Funding Bill Stalled by Veto Threats, Fairness Doctrine

A huge spending bill crucial to funding almost all government operations became tangled in veto threats Monday as President Reagan and congressional negotiators clashed over whether to require broadcasters to offer air time to opposing viewpoints.

Administration officials also expressed concern that a second piece of legislation--one that combines $9 billion in higher taxes with federal asset sales and reductions in government benefit programs--does not live up to a deficit-reduction agreement reached by Reagan and congressional leaders last month.

Meanwhile, complicating matters even further, it appeared that both houses might try to resurrect a two-year, $15-billion housing bill, which would be the first major new housing authorization in seven years. The Senate had defeated an earlier version of the bill with a series of procedural votes last month.

As a result of the complications, Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) predicted Monday night that Congress would be forced to approve yet another stopgap emergency spending bill to keep the government operating. Federal agencies have been funded by such temporary extensions since the Sept. 30 end of the last fiscal year.

After meeting through the weekend, weary and frustrated lawmakers had started the day hoping that they would finally be able to pass the two massive revenue and spending bills and recess for Christmas. On Sunday night, they had settled what many believed to be the most contentious issue, providing aid to the Nicaraguan rebels.

However, the fatigue and bitterness of the last few days lingered. A negotiating session broke down almost immediately when House members insisted that broadcasting’s so-called Fairness Doctrine be included in the $600-billion spending legislation that is needed to fund the government through next September.

The Fairness Doctrine, which was followed by federal regulators for almost four decades before its repeal this year, requires broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on important issues.

“What you’re doing here is you’re jamming (the Fairness Doctrine) down the throat of the Administration,” Rep. Silvio O. Conte (R-Mass.) said.

“We’re having (Contra aid) shoved down our throats,” Rep. Les AuCoin (D-Ore.) countered.

Reagan, who vetoed an earlier congressional effort to write the doctrine into the law, threatened again to kill the entire spending bill if Congress tried a second time to force him to accept it.

Seen as Only Chance

Congressional leaders have conceded that they cannot muster the two-thirds’ majority necessary to override a presidential veto of the Fairness Doctrine. Thus, slipping it into a larger piece of more urgent legislation gives the doctrine its only chance of becoming law.

White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater called the plan “a back-door maneuver to circumvent the presidential veto, and we trust that the Congress will recognize the wisdom of eliminating that provision.”

Fitzwater said Reagan also wants an opportunity to “thoroughly consider” the two bills--each of which is thousands of pages long--before he decides whether to sign them.

The two bills are needed to carry out a deficit-reduction plan agreed upon after weeks of negotiations by Reagan and congressional leaders last month. Together, they would cut this year’s projected deficit by $30 billion through a combination of spending reductions, tax increases, sale of government assets and other measures.

Big Differences Remain

Although only the Fairness Doctrine issue remained to be settled on the spending bill, Democrats and Republicans were deeply divided over a host of issues in the second bill, which would raise revenues, including taxes, and cut federal expenditures for Medicare and other federal benefits programs.

One dispute was over the sale of $5 billion in government assets, such as loan portfolios, a proposal that was part of the deficit-reduction agreement between White House and congressional negotiators. House Democrats balked at the sale, which Reagan has strongly supported.

Another sticking point was a proposal by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) to impose an excise tax on certain vaccinations. The funds would compensate victims who were injured by vaccinations received when they were children. The White House also opposes this proposal.

Threatens Filibuster

A third dispute centered on a proposal by Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) and other members to deny foreign tax credits to U.S. companies on income earned in South Africa. Sens. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) have blasted the proposal, calling it an attempt to legislate “at the midnight hour and through the backdoor.” Helms threatened to filibuster such a provision if it came before the Senate.

There was broad agreement, however, on other aspects of the revenue-raising bill, including provisions that would cut Medicare expenditures by more than $2 billion this year. The savings would come from reducing payments to hospitals and medical providers, as well as increasing the monthly “supplemental premium” paid by many elderly recipients from $17.90 to $24.80.

Other cuts would be made in agricultural programs and the U.S. Postal Service.

The bill also includes $9 billion in new taxes this year and $14 billion in fiscal 1989, including an extension of the expiring 3% telephone excise tax. Most of the new taxes would fall on wealthy individuals and corporations.

Controversial Issues Attached

Because the spending legislation was vital to keeping the government operating--and therefore, was certain to pass in some form--lawmakers attached to it hundreds of their favorite causes. Many had been too controversial to survive the legislative mill on their own. Among those varied additions:

--An eight-month reprieve for cities, including Los Angeles, that would have faced penalties on Jan. 1 for failing to meet the Clean Air Act’s standards for reducing ozone and carbon monoxide levels.

--Permission for up to 20 states to raise speed limits on certain of their major highways to 65 m.p.h. The first 20 states that apply would be allowed to test the effects of the higher speed limits for four years. Speed limits were raised on similar-size interstate highways earlier this year.

--A two-year smoking ban on airline flights of less than two hours, which amounts to 85% of all flights. Violators would face fines of $1,000 or more.

--About $900 million--more than double the amount spent last year--to be spent on AIDS research, counseling, testing and other activities related to the deadly disease.

--A 2% pay raise for most civilian and military government employees. Excluded from the increase are congressmen, judges and senior executive branch officials.

--A prohibition, aimed at Japan, preventing other nations from participating in U.S. public works projects unless they allow U.S. firms to bid on such jobs in their countries.

--A waiver until April, 1990, of the current ban on aid to Pakistan. The previous waiver expired Sept. 30. It would allow that country to receive $480 million in military and economic assistance, despite reports that it has diverted nuclear materials from research to weapons, and is seen, in large part, as a means of rewarding Pakistan for its support of Afghan rebels.

Sale of Stinger Missiles

--Permission for the Administration to sell up to 70 shoulder-fired Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to Bahrain and allow the sheikdom to keep the missiles for up to 18 months. The provision contains safeguards aimed at preventing the state-of-the-art weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists.

--A new lease on life for the controversial Midgetman missile, after the Senate Appropriations Committee had voted to discontinue its funding. The legislation would spend $700 million on the single-warhead mobile missile, which is less than half the amount the House approved. It also includes compromises reached by the House and Senate on spending for rail-mobile MX missile basing, anti-satellite weapons and Reagan’s space-based Strategic Defense Initiative, also known as “Star Wars.”