THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, July 29, 1996 TAG: 9607290048
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B5 EDITION: FINAL
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: 138 lines
Here's how area members of Congress were recorded on major roll call votes in the week ending July 26. HOUSE
Campaign finance: Voting 162 for and 259 against, the House rejected a Republican bill (HR 3820) that required House candidates to raise at least half of their campaign funds in their congressional district. While avoiding spending limits advocated by Democrats (see next issue), the bill reduced from $10,000 to $5,000 the maximum political action committee (PAC) donation to a House candidate, and raised the limit on individual contributions from $1,000 to $2,500 per cycle. It sought to guard against wealthy candidates using their own money to buy an election, by allowing a political party to give its candidate funding to match any high personal spending by the opposition candidate.
Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., said the bill ``returns control to the people of the United States by establishing the principle that 50 percent of candidates' money has to be raised in the district they represent so they have to go back home to talk with the people of their own district to raise the money.''
Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., said the Republican bill ``does nothing to limit campaign spending. . . . Elections will continue to be contests of bank accounts and not of ideas. Public Citizen, Common Cause and other public interest groups have called the (GOP) bill a fraud.''
A yes vote was to pass the GOP bill.
Bateman Yes Pickett No Scott No Sisisky No Clayton No Jones Yes
Democratic plan: By a vote of 177 for and 243 against, the House rejected a Democratic alternative to HR 3820 (above) that set voluntary spending limits of $600,000 in a two-year election cycle, with reduced broadcast and mailing costs for candidates accepting the limits. While they omitted the GOP requirement that candidates raise at least half of their money back home, they sought to outlaw the essentially unlimited ``soft money'' contributions that unions and corporations now make to political parties for the benefit of candidates.
Vic Fazio, D-Calif. said Democrats ``believe our political system will not be effectively reformed until the role of big money is reduced and the influence of special interests declines. Our substitute is an effort . . . to limit the influence of money in our politics and restore the influence of ordinary working Americans on their government.''
Bill Thomas, R-Calif., said: ``We hear criticisms of the system that we have to spend time in New York, in Dallas or in Hollywood raising money and we're away from our basic job of representing our constituents. Well, folks, with. . . the Republican bill, you get to go back home more often than not because you're required to raise the majority of your money back home.''
A yes vote supported the Democrats' substitute.
Bateman No Pickett No Scott Yes Sisisky No Clayton Yes Jones No
Legal services: By a vote of 247 for and 189 against, the House increased Legal Services Corp. spending by 77 percent over the committee-approved level for fiscal 1997. This set a $250 million budget next year for the agency that provides lawyers for the poor at 900 neighborhood offices nationwide. The hike was offset by cuts in the federal prison system, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other accounts. The vote occurred during debate on a multi-agency appropriations bill (HR 3814) that was sent to the Senate. Once targeted for extinction by GOP budget cutters, the LSC is on track to receive only slightly less funding than in 1996.
Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., said ``for many of our poorest, most vulnerable citizens,'' the LSC ``has helped to make the most basic tenet of our judicial system, equal justice under law, a reality.''
Cass Ballenger, R-N.C., said the LSC ``is a government bureaucracy that is out of control, and it must be tamed. . . . (It) has long been involved in political advocacy with tax dollars.''
A yes vote was to raise Legal Services Corp. spending by $109 million or 77 percent.
Bateman No Pickett Yes Scott Yes Sisisky Yes Clayton Yes Jones No
Spending issue: By a vote of 159 for and 265 against, the House rejected an amendment to HR 3814 (above) to increase fiscal 1997 spending for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by $13 million and reduce U.S. Bureau of Prisons spending by about the same amount. This left $240 million in the bill for the EEOC, which enforces laws against workplace discrimination.
Patricia Schroeder, D-Colo., said: ``I bet there is not a member in this room who has not had people complain about the slow attendance to sexual harassment cases, to equal opportunity cases, to disability cases, because of this huge, huge backlog'' of 96,000 cases at the EEOC.
Harold Rogers, R-Ky., said cutting the prison budget could prevent the planned opening of new facilities at Beaumont, Texas; Butner, N.C.; Edgefield, S.C.; Elkton, Ohio; and Seattle. ``Those new prisons will provide over 6,000 new prison beds that are vital'' to relieve overcrowding, he said.
A yes vote was to spend more for the EEOC, taking the money from the prisons budget.
Bateman No Pickett No Scott Yes Sisisky No Clayton Yes Jones No SENATE
Welfare: Voting 74 for and 24 against, the Senate passed a bill (HR 3734) that transfers the bulk of federal welfare programs to the states while limiting most recipients to five years of cash assistance and requiring the able-bodied to enter work, job training or school within two years. The bill keeps Medicaid, food stamps and child nutrition as federal entitlements even after general welfare is cut off, but with tightened eligibility. For example, able-bodied adults under 50 without dependent children are limited to four months of food coupons per year. The bill slows projected welfare spending growth by $60 billion over six years. It virtually ends welfare for future legal aliens and curtails benefits to present legal immigrants who have not become citizens.
Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., said the bill emphasizes ``work as the best way out of the welfare trap . . . significantly expands resources available to the states for child care . . . . discourages illegitimacy, which everyone now realizes is the single most important root cause of poverty in this country.''
Minority Leader Thomas Daschle, D-S.D., said: ``This bill says that it does not matter how bad things are, how destitute, how sick or how poor kids may be, kids of any age - six months or six years - are going to have to fend for themselves. When it comes to . . . their safety net, this bill is still too punitive.''
A yes vote was to send the bill to conference with the House.
Helms Yes Faircloth No Robb Yes Warner Yes
Vouchers for children: The Senate refused, 48 for and 51 against, to authorize non-cash vouchers for welfare children whose parents have been cut off from public aid. Under the amendment to HR 3734 (above), the coupons were to be used for clothing, medical supplies and other basics. Medical treatment was not at issue because, under the bill, Medicaid remains a federal entitlement after general welfare ends. The vote spotlighted a White House objection to GOP welfare legislation, with President Clinton urging vouchers for youngsters no longer supported by Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC).
Wendell Ford, D-Ky., said the National Governors Association supported non-cash vouchers for children. ``Let us give the governors the flexibility they have asked for,'' he said. ``Let us not tell them how to operate.''
William Roth, R-Del., said the vouchers would ``seriously undermine'' the premise of the bill that ``public assistance is temporary, not a way of life.'' He said child vouchers in effect ``would go to the entire family. . . family.''
A yes vote was to authorize vouchers for welfare children.
Helms No Faircloth No Robb Yes Warner No ILLUSTRATION: [Photos, telephone numbers and addresses of senators
and representatives from Virginia and North Carolina.]
To reach any representative or senator on any issues that concern
you, call (202) 224-3121. by CNB