ELECTIONS: CONGRESSIONAL RACES : Beilenson’s and Gallegly’s Voting Records Detailed

Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley) racked up a consistently conservative voting record in the last session of Congress, and Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Los Angeles) tended to be moderate on fiscal matters and liberal on social, foreign policy and environmental votes.

These profiles of the two veteran lawmakers are reflected in an assessment of their key votes during the past two years by eight major interest groups spanning the ideological spectrum. Both are seeking reelection in districts that include parts of Ventura County.

The groups range from the American Conservative Union and the National Taxpayers Union on the right to Americans for Democratic Action and the American Civil Liberties Union on the left. Business is represented by the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, organized labor by the AFL-CIO.

The American Security Council assessed votes on national security issues and the League of Conservation Voters on environmental matters. And the National Journal rated how relatively liberal and conservative lawmakers were overall on economic, social and foreign policy issues.

The Security Council ratings reflected votes cast in 1991-92 and the League of Conservation Voters scored 1992 votes; the other groups’ most recent compilations covered only 1991.

“Gallegly has had an almost perfectly conservative record,” the 1992 edition of the respected Almanac of American Politics said of the three-term congressman, who is scrambling to fend off a spirited challenge by Democrat Anita Perez Ferguson in the new 23rd District. The district incorporates Carpinteria in Santa Barbara County and all of Ventura County except most of Thousand Oaks.

Gallegly took conservative positions 85% to 100% of the time and liberal stances 13% or less of the time.

“One thing you can count on with me is consistency,” Gallegly said in an interview.

Beilenson, who faces a tough reelection race against conservative Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), is less predictable.

“I’ve become more conservative on fiscal issues and more conservative on crime-related issues. Who hasn’t?” said Beilenson, whose newly drawn 24th District includes parts of the San Fernando Valley, most of Thousand Oaks and Malibu.

“It’s been a slow evolution with me. So it may well be that some positions I took with respect to those two areas 20 or 25 years ago are different from what my positions would be today.”

The National Journal, a weekly publication that compiles annual voting ratings, found that Beilenson ranked in the middle of the House on economic issues--more liberal than 56% of his colleagues. He was farther to the left on social issues--more liberal than 78% of his colleagues. On foreign policy issues, he was more liberal than 92% of lawmakers.

Gallegly was more conservative than 90% of his colleagues on economic issues, than 81% on social issues and than 88% on foreign policy votes.

The Journal’s ratings were based on 49 votes in 1991. This included 18 economic, 18 social and 13 foreign policy tallies on such gut issues as abortion, gun control, the death penalty, the exclusionary rule, the Persian Gulf War, the MX missile, extending unemployment benefits and family leave.

Gallegly received an 85% rating from the American Conservative Union. He agreed with the group’s position on 16 of 19 votes on such issues as backing Desert Storm, opposing gun control, funding and deploying the Strategic Defense Initiative and eliminating money for the National Endowment for the Arts.

Beilenson, who opposed the war and the rest of the ACU’s agenda, got a zero from the group. Rather than attacking Iraq, he had supported continued sanctions against Saddam Hussein after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.

Beilenson was rated in the top 35% (the upper end of “average”) by the National Taxpayers Union, which based its scores on 179 votes that related to federal spending. Beilenson had the second-highest rating among the 26 California Democrats, after Gary Condit (D-Ceres).

The group opposed any votes that would result in increasing the size of government.

Gallegly was in the top 55%, putting him at the high end of the “fair” scale. He ranked 13th in the California delegation.

On the other side of the political spectrum, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action gave Beilenson an 80% rating and Gallegly 10% for their votes on 20 issues. The ADA supports abortion rights, a waiting period for handgun purchases, the 1991 Civil Rights Act and increased spending for Head Start and other federal programs.

Gallegly agreed with the ADA when he voted for a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases and for making the extension of most-favored-nation trade status for China conditional on improvements in human rights.

Beilenson broke with the ADA by opposing measures to reject President Bush’s bid to extend “fast track” trade procedures; to allow unlimited punitive damages for discrimination based on sex, religion or disability; to substitute mandatory life imprisonment for the death penalty for certain crimes, and to increase funds for Head Start and other programs.

Gallegly did not agree with the ACLU on any of the 13 votes the group monitored on civil rights, crime, abortion, free speech and privacy.

“You can’t improve on that,” Gallegly joked. “When we focus more concern on the rights of criminals than the rights of victims--as the ACLU has a propensity to do--I’m going to be on the other side.”

Beilenson concurred with the ACLU 11 times. He differed when he voted against the proposal to substitute life imprisonment for the death penalty for certain crimes and against another amendment to remove the death penalty for drug kingpins from a 1991 crime bill.

“Some people certainly deserve to be put to death,” said Beilenson, who had opposed the death penalty many years earlier as a state legislator. “But I’m afraid it doesn’t do an awful lot to help solve the crime problem.”

The U. S. Chamber of Commerce rated Gallegly’s voting record at 90% and Beilenson’s at 30%. Gallegly differed by opposing the extension of most-favored-nation trade status to the Soviet Union.

Conversely, this was one of three areas where Beilenson agreed with the Chamber. The other two were his support for diluting the Davis-Bacon Act--which stipulates that workers on federal construction projects receive the local prevailing wage--and his support for extending the “fast-track” trade procedures.

On the AFL-CIO voting scale, Beilenson scored 67% and Gallegly 8%. The ratings were based on 12 major labor-related issues. These included extending unemployment benefits and adopting a family and medical leave bill.

Beilenson and Gallegly both opposed labor by voting to give the president “fast-track” authority to pursue a free-trade agreement with Mexico and Canada.

On the 1992 National Security Council Voting index, Gallegly received 100% and Beilenson 40% on 10 defense-related issues.

Beilenson agreed with the NSC on such issues as the free-trade treaty, authorizing funds to help U. S. high-technology companies compete and aid to the former Soviet republics. He differed by opposing the Gulf War and funding for SDI and the B-2 bomber and by supporting reductions in U. S. troop levels in such places as Europe, Japan and South Korea.

On environmental issues, the League of Conservation Voters gave Beilenson a 100% rating on 16 key votes. Gallegly rated 13%.

The conservation group included measures intended to reduce global warming, preserve ancient forests, prevent oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, reauthorize and strengthen the Endangered Species Act, protect wetlands and increase funding to curb worldwide population growth.

Gallegly joined the environmentalists on only one vote: He supported a bill to set national performance standards for plumbing fixtures to encourage energy efficiency.

“While I have certainly been sensitive to environmental concerns as it relates to the area where I live in Southern California,” Gallegly said, “I’m more concerned about jobs and people being able to feed their families than I am with the spotted owl being able to live in this tree or that tree. We have to look at the entire issue.”