Selected Votes from the House of Representatives, 106^th and 107^th Congress

           The Econ-E Score for House members is based on their votes on 23 pieces of proposed legislation during the 106^th Congress (1999-2000) and the 107^th Congress (2001-2002). A brief description of that proposed legislation follows.

            Vote One

106^th Congress; House Amendment 594; Sponsor Representative James A. Traficant (Ohio-17) offered 3/9/2000.

Amendment Description:  Amendment provides for increasing the minimum wage by $1 over a 2-year period.

Amendment Purpose:  An amendment numbered 27 printed in House Report 106-516 to provide for the increase in the minimum wage to occur over a 2 year period as opposed to a 3-year period as provided in the bill. On 3/9/200 the amendment passed on a recorded vote, 246 – 179.

Comment:  A legal minimum wage is a price control.  A minimum wage creates an economic inefficiency insofar as some people would voluntarily work for the minimum wage (or even less), but no one will hire them at that government mandated wage. While this is not a direct vote on the minimum wage but rather a vote to speed up the process of raising it, the proposed legislation would nevertheless reduce efficiency through that acceleration process.  Therefore, we treated a “no” vote as a vote against diminishing economic efficiency.

Vote Two

106^th Congress; House Amendment 133; Sponsor Representative Tom A. Coburn (Oklahoma-2) offered 5/26/1999

Amendment Description:  Amendment sought to delete $300,000 provided for research to enhance the competitiveness of the peanut industry.

Amendment Purpose:  An amendment to reduce funding for research and education activities on peanut research by $300,000. On 5/26/1999 the amendment failed on a roll call vote (#161), by 119 – 308.

Comment: This is a straightforward case of a special subsidy being given to favor a group of for-profit producers. The generally accepted role for government in encouraging research in the for-profit sector is that of providing property rights to the research results through the patent process. Therefore, a “yes” vote, to delete the subsidy, was judged to be a vote to enhance efficiency.

Vote Three

106^th Congress; House Amendment 781; Sponsor Representative Michael G. Oxley (Ohio-4) offered 6/13/2000.

Amendment Description:  Amendment sought to reduce funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by $3.65 million.

Amendment Purpose:  An amendment numbered 182 printed in the Congressional Record to reduce the appropriation for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by 1%. On 6/13/2000 the amendment failed on a roll call vote (#263) by 110 – 305.

Comment:  In light of the flood of free or low-cost entertainment and information that is available to the general public, it is very unlikely that using tax dollars to fund public radio and television programs is socially beneficial on balance. Clearly, such programming yields benefits. It is just that those benefits are probably small relative to their associated tax burdens. So, our judgment is that a “yes” vote to reduce the amount of the subsidy represents a movement toward economic efficiency.

Vote Four

106^th Congress; House Amendment 703; Sponsor Representative Jim Gibbons (Nevada-2) offered 5/11/2000.

Amendment Description:  Amendment sought to establish procedures for the Bureau of Land Management to dispose of unwanted Federally Controlled lands.

Amendment Purpose:  An amendment numbered 24 printed in the House Report 106-612 to allow the BLM to auction public lands identified for disposal in the Land Management Plans. On 5/11/2000 the amendment failed, roll call 175, by a vote of 170-250.

Comment: This proposed legislation would use a market-based approach, an auction, for disposing of unwanted federal lands. The presumption is that an auction, if conducted properly, would transfer ownership to those who value the resource most, a characteristic of an economically efficient outcome. So, we judged a “yes” vote to represent a vote for enhancing economic efficiency.

Vote Five

106^th Congress; House Amendment 938; Sponsor Representative Joel Hefley (Colorado-5) offered 6/29/2000.

Amendment Description:  Amendment sought to delete $200,000 provided for a special grant for asparagus competitiveness.

Amendment Purpose:  An amendment numbered 1 printed in the Congressional Record to reduce the bill’s overall funding by $200,000 in order to eliminate the funding for a grant for “international asparagus competitiveness.”  On 6/29/2000 the amendment failed, roll call 360 by a vote of 132 – 287.

Comment: Subsidies to for-profit industries generally lead to overproduction. Barring some compelling public interest in stimulating extra production, above the free-market amount, such subsidies create economic inefficiencies. That is, the social value of the extra output stimulated by the subsidy is worth less that the social cost of the resources exhausted in producing it. Therefore, we judged a “yes” vote to represent a vote for enhancing economic efficiency.

Vote Six

106^th Congress; House Amendment 319; Sponsor Representative Patsy Mink (Hawaii-2) offered 7/20/1999.

Amendment Description:  Amendment sought to create a program to provide grants for teachers who take sabbatical leave to pursue study for professional development.

Amendment Purpose:  An amendment numbered 10 in House Report 106-240 to create a program to provide grants for teachers who take sabbatical leave to pursue study for professional development. On 7/20/1999 the amendment failed, roll call 317, by a vote of 181 – 242.

Comment:  Generally, schools or school districts provide financial incentives for teachers to pursue professional development. To justify a further federal subsidy on economic efficiency grounds requires evidence that existing local incentives are exceedingly weak and are unlikely to be improved. To us, the proposed legislation seems designed more to transfer federal tax dollars to school teachers than to correct an existing inefficiency in the teacher labor market.  Therefore, we judged a “no” vote as a vote to enhance economic efficiency.

Vote Seven

106^th Congress; House Amendment 213; Sponsor Representative David M. McIntosh (Indiana-2) offered 6/17/1999.

Amendment Description:  Amendment provides limited immunity from civil liability for teachers, principals, and other school professionals who undertake reasonable actions to maintain order, discipline, and an appropriate educational environment.

Amendment Purpose:  An amendment numbered 42 and printed in part A of House Report 106-186 to limit civil liability for teachers, principals, and other school professionals who undertake reasonable actions to maintain order, discipline, and an appropriate educational environment. On 6/17/1999 the amendment passed, roll call 229 by a vote of 300 – 126.

Comment: It is a widely shared belief in our society that all children should have a right to a basic education. The provision of such an education requires an appropriate educational environment, one offering some minimal degree of order and discipline.  This legislation represents a response to the emergence of lawsuits against teachers who stepped in to break up fights at schools.  Providing school employees with this limited immunity from civil liability seems a cost effective and reasonable approach to furthering the goal of providing an appropriate educational environment. Thus, we judged a “yes” vote as a vote to enhance economic efficiency.  

Vote Eight

106^th Congress; House Amendment 946; Sponsor Representative Joel Hefley (Colorado-5) offered 6/29/2000.

Amendment Description:  Amendment sought to delete $2 million provided for the agri-tourism program.

Amendment Purpose:  An amendment numbered 2 printed in the Congressional Record to eliminate the bill’s funding of $2 million for the USDA’s agri-tourism program. On 6/29/2000 the amendment failed, roll call 361 by a vote of 94 – 319.

Comment: Subsidies to for-profit industries generally lead to overproduction. Barring some compelling public interest in stimulating extra production, above the free-market amount, such subsidies create economic inefficiencies. That is, the social value of the extra output stimulated by the subsidy is worth less that the social cost of the resources exhausted in producing it. To the extent that agri-tourism is socially desirable, the free market seems capable of providing that service without a subsidy from taxpayers. Therefore, we judged a “yes” vote to represent a vote for enhancing economic efficiency.

Vote Nine

106^th Congress; House Amendment 815; Sponsor Representative Cliff Stearns (Florida-6) offered 6/15/2000.

Amendment Description:  Amendment sought to decrease National Endowment for the Arts funding by $1.9 million and increase wildland fire management funding accordingly.

Amendment Purpose:  An amendment to reduce the amount for the NEA by 2% and to transfer the money to the fire management account. On 6/15/2000 the amendment failed, roll call 282, by a vote of 152 – 256.

Comment:  The NEA subsidizes artistic activities. From an economic standpoint, the principal criticism of the NEA is that the truly worthwhile activities it funds would be funded by the private sector in the absence of the NEA. From an economic efficiency point of view, many funded artistic activities may well waste taxpayers’ money. Accordingly, we judged a modest reduction in the NEA budget to represent a movement toward economic efficiency. The fact that the money was earmarked for wild land fire management adds to the efficiency advantages of this legislation.  Proper management of wild land fires clearly serves a public interest and that management can come only from government (as such fires are on public lands).

Vote Ten

107^th Congress; House Amendment 57; Sponsor Representative Richard Armey (Texas-26) offered 5/23/2001.

Amendment Description:  Amendment sought to authorize private school choice for students who have attended low performing schools for at least 3 years; allow private school choice as a local use of funds under title lV of the Innovative Education Grants for Disadvantaged Students; and allow private school choice for students in unsafe schools or who have been victims of crime on school premises.

Amendment Purpose:  An amendment numbered 15 printed in House Report 107-69 to authorize private school choice for students who have attended low performing schools for 3 years; private school choice as a local use of funds under the innovative education grants under subpart 1 of part A of Title lV; and private school choice for students attending unsafe schools or for students who have been victims of crime.

On 5/23/2001 the amendment failed, roll call 135, by a vote of 155 - 273

Comment:  Raising the level of competition and adding more choices for people are two things that will almost always enhance economic efficiency. Competition encourages innovation, quality improvements, and cost reductions. Additional choices invariably make people better off. Accordingly, we judged a “yes” vote on this proposed legislation as a vote for enhancing economic efficiency.

Vote Eleven

107^th Congress; House Amendment 159; Sponsor Representative Anthony D. Wiener (New York-9) offered 7/11/2001.

Amendment Description:  Amendment sought to prohibit use of funds in the bill for payments to producers of wool or the producers of mohair for the 2000 or 2001 marketing years.

Amendment Purpose:  An amendment numbered 25 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit use of funds in the bill for payments to producers of wool or the producers of mohair for the 2000 or 2001 marketing years—to help producers deal with low-cost imports. On 7/11/2001 the amendment failed (roll call #219) by a vote of 155 - 272

Comment:  Subsidies to for-profit industries generally lead to overproduction. Barring some compelling public interest in stimulating extra production, above the free-market amount, such subsidies create economic inefficiencies. That is, the social value of the extra output stimulated by the subsidy is worth less that the social cost of the resources exhausted in producing it. Therefore, we judged a “yes” vote to represent a vote for enhancing economic efficiency.

Vote Twelve

107^th Congress; House Amendment 124; Sponsor Representative Thomas G. Tancredo (Colorado-6) offered 6/27/2001.

Amendment Description:  Amendment sought to delete section 105 of the bill which allows certain beach replenishment projects to proceed with a cost share ratio of 65 percent Federal share/35 percent local share.

Amendment Purpose:  An amendment numbered 4 printed in the Congressional Record to strike section 105 from the bill.  Section 105 directs the Secretary of the Army to proceed with shore protection projects funded in the bill which have Project Cooperation Agreements in place in accordance with the cost sharing specified in the Project Cooperation Agreement. On 6/27/2001 the amendment failed, roll call 200, by a vote of 84 – 333.

Comment:  The benefits from beach replenishment projects accrue largely to residential and commercial property owners in beach communities. Widening a specific beach generates few benefits that extend much beyond the nearby region. So, the current federal program provides a substantial federal subsidy to local communities. As with any subsidy, such a program leads to excessive activity—too many beach replenishment projects in this instance. Thus, we judged a “yes” vote (to essentially require local communities to pay more) to be a vote for enhancing economic efficiency.

Vote Thirteen

107^th Congress; House Amendment 320; Sponsor Representative Leonard L. Boswell (Iowa-3) offered 10/3/2001.

Amendment Description:  Amendment sought to provide for the creation of a government-owned and farmer-stored renewable energy reserve containing an amount of farm commodities equal to 4 months’ production of ethanol and bio-diesel.

Amendment Purpose:  An amendment numbered 13 printed in the Congressional Record to add a new section creating a renewable reserve of agricultural commodities. On 10/3/2001 the amendment failed, roll call 363, by a vote of 100 – 323.

Comment:  This legislation would subsidize the production of more corn. Subsidies to for-profit industries generally lead to overproduction. Barring some compelling public interest (such as an important strategic advantage) in stimulating extra production, above the free-market amount, such subsidies create economic inefficiencies. That is, the social value of the extra output stimulated by the subsidy is worth less that the social cost of the resources exhausted in producing it. Therefore, we judged a “no” vote to represent a vote for enhancing economic efficiency.

Vote Fourteen

107^th Congress; House Amendment 351; Sponsor Representative Mary Bono (California-44) offered 10/4/2001.

Amendment Description:  Amendment requires country of origin labeling of perishable agricultural commodities.

Amendment Purpose:  An amendment numbered 11 printed in the Congressional Record to add a new section requiring country of origin labeling of perishable agricultural commodities. On 10/4/2001 the amendment passed, roll call 370, by a vote of 296 – 121.

Comment:  Current federal regulations mandate that wholesalers provide retailers with country-of-origin labeling. So, retailers can make such information available to consumers and sometimes do.  If there is demand for such information on the part of consumers, then retailers would have a profit incentive to post that information.  So, there is a market mechanism capable of providing such labeling.  The floor debate revealed that many supporters of this policy were trying to protect domestic producers. Indeed, this labeling mandate would increase costs for foreign producers.  In that sense it represents protectionist policy. Therefore, we judged a “no” vote as a vote to enhance economic efficiency.

Vote Fifteen

107^th Congress; House Amendment 121; Sponsor Representative Martin Olav Sabo (Minnesota-5) offered 6/26/2001.

Amendment Description:  None provided.

Amendment Purpose:  An amendment to prohibit use of funds to process applications by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers for conditional or permanent authority to operated beyond the United States municipalities and commercial zones adjacent to the United States-Mexico border. On 6/26/2001 the amendment passed, roll call 193, by a vote of 285 – 143.

Comment:  This legislation will increase shipping costs.  The NAFTA agreement allowed Mexican domiciled shippers access to markets in North America and permitted them to drive into those markets.  This legislation was promoted, in part, as a response to national security concerns.  However there was no attempt to withhold funds used to process applications for Canadian truckers whose wages are closer to the wages paid American truckers.  This legislation is a form of protectionism that would primarily benefit domestic trucking companies and truckers at the expense of consumers. As with nearly all protectionist measures, the gains to the producers will be less than the losses to the consumers, so society on balance loses. Therefore, we judged a no vote as a vote to enhance economic efficiency.

Vote Sixteen

107^th Congress; House Amendment 291; Sponsor Representative Christopher Cox (California-47) offered 8/1/2001.

Amendment Description:  Amendment sought to grant California a waiver of the reformulated gas rules of the Clean Air Act requiring 2 percent oxygen, only if its reformulation will achieve equivalent or greater emissions reductions.

Amendment Purpose:  Part B amendment numbered 6 printed in House Report 107-178 to grant California a waiver of the 2% oxygen rule only if its gasoline will achieve “equivalent or greater emissions reductions” than is required under federal law. On 8/1/2001 the amendment failed, roll call 313, by a vote of 125 – 300.

Comment:  This amendment, co-sponsored by the entire congressional delegation from California, provides increased flexibility in the method by which the state of California can satisfy the mandates imposed by the federal Clean Air Act. Essentially, it drops a requirement that gasoline contain ethanol, a corn-based product.  In short, this amendment rejects a rigid command-and-control approach to environmental policy in favor of greater flexibility—that is, more choices for how to achieve a given environmental goal.  Therefore, we judged a “yes’ vote to be a vote to enhance economic efficiency

Vote Seventeen

107^th Congress; House Amendment 354; Sponsor Representative Bernard Sanders (Vermont) offered 10/4/2001.

Amendment Description:  Amendment originally sought to establish a new voluntary national counter-cyclical income support program for dairy producers.

Amendment Purpose:  An amendment numbered 47 printed in the Congressional Record to add a new section providing a national counter-cyclical income support program for dairy producers. On 10/4/2001 the amendment failed, roll call 368, by a vote of 194 – 224.

Comment: Subsidies to for-profit industries, such as the dairy industry, generally lead to overproduction. Barring some compelling public interest in stimulating extra production, above the free-market amount, such subsidies create economic inefficiencies. That is, the social value of the extra output stimulated by the subsidy is worth less that the social cost of the resources exhausted in producing it. Therefore, we judged a “no” vote to represent a vote against diminishing economic efficiency.

Vote Eighteen

107^th Congress; House Amendment 209; Sponsor Representative Bernard Sanders (Vermont) offered 10/4/2001.

Amendment Description:  Amendment sought to delete Export-Import Bank subsidy appropriation language contained in the bill.

Amendment Purpose:  Amendment number 56 printed in the Congressional Record to strike Export-Import Bank Subsidy Appropriation with associated funding of $753 million. On 7/24/2001 the amendment failed, roll call 261, by a vote of 47 – 375.

Comment:  The bank subsidizes loans needed by domestic firms engaged in exporting.  Subsidies to for-profit industries generally lead to overproduction.  Barring some compelling public interest in stimulating extra production, above the free-market amount, such subsidies create economic inefficiencies. That is, the social value of the extra output stimulated by the subsidy is worth less that the social cost of the resources exhausted in producing it.  An export subsidy benefits a relatively few firms and perhaps their employees while imposing an even larger cost on U.S. taxpayers.  Therefore, we judged a “yes” vote to represent a vote for enhancing economic efficiency.

Vote Nineteen

107^th Congress; House Amendment 343; Sponsor Representative Dan Miller (Florida-13) offered 10/4/2001.

Amendment Description:  Amendment sought to reduce the sugar loan rates by 1 cent; increase the forfeiture penalty by 1 cent; and authorize the use of program savings for conservation and environmental stewardship programs to enhance the Florida Everglades ecosystem.

Amendment Purpose:  An amendment numbered 41 printed in the Congressional Record to add a section providing for an extension of the sugar program at reduced loan rates. On 10/4/2001 the amendment failed, roll call 367, by a vote of 177 – 239.

Comment:  Subsidies to for-profit industries, such as the sugar industry, generally lead to overproduction. Barring some compelling public interest in stimulating extra production, above the free-market amount, such subsidies create economic inefficiencies. That is, the social value of the extra output stimulated by the subsidy is worth less that the social cost of the resources exhausted in producing it. Further, with respect to the cane sugar farming, extra production leads to additional pollution problems, particularly in the Florida Everglades. Therefore, we judged a “yes” vote to represent a vote for enhancing economic efficiency.

Vote Twenty

107^th Congress; House Amendment 325; Sponsor Representative Nick Smith (Michigan – 7) offered 10/3/2001.

Amendment Description:  Amendment sought to provide an absolute limit on price support payments to producers.

Amendment Purpose:  An amendment numbered 52 printed in the Congressional Record to add a new paragraph providing payment limitations regarding marketing assistance loans to cover all producer gains. On 10/3/2001 the amendment failed, roll call 365, by a vote of 187 – 238.

Comment:  Subsidies to for-profit industries generally lead to overproduction. Barring some compelling public interest in stimulating extra production, above the free-market amount, such subsidies create economic inefficiencies. That is, the social value of the extra output stimulated by the subsidy is worth less that the social cost of the resources exhausted in producing it. Therefore, we judged a “yes” vote to represent a vote for enhancing economic efficiency.

Vote Twenty One

107^th Congress; H.R. 725; Sponsor Representative James A. Traficant Jr. (Ohio – 17) offered 2/26/2001.

Bill title: Made in America Information Act

Bill description:

To direct the Secretary of Commerce to provide for the establishment of a toll-free telephone number to assist consumers in determining whether products are American made. On 2/26/2001 the bill passed, roll call 48, by a vote of 207 - 3

Comment:  This legislation would provide a subsidy to those firms whose products qualify as “American made.”  This arrangement would provide a form of free advertisement for selected firms and industries. If such information was important to consumers, firms would find it profitable to advertise that their products were American made. Requiring the federal government to assist them in endeavor assures that excessive resources will be exhausted in pursuing it. After all, the government will collect and promote this information whether or not consumers want or need it. Therefore, we judged a “no” vote to represent a vote for enhancing economic efficiency

Vote Twenty Two

107^th Congress; House Amendment 604; Sponsor Representative Maxine Waters (California – 35) offered 9/18/2002.

Amendment Description:  Amendment sought to prohibit the shifting of liability for loss, damage, or destruction of property subject to a rental-purchase agreement to the consumer, with the liability remaining with the merchant.

Amendment Purpose:  Amendment numbered 2 printed in House Report 107-661 to prohibit the shifting of liability for loss, damage, or destruction of the property subject to rental-purchase agreement to the consumer, with the liability remaining with the merchant. On 9/18/2002 the amendment failed, roll call 393, by a vote of 157 – 255.

Comment:  Typically, rent-to-own merchants include a liability damage waiver that makes customers liable for damages resulting from non-ordinary care of a rent-to-own item.  Under current regulations, merchants must explain this part of a rent-to-purchase agreement.  The proposed amendment forbids this transfer of liability from merchants to renters. With no liability for damages, renters would have little incentive to care for the product as if it were his or her own. Moreover, rental prices would rise as merchants attempted to recoup expected losses under such legislation.  In general, restrictions on the types and terms of contracts that buyers and sellers are free to enter into reduce efficiency.  Therefore we judged a “no” vote in this instance as favoring economic efficiency.

Vote Twenty Three

107^th Congress; House Amendment 469; Sponsor Representative Bernard Sanders (Vermont) offered 5/1/2002.

Amendment Description:  Amendment sought to require companies seeking or receiving assistance from the Export-Import Bank to provide annual reports on workforce numbers and compensation and to prohibit assistance to those who lay off a greater percentage of U.S. workers than they lay off in foreign countries.

Amendment Purpose:  An amendment numbered 4 printed in House Report 107-423 to prohibit companies from receiving future Export-Import Bank Assistance if they lay off a greater percentage of workers in the U.S. than they lay off in foreign countries. On 5/1/2002 the amendment failed, roll call 120, by a vote of 135 - 283

Comment:  Economic efficiency requires that firms produce their output at the lowest social cost.  This proposed legislation provides incentives for firms to behave in ways that are not cost minimizing. While laying off foreign workers rather than American workers seems desirable superficially, such an action may come at a high social cost to the U.S. Therefore, we judged a “no” vote to represent a vote for enhancing economic efficiency.

Vote Twenty Three

107^th Congress

House Amendment 469

Sponsor Representative Bernard Sanders (Vermont) offered 5/1/2002

Amendment Description:  Amendment sought to require companies seeking or receiving assistance from the Export-Import Bank to provide annual reports on workforce numbers and compensation and to prohibit assistance to those who lay off a greater percentage of U.S. workers than they lay off in foreign countries.

Amendment Purpose:  An amendment numbered 4 printed in House Report 107-423 to prohibit companies from receiving future Export-Import Bank Assistance if they lay off a greater percentage of workers in the U.S. than they lay off in foreign countries.

On 5/1/2002 the amendment failed, roll call 120, by a vote of 135 - 283

Comment:

This type of policy would provide incentives for firms to behave in ways that are not profit maximizing.  It seeks to achieve particular social goals at the cost of efficient operation.  The process of applying for assistance itself is more expensive because of the mandate to provide such information.  Therefore a no vote was judged to be a vote to enhance efficiency.