THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, April 22, 1996 TAG: 9604220069
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B5 EDITION: FINAL
LENGTH: Long : 145 lines
Constitutional amendment: The House rejected a constitutional amendment (HJ Res 159) requiring that bills raising taxes be approved by two-thirds majorities of both houses, rather than by simple majorities as is now the case. The tally of 243 for and 177 against fell short of the two-thirds majority required for approval of constitutional amendments.
Wes Cooley, R-Ore., said: ``Those who vote against this measure would like to keep the money and the power here in Washington. Do we not trust the American people? . . . Let us let the American people decide whether or not they would like to make it harder for us to raise taxes.''
Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., said: ``Our Constitution is the greatest political document ever written, yet Speaker Gingrich is convinced he can do better. . . guided this nation since its founding.''
A yes vote was to change the Constitution to require two-thirds House and Senate majorities for tax increases.
Bateman No Pickett No
Scott No Sisisky No
Clayton No Jones Yes
Trust funds: Voting 284 for and 143 against, the House passed a bill (HR 842) putting four transportation trust funds ``off budget'' and thus beyond the reach of deficit-cutting measures. This would allow increased spending on transportation projects while subjecting other discretionary programs to deeper cuts. Under present law, the $30 billion-plus in the Highway, Airport and Airway, Inland Waterways and Harbor Maintenance trust funds can be spent only for specified purposes such as road building. But as part of the federal budget, the outlays are restrained along with spending for other programs. The funds get their income from transportation levies such as fuel taxes and from accrued interest. Their balances are expected to top $77 billion by 2002.
James Oberstar, D-Minn., said the bill would allow trust funds ``to be used and invested to reverse the deterioration of our nation's infrastructure. This is not adding to the deficit, it is a deficit-neutral step that we take here.''
Martin Sabo, D-Minn., said he, too, favors spending for highways, airports and mass transit. ``But we have to make those judgments in relationship to the other choices we have to make'' in shaping the budget.
A yes vote was to put transportation trust funds ``off budget.''
Bateman Yes Pickett Yes
Scott Yes Sisisky Yes
Clayton No Jones Yes
Crime and terror: By a vote of 293 for and 133 against, the House sent President Clinton a two-pronged bill (S 735) that narrows the constitutional writ of habeas corpus and gives law enforcement more power to prevent and prosecute acts such as the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings. The bill limits the time in which death row inmates can file habeas corpus appeals with a federal court, and makes it more difficult for U.S. judges to overturn state court convictions. Addressing terrorism, the bill empowers the government to keep suspicious individuals from entering the country, bars domestic fund raising for certain foreign groups and requires the tagging of explosives to determine their origin. And it establishes a new federal court proceeding in which alleged terrorists can be deported while government evidence against them is kept secret.
A yes vote was to approve the legislation.
Bateman Yes Pickett Yes
Scott No Sisisky Yes
Clayton No Jones No SENATE
Terrorism: Voting 91 for and 8 against, the Senate approved the conference report on a bill (S 735) that limits the ability of those on death row to file habeas corpus appeals in federal court and takes steps against domestic and international terrorism (see House issue above). In part, the bill extends the reach of federal prosecutors against alleged terrorists at home and abroad, outlaws fund raising in the United States for certain overseas organizations, requires tagging of explosives to identify their manufacturer and suspends federal rules of evidence in proceedings to deport suspected terrorists.
Hank Brown, R-Colo., said: ``In the past decade, Americans have suffered numerous terrorist attacks. . . . enough is enough. It is time to take bold steps to protect American citizens from the threat posed by terrorism.''
Claiborne Pell, D-R.I., said the habeas corpus limits are ``a departure from a longstanding tradition in English and American jurisprudence and, as an opponent of the death penalty, I feel I cannot in good conscience support'' the bill.
A yes vote was to approve the legislation.
Robb Yes Warner Yes
Faircloth Yes Helms Yes
Habeas corpus: The Senate voted 64 for and 35 against to keep habeas corpus restrictions in S 735 (above). In part, this will limit state death row prisoners who seek habeas corpus review in federal court to a single request filed within one year of exhaustion of state appeals. Under current law, a condemned prisoner may file multiple appeals over any number of years. The bill also prohibits federal intervention in a state case unless a federal court finds the state court unreasonably violated a prisoner's constitutional rights. Now there are virtually no limits on a U.S. judge's habeas corpus rulings.
Daniel Moynihan, D-N.Y., said: ``Habeas corpus has little to do with terrorism. Nothing in our present circumstances requires the suspension of habeas corpus. We are dealing with a fundamental provision of law (which) is at the very foundation of the legal system designed to safeguard our liberties. We are putting in jeopardy a tradition of protection of individual rights by federal courts that goes back to our earliest foundation.''
Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said: ``The deference to state law is good . . . we should not give some judge who hates the death penalty a right to disrupt that whole process when there is no legal justification for doing so. Convicted killers should be punished, and the particularly heinous killers should be punished with the death penalty. We have allowed the procedural justifications to exist for far too long. . . ''
A yes vote was to limit habeas corpus appeals.
Robb Yes Warner Yes
Faircloth Yes Helms Yes
MEDICAL SAVINGS ACCOUNTS: By a vote of 52 for and 46 against, the Senate removed a plan for medical savings accounts (MSAs) from a pending healthcare reform bill (S 1028). The bill remained in debate. Eliminated by this vote was a proposal by Majority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., and others to allow families to put up to $4,000 annually in tax-free medical accounts similar in design to Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Supporters said MSAs would introduce choice and discipline into health care reform, while opponents called them a tax break for the well-off that would undermine health care for the rest of the population.
Dole said: ``MSAs provide individuals with choice and flexibility. If an individual chooses an MSA, the individual can tailor his or her own health care to his or her own needs. Individuals could purchase a high-deductible plan and then use the money they accumulated in their savings account, up to the deductible limit, for health care expenses.''
Nancy Kassebaum, R-Kan., said: ``Medical savings accounts could provide a false sense of security because . . . they are sold as giving Americans freedom to exercise choice and that people will be protected when they get catastrophic illnesses. There is a concern that MSAs will segment the market into people who are very healthy and people who are not healthy.''
A yes vote was to strip the bill of medical savings accounts.
Robb Yes Warner No
Faircloth No Helms No ILLUSTRATION: Photos
Members of Congress from area
by CNB