THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, March 5, 1995 TAG: 9503050055
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A9 EDITION: FINAL
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Long : 161 lines
Here's how area members of Congress were recorded on major roll call votes in the week ending March 3. HOUSE
``Risk assessment'': By a vote of 286 for and 141 against, the House passed a bill (HR 1022) to reduce federal regulation. It requires agencies to rely heavily on ``risk-assessment'' and ``cost-benefit'' scientific analyses in writing rules to carry out health, safety and environmental laws. Sponsors said the result will be rules that inflict lighter economic costs but still protect the public against statistically realistic hazards. The Contract With America bill applies to any future rule imposing compliance costs of $25 million or more on a business, state, locality or individual.
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Herbert H. Bateman, R-Va. Yes
Owen B. Pickett, D-Va. Yes
Robert C. Scott, D-Va. No
Norman Sisisky, D-Va. Yes
Eva Clayton, D-N.C. No
Walter Jones Jr., R-N.C. Yes
Rules: Voting 206 for and 220 against, the House refused to apply HR 1022 (above) to existing as well as new regulations. In part, the amendment sought to allow the repeal of rules proven to be too costly when measured against the risks they would prevent.
A yes vote supported a retroactive risk assessment bill.
Bateman No
Pickett Did not vote
Scott No
Sisisky Yes
Clayton No
Jones Yes
Bailing out Mexico: Voting 407 for and 21 against, the House passed a nonbinding measure (H Res 80) calling for the disclosure of information about recent administration actions to bail out the Mexican economy. In part, the measure seeks information on the use of the Treasury's Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) to provide $20 billion in loan guarantees and currency swaps to shore up the peso. President Clinton tapped the fund after Congress appeared unlikely to act quickly to save the collapsing Mexican economy. Critics say the ESF was wrongly used as a conduit for foreign aid, subjecting taxpayers' money to undue risk.
A yes vote was to pass the resolution.
Bateman Yes
Pickett Yes
Scott Yes
Sisisky Yes
Clayton Yes
Jones Yes
Small business: By a vote of 415 for and 15 against, the House passed a bill (HR 926) to ease the federal regulatory burden on small businesses, which generally are defined as those with fewer than 500 employees. One of three Contract With America bills dealing with federal regulations, the measure requires agencies to clear several new hurdles as they write rules to carry out bills passed by Congress. For example, they must compile a ``regulatory impact analysis'' for rules that will cost the economy at least $50 million annually. The bill also gives businesses increased power to contest federal rules in court.
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Bateman Yes
Pickett Yes
Scott Yes
Sisisky Yes
Clayton Yes
Jones Yes
Property rights: Voting 277 for and 148 against, the House passed a bill (HR 925) to reimburse certain property owners, such as developers and farmers, who lose at least 10 percent of their land value through U.S. environmental regulations including wetlands, endangered species and clean water actions. The ``takings'' bill (HR 925) is part of the Republican Contract With America. Reimbursement of owners, including payment of their attorney and appraisal fees, would come out of an agency's regular budget, giving the agency an incentive against regulation.
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Bateman Yes
Pickett Yes
Scott Yes
Sisisky Yes
Clayton No
Jones Yes
Home owners: The House rejected, 165 for and 260 against, an amendment to benefit homeowners in a property ``takings'' bill (HR 925, above). The amendment sought to protect homeowners in cases where their property is harmed by the action of a commercial neighbor, for example, a developer who fills in wetlands and causes drainage problems nearby. A key effect of the amendment was to allow federal regulation in such cases, so that the homeowner's property is not devalued in the name of protecting the developer's property rights.
A yes vote was to include broad homeowner protections in the bill.
Bateman No
Pickett No
Scott Yes
Sisisky No
Clayton Yes
Jones No
SENATE
Balanced budget: The Senate failed, 65 for and 35 against, to achieve the two-thirds majority (67 votes) required to send a balanced budget constitutional amendment to the states for ratification. The measure (HJR 1) states that by 2002, deficit spending in any fiscal year is prohibited unless voted by three-fifths majorities of the entire House and Senate memberships. The only other exception is that red ink can occur during a national security crisis if allowed by simple majorities of all House members and senators. Taxes can be raised by simple majority vote of all members. Also, presidents must submit balanced budgets to Congress, and federal courts are prohibited from enforcing the constitutional amendment.
A yes vote was to send the House-passed constitutional amendment to the states.
John W. Warner, R-Va. Yes
Charles S. Robb, D-Va. Yes
Jesse A. Helms, R-N.C. Yes
Lauch Faircloth, R-N.C. Yes
Judicial review: The Senate voted 92 for and eight against to prohibit federal courts from enforcing the balanced budget constitutional amendment (HJR 1) and thus setting fiscal policy.
A yes vote was to ban judicial review of the amendment.
Warner Yes
Robb Yes
Helms Yes
Faircloth Yes
Stimulus spending: By a vote of 61 for and 39 against, the Senate tabled (killed) an amendment making it easier within the balanced budget amendment (above) to use red ink to stimulate the economy. Congress by simple majority vote could run deficits in times of recession or depression.
A yes vote opposed making it easier to use deficit spending to pump up the economy.
Warner Yes
Robb Yes
Helms Yes
Faircloth Yes
Social Security: By a vote of 60 for and 39 against, the Senate tabled (killed) proposed constitutional language exempting Social Security from balanced budget arithmetic. This occurred during debate on HJR 1 (above). Although Social Security is legally ``off budget,'' Congress counts its surpluses in tallying the annual deficit, masking the actual level of red ink.
This proposal sought to constitutionally fortify the bipartisan pledge in Congress that the surpluses - projected to reach $700 billion in the year 2002 by which HJR 1 requires a balanced budget - will not be diverted to deficit reduction.
A yes vote opposed constitutional language preventing the use of Social Security surpluses to lower the deficit.
Warner Yes
Robb Yes
Helms Yes
Faircloth Yes
c. 1995, Thomas Reports Inc. by CNB