Not Our Finest Hour

• Share

(2 of 4)

Yet the special session was not an unmitigated disaster. The passage of a spending plan for the rest of fiscal 1983, even though it was done through a continuing resolution rather than the formal passage of appropriation bills, marked the first time in three years that Congress had provided a full year of funding for the Government before adjourning for Christmas. President Reagan, while emphasizing that he was still "deeply troubled by the budget-making process," said of the lameduck session: "After taking all factors into account, I think this effort has been worthwhile."

A showdown over the continuing resolution was averted at the last moment when a House-Senate conference committee agreed to jettison a "jobs bill" that both chambers had attached to the measure. The Democratic House had voted $5.4 billion for the program, and the Republican Senate had approved a $1.2 billion figure. But Reagan, with much justification, argued that both versions were motley collections of local pork-barrel projects masquerading as jobs programs. He threatened to veto the entire continuing resolution, an act that would have shut down much of the Federal government last week, unless the job amendments were scuttled.

When the congressional conferees met to work out a consensus on the continuing resolution, the "compromise" between the House's $5.4 billion program and the Senate's $1.2 billion program turned out to be a Reagan-pleasing goose egg. Republican Congressman Silvio Conte of Massachusetts put the matter bluntly to Democratic Congressman Jamie Whitten of Mississippi. Said Conte: "Christ, Jamie, why make us go through this? We'll just get a veto and be right back here." At a private conference that evening, the Democrats decided it was futile to provoke a confrontation that would close down the Government.

Members were particularly anxious to protect the pay raise they had given themselves for Christmas, which was likely to be lost if Reagan vetoed the continuing resolution. The 15% increase voted for House members, their first substantial raise in five years, was in fact long overdue. The main problem was one of timing, taking a pay increase when 12 million people are out of work. Said Congressman Leon Panetta of California: "It's the cherry on top of the pie to end up with a continuing resolution that has no money for jobs but a pay increase for Congress." The Senators sanctimoniously eschewed a salary hike (and thus will earn less than House members), but they opened the way for a flood of "honorariums" from special-interest groups by forbidding any limit on outside income for Senators. A $9,100 limit on outside earnings was due to go into effect next year and would have stopped the practice whereby some Senators reap more than $50,000 a year by giving speeches and making personal appearances.