Reps differed in opposing funding

Including Gov. Robert Casey, 243 elected officials voted this summer to grant the University $37.6 million for the 1991 fiscal year. There were, however, three who disagreed. But despite the fact they voted together, these three members of the state House of Representatives seem to agree on little else. One believed state spending should be kept to an absolute minimum on all issues. Another felt the University was not using state funding to keep tuition down, as he felt the money was intended. And the third felt the $19 million Gov. Casey proposed in February was closer to what the University deserved. The state Senate and House of Representatives passed a $36.7 million funding plan for the University in August. The measure, House Bill 1555, restored the University's state allocation to the last year's level, without including any increase to compensate for inflation. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate, 50-0, but in the House, Gaynor Cawley (D-Lackawanna), James Gallen (R-Berks) and Kenneth Kruszewski (D-Erie) all dissented from the 192-member majority. Gallen said his "nay" was a simple matter of trying to limit state spending. "As far as I'm concerned I would have gone with a scorched earth budget," Gallen said this summer. Gallen said his vote was consistent with a personal policy of voting against so-called "non-preferred" spending bills, except for those supporting cancer research. Non-preferred spending is contained in a series of 40 bills outside the state's general fund budget, and helps fund state universities, museums, hospitals and research institutes. Rep. Cawley insisted that his vote against the University's funding bill was not a vote against higher education in general. "I think that education is probably our best investment in spite of what I did on the vote," Cawley said Wednesday. But Cawley said he agreed with the governor's original budget proposal and was displeased with the spending increases other lawmakers added to the proposal and the tax increases enacted to pay for them. Cawley said he also disagreed with most non-preferred spending, although he voted for the bills much more often than Gallen. His major exception: Pennsylvania State University's funding, because he had spent time at the school's research and medical facilities and was impressed with them. But he still questioned whether the state should be responsible for funding non-preferred institutions. "I think that it ought to be looked at because of the other services that this state is mandated to provide," Cawley said. "We should go back to when they were put in and why." First-year Rep. Kruszewski said he saw state aid for schools such as the University, to some extent, as a form of assistance to slow tuition increases. He reasoned that since many aided schools continue to increase both their state aid requests and their tuition each year, the end result of budget negotiations -- no increase or decrease in funding for the University -- might serve as a just punishment. "They should operate for one year at their past appropriation because every time we appropriate the money their tuition goes up," Kruszewski said. "But I still ended up and voted for the budget and tax appropriation," Kruszewski added. "I had the courage to do that." All three representatives insisted their cuts came as an attempt to solve the budget dilemma. For Cawley, that meant voting against both spending and tax increases. For both Gallen and Kruszewski, it meant voting against many spending bills but placing the crucial votes for a tax increase. "I was not part of the problem," Gallen said. "I did not vote for the spending -- but I did vote to pay for it."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.