DATE: Monday, March 3, 1997                 TAG: 9703030086

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B9   EDITION: FINAL 

DATELINE: WASHINGTON                        LENGTH:  102 lines

ROLL CALL: HOW AREA MEMBERS OF CONGRESS VOTED.

Here's how area members of Congress were recorded on major roll call votes in the week ending Feb. 28.

(The Senate is set to vote Tuesday on final passage of a balanced budget constitutional amendment, and may debate the budget for a special committee investigation of 1996 campaign fundraising. The House has not announced its schedule.) HOUSE

Airline taxes: Voting 347 for and 73 against, the House sent the Senate a bill (HR 668) to reinstate several aviation taxes that recently lapsed because of budget disputes. They are a 10 percent levy on domestic airline tickets, a 6.25 percent tax on domestic air freight, fuel taxes of between 15 cents and 17.5 cents per gallon, and a $6 per passenger international departure tax. This will raise a projected $2.7 billion this year for the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which, in part, pays for airport improvements and airline safety programs.

A yes vote was to immediately reinstate several lapsed aviation taxes.

Bateman Yes Pickett Yes

Scott Yes Sisisky Yes

Clayton Yes Jones No SENATE

Family planning: Voting 53 for and 46 against, the Senate approved the early release of $385 million for international family planning programs. This sent the measure (HJ Res 36) to conference with the House, which also voted to begin releasing the specialized foreign aid in March of this year rather than July.

While U.S. law prevents the money from being used for abortions, opponents wanted the legislation to contain stricter anti-abortion language.

A yes vote supported the early release of international family planning funds.

Robb Yes Warner Yes

Helms No Faircloth No

Social Security: By a vote of 55 for and 44 against, the Senate tabled (killed) a bid to remove Social Security from a proposed balanced budget constitutional amendment (SJ Res 1). The measure killed by this vote sought to put the Social Security trust funds ``off budget'' and thus insulated from balanced budget calculations. The trust fund surpluses now are part of the federal budget. Critics say this disguises the actual size of annual deficits.

The surpluses exist not as cash reserves but as ``IOUs'' from the Treasury to the trust funds. At issue on this vote was whether the constitutional amendment imperils or protects Social Security.

Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said the proposal ``threatens Social Security'' by isolating it. ``The American people will ultimately see through this smoke screen because it is . . . not about Social Security. It is about defeating the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.''

Harry Reid, D-Nev., said: ``If we are going to have a balanced budget amendment, let us do it the right way. . . . Exclude Social Security and not use those huge surpluses that will be going on for the next 30-plus years. . . amendment, it will be destroyed.''

A yes vote was to keep Social Security in the unified federal budget under terms of a balanced budget constitutional amendment.

Robb Yes Warner Yes

Helms Yes Faircloth Yes

Capital budget: By a vote of 37 for and 63 against, the Senate refused to exempt long-term capital expenditures from a proposed balanced budget constitutional amendment (SJ Res 1). Capital outlays are for public works such as building roads and developing ports.

This vote defeated a bid for a separate capital improvements budget. States and cities allow deficit financing of capital projects on the rationale that public works pay for themselves by stimulating economic activity.

Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., said: ``If we adopt the balanced budget amendment . . . without a capital budgeting provision, the thirsts of the U.S. government for consumption will certainly begin to exclude what remains of the long-term investments of this country.''

Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said: ``Exempting capital budgets from the balanced budget amendment opens up a tremendous loophole. . . . There would be powerful incentives for Congress and the president to . . . redefine more programs as capital expenditures.''

A yes vote was to establish a capital projects budget out of the reach of the balanced budget amendment.

Robb No Warner No

Helms No Faircloth No

Three years: Voting 69 for and 31 against, the Senate tabled (killed) a bid to reduce from seven to three years the period for states to ratify a balanced budget constitutional amendment (SJ Res 1).

In 1921, the 18th Amendment became the first constitutional amendment with a time limit (seven years) for ratification by the required three-fourths of the states. Seven years since has become the customary ratification period.

A yes vote favored seven rather than three years as the ratification period for a balanced budget amendment.

Robb Yes Warner Yes

Helms Yes Faircloth Yes 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.

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