DATE: Monday, June 30, 1997                 TAG: 9706300053

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B10  EDITION: FINAL 

                                            LENGTH:  243 lines

ROLL CALL: HOW MEMBERS OF CONGRESS VOTED

WASHINGTON - Here's how area members of Congress were recorded on major roll call votes in the week ending June 27.

Trade with China: The House refused, 173-259, to impose trade penalties on the People's Republic of China in response to its military actions, human rights abuses, nuclear exports and other policies that the U.S. government dislikes. The vote on HJ Res 79 backed the administration's decision to grant China Most Favored Nation trade status for another year, until July 1998. This enables China to continue receiving the lowest U.S. tariffs.

Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., voted to overturn the president's decision. She said normal trade would ``turn a blind eye'' on China's export of ``weapons of mass destruction technology to Iran, Libya, Iraq, Syria and other dangerous countries . . . a threat to U.S. troops based in the Persian Gulf and to the security of Israel. . . . We spend billions of dollars to promote the Middle East peace and it is jeopardized by this export policy. . . . ''

Phil Crane, R-Ill., said trade with China enables America to ``transfer values and ideals of freedom and democracy through direct contacts.'' He added: ``Sharing borders with more countries - 14 to be exact - than any other country in the world, a peaceful China will be a key to preserving stability. valued trading partner rather than an adversary isolated by comprehensive economic sanctions.''

A yes vote opposed normal trade.

Bateman no Pickett no

Scott yes Sisisky yes

Clayton yes Jones yes

Defense budget: Voting 304-120, the House approved a fiscal 1998 military budget of $268.2 billion, up about $2.6 billion over the comparable 1997 figure. In part, the bill (HR 1119) provides $3.8 billion for developing space- and land-based defenses against incoming missiles; $4.8 billion for restoring the environment at bases; $2.1 billion for developing the Air Force's next-generation fighter, the F-22 Raptor, and $3.3 billion for naval acquisition of another nuclear attack submarine. About 25 percent of the budget is for personnel costs including a 2.8 percent pay raise, 16 percent is for buying weapons, and 15 percent is for research and development.

The bill provides $331 million to reopen production lines for nine B-2 bombers in addition to the existing fleet of 21 B-2s, and establishes a commission to determine whether to continue mixed-gender basic training. Additionally, it begins cutting more than 100,000 civilian jobs from the Pentagon payroll over the next several years, and retains a ban on privately funded abortions at overseas military hospitals.

Floyd Spence, R-S.C., said: ``The nation's military strategy demands that we maintain forces sufficient to fight and win two major regional conflicts nearly simultaneously.''

Calling the bill too costly, Ronald Dellums, D-Calif., said: ``The American people . . . know intuitively that in this changing world we do not need to spend as much money on our military.''

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Bateman yes Pickett yes

Scott yes Sisisky yes

Clayton no Jones yes

B-2 bomber: The House rejected, 209-216, an amendment to remove $331.2 million for the B-2 bomber from the fiscal 1998 defense budget (HR 1119, above). The funds would reopen production lines so that nine more B-2s can eventually be built in addition to the fleet of 21 already approved.

Noting that a single B-2 costs $1.5 billion to procure, Mark Foley, R-Fla., said $331.2 million spent today would grow over 20 years into a $27 billion tab for expanding the fleet.

Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said ``if we do not keep the B-2 in the budget, this is going to be the first time that this nation has had the technology to allow our pilots to survive in an adverse environment and we have not given it to them.''

A yes vote opposed expanding the fleet.

Bateman no Pickett yes

Scott yes Sisisky yes

Clayton yes Jones no

Entitlements: Voting 270-162, the House passed a bill (HR 2015) making scores of major changes in entitlement programs other than Social Security to help balance the budget in 2002. Along with bills cutting taxes and funding discretionary programs, this is one of three keystones of the 1997 anti-deficit agreement between President Clinton and Congress.

The bill would curb entitlement spending by about $137 billion over five years, getting most of its savings - $115 billion - by slowing the Medicare growth rate from 8.5 percent annually to 5.9 percent. It curbs Medicare payments to hospitals and encourages enrollment by Medicare recipients in less-costly managed care plans. It achieves $12.6 billion in Medicaid savings, and sets up a new entitlement program to guarantee health coverage to some 500,000 poor children.

The legislation continues legal aliens' eligibility for Medicare and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, and authorizes $3 billion in new spending to fund welfare-to-work programs at the core of a welfare reform law enacted last year.

John Kasich, R-Ohio, called the bill ``not a wish, a prayer, a hope or a dream - it is reality'' toward a balanced budget in five years. David Bonior, D-Mich., said this bill combined with GOP tax cuts ``will spawn the worse economic inequality that Americans have experienced in the past century.''

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Bateman yes Pickett no

Scott no Sisisky yes

Clayton no Jones yes

Tax cuts: The House passed, 253-179, a bill (HR 2014) making $85 billion in net tax cuts as part of an agreement by Congress and the White House to balance the budget in 2002. Along with providing $135 billion in tax breaks to businesses, individual investors, those paying college costs, and families with children, the legislation increases receipts by $50 billion by such means as closing loopholes and taxing airline ticket sales.

The bill provides families with incomes of up to $110,000 a tax credit of $500 for each child 16 and younger. Families that receive the earned income tax credit, a federal payment to the working poor, would be denied the full tax credit. The legislation provides credits of up to $1,500 yearly for college tuition, and deductions of up to $10,000 a year for college costs paid from education investment accounts or pre-paid tuition plans.

Also, the bill lowers from 28 to 20 percent the top individual tax rate on capital gains from the sale of stocks and other assets, and indexes capital gains to protect against inflation. The current $600,000 exemption for estate taxes would be gradually raised to $1 million, Individual Retirement Accounts would be made more widely available.

Bill Archer, R-Texas, said: ``With the vote that we cast today, we will tell the American people that we have heard their message. It's time for Washington to tax less so the American people can do more.'' John Lewis, D-Ga., said: ``This debate is . . . about who will get the tax cut, Wall Street or Main Street. Democrats support a child tax credit for all working families. . . . The Republican tax bill is not the Good Samaratan on the Jericho Road. Do not be flim-flammed. What do Republicans give a family of four making $24,000 a year? Nothing. What do Republicans give the mother who has left welfare to work at a minimum wage? Nothing.''

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Bateman yes Pickett yes

Scott no Sisisky yes

Clayton no Jones yes

Democratic plan: Voting 197-235, the House rejected a Democratic alternative to HR 2014 (above). Democrats also sought $85 billion in net tax cuts, but differed by providing more benefits to middle-class and working-poor families at the expense of high wage-earners and corporations. For example, they enabled poor, working families that already receive the ``earned income tax credit'' to get full benefit of the bill's $500-per-child tax credit. The Democratic plan also sought to scale back Republican capital gains and estate tax breaks, among other provisions.

David Obey, D-Wis., said: ``Under the Republican bill, you have the biggest transfer of wealth out of the pockets of low-and middle-income families to the most well-off . . . since 1981.''

J.C. Hayworth, R-Ariz., termed the Democratic plan a ``nitpick'' and added: ``I do not impugn the motives of those on the other side who are trying to catch up and proffer some sort of tax relief. . . . It is a measure of how far we have come. . . . '' to see Democrats advocating lower taxes.

A yes vote supported the Democrats' tax bill.

Bateman no Pickett yes

Scott yes Sisisky yes

Clayton yes Jones no Senate

Reconciliation bill: By a vote of 73-27, the Senate on June 25 sent to conference with the House its version of a bill (S 947) to curb entitlement spending by $137 billion over five years, under terms of the 1997 balanced budget agreement between Congress and President Clinton. Both the Senate and House get about 85 percent of their entitlement savings by slowing Medicare spending growth. The Senate goes further by gradually raising the Medicare eligibility age (below), imposing a Medicare ``means test'' on well-off recipients (below), and increasing fees for home health care. Both bills expand Medicare by providing preventive-care benefits, and they create a new entitlement program for poor children's health care.

A yes vote was to approve the bill to bring entitlement spending within the confines of the 1997 balanced budget agreement.

Robb yes Warner yes

Helms no Faircloth no

Medicare age: Voting 62-38, senators allowed the Medicare eligibility age to gradually rise from 65 to 67 years between the years 2003 and 2027. This was added to a ``reconciliation'' bill (S 947) that makes scores of changes in Medicare, Medicaid, and other entitlement programs to reconcile them with balanced budget mandates. The higher age was supported by the Concord Coalition, an anti-deficit lobby, and opposed by the American Association of Retired Persons.

William Roth, R-Del., chairman of the Finance Committee that wrote the bill, called the age hike ``a very, very modest approach to an extremely serious problem. What we are concerned about is the solvency of Medicare. . .

Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., called the bill ``a direct attack on the middle class,'' adding ``this is not the time. . . not the place or the way to change Medicare. It should be the starting point for a national debate on how we protect Medicare and reward work and saving.''

A yes vote was to raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 between 2003 and 2027.

Robb yes Warner yes

Helms yes Faircloth yes

Income test: The Senate adopted, 70 for and 30 against, an amendment to S 947 (above) that imposes an income test on well-off Medicare recipients. Single people earning more than $50,000 annually and couples earning more than $75,000 would face premium increases next January for Medicare Part B, which mainly pays doctors bills. Premiums would rise from about $525 annually at present to levels as high as $2,100. This would affect about 1.6 million of the 38 million Medicare beneficiaries, according to floor debate. The change was supported by the Concord Coalition, an anti-deficit lobby, and opposed by the American Association of Retired Persons.

Phil Gramm, R-Texas, said: ``In order to keep Medicare solvent, we are going to ask very high-income retirees to begin to pay more of the cost of a benefit which they receive. . . . The alternative is to ask moderate-income working families to pay the cost.''

Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said he is ``not opposed in principle'' to the increase. But he fears higher premiums based on income could ``drive wealthier and healthier individuals away from the voluntary part B program'' and thus ``undermine the broad base of beneficiaries'' that Medicare depends on.

A yes vote favored higher Medicare premiums for the better-off.

Robb yes Warner yes

Helms yes Faircloth yes

Tobacco: Voting 30-70, the Senate rejected a bid to levy an additional 23 cents-per-pack tax on cigarettes as part of pending tax legislation (S 949, below). This would have been on top of a 20-cent increase already in the bill to pay for a healthcare entitlement for poor children. The present U.S. tax is 24 cents per pack.

A yes vote supported the tax hike.

Robb no Warner no

Helms no Faircloth no

Alcohol: The Senate refused, 12-86, to end the tax deduction for alcohol advertising costs. The vote occurred during debate on tax overhaul legislation (S 949, below).

A yes vote was to end alcohol advertising's tax deduction as a business expense.

Robb no Warner no

Helms yes Faircloth no

Tax cuts: Voting 80-18, the Senate approved $85 billion in net tax cuts over five years. In part, the legislation (S 949) provides $500-per-child tax credits for children 16 and younger, with the requirement that for those 13 to 16 the money be deposited in an education savings account. It reduces the top capital gains tax rate from 28 to 20 percent for individuals, extends Individual Retirement Accounts to spouses, and provides several tax credits and deductions to make higher education more affordable. On the revenue side, it raises about $81 billion over five years with new or extended taxes on airline tickets, continuing the federal unemployment surtax and raising the federal cigarette tax by 20 cents per pack.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Robb no Warner yes

Helms no Faircloth no ILLUSTRATION: Photos

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu