Beilenson Steers Different Course as Maverick Lawmaker in Capitol

In an institution where many members would rather sacrifice a little principle than offend a powerful interest group, U. S. Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson is a self-styled provocateur with a purpose.

Here is the Los Angeles Democrat casting one of six House votes against elevating the Veterans Administration to a Cabinet-level department in the face of mega-budget deficits. There, he is arousing a hornet’s nest of indignation with an article in the Wall Street Journal arguing that it is “hard to conceive of anything more the federal government could do” for veterans.

Here he goes again introducing a bill to raise the federal gasoline tax by 25 cents--even though he represents a district utterly dependent on, and devoted to, the automobile. Beilenson says the measure would raise $25 billion to lower the federal budget deficit and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil by encouraging conservation.

There he is, sitting on the Rules Committee in late 1986, as incoming House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) testifies for emergency legislation to fight drug traffic. Beilenson, concerned that the measure’s capital punishment provisions and language weakening the prohibition against the use of illegally obtained evidence would jeopardize civil liberties, challenges Wright. The Speaker-to-be, whose testimony is being filmed for a documentary, fumes.

“There’s no sense being in this office, holding the job, unless you can tell the truth, unless you can argue rationally, as thoughtfully as possible, about the major issues that affect the country,” says Beilenson, 55, expressing his credo of 26 years in public life.

Votes His Conscience

He acknowledges that he is able to vote his conscience without paying a political price, in part because his controversial actions “are much less spotlighted and people pay less attention to them” in the highly competitive Los Angeles media market, where lawmakers receive relatively little coverage.

Yet, he adds, “a lot of people over time do become aware you’ve cast a vote or written an article that’s not to their liking. But, if they realize you’re a reasonable, intellectually honest person, they’re still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.”

Voters in Beilenson’s largely liberal, Democratic districts have overwhelmingly given the tall, Harvard-trained attorney the benefit of the doubt for 14 years as a state assemblyman and senator and six terms in Congress. He, in turn, has distinguished himself as a cerebral, straight-talking, unglitzy and stubbornly independent-minded lawmaker. Critics add aloof and arrogant as well.

“Tony is a class act,” says Norman Ornstein, a scholar of Congress at the American Enterprise Institute. “He is somebody who speaks his mind, which has ruffled some feathers around the House. He votes the way he thinks he ought to, and that has not always fit in with the team. He is an extraordinarily intelligent and thoughtful guy.”

Colleagues are equally flattering. Rep. Dan Glickman (D-Kan.) recalls poet Robert Frost’s line about the road less traveled when he discusses Beilenson. Rep. Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich.) likens him to an Old Testament prophet. Even a conservative such as Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Highland) calls him “an honest liberal who’s one of the gentlest, most decent people you’ll ever meet.”

Low-Profile Representative

Still, despite his occasionally maverick positions, Beilenson remains a low-profile representative, a cog in the 435-member House machine but not an engine. Nor is he considered one of the dozen or more power players in the 45-member California delegation.

His photograph recently appeared in a weekly Capitol Hill publication along with seven others under the headline: “Can You Find the Four Real Congressmen?” Among those included in the “Roll Call” lineup were cult figure Larry (Bud) Melman of the David Letterman show and hair-care magnate Vidal Sassoon.

This reflects what Beilenson’s present and past election opponents maintain is a glaring deficiency, both in Washington and at home: a low-key, detached approach that fails to do justice to the affluent, well-educated and politically active residents of the 23rd District.

“For the great majority of the most valuable members of the House, it is largely an anonymous job,” responds Beilenson, who wrote landmark state social and consumer legislation while in the smaller legislative bodies in Sacramento.

“Many of us here are well-thought-of members who don’t make a lot of noise, don’t have our names on a lot of legislation, but play effective and necessary roles in the working of the Legislature.”

Beilenson’s most significant House role is on the influential Rules Committee, where he is the fourth-ranking Democratic member. Rules is the House gatekeeper--deciding which bills reach the floor and how they will be debated. It is a sensitive, if arcane, assignment, through which Beilenson deals with the nuts and bolts of a broad range of important legislation.

“He is a leveling force,” says Glickman. “He tends to get members thinking about issues. He has to be convinced. He’s willing to give the Democratic leadership the benefit of the doubt, but he’s not willing to give the leadership a blank check.”

Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City) recalls that Beilenson played a crucial, behind-the-scenes role in the 11th-hour negotiations over the major 1986 immigration reform bill. The measure, which Beilenson supported, was passed in the waning days of the election-year session.

“When people thought the whole thing was dead, Beilenson was the driving force on the Rules Committee to try to give us another shot,” says Berman, himself a key player on the measure. “Tony said, ‘Let’s not let this die.’ ”

Beilenson also has achieved some renown as a critic of skyrocketing deficit spending. He has raised awareness but otherwise has had little impact, though aides report that he’s feeling vindicated these days.

Warned of Budget Deficits

He was among the first to warn that President Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts would lead to disastrous budget deficits and, in 1985, he unsuccessfully sought to convince the Democratic caucus to call for adoption of a plan to balance the budget within three years.

A lack of political will, trickling down from the White House to Congress, has left America swamped in fiscal red ink, Beilenson says. As a result, he warns, “future generations are going to have a lower standard of living.”

He proposes a one-year spending freeze on increases for all programs other than means-tested benefits for the poor and a series of tax increases to generate more than $100 billion annually. He advocates, in addition to the gasoline tax, a broad consumption tax, exempting food and clothing (which would bring in $50 billion); a 0.5% tax on the sale of securities ($10 billion to $15 billion), and increasing taxes on cigarettes, beer and wine ($6 billion).

In addition, he would return the top tax rate for those earning more than $150,000 to 38.5% from its tax-reform level of 28%, raising another $15 billon. This would hit his district--which has the second highest per-capita income in the nation--especially hard.

“Anyone here in Washington will privately admit to you, absent these kinds of revenues, there is no way we can come close to balancing the budget any time in the foreseeable future,” Beilenson says.

End to Frustration

Whichever party wins the White House this year, Beilenson says, he looks forward to an end to his frustration of the Reagan era: “Everybody will be talking about the deficit. We can then get serious about putting things back in shape.”

Though he has grown more conservative on fiscal matters and less confident about the government’s ability to solve problems, he remains philosophically left of center. The liberal Americans for Democratic Action rated his 1987 voting record 84%; the AFL-CIO, 63%; the United States Chamber of Commerce, 20%, and the American Conservative Union, 13%.

And he has been a steadfast friend of the environment, teachers and the elderly, these groups report. The U.S. League of Conservation Voters gave him an 88% tally in its most recent rating, and he supported the National Education Assn.’s positions 100% of the time and the National Council of Senior Citizens 90% in 1987.

The usually placid grandfather angrily rebuts critics who charge that he has lost touch at home. He returns to the district slightly less than once a month on average to hold public forums and to speak at synagogues and schools.

“I am far closer to the community and the voters than I ever was when I was in Sacramento,” he says. “I come back more often; I speak there more often.”

Longtime Outdoorsman

Before each of his town meetings--which often provide verbal fireworks----he circulates among constituents, shaking their hands and thanking them for coming. “He loves having these people get up and scream at him,” says a veteran aide.

A longtime outdoorsman who has hiked in almost every national park, Beilenson wrote the measure that created the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in 1978, and he subsequently helped obtain $80 million to buy parkland. But more money had been expected for the program, and the shortfall has led to proposals to scale down the original plans.

Beilenson blames the Reagan Administration’s opposition to buying new parkland and says the Santa Monicas have received more federal money than any other area nationwide since 1981.

When it comes to obtaining campaign funds, Beilenson is far less avid.

He intensely dislikes asking for contributions and raises little money during non-election years and relatively modest sums even when seriously challenged. He is one of only 11 House members who refuses to accept funds from special-interest political action committees and unsuccessfully has sponsored legislation to limit campaign spending and eliminate PAC contributions through publicly financed campaigns.

‘Doesn’t Penalize Me’

Each House incumbent raised an average of $167,556 from PACs alone in 1986, 40% of their total, according to Common Cause. Overall, PACs gave a record $65 million to 391 incumbents.

“It is destroying representative government,” Beilenson maintains. He says one reason he is able to vote against special interests is that he doesn’t take their money. “It doesn’t penalize me the next time I run for office,” he says.

The future? Beilenson says he would enjoy chairing the powerful Rules Committee, although he has two relatively young, ambitious Democrats ahead of him. He sees himself eventually teaching at a college or university.

In the meantime, he acknowledges that his refusal to enter the big-bucks fund-raising sweepstakes forecloses a long-coveted career goal--a U.S. Senate seat. He ran once, in 1968, finishing a distant second to Alan Cranston in a five-person Democratic primary field.

“I don’t think I could ever raise the money; nor do I want to spend two or three years of my life doing nothing but running for the Senate,” Beilenson says during an interview in his small Washington office. Breaking into an impish smile, he adds: “So I guess I better stay here if I can.”