The House

Defense Spending

The House voted, 249 to 172, to lower defense spending next fiscal year from the $306-billion level set by the Armed Services Committee to $289 billion. The $17-billion cutbrought the 1988 defense outlay in line with the congressional budget resolution, which was approved after the committee had set the $306-billion level. Facing nearly 200 other amendments, the bill (HR 1748) remained in debate.

Supporter Les Aspin (D-Wis.) said fiscal discipline, not military preparedness, was the issue on this vote.

Opponent William Dickinson (R-Ala.) said: “We are cutting into the bone and sinew of our defense establishment.”

Members voting yes wanted the defense authorization bill to comply with the congressional budget resolution.

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

SALT II Treaty

By a 245-181 vote, the House adopted an amendment denying spending under the fiscal 1988 defense bill (above) on long-range nuclear weapons that violate the unratified SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union. This would force the Administration to abide by a narrow definition of the treaty if Moscow does the same. It was opposed by President Reagan, who says the Soviets have disregarded SALT II.

Supporter Jim Moody (D-Wis.) said the amendment would require a “return to the stated policies of the Reagan Administration for the first six years of that Administration.”

Opponent Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said that under the amendment “the left wing of the Democratic Party unilaterally cripples America . . . appeases the Soviets.”

Members voting yes wanted to induce Washington and Moscow to obey SALT II.

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

Savings & Loans

By a vote of 153 to 258, the House rejected an amendment to raise, from $5 billion over two years to $15 billion over five years, the amount the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corp. can borrow to make itself solvent again. This occurred as the House passed and sent to conference with the Senate a bill (HR 27) to shore up the agency, which insures deposits of up to $100,000 in federally backed savings and loans.

Supporters said the $15-billion level is needed because the agency’s liability may be that great to depositors in about 300 insolvent thrifts.

Opponents said Congress could keep a tighter leash on the agency if it capped borrowing authority at $5 billion, but left renewal as a possibility after two years.

Healthy thrifts, which must collateralize agency borrowing to bail out weak ones, generally favored the lower ceiling.

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