THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, May 8, 1995 TAG: 9505080030
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B5 EDITION: FINAL
LENGTH: Long : 160 lines
Budget cut: By a vote of 201 for and 214 against, the House refused to cut $36 million from legislation (HR 655) to accelerate research into hydrogen as a renewable, nonpolluting, affordable fuel. The rejected amendment sought to cut spending in the bill from $100 million to $64 million over three years. The bill was later sent to the Senate on a nonrecord vote.
Sponsor John Olver, D-Mass., said his amendment allowed full funding of hydrogen research except for demonstration projects. He said the House spent its first 100 days cutting many social programs and that in the next 100 days ``we may even eliminate the Department of Energy.''
Opponent Robert Walker, R-Pa., said Olver's amendment would not save money but result in higher spending for fossil, solar, fusion and nuclear energy research that already is amply funded. ``We ought to begin to reprioritize'' in behalf of basic hydrogen research, he added.
A yes vote supported the budget cut.
Bateman No<
PickettNo
Scott Yes
Sisisky Yes
Clayton Yes
Jones No
Spending issue: Voting 155 for and 257 against, the House rejected an amendment to HR 655 (above) concerning the Department of Energy research budget. The bill capped fiscal 1996 spending at the 1995 level of about $3.3 billion. This amendment sought to lift the cap to permit about $250 million in additional 1996 spending. Backers said spending levels should be set during the normal budget process, not by random measures such as this bill. Foes said that in addition to fighting the deficit, a spending cap would give hydrogen research the higher priority it deserves. Sponsor George Brown, D-Calif., objected to the cap as ``a first step toward the dismantling of the research budget of the Department of Energy.''
Opponent Robert Walker, R-Pa., said: ``I would urge anybody who is talking about reducing deficits and reducing debt to vote against this amendment . .
A yes vote opposed capping Energy Department research and development spending.
Bateman No
Pickett No
Scott Yes
Sisisky No
Clayton Yes
Jones No
Priorities: By a vote of 187 for and 207 against, the House rejected a Democratic motion on spending priorities. At issue was a bill (HR 1158) to rescind, or roll back, about $17 billion already appropriated by Congress but not yet spent. A House-Senate conference committee is to determine the final contents of the bill. This vote was on a Democratic recommendation that the House accept the Senate version with few exceptions. The Senate would spend hundreds of millions more than the House on social programs such as Americorps, the Goals 2000 education initiative and the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program.
Sponsor David Obey, D-Wis., said the Senate version, ``fashioned in a bipartisan way in a Republican-controlled body, is harder, much harder on pork
Opponent Bob Livingston, R-La., called Obey's motion ``no compromise (but) a total abdication of what we passed in the House,'' adding that members should not ``bind or prejudge the outcome of this conference at all.''
A yes vote supported the Democratic motion.
Bateman No
Pickett Yes
Scott Yes
Sisisky Yes
Clayton Yes
Jones No THE SENATE
Lawsuits: The Senate failed, 47 for and 52 against, to cut off debate on a bill to overhaul civil litigation (HR 956). The bill began as a measure to federalize state product liability laws. It was then broadened to cap punitive damages in all state and federal civil cases (below) and to cover medical malpractice (below), among other changes. The effect of this vote was to kill the enlarged measure and force GOP leaders to begin stripping away some of the added provisions.
Majority leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., said ``we have a pretty good package here. . . . We owe it to the American people'' to pass it.
Opponent Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she wanted ``an opportunity to vote on a narrow bill . . . which does not include the Dole amendment crippling punitive damages in all civil actions.''
A yes vote was to move to final passage of the bill to change civil litigation in federal and state courts.
Faircloth Yes
Helms Yes
Robb No
Warner Yes
Punitive damages: Voting 51 for and 49 against, the Senate imposed a nationwide cap on punitive damages in civil cases. This occurred during debate on a bill (HR 956, above) to federalize state product liability laws. The vote capped punitive damages in all state and federal civil suits, not just product suits, at twice the level of compensatory damages. Punitive damages are designed in part to deter manufacturers from selling faulty products, whereas compensatory damages offset a claimant's loss of income, medical bills and ``pain and suffering.''
Sponsor Bob Dole, R-Kan., said his amendment would ``free our nonprofit organizations, small businesses and local governments to serve America without first serving up a tribute to personal injury lawyers.''
Opponent Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., said the threat of punitive damages has prompted automakers to recall 72 million cars. ``That is wonderful safety on the highways of America. Why? Because of punitive damages. It has been proved from the Pinto case on down . . .''
A yes vote was to cap punitive damages in federal and state civil suits.
Faircloth Yes
Helms Yes
Robb No
Warner Yes
Medical malpractice: Voting 53 for and 47 against, the Senate broadened a pending product liability bill (HR 956, above) to cover medical malpractice. In part, the amendment limited punitive damages and attorneys' contingency fees in malpractice cases against health care providers. The doctors' lobby supported the amendment while the trial lawyers' lobby opposed it.
Supporter Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said ``medical liability costs are out of control . . . (and) raise the costs of health care. The explosion of medical liability claims diverts resources which would be used for patient care, and it raises the per-patient cost of health care.''
Opponent Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said: ``We should not begin to tinker with the malpractice liability system except as a part of a more comprehensive effort to reform the nation's health care system. . . . Here we are talking about one small phase of the whole health care issue that effectively is going to protect negligent doctors and substandard hospitals. . .''
A yes vote was to include medical malpractice in a pending product liability bill.
Faircloth Yes
Helms Yes
Robb Yes
Warner Yes MEMO: To reach any representative or senator on any issues that concern you,
dial (202) 224-3121.
ILLUSTRATION: Photos
[Virginia representatives]
[North Carolina representatives]
by CNB