THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, September 18, 1995 TAG: 9509180057
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B5 EDITION: FINAL
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Long : 132 lines
Here's how area members of Congress were recorded on major roll call votes in the week ending Sept. 14. HOUSE
"Lockbox": Voting 364 to 59, the House passed a bill (HR 1162) to ensure that savings from spending cuts voted on the House and Senate floors are used to lower the deficit rather than beef up other programs.
Cuts would be placed in a symbolic ``lockbox'' and used to reduce appropriations. The bill applies to discretionary programs, which account for about one-third of the budget, but not entitlement spending.
Supporter Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said ``this is a very simple concept. . where it should go, which is to deficit reduction rather than having the Committee on Appropriations go spend it on something else that no one has ever voted on.''
Opponent Anthony Beilenson, D-Calif., said entitlements are ``driving the growth of the federal budget.'' He said the bill ignored ``not only entitlement programs but also tax expenditures, which, like entitlement programs, are not reauthorized on an annual basis.''
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Bateman Not voting Pickett Yes
Scott Yes Sisisky Not voting
Clayton No Jones Yes
CIA budget: By a vote of 154 to 271, the House rejected an amendment requiring public disclosure of the overall amount spent by U.S. intelligence agencies. This occurred as the House sent the Senate a bill (HR 1655) to fund the intelligence operations of 12 agencies including the CIA. In the past, the classified figure has been widely reported to be an estimated $28 billion to $30 billion annually.
Sponsor Barney Frank, D-Mass., said that foreign governments that care about the amount already know it, and that ``all we accomplish by this foolish restriction (on) publishing the gross number is to make it harder for the American people to follow what we are doing. . . . ''
Opponent Larry Combest, R-Texas, said publicizing the gross amount ``will become the story, and then the next obvious step is to begin to look at, well, how does that break down. . . . I think the American people understand and recognize the fact that there are secrets.''
A yes vote was to publicly disclose overall spending for U.S. intelligence.
Bateman No Pickett No Scott Yes Sisisky Not voting Clayton Yes Jones No SENATE
More Children: By a vote of 66 to 34, the Senate stripped a pending welfare overhaul bill (HR4) of languagge prohibiting additional cash benefits when welfare mothers have more children. The bill remained in debate. This vote revoced a "family cap" that sought to use the denial of benefits as an incentive to reduce illegitimacy.
Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., said: ``I am not new to this subject, and I am very much opposed to a family cap of any kind. . . . These children have not asked to be conceived, and they have not asked to come into the world. We have an elemental responsibility'' not to penalize them for their parents' mistakes.
Phil Gramm, R-Texas, said the family cap is needed because ``one out of every three babies born in America today is born out of wedlock. . . . If we continue to give people more and more money to have more and more children on welfare, by the end of this century illegitimacy will be the norm and not the exception in America.''
A yes vote was to allow welfare benefits to increase when more children are born.
Robb Yes Warner No
Helms No Faircloth No
Unwed mothers: The Senate rejected, 24 to 76, an amendment to HR 4 (above) denying welfare checks to unwed teenage mothers. This preserved language enabling states to continue to provide assistance to these teens while taking other measures to address the problem of children having children.
Sponsor Lauch Faircloth, R-N.C., said: ``Only by taking away the perverse cash incentive to have children out of wedlock can we hope to slow the increase in out-of-wedlock births and ultimately end welfare dependency. . . . The federal government should not be in the business of subsidizing illegitimacy.''
Opponent Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said he agreed that illegitimacy and its consequences ``are destroying our society. Where we disagree is that I believe we should allow states to address the crisis'' without this federal mandate. He added, ``Changing laws alone will not change behavior, but it is a first step.''
A yes vote was to cut off welfare checks to teens who have children out of wedlock.
Robb No Warner No Helms Yes Faircloth Yes
Child care: By a vote of 50 to 48, the Senate tabled a proposed block grant to provide child care for welfare mothers within HR 4 (above). This rejected a Democratic plan to set aside $11 billion over seven years for states to spend only on child care. It left standing a more flexible, less costly Republican plan to fund day care when mothers are required by the legislation to find work. The bill requires states to move half of their welfare recipients from the dole to jobs by 2000.
Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who voted to kill the amendment, said states need flexibility in allocating child care funds because ``our population is so heterogeneous, our nation so geographically vast, that it is impossible to make these very critical decisions in Washington, D.C.''
John Breaux, D-La., said that without the Democratic amendment the bill is ``a huge unfunded mandate'' that will force states to raise ``an incredible amount of state taxes in order to pay for the child care.''
A yes vote opposed guaranteed federal funding of $11 billion for state child care efforts.
Robb No Warner Yes Helms Yes Faircloth Yes
Food stamps: The Senate rejected, 36 to 64, an amendment to convert food stamps from a federal entitlement run by Washington to a state-based discretionary spending program. The amendment to HR 4 (above) sought to establish block grants, or lump sum payments, that states could spend as they wish to provide food assistance to the needy.
Sponsor John Ashcroft, R-Mo., said ``food stamps are welfare . . . they serve more clients than any other welfare program. . . . I do not know how it is that block grants can make sense for everything else from AFDC to job training but not for food stamps.''
Opponent Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said ``there must be a safety net, basically, for eating, for nutrition, a safety net against starvation in this country. This is not an experimental situation in which . . we send it back to the states and say to the governors, `You are going to have to run it.' ''
A yes vote was to convert food stamps to a state-run discretionary spending program.
Robb No Warner No Helms Yes Faircloth Yes ILLUSTRATION: Photos of area members
by CNB