Report Cards Reveal Foes, Allies of Area’s Congressmen : Politics: Beilenson and Gallegly, like their colleagues, are graded on votes affecting interest groups’ causes, earning top marks for different reasons.

Think Harvard is tough? Try the U. S. Congress.

Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills) has experienced both. His grades as an undergraduate at Harvard in the 1950s were top-rate, high enough to send him on to the university’s prestigious law school.

In Congress, for every A he receives, it seems there is an F not far behind.

Using techniques far more arbitrary than those of any university professor, more than 80 special-interest groups ranging from the Children’s Defense Fund to the National Assn. of Letter Carriers are issuing congressional report cards scrutinizing lawmakers’ ayes and nays.

The ratings go beyond such traditional labels as liberal and conservative. Nowadays, political leanings can be nailed down to the percentage point, at least according to the National Assn. of Social Workers or the anti-hunger group Bread for the World.

So commonplace are the ratings that some say they are losing their punch. And, of course, by the very nature of the organizations--and the sides of the issues on which they fall--it is impossible for lawmakers to receive consistently high marks.

For instance, Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley), who represents most of Ventura County, received a perfect score from the Business-Industry Political Action Committee and a 92% from the conservative Christian Action Network, which reviewed several dozen votes dealing with abortion, homosexuality and the National Endowment for the Arts.

But other organizations knocked him off the dean’s list.

He received a 23% from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and an F from the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People.

“I don’t wait at the mailbox when they come in,” said Gallegly, who generally rates high with business and conservative organizations. “You have a basic philosophy and you usually follow that lead. . . . If you get yourself so concerned about ratings, then you lose sight of what you’re here for.”

Beilenson, who represents most of Thousand Oaks, is also less than enthusiastic when the ratings arrive in the mail.

“I have mixed feelings about them,” he said. “I pay attention to the reports of organizations I care about, with objectives and interests that are the same as mine.”

He received a perfect score from Zero Population Growth, which pushes the same world population-control policies he espouses, and generally scores high among consumer and environmental groups. Beilenson rated in the middle of the pack with the NAACP, receiving a C. The Christian Action Network gave him an F.

There are signs, however, that many lawmakers are rather grade-conscious.

When the sponsoring groups hold press conferences announcing the latest numbers, members of Congress arrive in droves. The ratings frequently pop up in campaign literature. And the plaques, statues and other awards handed out to those with the highest grades decorate congressional offices all over Capitol Hill.

“Do they take them seriously? The answer is yes,” said Gregg Hilton, executive director of the American Security Committee, which has been issuing report cards on national security issues since 1970. “Members of Congress know their scores.”

Some groups even say they receive telephone calls from members of Congress complaining about low grades.

Of course, few lawmakers acknowledge paying too much attention to such a simplistic way of rating such a complicated job.

But reelection is always around the corner and high grades sometimes translate into contributions. Political action committees are among the groups that issue report cards and they are more likely to donate to those who receive an A.

“Members of Congress range from the insecure to the very secure,” one longtime congressional staffer said. “I would guess that a member who depended on support from the construction industry might care very much what those interest groups had to say.”

What does the construction industry have to say?

Associated Builders & Contractors Inc. gave Gallegly an 80% and Beilenson a 20% based on 10 votes during the 103rd Congress. The issues of concern included NAFTA and the balanced-budget amendment, which the group supported, and a bill to prevent permanent replacement workers from doing the jobs of striking workers, which the contractors opposed.

Critics of such ratings abound.

“To judge a member of Congress on six votes out of 2,000 is a distortion at the very least,” one congressional staffer said. “There may be something buried in a bill that may be horrible to our district, that might cause us to vote against a bill we might otherwise support. . . . There are so many of these guides that I don’t think people pay much attention to them.”

Yet those who publish the ratings insist that they fill an important role in educating voters on how a representative stands on a handful of critical issues.

The Business-Industry Political Action Committee accompanies its grades with a disclaimer that points out: “There is a difference between voting records and legislative performance.”

But the group adds: “Despite their shortcomings, these score cards are a handy reference tool to weigh words against deeds. . . . At a time when party label as well as the old-style definitions of liberal or conservative have lost much of their meaning, voters need to study how members of Congress have handled a multitude of issues.”

The ratings vary widely in their comprehensiveness.

Some groups base their grades on a handful of votes and, as part of their lobbying efforts, notify lawmakers ahead of time that an upcoming vote will be rated. Others include dozens of ballots and consider it improper to tip lawmakers off on which votes will appear on the voting guide.

Such ratings are not limited to lobbying groups. The National Journal, a respected magazine covering Congress and national affairs, reviews dozens of votes to determine lawmakers’ places on the political spectrum.

Using a statistical procedure called “principal components analysis,” the magazine scores members on economics, social issues and foreign policy.

The magazine’s 1992 ratings give Gallegly a 76% conservative rating on economics, 85% conservative on social issues and 82% conservative on foreign policy. Beilenson’s ratings were 59% liberal on economics, 76% liberal on social issues and 86% liberal on foreign policy.

Among interest groups, Ventura County’s lawmakers vary widely in their scores.

Public Citizen, a consumers group associated with Ralph Nader, gives Beilenson an A based on four votes in 1993 and 1994 on campaign-finance reform and the regulation of lobbyists. Gallegly received an F.

The shoe was on the other foot in the 1994 report card issued by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, a conservative taxpayers group that scrutinizes government spending. Gallegly received a 70.27%, while Beilenson received a 32.43%.

“Anyone who has a consistently low rating, that is a pattern; that’s someone who is supporting wasteful programs for whatever reason,” spokeswoman Leslie Paige said. “You’d have to ask them why.”

Beilenson complained that some so-called taxpayers groups pick votes for their report cards on which even moderate Democrats like himself score poorly.

“They really can be misleading,” he said.

One of the most recent surveys to appear on Capitol Hill did not assess voting records at all. It focused on something a bit more difficult to pin down.

Mocking the proliferation of congressional ratings, the satirical Spy magazine came up with its own--an assessment of who is the coolest member of Congress.

Unfortunately for the two local representatives, there was only one winner in the entire House--Rep. Sonny Bono (R-La Quinta).

In learning of the honor, a surprised Bono had this to say: “Uh, well, first of all, it’s a, uh, it’s a tremendous honor.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Congressional Report Card

Ratings of Ventura County’s two congressmen by special interest groups.

Anthony Elton C. Beilenson Gallegly (D-Woodland (R-Simi Hills) Valley) National Journal 1992 rating % Conservative/Liberal on economics 59% L 76% C % Conservative/Liberal on social issues 76% L 85% C % Conservative/Liberal on foreign affairs 86% L 82% C Americans for Democratic Action 95% 10% American Conservative Union 0% 100% ACLU 78% 9% American Public Health Assn. 27% 20% American Security Council 20% 100% Business-Industry Political 0% 100% Action Committee Christian Action Network F A NAACP C F