Roll call

Topeka Capital-Journal, The, Mar 22, 1999 by Roll Call Report Syndicate

WASHINGTON -- Here is how area members of Congress were recorded on major roll call votes in the week ending March 19.

HOUSESTEEL -- Voting 289 for and 141 against, the House passed a bill (HR 975) limiting steel imports into the United States so that they account for no more than 25 percent of the U.S. market. Imports from a specific country would be capped at their average monthly volume for a three-year period ending July 1997. The administration could use tariffs, quotas or negotiations to enforce the limits.

Supporters said the U.S. steel industry needs protection to recover from massive quantities of foreign steel that were illegally "dumped" by countries such as Japan and Brazil in 1997 and 1998. Opponents said the bill would put the United States in violation of world trade agreements and draw retaliation against U.S. exporters, including farmers. John Dingell, D-Mich., said U.S. steelworkers "played by the rules, made hard sacrifices in the 1980s to make this the most competitive, efficient, and unsubsidized steel industry in the world," and that Congress "must not stand idly by and watch the American steel industry exported out of business." David Dreier, R-Calif., said "protectionism is not the answer to the pain caused by economic turmoil overseas. Special interest protectionism will kill the goose that laid the golden egg that is our growing economy. Protectionism is fools gold." A yes vote was to pass the bill. Voting yes: Dennis Moore, D-3rd District. Voting no: Jerry Moran, R-1st District, Jim Ryun,R-2nd District, Todd Tiahrt, R-4th District. MISSILE DEFENSE -- By a vote of 317 for and 105 against, the House passed a bill (HR 4) requiring the United States to deploy a national missile defense system as soon as is technologically possible. The bill mandates speedier deployment than the administration favors of anti-missile technology under development since the early 1980s. However, President Clinton recently agreed to the legislation. Formerly known as the Strategic Defense Initiative, or "Star Wars," the proposed umbrella has been renamed the National Missile Defense Program. Porter Goss, R-Fla., said: "We all might wish to believe President Clinton's pronouncement that no American child is being targeted by a missile, but that is unfortunately not exactly a true statement. The world's bad guys are working quickly toward a tomorrow when they can wreak havoc and cause damage with weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence today says, unequivocally, that the threat is real, growing and much more immediate than some had thought." Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said: "The American people may be surprised to know we have already spent $120 billion of taxpayers' money for a nuclear umbrella which does not exist for a threat which has never materialized. Latter day Dr. Strangeloves are running around the Capitol today saying, 'The sky is falling,' and we ought to buy a net to catch it. We've already proven that we can lead the post-Cold War world in peace. Not through preparing for war, but through dedicated nuclear non-proliferation." A yes vote was to pass the bill. Voting yes: Moran, Ryun, Moore, Tiahrt. SENATEMISSILE DEFENSES -- Voting 97 for and three against, the Senate passed a bill (S 257) requiring the administration to deploy an anti-missile defense as soon as technology permits. It would be designed primarily as a shield against missiles launched by terrorist states. The bill requires a quicker timetable than an administration plan to delay until June 2000 a decision on whether to deploy. The administration argues that to rush uncertain technology into operation would weaken national security and violate the Anti- Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty with Russia. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., said the legislation "will send a clear message -- to our adversaries, our allies, and our own citizens -- that the United States will not leave itself vulnerable to weapons of mass destruction delivered by long-range ballistic missiles." Carl Levin, D-Mich., said the nation's military leaders "are worried that if we make a hasty and headlong rush to deployment, we will be less able to deal with other very real -- and unfortunately more likely -- threats to our security, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their use by terrorists." A yes vote was to pass the bill. Voting yes: Sam Brownback, R; Pat Roberts, R, voted yes. TOBACCO -- Voting 71 for and 29 against, senators tabled (killed) a requirement that states spend half of their tobacco settlement receipts on reducing youth smoking, helping tobacco farmers switch crops and funding public health initiatives. Under the proposal, states were allowed to spend as they see fit the other half of $200 billion-plus they are to receive under a 1998 tobacco settlement. Sponsors said states have committed large portions of the settlement to programs unrelated to tobacco, such as public works. They said the federal government is entitled to control part of the revenue in return for its massive Medicaid payments for tobacco- related illnesses. But opponents said Washington wasn't a party to the settlement and that this amendment intruded on states' rights. The vote occurred during debate on a fiscal 1999 spending bill (S 554). Slade Gorton, R-Wash., said many states "are already engaged in extensive and sometimes successful anti-smoking efforts. Many have priorities that are different than (the Senate's). But if (senators) want to control the spending in their own states they should run for the state legislature, not the Senate of the United States." Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said: "Federal taxpayers paid an average of 57 percent of Medicaid smoking-related expenditures. The administration believes that the states should retain those funds but should make a commitment that the federal share of the settlement will be spent on shared national and state (anti-tobacco) priorities." A yes vote was to kill the amendment. Brownback voted yes. Roberts voted yes. CHINA -- Voting 69 for and 30 against, the Senate tabled (killed) an amendment giving Congress veto power over any agreement that would add China to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the body that administers international trade pacts. The vote occurred during debate on a fiscal 1999 spending bill (S 554). Max Baucus, D-Mont., called the amendment "a very alarming precedent" because Congress never has voted on admissions to global trade organizations. Congressional votes on admitting China's wouldn't be on trade policy, he said, but on overall China policy on issues ranging from abortion to missiles. Sponsor Tim Hutchinson, R-Ark., said his proposal "sends a clear message" that the administration "should not make any hasty deals with China. We cannot negotiate a trade deal with the most populous nation in the world, the largest market in the world, in a vacuum." A yes vote opposed requiring congressional votes on admitting China to the WTO. Voting yes: Brownback, Roberts.