[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3274-S3281]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         RECESS UNTIL 2:15 P.M.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12:30 
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now stand in recess until the hour 
of 2:15 p.m.
  Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:34 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m.; 
whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Presiding 
Officer ( Mr. Santorum).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now come to order.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate to my colleagues the first 
vote will be a 20-minute vote. All subsequent votes will be 10 minutes.
  It is my hope that it will not take 10 minutes on each vote. I urge 
my colleagues on both sides to stay on the floor. There will be 17, 18, 
19, or 20 votes, and we can complete action on the votes, hopefully by 
5 o'clock, if we all stay right here. There will not be time to go 
anywhere else. I urge my colleagues to stay on the floor.


               vote on motion to table amendment no. 274

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Under the previous order, the 
vote now occurs on the motion to table amendment No. 274 offered by the 
Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--39

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kerry
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 274) was agreed 
to.
               vote on motion to table amendment no. 291

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on the motion to table amendment No. 291, offered by the Senator 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kerry
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 291) was agreed 
to.
             vote on the motion to table amendment no. 259

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the amendment numbered 259 
offered by the Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham]. On this question, the 
yeas 
[[Page S3275]]  and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--40

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kerry
       
  So, the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
               vote on motion to table amendment no. 298

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Under the previous order, the 
question is on a motion to table amendment No. 298, offered by the 
Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 83 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 298) was agreed 
to.
               vote on motion to table amendment no. 267

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on the motion to table amendment numbered 267 offered by the 
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--38

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 267) was agreed 
to.
                vote on motion to table motion to refer

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the motion to 
refer House Joint Resolution 1, offered by the Senator from Arkansas 
[Mr. Bumpers].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 85 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--37

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
  So the motion to lay on the table the motion to refer House Joint 
Resolution 1 was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Let me caution all Members to stay on the floor. From now 
on the vote will end in 10 minutes regardless. Members have been 
cautioned to be on the floor. We would like to complete action. We have 
lost about 10 or 15 minutes waiting throughout the afternoon. That will 
not happen again. Ten minutes, that is it.


               vote on motion to table amendment no. 299

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on the motion to table amendment No. 299, offered by the Senator 
from Georgia [Mr. Nunn].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 86 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--39

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux 
      [[Page S3276]] Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 299) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Nunn 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                 VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 300, AS MODIFIED
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on amendment No. 300, as modified, offered by the Senator from Georgia 
[Mr. Nunn].
  On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg.]

                                YEAS--92

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--8

     Brown
     Feingold
     Gramm
     Harkin
     Leahy
     McCain
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
  So the amendment (No. 300), as modified, was agreed to.
               vote on motion to table amendment no. 273

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
the motion to table amendment No. 273 offered by the Senator from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 88 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--38

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Sarbanes
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 273) was agreed to.
               vote on motion to table amendment no. 310

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on the motion to table amendment No. 310, offered by the Senator 
from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 89 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 310) was agreed 
to.
               vote on motion to table amendment no. 311

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on the motion to table the amendment No. 311 offered by the 
Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 90 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 311) was agreed 
to.
               vote on motion to table amendment no. 307

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on the motion to table amendment No. 307, offered by the Senator 
from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 91 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings 
      [[Page S3277]] Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--37

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 307) was agreed 
to.
             Vote on the Motion to Table Amendment No. 252
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on the motion to lay on the table amendment No. 252 offered by the 
Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd].
  On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 92 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--31

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
               vote on motion to table amendment no. 254

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on the motion to table amendment No. 254, offered by the Senator 
from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 93 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--32

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 254) was agreed 
to.
               vote on motion to table amendment no. 255

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on the motion to table amendment No. 255, offered by the Senator 
from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 94 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--38

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 255) was agreed 
to.
                   motion to table amendment no. 253

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order the question now 
occurs on the motion to table amendment No. 253 offered by the Senator 
from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 95 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--37

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 253) was agreed 
to.
               Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 258

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on the motion to table amendment No. 258 offered by the Senator 
from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 25, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 96 Leg.]

                                YEAS--75

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman 
      [[Page S3278]] Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--25

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Ford
     Glenn
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Pell
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 258) was agreed to.
              vote on motion to table the motion to commit

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on the motion to table the motion to commit House Joint 
Resolution 1, offered by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 97 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--37

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
  So the motion to lay on the table the motion to commit was agreed to.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                           Motions Withdrawn

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that motions offered 
by Senator Dole be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The motions were withdrawn.


                   Motion to Reconsider Votes En Bloc

  Mr. MACK. I ask unanimous consent that I may move to reconsider and 
table all previous votes en bloc at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. MACK. I move to reconsider and table en bloc the previous 
rollcall votes.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
West Virginia is recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I first would like to commend the proponents of the 
constitutional amendment for their spirited defense of this balanced 
budget amendment, misnamed though it is. I cannot commend them, 
however, on the content of their proposal. I believe that the proposal 
is inherently flawed, wrong-headed and worth absolutely nothing in 
terms of real deficit reduction. But I do believe that the debate has 
been enlightening, and I also believe that an adequate amount of time 
has been accorded to a thorough discussion of the amendment. So I thank 
Senator Hatch and Senator Dole and all of the proponents for the time 
that we have deliberated. And I thank them for their spirited defense 
of the amendment.
  I also commend Senator Simon. He obviously believes so wholeheartedly 
in this proposal that one must admire his constancy.
  There have been many profiles in courage, Mr. President, and they 
will very soon make themselves manifest. But the profiles in courage 
displayed by Senator Mark Hatfield and Senator Tom Daschle must not 
pass unnoticed--must not pass unnoticed--as we near the end of this 
long debate. Both of these Senators, and others who likewise will have 
displayed great courage in voting against this amendment, have lived up 
to the highest standards imagined by the Framers when they devised the 
marvelous institution of the Senate and envisioned Senators as men who 
would be able to withstand pressure, lift themselves above the 
political fray, and, according to their consciences, do the right and 
the honorable thing, regardless of political cover.
  Mr. President, I ask for attention in this Senate, and I do not want 
the time to be charged against me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The time will not 
be charged against the Senator from West Virginia. He will suspend 
while the Senate comes to order.
  I ask that all Senators and staff please take the conversations off 
the floor.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I have spent most of my adult life in service to my 
country. No small part of that time has been engaged in trying to 
protect the Framers' views of the powers of the legislative branch, and 
particularly in attempting to thwart attacks on the powers of the U.S. 
Senate. I am so thoroughly in awe of the genius of the Framers, their 
foresight, their judgment, their tempered wisdom, that I would make any 
political sacrifice to protect the Constitution from permanent harm.
  But we have entered an age, Mr. President, when reverence for our 
Constitution and for the wisdom of history have rather gone out of 
fashion. Talk shows, public opinion polls, bumper sticker slogans, and 
a so-called political Contract With America are the order of the day. 
There is little patience with going against the tide, and one man's 
courage may be judged as nothing more than foolhardy if that courage 
jeopardizes his chances for reelection.
  Yet, I remain a believer in the old values. I believe that a solemn 
oath binds one. I believe that courage is eventually rewarded and has 
its own reward in any event. And I believe that preserving the 
constitutional system intact for future generations, insofar as the 
constitutional system itself is concerned, is the most solemn and 
important thing that a Member of this body can ever do.
  There are those who would scoff at these old-fashioned views. There 
are those who would put efficiency, expediency and political agenda 
before any considerations of courage, fealty to an oath, loyalty to a 
higher purpose, or the preservation of the genius of a 200-year-old 
charter.
  ``Change'' is the watchword of the day--change, merely for the sake 
of change, is suddenly a virtue above all others, a goal to be achieved 
at all costs. But I will never, never, never bow to those messengers of 
expediency or to the managers of any political party's agenda when 
basic principles are at stake.
  The hurricanes may blow, the tides may rise, but there still remain 
those of us who will never, never bend, because we believe it is our 
sworn duty not to yield to attacks on our constitutional system of 
mixed powers and checks and balances.
  So whatever the final outcome of this vote, I will retire to my bed 
tonight satisfied that I have done all that one man can do to live up 
to the oath that I have taken over and over again to 
[[Page S3279]] protect the written framework of our representative 
democracy.
  If the amendment should pass, I shall fervently hope that the States 
will have the wisdom that the Senate could not find to reject this 
dangerous and unwise proposal. If the amendment should fail, I shall be 
enormously proud of this body to which I have devoted so much of my 
life. And, most particularly, I will be proud of those Senators who set 
their sails against the wind and who chose the harder course in order 
that our venerable Constitution might be saved for yet a little while 
longer.
  Our cherished liberties were not easily won, and they are not easily 
maintained. The preservation of our hard-won freedoms always has a 
price. But we who serve here are charged with the awesome duty of 
preserving those freedoms for generations yet unborn. The bruising 
battle that we have just been through demonstrates, once again, that we 
who have the honor of calling ourselves United States Senators must be 
ever vigilant to guard what has been bequeathed to us by wise men--men 
of vision, men of courage, men of character.
  The political seas may churn and boil, but our solemn duty as 
Senators must always be to drown out the noise and keep faith with our 
own inner voices. The Senate, from time to time, is the very last 
bulwark against the too-hot passions that rail in this land. However 
various Senators may vote today, it is my hope that each of us will 
take away from this debate some lessons learned and wisdom gained. As 
in no other institution of this great and marvelous democracy--in the 
Senate, one individual can make a difference. Service here is difficult 
and it is demanding. It requires the very best of one's nature and the 
most assiduous cultivation of one's character. When the battle is over 
and the roar of the debate has subsided, whether one's side has won or 
lost is not the final thing. In the final analysis, service here boils 
down to one quality. Horace Greeley expressed it best when he said:

       Fame is a vapor, popularity an accident; riches take wings, 
     and those who cheer today may curse tomorrow--only one thing 
     endures; character!

  Mr. President, to all those who have stood straight and tall in the 
fight I salute them with the words ``morituri te salutamus.'' And may 
they, like I, feel as did the Apostle Paul in writing his second 
Epistle to Timothy, when he said: ``I have fought a good fight, I have 
finished my course, I have kept the faith.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a series of pertinent 
commentaries from the press be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the commentaries were ordered to be printed 
in the Record as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 28, 1995]

                    The Urgency of Political Courage

       It is hard to decide which would be worse: if the balanced 
     budget amendment that the Senate is voting on today 
     functioned as its sponsors intend, thereby locking the 
     country into what would often be an ill-advised economic 
     policy; or if Congress found a way to duck the command, 
     thereby trivializing the Constitution and creating a 
     permanent monument to political timidity
       Take the second possibility. The Constitution of the United 
     States is remarkable because no country in the world has 
     taken its written Constitution so seriously. It is a concise 
     Constitution, and it has not been amended lightly. Other 
     countries have acted as if their constitutions were merely 
     pieces of legislation to be changed at will, but not the 
     United States.
       The balanced budget amendment marks the intrusion of the 
     worst kind of legislative politics onto our constitutional 
     tradition. For about a decade and a half, for mostly 
     political reasons, Congress has not found the fortitude to 
     come even close to balancing the budget. Instead of doing 
     what it should and voting the spending cuts and taxes to 
     narrow the deficit, Congress wants to dodge the hard choices 
     by changing the Constitution. But as Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan 
     argued on ``Meet the Press'' this Sunday: ``My proposition is 
     that you avoid trying to pretend a machine will do this for 
     you. . . . You have to do it yourself.'' With or without the 
     amendment, only Congress will get the budget balanced. And 
     who is to say that the amendment, which becomes effective 
     only in 2002, won't delay Congress from making the hard 
     decisions until it is against the wall of its mandate, give 
     it yet another excuse? ``Gosh, we passed the balanced budget 
     amendment,'' the unfailingly inventive members will be 
     inclined to say, ``and it goes into effect in just a few 
     years. Isn't that enough? What do you want us to do? Balance 
     the budget?''
       Sen. Sam Nunn, whose vote could prove decisive, has argued 
     forcefully that this amendment could lead to the judiciary's 
     making decisions on spending cuts and tax increases that 
     ought only be made by the legislative branch. Last night, 
     Sen. Byron Dorgan, another whose vote had been in doubt, 
     voiced a similar reservation. Supporters of the amendment are 
     now trying to win their votes by arguing that legislation 
     could be passed to protect against judicial supremacy. But 
     surely
      Mr. Nunn's first instinct was right: No legislation can 
     supersede the Constitution. If the amendment itself does 
     not protect against judicial interference, there is no 
     guarantee as to how a court will act. And if, on the other 
     hand, there is no enforcement mechanism for the amendment, 
     then why pass it in the first place? It becomes an utterly 
     empty symbol, which is exactly what the United States 
     Constitution has never been and never should be.
       As bad as this prospect is, an effective balanced budget 
     amendment might be even worse. By requiring three-fifths 
     votes to pass unbalanced budgets, it would enshrine minority 
     rule. And while deficits in periods of prosperity make little 
     sense, modest deficits during economic downturns have been 
     powerful engines for bringing the economy back to prosperity. 
     This amendment, if it worked as planned, would shackle 
     government to economic policies that are plainly foolish. 
     Since government revenues drop during recessions and since 
     payments for benefits such as food stamps and unemployment 
     compensation increase, the amendment would require Congress 
     by constitutional mandate to pursue exactly the policies that 
     would only further economic distress: to raise taxes, to cut 
     spending, or do both.
       Moreover, as Mr. Moynihan and others have pointed out, the 
     amendment could one day lead to the devastation of the 
     banking system. This might happen because a balanced budget 
     amendment could stall or stop the government from meeting its 
     obligations to protect the depositors of banks that failed 
     during an economic downturn. Mr. Moynihan is not exaggerating 
     when he says that ``everything we have learned about managing 
     our economy since the Great Depression is at risk.''
       Voting against this amendment should be easy. It has been 
     said that were today's vote secret, the amendment would 
     certainly fail. But the political pressures on the undecided 
     senators--Mr. Nunn, Mr. Dorgan, John Breaux, Kent Conrad and 
     Wendell Ford--are immense and largely in the amendment's 
     favor. These senators have an opportunity only rarely given 
     public figures: to display genuine courage on an issue of 
     enormous historical significance. They should seize their 
     moment and vote this amendment down.
                                                                    ____

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 28, 1995]

                             Why Fear Debt?

                         (By Robert Heilbroner)

       It is doubtful that the balanced-budget amendment, which 
     the Senate votes on today, would be effective, even if 
     ratified. The reason is there are many ways of placing 
     expenditures outside the budget--Social Security, for 
     example. What is not doubtful is that the real cause for 
     worry is a balanced, not an unbalanced, budget.
       Here's why: Deficit spending is legitimate when it is used 
     to protect the future well-being of the nation.
       Though one hears much about ``living beyond our means,'' 
     very few people can concisely define deficit spending. In 
     fact, it means one and only one thing: borrowing. A deficit 
     refers to the amount the government has borrowed. If there is 
     no borrowing, there cannot be a deficit. That introduces a 
     ray of light into the darkness for it makes us ask whether 
     there might be circumstances in which the Government ought to 
     borrow.
       Suppose a law enjoined households from any borrowing. That 
     would cut down gambling losses, but it would also prevent 
     families from buying houses by taking out mortgages. 
     Similarly, a prohibition on all business borrowing might 
     eliminate a few extravagances, but it would cripple private 
     investment. In the same way, a blanket injunction against 
     Federal borrowing might cause the Government to eliminate 
     waste, but it also would make much public investment 
     impossible.
       That would mean goodbye to such improvements as bridges, 
     tunnels, highways, public-health research centers and other 
     undertakings that would normally be considered public-sector 
     business but could not be financed by taxation, because, as 
     is the case with mortgages and business capital expenditures, 
     the outlay is too large to be charged against one year's 
     income.
       What about the Federal debt?
       We hear pious declarations about the need to remove the 
     burden of our profligacy from the shoulders of our innocent 
     children. I often wonder how my own children would feel if 
     they opened my safe deposit box at my death to find it 
     stuffed with Government debt--bonds. Would my heirs feel I 
     had burdened them unfairly, as they transferred the bonds to 
     their own safe deposit boxes?
       In a word, whatever its problems--and a debt, like all 
     borrowing, always poses financial management considerations--
     a national debt also serves a vital purpose. It provides the 
     only asset in which households, insurance companies, 
     corporations, banks and, 
     [[Page S3280]] not least, pension funds, including Social 
     Security, can invest whatever assets need to be placed in the 
     least risky of all financial instruments.
       Do not forget, there is no income-producing investment 
     other than Government securities that enjoys the power of the 
     Government to assure that it will be redeemed at full face 
     value.
       Obviously, these arguments are not an excuse for Government 
     profligacy any more than the legitimacy of consumer or 
     corporate debt is an excuse for mindless private borrowing. 
     But these arguments do suggest that the Government needs to 
     depict its borrowing in a more understandable way. 
     Specifically, it should have what it does not now have: a 
     formal capital budget in which its expenditures for 
     investment are identified. Such an accounting method would 
     reassure the anxious public that at least an identifiable 
     part of the ``deficit'' represents borrowing for purposes 
     that most would approve.
       Since there is no such accounting system, all public 
     borrowing is deemed to be the work of the devil--when, 
     properly understood, it may be crucial to the future strength 
     and vitality of the nation.
                                                                    ____

                   [From Business Week March 6, 1995]

                  The Wrong Way to Balance the Budget

                        (By Christopher Farrell)

       In the early days of the American republic, financial 
     panics often led to steep declines in economic activity. Yet 
     the last time a financial crisis triggered an economic 
     collapse was the Great Depression. In the half-century 
     following World War II, financial blowups have had minimal 
     impact, and the economy has enjoyed a relatively smooth ride.
       Now, Congress confronts the possibility of returning us to 
     the chaotic days of yore. In the coming weeks, after years of 
     debate, the Senate will decide whether to require the federal 
     government to balance its budget. Many GOP lawmakers back the 
     amendment. They shouldn't. The Balanced Budget Amendment 
     would strip away much of the government spending that 
     cushions the economy in hard times--just when disinflation 
     and the prospect of deflation are raising the odds of 
     financial crises.
       The U.S. economy is a remarkably stable system, in large 
     part because of the government's expansive safety net. 
     Federal deposit insurance, for example, prevented the 
     collapse of the savings-and-loan industry in the late 1980s 
     from turning into a depression of the 1990s. A market 
     collapse in Mexico sparks jitters in the U.S. but not much 
     more.
       Needed Net. Impose the Balanced Budget Amendment, however, 
     and the system breaks down. Today, as soon as the economy 
     begins to slump, government tax collections fall, and 
     government transfer payments, such as food stamps, increase. 
     The result is higher deficit spending during recessions--but 
     these automatic stabilizers also put more money into the 
     hands of Americans precisely when they most need it.
       A Balanced Budget Amendment, by contrast, would require an 
     explicit vote of Congress to run a larger deficit to 
     counteract an economic slow-down. Given the current climate 
     against deficits, politicians may be reluctant to approve 
     large-scale deficit spending until a recession is well under 
     way. The result? Bigger swings in the economy and a far more 
     volatile financial system.
       This at a time when changing economic conditions are 
     creating a world where stability will be particularly in 
     demand. For years, the powerful interaction of inflation 
     hawks at the Federal Reserve Board, bond-market vigilantes, 
     and the new world economic order have been exerting a firm 
     downward pressure on prices.
      As a result, ``we are a lot closer to the edge of deflation 
     than we have been in some time,'' says Edward E. Yardeni, 
     chief economist at C.J. Lawrence Inc.
       The Fed, for one, is pursuing an austere monetary policy 
     toward its goal of wringing inflation out of the economy. By 
     almost any measure, the U.S. money supply is growing at an 
     anemic rate--hardly fertile ground for price increases. 
     Similarly, bond-market investors send interest rates sharply 
     higher on any hint of inflation news. ``The bond market will 
     not whatever is necessary to make sure inflation won't take 
     off,'' says Charles I. Clough Jr., chief investment 
     strategist at Merrill Lynch & Co.
       Meanwhile, with the collapse of communism and the embrace 
     of freer markets by much of the developing world, the supply 
     of goods, services, capital, and labor is soaring. White-hot 
     domestic and international competition helps explain why last 
     year's inflation rate in the U.S., measured by hourly 
     compensation, was the lowest since 1949--easily offsetting 
     price increases of many commodities and crude-materials 
     prices. Disinflation is here to stay.
       Vicious Cycle. So what? In a world of low inflation, the 
     risk from unexpected financial crises soars. A stock market 
     crash, a bank failure, or a drop in the dollar's value could 
     send asset prices plunging. Suddenly, interest payments 
     become onerous. Credit contracts. This is the sort of vicious 
     cycle that was common in the pre-World War II era--and that 
     deficit spending later eased. ``The stability of our economy 
     is drastically diminished when the federal government is 
     powerless to intervene to prevent a disastrous debt 
     deflation,'' says Hyman P. Minsky, an economist at the Jerome 
     Levy Economics Institute at Bard College.
       The Balanced Budget Amendment wouldn't leave us completely 
     defenseless. The Fed always can open the money spigots to 
     offset the immediate impact of a financial panic, much as it 
     did following the stock market crash of 1987. But monetary 
     policy is a tool best used to control inflation, not to 
     counteract the cyclical ebbs and flows of the economy and 
     financial markets. Getting the government's finances in order 
     makes sense. But the Balanced Budget Amendment is a dangerous 
     step back into the 19th century.
                                                                    ____

                [From the Baltimore Sun, Feb. 28, 1995]

                     Risky Constitutional Amendment

       ``The last thing we want to do is turn over taxing and 
     spending to the federal courts,'' Sen. Sam Nunn told Ross 
     Perot Sunday night, in explaining why he wants to amend the 
     Balanced Budget Amendment to forbid courts to get involved in 
     any ``case or controversy'' arising out of Congress' failure 
     to balance the budget. ``I don't think we want to vest 
     [judges] with spending and tax decisions. I think that would 
     stand the Constitution on its head. I think the taxpayers of 
     this country would be in revolt the first time a federal 
     judge came down and said, `You're mandated to increase taxes 
     by $50 billion.'''
       You bet taxpayers would be in revolt. But what could they 
     do?
       Nothing without Senator Nunn's modification, which will be 
     voted on today before the vote on the Balanced Budget 
     Amendment itself (and maybe nothing with it). Senator Nunn 
     fails and then the main amendment passes and ultimately 
     becomes part of the Constitution, judges would soon be 
     rewriting the budget, based on lawsuits demanding that this 
     tax be raised and that one lowered, etc. And citizens whose 
     benefits were cut would also be in court, arguing that 
     welfare should go down but not agricultural price supports, 
     etc.
       That is what is really at stake if the Balanced Budget 
     Amendment as now written becomes the law of the land.
       Sen. Orrin Hatch, leading the effort for the amendment, 
     says Senator Nunn's concerns can be met with legislation. We 
     dispute that, and so do most legal scholars--from Robert Bork 
     on the right to Laurence Tribe on the left. The result would 
     likely be hundreds, if not thousands of lawsuits around the 
     country,'' Judge Bork has written. And Professor Tribe says, 
     ``Someone who has been cut off from a program, a taxpayer--
     these people will be able to go to court. No question about 
     it.''
       This nation has never constitutionalized its taxing and 
     spending process, so saying with complete confidence what 
     judges would do is in a sense speculation. But there is a 
     record worth noting. In states which have balanced budget 
     requirements in their constitutions, judges have taken over 
     the legislative and executive function regarding spending and 
     taxing a result of lawsuits. That has happened in recent 
     years in New York, Georgia, Wisconsin, California and 
     Louisiana.
       We have made it clear that we oppose the Balanced Budget 
     Amendment for many reasons, including the prospect of judges 
     taking over the budgeting process. So even if the Nunn 
     amendment is added, we would oppose it. And Senator Nunn and 
     others who dread judicial control of taxing and spending 
     better be careful. Even seemingly clear language in an 
     amendment doesn't guarantee hands off. There's always a risk.
       As Sen. Howell Heflin, a former chief justice of the 
     Alabama Supreme Court recently put it, ``Every constitutional 
     amendment that has ever been adopted has had to be 
     interpreted, has had the court to have to look at it and make 
     some kind of interpretation.''
                                                                    ____

               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 28, 1995]

  How States Handle Debt May Not Work for Nation--Staying in Balance 
                         Requires Some Juggling

                            (By Dan Morgan)

       If the Senate approves today a constitutional amendment 
     requiring a balanced federal budget, 48 states will say, 
     ``Welcome to the club.''
       Only Vermont and Wyoming do not have some kind of similar 
     statutory or constitutional requirement, and state officials 
     have been among the loudest critics of the federal debt 
     spree.
       But studies of how these requirements work in practice show 
     that states can find their ways around them when necessary. 
     And some experts question whether the states are a good model 
     for the federal government to be copying, given their vastly 
     different responsibilities and fiscal systems.
       ``It is naive to believe that since states balance their 
     budgets, the federal government should be able to do so as 
     well,'' said Steven D. Gold, director of the Center for the 
     Study of the States, who testified before the House Budget 
     Committee in 1992. ``States do not always balance their 
     budgets. Many states avoid deficits only by using funds 
     carried from previous years, or by relying on gimmicks that 
     often represent unsound policy.''
       A 1993 study by the General Accounting Office for Congress, 
     found that 10 states had carried over end-of-year deficits or 
     borrowed money to finance such deficits in the previous three 
     years. ``Furthermore,'' the report noted, ``some states 
     reported balanced budgets at year end at least in part 
     through one-time budget strategies,'' such as dipping into 
     cash reserves, delaying payments to suppliers or using their 
     accounting tricks.
       States balance their budgets most of the time. But they 
     have also been known to sell 
     [[Page S3281]] assets, temporarily reduce pension 
     contributions and accelerate tax collection in order to stay 
     within the letter of budget law.
       Despite a requirement that the governor submit a balanced 
     budget to the legislature, California has had at least four 
     deficits since 1983, and its fiscal predicament ``clearly 
     shows that a balanced budget provision is no panacea--in 
     fact, at present it seems almost an irrelevancy,'' Gold told 
     the Budget Committee. Since
      then, California's financial plight has worsened.
       States with large, persistent operating deficits, including 
     Louisiana, New York, and Connecticut, have issued bonds to 
     finance the shortfall, a device that is permitted under some 
     state balanced budget requirements.
       Most of the 35 constitutional and 13 statutory balanced 
     budget requirements on the books of the states apply only to 
     state general funds--the operating budgets that pay for 
     basic, day-to-day governmental services out of revenues from 
     taxes, fees and sometimes lottery proceeds.
       Outside of this, however, states borrow heavily to finance 
     longer-term needs for buildings, roads, education and other 
     infrastructure. They also maintain numerous ``off budget'' 
     public authorities (for ports, highways, pensions and mineral 
     extraction, for example) that issue bonds and incur debts.
       Some experts say that longstanding political tradition, and 
     fear of a downgraded credit rating, exert at least as much 
     pressure on governors to run tight fiscal ships as the 
     balanced budget requirements.
       Because of these pressures, governors often take harsh 
     austerity measures that would face far more resistance in 
     Washington. During the 1991 recession, 23 states did not give 
     workers salary increases; 17 states cut welfare benefits and 
     many cut funding for higher education. According to Gold, a 
     widespread response to state fiscal stress has been to 
     increase tuition at state colleges, enabling state 
     governments to reduce contributions to higher education.
       Some say this kind of austerity, if extended to the federal 
     budget because of the sanctions of a balanced budget 
     amendment, would increase the severity and pain of economic 
     downturns in a way that has not been true since the 
     Depression.
       State balanced budget requirements ``generally have worked 
     for state and local government,'' said Philip M. Dearborn, 
     director of government finance research at the U.S. Advisory 
     Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. ``But there is a 
     substantial difference between the management of states and 
     of the federal government.''

  (During today's session of the Senate, the following morning business 
was transacted.)

                          ____________________