y.) Sept. 12, 1940-—; House 1975-—.

    SOLOMON

    Gerald B. (R N.Y.) Aug. 14, 1930-—; House 1979-—.

    SPECTER

    Arlen (R Pa.) Feb. 12, 1930-—; Senate 1981-—.

    SPELLMAN

    Gladys Noon (D Md.) March 1, 1918-—; House 1975-Feb. 24, 1981.

    SPENCE

    Floyd Davidson (R S.C.) April 9, 1928-—; House 1971-—.

    SPRATT

    John M. Jr. (D S.C.) Nov. 1, 1942-—; House 1983-—.

    STAFFORD

    Robert Theodore (R Vt.) Aug. 8, 1913-—; House 1961-Sept. 16, 1971; Senate Sept. 16, 1971-—; Gov. 1959-61.

    STAGGERS

    Harley Orrin Jr. (son of Harley Orrin Staggers) (D W. Va.) Feb. 22, 1951-—; House 1983-—.

    STANGELAND

    Arlan Ingehart (R Minn.) Feb. 8, 1930-—; House March 1, 1977-—.

    STANTON

    John William (R Ohio) Feb. 20, 1924-—; House 1965-83.

    STARK

    Fortney Hillman (D Calif.) Nov. 11, 1931-—; House 1973-—.

    STATON

    David Mick (R W.Va.) Feb. 11, 1940-—; House 1981-83.

    STENHOLM

    Charles Walter (D Texas) Oct. 26, 1938-—; House 1979-—.

    STENNIS

    John Cornelius (D Miss.) Aug. 3, 1901-—; Senate Nov. 5, 1947-—.

    STEVENS

    Theodore F. (Ted) (R Alaska) Nov. 18, 1923-—; Senate Dec. 24, 1968-—.

    STOCKMAN

    David Alan (R Mich.) Nov. 10, 1946-—; House 1977-Jan. 27, 1981; Director, Office of Management and Budget 1981-July 31, 1985.

    STOKES

    Louis (D Ohio) Feb. 23, 1925-—; House 1969-—.

    STRATTON

    Samuel Studdiford (D N.Y.) Sept. 27, 1916-—; House 1959-—.

    STUDDS

    Gerry Eastman (D Mass.) May 12, 1937-—; House 1973-—.

    STUMP

    Robert (R Ariz.) April 4, 1927-—; House 1977-— (1977-83 Democrat; 1983-— Republican).

    SUNDQUIST

    Donald Kenneth (R Tenn.) March 15, 1936-—; House 1983-—.

    SUNIA

    Fofo I. F. (D American Samoa) March 13, 1937-—; House 1981-—.

    SWIFT

    Allen (D Wash.) Sept. 12, 1935-—; House 1979-—.

    SWIGERT

    John Leonard (R Col.) Aug. 30, 1931-Dec. 27, 1982; elected to House 1982, but did not serve.

    SYMMS

    Steven Douglas (R Idaho) April 23, 1938-—; House 1973-81; Senate 1981-—.

    SYNAR

    Michael Lynn (D Okla.) Oct. 17, 1950-—; House 1979-—.

    T
    TALLON

    Robert M. (D S.C.) Aug. 8, 1946-—; House 1983-—.

    TAUKE

    Thomas Joseph (R Iowa) Oct. 11, 1950-—; House 1979-—.

    TAUZIN

    W. J. (Billy) (D La.) June 14, 1943-—; House May 22, 1980-—.

    TAYLOR

    Gene (R Mo.) Feb. 10, 1928-—; House 1973-—.

    THOMAS

    Robert Lindsay (D Ga.) Nov. 20, 1943-—; House 1983-—.

    THOMAS

    William Marshall (R Calif.) Dec. 6, 1941-—; House 1979-—.

    THURMOND

    James Strom (R S.C.) Dec. 5, 1902-—; Senate Dec. 24, 1954-April 4, 1956, Nov. 7, 1956-—; Pres. pro tempore 1981-—. Gov. 1947-51 (1947-51, 1954-56, 1956-Sept. 16, 1964 Democrat; Sept. 16, 1964-— Republican).

    TORRES

    Estaban Edward (D Calif.) Jan. 27, 1930-—; House 1983-—.

    TORRICELLI

    Robert G. (D N.J.) Aug. 26, 1951-—; House 1983-—.

    TOWER

    John Goodwin (R Texas) Sept. 29, 1925-—; Senate June 15, 1961-85.

    TOWNS

    Edolphus (D N.Y.) July 21, 1934-—; House 1983-—.

    TRAXLER

    Jerome Bob (D Mich.) July 21, 1931-—; House April 16, 1974-—.

    TRIBLE

    Paul Seward Jr. (R Va.) Dec. 29, 1946-—; House 1977-83; Senate 1983-—.

    TSONGAS

    Paul Efthemios (D Mass.) Feb. 14, 1941-—; House 1975-79; Senate 1979-85.

    U
    UDALL

    Morris King (brother of Stewart Lee Udall) (D Ariz.) June 15, 1922-—; House May 2, 1961-—.

    V
    VALENTINE

    Tim (D N.C.) March 15, 1926-—; House 1983-—.

    VANDERGRIFF

    Tom (D Texas) Jan. 29, 1926-—; House 1983-85.

    VANDER JAGT

    Guy Adrian (R Mich.) Aug. 26, 1931-—; House Nov. 8, 1966-—.

    VENTO

    Bruce Frank (D Minn.) Oct. 7, 1940-—; House 1977-—.

    VOLKMER

    Harold Lee (D Mo.) April 4, 1931-—; House 1977-—.

    VUCANOVICH

    Barbara Farrell (R Nev.) June 22, 1921-—; House 1983-—.

    W
    WALGREN

    Douglas (D Pa.) Dec. 28, 1940-—; House 1977-—.

    WALKER

    Robert Smith (R Pa.) Dec. 23, 1942-—; House 1977-—.

    WALLOP

    Malcolm (R Wyo.) Feb. 27, 1933-—; Senate 1977-—.

    WAMPLER

    William Creed (R Va.) April 21, 1926-—; House 1953-55, 1967-83.

    WARNER

    John William (R Va.) Feb. 18, 1927-—; Senate Jan. 2, 1979-—.

    WASHINGTON

    Harold (D Ill.) April 15, 1922-—; House 1981-April 30, 1983.

    WATKINS

    Wesley Wade (D Okla.) Dec. 15, 1938-—; House 1977-—.

    WAXMAN

    Henry Arnold (D Calif.) Sept. 12, 1939-—; House 1975-—.

    WEAVER

    James Howard (D Ore.) Aug. 8, 1927-—; House 1975-—.

    WEBER

    Ed (R Ohio) July 26, 1931-—; House 1981-—.

    WEBER

    Vin (R Minn.) July 24, 1952-—; House 1981-83.

    WEICKER

    Lowell Palmer Jr. (R Conn.) May 16, 1931-—; House 1969-71; Senate 1971-—.

    WEISS

    Theodore S. (D N.Y.) Sept. 17, 1927-—; House 1977-—.

    WHEAT

    Alan D. (D Mo.) Oct. 16, 1951-—; House 1983-—.

    WHITE

    Richard Crawford (D Texas) April 29, 1923-—; House 1965-83.

    WHITEHURST

    George William (R Va.) March 12, 1925-—; House 1969-—.

    WHITLEY

    Charles Orville (D N.C.) Jan. 3, 1927-—; House 1977-—.

    WHITTAKER

    Robert (R Kan.) Sept. 18, 1939-—; House 1979-—.

    WHITTEN

    Jamie Lloyd (D Miss.) April 18, 1910-—; House Nov. 4, 1941-—.

    WILLIAMS

    Harrison Arlington Jr. (D N.J.) Dec. 10, 1919-—; House Nov. 3, 1953-57; Senate 1959-March 11, 1982.

    WILLIAMS

    Lyle (R Ohio) Aug. 23, 1942-—; House 1979-85.

    WILLIAMS

    Pat (D Mont.) Oct. 30, 1937-—; House 1979-—.

    WILSON

    Charles (D Texas) June 1, 1933-—; House 1973-—.

    WILSON

    Pete (R Calif.) Aug. 23, 1933-—; Senate 1983-—.

    WINN

    Larry Jr. (R Kan.) Aug. 22, 1919-—; House 1967-85.

    WIRTH

    Timothy Endicott (D Colo.) Sept. 22, 1939-—; House 1975-—.

    WISE

    Robert Ellsworth Jr. (D W.Va.) Jan. 6, 1948-—; House 1983-—.

    WOLF

    Frank R. (R Va.) Jan. 30, 1939-—; House 1981-—.

    WOLPE

    Howard Eliot (D Mich.) Nov. 2, 1939-—; House 1979-—.

    WON PAT

    Antonio Borja (D Guam) Dec. 10, 1908-—; House 1973-85.

    WORTLEY

    George (R N.Y.) Dec. 8, 1928-—; House 1981-—.

    WRIGHT

    James Claude Jr. (D Texas) Dec. 22, 1922-—; House 1955-—; House majority leader 1977-—.

    WYDEN

    Ron (D Ore.) May 3, 1949-—; House 1981-—.

    WYLIE

    Chalmers Pangburn (R Ohio) Nov. 23, 1920-—; House 1967-—.

    Y
    YATES

    Sidney Richard (D Ill.) Aug. 27, 1909-—; House 1949-63, 1965-—.

    YATRON

    Gus (D Pa.) Oct. 16, 1927-—; House 1969-—.

    YOUNG

    Charles William (Bill) (R Fla.) Dec. 16, 1930-—; House 1971-—.

    YOUNG

    Donald Edwin (R Alaska) June 9, 1933-—; House March 6, 1973-—.

    YOUNG

    Robert A. (D Mo.) Nov. 27, 1923-—; House 1977-—.

    Z
    ZABLOCKI

    Clement John (D Wis.) Nov. 18, 1912-Dec. 3, 1983; House 1949-Dec. 3, 1983.

    ZEFERETTI

    Leo C. (D N.Y.) July 15, 1927-—; House 1975-83.

    ZORINSKY

    Edward (D Neb.) Nov. 11, 1928-—; Senate Dec. 28, 1976-—.

    ZSCHAU

    Ed (R Calif.) Jan. 6, 1940-—; House 1983-—.

    Congressional Committees, 97th and 98th Congresses

    Following is a list of congressional committees and subcommittees in the 97th and 98th Congresses. Committee chairmen and the dates of their service in that capacity also are included. Ranking minority members, listed in italics, and subcommittee chairmen served during both Congresses unless otherwise noted.

    Senate committee and subcommittee chairmen are Republicans and ranking minority members are Democrats. House chairmen are Democrats; ranking members, Republicans.

    Senate Committees

    Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry

    Agriculture in general; animal industry and diseases; crop insurance and soil conservation; farm credit and farm security; food from fresh waters; food stamp programs; forestry in general; home economics; human nutrition; inspection of livestock, meat and agricultural products; pests and pesticides; plant industry, soils and agricultural engineering; rural development, rural electrification and watersheds; school nutrition programs; matters relating to food, nutrition and rural affairs.

    • R 9 - D 8(97th Congress)
    • R 10 - D 8(98th Congress)
    • Jesse Helms, N.C. (1981-85)
    • Walter D. Huddleston, Ky.
    Agricultural Credit and Rural Electrification

    Paula Hawkins, Fla.

    Agricultural Production, Marketing and Stabilization of Prices

    Thad Cochran, Miss.

    Agricultural Research and General Legislation

    Richard G. Lugar, Ind.

    Foreign Agricultural Policy

    Rudy Boschwitz, Minn.

    Forestry, Water Resources and Environment (97th Congress)

    S. I.

    Sam
    Hayakawa, Calif.

    Nutrition

    Robert Dole, Kan.

    Rural Development, Oversight and Investigations

    Mark Andrews, N.D.

    Soil and Water Conservation (97th Congress)

    Roger W. Jepsen, Iowa

    Soil and Water Conservation, Forestry and Environment (98th Congress)

    Roger W. Jepsen, Iowa

    Appropriations

    Appropriation of revenue for support of the government; rescission of appropriations; new spending authority under the Congressional Budget Act.

    • R 15 - D 14
    • Mark O. Hatfield, Ore. (1981-85)
    • William Proxmire, Wis. (97th Congress)
    • John C. Stennis, Miss. (98th Congress)
    Agriculture and Related Agencies (97th Congress)

    Thad Cochran, Miss.

    Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies (98th Congress)

    Thad Cochran, Miss.

    Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary and Related Agencies (98th Congress)

    Paul Laxalt, Nev.

    Defense

    Ted Stevens, Alaska

    District of Columbia

    Alfonse M. D'Amato, N.Y. (97th Congress); Arlen Specter, Pa. (98th Congress)

    Energy and Water Development

    Mark O. Hatfield, Ore.

    Foreign Operations

    Bob Kasten, Wis.

    HUD - Independent Agencies

    Jake Garn, Utah

    Interior (97th Congress)

    James A. McClure, Idaho

    Interior and Related Agencies (98th Congress)

    James A. McClure, Idaho

    Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies

    Harrison

    Jack
    Schmitt, N.M. (97th Congress); Lowell P. Weicker Jr., Conn. (98th Congress)

    Legislative Branch

    Mack Mattingly, Ga. (97th Congress); Alfonse M. D'Amato, N.Y. (98th Congress)

    Military Construction

    Paul Laxalt, Nev. (97th Congress); Mack Mattingly, Ga. (98th Congress)

    State, Justice, Commerce, the Judiciary (97th Congress)

    Lowell P. Weicker Jr., Conn.

    Transportation (97th Congress)

    Mark Andrews, N.D.

    Transportation and Related Agencies (98th Congress)

    Mark Andrews, N.D.

    Treasury, Postal Service, General Government

    James Abdnor, S.D.

    Armed Services

    Defense and defense policy generally; aeronautical and space activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems or military operations; maintenance and operation of the Panama Canal, including the Canal Zone; military research and development; national security aspects of nuclear energy; naval petroleum reserves (except Alaska); armed forces generally; Selective Service System; strategic and critical materials.

    • R 9 - D 8(97th Congress)
    • R 10 - D 8(98th Congress)
    • John Tower, Texas (1981-85)
    • John C. Stennis, Miss. (97th Congress)
    • Henry M. Jackson, Wash. (died Sept. 1, 1983)
    • Sam Nunn, Ga. (through 98th Congress)
    Manpower and Personnel

    Roger W. Jepsen, Iowa

    Military Construction

    Strom Thurmond, S.C.

    Preparedness

    Gordon J. Humphrey, N.H.

    Sea Power and Force Projection

    William S. Cohen, Maine

    Strategic and Theater Nuclear Forces

    John W. Warner, Va.

    Tactical Warfare

    Barry Goldwater, Ariz.

    Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs

    Banks, banking and financial institutions; price controls; deposit insurance; economic stabilization and growth; defense production; export and foreign trade promotion; export controls; federal monetary policy, including Federal Reserve System; financial aid to commerce and industry; issuance and redemption of notes; money and credit, including currency and coinage; nursing home construction; public and private housing, including veterans' housing; renegotiation of government contracts; urban development and mass transit; international economic policy.

    • R 8 - D 7(97th Congress)
    • R 10 - D 8(98th Congress)
    • Jake Garn, Utah (1981-85)
    • Harrison A. Williams Jr., N.J. (resigned March 11, 1982)
    • William Proxmire, Wis. (through 98th Congress)
    Consumer Affairs

    John H. Chafee, R.I. (97th Congress); Paula Hawkins, Fla. (98th Congress)

    Economic Policy

    William L. Armstrong, Colo. (97th Congress); Slade Gorton, Wash. (98th Congress)

    Federal Credit Programs (98th Congress)

    Paul S. Trible Jr., Va.

    Financial Institutions

    John Tower, Texas (97th Congress); William L. Armstrong, Colo. (98th Congress)

    Housing and Urban Affairs

    Richard G. Lugar, Ind. (97th Congress); John Tower, Texas (98th Congress)

    Insurance (98th Congress)

    Chic Hecht, Nev.

    International Finance and Monetary Policy

    John Heinz, Pa.

    Rural Housing and Development

    Harrison

    Jack
    Schmitt, N.M. (97th Congress); Mack Mattingly, Ga. (98th Congress)

    Securities

    Alfonse M. D'Amato, N.Y.

    Budget

    Federal budget generally; concurrent budget resolutions; Congressional Budget Office.

    • R 12 - D 10
    • Pete V. Domenici, N.M. 1981-85
    • Ernest F. Hollings, S.C. (97th Congress)
    • Lawton Chiles, Fla. (98th Congress)

    No standing subcommittees.

    Commerce, Science and Transportation

    Interstate commerce and transportation generally; Coast Guard; coastal zone management; communications; highway safety; inland waterways, except construction; marine fisheries; Merchant Marine and navigation; nonmilitary aeronautical and space sciences; oceans, weather and atmospheric activities, interoceanic canals generally; regulation of consumer products and services, science, engineering and technology research, development and policy; sports; standards and measurement; transportation and commerce aspects of Outer Continental Shelf lands.

    • R 9 - D 8
    • Bob Packwood, Ore. (1981-85)
    • Howard W. Cannon, Nev. (97th Congress)
    • Ernest F. Hollings, S.C. (98th Congress)
    Aviation

    Nancy Landon Kassebaum, Kan.

    Business, Trade and Tourism

    Larry Pressler, S.D.

    Communications

    Barry Goldwater, Ariz.

    Consumer

    Bob Kasten, Wis.

    Merchant Marine

    Slade Gorton, Wash. (97th Congress); Ted Stevens, Alaska (98th Congress)

    National Ocean Policy Study (98th Congress)

    Bob Packwood, Ore.

    Science, Technology and Space

    Harrison

    Jack
    Schmitt, N.M. (97th Congress); Slade Gorton, Wash. (98th Congress)

    Surface Transportation

    John C. Danforth, Mo.

    Energy and Natural Resources

    Energy policy, regulation, conservation, research and development; coal; energy related aspects of deepwater ports; hydroelectric power, irrigation and reclamation; mines, mining and minerals generally; national parks, recreation areas, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, historic sites, military parks and battlefields; naval petroleum reserves in Alaska; nonmilitary development of nuclear energy; oil and gas production and distribution; public lands and forests; solar energy systems; territorial possessions of the United States.

    • R 11 - D 9
    • James A. McClure, Idaho (1981-85)
    • Henry M. Jackson, Wash. (97th Congress)
    • J. Bennett Johnston, La. (98th Congress)
    Energy and Mineral Resources

    John W. Warner, Va.

    Energy Conservation and Supply

    Lowell P. Weicker Jr., Conn.

    Energy Regulation

    Gordon J. Humphrey, N.H. (97th Congress); Frank H. Murkowski, Alaska (98th Congress)

    Energy Research and Development

    Pete V. Domenici, N.M.

    Public Lands and Reserved Water

    Malcolm Wallop, Wyo.

    Water and Power

    Frank H. Murkowski, Alaska (97th Congress); Don Nickles, Okla. (98th Congress)

    Environment and Public Works

    Environmental policy, research and development; air water and noise pollution; construction and maintenance of highways; environmental aspects of Outer Continental Shelf lands; environmental effects of toxic substances, other than pesticides; fisheries and wildlife; flood control and improvements of rivers and harbors; nonmilitary environmental regulation and control of nuclear energy; ocean dumping; public buildings and grounds; public works, bridges and dams; regional economic development; solid waste disposal and recycling; water resources.

    • R 9 - D 7
    • Robert T. Stafford, Vt. (1981-85)
    • Jennings Randolph, W.Va.
    Environmental Pollution

    John H. Chafee, R.I.

    Nuclear Regulation

    Alan K. Simpson, Wyo.

    Regional and Community Development

    Frank H. Murkowski, Alaska (97th Congress); Gordon J. Humphrey, N.H. (98th Congress)

    Toxic Substances and Environmental Oversight

    Slade Gorton, Wash. (97th Congress); David Durenberger, Minn. (98th Congress)

    Transportation

    Steven D. Symms, Idaho

    Water Resources

    James Abdnor, S.D.

    Finance

    Revenue measures generally; taxes; tariffs and import quotas; foreign trade agreements; customs; revenue sharing; federal debt limit; Social Security; health programs financed by taxes or trust funds.

    • R 11 - D 9
    • Robert Dole, Kan. (1981-85)
    • Russell B. Long, La.
    Economic Growth, Employment and Revenue Sharing

    John Heinz, Pa.

    Energy and Agricultural Taxation

    Malcolm Wallop, Wyo.

    Estate and Gift Taxation

    Steven D. Symms, Idaho

    Health

    David Durenberger, Minn.

    International Trade

    John C. Danforth, Mo.

    Oversight of the Internal Revenue Service

    Charles E. Grassley, Iowa

    Savings, Pensions and Investment Policy

    John H. Chafee, R.I.

    Social Security and Income Maintenance Programs

    William L. Armstrong, Colo.

    Taxation and Debt Management

    Bob Packwood, Ore.

    Foreign Relations

    Relations of the United States with foreign nations generally; treaties; foreign economic, military, technical and humanitarian assistance; foreign loans; diplomatic service; International Red Cross; international aspects of nuclear energy; International Monetary Fund; intervention abroad and declarations of war; foreign trade; national security; oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs; protection of U.S. citizens abroad; United Nations; World Bank and other development assistance organizations.

    • R 9 - D 8
    • Charles H. Percy, Ill. (1981-85)
    • Claiborne Pell, R.I.
    African Affairs

    Nancy Landon Kassebaum, Kan.

    Arms Control, Oceans and International Operations and Environment

    Larry Pressler, S.D.

    East Asian and Pacific Affairs

    S.I.

    Sam
    Hayakawa, Calif. (97th Congress); Frank H. Murkowski, Alaska (98th Congress)

    European Affairs

    Richard G. Lugar, Ind.

    International Economic Policy

    Charles McC. Mathias Jr., Md.

    Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs

    Rudy Boschwitz, Minn.

    Western Hemisphere Affairs

    Jesse Helms, N.C.

    Governmental Affairs

    Budget and accounting measures; census and statistics; federal civil service; congressional organization; inter-governmental relations; government information; District of Columbia; organization and management of nuclear export policy; executive branch reorganization; Postal Service; efficiency, economy and effectiveness of government.

    • R 9 - D 8(97th Congress)
    • R 10 - D 8(98th Congress)
    • William V. Roth Jr., Del. (1981-85)
    • Thomas F. Eagleton, Mo.
    Congressional Operations and Oversight (97th Congress)

    Mack Mattingly, Ga.

    Civil Service, Post Office and General Services

    Ted Stevens, Alaska

    Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Government Processes

    Charles H. Percy, Ill.

    Federal Expenditures, Research and Rules (97th Congress)

    John C. Danforth, Mo.

    Governmental Efficiency and the District of Columbia

    Charles McC. Mathias Jr., Md.

    Information Management and Regulatory Affairs (98th Congress)

    John C. Danforth, Mo.

    Intergovernmental Relations

    David Durenberger, Minn.

    Oversight of Government Management

    William S. Cohen, Maine

    Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

    William V. Roth Jr., Del.

    Judiciary

    Civil and criminal judicial proceedings generally; penitentiaries; bankruptcy, mutiny, espionage and counterfeiting; civil liberties; constitutional amendments; apportionment of representatives; government information; immigration and naturalization; interstate compacts generally; claims against the United States; patents, copyrights and trademarks; monopolies and unlawful restraints of trade; holidays and celebrations.

    • R 10 - D 8
    • Strom Thurmond, S.C. (1981-85)
    • Joseph R. Biden Jr., Del.
    Administrative Practice and Procedure (98th Congress)

    Charles E. Grassley, Iowa

    Agency Administration (97th Congress)

    Charles E. Grassley, Iowa

    Constitution

    Orrin G. Hatch, Utah

    Courts

    Robert Dole, Kan.

    Criminal Law

    Charles McC. Mathias Jr., Md. (97th Congress); Paul Laxalt, Nev. (98th Congress)

    Immigration and Refugee Policy

    Alan K. Simpson, Wyo.

    Juvenile Justice

    Arlen Specter, Pa.

    Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks (98th Congress)

    Charles McC. Mathias Jr., Md.

    Regulatory Reform (97th Congress)

    Paul Laxalt, Nev.

    Security and Terrorism

    Jeremiah Denton, Ala.

    Separation of Powers

    John P. East, N.C.

    Labor and Human Resources

    Education, labor, health and public welfare generally; aging; arts and humanities; biomedical research and development; child labor; convict labor; American National Red Cross; equal employment opportunity; handicapped individuals; labor standards and statistics; mediation and arbitration of labor disputes; occupational safety and health; private pension plans; public health; railway labor and retirement; regulation of foreign laborers; student loans; wages and hours.

    • R 9 - D 7(97th Congress)
    • R 10 - D 8(98th Congress)
    • Orrin G. Hatch, Utah (1981-85)
    • Edward M. Kennedy, Mass.
    Aging (98th Congress)

    Charles E. Grassley, Iowa

    Aging, Family and Human Services (97th Congress)

    Jeremiah Denton, Ala.

    Alcoholism and Drug Abuse

    Gordon J. Humphrey, N.H.

    Education (97th Congress)

    Robert T. Stafford, Vt.

    Education, Arts and the Humanities (98th Congress)

    Robert T. Stafford, Vt.

    Employment and Productivity

    Dan Quayle, Ind.

    Family and Human Services (98th Congress)

    Jeremiah Denton, Ala.

    Handicapped

    Lowell P. Weicker Jr., Conn.

    Investigations and General Oversight (97th Congress)

    Paula Hawkins, Fla.

    Labor

    Don Nickles, Okla.

    Rules and Administration

    Senate administration generally; corrupt practices; qualifications of senators; contested elections; federal elections generally; Government Printing Office; Congressional Record; meetings of Congress and attendance of members; presidential succession; the Capitol, congressional office buildings, the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian Institution and the Botanic Gardens.

    • R 7 - D 5
    • Charles McC. Mathias Jr., Md. (1981-85)
    • Wendell H. Ford, Ky.

    No standing subcommittees.

    Select Ethics

    Studies and investigates standards and conduct of Senate members and employees and may recommend remedial action.

    • R 3 - D 3
    • Malcolm Wallop, Wyo. (1981-83)
    • Ted Stevens, Alaska (1983-85)
    • Howell Heflin, Ala.

    No standing subcommittees.

    Select Indian Affairs

    Problems and opportunities of Indians including Indian land management and trust responsibilities, education, health, special services, loan program and Indian claims against the United States.

    • R 4 - D 3
    • William S. Cohen, Maine (1981-83)
    • Mark Andrews, N.D. (1983-85)
    • John Melcher, Mont.

    No standing subcommittees.

    Select Intelligence

    Legislative and budgetary authority over the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and intelligence activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other components of the federal intelligence community.

    • R 8 - D 7
    • Barry Goldwater, Ariz. (1981-85)
    • Daniel Patrick Moynihan, N.Y.
    Analysis and Production

    Richard G. Lugar, Ind.

    Budget

    Malcolm Wallop, Wyo.

    Collection and Foreign Operations

    John H. Chafee, R.I.

    Legislation and the Rights of Americans

    Harrison

    Jack
    Schmitt, N.M. (97th Congress); David Durenberger, Minn. (98th Congress)

    Small Business

    Problems of small business; Small Business Administration.

    • R 9 - D 8(97th Congress)
    • R 10 - D 9(98th Congress)
    • Lowell P. Weicker Jr., Conn. (1981-85)
    • Sam Nunn, Ga.
    Advocacy and the Future of Small Business (97th Congress)

    S. I.

    Sam
    Hayakawa, Calif.

    Capital Formation and Retention

    Bob Packwood, Ore.

    Entrepreneurship and Special Problems Facing Small Business (98th Congress)

    Bob Kasten, Wis.

    Export Promotion and Market Development

    Rudy Boschwitz, Minn.

    Government Procurement

    Don Nickles, Okla.

    Government Regulation and Paperwork

    Orrin G. Hatch, Utah

    Innovation and Technology

    Warren B. Rudman, N.H.

    Productivity and Competition

    Slade Gorton, Wash.

    Small Business: Family Farm (98th Congress)

    Larry Pressler, S.D.

    Urban and Rural Economic Development

    Alfonse M. D'Amato, N.Y.

    Special Aging

    Problems and opportunities of older people including health, income, employment, housing and care and assistance. Reports findings and makes recommendations to the Senate, but cannot report legislation.

    • R 8 - D 7
    • John Heinz, Pa. (1981-85)
    • Lawton Chiles, Fla. (97th Congress)
    • John Glenn, Ohio (98th Congress)

    No standing subcommittees.

    Veterans' Affairs

    Veterans' measures generally; compensation; armed forces life insurance; national cemeteries; pensions; read-justment benefits; veterans' hospitals, medical care and treatment; vocational rehabilitation and education.

    • R 7 - D 5
    • Alan K. Simpson, Wyo. (1981-85)
    • Alan Cranston, Calif.

    No standing subcommittees.

    Political Committees

    Republican Policy Committee

    John Tower, Texas

    Republican Committee on Committees (makes Republican committee assignments)

    Richard G. Lugar, Ind. (97th Congress); Nancy Landon Kassebaum, Kan. (98th Congress)

    National Republican Senatorial Committee (campaign support committee for Republican senatorial candidates)

    Bob Packwood, Ore. (97th Congress); Richard G. Lugar, Ind. (98th Congress)

    Democratic Policy Committee (scheduling of legislation)

    Robert C. Byrd, W.Va.

    Democratic Legislative Review Committee (reviews legislative proposals, provides recommendations)

    Dale Bumpers, Ark.

    Democratic Steering Committee (makes Democratic committee assignments)

    Robert C. Byrd, W.Va.

    Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (campaign support for Democratic senatorial candidates)

    Wendell H. Ford, Ky. (97th Congress); Lloyd Bentsen, Texas (98th Congress)

    House Committees

    Agriculture

    Agriculture generally; production, marketing and stabilization of agricultural prices; animal industry and diseases of animals; crop insurance and soil conservation; dairy industry; farm credit and security; forestry in general; human nutrition; home economics; inspection of livestock and meat products; plant industry, soils and agricultural engineering; rural electrification; commodities exchanges; rural development.

    • D 24 - R 19(97th Congress)
    • D 26 - R 15(98th Congress)
    • E.
      Kika
      de la Garza, Texas (1981-85)
    • William C. Wampler, Va. (97th Congress)
    • Edward R. Madigan, Ill. (98th Congress)
    Conservation, Credit and Rural Development

    Ed Jones, Tenn.

    Cotton, Rice and Sugar

    David R. Bowen, Miss. (97th Congress); Jerry Huckaby, La. (98th Congress)

    Department Operations, Research and Foreign Agriculture

    George E. Brown Jr., Calif.

    Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations and Nutrition

    Fred Richmond, N.Y. (resigned Aug. 25, 1982); Leon E. Panetta, Calif. (through 98th Congress)

    Forests, Family Farms and Energy

    James Weaver, Ore. (97th Congress); Charles Whitley, N.C. (98th Congress)

    Livestock, Dairy and Poultry

    Tom Harkin, Iowa

    Tobacco and Peanuts

    Charlie Rose, N.C.

    Wheat, Soybeans and Feed Grains

    Thomas S. Foley, Wash.

    Appropriations

    Appropriation of revenue for support of the federal government; rescissions of appropriations; transfers of un-expended balances; new spending authority under the Congressional Budget Act.

    • D 33 - R 22(97th Congress)
    • D 36 - R 21(98th Congress)
    • Jamie L. Whitten, Miss. (1978-85)
    • Silvio O. Conte, Mass.
    Agriculture (97th Congress)

    Jamie L. Whitten, Miss.

    Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies (98th Congress)

    Jamie L. Whitten, Miss.

    Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary

    Neal Smith, Iowa

    Defense

    Joseph P. Addabbo, N.Y.

    District of Columbia

    Julian C. Dixon, Calif.

    Energy and Water (97th Congress)

    Tom Bevill, Ala.

    Energy and Water Development (98th Congress)

    Tom Bevill, Ala.

    Foreign Operations

    Clarence D. Long, Md.

    HUD - Independent Agencies

    Edward P. Boland, Mass.

    Interior

    Sidney R. Yates, III.

    Labor - HHS (97th Congress)

    William H. Natcher, Ky.

    Labor - Health and Human Services - Education (98th Congress)

    William H. Natcher, Ky.

    Legislative

    Vic Fazio, Calif.

    Military Construction

    Bo Ginn, Ga. (97th Congress); W. G.

    Bill
    Hefner, N.C. (98th Congress)

    Transportation

    Adam Benjamin Jr., Ind. (died Sept. 7, 1982); William Lehman, Fla. (through 98th Congress)

    Treasury - Postal Service (97th Congress)

    Edward R. Roybal, Calif.

    Treasury - Postal Service - General Government (98th Congress)

    Edward R. Roybal, Calif.

    Armed Services

    Common defense generally; Department of Defense; ammunition depots; forts; arsenals; Army, Navy and Air Force reservations and establishments; naval petroleum and oil shale reserves; scientific research and development in support of the armed services; Selective Service System; strategic and critical materials; military applications of nuclear energy; soldiers' and sailors' homes.

    • D 25 - R 19(97th Congress)
    • D 28 - R 16(98th Congress)
    • Melvin Price, Ill. (1975-85)
    • William L. Dickinson, Ala.
    Investigations

    Richard C. White, Texas (97th Congress); Bill Nichols, Ala. (98th Congress)

    Military Installations and Facilities

    Jack Brinkley, Ga. (97th Congress); Ronald V. Dellums, Calif. (98th Congress)

    Military Personnel and Compensation

    Bill Nichols, Ala. (97th Congress); Les Aspin, Wis. (98th Congress)

    Procurement and Military Nuclear Systems

    Samuel S. Stratton, N.Y.

    Readiness

    Dan Daniel, Va.

    Research and Development

    Melvin Price, Ill.

    Seapower and Strategic and Critical Materials

    Charles E. Bennett, Fla.

    Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs

    Banks and banking including deposit insurance and federal monetary policy; money and credit; currency; issurance and redemption of notes; gold and silver; coinage; valuation and revaluation of the dollar; urban development; private and public housing; economic stabilization; defense production; renegotiation; price controls; international finance; financial aid to commerce and industry.

    • D 25 - R 19(97th Congress)
    • D 30 - R 17(98th Congress)
    • Fernand J. St Germain, R.I. (1981-85)
    • J. William Stanton, Ohio (97th Congress)
    • Chalmers P. Wylie, Ohio (98th Congress)
    Consumer Affairs and Coinage

    Frank Annunzio, Ill.

    Domestic Monetary Policy

    Walter E. Fauntroy, D.C.

    Economic Stabilization

    James J. Blanchard, Mich. (97th Congress); John J. LaFalce, N.Y. (98th Congress)

    Financial Institutions Supervision, Regulation and Insurance

    Fernand J. St Germain, R.I.

    General Oversight and Renegotiation

    Joseph G. Minish, N.J.

    Housing and Community Development

    Henry B. Gonzalez, Texas

    International Development Institutions and Finance

    Jerry M. Patterson, Calif.

    International Trade, Investment and Monetary Policy

    Stephen L. Neal, N.C.

    Budget

    Federal budget generally; concurrent budget resolutions; Congressional Budget Office.

    • D 18 - R 12(97th Congress)
    • D 20 - R 11(98th Congress)
    • James R. Jones, Okla. (1981-85)
    • Delbert L. Latta, Ohio

    No standing subcommittees.

    Task Forces

    Budget Process (98th Congress)

    Leon E. Panetta, Calif.

    Capital Resources and Development (98th Congress)

    Stephen J. Solarz, N.Y.

    Economic Policy and Growth (98th Congress)

    Les Aspin, Wis.

    Economic Policy and Productivity (97th Congress)

    David R. Obey, Wis.

    Education and Employment (98th Congress)

    Richard A. Gephardt, Mo.

    Energy and Technology (98th Congress)

    Timothy E. Wirth, Colo.

    Energy and the Environment (97th Congress)

    Timothy E. Wirth, Colo.

    Enforcement, Credit and Multi-year Budgeting (97th Congress)

    Norman Y. Mineta, Calif.

    Entitlements, Uncontrollables and Indexing

    Paul Simon, Ill. (97th Congress); Brian J. Donnelly, Mass. (98th Congress)

    Federalism/State-Local Relations (98th Congress)

    Bill Nelson, Fla.

    Human Resources and Block Grants (97th Congress)

    Richard A. Gephardt, Mo.

    International Finance and Trade (98th Congress)

    Mike Lowry, Wash.

    National Security and Veterans (97th Congress)

    Jim Mattox, Texas

    Reconciliation (97th Congress)

    Leon E. Panetta, Calif.

    Tax Policy

    Bill Nelson, Fla. (97th Congress); Thomas J. Downey, N.Y. (98th Congress)

    Transportation, Research and Development, and Capital Resources (97th Congress)

    Stephen J. Solarz, N.Y.

    District of Columbia

    Municipal affairs of the District of Columbia.

    • D 6 - R 3(97th Congress)
    • D 7 - R 4(98th Congress)
    • Ronald V. Dellums, Calif. (1979-85)
    • Stewart B. McKinney, Conn.
    Fiscal Affairs and Health

    Ronald V. Dellums, Calif. (97th Congress); Walter E. Fauntroy, D.C. (98th Congress)

    Government Operations and Metropolitan Affairs

    William H. Gray III, Pa.

    Judiciary and Education

    Mervyn M. Dymally, Calif.

    Education and Labor

    Education and labor generally; child labor; convict labor; labor standards and statistics; mediation and arbitration of labor disputes; regulation of foreign laborers; school food programs; vocational rehabilitation; wages and hours; welfare of miners; work incentive programs; Indian education; juvenile delinquency; human services programs; Gallaudet College; Howard University.

    • D 19 - R 14(97th Congress)
    • D 20 - R 11(98th Congress)
    • Carl D. Perkins, Ky. (1967-84; died Aug. 3, 1984)
    • Augustus F. Hawkins, Calif. (through 98th Congress)
    • John M. Ashbrook, Ohio (died April 24, 1982)
    • John N. Erlenborn, Ill. (through 98th Congress)
    Elementary, Secondary and Vocational Education

    Carl D. Perkins, Ky. (died Aug. 3, 1984); William D. Ford, Mich. (acting chairman through 98th Congress)

    Employment Opportunities

    Augustus F. Hawkins, Calif.

    Health and Safety

    Joseph M. Gaydos, Pa.

    Human Resources

    Ike Andrews, N.C.

    Labor-Management Relations

    Phillip Burton, Calif. (died April 10, 1983); William L. Clay, Mo. (through 98th Congress)

    Labor Standards

    George Miller, Calif.

    Postsecondary Education

    Paul Simon, Ill.

    Select Education

    Austin J. Murphy, Pa.

    Energy and Commerce

    Interstate and foreign commerce generally; national energy policy generally; exploration, production, storage, supply, marketing, pricing and regulation of energy resources; nuclear energy; solar energy; energy conservation; regeneration and marketing of power; inland waterways; railroads and railway labor and retirement; communications generally; securities and exchanges; consumer affairs; travel and tourism; public health and quarantine; health care facilities; biomedical research and development.

    • D 24 - R 18(97th Congress)
    • D 27 - R 15(98th Congress)
    • John D. Dingell, Mich. (1981-85)
    • James T. Broyhill, N.C.
    Commerce, Transportation and Tourism

    James J. Florio, N.J.

    Energy Conservation and Power

    Richard L. Ottinger, N.Y.

    Fossil and Synthetic Fuels

    Philip R. Sharp, Ind.

    Health and the Environment

    Henry A. Waxman, Calif.

    Oversight and Investigations

    John D. Dingell, Mich.

    Telecommunications, Consumer Protection and Finance

    Timothy E. Wirth, Colo.

    Foreign Affairs

    Relations of the United States with foreign nations generally; foreign loans; international conferences and congresses; intervention abroad and declarations of war; diplomatic service; foreign trade; neutrality; protection of Americans abroad; Red Cross; United Nations; international economic policy; export controls including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and hardware; international commodity agreements; trading with the enemy; international financial monetary organizations.

    • D 21 - R 16(97th Congress)
    • D 24 - R 13(98th Congress)
    • Clement J. Zablocki, Wis. (1977-83; died Dec. 3, 1983)
    • Dante B. Fascell, Fla. (through 98th Congress)
    • William S. Broomfield, Mich.
    Africa

    Howard Wolpe, Mich.

    Asian and Pacific Affairs

    Stephen J. Solarz, N.Y.

    Europe and the Middle East

    Lee H. Hamilton, Ind.

    Human Rights and International Organizations

    Don Bonker, Wash. (97th Congress); Gus Yatron, Pa. (98th Congress)

    Inter-American Affairs (97th Congress)

    Michael D. Barnes, Md.

    International Economic Policy and Trade

    Jonathan B. Bingham, N.Y. (97th Congress); Don Bonker, Wash. (98th Congress)

    International Operations

    Dante B. Fascell, Fla. (through 1983); Dan Mica, Fla. (through 98th Congress)

    International Security and Scientific Affairs

    Clement J. Zablocki, Wis. (died Dec. 3, 1983); Dante B. Fascell, Fla. (through 98th Congress)

    Western Hemisphere Affairs (98th Congress)

    Michael D. Barnes, Md.

    Government Operations

    Budget and accounting measures; overall economy and efficiency in government including federal procurement; executive branch reorganization; general revenue sharing; intergovernmental relations; National Archives.

    • D 23 - R 17(97th Congress)
    • D 25 - R 14(98th Congress)
    • Jack Brooks, Texas (1975-85)
    • Frank Horton, N.Y.
    Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs

    Benjamin S. Rosenthal, N.Y. (97th Congress); Doug Barnard Jr., Ga. (98th Congress)

    Environment, Energy and Natural Resources

    Toby Moffett, Conn. (97th Congress); Mike Synar, Okla. (98th Congress)

    Government Activities and Transportation

    John L. Burton (97th Congress); Cardiss Collins, Ill. (98th Congress)

    Government Information and Individual Rights (97th Congress)

    Glenn English, Okla.

    Government Information, Justice and Agriculture (98th Congress)

    Glenn English, Okla.

    Intergovernmental Relations and Human Resources

    L. H. Fountain, N.C. (97th Congress); Ted Weiss, N.Y. (98th Congress)

    Legislation and National Security

    Jack Brooks, Texas

    Manpower and Housing

    Cardiss Collins, Ill. (97th Congress); Barney Frank, Mass. (98th Congress)

    House Administration

    House administration generally; contested elections; federal elections generally; corrupt practices; qualifications of members of the House; Congressional Record; the Capitol; Library of Congress; Smithsonian Institution; Botanic Gardens.

    • D 11 - R 8(97th Congress)
    • D 12 - R 7(98th Congress)
    • Augustus F. Hawkins, Calif. (1981-84)
    • Frank Annunzio, Ill. (through 98th Congress)
    • Bill Frenzel, Minn.
    Accounts

    Frank Annunzio, Ill.

    Contracts and Printing

    Joseph M. Gaydos, Pa.

    Office Systems

    Robert H. Mollohan, W. Va. (97th Congress); Charlie Rose, N.C. (98th Congress)

    Personnel and Police

    Joseph G. Minish, N.J.

    Services

    Ed Jones, Tenn.

    Policy Group

    Information Computers (97th Congress)

    Charlie Rose, N.C.

    Task Forces

    Committee Organization (97th Congress)

    Augustus F. Hawkins, Calif.

    Elections (98th Congress)

    Al Swift, Wash.

    Telephone Configuration (98th Congress)

    Charlie Rose, N.C.

    Interior and Insular Affairs

    Public lands, parks and natural resources generally; Geological Survey; interstate water compacts; irrigation and reclamation; Indian affairs; minerals, mines and mining; petroleum conservation on public lands; regulation of domestic nuclear energy industry including waste disposal; territorial affairs of the United States.

    • R 23 - R 17(97th Congress)
    • R 25 - R 14(98th Congress)
    • Morris K. Udall, Ariz. (1977-85)
    • Manuel Lujan, N.M.
    Energy and the Environment

    Morris K. Udall, Ariz.

    Insular Affairs

    Antonio Borja Won Pat, Guam

    Mines and Mining (97th Congress)

    Jim Santini, Nev.

    Mining, Forest Management and Bonneville Power Administration (98th Congress)

    James Weaver, Ore.

    Oversight and Investigations

    Edward J. Markey, Mass.

    Public Lands and National Parks

    John F. Seiberling, Ohio

    Water and Power (98th Congress)

    Abraham Kazen Jr., Texas

    Water and Power Resources (97th Congress)

    Abraham Kazen Jr., Texas

    Judiciary

    Civil and criminal judicial proceedings generally; federal courts and judges; bankruptcy, mutiny, espionage and counterfeiting; civil liberties; constitutional amendments; immigration and naturalization; interstate compacts; claims against the United States; apportionment of representatives; meetings of Congress and attendance of members; penitentiaries; patents, copyrights and trademarks; presidential succession; monopolies and unlawful restraints of trade; internal security.

    • D 16 - R 12(97th Congress)
    • D 20 - R 11(98th Congress)
    • Peter W. Rodino Jr., N.J. (1973-85)
    • Robert McClory, Ill. (97th Congress)
    • Hamilton Fish Jr., N.Y. (98th Congress)
    Administrative Law and Governmental Relations

    George E. Danielson, Calif. (resigned March 9, 1982); Sam B. Hall Jr., Texas (through 98th Congress)

    Civil and Constitutional Rights

    Don Edwards, Calif.

    Courts, Civil Liberties and Administration of Justice

    Robert W. Kastenmeier, Wis.

    Crime

    William J. Hughes, N.J.

    Criminal Justice

    John Conyers Jr., Mich.

    Immigration, Refugees and International Law

    Romano L. Mazzoli, Ky.

    Monopolies and Commercial Law

    Peter W. Rodino Jr., N.J.

    Merchant Marine and Fisheries

    Merchant marine generally; oceanography and marine affairs including coastal zone management; Coast Guard; fisheries and wildlife; regulation of common carriers by water and inspection of merchant marine vessels, lights and signals, lifesaving equipment and fire protection; navigation; Panama Canal, Canal Zone and interoceanic canals generally; registration and licensing of vessels; rules and international arrangements to prevent collisions at sea; international fishing agreements; Coast Guard and Merchant Marine academies and state maritime academies.

    • D 20 - R 15(97th Congress)
    • D 25 - R 14(98th Congress)
    • Walter B. Jones, N.C. (1981-85)
    • Gene Snyder, Ky. (97th Congress)
    • Edwin B. Forsythe, N.J. (died March 29, 1984)
    • Joel Pritchard, Wash. (through 98th Congress)
    Coast Guard and Navigation

    Gerry E. Studds, Mass. (censured July 20, 1983; stripped of chairmanship); Walter B. Jones, N.C. (through 98th Congress)

    Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment

    John B. Breaux, La.

    Merchant Marine

    Mario Biaggi, N.Y.

    Oceanography

    Norman E. D'Amours, N.H.

    Panama Canal and the Outer Continental Shelf

    Carroll Hubbard Jr., Ky.

    Post Office and Civil Service

    Postal and federal civil services; census and the collection of statistics generally; Hatch Act; holidays and celebrations.

    • D 15 - R 11(97th Congress)
    • D 15 - R 9(98th Congress)
    • William D. Ford, Mich. (1981-85)
    • Edwin J. Derwinski, Ill. (97th Congress)
    • Gene Taylor, Mo. (98th Congress)
    Census and Population

    Robert Garcia, N.Y.

    Civil Service

    Patricia Schroeder, Colo.

    Compensation and Employee Benefits

    Mary Rose Oakar, Ohio

    Human Resources

    Geraldine A. Ferraro, N.Y. (97th Congress); Donald J. Albosta, Mich. (98th Congress)

    Investigations

    William D. Ford, Mich.

    Postal Operations and Services

    William Clay, Mo.

    Postal Personnel and Management

    Mickey Leland, Texas

    Public Works and Transportation

    Flood control and improvement of rivers and harbors; construction and maintenance of roads; oil and other pollution of navigable waters; public buildings and grounds; public works for the benefit of navigation including bridges and dams; water power; transportation, except railroads; Botanic Gardens; Library of Congress; Smithsonian Institution.

    • R 25 - D 19(97th Congress)
    • R 30 - R 18(98th Congress)
    • James J. Howard, N.J. (1981-85)
    • Don H. Clausen, Calif. (97th Congress)
    • Gene Snyder, Ky. (98th Congress)
    Aviation

    Norman Y. Mineta, Calif.

    Economic Development

    James L. Oberstar, Minn.

    Investigations and Oversight

    Elliot H. Levitas, Ga.

    Public Buildings and Grounds

    John G. Fary, Ill. (97th Congress); Robert A. Young, Mo. (98th Congress)

    Surface Transportation

    Glenn M. Anderson, Calif.

    Water Resources

    Robert A. Roe, N.J.

    Rules

    Rules and order of business of the House; emergency waivers under the Congressional Budget Act of required reporting date for bills and resolutions authorizing new budget authority; recesses and final adjournment of Congress.

    • D 11 - R 5(97th Congress)
    • D 9 - R 4(98th Congress)
    • Richard Bolling, Mo. (1979-83)
    • Claude Pepper, Fla. (1983-85)
    • James H. Quillen, Tenn.
    Legislative Process

    Gillis W. Long, La.

    Rules of the House

    Joe Moakley, Mass.

    Science and Technology

    Scientific and astronautical research and development including resources, personnel, equipment and facilities; Bureau of Standards, standardization of weights and measures and the metric system; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Aeronautics and Space Council; National Science Foundation; outer space including exploration and control; science scholarships; federally owned or operated non-military energy laboratories; civil aviation research and development; energy research, development and demonstration (except nuclear research and development); National Weather Service.

    • R 23 - D 17(97th Congress)
    • R 26 - R 15(98th Congress)
    • Don Fuqua, Fla. (1979-85)
    • Larry Winn Jr., Kan.
    Energy Development and Applications

    Don Fuqua, Fla.

    Energy Research and Production

    Marilyn Lloyd Bouquard, Tenn.

    Investigations and Oversight

    Albert Gore Jr., Tenn.

    Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment

    James H. Scheuer, N.Y.

    Science, Research and Technology

    Doug Walgren, Pa.

    Space Science and Applications

    Ronnie G. Flippo, Ala. (97th Congress); Harold L. Volkmer, Mo. (98th Congress)

    Transportation, Aviation and Materials

    Dan Glickman, Kan.

    Select Aging

    Problems of older Americans including income, housing, health, welfare, employment, education, recreation and participation in family and community life. Studies and reports findings to House, but cannot report legislation.

    • D 31 - R 23(97th Congress)
    • D 38 - R 22(98th Congress)
    • Claude Pepper, Fla. (1976-83)
    • Edward R. Roybal, Calif. (1983-85)
    • Matthew J. Rinaldo, N.J.
    Health and Long-Term Care

    Claude Pepper, Fla.

    Housing and Consumer Interests

    Edward R. Roybal, Calif. (97th Congress); Don Bonker, Wash. (98th Congress)

    Human Services

    Mario Biaggi, N.Y.

    Retirement, Income and Employment

    John L. Burton, Calif. (97th Congress); Edward R. Roybal, Calif. (98th Congress)

    Select Children, Youth and Families

    Problems of children, youth and families including income maintenance, health, nutrition, education, welfare, employment and recreation. Studies and reports findings to House, but cannot report legislation.

    • D 16 - R 9(98th Congress)
    • George Miller, Calif. (1983-85)
    • Dan Marriott, Utah

    Select Intelligence

    Legislative and budgetary authority over the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, intelligence activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other components of the federal intelligence community.

    • D 9 - R 5
    • Edward P. Boland, Mass. (1977-85)
    • J. Kenneth Robinson, Va.
    Legislation

    Romano L. Mazzoli, Ky.

    Oversight and Evaluation

    Charlie Rose, N.C. (97th Congress); Wyche Fowler Jr., Ga. (98th Congress)

    Program and Budget Authorization

    Edward P. Boland, Mass.

    Select Narcotics Abuse and Control

    Problems of narcotics, drug and polydrug abuse and control including opium and its derivatives, other narcotic drugs, psychotropics and other controlled substances; trafficking, manufacturing and distribution; treatment, prevention and rehabilitation; narcotics-related violations of tax laws; international treaties and agreements relating to narcotics and drug abuse; role of organized crime in narcotics and drug abuse; abuse and control in the armed forces and in industry; criminal justice system and narcotic and drug law violations and crimes related to drug abuse. Studies and reports findings to House, but cannot report legislation.

    • D 11 - R 8(97th Congress)
    • D 16 - R 9(98th Congress)
    • Leo C. Zeferetti, N.Y. (1981-83)
    • Charles B. Rangel, N.Y. (1983-85)
    • Tom Railsback, Ill. (97th Congress)
    • Benjamin A. Gilman, N.Y. (98th Congress)

    No standing subcommittees.

    Small Business

    Assistance to and protection of small business including financial aid; participation of small business enterprises in federal procurement and government contracts.

    • D 23 - R 17(97th Congress)
    • D 26 - R 15(98th Congress)
    • Parren J. Mitchell, Md. (1981-85)
    • Joseph M. McDade, Pa.
    Antitrust and Restraint of Trade Activities Affecting Small Business

    Thomas A. Luken, Ohio

    Energy, Environment and Safety Issues Affecting Small Business

    Berkley Bedell, Iowa (97th Congress); Ike Skelton, Mo. (98th Congress)

    Export Opportunities and Special Small Business Problems

    Andy Ireland, Fla. (switched to Republican Party July 5, 1984; stripped of chairmanship)

    General Oversight (97th Congress)

    John L. LaFalce, N.Y.

    General Oversight and the Economy

    Berkley Bedell, Iowa

    SBA and SBIC Authority, Minority Enterprise and General Small Business Problems

    Parren J. Mitchell, Md.

    Tax, Access to Equity Capital and Business Opportunities

    Henry J. Nowak, N.Y.

    Standards of Official Conduct

    Measures relating to the Code of Official Conduct; conduct of House members and employees; Ethics in Government Act.

    • D 6 - R 6
    • Louis Stokes, Ohio (1981-85)
    • Floyd Spence, S.C.

    No standing subcommittees.

    Veterans' Affairs

    Veterans' measures generally; compensation, vocational rehabilitation and education of veterans; armed forces life insurance; pensions; readjustment benefits; veterans' hospitals, medical care and treatment.

    • D 17 - R 14(97th Congress)
    • D 21 - R 12(98th Congress)
    • G. V.
      Sonny
      Montgomery, Miss. (1981-85)
    • John Paul Hammerschmidt, Ark.
    Compensation, Pension and Insurance

    Sam B. Hall Jr., Texas (97th Congress); Douglas Applegate, Ohio (98th Congress)

    Education, Training and Employment

    Bob Edgar, Pa. (97th Congress); Marvin Leath, Texas (98th Congress)

    Hospitals and Health Care

    Ronald M. Mottl, Ohio (97th Congress); Bob Edgar, Pa. (98th Congress)

    Housing and Memorial Affairs

    Marvin Leath, Texas (97th Congress); Richard C. Shelby, Ala. (98th Congress)

    Oversight and Investigations

    G. V.

    Sonny
    Montgomery, Miss.

    Ways and Means

    Revenue measures generally; reciprocal trade agreements; customs, collection districts and ports of entry and delivery; bonded debt of the United States; deposit of public moneys; transportation of dutiable goods; tax exempt foundations and charitable trusts; Social Security.

    • D 23 - R 12
    • Dan Rostenkowski, Ill. (1981-85)
    • Barber B. Conable Jr., N.Y.
    Health

    Andrew Jacobs Jr., Ind.

    Oversight

    Charles B. Rangel, N.Y.

    Public Assistance and Unemployment Compensation

    Fortney H.

    Pete
    Stark, Calif. (97th Congress); Harold E. Ford, Tenn. (98th Congress)

    Select Revenue Measures

    William R. Cotter, Conn. (died Sept. 8, 1981); Fortney H.

    Pete
    Stark, Calif. (through 98th Congress)

    Social Security

    J. J. Pickle, Texas

    Trade

    Sam Gibbons, Fla.

    Political Committees

    Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (campaign support committee for Democratic House candidates)

    Tony Coelho, Calif. (97th Congress)

    Democratic Personnel Committee (selects, appoints and supervises Democratic patronage positions)

    Joe Moakley, Mass.

    Democratic Steering and Policy Committee (scheduling of legislation and Democratic committee assignments)

    Thomas P. O'Neill Jr., Mass.

    Republican Committee on Committees (makes Republican committee assignments)

    Robert H. Michel, Ill.

    Republican Personnel Committee (selects, appoints and supervises Republican patronage positions)

    John T. Myers, Ind.

    Republican Policy Committee (advises on party action and policy)

    Dick Cheney, Wyo.

    National Republican Congressional Committee (campaign support for Republican House candidates)

    Guy Vander Jagt, Mich.

    Joint Committees

    Economic

    Studies and investigates all recommendations included in the president's annual Economic Report to Congress and reports findings and recommendations to the House and Senate.

    • Rep. Henry S. Reuss, D-Wis. (97th Congress)
    • Sen. Roger W. Jepsen, R-Iowa (98th Congress)

    Library

    Management and expansion of the Library of Congress; receipt of gifts for the benefit of the Library; development and maintenance of the Botanic Gardens; placement of statues and other works of art in the Capitol.

    Rep. Augustus F. Hawkins, D-Calif. (97th Congress) Sen. Charles McC. Mathias Jr., R-Md. (98th Congress)

    Printing

    Inefficiencies and waste in public printing, binding and distribution of government publications; federal paper procurement; executive branch department and agency printing plants; purchase of printing and binding equipment; Federal Printing Procurement Program; Depository Library Program; Government Printing Office; congressional publications including the Congressional Record.

    Sen. Charles McC. Mathias Jr., R-Md. (97th Congress)

    Rep. Augustus F. Hawkins, D-Calif. (98th Congress)

    Taxation

    Operation, effects and administration of the federal system of internal revenue taxes; measures and methods for simplification of taxes.

    • Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill.
    Post-Election Sessions

    Congress has held seven post-election sessions since 1945.

    1948

    The 1948 post-election session of the 80th Congress lasted only two hours. Both chambers swore in new members, approved several minor resolutions and received last-minute reports from committees.

    In addition to final floor action, several committees resumed work. The most active was the House Un-American Activities Committee, which continued its investigation of alleged communist espionage in the federal government.

    1950

    After the 1950 elections, President Harry S Truman sent a

    must
    agenda to the lame-duck session of the 81st Congress. The president's list included supplemental defense appropriations, an excess profits tax, aid to Yugoslavia, a three-month extension of federal rent controls and statehood for Hawaii and Alaska. During a marathon session that lasted until only a few hours before its successor took over, the 81st Congress acted on all of the president's legislative items except the statehood bills, which were blocked by a Senate filibuster.

    1954

    Only one chamber of the 83rd Congress convened after the 1954 elections. The Senate returned Nov. 8 to hold what has been called a

    censure session,
    a continuing investigation into the conduct of Sen. Joseph R. Mc-Carthy, R-Wis. (1947-57). By a 67-22 roll call the Senate Dec. 2 voted to
    condemn
    McCarthy for his behavior.

    In other post-election floor action, the Senate passed a series of miscellaneous and administrative resolutions and swore in new members.

    1970

    President Richard M. Nixon criticized the lame-duck Congress as one that had

    seemingly lost the capacity to decide and the will to act.
    Filibusters and intense controversy contributed to inaction on the president's request for trade legislation and welfare reform.

    Congress nevertheless claimed some substantive results during the session, which ended Jan. 2, 1971. Several major appropriations bills were cleared for presidential signature. Congress also approved foreign aid to Cambodia, provided interim funding for the supersonic transport plane (SST) and repealed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution that had been used as a basis for American military involvement in Vietman.

    1974

    In a session that ran from Nov. 18 to Dec. 20, 1974, the 93rd Congress cleared several important bills for presidential signature, including a mass transit bill, a Labor-HEW appropriations bill and a foreign assistance package. A House-Senate conference committee reached agreement on a major strip-mining bill, but President Gerald R. Ford vetoed it.

    Congress approved the nomination of Nelson A. Rockefeller as vice president. It also overrode presidential vetoes of two bills — one broadening the Freedom of Information Act, a second authorizing educational benefits for Korean War and Vietnam-era veterans.

    1980

    The lame-duck session of the 96th Congress was productive, at least until Dec. 5, the original adjournment date set by congressional leaders. By that date a budget had been approved, along with a budget reconciliation measure. Ten regular appropriations bills had cleared, though one subsequently was vetoed. Congress had approved two major environmental measures — an Alaskan lands bill and toxic waste

    superfund
    legislation — as well as a three-year extension of general revenue sharing.

    After Dec. 5, however, the legislative pace slowed noticeably. Action on a continuing appropriations resolution for those departments and agencies whose regular funding had not been cleared was delayed, first by a filibuster on a fair housing bill and later by more than 100

    Christmas tree
    amendments, including a $10,000-a-year pay raise for members. After the conference report failed in the Senate and twice was rewritten, the bill was shorn of virtually all its
    ornaments
    and finally cleared by both chambers on Dec. 16.

    1982

    Despite the reluctance of congressional leaders, President Reagan urged the convening of a post-election session at the end of the 97th Congress, principally to pass remaining appropriations bills.

    Rising unemployment — and Democratic election gains in the House — made job creation efforts the focus of the lame-duck Congress, however. Overriding the objections of Republican conservatives, Congress passed Reagan-backed legislation raising the federal gasoline tax from 4 cents to 9 cents a gallon to pay for highway repairs and mass transit. Supporters said the legislation would help alleviate unemployment by creating 300,000 jobs.

    Congress eventually cleared four additional appropriations bills, packaging the remaining six in a continuing appropriations resolution that also included a pay raise for House members. Conferees dropped funding for emergency jobs programs to avert a threatened veto of the resolution.

    The lame-duck session also was highlighted by Congress' refusal to fund production and procurement of the first five MX intercontinental missiles, the first time in recent history that either house of Congress had denied a president's request to fund production of a strategic weapon.

    Senate Cloture Votes, 1917-84

    The Senate's ultimate check on the filibuster is the provision for cloture, or limitation on debate, contained in Rule 22 of its Standing Rules. The original Rule 22 was adopted in 1917 following a furor over the

    talking to death
    of a proposal by President Woodrow Wilson for arming American merchant ships before the United States entered World War I. The new cloture rule required the votes of two-thirds of all the senators present and voting to invoke cloture. In 1949, during a parliamentary skirmish preceding scheduled consideration of a Fair Employment Practices Commission bill, the requirement was raised to two-thirds of the entire Senate membership.

    A revision of the rule in 1959 provided for limitation of debate by a vote of two-thirds of the senators present and voting, two days after a cloture petition was submitted by 16 senators. If cloture was adopted by the Senate, further debate was limited to one hour for each senator on the bill itself and on all amendments affecting it. No new amendments could be offered except by unanimous consent. Amendments that were not germane to the pending business and dilatory motions were out of order. The rule applied both to regular legislation and to motions to change the Standing Rules.

    Rule 22 was revised significantly in 1975 by lowering the vote needed for cloture to three-fifths of the Senate membership (60, if there were no vacancies). That revision applied to any matter except proposed rules changes, for which the old requirement of a two-thirds majority of senators present and voting still applied.

    In a further revision of the rule, the Senate in 1979 limited post-cloture delaying tactics by providing that once cloture was invoked, a final vote had to be taken after no more than 100 hours of debate. All time spent on quorum calls, roll-call votes and other parliamentary procedures was to be included in the 100-hour limit.

    Following is a list of the 206 cloture votes taken between 1917, when Senate Rule 22 was adopted, and the end of 1984; 70 of the votes (in bold type) were successful.

    Text of Court Opinions on Legislative Vetoes

    In a landmark decision affecting the relative powers of the legislative and executive branches of government, the Supreme Court June 23, 1983, in a 7-2 ruling, declared the so-called

    legislative veto
    unconstitutional. The decision overturned a device that had been included in more than 200 laws beginning with Herbert Hoover's administration in 1932.

    Historians and other experts on constitutional issues called the decision the most important constitutional ruling by the Court since its 1974 decision ordering President Richard M. Nixon to surrender subpoenaed White House tapes. Moreover, in his dissent, Justice Byron R. White wrote that the ruling

    strikes down in one fell swoop provisions in more laws enacted by Congress than the Court has cumulatively invalidated in its history.

    The broad ruling came in an obscure immigration case, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha. The case had its beginnings in 1974 when a Kenyan who had overstayed his student visa won a decision from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) suspending his deportation. The House of Representatives, exercising a legislative veto provision in the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act, vetoed that suspension. The student, Jagdish Rai Chadha, filed suit challenging the power of the House to take that action. Holding that the House had exceeded it constitutional powers, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and the Supreme Court, in its far reaching June 23 decision, upheld the ruling of the lower court.

    The following are excerpts from the Supreme Court's majority opinion striking down the legislative veto and from the dissenting opinion by Justice White. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger on behalf of himself and Justices Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens.

    Appendix

    Congressional Reapportionment

    Redistricting for the 1980s

    Republicans were supposed to do well in the elections of 1982. A popular Republican president sat in the White House, the nation seemed to be taking a rightward political turn and the reapportionment mandated by the 1980 Census shifted a large number of U.S. House seats from the Democratic North to the more conservative Sun Belt.

    It did not work out that way. With a substantial edge in the nation's state legislatures, particularly in those states that gained seats, Democrats were able to draw maps that helped them and hurt their opponents. After the 1982 elections, Democrats had won 26 additional seats in the House, including 10 of the seats created by redistricting.

    But what might have a more lasting impact on the nation and its representative government was the new use to which the Supreme Court's edict of one-person, one-vote was put in the redistricting that followed the 1980 Census. In California, New Jersey and points between, Republicans and Democrats justified highly partisan remaps by demonstrating respect for the 1964 Supreme Court mandate that populations of congressional districts within states must be made as equal as possible. Other interests at stake in redistricting, such as the preservation of community boundaries and the grouping of constituencies with similar concerns, were brushed aside.

    The Supreme Court itself seemed to approve this kind of partisan mapmaking. In June 1983 it overturned New Jersey's congressional district map on the ground that the population variations among the districts — the greatest of which was 0.69 percent — were too large and therefore unconstitutional. In its opinion the court ignored the fact that the map divided townships and cut up counties all across the state solely to give the Democrats a political advantage.

    The Supreme Court had never addressed the constitutionality of districts that, while meeting the equal population test, nonetheless ensured the supremacy of the political party drawing the boundaries. But in a move that could affect future redistricting plans nationwide, the high court agreed in March 1985 to consider the constitutionality of

    gerrymandering,
    the time-honored practice of drawing political boundary lines to the advantage of a particular party. The case, to be argued in the court's 1985-86 term, involved a 1981 Indiana state redistricting plan that a three-judge federal court panel found unconstitutional. The lower court said Indiana Republicans had rigged the state's legislative districts to their own advantage, depriving Democrats of the equal protection of the law. Democratic candidates for the state House received 51.9 percent of the votes, and they ended up with only 43 percent of the seats. (Reapportionment background, p. 999)

    1980 Reapportionment

    The reapportionment and redistricting process began on New Year's Eve 1980 when the Census Bureau sent state population totals to President Jimmy Carter, along with a calculation of the size of each state's congressional delegation, beginning with the 1982 elections. In February 1981 the bureau began to release more detailed data breaking down the nation's population, in some cases to the city-block level. The bureau's maps took up 31,715 sheets. Texas alone was spread across more than 2,000 census map sheets.

    The census figures themselves were not immune to challenge. In 1980 Detroit officials claimed that minorities in the city had been undercounted and argued that this would cost the city federal funds and congressional representation. (Many federal welfare programs use census figures to determine how much assistance each locality is entitled to receive.) A Michigan district court ordered the bureau to revise its national population figures upward to include blacks, Hispanics and others allegedly overlooked in the 1980 Census.

    But in June 1981 the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, stating that the claim was

    based on a state of affairs not yet in existence and ... so hypothetical in nature that it does not present a controversy capable of judicial resolution.
    The arguments used in the 1981 district court appeal dealt largely with the 1970 Census, in which the bureau's own research indicated census takers missed 2.5 percent of the population. More importantly, the bureau estimated it missed 7.7 percent of the nation's blacks, compared with only 1.9 percent of its whites. But the 1980 Census of these minority population counts unexpectedly turned out to be slightly higher than population estimates derived from demographic records, suggesting an apparent overcount rather than an undercount.

    Nonetheless, the 1980 Census count confirmed that there was a dramatic decline in America's big-city population during the 1970s. Most central-city districts suffered severe shrinkage, and older suburban districts experienced slow growth, or none at all.

    Meanwhile, there was substantial movement of the population from North to South and East to West. As a result, 17 House seats shifted from states in the Northeast and Midwest, the so-called Snow Belt, to those in the Sun Belt states of the South and West. Florida was the biggest gainer, receiving four new seats. Texas picked up three additional seats; California two; and Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah and Washington one each.

    New York, which lost almost 700,000 people in the 1970s, according to the census, was hit with a five-seat loss, the biggest one-time drop-off in House representation since New York and Virginia lost six seats each in 1840. Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania each lost two seats, while Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and South Dakota lost one each.

    Drawing the Lines

    Only 44 states go through the redistricting process. The other six — Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming — each have only one representative elected at large.

    Anticipating the apparent gains the population shifts would give the GOP — and anxious to capitalize on them — the Republicans undertook a nationwide campaign to win control of more state legislatures in preparation for the critical 1981 redistricting process. They had only scattered success in the November 1980 elections. Democrats still controlled 28 of the nation's state legislatures, while the Republicans held only 15. (The remaining legislatures were divided, except for Nebraska, which has a unicameral, nonpartisan Legislature.)

    Despite this nationwide disadvantage, Republicans in individual states were able to hold their own. In Florida, for example, the Democratic Legislature drew only one new safe Democratic seat; the other three were expected to be competitive. In November 1982 the Democrats won two; the Republicans won the other two.

    Partisan Maps

    In several states where one or the other party was firmly in control, the redistricting process was overtly partisan. In Indiana the district map passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature April 30, 1981, was a textbook case of gerrymandering. Republicans drew the plan with the help of Market Opinion Research Corp.'s sophisticated computer system at a cost of more than $250,000. Its lines wove freely in and out of counties, concentrating Democratic voting strength into the districts of just three of the state's six Democratic incumbents and damaging the re-election prospects of the other three.

    The state's Republicans made no apologies for their plan. As early as December 1980 they had made it clear they would take full advantage of their control of state government to secure a majority in Indiana's U.S. House delegation in the November 1982 elections. As it turned out, the lineup after the election was 5-5.

    In California, Republicans sought to nullify redistricting plans drawn by the Democratic-controlled Legislature. California's plan, crafted by Democratic Rep. Phillip Burton, was designed to bring five more Democrats into the state's House delegation, which increased from 43 to 45 after the 1980 Census. Democrats in California held a 22-21 advantage in the 97th Congress. When Rep. William M. Thomas, R-Calif., called Burton's plan

    an abomination,
    Burton countered that the Democrats had done only what Republicans had done in Indiana and were attempting to do in Washington and Colorado. California Republicans filed sufficient signatures to hold a referendum on the redistricting plan, and in June 1982 the state's voters rejected the map. However, six months earlier, the state Supreme Court had ruled that the Burton plan would stay in effect for the 1982 elections regardless of the outcome of the referendum. A modified plan was drawn after the 1982 elections. Voters in November 1984 rejected an initiative to transfer redistricting authority from the Legislature and governor to a commission of retired appellate court judges.

    Both the Indiana and California cases remained in the courts in 1985. In December 1984 a three-judge panel overruled the Indiana plan and ordered the state to come up with a new plan for the 1986 elections. The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed early in 1985 to hear the case. At the same time the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge brought by California Republicans to that state's redistricting plan, effectively returning the case for further state proceedings.

    Court Plans

    Sometimes, states cannot come up with a plan at all. This usually happens in states where control of the legislature is split between the parties, or where the governor's party does not control the state legislature. Philosophical or personal differences sometimes can interfere, even within parties. When deadlocks occur, the task of redistricting falls to the federal courts.

    In Illinois, which lost two seats, no compromise could be reached between competing Democratic and Republican redistricting plans in 1981, and both parties filed suit in federal district court in Chicago. A three-judge panel, which included two judges with Republican backgrounds, heard the case and decided in favor of the Democratic plan. The Illinois Republicans' appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was rejected.

    A sharp drop in St. Louis' population cost Missouri one congressional seat. For most of 1981 it appeared that the problem might have to be solved by placing Democratic incumbents William L. Clay, a veteran black legislator, and Richard A. Gephardt, a

    rising star,
    in the same district. The Democratic-dominated Legislature rejected this plan and failed to come up with another, leaving the decision up to a federal court panel. Much to the relief of the Democrats, the judicial plan penalized the Republicans, eliminating GOP Rep. Wendell Bailey's 8th District and forcing incumbent Republican Bill Emerson into a heavily Democratic district.

    After Democratic Gov. Richard D. Lamm vetoed three redistricting maps passed by the Republican majority in Colorado's Legislature, a federal judge ordered Lamm and the legislative redistricting committee to negotiate. Talks in November 1981 failed to produce a compromise plan, so a federal court in Denver was given responsibility for drawing the district lines. The state gained one House seat, which Republicans easily won.

    Minorities and Maps

    Several states that managed to pass redistricting plans still had to clear another hurdle. Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Justice Department had to approve redistricting plans in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, and parts of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina and Oklahoma. The department could reject any redistricting plan in these states that diluted the voting strength or in any other way discriminated against blacks and other minorities.

    This happened in several states in 1981. The North Carolina redistricting plan included a district that protected incumbent Democrat L. H. Fountain by curving around the heavily black community in Durham and the liberal university town of Chapel Hill. The Justice Department, in rejecting the plan, ruled on Dec. 8 that the

    strangely irregular shape
    of
    Fountain's Fishhook
    raised questions about the racial motivations of the state legislators. The legislators drew a second map, which put Durham County in Fountain's district. That map was approved, Fountain decided to retire, and a black came close to winning the Democratic nomination, winning 46 percent of the vote in a runoff.

    In Georgia the Justice Department ruled that the Legislature improperly divided a

    cohesive black community
    in the Atlanta area between the 4th and 5th districts, reducing the chances that either would elect a black candidate to the House. Legislators then drew a plan that passed Justice Department review, but the elections for those two seats were postponed nearly a month to Nov. 30, 1982.

    In Mississippi, Justice Department rejection of the legislative map resulted in creation of the state's first black-majority district since 1966. But the district was only 54 percent black, and civil rights leaders continued to pursue the matter in federal court. A court redistricting plan was completed in January 1984.

    In Louisiana, blacks demanded creation of a black-majority district in New Orleans, a concept endorsed by both the state House and state Senate. Republican Gov. David C. Treen opposed the black-majority district because the resulting boundaries would have endangered the seat of GOP U.S. Rep. Bob Livingston, who represented the New Orleans suburbs. The governor prevailed upon legislators to approve a remap protecting incumbents, and Justice approved that map. Blacks then went to court, which threw out the New Orleans district lines Sept. 24, 1983. The Legislature approved a court-ordered plan later in the year.

    Hispanics were the beneficiaries of Justice Department review in Texas. In January 1982 the department ruled that the map improperly diluted the Hispanic vote in two south Texas districts by making one of them 80 percent Hispanic and the other 52 percent Hispanic. A federal court subsequently drew a map redistributing the voters in those two districts, and Hispanics won both seats in 1982.

    Bipartisan Commission Plans

    A number of citizens' groups have argued that partisan redistricting should be ended. One method, promoted by Common Cause, would establish a commission composed of an equal number of appointees from each party, which would be expected to choose a non-partisan chairman. The commission then would have full authority to redistrict the state according to the latest census. Only two states — Hawaii and Montana — redistricted by using such a system. Both had only two districts. However, other states used a variant of the commission system and some resorted to it after their legislatures were unable to reach agreement on redistricting maps.

    One hybrid form of the Common Cause plan was adopted by Iowa in 1980. In spite of their total control of state government, GOP legislators agreed to let the nonpartisan Legislative Service Bureau draw a plan, subject to the Legislature's approval. The bureau was instructed to follow objective criteria — population equality, compactness, contiguity, preservation of local boundaries — and to ignore partisan concerns or the wishes of incumbents.

    The bureau's

    non-partisan
    plan, unveiled April 22, was a statistical beauty. The six districts were neat and compact, and they all followed county boundaries. None of the six varied in population from the state's ideal by more than 500 people.

    But, to their surprise, two of the Republican incumbents found themselves living in the same district. The state Senate killed that plan. On its second try the bureau gave the two Republicans different districts but added a significant number of Democrats to one of them. Again the state Senate killed the plan. The third commission plan finally was approved even though the Republican legislators were not totally happy with it.

    1982 Impact of Redistricting

    After all the votes were counted in November 1982, the anticipated Republican windfall had turned into a rout. Republicans lost 26 seats in the House; their numbers fell from 192 to 166.

    The Sun Belt proved the Republicans' greatest disappointment. The GOP had hoped to take a dozen of the seats shifted to the Sun Belt and far West states. But in the end Democrats won 10 of the 17.

    Democrats also managed to sidestep the brunt of district losses in the Northeast and Midwest. In all, in the 10 Northern states that lost districts, Republicans came out 18 seats short of where they stood before the election.

    In most of the 11 states that gained seats, the GOP seemed the natural beneficiary of demographic changes. All 11 were carried by Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential race and eight went for Republican Gerald R. Ford in 1976.

    Nonetheless, legislatures or courts in six of the states drew new districts favoring or leaning to Democrats. And, contrary to prediction, not one of these new constituencies nominated a conservative Democrat. As a result, liberals, including four Hispanics, made up a large portion of the Sun Belt's House contingent in the 98th Congress.

    Population and Politics

    The most important story about the 1980 reapportionment and redistricting process might be how the

    one-person, one-vote
    principle came into increasing use as a means to further partisan gerrymandering.

    When the Supreme Court handed down its Wesberry v. Sanders ruling in 1964, congressional districts in many states were malapportioned to favor rural interests over urban dwellers or to make nearly impossible the election of a black candidate to the House. In Georgia one district had more than three times as many people as another, and the Legislature had not redrawn district lines in more than 30 years.

    Responding to court pressure, 39 states realigned district boundaries between 1964 and 1970. But because legislators were working from outdated 1960 Census figures, significant population inequalities among districts persisted. Meaningful implementation of the one-man, one-vote standard had to wait until publication of the 1970 Census figures. In 1972 voters elected representatives to the House from districts of nearly equal population for the first time in history.

    At that time there still was lingering suspicion in many legislatures of the relatively new notion that one vote should have the same weight as another. Making district populations equal was seen by many legislators as a chore.

    By 1982 that had changed. Legislators who were uncomfortable with one-man, one-vote rule were now eager to use it for partisan advantage. More than ever before, the dominant theme of redistricting was partisanship.

    Reapportionment History

    Reapportionment, the redistribution of the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the states to reflect shifts in population, and redistricting, the redrawing of congressional district lines within each state, are among the most important processes in the U.S. political system. They help determine whether the House will be dominated by Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, and whether racial or ethnic minorities receive fair representation.

    Reapportionment and redistricting occur every 10 years on the basis of the decennial population census. States whose populations grew quickly over the previous 10 years gain congressional seats, while those that lost population or grew much more slowly than the national average lose seats. The number of House delegates for the rest of the states remains the same.

    The states that gain or lose seats must make extensive changes in their congressional maps. Even those states with stable delegations must make modifications that account for population shifts within their boundaries in accordance with Supreme Court

    one-person, one-vote
    rulings.

    Despite their importance to the political process, reapportionment and redistricting draw little interest from the general public. This is ironic, wrote Andrea J. Wollock in the January 1982 issue of State Legislatures, because reapportionment is not only a

    supremely important
    political issue but also
    a source of unsurpassed political drama and intrigue.
    Partisan interests are enhanced, personal ambitions of powerful politicians are furthered. Incumbents are protected or politically crippled. Tempers flare and fists fly, as they did during a redistricting debate in the Illinois Legislature in 1981.

    Among the many unique features to emerge in the remarkable nation-creating endeavor of 1787 was a national legislative body whose membership was to be elected by the people and apportioned on the basis of population. In keeping with the nature of the Constitution, however, only fundamental rules and regulations were provided. How to interpret and implement the instructions contained in the document were left to future generations.

    Within this flexible framework, many questions soon arose concerning the House of Representatives. How large was it to be? What mathematical formula was to be used in calculating the distribution of seats among the various states? Were the representatives to be elected at large or by districts? If by districts, what standards should be used in fixing their boundaries? The Congress and the courts have been wrestling with these questions for almost 200 years.

    Until the mid-20th century, such questions generally remained in the hands of the legislators. But with growing concentration of the population in urban areas, variations in population among congressional districts became more pronounced. Efforts to persuade Congress to redress the grievance of heavily populated but under-represented areas proved unsuccessful. Rural legislators were so intent on preventing power from slipping out of their control that they managed to block reapportionment of the House following the census of 1920.

    Not long afterward, litigants tried to persuade the Supreme Court to order the states to revise congressional district boundaries in line with population shifts. After initial failure, a breakthrough occurred in 1964 in the case of Wesberry v. Sanders. The court declared that the Constitution required that

    as nearly as practicable, one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's.

    In the years that followed the court repeatedly reaffirmed its

    one-person, one-vote
    requirement. In Karcher v. Daggett in 1983 the court held that no deviation from that principle was permissible unless the state proved that the population variation was necessary to achieve some legitimate goal. This ruling immediately drew fire from those who thought it would allow states to ignore several other traditional factors involved in redistricting — such as compactness of the district or integrity of county and city lines — in their quest for districts of precisely equal populations.

    Early History

    Modern legislative bodies are descended from the councils of feudal lords and gentry that medieval kings summoned for the purpose of raising revenues and armies. These councils did not represent a king's subjects in any modern sense. They represented certain groups of subjects, such as the nobility, the clergy, the landed gentry and town merchants. Representation was by interest groups and bore no relation to equal representation for equal numbers of people. In England, the king's council became Parliament, with the higher nobility and clergy making up the House of Lords and representatives of the gentry and merchants making up the House of Commons.

    Beginning as little more than administrative and advisory arms of the throne, royal councils in time developed into lawmaking bodies and acquired powers that eventually eclipsed those of the monarchs they served. The power struggle in England climaxed during the Cromwellian period when the king was executed and a

    benevolent
    dictatorship was set up under Oliver Cromwell. By 1800 Parliament was clearly the superior branch of government.

    During the 18th and early 19th centuries, as the power of Parliament grew, the English became increasingly concerned about the

    representativeness
    of their system of apportionment. Newly developing industrial cities had no more representation in the House of Commons than small, almost-deserted country towns. Small constituencies were bought and sold. Men from these empty
    rotten boroughs
    often were sent to Parliament representing a single
    patron
    landowner or clique of wealthy men. It was not until the Reform Act of 1832 that Parliament curbed such excesses and turned toward a representative system based on population.

    The growth of the powers of Parliament as well as the development of English ideas of representation during the 17th and 18th centuries had a profound effect on the colonists in America. Representative assemblies were unifying forces behind the breakaway of the colonies from England and the establishment of the newly independent country.

    Colonists in America, generally modeling their legislatures after England's, used both population and land units as bases for apportionment. Patterns of early representation varied.

    Nowhere did representation bear any uniform relation to the number of electors. Here and there the factor of size had been crudely recognized,
    Robert Luce pointed out in his book Legislative Principles.

    In New England, the town usually was the basis for representation. In the Middle Atlantic region, the county frequently was used. Virginia used the county with additional representation for specified cities. In many areas, towns and counties were fairly equal in population. Thus territorial representation afforded roughly equal representation for equal numbers of people. Delaware's three counties, for example, were of almost equal population and had the same representation in the Legislature. But in Virginia the disparity was enormous (from 951 people in one county to 22,015 in another). Thomas Jefferson criticized the state's constitution on the ground that

    among those who share the representation, the shares are unequal.

    The Continental Congress, with representation from every colony, proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 that governments derive

    their just powers from the consent of the governed
    and that
    the right of representation in the legislature
    is an
    inestimable right
    of the people. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 included representatives from all the states. However, in neither of these bodies were the state delegations or voting powers proportional to population.

    Intentions of Founding Fathers

    Andrew Hacker, in his book Congressional Districting, said that to understand what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they drew up the section concerning the House of Representatives, it was necessary to study closely several sources: the Constitution itself, the recorded discussions and debates at the Constitutional Convention, The Federalist Papers (essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison in defense of the Constitution) and the deliberations of the states' ratifying conventions.

    The Constitution declares only that each state is to be allotted a certain number of representatives. It does not state specifically that congressional districts must be equal or nearly equal in population. Nor does it require specifically that a state create districts at all. However, it seems clear that the first clause of Article I, Section 2, providing that House members should be chosen

    by the people of the several states,
    indicated that the House of Representatives, in contrast to the Senate, was to represent people rather than states.
    It follows,
    Hacker wrote,
    that if the states are to have equal representation in the upper chamber, then individuals are to be equally represented in the lower body.

    The third clause of Article I, Section 2 provided that congressional apportionment among the states must be according to population. But Hacker argued that

    there is little point in giving the states congressmen `according to their respective numbers' if the states do not redistribute the members of their delegations on the same principle. For representatives are not the property of the states, as are the senators, but rather belong to the people who happen to reside within the boundaries of those states. Thus, each citizen has a claim to be regarded as a political unit equal in value to his neighbors.
    In this and similar ways, constitutional scholars have argued the case for single-member congressional districts deduced from the wording of the Constitution itself.

    The issue of unequal representation arose only once during debate in the Constitutional Convention. The occasion was Madison's defense of Article I, Section 4 of the proposed Constitution, giving Congress the power to override state regulations on

    the times ... and manner
    of holding elections for members of Congress. Madison's argument related to the fact that many state legislatures of the time were badly malapportioned:
    The inequality of the representation in the legislatures of particular states would produce a like inequality in their representation in the national legislature, as it was presumable that the counties having the power in the former case would secure it to themselves in the latter.

    The implication was that states would create congressional districts and that unequal districting was undesirable and should be prevented.

    Madison made this interpretation even more clear in his contributions to The Federalist Papers. Arguing in favor of the relatively small size of the projected House of Representatives, he wrote in No. 56:

    Divide the largest state into ten or twelve districts and it will be found that there will be no peculiar local interests ... which will not be within the knowledge of the Representative of the district.

    In the same paper, Madison said:

    The Representatives of each state will not only bring with them a considerable knowledge of its laws, and a local knowledge of their respective districts, but will probably in all cases have been members, and may even at the very time be members, of the state legislature, where all the local information and interests of the state are assembled, and from whence they may easily be conveyed by a very few hands into the legislature of the United States.
    And, finally, in Federalist Paper No. 57 Madison stated that
    ... each Representative of the United States will be elected by five or six thousand citizens.
    In making these arguments, Madison seems to have assumed that all or most representatives would be elected by districts rather than at large.

    In the states' ratifying conventions, the grant to Congress by Article I, Section 4 of ultimate jurisdiction over the

    times, places and manner of holding elections
    (except the places of choosing senators) held the attention of many delegates. There were differences over the merits of this section, but no justification of unequal districts was prominently used to attack the grant of power. Further evidence that individual districts were the intention of the Founding Fathers was given in the New York ratifying convention, when Alexander Hamilton said:
    The natural and proper mode of holding elections will be to divide the state into districts in proportion to the number to be elected. This state will consequently be divided at first into six.

    From his study of the sources relating to the question of congressional districting, Hacker concluded:

    There is, then, a good deal of evidence that those who framed and ratified the Constitution intended that the House of Representatives have as its constituency a public in which the votes of all citizens were of equal weight. . . . The House of Representatives was designed to be a popular chamber, giving the same electoral power to all who had the vote. And the concern of Madison . . . that districts be equal in size was an institutional step in the direction of securing this democratic principle.

    Reapportionment of Seats

    Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution laid down the basic rules for apportionment and reapportionment of seats in the House of Representatives:

    Representatives . . . shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those Bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of Ten years, in such manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative. . . .

    The Constitution made the first apportionment, which was to remain in effect until the first census was taken. No reliable figures on the population were available at the time. The 13 states were allocated the following numbers of representatives: New Hampshire, three; Massachusetts, eight; Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, one; Connecticut, five; New York, six; New Jersey, four; Pennsylvania, eight; Delaware, one; Maryland, six; Virginia, 10; North Carolina, five; South Carolnia, five; and Georgia, three. The apportionment of seats — 65 in all — thus mandated by the Constitution remained in effect during the 1st and 2nd Congresses (1789-93).

    Apparently realizing that apportionment of the House was likely to become a major bone of contention, the 1st Congress submitted to the states a proposed constitutional amendment containing a formula to be used in future reapportionments. The amendment, which was not ratified, provided that following the taking of a decennial census there would be one representative for every 30,000 persons until the House membership reached 100,

    after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress that there shall be not less than 100 representatives, nor less than one representative for every 40,000 persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to 200, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than 200 representatives, nor more than one representative for every 50,000 persons.

    First Apportionment by Congress

    The states' refusal to ratify the reapportionment-formula amendment forced Congress to enact apportionment legislation after the first census was taken in 1790. The first apportionment bill was sent to the president on March 23, 1792. Washington sent the bill back to Congress without his signature — the first presidential veto.

    The bill had incorporated the constitutional minimum of 30,000 as the size of each district. But the population of each state was not a simple multiple of 30,000. Significant fractions were left over when the number of people in each state was divided by 30,000. Thus, for example, Vermont was found to be entitled to 2.851 representatives, New Jersey to 5.98 and Virginia to 21.018. Therefore, a formula had to be found that would deal in the fairest possible manner with unavoidable variations from exact equality.

    Accordingly, Congress proposed in the first apportionment bill to distribute the members on a fixed ratio of one representative for each 30,000 inhabitants, and give an additional member to each state with a fraction exceeding one-half. Washington's veto was based on the belief that eight states would receive more than one representative for each 30,000 persons under this formula.

    A motion to override the veto was unsuccessful. A new bill meeting the president's objections was introduced April 9, 1792, and approved April 14. The act provided for a ratio of one member for every 33,000 inhabitants and fixed the exact number of representatives to which each state was entitled. The total membership of the House was to be 105. In dividing the population of the various states by 33,000, all remainders were to be disregarded. This was known as the method of rejected fractions; it was devised by Thomas Jefferson.

    Reapportionment by Jefferson's Method

    Jefferson's method of reapportionment resulted in great inequalities among districts. A Vermont district would contain 42,766 inhabitants, a New Jersey district 35,911 and a Virginia district only 33,187. Emphasis was placed on what was considered the ideal size of a congressional district rather than on what the size of the House ought to be. This method was in use until 1840.

    The reapportionment act based on the census of 1800 continued the ratio of 33,000, which provided a House of 141 members. Debate on the third apportionment bill began in the House on Nov. 22, 1811, and the bill was sent to the president on Dec. 21. The ratio was fixed at 35,000, yielding a House of 181 members. Following the 1820 census, Congress approved an apportionment bill providing a ratio of 40,000 inhabitants per district. The sum of the quotas for the various states produced a House of 213 members.

    The act of May 22, 1832, fixed the ratio at 47,700, resulting in a House of 240 members. Dissatisfaction with the method in use continued, and Daniel Webster launched a vigorous attack against it. He urged adoption of a method that would assign an additional representative to each state with a large fraction. His approach to the reapportionment process was outlined in a report he submitted to Congress in 1832:

    The Constitution, therefore, must be understood not as enjoining an absolute relative equality — because that would be demanding an impossibility — but as requiring of Congress to make the apportionment of Representatives among the several states according to their respective numbers, as near as may be. That which cannot be done perfectly must be done in a manner as near perfection as can be. . . . In such a case approximation becomes a rule.

    Following the 1840 census, Congress adopted a reapportionment method similar to that advocated by Webster. The method fixed a ratio of one representative for every 70,680 persons. This figure was reached by deciding on a fixed size of the House in advance (223), dividing that figure into the total national

    representative population
    and using the result (70,680) as the fixed ratio. The population of each state was then divided by this ratio to find the number of its representatives and the states were assigned an additional representative for each fraction over one-half. Under this method the actual size of the House dropped.

    The modified reapportionment formula adopted by Congress in 1842 was found to be more satisfactory than the previous method, but another change was made following the census of 1850. The new system was proposed by Rep. Samuel F. Vinton of Ohio and became known as the Vinton method.

    Vinton Apportionment Formula

    Under the Vinton formula, Congress first fixed the size of the House and then distributed the seats. The total qualifying population of the country was divided by the desired number of representatives, and the resulting number became the ratio of population to each representative. The population of each state was divided by this ratio and each state received the number of representatives equal to the whole number in the quotient for that state. Then, to reach the required size of the House, additional representatives were assigned based on the remaining fractions, beginning with the state having the largest fraction. This procedure differed from the 1842 method only in the last step, which assigned one representative to every state having a fraction larger than one-half.

    Proponents of the Vinton method pointed out that it had the distinct advantage of making it possible to fix the size of the House in advance and to take into account at least the largest fractions. The concern of the House turned from the ideal size of a congressional district to the ideal size of the House itself.

    Under the 1842 reapportionment formula, the exact size of the House could not be fixed in advance. If every state with a fraction over one-half were given an additional representative, the House might wind up with a few more or a few less than the desired number. However, under the Vinton method, only states with the largest fractions were given additional House members and only up to the desired total size of the House.

    Reapportionments by Vinton Method

    Six reapportionments were carried out under the Vinton method. The 1850 census Act contained three provisions not included in any previous law. First, it required reapportionment not only after the census of 1850 but also after all the subsequent censuses; second, it purported to fix the size of the House permanently at 233 members; and third, it provided in advance for an automatic apportionment by the secretary of the interior under the method prescribed in the act.

    Following the census of 1860, according to the provisions of the act passed a decade before, an automatic reapportionment was to be carried out by the Interior Department. However, because the size of the House was to remain at the 1850 level, some states faced loss of representation and others would gain less than they expected. To avert that possibility, an act was approved March 4, 1862, increasing the size of the House to 241 and giving an extra representative to eight states — Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.

    Apportionment legislation following the 1870 census contained several new provisions. The act of Feb. 2, 1872, fixed the size of the House at 283, with the proviso that the number should be increased if new states were admitted. A supplemental act of May 30, 1872, assigned one additional representative each to Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Vermont.

    Another section of the 1872 act provided that no state should thereafter be admitted

    without having the necessary population to entitle it to at least one representative fixed by this bill.
    That provision was found to be unenforceable because no Congress can bind a succeeding Congress. Moreover, no ratio was fixed by the act, although the basis on which the representatives were assigned was 131,425. In 1890 Idaho was admitted with a population of 84,385 and Wyoming with a population of 60,705.

    With the Reconstruction era at its height in the South, the reapportionment legislation of 1872 reflected the desire of Congress to enforce Section 2 of the new 14th Amendment. That section attempted to protect the right of blacks to vote by providing for reduction of representation in the House of a state that interfered with the exercise of that right. The number of representatives of such a state was to be reduced in proportion to the number of inhabitants of voting age whose right to go to the polls was denied or abridged. The reapportionment bill repeated the language of the section, but it never was put into effect because of the difficulty of determining the exact number of persons whose right to vote was being abridged.

    The reapportionment act of Feb. 25, 1882, provided for a House of 325 members, with additional members for any new states admitted to the Union. No new apportionment provisions were added. The acts of Feb. 7, 1891, and Jan. 16, 1901, were routine as far as apportionment was concerned. The 1891 measure provided for a House of 356 members, and the 1901 statute increased the number to 386.

    Despite the apparent advantages of the Vinton method, certain difficulties revealed themselves as the formula was applied. Zechariah Chafee Jr. of the Harvard Law School summarized these problems in an article in the Harvard Law Review in 1929. The method, he pointed out, suffered from what he called the

    Alabama paradox.
    Under that aberration, an increase in the total size of the House might be accompanied by an actual loss of a seat by some states, even though there had been no corresponding change in population. This phenomenon first appeared in tables prepared for Congress in 1881, which gave Alabama eight members in a House of 299 but only seven members in a House of 300. It could even happen that the state which lost a seat was the one state that had expanded in population, while all the others had fewer persons.

    Chafee concluded from his study of the Vinton method:

    Thus, it is unsatisfactory to fix the ratio of population per Representative before seats are distributed. Either the size of the House comes out haphazard, or, if this be determined in advance, the absurdities of the `Alabama paradox' vitiate the apportionment. Under present conditions, it is essential to determine the size of the House in advance; the problem thereafter is to distribute the required number of seats among the several states as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective populations so that no state is treated unfairly in comparison with any other state.

    Maximum Membership of House

    On Aug. 8, 1911, the membership of the House was fixed at 433. Provision was made in the reapportionment act of that date for the addition of one representative each from Arizona and New Mexico, which were expected to become states in the near future. Thus, the size of the House reached 435, where it has remained up to the present with the exception of a brief period (1959-63) when the admission of Alaska and Hawaii raised the total temporarily to 437.

    Limiting the size of the House amounted to recognition that the body soon would expand to unmanageable proportions if Congress continued the practice of adding new seats every 10 years, to match population gains without depriving any state of its existing representation. Agreement on a fixed number made the task of reapportionment all the more difficult when the population not only increased but became much more mobile. Population shifts brought Congress up hard against the politically painful necessity of taking seats away from slow-growing states to give the fast-growing states adequate representation.

    A new methematical calculation was adopted for the reapportionment following the 1910 census. Devised by W. F. Willcox of Cornell University, the new system established a priority list that assigned seats progressively, beginning with the first seat above the constitutional minimum of at least one seat for each state. When there were 48 states, this method was used to assign the 49th member, the 50th member, and so on, until the agreed-upon size of the House was reached. The method was called major fractions and was used after the censuses of 1910, 1930 and 1940. There was no reapportionment after the 1920 census.

    1920s Struggle

    The results of the 14th decennial census were announced Dec. 17, 1920, just after the short session of the 66th Congress convened. The 1920 census showed that for the first time in history most Americans were urban residents. This came as a profound shock to persons accustomed to emphasizing the nation's rural traditions and the virtues of life on farms and in small towns. Rural legislators immediately mounted an attack on the census results and succeeded in postponing reapportionment legislation for almost a decade.

    Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

    Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever He had a chosen people, whose breasts He had made His peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue. . . . The mobs of great cities add just as much to the support of pure government as sores do to the strength of the human body. . . . I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries as long as they are chiefly agricultural: and this shall be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled up upon one another in large cities as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe.

    As their power waned throughout the latter part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th, farmers and their spokesmen clung to the Jeffersonian belief that somehow they were more pure and virtuous than the growing number of urban residents. When finally faced with the fact that they were in the minority, these country residents put up a strong rear-guard action to prevent the inevitable shift of congressional districts to the cities.

    Rural representatives insisted that, since the 1920 census was taken as of Jan. 1, the farm population had been under-counted. In support of this contention, they argued that many farm laborers were seasonally employed in the cities at that time of year. Furthermore, mid-winter road conditions probably had prevented enumerators from visiting many farms, they said; and other farmers were said to have been uncounted because they were absent on winter vacation trips. The change of the census date to Jan. 1 in 1920 had been made to conform to recommendations of the Agriculture Department, which had asserted that the census should be taken early in the year if an accurate statistical picture of farming conditions was desired.

    Another point raised by rural legislators was that large numbers of unnaturalized aliens were congregated in Northern cities, with the result that these cities gained at the expense of constituencies made up mostly of citizens of the United States. Rep. Homer Hoch, R-Kan., submitted a table showing that, in a House of 435 representatives, exclusion from the census count of persons not naturalized would have altered the allocation of seats to 16 states. Southern and Western farming states would have retained the number of seats allocated to them in 1911 or would have gained, while Northern industrial states and California would have lost or at least would have gained fewer seats.

    A constitutional amendment to exclude all aliens from the enumeration for purposes of reapportionment was proposed during the 70th Congress (1927-29) by Rep. Hoch, Sen. Arthur Capper, R-Kan., and others. During the Senate Commerce Committee's hearings on reapportionment, Sen. Frederick M. Sackett, R-Ky., and Sen. Lawrence D. Tyson, D-Tenn., said they too intended to propose amendments to the same effect. But nothing further came of the proposals.

    Reapportionment Bills Opposed

    The first bill to reapportion the House according to the 1920 census was drafted by the House Census Committee early in 1921. Proceeding on the principle that no state should have its representation reduced, the committee proposed to increase the total number of representatives from 435 to 483. But the House voted 267-76 to keep its membership at 435 and passed the bill so amended on Jan. 19, 1921. Eleven states would have lost seats and eight would have gained. The bill then was blocked by a Senate committee, where it died when the 66th Congress expired March 4, 1921.

    Early in the 67th Congress, the House Census Committee again reported a bill, this time fixing the total membership at 460, an increase of 25. Two states — Maine and Massachusetts — would have lost one representative each and 16 states would have gained. On the House floor an unsuccessful attempt was made to fix the number at the existing 435, and the House sent the bill back to committee.

    During the 68th Congress (1923-25), the House Census Committee failed to report any reapportionment bill, and midway in the 69th Congress (1925-27) it became apparent that the committee would not produce a reapportionment measure. Accordingly, on April 8, 1926, Rep. Henry E. Barbour, R-Calif., moved that the committee be discharged from further consideration of a bill identical with that passed by the House in 1921 keeping the chamber's membership at 435.

    Chairman Bertrand H. Snell, N.Y., of the House Rules Committee, representing the Republican leadership of the House, raised a point of order against Barbour's motion. The Speaker of the House, Nicholas Longworth, R-Ohio, pointed out that decisions of earlier Speakers tended to indicate that reapportionment had been considered a matter of

    constitutional privilege
    and that Rep. Barbour's motion must be held in order if these precedents were followed. But the Speaker said he doubted whether the precedents had been interpreted correctly. He therefore submitted to the House the question of whether the pending motion should be considered privileged. The House sustained the Rules Committee by voting 87-265 not to consider the question privileged.

    Intervention by Coolidge

    President Calvin Coolidge, who previously had made no reference to reapportionment in his communications to Congress, announced in January 1927 that he favored passage of a new apportionment bill during the short session of the 69th Congress, which would end in less than two months. The House Census Committee refused to act. Its chairman, Rep. E. Hart Fenn, R-Conn., therefore moved in the House on March 2, 1927, to suspend the rules and pass a bill he had introduced authorizing the secretary of commerce to reapportion the House immediately after the 1930 census. The motion was voted down 183-197.

    The Fenn bill was rewritten early in the 70th Congress (1927-29) to give Congress itself a chance to act before the proposed reapportionment by the secretary of commerce should go into effect. The bill was submitted to the House, which on May 18, 1928, voted 186-165 to recommit it to the Census Committee. After minor changes, the Fenn bill was again reported to the House and was passed on Jan. 11, 1929. No record vote was taken on passage of the bill, but a motion to return it to the committee was rejected 134-227.

    Four days later, the reapportionment bill was reported by the Senate Commerce Committee. Repeated efforts to bring it up for floor action ahead of other bills failed. Its supporters gave up the fight on Feb. 27, 1929 — five days before the end of the session, when it became evident that senators from states slated to lose representation were ready to carry on a filibuster that would have blocked not only reapportionment but all other measures.

    Intervention by Hoover

    As the date of the next census became imminent, President Herbert Hoover listed provision for the 1930 census and reapportionment as

    matters of emergency legislation
    that should be acted upon in the special session of the 71st Congress that was convened on April 15, 1929. In response to this urgent request, the Senate June 13 passed, 48-37, a combined census-reapportionment bill that had been approved by voice vote of the House two days earlier.

    The 1929 law established a permanent system of re-apportioning the 435 House seats following each census. It provided that immediately after the convening of the 71st Congress for its short session in December 1930, the president was to transmit to Congress a statement showing the population of each state together with an apportionment of representatives to each state based on the existing size of the House. Failing enactment of new apportionment legislation, that apportionment would go into effect without further action and would remain in effect for ensuing elections to the House of Representatives until another census had been taken and another reapportionment made.

    Because two decades had passed between reapportionments, a greater shift than usual took place following the 1930 census. California's House delegation was almost doubled, rising from 11 to 20. Michigan gained four seats, Texas three, and New Jersey, New York and Ohio two each. Twenty-one states lost a total of 27 seats; Missouri lost three and Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky and Pennsylvania each lost two.

    To test the fairness of two allocation methods — the familiar major fractions and the new equal proportions system — the 1929 act required the president to report the distribution of seats by both methods. But, pending legislation to the contrary, the method of major fractions was to be used.

    The two methods gave an identical distribution of seats based on 1930 census figures. However, in 1940 the two methods gave different results: under major fractions, Michigan would have gained a seat lost by Arkansas; under equal proportions, there would have been no change in either state. The automatic reapportionment provisions of the 1929 act went into effect in January 1941. But the House Census Committee moved to reverse the result, favoring the certain Democratic seat in Arkansas over a possible Republican gain if the seat were shifted to Michigan. The Democratic-controlled Congress went along, adopting equal proportions as the method to be used in reapportionment calculations after the 1950 and subsequent censuses, and making this action retroactive to January 1941 to save Arkansas its seat.

    While politics doubtless played a part in the timing of the action taken in 1941, the method of equal proportions had come to be accepted as the best available. It had been worked out by Edward V. Huntington of Harvard in 1921. At the request of the Speaker of the House, all known methods of apportionment were considered in 1929 by the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Apportionment. The committee expressed its preference for equal proportions.

    Method of Equal Proportions

    The method of equal proportions involves complicated mathematical calculations. In brief, each of the 50 states is initially assigned the one seat to which every state is entitled by the Constitution. Then

    priority numbers
    for states to receive second seats, third seats and so on are calculated by dividing the state's population by the square root of n(n-1), where
    n
    is the number of seats for that state. The priority numbers are then lined up in order and the seats given to the states with priority numbers until 435 are awarded.

    The method is designed to make the proportional difference between the average district size in any two states as small as possible. For instance, using 1980 census figures, if New Mexico got three seats and Indiana got 10, as occurred under the method of equal proportions, New Mexico would have an average district size of 433,323, and Indiana would have an average district size of 549,018. That makes Indiana's average district 27 percent larger than New Mexico's. On the other hand, if New Mexico got two seats and Indiana got 11, as would have happened if the major fractions method had been used in 1980, New Mexico's average district of 649,984 would be 30 percent larger than Indiana's average of 499,107.

    Two respected private statisticians, M. L. Balinski and H. P. Young, have argued that the equal proportions method has

    cheated the larger states, and given undue representation to the smaller ones,
    in violation of the Supreme Court's one-person, one-vote rule. They have advocated a return to the Vinton method of apportionment. Such a bill was introduced in Congress in early 1981, but it received little attention and died at the end of the session.

    Redistricting: Drawing the Lines

    Although the Constitution contained provisions for the apportionment of U. S. House seats among the states, it was silent about how these members should be elected. From the beginning most states divided their territory into geographic districts, permitting only one member of Congress to be elected from each district.

    But some states allowed would-be House members to run at large, with voters able to cast as many votes as there were seats to be filled. Still other states created what were known as multi-member districts; in these a single geographic unit would elect two or more members of the House. At various times, some states used combinations of these methods. For example, a state might elect 10 representatives from 10 individual districts and two at large.

    In the first few elections to the House, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Georgia elected their representatives at large, as did Rhode Island and Delaware, the two states with only a single representative. Districts were used in Massachusetts, New York, Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina. In Connecticut, a preliminary election was held to nominate three times as many persons as the number of representatives to be chosen at large in the subsequent election. In 1840, 22 of the 31 states elected their representatives by districts. New Hampshire, New Jersey, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Missouri, with a combined representation of 33 House seats, elected their representatives at large. Three states, Arkansas, Delaware and Florida, had only one representative each.

    Those states that used congressional districts quickly developed what came to be known as the gerrymander. This was the practice of drawing district lines so as to maximize the advantage of a political party or interest group. The name originated from a salamander-shaped congressional district created by the Massachusetts Legislature in 1812 when Elbridge Gerry was governor. (Box, p. 1007)

    Constant efforts had been made during the early 1800s to lay down national rules, by means of a constitutional amendment, for congressional districting. The first resolution proposing a mandatory division of each state into districts was introduced in Congress in 1800. In 1802 the legislatures of Vermont and North Carolina adopted resolutions in support of such action. From 1816 to 1826, 22 state resolutions were adopted proposing the election of representatives by districts.

    In Congress, Sen. Mahlon Dickerson of New Jersey proposed such an amendment regularly almost every year from 1817 to 1826. It was adopted by the Senate three times, in 1819, 1820 and 1822, but each time it failed to reach a vote in the House.

    Because most states accepted the principle of local representation, congressional efforts to pass a constitutional amendment were unsuccessful. Instead, a law was passed in 1842 that required continuous single-member congressional districts. That law required representatives to be

    elected by districts composed of contiguous territory equal in number to the representatives to which said state may be entitled, no one district electing more than one Representative.

    When President John Tyler signed the bill, he appended to it a memorandum voicing doubt as to the constitutionality of the districting provisions. The memorandum precipitated a minor constitutional crisis. The House, urged on by Rep. John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, appointed a select committee to consider the action of the president. Chaired by the aging former president, the committee drew up a resolution protesting Tyler's action as

    unwarranted by the Constitution and laws of the United States, injurious to the public interest, and of evil example for the future; and this House do hereby solemnly protest against the said act of the President and against its ever being repeated or adduced as a precedent hereafter.
    The House took no action on the resolution; several attempts to call it up under suspension of the rules failed to receive the necessary two-thirds vote.

    Districting Legislation, 1850-1910

    The districting provisions of the 1842 act were not repeated in the legislation that followed the 1850 census. But in 1862 an act separate from the reapportionment act revived the provisions of the act of 1842 requiring districts to be composed of contiguous territory.

    The 1872 reapportionment act again repeated the districting provisions and went even further by adding that districts should contain

    as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants.
    Similar provisions were included in the acts of 1881 and 1891. In the act of Jan. 16, 1901, the words
    compact territory
    were added, and the clause then read
    contiguous and compact territory and containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants.
    This requirement appeared also in the legislation of Aug. 8, 1911. (The
    contiguous and compact
    provisions of the act subsequently lapsed and, as of mid-1985, had not been replaced.)

    Several unsuccessful attempts were made to enforce redistricting provisions. Despite the districting requirements of the act of June 25, 1842, New Hampshire, Georgia, Mississippi and Missouri elected their representatives at large that autumn. When the House elected at that time convened for its first session on Dec. 4, 1843, objection was made to seating the representatives of the four states. The dispute was referred to the Committee on Elections. The majority report of the committee, submitted by its chairman, Rep. Stephen A. Douglas, D-Ill., asserted that the act of 1842 was not binding upon the states and that the representatives in question were entitled to their seats. An amendment to the majority report deleted all reference to the apportionment law. A minority report by Rep. Garrett Davis, Whig-Ky., contended that the members had not been elected according to the Constitution and the laws and were not entitled to their seats.

    The matter was debated in the House Feb. 6-14, 1844. With the Democratic Party holding a majority of more than 60, and with 18 of the 21 challenged members being Democrats, the House decided to seat the members. However, by 1848 all four states had come around to electing their representatives by districts.

    The next challenge a House representative encountered over federal districting laws occurred in 1901. A charge that the existing Kentucky redistricting law did not comply with the redistricting provision of the federal reapportionment law of Jan. 16, 1901, was leveled to prevent the seating of Rep. George G. Gilbert, D, of Kentucky's 8th District. The committee assigned to investigate the matter turned aside the challenge, asserting that the federal act was not binding on the states. The reasons given were practical and political:

    Your committee are therefore of opinion that a proper construction of the Constitution does not warrant the conclusion that by that instrument Congress is clothed with power to determine the boundaries of Congressional districts, or to revise the acts of a State Legislature in fixing such boundaries; and your committee is further of opinion that even if such power is to be implied from the language of the Constitution, it would be in the last degree unwise and intolerable that it should exercise it. To do so would be to put into the hands of Congress the ability to disfranchise, in effect, a large body of the electors. It would give Congress the power to apply to all the States, in favor of one party, a general system of gerrymandering. It is true that the same method is to a large degree resorted to by the several states, but the division of political power is so general and diverse that notwithstanding the inherent vice of the system of gerrymandering, some kind of equality of distribution results.

    In 1908 the Virginia Legislature transferred Floyd County from the 5th District to the 6th District. As a result, the population of the 5th District was reduced from 175,579 to 160,191 and that of the 6th District was increased from 181,571 to 196,959. The average for the state was 185,418.

    When the newly elected representative from the 5th District, Edward W. Saunders, D, was challenged by his opponent in the election, the majority of the congressional investigating committee upheld the challenge. They concluded that the Virginia law of 1908 was null and void because it did not conform with the federal law of Jan. 16, 1901, or with the constitution of Virginia, and that the district should be regarded as including the counties that were a part of it before enactment of the 1908 state legislation. In that case Saunders' opponent would have had a majority of the votes, so the committee recommended that he be seated. Thus, for the first time, it appeared that the districting legislation would be enforced, but the House did not take action on the committee's report and Saunders' challenger was not seated.

    Court Action on Redistricting

    After the long and desultory battle over reapportionment in the 1920s, those who were unhappy over the inaction of Congress and the state legislatures began taking their cases to court. At first, the protestors had no luck. But as the population disparity grew in both federal and state legislative districts and the Supreme Court began to show a tendency to intervene, the objectors were more successful.

    Finally, in a series of decisions beginning with Baker v. Carr in 1962 (369 U.S. 186) the court exerted great influence over the redistricting process, ordering that congressional districts as well as state and local legislative districts be drawn so that their populations would be as nearly equal as possible.

    Supreme Court's 1932 Decision

    The 1962 ruling essentially reversed the direction the court had taken in 1932. Wood v. Broom (287 U.S. 1) was a case challenging the constitutionality of a Mississippi redistricting law. The question was whether the 1911 federal redistricting act — which required that districts be separate, compact, contiguous and equally populated and which had been neither specifically repealed not reaffirmed in the 1929 reapportionment act — was still in effect.

    Speaking for the court, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes ruled that the 1911 act, in effect, had expired with the approval of the 1929 apportionment act and that the standards of the 1911 act therefore were no longer applicable. The court reversed the decision of a lower federal court, which had permanently enjoined elections under the new Mississippi redistricting act because it violated the standards of the 1911 act.

    That the Supreme Court upheld a state law that failed to provide for districts of equal population was almost less important than the minority opinion that the court should not have heard the case. Four justices — Louis D. Brandeis, Harlan F. Stone, Owen J. Roberts and Benjamin N. Cardozo — while concurring in the majority opinion, said they would have dismissed the Wood suit for

    want of equity.
    The
    want-of-equity
    phrase in this context suggested a policy of judicial self-limitation with respect to the entire question of judicial involvement in essentially
    political
    questions.

    `Political Thicket'

    Not until 1946, in Colegrove v. Green (328 U.S. 549, 1946), did the court again rule in a significant case dealing with congressional redistricting. The case was brought by Kenneth Colegrove, a political science professor at Northwestern University, who alleged that Illinois' congressional districts — varying in size between 112,116 and 914,053 in population — were so unequal that they violated the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws. A seven-man Supreme Court divided 4-3 in dismissing the suit.

    Justice Felix Frankfurter gave the opinion of the court, speaking for himself and Justices Stanley F. Reed and Harold H. Burton. Frankfurter's opinion cited Wood v. Broom to indicate that Congress had deliberately removed the standard set by the 1911 act.

    We also agree,
    he said,
    with the four Justices [Brandeis, Stone, Roberts and Cardozo] who were of the opinion that the bill in Wood v. Broom should be `dismissed for want of equity.'
    The issue, Frankfurter said, was
    of a peculiarly political nature and therefore not meant for judicial interpretation.... The short of it is that the Constitution has conferred upon Congress exclusive authority to secure fair representation by the states in the popular House and has left to that House determination whether states have fulfilled their responsibility. If Congress failed in exercising its powers, whereby standards of fairness are offended, the remedy lies ultimately with the people.... To sustain this action would cut very deep into the very being of Congress. Courts ought not to enter this political thicket. The remedy for unfairness in districting is to secure state legislatures that will apportion properly, or to invoke the ample powers of Congress.
    Frankfurter also said that the court could not affirmatively remap congressional districts and that elections at large would be politically undesirable.

    Justice Hugo L. Black, joined by Justices William O. Douglas and Frank Murphy, in a dissenting opinion maintained that the district court did have jurisdiction over congressional redistricting. The three justices cited as evidence a section of the U.S. Code that allowed district courts to redress deprivations of constitutional rights occurring through action of the states. Black's opinion also rested on a previous case in which the court had indicated that federal constitutional questions, unless

    frivolous,
    fall under the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Black asserted that the appellants had standing to sue and that the population disparities did violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

    With the court split 3-3 on whether the judiciary had or should exercise jurisdiction, Justice Wiley B. Rutledge cast the deciding vote in Colegrove v. Green. On the question of justiciability, Rutledge agreed with Black, Douglas and Murphy that the issue could be considered by the federal courts. Thus a majority of the court participating in the Colegrove case felt that congressional redistricting cases were justiciable.

    Yet on the question of granting relief in this specific instance, Rutledge agreed with Frankfurter, Reed and Burton that the case should be dismissed. He pointed out that four of the nine justices in Wood v. Broom had felt that dismissal should be for want of equity. Rutledge saw a

    want-of-equity
    situation in Colegrove v. Green as well.
    I think the gravity of the constitutional questions raised [are] so great, together with the possibility of collision [with the political departments of the government], that the admonition [against avoidable constitutional decision] is appropriate to be followed here,
    Rutledge said. Jurisdiction, he thought, should be exercised
    only in the most compelling circumstances.
    He thought that
    the shortness of time remaining [before the forthcoming election] makes it doubtful whether action could or would be taken in time to secure for petitioners the effective relief they seek.
    Rutledge warned that congressional elections at large would deprive citizens of representation by districts,
    which the prevailing policy of Congress demands.
    In the case of at-large elections, he warned,
    the cure sought may be worse than the disease.
    For all these reasons he concluded that the case was
    one in which the Court may properly, and should, decline to exercise its jurisdiction.

    Changing Views

    In the ensuing years, law professors, political scientists and other commentators expressed growing criticism of the Colegrove doctrine and growing impatience with the Supreme Court's reluctance to intervene in redistricting disputes. At the same time, the membership of the court was changing, and the new members were more inclined toward judicial action on redistricting.

    In the 1950s the court decided two cases that laid some groundwork for its subsequent reapportionment decisions. The first was Brown v. Board of Education (347 U.S. 483, 1954), the historic school desegregation case, in which the court decided that an individual citizen could assert a right to equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment, contrary to the

    separate but equal
    doctrine of public facilities for white and black citizens. Six years later, in Gomillion v. Lightfoot (364 U.S. 339, 1960), the court held that the Alabama Legislature could not draw the city limits of Tuskegee so as to exclude nearly every black vote. In his opinion, Justice Frankfurter drew a clear line between redistricting challenges based on the 14th Amendment, such as Colegrove, and 15th Amendment challenges to discriminatory redistricting as in Gomillion. But Justice Charles E. Whittaker said that the equal protection clause was the proper constitutional basis for the decision. One commentator later remarked that Gomillion amounted to a
    dragon
    in the
    political thicket
    of Colegrove.

    By 1962 only three members of the Colegrove court remained: Justices Black and Douglas, dissenters in that case, and Justice Frankfurter, aging spokesman for restraint in the exercise of judicial power.

    By then it was clear that malapportionment within the states no longer could be ignored. By 1960 not a single state legislative body existed in which there was not at least a 2-to-1 population disparity between the most and the least heavily populated districts. For example, the disparity was 242-1 in the Connecticut House, 223-1 in the Nevada Senate, 141-1 in the Rhode Island Senate and 9-1 in the Georgia Senate. Studies of the effective vote of large and small counties in state legislatures between 1910 and 1960 showed that the effective vote of the large counties had slipped while their percentage of the national population had more than doubled. The most lightly populated counties, on the other hand, advanced from a position of slight over-representation to one of extreme over-representation, holding almost twice as many seats as they would be entitled to by population size alone. Predictably, the ruraldominated state legislatures resisted every move toward reapportioning state legislative districts to reflect new population patterns.

    Population imbalance among congressional districts was substantially lopsided but by no means so gross. In Texas the 1960 census showed the most heavily populated district had four times as many inhabitants as the most lightly populated. Arizona, Maryland and Ohio each had at least one district with three times as many inhabitants as the least populated. In most cases, rural areas benefited from the population imbalance in congressional districts. As a result of the postwar population movement out of central cities to the surrounding areas, the suburbs were the most under-represented.

    Baker v. Carr

    It was against this background that a group of Tennessee city dwellers successfully broke the longstanding precedent against federal court involvement in legislative apportionment problems. For more than half a century, since 1901, the Tennessee Legislature had refused to reapportion itself, even though a decennial reapportionment based on population was specifically required by the state's constitution. In the meantime, Tennessee's population had grown and shifted dramatically to urban areas. By 1960 the House legislative districts ranged from 3,454 to 36,031 in population, while the Senate districts ranged from 39,727 to 108,094. Appeals by urban residents to the rural-controlled Tennessee Legislature proved fruitless. A suit brought in the state courts to force reapportionment was rejected on grounds that the courts should stay out of legislative matters.

    City dwellers then appealed to the federal courts, stating that they had no redress: the Legislature had refused to act for more than half a century, the state courts had refused to intervene and Tennessee had no referendum or initiative laws. They charged that there was

    a debasement of their votes by virtue of the incorrect, obsolete and unconstitutional apportionment
    to such an extent that they were being deprived of their right to
    equal protection of the laws
    under the 14th Amendment. (The 14th Amendment reads, in part:
    No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    )

    The Supreme Court on March 26, 1962, handed down its historic decision in Baker v. Carr, ruling in favor of the Tennessee city dwellers by a 6-2 margin. In the majority opinion, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. emphasized that the federal judiciary had the power to review the apportionment of state legislatures under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

    The mere fact that a suit seeks protection as a political right,
    Brennan wrote,
    does not mean that it presents a political question
    that the courts should avoid.

    In a vigorous dissent, Justice Frankfurter said the majority decision constituted

    a massive repudiation of the experience of our whole past
    and was an assertion of
    destructively novel judicial power.
    He contended that the lack of any clear basis for relief
    catapults the lower courts
    into a
    mathematical quagmire.
    Frankfurter insisted that
    there is not under our Constitution a judicial remedy for every political mischief.
    Appeal for relief, he maintained, should not be made in the courts, but rather
    to an informed civically militant electorate.

    The court had abandoned the view that malapportionment questions were outside its competence. But it stopped there and in Baker v. Carr did not address the merits of the challenge to the legislative districts.

    Gray v. Sanders

    The one-person, one-vote rule was set out first by the court almost exactly one year after its decision in Baker v. Carr. But the case in which the announcement came did not involve congressional districts.

    In the ruling in the case of Gray v. Sanders, the court found that Georgia's county-unit primary system for electing state officials — a system that weighted votes to give advantage to rural districts in statewide primary elections — denied voters equal protection of the laws.

    All votes in a statewide election must have equal weight, held the court:

    How then can one person be given twice or 10 times the voting power of another person in a statewide election merely because he lives in a rural area or because he lives in the smallest rural county? Once the geographical unit for which a representative is to be chosen is designated, all who participate in the election are to have an equal vote — whatever their race, whatever their sex, whatever their occupation, whatever their income, and wherever their home may be in that geographical unit. This is required by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The concept of `we the people' under the Constitution visualizes no preferred class of voters but equality among those who meet the basic qualification. The idea that every voter is equal to every other voter in his State, when he casts his ballot in favor of one of several competing candidates, underlies many of our decisions.... The conception of political equality from the Declaration of