Lawmakers Graded by Many Groups : Congress: More than 80 organizations issue report cards on voting records. No one receives straight A’s.

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 high enough to send him on to the prestigious Harvard Law School. In Congress, for every A he receives, it seems there is an F not far behind.

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

The ratings have made passe the traditional labels like liberal and conservative. Nowadays, political leanings can be nailed down to the exact percent, at least according to groups like the National Assn. of Social Workers or Bread for the World.

So commonplace are the grade reports--more than 80 groups make them--that some say they are losing their punch. And, of course, by the very nature of the organizations--and the different sides of the issues on which they fall--it is impossible for lawmakers to receive consistently high marks.

Not that they would want to.

“When we get a low rating from the ACLU we wear that as a badge of honor,” said Armando Azarloza, district director for Rep. Howard P. (Buck) McKeon (R-Santa Clarita.)

As for groups such as the National Taxpayers Union, the National Federation of Business and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Federation, which give McKeon high scores, Azarloza says, “If these people think he’s doing a good job, that’s fine.”

Beilenson received a perfect score from Zero Population Growth, which pushes the same world population-control policies he espouses, and 78% from the American Civil Liberties Union. But other organizations knock him off the dean’s list.

The Christian Action Network, reviewing several dozen votes dealing with abortion, homosexuality and the National Endowment for the Arts, deemed Beilenson’s voting record worthy of an F. He received an 85% from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. The NAACP gave him a C.

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

He cited environmental and consumer groups as among those he generally supports.

Although Beilenson describes himself as a casual reader of the report cards, there are signs that many lawmakers are quite 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, trophies and other awards handed out to those with the highest grades decorate congressional offices all over Capitol Hill.

Sometimes high grades can even translate into cash. While nonprofits cannot endorse candidates, political action committees are among the groups that issue report cards, and they donate to those lawmakers with the highest grades.

“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 that their scores have dropped unfairly from one year to the next.

“Members of Congress range from the insecure to the very secure,” explained one longtime congressional staffer who works for a Valley lawmaker. “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?

The Associated Builders and Contractors Inc. gave McKeon and Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead (R-Glendale) 90% rankings 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.

Beilenson and Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City) both received 20% ratings from the associated builders, while Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) got a 10%.

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,” said one congressional staffer. “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.”

Nevertheless, those who publish the ratings insist that they fill an important role in educating voters on how a representative stands on at least a handful of critical issues. The Business-Industry Political Action Committee includes a disclaimer with its grades pointing out that “there is a difference between voting records and legislative performance.”

However, 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, which come in cheaply produced newsletters, slick brochures and everything in between, vary widely in their comprehensiveness. Some groups, for instance, base their grades on only a handful of votes and, as part of their lobbying efforts, notify lawmakers ahead of time that an upcoming vote will be rated. Other organizations include numerous votes on their surveys and consider it improper to tip lawmakers off on which votes will appear on the voting guide.

In one of the more comprehensive ratings, the National Journal reviews dozens of votes in order to determine lawmakers’ place on the political spectrum. Using a statistical procedure called “principal components analysis,” the magazine scores members of Congress in three areas--economics, social issues and foreign policy.

The magazine’s 1992 ratings show Moorhead (R-Glendale) as among the nation’s most conservative lawmakers, with a 91% conservative rating on economics, 85% on social policy and 82% on foreign affairs.

Waxman had the most consistent liberal voting record among Valley lawmakers, with liberal ratings of 83% on economics, 88% on social issues and 82% on foreign policy.

Among interest groups, area lawmakers varied widely in their scores last term.

Public Citizen, a consumer group founded by Ralph Nader, gives Beilenson, Waxman and Berman A’s based on four votes in 1993 and 1994 on campaign finance reform and the regulation of lobbyists.

McKeon and Moorhead received scores of F from the group’s Congress Watch.

The Consumer Federation of America was more blunt in its scores. It named Beilenson and Waxman “heroes” for their voting patterns and called McKeon and Moorhead “zeroes.”

The shoe was on the other foot in the report card issued by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste in 1994. Moorhead and McKeon were among the highest-ranking lawmakers, with scores of 72.97% and 62.16%, respectively. Waxman received a 40.54% rating, while Berman received a 37.14% and Beilenson 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,” said spokeswoman Leslie Paige. “You’d have to ask them why.”

Beilenson complained that some taxpayers’ groups pick votes for their report cards in which even moderate Democrats like himself score poorly.

“They really can be misleading,” he said.

The Business-Industry Political Action Committee gave Moorhead a 100% and McKeon a 93% in 1994 on a series of votes dealing with taxes, trade and other business concerns. Beilenson, Berman and Waxman all received zeros.

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, Spy magazine came up with one of its own--an assessment of who is the coolest member of Congress.

Unfortunately for local lawmakers, there was only one winner--Rep. Sonny Bono (R-Palm Springs).

“Uh, well, first of all, it’s a, uh, it’s a tremendous honor,” a surprised Bono said in accepting the award.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Congressional Scoreboard Ratings of local congress members by special interest groups. *

Anthony C. Beilenson National Journal 1992 rating: % Conservative / Liberal on economics: 59%L % Conservative / Liberal on social issues: 76%L % Conservative / Liberal on foreign affairs: 86%L *

Americans for Demorcatic Action: 95% *

American Conservation Union: 0% *

ACLU: 78% *

Chamber of Commerce of the United States: 27% *

Public Citizen Congress Watch: 79% *

National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare: 85% *

Christian Action Network: F *

NAACP: C *

Howard L. Berman National Journal 1992 rating: % Conservative / Liberal on economics: 75%L % Conservative / Liberal on social issues: 92%L % Conservative / Liberal on foreign affairs: 74%L *

Americans for Demorcatic Action: 90% *

American Conservation Union: 0% *

ACLU: 86% *

Chamber of Commerce of the United States: 20% *

Public Citizen Congress Watch: 79% *

National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare: 85% *

Christian Action Network: F *

NAACP: B *

Howard (Buck) McKeon National Journal 1992 rating: % Conservative / Liberal on economics: N/A % Conservative / Liberal on social issues: N/A % Conservative / Liberal on foreign affairs: N/A *

Americans for Demorcatic Action: 5% *

American Conservation Union: 95% *

ACLU: 17% *

Chamber of Commerce of the United States: 100% *

Public Citizen Congress Watch: 7% *

National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare: 23% *

Christian Action Network: A *

NAACP: F *

Carlos J. Moorhead National Journal 1992 rating: % Conservative / Liberal on economics: 92% % Conservative / Liberal on social issues: 85% % Conservative / Liberal on foreign affairs: 82% *

Americans for Demorcatic Action: 0% *

American Conservation Union: 100% *

ACLU: 17% *

Chamber of Commerce of the United States: 91% *

Public Citizen Congress Watch: 7% *

National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare: 15% *

Christian Action Network: A *

NAACP: F *

Henry A. Waxman National Journal 1992 rating: % Conservative / Liberal on economics: 83% % Conservative / Liberal on social issues: 88% % Conservative / Liberal on foreign affairs: 82% *

Americans for Demorcatic Action: 90% *

American Conservation Union: 0% *

ACLU: 86% *

Chamber of Commerce of the United States: 18% *

Public Citizen Congress Watch: 100% *

National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare: 85% *

Christian Action Network: F *

NAACP:A