THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, July 3, 1995 TAG: 9507030056
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B5 EDITION: FINAL
LENGTH: Long : 133 lines
Sponsor Henry Hyde, R-Ill., said: ``What is at work here is something larger than the flag itself. It is a protest against the vulgarization, the trashing of our society. This amendment asserts that our flag is not just a piece of cloth but . . . represents certain unifying ideals most Americans hold sacred, ideals wonderfully expressed in the Declaration of Independence.''
Opponent Anthony Beilenson, D-Calif., said the measure ``would, for the first time in our nation's history, modify the Bill of Rights to limit the freedom of expression, and is thus wrong . . . as a matter of principle. This is unpopular expression, but it deserves protection no matter how much we may deplore it. That is the test of our commitment to freedom of expression.''
A yes vote approved the amendment.
Bateman Yes Pickett No
Scott No Sisisky Yes
Clayton Didn't vote Jones Yes
DEFINING TERMS: By a vote of 63 for and 369 against, the House refused to establish uniform, nationwide definitions for the constitutional amendment against flag desecration (HJ Res 79, above). The effect of the vote was to allow states to set their own definitions of what is outlawed. This motion sought to define desecration as ``burning, trampling, soiling or rending'' the flag.
John Bryant, D-Tex., told flag amendment sponsor Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y., that ``your proposal allows 50 states to define the flag any way that they want to. You brought it out here so quickly, you overlooked that.''
Solomon replied that Bryant ``goes against the entire federalist system. He worries about what the states will do. I do not. I have faith in those states, all 50 of those states.''
A yes vote was to define the terms flag and flag desecration in the constitutional amendment.
Bateman No Pickett No
Scott Yes Sisisky No
Clayton No Jones No
AID TO HAITI: The House voted 252 for and 164 to make aid to Haiti contingent upon its establishing democratic rule in this year's elections, as called for in the 1987 Haitian Constitution. The vote occurred during debate on a bill (HR 1868) appropriating $12 billion in fiscal 1996 foreign aid, including $90 million for Haiti.
Sponsor Porter Goss, R-Fla., said ``if at the end of the election cycle this year we find that the process has drifted or been jolted from democracy, then we should stop pouring money into that small Caribbean nation. . . . This amendment is good for a democratic Haiti. It is good for the American taxpayer.''
Opponent Carrie Meek, D-Fla., asked: ``Would America's allies in the Revolutionary War have forced the Goss amendment upon the struggling little United States? Did our allies, in the difficult days after our liberation from our own colonial masters, make their assistance contingent upon our implementing the Articles of Confederation? Of course not.''
A yes vote was to adopt the amendment.
Bateman Didn't vote Pickett Yes
Scott No Sisisky Yes
Clayton No Jones Yes
SPENDING ISSUE: By a vote of 90 for and 329 against, the House refused to kill the Overseas Private Investment Corp. by eliminating its fiscal 1996 funding of about $104 million. The vote occurred during debate on HR 1868 (above). OPIC, a federal agency, provides loans and loan guarantees to help American companies do business in emerging, risky markets in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere.
Sponsor Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., called his amendment ``a crystal-clear test case to show all our constituents that Congress has the guts to take a bite out of corporate welfare. It will be a recorded vote to stop . . . committing billions more in U.S. taxpayer dollars to help Fortune 500 companies'' such as GE and duPont.
Opponent Toby Roth, R-Wis., said: ``A loss of American exports translates into a loss of American jobs. . . . If we want to reduce American exports . . world markets, then vote for this amendment.''
A yes vote was to eliminate OPIC funding.
Bateman No Pickett No
Scott No Sisisky No
Clayton No Jones No
[Missing text. for complete text, see microfilm]
Sponsor Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y., said the bill would ``fix the problem caused by frivolous lawsuits that are making it difficult for companies to raise the capital needed to fuel our economy,'' adding that it would rein in lawyers who ``see an opportunity to strike it rich for themselves.''
Opponent Paul Sarbanes, D-Md., said that in seeking to prevent frivolous suits, the bill ``will deter legitimate fraud actions as well'' and thus ``may undermine the investor confidence on which our markets depend. Further, it fails to . . . ensure that investors have adequate time and means to pursue securities fraud actions.''
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Robb Yes Warner Yes
Helms Yes Faircloth No
FRAUD: By a vote of 39 for and 60 against, the Senate rejected an amendment to increase the liability of lawyers, accountants and other professionals who did work for a company sued for securities fraud. Under S 240 (above), these advisers are generally protected against lawsuits unless they have signed their name to certain documents. The amendment sought to remove that insulation and thus keep the law as it is now written.
Sponsor Richard Bryan, D-Nev., asked: ``Under what theory of social or economic justice can we assert that those who are part of the conspiracy itself - lawyers, accountants, primarily, and to some extent bankers - in effect be given a blank check?''
Opponent Hank Brown, R-Colo., said the amendment could result in ``holding someone liable for another's actions when they had no idea that fraud was taking place . . . even though they did not commit the fraud and they did not even know about the fraud.''
A yes vote supported the amendment.
Robb Yes Warner No
Helms No Faircloth No ILLUSTRATION: Photos
Virginia representatives
North Carolina representa by CNB