The House : South Africa Sanctions

An amendment to soften proposed economic sanctions against South Africa was rejected by the House on a vote of 148 for and 256 against. The vote left intact a ban on most types of new U.S. investments in South Africa that is part of HR 1460, an anti-apartheid bill that remained under debate.

The rejected amendment sought to permit American capital to be invested in new companies that voluntarily adhere to the anti-discrimination, fair employment principles of the so-called “Sullivan Code.”

At issue was whether non-whites in South Africa are helped or hurt by U.S. disinvestment.

U.S. conservatives often argue that continued foreign investment is necessary to improve the lot of apartheid victims. Liberals say only the jolt of disinvestment will force the South African government to grant full rights to non-whites.

Supporter Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) said disinvestment will cause “further unemployment . . . deprivation . . . hunger, and I dare say revolution.”

Opponent Stephen Solarz (D-N.Y.) said the South African government will abandon apartheid only when “the price of maintaining apartheid exceeds the advantages of retaining it.”

Members voting yes favored the amendment.

How They Voted Yea Nay No vote Rep. Dreier (R) x Rep. Martinez (D) x Rep. Moorhead (R) x Rep. Roybal (D) x Rep. Torres (D) x

Democrats’ Budget

The vote was 258 for and 170 against as the House approved the Democrats’ fiscal 1986-88 budget resolution, which calls for $967.3 billion in 1986 outlays, projected revenue of at least $794.1 billion, and an annual deficit of $173.2 billion.

The measure (H. Con. Res. 152) will be merged in conference with the GOP-controlled Senate’s budget plan, which would cut the deficit by $56 billion in 1986, but which differs from the Democratic plan with respect to Social Security and defense, among other areas.

The House budget freezes 1986 defense spending at its 1985 level, while the Senate allows military outlays to rise with inflation, a projected hike of $32 billion. The House permits cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security, while the Senate freezes Social Security for one year.

Neither chamber would increase taxes.

Members voting yes supported the Democratic leadership’s budget blueprint.

How They Voted Yea Nay No vote Rep. Dreier (R) x Rep. Martinez (D) x Rep. Moorhead (R) x Rep. Roybal (D) x Rep. Torres (D) x

GOP Version

By a vote of 102 for and 329 against, the House rejected the Republican leadership budget that was offered as the chief alternative to the Democratic budget resolution (above). The GOP proposed inflation-adjusted defense spending in fiscal 1986 in place of the freeze that the Democratic leadership called for. Also, the Republican plan inflicted deeper cuts in domestic programs and proposed a one-year freeze in Social Security cost-of-living hikes.

Among the GOP’s domestic austerity proposals were a 10% cut in the legislative branch budget, a three-year 77.5% cut in Amtrak subsidies, tougher “workfare” requirements for food stamp recipients, and elimination of the Synthetic Fuels Corp. and the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Members voting yes favored the Republican budget resolution.

How They Voted Yea Nay No vote Rep. Dreier (R) x Rep. Martinez (D) x Rep. Moorhead (R) x Rep. Roybal (D) x Rep. Torres (D) x