Selected Votes from the United States Senate; 106th and 107th Congress
The Econ-E Score for Senators is based on their votes on 22 pieces of proposed legislation during the 106th Congress (1999-2000) and the 107th Congress (2001-2002). A brief description of that proposed legislation follows.
Vote one
107th Congress; Senate Amendment 2534; Sponsor: Senator Tim Johnson (South Dakota) offered 12/13/2001.
Amendment purpose: To make it unlawful for a packer to own, feed, or control livestock intended for slaughter.
Comment:
Vertical integration in the beef or pork markets, where the packers acquire upstream production capability, may reduce production costs and thereby enhance economic efficiency. Ostensible, this proposal is an effort to prevent packers from gaining too much market power. It is possible that with such market power packers could more easily engage in collusion to the detriment of consumers. However, such collusion is not inevitable and is illegal under existing anti-trust laws. This proposal seems to be a protectionist measure intended to benefit ranchers and others in the business of raising or bring stock to the slaughter houses. On the amendment we judged a “no” vote as a vote for economic efficiency.
Vote Two
107th Congress; Senate Amendment 2466; Sponsor: Senator Judd Gregg (New Hampshire) offered 12/10/2001.
Amendment purpose: To phase out the sugar program and use any resulting savings to improve nutrition assistance.
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. Additional resources are wasted because the surplus of sugar created by the sugar program is purchased by the federal government in order to keep prices above the world market price. Therefore, we judged a “no” vote on the motion to table to represent a vote for enhancing economic efficiency.
Vote Three
107th Congress; Senate Amendment 1863; Sponsor: Senator Frank Murkowski (Alaska) offered 10/11/2001.
Amendment purpose: To establish age limitations for airmen.
Comment:
On the motion to table, we judged a “yes” vote as a vote for economic efficiency. (Note: further commentary will be added shortly.)
Vote Four
107th Congress; Bill: House Joint Resolution sponsored by Rep. Dick K. Armey (TX – 26).
Title: Approving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment with respect to the products of the Republic of Vietnam.
Comment:
This vote represents a movement toward the establishment of free trade with a nation with whom we had not traded for diplomatic reasons. As free trade is generally viewed as economically efficient, we judged a “yes” vote as a vote for efficiency.
Vote Five
107th Congress; Senate Amendment 536; Sponsor: Senator Judd Gregg (New Hampshire) offered 6/12/2001.
Amendment purpose: To provide a low-income school choice demonstration program.
Comment:
This proposal would increase competition in the market for education, encouraging innovation, quality improvements and cost reductions. It would also enhance consumer welfare by providing greater choice to parents. We judged a “yes” vote as a vote for economic efficiency.
Vote Six
107th Congress; Senate Amendment 2107; Sponsor: Senator George Allen (Virginia) offered 11/7/2001.
Amendment purpose: To prohibit the use of local funds to carry out needle exchange programs in the District of Columbia.
Comment:
On the motion to table, yes is a vote for efficiency. (Note: further commentary will be added shortly.)
Vote Seven
107th Congress; Senate Amendment 145; Sponsor: Senator Paul Wellstone (Minnesota) offered 3/26/2001.
Amendment purpose: To apply the prohibition on electioneering communications to
targeted communications of certain tax-exempt organizations.
Comment:
A no vote represents a vote for efficiency. (Note: further commentary will be added shortly.)
Vote Eight
107th Congress; Senate Amendment 2534; Sponsor: Senator Bill Nelson (Florida) offered 7/11/2001.
Amendment purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to execute a final lease agreement
for oil and gas development in the area of the Gulf of Mexico known as “Lease Sale
181”.
Comment:
On the motion to table a yes vote is a vote for efficiency. (Note: further commentary will be added shortly.)
Vote Nine
107th Congress; Senate Amendment 862;;Sponsor: Senator Charles Schumer (New York) offered 7/9/2001.
Amendment purpose: To rescind $33,000,000 for the printing and postage of the notices to be sent by the Internal Revenue Service before and after the tax rebate, such amount to remain available for debt reduction.
Comment:
A no vote is a vote for efficiency. (Note: further commentary will be added shortly.)
Vote Ten
107th Congress; Senate Amendment 141; Sponsor: Senator Jesse Helms (North Carolina) offered 12/13/2001.
Amendment purpose: To require labor organizations to provide notice to members concerning their rights with respect to the expenditures of funds for activities unrelated to collective bargaining.
Comment:
A yes vote is a vote to enhance efficiency. (Note: further commentary will be added shortly.)
Vote Eleven
106th Congress; Senate Amendment 4135; Sponsor: Senator Ernest F. Hollings (South Carolina) offered 9/12/2000.
Amendment purpose: To authorize and request the president to report to the Congress annually, beginning in January, 2001, on the balance of trade with China for cereals (wheat, corn, and rice) and soybeans, and to direct the president to eliminate any deficit.
Comment:
For this proposal a no vote represents a vote for efficiency. (Note: further commentary will be added shortly.)
Vote Twelve
107th Congress; Senate Amendment 2325; Sponsor: Senator Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania) offered 11/13/1999.
Amendment purpose: To provide for a right of action in the case of injury from the importation of certain dumped and subsidized merchandise.
Comment:
On the motion to table, a yes vote was a vote for efficiency. (Note: further commentary will be added shortly.)
Vote Thirteen
106th Congress; Senate Amendment 2325; Sponsor: Senator Paul D. Wellstone (Minnesota) offered 11/3/1999.
Amendment purpose: To condition trade benefits for Caribbean countries on
compliance with internationally recognized labor rights.
Comment:
On the motion to table, a yes vote is a vote for efficiency. (Note: further commentary will be added shortly.)
Vote Fourteen
106th Congress; Senate Amendment 2325; Sponsor: Senator Ernest F. Hollings (South Carolina) offered 11/2/1999.
Amendment purpose: To require the negotiation, and submission to congress, of side agreements concerning the environment before benefits are received.
Comment:
On the motion to table yes is the efficient vote. (Note: further commentary will be added shortly.)
Vote Fifteen
106th Congress; Senate Amendment 1820; Sponsor: Senator Harry M. Reid (Nevada) offered 9/30/1999.
Amendment purpose: To increase the appropriation for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
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 on the motion to table represents a movement toward economic efficiency.
Vote Sixteen
106th Congress; Senate Amendment 2752; Sponsor: Senator Paul D. Wellstone (Minnesota) offered 11/10/1999.
Amendment purpose: To impose a moratorium on large agribusiness mergers and to establish a commission to review large agriculture mergers, concentration, and market power.
Comment:
This proposed moratorium thwarts market activity that is not obviously harmful to consumers. In fact, such a moratorium may limit the ability of agribusiness firms to capture cost-cutting economies of scale. On the amendment, a “no” vote was a vote for economic efficiency.
Vote Seventeen
106th Congress; Senate Amendment 1416; Sponsor: Senator Charles E. Schumer (New York) offered 7/30/1999.
Amendment purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make higher
education more affordable by providing a full tax deduction for higher education
expenses and a tax credit for student education loans.
Comment: A no vote represented a vote for efficiency. (Note: further commentary will be added shortly.)
Vote Eighteen
106th Congress; Senate Amendment 3197; Sponsor: Senator John McCain (Arizona) offered 6/7/2000.
Amendment purpose: To authorize additional rounds of base closures and realignments under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 in 2003 and 2005.
Comment:
On the amendment, a yes vote represents a vote for efficiency. (Note: further commentary will be added shortly.)
Vote Nineteen
106th Congress; Senate Amendment 3829; Sponsor: Senator William V. Roth Jr. (Delaware) offered 7/13/2000.
Amendment purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the
excise tax on telephone and other communication services.
Comment:
On the amendment a yes vote is a vote for efficiency. (Note: further commentary will be added shortly.)
Vote Twenty
106th Congress; Senate Amendment 3839; Sponsor: Senator John F. Kerry (Massachusetts) offered 7/13/2000.
Amendment purpose: To establish a National Housing Trust Fund in the Treasury of
the United States to provide for the development of decent, safe, and affordable
housing for low-income families.
Comment:
On the amendment, a no vote was a vote for efficiency. (Note: further commentary will be added shortly.)
Vote Twenty One
106th Congress; Senate Amendment 2751; Sponsor: Senator Edward M. Kennedy (Massachusetts) offered 11/8/1999.
Amendment purpose: To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the Federal minimum wage.
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. Therefore, we treated a “yes” vote on the motion to table as a vote for enhancing economic efficiency.
Vote Twenty Two
106th Congress; Senate Amendment 2754; Sponsor: Senator Christopher J. Dodd (Connecticut) offered 11/9/1999.
Amendment purpose: To amend the Truth inn Lending Act with respect to extensions of credit to consumers under the age of 21.
Comment:
On the motion to table, yes is a vote for efficiency. (Note: further commentary will be added shortly.)
Note: a 1 indicates the Senator voted either in favor of enhancing efficiency or against diminishing efficiency.
| SENATOR | STATE | vote1 | vote2 | vote3 | vote4 | vote5 | vote6 | vote7 | vote8 | vote9 | vote10 | vote11 | vote12 | vote13 | vote14 | vote15 | vote16 | vote17 | vote18 | vote19 | vote20 | vote21 | vote22 |
| Jeff Sessions | Alabama | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Richard Shelby | Alabama | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Frank Murkowski | Alaska | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Ted Stevens | Alaska | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| John Kyl | Arizona | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Blanche Lamber Lincoln | Arkansas | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Tim Hutchinson | Arkansas | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Diane Feinstein | California | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Barbara Boxer | California | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wayne Allard | Colorado | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Ben Nighthorse Campbell | Colorado | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Christopher Dodd | Connecticut | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |