House Gives Final OK to Budget Spending

WASHINGTON —  Moving with unusual dispatch and fending off token opposition, the House on Wednesday approved the spending portion of the balanced-budget package and sent it to the Senate, which is expected to pass it today. The legislation, agreed on by Senate and House conferees and White House negotiators earlier this week, trims projected federal spending by at least $130 billion over five years, mostly by targeting Medicare, in an effort to balance the budget by 2002.

After dispatching the spending bill by a 346-85 vote, the House will turn full attention to a companion budget measure providing an estimated $94 billion in tax reductions over the next five years. Top officials on Capitol Hill predicted a House vote late today and Senate consideration on Friday, with passage again virtually assured.

“I am proud to inform the American people that our democratic process, something that has been maligned in recent years, is working,” Rep. Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.) declared as the House opened debate on the spending bill. “Congress, working with the administration, can achieve fundamental goals.”

Rep. John R. Kasich (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Budget Committee and a key budget negotiator, said: “What this bill really represents is the dawning of a new era. [It’s] an era where we begin to recognize the limits of government. This is a program that puts power in people’s pockets by reducing the size of government.”

House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) made a point of praising the president. “You have to give President Clinton some credit--he’s rejected the left wing of his party,” he said.

While a few liberal House Democrats fretted over the fast-tracking of the budget bills, dissent was limited as lawmakers seemed intent on leaving Washington by Friday evening for a monthlong recess with a political trophy to show constituents back home.

In Wednesday’s House debate, opposition speeches were more political play-acting than a real threat to the spending bill. Supporters, meanwhile, rose one after another to defend the legislation and praise negotiators for reaching agreement without the rancor that had marked previous budget battles between the Republican majority in Congress and the Clinton administration.

A majority of members in both parties supported the spending bill--193 Republicans and 153 Democrats. Voting against it were 52 Democrats, 32 Republicans and the House’s single independent, Rep. Bernard Sanders of Vermont.

The most notable Democrat opposing it was House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), who has denounced the balanced-budget agreement as a shortsighted bid for political dividends that will hurt the American people in the long run.

The spending bill accounts for most of its savings through a $115-billion reduction in projected spending for Medicare, the health program that benefits elderly Americans and the disabled. The reduction is achieved largely by reining in reimbursements to hospitals and other health care providers.

The measure orders another $140-billion cut from unspecified other programs over the next five years, while postponing the decision on precisely what will be trimmed.

At the same time, the legislation calls for a $24-billion expansion of health-care coverage of children, allowing individual states to set up their own programs. It is to be paid for by a 15-cent increase on the per-pack cigarette tax.

While Clinton and congressional leaders have touted their bipartisan approach to this year’s budget negotiations, analysts said as much or more credit should go to the unexpectedly robust national economy that reduced the deficit at a faster-than-anticipated rate and allowed Democrats to have increased spending on some favored programs while allowing Republicans to win approval of various tax cuts.

Some House Democrats said they couldn’t support the spending package, despite the generous outlays for programs such as the child insurance program. Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) said, “We are talking about a flawed bill that the administration tried to make better. But a flawed bill is still a bad bill.”

Other critics complained that Congress is unlikely to cut veterans, education, nutrition and other politically sensitive programs that they said will require future spending reductions to get a balanced budget in 2002.

“This is an Alice in Wonderland budget process,” said Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.).

Times staff writers Dina Bass and Kasper Zeuthen contributed to this story.