[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 36 (Friday, March 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent 
resolution.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I want the Record to be clear and to 
show that the vote, the previous vote on the Sasser second-degree 
amendment to the Nunn-Domenici first-degree amendment, occurred under 
circumstances in which a number of Senators were in a misunderstanding 
as to the effect of the underlying Nunn-Domenici amendment.
  As we know, that amendment has now been modified to clarify the 
effect. But at the time the votes were cast on the Sasser second-degree 
amendment, there was on the part of many Senators a serious 
misunderstanding as to that effect, and, therefore, the Record should 
be clear that that vote was cast at a time and under a circumstance in 
which there was a good deal of misunderstanding as to the effect. And 
the vote should be considered and construed in that light.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I completely agree with what the majority 
leader has said.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Further, Mr. President, I want to make it clear on my 
own part that I voted for the Sasser amendment. I changed my vote to 
``no'' at the end in order to make myself eligible to move to 
reconsider the vote.
  My vote was intended to be, and was in substance, an affirmative 
vote. The change to a ``no'' vote was solely to permit myself to be 
eligible to move to reconsider, which is required under the Senate 
rules, of course.
  Therefore, I am pleased that we now have resolved that matter in a 
way that I believe is acceptable to a large number of Senators.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to support Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 63, the budget resolution for the fiscal year 
1995 Federal budget. As I walked over to the Capitol today, I was 
reminded of the debate we had on last year's budget. We all remember 
the grim predictions of doom and gloom if Congress passed the 
President's budget plan.
  On this floor, after looking into their dark crystal balls, we heard 
Senator after Senator make forlorn forecasts of the future.
  One Senator said:

       This bill, also known as President Clinton's deficit 
     reduction plan, is no such thing * * *. This is a smoke and 
     mirrors approach to deficit reduction, and it will not work * 
     * *. You can call a donkey a racehorse all you want, but it 
     is still a donkey * * *.

  Another Senator predicted:

       When all is said and done, people will pay more taxes, the 
     economy will create fewer jobs, government will spend more 
     money and the American people will be worse off.

  And a third forecast:

       The American people are told by this administration that 
     the country can reduce its budget deficit and return to the 
     road to prosperity painlessly through higher taxes on someone 
     else. That dog will not hunt.

  I don't know about donkeys becoming racehorses and dogs learning to 
hunt. But I do know that last year's budget plan is working.
  Now that we have heard what the nay sayers said last year, let's 
listen to what one independent analyst said recently during testimony 
before Congress:

       The underlying, long-term economic outlook in this country 
     is improving quite measurably, and indeed, I don't recall as 
     good an underlying base for the long-term outlook that we 
     have today in the last two or three decades.

  That independent analyst was Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve System.
  Chairman Greenspan is right. Our economic outlook is indeed very 
bright.
  The deficit is shrinking. For the first time since the buck stopped 
with President Harry Truman, the Federal deficit is estimated to 
decline for the third year in a row. In 1995, it is projected that the 
deficit as a percentage of national income will fall to 2.3 percent--as 
low as it was in 1979, before the deficit began to explode.
  Economic growth is up. In 1993, we had four consecutive quarters of 
growth, topped by last quarter's annual rate of 7.5 percent--the 
highest growth in over a decade. Most economists predict this growth 
will continue at a 3- to 3.5-percent clip for all of 1994.
  The private sector is creating new jobs. Since President Clinton's 
inauguration, the private sector has created over 1.9 million jobs, 
almost twice as many jobs as were created during the Bush 
administration. As a result, the unemployment rate under President 
Clinton has fallen from 7.7 percent in January 1993 to 6.5 percent in 
February 1993, a drop of 1.2 percent.
  And all of last year's talk about higher taxes on everyone was just 
empty rhetoric. Only 1.2 percent of the wealthiest Americans, the 1.4 
million taxpayers who earned over $140,000 in adjusted gross income in 
1993, will face higher income tax rates. Due to the expansion of the 
earned income tax credit, 15 million lower- and middle-income working 
families will have to pay less in taxes come April 15. When the earned 
income tax credit is fully expanded, 21 million families will be 
eligible for a tax reduction.
  This year's budget resolution further widens our path 
toward prosperity. It includes President Clinton's investment 
initiatives in our future. And it improves upon the President's 
proposal by restoring essential funds for programs needed by many low-
income Americans.

  Working within the strict spending caps achieved in last year's 
budget, this year's budget makes long overdue investments in programs 
that help our children, our students, and our workers.
  For our children, the budget invests in the Special Supplemental Food 
Program for Women, Infants and Children [WIC], which provides 
nutritious meals for pregnant women and their children. It has been my 
long-time goal to make sure that every eligible woman and child gets 
the benefits of this program. I was also pleased to cosponsor an 
amendment introduced by Senator Boxer to increase WIC funding by an 
additional $100 million. The amendment also invests in other child 
programs like immunizations and puts more money into The Emergency Food 
Assistance Program [TEFAP]. The amendment passed the Senate by an 
overwhelming 93 to 5 vote.
  For our students, the budget finances 33,000 positions in the 
President's ambitious National Service Program. This program is meant 
to bring out the best in today's young people, just as the Peace Corps 
did for my generation.
  I had hoped that this budget resolution would increase the Federal 
share of education funding for individuals with disabilities. 
Unfortunately, Senators Dodd and Jeffords' amendment to transfer $5 
billion to help the States pay for special education was defeated 65-
33. I supported this amendment. Many Vermont communities are struggling 
to provide an appropriate education for individuals with disabilities 
and the Federal Government should be doing its share.
  For our workers, the budget fully supports a revamped worker training 
program. This program is designed to teach today's dislocated workers 
the skills they need for tomorrow's jobs.
  And these investments are made in a budget where outlays for 
discretionary spending will decline from the year before, the first 
time that has happened since 1969.
  Finally, I am delighted that the Senate unanimously approved an 
amendment to fully restore funding for the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program [LIHEAP], which was cut by 50 percent in the 
President's budget proposal. Millions of poor Americans rely on LIHEAP 
to avoid choosing between paying their heating bills or their grocery 
bills. In Vermont alone, 22,350 families receive average assistance of 
$80 per month during the winter months.
  Like last year's budget debate, let us resist the sirens of doom and 
gloom. This budget resolution builds upon last year's success and 
continues to steer our economy in the right direction.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am proud to come to the floor today to 
speak in favor of a Federal budget that is--for the most part--honest 
and responsible. It cuts spending; it does not raise taxes. It moves in 
the direction the American people have demanded.
  Last year, during our final debate on the budget--the reconciliation 
bill--we enacted enforceable caps to hold spending to a freeze. Not a 
so-called soft freeze in which some priority programs increase and no 
programs are terminated. Not an inflation adjusted freeze. But a strict 
freeze that holds the spending controlled by the Appropriations 
Committee to below $550 billion for 5 years.
  By law, the Appropriations Committee can spend no more this year than 
last year--no more next year than this year. That is real progress.
  And the budget we consider today goes even further. Because of an 
amendment offered in Budget Committee, the budget before us today cuts 
substantially more than recommended by the President and cuts 
substantially more than a freeze would require. Last year, we 
appropriated $550 billion in nonentitlement funds. If this resolution 
passes, we will appropriate only $540 billion.
  So, for the most part, this budget deserves the Senate's support. It 
reduces spending and freezes in the reductions. It holds deficits down 
without raising taxes. However, it does have one flaw I would like to 
discuss.
  I strongly support the extra $26 billion in cuts added to the 
resolution in Budget Committee. I would have preferred that these cuts 
were specifically delineated. There were 10 votes in the committee on 
specific spending cuts. Not one passed. There was one vote on this 
extra $26 billion in unspecified spending reduction. That passed.
  I am distressed that we have not progressed much further than hiding 
deficit reduction in magic asterisks. That was a trick that David 
Stockman used. It was smoke and mirrors then, and it is smoke and 
mirrors now.
  This budget cuts spending but relies on a payer to be named later. 
Unfortunately, the experience of the 1980's showed us that, in deals 
like this, it is likely that our children and our grandchildren will 
become the payers to be named later. We cannot let that continue.
  I have heard my colleagues from the other side of the aisle argue 
that this budget does not do enough. I agree. We need to be more honest 
about where we would cut. But we also need a budget that keeps pushing 
Congress to live up to the spending freeze agreed to last year--without 
raising taxes. This budget does that, and for that reason I support it, 
and urge my colleagues to do the same.


     ten-year rule as set forth in senate concurrent resolution 63

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I would like to ask the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, Senator Sasser, for clarification of the pay-as-you-go 
budget rule set forth in section 23 of this resolution.
  Mr. SASSER. I would be happy to clarify this provision for the 
distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. As I read section 23(c) of this resolution, a point of 
order would lie against legislation which would cause a deficit 
increase for the period of years 6 through 10, only if the legislation 
meets both of two conditions--that it would cause a deficit increase in 
the outyears when taken individually and that it would cause a deficit 
increase in the outyears when taken together with direct spending and 
receipts legislation enacted since OBRA-1993. Is that correct?
  Mr. SASSER. The chairman of the Finance Committee is correct. Both 
conditions must be met in order for a point of order to lie. Therefore, 
even if a bill--individually--would cause a deficit increase in the 
outyears, if that increase is offset by surpluses resulting from 
previous legislation enacted since OBRA-1993, then no point of order 
would lie.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the chairman. Pursuing this a bit further, what 
if previously enacted legislation since OBRA-1993 is currently scored 
as causing a cumulative deficit for years 6 through 10? My 
understanding is that legislation brought to the floor in that 
situation would not have to offset that cumulative deficit, so long as 
the legislation brought to the floor is--individually--deficit neutral.
  Mr. SASSER. The chairman is correct. Since a bill must cause a 
deficit increase both individually, as well as together with previously 
enacted legislation, no point of order would lie in this situation as 
long as the bill brought to the floor is, itself, deficit neutral.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for his 
clarification.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I would like to commend my colleagues on 
the Senate Budget Committee for their bipartisan support of the 
programs of the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences [NCMS] in 
the 1995 concurrent budget resolution. The NCMS is one of the most 
successful and important initiatives of the Department of Defense, 
addressing the advanced manufacturing needs of a wide range of 
industrial sectors and supply tiers that have strategic importance to 
our national security. Contrary to the Government picking winners and 
losers, the NCMS is a fair and open, industry-led program. Federal 
funds are matched over 2 to 1 by the growing number of U.S. 
corporations that participate. The expertise of the U.S. automobile 
manufacturers, for example, along with that of their world class 
suppliers, is being brought to bear through the NCMS on a wide range of 
weapon-related manufacturing issues.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan. The 
committee has recognized for many years the potential of bringing the 
commercial practices and lessons learned of U.S. producers competing in 
the global marketplace to reengineer the way we design and build weapon 
systems. General Motors and the people of Tennessee design and build 
the Saturn. It is unquestionably one of the great U.S. automotive 
success stories. From the showroom to the shop floor, the Saturn 
program has revolutionized manufacturing and is creating new jobs and 
economic growth here in the United States. The NCMS provides the forum 
and the vehicle by which the Defense Department and its contractor base 
can access and utilize the know-how of General Motors and over 180 
leading U.S. corporations to help benchmark, leverage, and modernize 
its own manufacturing processes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I fully agree with my colleagues on the 
importance of the NCMS. The NCMS has succeeded in over 100 high-risk, 
high-return programs since its formation over 8 years ago. For example, 
the NCMS is recognized for its success in the development and 
commercialization of rapid prototyping processes that have already 
decreased by over 50 percent, the cost of the development of extremely 
complex, high precision components to be used in the F-22 and other 
major weapon systems. The NCMS is also on the leading edge in 
establishing large-scale collaborative programs with the weapons 
laboratories of the Department of Energy, and in forging a partnership 
between industry and these laboratories to support the conversion of 
the weapons laboratories of the former Soviet Union.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, during the past months the Senate Armed 
Services Committee held numerous hearings on the status of our Armed 
Forces and the fiscal year 1995 Defense budget. I came away from those 
hearings with great concern over the readiness status of our forces. 
More importantly, the hearings reinforced my concern that the future 
defense spending proposed by the administration will not be sufficient 
to provide this Nation the capability of winning future battles.
  The senior military leaders testified before the Armed Services 
Committee that the fiscal year 1995 Defense budget request barely 
maintains critical readiness and any further cuts would seriously 
jeopardize the Armed Forces' ability to support a sound national 
defense strategy. My colleagues may recall that recently I called upon 
President Clinton to provide a coherent, overall strategy that would 
provide the basis for judgments about resources devoted to defense and 
force levels required.
  Mr. President, I cannot cast my vote for a budget resolution which 
would create a potential $63-billion shortfall for our national 
defense. My vote against this resolution reflects the depth of my 
concern about the dramatic decline in our Defense budget and the lack 
of direction provided by the Clinton administration. The Russian bear 
may appear to be gone, but there are plenty of snakes in the woods--and 
their threat may be chemical, biological, or even nuclear. Clearly, we 
must not jeopardize our security by cutting any more than we have 
already. Mr. President, I simply cannot, in good conscience, vote to 
support this resolution which would certainly further degrade readiness 
and jeopardize the young men and women we send in harm's way.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the Senate Democrats' budget plan fails to 
make the tough decisions to reduce the deficit, and it lacks funding 
for the President's biggest new spending initiatives.
  Senator Domenici and the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee 
deserve a lot of credit. With their leadership, Republicans were able 
to offer an alternative which would cut the deficit by more than $300 
billion over the next 5 years, cut President Clinton's 1999 deficit in 
half, and do this without raising taxes and without cutting Social 
Security. The Republican plan offered a balanced approach to deficit 
reduction---60 percent of our spending cuts came from Federal 
entitlement programs, 40 percent from nondefense appropriated accounts.
  Our plan was responsible. It set new priorities and said we are 
willing to pay for these new initiatives with spending cuts.
  The President and the Senate Democrats want taxpayers to invest in 
the future by boosting big Government. Republicans want to invest in 
the future by providing tax relief to working families and children. We 
want to unleash new investments and help protect the value of homes, 
small businesses, family farms, investments and other assets from the 
corrosive effects of inflation by indexing capital gains.
  We want to maintain a strong national defense. The administration's 
own defense experts calculate a shortfall of at least $20 billion in 
the Clinton defense plan. And while the President says that he will 
make no further cuts in defense, his budget plan forces our military to 
eat that $20 billion shortfall. This hidden cut comes on top of the 
$127 billion cut the President has already applied. During this debate, 
Republicans offered the only budget plan that provides what the 
President's own defense experts say they need.
  The Republican alternative backed up our tough talk about crime-
fighting with $22 billion in funding over 5 years for the violent crime 
trust fund. This money will hire more cops, make our schools safer, put 
away violent criminals, and slam shut the revolving prison door.
  The American people have asked all of us to make the tough decisions 
needed to get the deficit under control. Republicans offered a plan 
which proves that we are willing to cut spending first to reduce the 
deficit, and we are willing to provide funding for our priorities like 
tax relief for working families, a strong defense and a tough crime-
fighting package.
  The Senate Democrats' plan is an improvement over the President's 
budget. The bipartisan Exon-Grassley amendment cuts Federal spending by 
an additional $26 billion over 5 years and locks in those savings for 
deficit reduction.
  But, Republicans are not satisfied with $200 billion deficits as far 
as the eye can see. We know that we can do better. We proved it by 
offering a plan to cut the deficit to $99 billion by 1999.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against final passage of the Senate 
Democrats' plan.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, I want to congratulate the 
Chairman of the Budget Committee, my friend, Senator Sasser on bringing 
to completion this phase of the 1995 budget process.
  Second, let me say that this has been a long week but it could have 
been longer had we taken the full 50 hours authorized under the 
statute.
  I regret to tell the chairman that I will not be able to vote for 
final passage.
  Had my effort to focus spending cuts on the real culprit to 
controlling deficits--entitlements--been successful then my decision 
might have been different.
  Had the effort of my friend Senator Nunn been successful this morning 
to set some limit on the growth of entitlements, then my decision might 
have been different.
  For you see, I see this resolution as a simple continuation of the 
budget adopted last year, that refused to control entitlement spending 
and promised that the deficit would be controlled through health care 
reform. The latter which is not evident 1-year later.
  What is worse, this resolution returns to the old standby for deficit 
reduction--defense spending. I sincerely believe that the Exon-Grassley 
amendment will result in further cuts to our national security. Enough 
is enough. Not my words, President Clinton's words.
  What is worse, despite the claim that somehow my amendment yesterday 
was going to destroy ``health care reform'' this year, the Senate will 
be adopting a resolution that simply says--do health care reform but 
don't worry about the deficit.
  This resolution says by establishing a ``deficit neutral reserve fund 
for health care reform'' that increased spending for health care and 
increased taxes to pay for it are OK, so long as they cancel each out. 
We get increased spending, increased taxes, and once again no deficit 
reduction.
  I simply asked in my amendment yesterday, that the Federal budget we 
adopt include as one factor in health care reform legislation, relief 
to the Federal budget. I support health, care reform, but it must 
include as one of those factors--deficit reduction. Not my words, 
President Clinton's.
  So for these reasons: Continuation of last year's budget policies 
with increasing deficits in the future;
  No fundamental change in entitlement spending;
  No effort to even consider deficit reduction as one factor in health 
care reform; and
  Another swipe at national security in a time of heightened world 
uncertainty;
  I will not be able to vote for final passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I know this is difficult for you. I am the only person 
in this Chamber that can say that I have stood in your shoes. But I 
also want to say that someday, I hope we can genuinely work together in 
a bipartisan approach on the budget. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last year the President and the Congress 
made some hard choices to cut spending and to raise taxes as part of a 
budget package that reduced the deficit by almost half a trillion over 
5 years. The opponents of that package predicted that it would not 
reduce the deficit and would destroy the economy.
  One said, ``We are buying a one way ticket to a recession.'' Another 
predicted, ``It will flatten the economy.'' A third added that the bill 
was ``a jobs killer.''
  They were confident, and 1 year later, it is clear they were wrong.
  The budget resolution before us projects a deficit for fiscal year 
1995 that is $60 billion lower than the deficit for fiscal year 1994 
and about $130 billion lower than the last year's projection of the 
deficit for fiscal year 1995. The fiscal year 1995 deficit would be 40 
percent lower as a percentage of GDP than it was just 2 years ago. 
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, ``The 
dramatic improvement since last January is largely the result of the 
enactment in August of a major package of tax increases and spending 
cuts.
  As for the economy itself, almost twice as many jobs were created in 
1993 than were created during the previous 4 years. The rebound in the 
auto and housing industries offer encouraging evidence that the current 
economic recovery can be sustained. It sure is better to read the 
recent reports of manufacturing jobs being created than to hear the 
drumbeat over the past few years of plant after plant being closed 
down.
  This budget resolution for fiscal year 1995 follows through on the 
decisions of last year, and a little bit more. Discretionary spending 
is cut below the level of a freeze. This further cut in spending will 
make for some difficult choices during the appropriations process, but 
they are the choices that we must be willing to make if we are to put 
the budget on a path of fiscal responsibility.
  At the same time, the budget resolution does not include provisions 
that would make health care reform more difficult. Unlike some of the 
amendments offered during the debate, it recognizes that there are 
areas of additional spending restraint in the Federal Government's 
health care programs but chooses to address those areas as part of a 
comprehensive health care reform package.
  One aspect of the debate on this resolution deserves mention. Time 
and time again, in criticizing the work of the Budget Committee, 
proposals were made which bore a striking resemblance to the kinds of 
budget proposals that were made and adopted during the early 1980's. It 
is ironic that some of the people who contributed to making those 
decisions, which had the effect of putting our economy in intensive 
care by the end of the 1980's, are now proudly demanding, ``Bring on 
another body.''
  Mr. MITCHELL. I would like to inquire of the managers whether we are 
now prepared to proceed to final passage on this resolution.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. Leader, we are prepared to move to final passage on 
the measure.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am conferring with Senator Dole. Just 
give us 30 seconds before you go to final passage.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly.
  Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to thank the managers 
for their cooperation, patience, and perseverance. I would like to 
make--Mr. President, may we have order?
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senate will be in order. Members conducting 
conversations at the rear of the Chamber will please cease 
conversations. The Senate will be in order.
  The majority leader.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, before we cast this vote, I want to 
state for the information of Senators my intentions as to the schedule 
following this vote.
  As I previously indicated, we will remain in session until we 
complete action on the conference report on the Goals: 2000 education 
bill. Under the Senate rules--first we know that we are confronting a 
filibuster on that conference report--in order to overcome the 
filibuster, I filed two motions to end the filibuster and invoke 
cloture. Because we were not able to file those motions until Thursday, 
the motions will not ripen for votes under the Senate rules until 
Saturday.
  I have discussed this with a large number of Senators, and while 
there are many conflicting interests in schedules, I have concluded 
that the best way to proceed is the following:
  Immediately following this vote, I will move to return the Senate to 
consideration of the conference report, and the Senate will remain in 
session throughout the day debating that matter. Votes are possible 
during the day. Senators should be aware of that. If we are required to 
proceed, as under the rules, and the vote cannot occur until Saturday, 
it is my intention to convene the Senate at 12:01 a.m. on Saturday, and 
to have the vote occur under the rules at 1:01 a.m. on Saturday.
  I recognize that this will be inconvenient to all Senators, but I 
have concluded that the alternatives will be much more inconvenient.
  My hope is, and I again ask, that we can have the cloture votes today 
immediately after this vote if possible. I make that request again. 
Previous requests have not been met with an affirmative response.
  So I regret having to make this decision. But it is my intention that 
we will remain in session until such time as we complete action on that 
conference report.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the majority leader retain the time, or does 
he yield?
  Mr. MITCHELL. I yield.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to ask the question of the majority 
leader.
  It is my understanding that we will go back on the conference report 
and there could be or would be procedural votes throughout the day.
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct. Senators will be required to debate. 
If quorum calls are put in simply for purposes of delay, then I will 
move to have procedural votes under the rules so they will occur 
throughout the day.
  Mr. DOLE. If everything else fails, is it possible to waive the 1 
hour under the rule?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly. If we can have the vote at 12:01 a.m., I 
would be pleased to do that. Frankly, that would require consent. If 
someone is willing to consent to have the vote at 12:01 a.m., I hope 
they consent to have the vote at 11 p.m. or 10 p.m.
  Mr. DOLE. Could we deem this as Saturday? Maybe we could deem today 
as Saturday. [Laughter.]
  Mr. MITCHELL. There is much the Senate can do by unanimous consent. 
That is one thing I do not think we can.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection? [Laughter.]
  Mr. DOLE. There may be other possibilities, too. Hopefully, if we 
have to come back at midnight, we can vote immediately rather than wait 
until 1 a.m.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, let me make clear, I want to vote as 
soon as possible. As far as I am concerned, the earlier the better. If 
we have no consent given and we are required to proceed strictly under 
the rules, then the earliest the vote could occur is 1:01 a.m. tomorrow 
morning, and that is what we will do.

                          ____________________