One of the more delicate balancing acts in Washington this summer is about to begin under the guidance of North Shore Republican Rep. John Porter.
Porter is chairman of one of the 13 House subcommittees that draw up the annual spending bills that fund the government. In his case, the panel governs the largest domestic pot, including funding of education, health and most social service programs.
The choices made in funding those areas raise core differences in social values, pitting the moderate and conservative wings of the GOP against each other.
Not only does the appropriations package determine the size of the nation’s commitment to various social programs, but it also traditionally is the venue for battles over such issues as family planning assistance, national education testing, needle-exchange programs and continued legal assistance for the poor.
This year, in shaping a bill that will garner the votes to pass, Porter must juggle a wafer-thin 11-vote majority, an assertive Republican right that feels frustrated in achieving its goals and party moderates anxious to avoid rocking the election-year boat.
After all, what Republican moderate looks forward to attack ads pointing out that, say, in voting for cuts to Public Broadcasting Service funding, he or she helped kill the beloved Barney?
Last year, the appropriations package tilted toward the moderates’ agenda, passing with substantial Democratic backing and massive defections from the Republican right.
That measure only came to a vote after eight long days of floor fights over amendments pressed by social conservatives.
“People who have been in Washington a long time tell me that is a record for an appropriations bill,” Porter said.
However, Porter believes Democratic support will be more problematic this year, given the GOP budget’s cuts in the total funding available for the appropriations bill.
With elections approaching, Democrats will be inclined to sharpen the distinctions between the two parties.
“It’ll be tough for Democrats to support a bill that spends less than the year before,” Porter said. “It’ll be a long and difficult process.”
That process begins Tuesday with Porter’s subcommittee considering his draft of the $80.2 billion funding package. Look for substantial increases in funding for medical research at the expense of education programs, summer youth employment and energy assistance programs for the poor.
Look also for an overture to conservatives in the form of a provision requiring outside review of new regulations from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Expect also the ban on federal funding of abortions long backed by Wood Dale GOP Rep. Henry Hyde to be extended to beneficiaries of Medicare disability programs.
Of course, there is a long way to go before the funding package winds its way through the congressional committee process and backroom struggles.
But the package’s chances will benefit from a rush among the politicians to finish the session so they campaign full time and equally strong incentive to avoid angering voters with a government shutdown.
One possibility Porter foresees: an 11th-hour resurrection of the tobacco legislation the Senate killed last week.
“In order to resolve those differences, people are going to be looking for more money,” Porter said. “It could be in the final resolution of five or six major appropriations bills, and in the final struggle with the White House, tobacco will come back.
Split decision: With the Illinois congressional delegation split over the matter, the Illinois River missed a designation as one of the Clinton administration’s 10 “American Heritage” rivers.
The choice would have entitled the areas around the rivers to special consideration for many federal programs, but the idea ran into strong opposition from Downstate agricultural interests who feared it would invite federal interference with property rights.
Peoria’s GOP Rep. Ray LaHood had been lobbying for the designation while Republican Reps. Dennis Hastert of Yorkville and John Shimkus of Collinsville sent letters to the administration in opposition.
“I was given every indication that those two letters were the death-knell of the projects,” LaHood said.
A Clinton administration official involved in the process said the congressional opposition “didn’t help,” but the fierce opposition from local farm organizations also was a significant factor.
