1986 - The Exon Library

DPC Vote Database 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Vote No. 1 S 638 01/23/86 CQ Admin: 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Conrail Sale (S. 638, in P.L. 99-509) 

Dole, et al., cloture motion on Dole motion to bring up 

bill. 

Cloture Motion Agreed to 

(90-7) 

Yeas (90) 

Democrats (40 or 89%) 

Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Bumpers, Byrd, Chiles, 

Cranston, DeConcini, Dixon, Dodd, Eagleton, Exon, 

Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Heflin, Hollings, Inouye, 

Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Long, 

Matsunaga, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, 

Pell, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon, 

Zorinsky 

Republicans (50 or 96%) 

Abdnor, Andrews, Armstrong, Boschwitz, Chafee, Cochran, 

Cohen, D'Amato, Danforth, Denton, Dole, Domenici, 

Durenberger, East, Evans, Garn, Goldwater, Gorton, Gramm, 

Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, Hawkins, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, 

Humphrey, Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, Mathias, Mattingly, 

McClure, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Packwood, Quayle, 

Rudman, Simpson, Specter, Stafford, Stevens, Symms, 

Thurmond, Trible, Wallop, Warner, Weicker, Wilson 

Nays (7) 


Bradley, Burdick, Ford, Proxmire, Stennis 


Pressler, Roth 

Not Voting (3) 

Democrats (2) 

Bentsen-2, Pryor-2 

Republicans (1) 

Kassebaum-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

The cloture motion, presented on January 21, 1986, was 

signed by Senators Dole, Danforth, Mattingly, Chafee,

Stevens, Nickles, Thurmond, Simpson, Garn, Packwood, Gramm, 

Rudman, Wallop, Domenici, Wilson, Quayle, and Durenberger.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Danforth motion to waive Budget Act which provides that 

bill affecting revenues in fiscal year for which there is 

no concurrent budget resolution shall not be in order. 

Motion Agreed to 

(68-31) 

Yeas (68) 


Bentsen, Bingaman, Boren, DeConcini, Dodd, Eagleton, Gore, 

Heflin, Hollings, Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, Long, 

Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Pryor, Sasser, Stennis 


Abdnor, Armstrong, Boschwitz, Chafee, Cochran, Cohen, 

D'Amato, Danforth, Denton, Dole, Domenici, Durenberger, 

East, Evans, Garn, Goldwater, Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, 

Hatch, Hatfield, Hawkins, Hecht, Helms, Humphrey, 

Kassebaum, Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, Mattingly, McClure, 

McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Packwood, Pressler, Quayle, 

Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, 

Wallop, Warner, Weicker, Wilson 

Nays (31) 


Biden, Bradley, Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, 

Dixon, Exon, Ford, Glenn, Harkin, Hart, Lautenberg, 

Leahy, Levin, Matsunaga, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Pell, 

Proxmire, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Simon, Zorinsky 


Andrews, Heinz, Mathias, Specter, Stafford 


Democrats (1) 

Baucus-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents asserted that since the bill affects revenues in 

a year for which there is no concurrent budget resolution, 

the bill would violate section 303 of the Budget Act. 

However, this motion to waive the Budget Act is not really 

technical inasmuch as a vote against it would kill Senate 

consideration of the Conrail matter altogether to keep the

U.S. government in the railroad business. It, too, would 

bring into serious question the U.S. government's ability 

to operate as a good faith partner in any business 

transaction. A technical violation of the Budget Act 

should not be used to abort debate on this issue which has 

been before the Senate since 1981. Presently, there are 

three alternatives concerning Conrail before the Senate, 

and if the budget waiver is not passed, none of these will 

be considered. The proposed sale of Conrail, they argued, 

does not include any tax or contractual provisions which 

are substantially different than those that would be 

included in a similar transaction with a party other than 

the Federal government. No special tax benefits, they 

argued, would be conferred to anyone if Conrail is sold 

under the Norfolk Southern proposal. 

Opponents claimed that this was not a technical violation 

but a real violation of the Budget Act. As the first 

significant act of the Senate upon convening, it violates 

Gramm-Rudman which prohibits consideration of any 

legislation that causes a revenue loss. CBO has estimated 

that there would be a tax revenue loss of about $400 

million if Norfolk Southern purchases Conrail, plus an 

additional $800 million in repayment on the public debt and 

interest. The sale of Conrail would provide the largest 

tax shelter in history according to the Joint Committee on 

Taxation. They cited twelve provisions in the Memorandum 

of Intent that give favorable tax treatment to Norfolk 

Southern. The Budget Act should not be waived so the 

government can give away a railroad that has been 

recognized for its quality service, profitmaking, and 

efficiency. The people of this country put $7 billion into 

Conrail, and now the Senate is asked to give it away for 

$1.2 billion.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Danforth motion to table Specter, et al., substitute 

amendment (to Danforth substitute amendment): Provides for 

sale of 85 percent Federal stock interest in Conrail to 

Morgan Stanley's investor consortium for $1.4 billion 

instead of $1.2 billion to Norfolk Southern. 

Motion to Table Agreed to 

(53-39) 

Yeas (53) 


Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Bradley, Burdick, 

DeConcini, Eagleton, Gore, Hollings, Inouye, Johnston, 

Kennedy, Kerry, Matsunaga, Mitchell, Moynihan, Pryor, 

Sasser 


Chafee, Cochran, Cohen, D'Amato, Danforth, Denton, Dole, 

Domenici, Durenberger, East, Garn, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, 

Hatfield, Hecht, Helms, Humphrey, Kasten, Laxalt, 

Mattingly, McClure, Murkowski, Nickles, Packwood, Quayle, 

Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, Wallop, 

Weicker 

Nays (39) 


Bumpers, Byrd, Cranston, Dixon, Dodd, Exon, Ford, 

Glenn, Harkin, Heflin, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Long, 

Melcher, Metzenbaum, Pell, Proxmire, Riegle, Rockefeller, 

Sarbanes, Simon, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Andrews, Armstrong, Boschwitz, Evans, Gorton, 

Hawkins, Heinz, Lugar, Mathias, McConnell, Pressler, 

Specter, Stafford, Warner, Wilson 


Democrats (5) 

Baucus-2AN, Chiles-2, Hart-2, Nunn-2, Stennis-2AY 


Goldwater-2, Kassebaum-2, Stevens-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description

Proponents of the amendment pointed out that the Morgan 

Stanley bid was superior to the Norfolk Southern (NS) bid 

for the following reasons: it offers $1.4 billion instead 

of $1.2 billion; it avoids the very serious antitrust 

problems posed by merging two giant railways into one 

behemoth; the investor group will not use Conrail tax 

deductions to shelter non-Conrail income (which amounts to 

a $400 million tax boon to NS); several thousand jobs which 

would be lost by a merger would not occur under a 

stand-alone Conrail; and an NS/Conrail giant may well have 

adverse effects on the service provided by small regional 

lines. 

Opponents of the amendment noted that Morgan Stanley had 

come in with an offer after the bidding process was over. 

As an investor group, it could very easily bleed Conrail of 

its assets and then sell to anyone. A stand-alone Conrail 

is not economically viable, they contended. It will not 

survive, and the government will end up owning a railroad 

again. NS acquisition of Conrail will ensure the long-term 

financial viability of Conrail which is essential to a 

balanced transportation network.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Danforth motion to table Dixon, et al., amendment (to 

Danforth substitute amendment): Makes merger of Conrail 

with Norfolk Southern subject to full judicial antitrust 

review. 


(56-37) 

Yeas (56) 


Bentsen, Bingaman, Boren, Bumpers, DeConcini, Dodd, 

Eagleton, Heflin, Hollings, Kennedy, Leahy, Matsunaga, 

Mitchell, Pryor, Sasser, Stennis 


Armstrong, Boschwitz, Chafee, Cohen, D'Amato, Danforth, 

Denton, Dole, Domenici, Durenberger, East, Evans, Garn, 

Goldwater, Gorton, Gramm, Hatch, Hatfield, Hecht, Helms, 

Humphrey, Kassebaum, Laxalt, Lugar, Mattingly, McClure, 

Nickles, Packwood, Quayle, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Stevens, 

Symms, Thurmond, Trible, Wallop, Warner, Weicker, Wilson 

Nays (37) 


Biden, Bradley, Burdick, Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, Dixon, 

Exon, Ford, Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Johnston, 

Kerry, Lautenberg, Levin, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Moynihan, 



Abdnor, Andrews, Grassley, Hawkins, Heinz, Kasten, 

McConnell, Murkowski, Pressler, Specter, Stafford 


Democrats (5) 

Baucus-2, Inouye-1, Long-2, Nunn-2, Pell-2 


Cochran-2, Mathias-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment asserted that its enactment 

would simply indicate the Senate's desire to ensure fair 

and thorough analysis of outstanding antitrust issues and

provide an independent forum where those most adversely 

affected by the proposed merger can present their case. The 

bill, as currently written, does not provide any due 

process for those adversely affected by the 

anti-competitive aspects of the written sale of Conrail. 

Ordinarily, mergers are submitted to the Interstate 

Commerce Commission for review and are subjected to a long 

and public process. In this case, the review was not only 

conducted in secret, but produced no conclusive results or 

answers. While several divestiture plans have been offered 

to remedy the anticompetitive aspects of the merger, none 

satisfy normal Justice Department criteria. Further, the 

Justice Department currently is opposing a merger of 

similar size even though the Department's estimates of the 

merger's anti-competitive effects are less than one-half as 

large as in the Conrail merger. Although this amendment 

would not prevent the sale of Conrail, it would give the 

courts the right to review the relevant issue of 

monopolization. 

Opponents of the amendment declared that its adoption would 

mark the first time in history that U.S. antitrust laws 

were applied to railroad mergers. This amendment is not 

only unnecessary, but also is against current 

transportation policy. The Justice Department has examined 

the merger issues and will decide between several 

divestiture proposals which would restore competition 

eliminated by the Conrail merger. The antitrust immunity 

in S. 638 applies only to the merger--not to practices that 

occur subsequently. This amendment, they claimed, would 

allow shippers and competitors to challenge this 

acquisition and keep it tied up in the courts for years. 

That likely would cause Norfolk Southern to withdraw its 

offer and block the transfer of Conrail from government 

ownership to private operation.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Danforth motion to table Lautenberg-Moynihan-Bradley 

amendment (to Danforth substitute amendment): Gives 

adversely-affected communities right to appeal to U.S. 

District Courts for competitive trackage rights over 

Conrail/Norfolk Southern lines in event of monopoly control 

of rail lines in community or port. 


(51-45) 

Yeas (51) 


Bingaman, Boren, Eagleton, Heflin, Hollings, Long, 

Matsunaga, Pryor, Stennis 


Armstrong, Chafee, Cochran, Cohen, Danforth, Denton, Dole, 

Domenici, Durenberger, East, Evans, Garn, Goldwater, 

Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, Hawkins, Hecht, 

Helms, Humphrey, Kassebaum, Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, 

Mattingly, McClure, Murkowski, Nickles, Packwood, Quayle, 


Warner, Weicker, Wilson 

Nays (45) 


Bentsen, Biden, Bradley, Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, Chiles, 

Cranston, DeConcini, Dixon, Dodd, Exon, Ford, Glenn, 

Gore, Harkin, Hart, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, 

Leahy, Levin, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, 

Pell, Proxmire, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser, 

Simon, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Andrews, Boschwitz, D'Amato, Heinz, Mathias, 

McConnell, Pressler, Specter, Stafford 


Democrats (3) 

Baucus-2, Inouye-1, Nunn-2 


Wallop-2 

Office Note 

(no text)

Description 

Proponents of the amendment asserted that it would provide 

relief to captive communities and shippers in the Conrail 

service area and keep Norfolk Southern honest. It 

addresses monopoly per se, and will not specifically affect 

Norfolk Southern if the railroad does not price its 

services so high that it attracts competitors to the 

market. 

Opponents of the amendment claimed that it would put the 

Federal courts across the land into the regulatory 

business. The ICC already has the powers that the 

amendment would give to the courts. The Port of New York, 

in fact, will be one of the beneficiaries from the Conrail 

sale since it will gain Guilford as a second line.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Danforth motion to table Metzenbaum amendment (to Danforth 

substitute amendment): Directs Secretary of Transportation 

to solicit and consider new sealed competitive bids for 

purchase of Federal government's interest in Conrail and 

report results to Congress in 180 days. 


(64-32) 

Yeas (64) 


Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Bumpers, Chiles, 

DeConcini, Dodd, Eagleton, Gore, Hollings, Kennedy, Kerry, 

Leahy, Long, Matsunaga, Mitchell, Pryor, Stennis 







Murkowski, Nickles, Packwood, Quayle, Roth, Rudman, 

Simpson, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, Warner, Weicker, 

Wilson 

Nays (32) 


Bradley, Burdick, Byrd, Cranston, Dixon, Exon, Ford, 

Glenn, Harkin, Hart, Heflin, Johnston, Lautenberg, Levin, 

Melcher, Metzenbaum, Moynihan, Pell, Proxmire, Riegle, 

Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon, Zorinsky 


Andrews, Heinz, Mathias, McConnell, Pressler, Specter, 

Stafford 


Democrats (3) 



Wallop-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description

Proponents of the amendment emphasized that bids had been 

made for Conrail that exceeded Norfolk Southern's offer and 

that an attempt should be made to get a better deal. CBO 

has estimated a $100 million annual loss during 1987-90 

would result from a sale to Norfolk Southern. The 

government has not promoted competitive bidding to maximize 

its investment return as directed in the Northeast Rail 

Service Act of 1981. Norfolk Southern's bid was prejudiced 

from the beginning by a comment from the Federal Railroad 

Administration's Deputy Administrator, James Rooney, that 

the bid was "within the range of reasonable compensation." 

Proper bid procedures are necessary, they maintained, in 

order to protect the taxpayers' $7 billion investment in 

Conrail. A new bid from the Allen Company is nearly half a 

billion dollars more than Norfolk Southern's. 

Opponents of the amendment claimed that the solicitation of 

new bids by the Secretary of Transportation would return 

the Conrail sale process to square one and would waste the 

money and time that have been spent on the original bids.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Dole, et al., cloture motion on Danforth substitute 

amendment providing for sale of 85 percent Federal stock 

interest in Conrail to Norfolk Southern at $1.2 billion. 


(70-27) 

Yeas (70) 


Bentsen, Bingaman, Boren, Bumpers, Chiles, Cranston, 

DeConcini, Dixon, Eagleton, Gore, Hollings, Johnston, 

Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Long, Matsunaga, Mitchell, Moynihan, 

Pell, Pryor, Sasser, Stennis 








Rudman, Simpson, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, Wallop, 


Nays (27) 


Biden, Bradley, Burdick, Byrd, Dodd, Exon, Ford, 

Glenn, Harkin, Hart, Heflin, Lautenberg, Levin, Melcher, 

Metzenbaum, Proxmire, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Simon, 

Zorinsky 


Andrews, Heinz, Mathias, Roth, Specter, Stafford 


Democrats (3) 

Baucus-2AY, Inouye-1, Nunn-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

The cloture motion, presented on January 28, 1986, was 

signed by Senators Thurmond, Kassebaum, Trible, Laxalt, 

Stevens, Mattingly, Wallop, Danforth, McClure, Abdnor, 

Gramm, Cochran, Helms, Symms, Simpson, Domenici, and 

Nickles.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Danforth motion to table Metzenbaum substitute amendment 

(to Danforth substitute amendment): Repeals immunity 

clause protecting Norfolk Southern from legal suit brought 

by Conrail ESOP (Employees Stock Ownership Program) 

fiduciaries. 


(69-27) 

Yeas (69) 


Bentsen, Bingaman, Boren, Bumpers, Chiles, DeConcini, Dodd, 

Eagleton, Hollings, Johnston, Kennedy, Leahy, Matsunaga, 

Mitchell, Moynihan, Pryor, Stennis, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Andrews, Boschwitz, Chafee, Cochran, Cohen, 




Kassebaum, Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, Mathias, Mattingly, 

McClure, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Packwood, Pressler, 

Quayle, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Specter, Stafford, Stevens, 


Nays (27) 


Biden, Bradley, Burdick, Byrd, Cranston, Dixon, Exon, 

Ford, Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Heflin, Kerry, Lautenberg, 

Levin, Long, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Pell, Proxmire, Riegle, 

Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon 


Heinz 


Democrats (3) 



Armstrong-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment argued that it would

shortchange Conrail workers by nearly $400 million. The 

value of the ESOP was estimated at $762 million, including 

the workers' 15 percent share of Conrail stock, their 

deferred wages between 1981 and 1984, and their interest 

payments, but the price offered in the proposed sale was 

only $375 million--less than half the estimate. 

Opponents of the amendment noted that the majority of 

Conrail employees approved the buyout of the ESOP.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Dole motion: Sergeant at Arms to request attendance. 

Motion for Attendance Agreed to 

(91-5) 

Yeas (91) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Bradley, Bumpers, 

Burdick, Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, DeConcini, Dixon, Dodd, 

Eagleton, Exon, Ford, Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Hart, 

Heflin, Hollings, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, 

Leahy, Levin, Long, Matsunaga, Melcher, Metzenbaum, 

Mitchell, Moynihan, Pell, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, 

Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon, Zorinsky 




Durenberger, East, Evans, Garn, Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, 

Hatch, Hatfield, Hawkins, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, Humphrey, 



Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Specter, Stafford, Stevens, Symms, 

Thurmond, Trible, Warner, Wilson 

Nays (5) 


Boren, Proxmire 


Quayle, Wallop, Weicker 


Democrats (3) 

Inouye-1, Nunn-2, Stennis-2 


Goldwater-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Dole motion to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the 

attendance of absent Senators.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Danforth motion to table Heinz amendment (to Danforth 

substitute amendment): Stipulates that sale of Conrail to 

Norfolk Southern (NS) may not occur unless NS executes 

binding agreement with IRS restricting its ability to use 

Conrail's "built-in losses" deductions to shelter NS income 

from taxation. 


(63-33) 

Yeas (63) 


Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Bradley, Chiles, 

DeConcini, Eagleton, Gore, Heflin, Hollings, Johnston, 

Kennedy, Long, Matsunaga, Moynihan, Pryor 


Armstrong, Boschwitz, Chafee, Cochran, D'Amato, Danforth, 


Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, Hawkins, Hecht, 

Helms, Humphrey, Kassebaum, Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, Mathias, 

Mattingly, McClure, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, 

Packwood, Pressler, Quayle, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Stevens, 


Nays (33) 


Baucus, Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, Cranston, Dixon, Dodd, 

Exon, Ford, Glenn, Harkin, Hart, Kerry, Lautenberg, 

Leahy, Levin, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Pell, 

Proxmire, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon, 

Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Andrews, Cohen, Heinz, Specter, Stafford 


Democrats (3) 



Goldwater-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description

Proponents of the amendment claimed that it would save 

taxpayers considerable money by restricting Norfolk 

Southern's (NS) use of Conrail's built-in depreciation 

deductions. The tax benefits to NS would constitute a 

sizeable rebate of between $200 million to $400 million on 

their $1.2 billion purchase price. The amendment would 

limit Conrail's use of tax deductions to offset income--not 

to offset other existing income-producing operations of NS. 

There already are heavy losses to consumers by the 

antitrust implications and reduction in competition which 

will result from this joinder. 

Opponents of the amendment asserted that passing the 

amendment would involve rewriting complex tax laws to 

single out one company unfairly. Such a change would wreck 

the economics of the Conrail sale and make the proposed 

sale unattractive to NS.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Danforth motion to table Metzenbaum constitutional point of 

order that Danforth substitute amendment violates Article 

I, section 7 of Constitution stating that all bills for 

raising revenue shall originate in House. 


(70-17) 

Yeas (70) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Bradley, Byrd, 

Chiles, DeConcini, Dixon, Dodd, Eagleton, Gore, Heflin, 

Hollings, Johnston, Leahy, Long, Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, 

Pryor, Sasser, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Andrews, Armstrong, Boschwitz, Chafee, Cohen, 

Danforth, Denton, Dole, Domenici, Durenberger, East, Evans, 

Garn, Goldwater, Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, 

Hawkins, Hecht, Helms, Humphrey, Kasten, Laxalt, Mathias, 

Mattingly, McClure, McConnell, Nickles, Packwood, Pressler, 

Quayle, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Stafford, Stevens, Symms, 


Nays (17) 


Burdick, Cranston, Exon, Ford, Glenn, Hart, 

Lautenberg, Levin, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Pell, Proxmire, 

Riegle, Rockefeller, Simon 


Heinz, Specter 


Democrats (8) 

Bumpers-2, Harkin-2, Inouye-2, Kennedy-1, Kerry-1, 

Matsunaga-2, Sarbanes-2, Stennis-2 


Cochran-1, D'Amato-2, Kassebaum-2, Lugar-1, Murkowski-1 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the point of order asserted that the 

Constitution clearly provides that all bills that raise

evenue must originate in the House of Representatives. The 

Conrail sale would affect revenues since it would grant a 

limited immunity from taxation, therefore making it 

unconstitutional. The Senate Commerce Committee realized 

that there would be a constitutional problem with the bill 

and added a new provision to the substitute amendment that 

attempts to resolve the issue. It still will not satisfy 

the Constitutional test, however, and the House surely will 

kill the Conrail sale bill when it is considered there. 

Opponents of the point of order explained that the Conrail 

sale bill could not be considered a revenue-raising 

measure. The only tax loss that would occur upon enactment 

would result from the consolidated tax returns being filed 

between a taxpaying corporation and one that would be 

generating tax losses. Actual tax laws would not be 

altered. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has spoken on this 

issue in the case of U.S. v. Norton stating that the 

limitation in the Constitution for revenue-raising bills to 

originate in the House is confined to bills that levy taxes 

and cannot be extended to bills which incidentally create 

revenues.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Passage. 

Bill Passed 

(54-39) 

Yeas (54) 


Bentsen, Bingaman, Boren, Bumpers, DeConcini, Eagleton, 

Gore, Hollings, Johnston, Long, Matsunaga, Mitchell, 

Moynihan, Nunn, Pryor, Sasser, Stennis 



Denton, Dole, Domenici, Durenberger, East, Garn, Goldwater, 

Gramm, Hatch, Hatfield, Hawkins, Hecht, Helms, Humphrey, 

Kasten, Laxalt, Mattingly, McClure, Nickles, Packwood, 

Quayle, Rudman, Simpson, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, 


Nays (39) 


Baucus, Biden, Bradley, Burdick, Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, 

Dixon, Dodd, Exon, Ford, Glenn, Harkin, Hart, Heflin, 

Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Pell, 



Abdnor, Andrews, Evans, Gorton, Grassley, Heinz, Mathias, 

McConnell, Pressler, Roth, Specter, Stafford 


Democrats (3) 

Inouye-2AY, Kennedy-1AY, Kerry-1 


Cochran-1, Kassebaum-2, Lugar-1AY, Murkowski-1 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Returns the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) to the 

private sector through the implementation of the 

Secretary's Plan set out in the Memorandum of Intent 

between the U.S. and Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS), 

signed on February 8, 1985, to sell the Federal common 

stock interest in Conrail to NS for $1.2 billion.

Ensures that the Memorandum of Intent, which includes the 

financial covenants (ensuring that NS maintains a Conrail 

capital program and avoids deferred maintenance) and 

service covenants (ensuring that the level of service 

currently provided by Conrail is maintainable and that 

Conrail will be retained intact), becomes the definitive 

agreement unless Congress is otherwise notified, and that 

no sale is consummated until NS has divested itself of 

certain lines as approved by the Attorney General; requires 

the Secretary to submit annual reports to the Commerce 

Committees certifying NS compliance with the covenants. 

Continues existing service arrangements, including 

contracts; provides labor protection to those Conrail 

employees who lose their jobs as a result of this purchase, 

amounting to a guarantee of six years pay (known as New 

York Dock protection); gives any employee of the NS/Conrail 

system deprived of employment the right of first hire 

anywhere on the system regardless of craft or class and 

without losing seniority in the original craft or class, 

and similarly gives the right of first hire to employees of 

other railroads deprived of employment as a direct result 

of the legislation for vacancies on the NS/Conrail system, 

but only in his/her class or craft; ensures that existing 

Conrail Employees Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) members will 

incur no Federal tax liability in connection with the 

contributions, allocations, and withdrawal of shares from 

the ESOP as provided for in the Secretary's plan. 

Retires Conrail's current debt owed to the Federal 

government. 

Clarifies that the tax treatment of the NS purchase of 

Conrail would be in accordance with existing tax law 

applicable to stock sales. 

Provides for the removal of existing provisions applicable 

to Conrail that are no longer appropriate for a 

private-sector railroad. 

Continues the special court's jurisdiction over disputes, 

including certain third-party claims, relating to Conrail.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Vote No. 13 SR 345 02/19/86 CQ Admin: 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Philippine Elections (S. Res. 345) 

Adoption. 

Resolution Agreed to 

(85-9) 

Yeas (85) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Bradley, Bumpers, 


Eagleton, Ford, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Hollings, Johnston, 

Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Long, Matsunaga, 

Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Proxmire, 

Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon, 

Stennis, Zorinsky 



Cohen, D'Amato, Danforth, Dole, Domenici, Evans, Garn, 

Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, Hawkins, Heinz, 

Humphrey, Kassebaum, Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, Mattingly, 



Trible, Warner, Weicker, Wilson 

Nays (9) 


Melcher 


Denton, East, Goldwater, Hecht, Helms, Symms, Thurmond, 

Wallop 


Democrats (3) 

Exon-3AY, Glenn-2AY, Inouye-4 


Durenberger-2AY, Mathias-1 

Voting Present (1) 

Heflin (D) 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Adoption of the Dole-Byrd, et al, resolution expressing the

sense of the Senate that: America's interests are best 

served in the Philippines by a government which has a 

popular mandate; the February 7, 1986, presidential and 

vice presidential elections in the Philippines were marked 

by such widespread fraud that they cannot be considered a 

fair reflection of the will of the people; and the Senate 

requests that the President of the U.S. personally convey 

this concern to President Ferdinand Marcos and Corazon 

Aquino of the Philippines.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Vote No. 14 02/19/86 CQ Admin: 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Genocide Convention (Ex. O, 81-1) 

Symms amendment (to article II of Treaty): Includes 

"political" groups (as well as national, ethnical, racial, 

or religious groups) in Treaty's protections from acts of 

genocide. 

Amendment Rejected 

(31-62) 

Yeas (31) 


Hollings, Long, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Armstrong, Cohen, Denton, Domenici, East, Garn, 

Goldwater, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, Hawkins, Hecht, Helms, 

Humphrey, Kasten, Laxalt, Mattingly, McClure, Nickles, 

Pressler, Roth, Rudman, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, Wallop, 

Warner 

Nays (62) 




Eagleton, Ford, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Heflin, Johnston, 

Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Matsunaga, 

Melcher, Metzenbaum, Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Proxmire, Pryor, 

Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon 


Andrews, Boschwitz, Chafee, Cochran, D'Amato, Danforth, 

Dole, Evans, Gorton, Hatfield, Heinz, Kassebaum, Lugar, 

McConnell, Murkowski, Packwood, Quayle, Simpson, Specter, 

Stafford, Stevens, Weicker, Wilson 


Democrats (5) 

Exon-3, Glenn-2, Inouye-4, Mitchell-2AN, Stennis-2 


Durenberger-2AN, Mathias-1 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents stated that the Genocide Convention must serve 

as a deterrent to today's genocide, not merely as a

condemnation of yesterday's crimes. Only by integrating 

this amendment into the Treaty itself will the U.S. make it 

clear that it does not consent to any form of genocide. As 

British author Oliver Goldsmith said, "silence gives 

consent," and ratification of the treaty as it now stands 

would equal acquiescence in the crimes of nations which are 

committing political genocide. The U.S. is presently at a 

moral disadvantage, they asserted, because it has not 

formalized its opposition to genocide. While it is "utter 

nonsense" to argue that the U.S. must ratify this Treaty 

before it can justifiably criticize the USSR, Cambodia, and 

other nations for the "barbarity of their genocidal 

actions," this amendment would put these nations on the 

defensive because it would force them to adopt or reject 

the amended version, thereby showing their "true colors." 

Those who argue that we should ratify this flawed document 

and then seek its modification must realize that this 

amendment would never get through the U.N. without being 

vetoed by the Soviets or its allies. Furthermore, the 

Senate should not irresponsibly ratify any unacceptable 

document with the hope that it will be made acceptable 

afterwards. 

Opponents claimed that adoption of this amendment would be 

tantamount to rejection of the Treaty because of the 

parliamentary problems which it would pose. The 96 other 

signatories would have to consent to any amendment of the 

Convention before the President could ratify it on behalf 

of the U.S. Although the Genocide Treaty does not address 

the problems of political genocide, it expresses many other 

important sentiments which the U.S. needs to reaffirm 

through ratification. U.S. interests would be adequately 

safeguarded by the Treaty and its reservations, and our 

ratification would prevent the Soviets and other 

practitioners of political genocide from using America's 

failure to ratify this document to divert world attention 

from their conducting such crimes. Many voiced their 

support for the substance of the amendment and stated their 

intent to vote for it if offered as free-standing 

legislation.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Genocide Convention (Ex. O, 81-1) 

Adoption of resolution of ratification. 

Resolution of Ratification Agreed to 

(83-11) 

Yeas (83) 




Eagleton, Ford, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Heflin, Hollings, 


Matsunaga, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, 

Proxmire, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser, 

Simon, Stennis, Zorinsky 



Cohen, D'Amato, Danforth, Dole, Domenici, Evans, Gorton, 

Gramm, Hatch, Hatfield, Hawkins, Hecht, Heinz, Humphrey, 

Kassebaum, Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, Mattingly, McConnell, 

Murkowski, Nickles, Packwood, Pressler, Quayle, Rudman, 

Simpson, Specter, Stafford, Stevens, Trible, Warner, 

Weicker, Wilson 

Nays (11) 


Denton, East, Garn, Goldwater, Grassley, Helms, McClure, 

Roth, Symms, Thurmond, Wallop 


Democrats (4) 

Exon-3, Glenn-2AY, Inouye-4, Mitchell-2AY 


Durenberger-2AY, Mathias-1AY 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

The Convention consists of 19 articles of which articles 

I-IX are substantive and articles X-XIX are procedural. The 

text of the substantive articles follows: 

Article I--Genocide--An International Crime: The 

Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether 

committed in times of peace or war, is a crime under

international law which they undertake to prevent and to 

punish. 

Article II--Acts Constituting Genocide: In the present 

Convention, genocide means any of the following acts 

committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a 

national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: 

(a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious 

bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) 

deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life 

calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole 

or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent 

births within the group; and (e) forcibly transferring 

children of the group to another group. 

Article III--Punishable Acts: The following acts shall be 

punishable: (a) genocide; (b) conspiracy to commit 

genocide; (c) direct and public incitement to commit 

genocide; (d) attempt to commit genocide; and (e) 

complicity in genocide. 

Article IV--Punishment of Persons: Persons committing 

genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III 

shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally 

responsible rulers, public officials, or private 

individuals. 

Article V--Implementing Legislation: The Contracting 

Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their 

respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give 

effect to the provisions of the present Convention and, in 

particular, to provide effective penalties for the persons 

guilty of genocide or of any of the other acts enumerated 

in article III. 

Article VI--Trial of Persons Charged with Genocide: Persons 

charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated 

in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of 

the State in the territory of which the act was committed, 

or by such international penal tribunal as may have 

jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties 

which shall have accepted its jurisdiction. 

Article VII-- Extradition: Genocide and the other acts 

enumerated in article III shall not be considered as 

political crimes for the purpose of extradition. The 

Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to 

grant extradition in accordance with their laws and 

treaties in force. 

Article VIII--Role of the United Nations: Any Contracting 

Party may call upon the competent organs of the United 

Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United 

Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and 

suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts

enumerated in article III. 

Article IX--Settlement of Disputes: Disputes between the 

Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, 

application or fulfillment of the present Convention, 

including those relating to the responsibility of a State 

for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in 

article III, shall be submitted to the International Court 

of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the 

dispute. 

CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING RESERVATIONS: 

1. Before any dispute to which the United States is a party 

may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International 

Court of Justice under Article IX of the Convention, the 

specific consent of the United States is required in each 

case. 

2. Nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes 

legislation or other action by the United States that is 

prohibited by the Constitution as interpreted by the United 

States. 

CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING UNDERSTANDINGS: 

1. That the U.S. government understands and construes the 

words "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, 

ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such" appearing in 

article II, to mean the specific intent to destroy, in 

whole or substantial part, a national, ethnical, racial, or 

religious group by the acts specified in article II in such 

manner as to affect a substantial part of the group 

concerned. 


words "mental harm" appearing in article II(b) of this 

convention to mean permanent impairment of mental faculties 

through drugs, torture, or similar techniques. 


pledge to grant extradition in accordance with a State's 

laws and treaties in force found in article VII extends 

only to acts which are criminal under the laws of both the 

requesting and requested State and that nothing in article 

VI shall affect the right of any State to bring to trial 

before its own tribunals any of its nationals for acts 

committed outside the State. 

4. That the U.S. government understands that acts committed 

in the course of armed conflicts without the specific 

intent required by article II are not sufficient to 

constitute genocide as defined by this Convention. 

5. That the U.S. government, with regard to the reference

to an international penal tribunal in article VI of the 

Convention, declares that it reserves the right to effect 

its participation in such a tribunal only by a treaty 

entered into specifically for that purpose and with the 

advice and consent of the Senate. 

CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING DECLARATION: 

That the President will not deposit the instrument of 

ratification until after the implementing legislation 

referred to in article V has been enacted.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Genocide Resolution (S. Res. 347) 

Adoption. 


(93-1) 

Yeas (93) 











Cohen, D'Amato, Danforth, Denton, Dole, Domenici, East, 

Evans, Garn, Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, 

Hawkins, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, Humphrey, Kassebaum, Kasten, 

Laxalt, Lugar, Mattingly, McClure, McConnell, Murkowski, 

Nickles, Packwood, Pressler, Quayle, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, 

Specter, Stafford, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, 


Nays (1) 


Goldwater 


Democrats (4) 

Exon-3, Glenn-2, Inouye-4, Mitchell-2AY 


Durenberger-2, Mathias-1 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Terrorist Prosecution (S. 1429) 

Passage. 

Bill Passed 

(92-0) 

Yeas (92) 








Simon, Zorinsky 








Specter, Stafford, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, 


Nays (0) 


Democrats (5) 

Exon-3, Glenn-2, Inouye-4, Mitchell-2AY, Stennis-2 


Durenberger-2AY, Goldwater-2, Mathias-1 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

These provisions were included in H.R. 4151, the Diplomatic 

Security and Antiterrorism bill which became Public Law 

99-399, approved August 27, 1986.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Senate TV Coverage (S. Res. 28) 

Dole-Byrd, et al., motion to recommit bill with 

instructions to report back forthwith with changes in 

Senate Rules to be effective during period for radio and TV 

coverage of Senate proceedings ending July 25: raises 

number necessary to invoke cloture to 67 members for 

changes in rules and two-thirds of those present and voting 

(instead of 60) for all other matters and reduces debate 

cap after cloture is invoked from 100 hours to 20 hours; 

reduces three-day rule on availability of reports to two 

days, including Saturdays; limits debate to two hours on 

motions to bring up bills other than Rules changes; 

requires that copy of conference report be available on all 

Senators' desks before bringing it up; creates germaneness 

motion that no amendment, other than reported committee 

amendment, shall be in order unless germane and relevant, 

which becomes effective upon affirmative vote of 60 

Senators; and expedites treaty consideration by eliminating 

Committee of Whole proceedings. 

Motion to Recommit Agreed to 

(81-9) 

Yeas (81) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Bingaman, Boren, Bradley, Bumpers, 


Ford, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Heflin, Hollings, Kennedy, Kerry, 

Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Long, Matsunaga, Melcher, 

Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Pryor, Riegle, 

Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon, Stennis, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Andrews, Armstrong, Chafee, Cochran, D'Amato, 

Danforth, Denton, Dole, Domenici, East, Evans, Garn, 

Goldwater, Gorton, Gramm, Hatch, Hatfield, Hawkins, Heinz, 

Kassebaum, Kasten, Lugar, Mattingly, McConnell, Murkowski, 


Specter, Stafford, Stevens, Thurmond, Trible, Warner, 


Nays (9) 


Eagleton, Proxmire 


Boschwitz, Durenberger, Grassley, Hecht, Helms, Laxalt, 

Wallop


Democrats (5) 

Biden-2, Exon-3, Glenn-2, Inouye-4, Johnston-2 


Cohen-2, Humphrey-2, Mathias-1, McClure-2, Symms-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents pointed out that recommittal was necessary in 

order for the two rules changes regarding the motion to 

proceed and germaneness to be considered by the Senate 

without their being ruled out of order as nongermane in the 

event cloture is invoked on this resolution. Many stated 

they voted for the motion, even though they did not favor 

every or possibly any of the rules changes. Some felt that 

adding a package of rules changes would make it more 

difficult for gavel-to-gavel television coverage to be 

adopted, because it added more issues of controversy. 

Others insisted this package provided the basis for a 

workable resolution of the matter. 

Opponents made no statements.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Philippine Resolution (S. Res. 351) 

Adoption. 


(95-1) 

Yeas (95) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Bradley, Burdick, 

Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, DeConcini, Dixon, Dodd, Eagleton, 

Ford, Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Heflin, Hollings, Inouye, 



Pell, Proxmire, Pryor, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser, 




Cohen, D'Amato, Danforth, Dole, Domenici, Durenberger, 







Nays (1) 


Denton 


Democrats (3) 

Bumpers-3AY, Exon-3, Riegle-2AY 


Mathias-1 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Adoption of the Dole-Byrd, et al., resolution expressing 

the full support of the Senate for the U.S. government's 

recognition of the legitimacy and legal status of the new 

government of the Philippines under the leadership of 

Corazon Aquino, who clearly enjoyed the support of a 

majority of the Philippine people in the February 7, 1986, 

election; praising the progress toward restoration of

democracy in the Philippines and commending President 

Aquino for the statesman-like and peaceful methods employed 

to bring about an orderly transfer of power; and praising 

the Philippine people for their valor and courageous 

commitment to democracy, especially during the recent 

activities in Manila which resulted in the peaceful and 

expeditious transition of power to the Aquino government on 

February 26, 1986.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Armstrong, et al., amendment: Strikes provision creating 

germaneness motion stating that no amendment, other than 

reported committee amendment, shall be in order unless 

germane and relevant. 

Amendment Agreed to 

(60-37) 

Yeas (60) 


Bradley, Chiles, DeConcini, Dixon, Dodd, Eagleton, Harkin, 

Hart, Heflin, Hollings, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Leahy, 

Mitchell, Simon, Zorinsky 




East, Garn, Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, 

Hawkins, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, Humphrey, Kasten, Laxalt, 

Lugar, Mattingly, McClure, McConnell, Murkowski, Packwood, 

Pressler, Roth, Simpson, Specter, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, 

Trible, Wallop, Warner, Weicker, Wilson 

Nays (37) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Burdick, Byrd, 

Cranston, Ford, Glenn, Gore, Inouye, Johnston, Kerry, 

Levin, Long, Matsunaga, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Moynihan, 

Nunn, Pell, Proxmire, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, 

Sasser, Stennis 


Cohen, Evans, Goldwater, Kassebaum, Nickles, Quayle, 

Rudman, Stafford 


Democrats (2) 

Bumpers-3, Exon-3 


Mathias-1 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment who opposed the new germaneness

provision contended that it was unnecessary. If 

germaneness is crucial, they argued, cloture can be invoked 

and then germaneness is in effect. Germaneness is already 

required under the budget resolution and reconciliation. So 

narrow is the definition of germaneness, however, that it 

often proscribes consideration of obviously relevant 

amendments. Most importantly, the lack of a germaneness 

rule is the only means by which a minority or a single 

Senator can gain access to the legislative process to offer 

a proposal. In fact, some of the most important 

legislation of our day, such as Gramm-Rudman, has come to 

the floor as nongermane. This proposal would tinker with 

this most cherished fundamental right of a Senator to offer 

an amendment and would push the Senate toward becoming more 

like the House of Representatives. 

Opponents of the amendment who favored a germaneness motion 

maintained that there should be a way to require 

germaneness without invoking cloture and a subsequent 

required time for debate. It gives the Senate the 

opportunity to be germane when it wishes to be and would 

drastically reduce the number of amendments that would be 

offered. This germaneness rule, once voted in effect, also 

would require the Senate to abide by the judgment of the 

Parliamentarian unless overridden by a super majority. So 

often Senators vote against the Chair that an amendment is 

germane even though they know it is not. From experience, 

they have found that a vote with the Chair often will be 

interpreted by a rating group as a vote against the 

substance of the amendment. This provision would go a long 

way toward rectifying this dilemma. It, too, would help 

deal with the anomaly where, under cloture, a simple 

majority could come in and overrule the Chair and permit a 

nongermane amendment to be in order. This amendment would 

give the Senate an opportunity to operate under a 

germaneness rule on a trial basis in the hope of cutting 

down the numerous votes every year on the same social 

issues.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Johnston amendment (to Dole-Byrd, et al., substitute 

amendment): Prohibits TV coverage except by unanimous 

consent or when Senate is operating under unanimous consent 

agreement. 


(30-61) 

Yeas (30) 


Bentsen, Boren, Bradley, Burdick, Dodd, Glenn, Heflin, 

Hollings, Johnston, Levin, Long, Nunn, Pell, Proxmire, 

Sasser, Stennis 


Boschwitz, Danforth, Durenberger, East, Goldwater, 

Hatfield, Hecht, Helms, Mattingly, McConnell, Quayle, 

Simpson, Stafford, Wallop 

Nays (61) 


Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, DeConcini, 

Ford, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Inouye, Kennedy, Lautenberg, 

Leahy, Matsunaga, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, 

Pryor, Riegle, Simon, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Andrews, Armstrong, Chafee, Cochran, Cohen, 

D'Amato, Denton, Dole, Domenici, Evans, Garn, Gorton, 

Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, Hawkins, Heinz, Humphrey, 

Kassebaum, Kasten, Lugar, Mathias, McClure, Murkowski, 

Nickles, Pressler, Roth, Rudman, Specter, Stevens, Symms, 

Thurmond, Trible, Warner, Weicker, Wilson 


Democrats (7) 

Bumpers-3, Dixon-2, Eagleton-2, Exon-3, Kerry-2, 

Rockefeller-4, Sarbanes-2 


Laxalt-2, Packwood-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents argued that TV coverage in the Senate should not

interfere with the business of the Senate. They expressed 

concern that gavel-to-gavel coverage could confuse the 

public on how business is done in the Senate and lead to a 

demand for changes in the Senate rules. More extensive 

coverage, they suggested, could be worked out later if 

televising under this amendment were successful during the 

trial period. 

Opponents asserted that the first obligation of TV coverage 

is to provide the public with an accurate view of the 

Senate from initial examination of a bill in committee to 

final votes on the floor. By controlling the time in 

unlimited debate, the amendment would encourage more 

restrictions on the historic freedoms of the Senate. In 

contrast, an unrestricted trial period would be the only 

way to see what problems might arise with TV coverage.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Bradley motion to table Evans modified amendment (to 

Dole-Byrd, et al., substitute amendment): Requires each 

Senator to vote from assigned desk. 


(49-43) 

Yeas (49) 


Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Bradley, Chiles, Cranston, Dodd, 

Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, 

Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, 

Moynihan, Pell, Riegle, Sasser, Simon 


Andrews, Boschwitz, Cochran, D'Amato, Denton, Domenici, 

Durenberger, East, Gorton, Grassley, Hawkins, Heinz, 

Humphrey, Laxalt, Lugar, McConnell, Murkowski, Pressler, 

Rudman, Simpson, Stafford, Wallop, Warner, Weicker 

Nays (43) 


Baucus, Boren, Burdick, Byrd, DeConcini, Ford, Hart, 

Heflin, Long, Matsunaga, Nunn, Proxmire, Pryor, Stennis, 

Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Armstrong, Chafee, Cohen, Danforth, Dole, Evans, 

Garn, Goldwater, Gramm, Hatch, Hatfield, Hecht, Helms, 

Kassebaum, Kasten, Mathias, Mattingly, McClure, Nickles, 

Quayle, Roth, Specter, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, 

Wilson 


Democrats (7) 

Bumpers-3, Dixon-2, Eagleton-2, Exon-3, Kerry-2, 

Rockefeller-4, Sarbanes-2 


Packwood-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment stressed that it was a 

codification of a standing order requiring Senators to be

in their chairs when they vote. The amendment would not 

keep Senators from conversing prior to voting, they noted, 

but would allow television viewers to see more easily how 

their Senators voted. 

Opponents of the amendment claimed that it was unnecessary 

to change what is already a standing order into a standing 

rule. They proposed instead a more stringent enforcement 

of the standing order. This rule, some argued, could 

dramatically diminish the ability of the leaders, or other 

Senators, to make a last minute pitch to gain votes. It 

indeed would limit Senators' opportunities to exchange 

valuable information before voting.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Long amendment (to Dole-Byrd, et al., substitute 

amendment): Permits TV coverage only upon adoption of 

motion providing for coverage for specific cases. 


(28-60) 

Yeas (28) 


Bentsen, Boren, Bradley, Burdick, Dodd, Glenn, Hollings, 

Johnston, Levin, Long, Proxmire, Pryor, Stennis 


Boschwitz, Danforth, East, Goldwater, Grassley, Hatfield, 

Hecht, Helms, Laxalt, Mattingly, McConnell, Quayle, Rudman, 

Stafford, Wallop 

Nays (60) 


Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, DeConcini, 

Ford, Gore, Hart, Heflin, Inouye, Kennedy, Lautenberg, 

Leahy, Matsunaga, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, 

Pell, Riegle, Sasser, Simon, Zorinsky 




Hatch, Hawkins, Heinz, Humphrey, Kassebaum, Kasten, Lugar, 

Mathias, McClure, Murkowski, Nickles, Pressler, Roth, 

Simpson, Specter, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, Warner, 



Democrats (9) 

Bumpers-3, Dixon-2, Eagleton-2, Exon-3, Harkin-2, 

Kerry-2, Nunn-2, Rockefeller-4, Sarbanes-2 


Durenberger-1, Gramm-2, Packwood-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents stated that this amendment simply would retain 

the Senate's authority to decide by majority vote whether 

it wants to be televised or not. Certain matters in the

national interest are better discussed outside the glare of 

TV broadcast. Statesmanship is scarce enough now, and with 

TV there would be a big increase in expediency and a 

substantial decline and erosion in statesmanship. Senators 

would be reluctant to make statements that are not popular 

but should be said for the good of the country. This 

amendment is intended merely to give the Senate the choice 

of nonpublic proceedings in those cases. 

Opponents asserted that passage of this amendment would 

invite cynicism and possibly suspicion on the part of the 

American people as to why their elected Senators would not 

want them to see and hear the debate on a particular 

matter. In addition, this amendment would allow the 

Chairman to designate the Senator in opposition to the 

motion. Under the present procedure, the Senator who has 

called up the amendment has half the time and the Senator 

who manages the bill controls the other half of the time, 

unless he or she supports the amendment, in which case the 

minority leader is given the time in opposition.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Adoption of resolution which provides for test period for 

live, gavel-to-gavel coverage of Senate proceedings. 


(67-21) 

Yeas (67) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Bradley, Byrd, 

Chiles, Cranston, DeConcini, Dodd, Ford, Glenn, Gore, 

Harkin, Hart, Heflin, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, 

Matsunaga, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, Pell, 

Pryor, Riegle, Sasser, Simon, Zorinsky 




Gramm, Hatch, Hawkins, Heinz, Humphrey, Kasten, Lugar, 

Mathias, McClure, Murkowski, Nickles, Pressler, Roth, 

Simpson, Specter, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, Warner, 


Nays (21) 


Burdick, Hollings, Johnston, Long, Nunn, Proxmire, Stennis 


Boschwitz, Danforth, East, Grassley, Hatfield, Hecht, 

Helms, Laxalt, Mattingly, McConnell, Quayle, Rudman, 

Stafford, Wallop 


Democrats (8) 

Bumpers-3AY, Dixon-2AY, Eagleton-2, Exon-3AY, 

Inouye-2, Kerry-2, Rockefeller-4, Sarbanes-2 


Durenberger-1AN, Goldwater-2, Kassebaum-2, Packwood-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Adoption of the resolution which provides for a test period 

for live, gavel-to-gavel television coverage of Senate 

proceedings, except for quorum calls, to begin no later 

than June 1, 1986, and end July 15, 1986, unless the Senate

extends the test period or makes television coverage 

permanent; and makes the following changes to the Senate 

rules which would become permanent after the test period 

only upon adoption, under expedited procedures, of a 

further resolution embodying them and such other changes as 

may be proposed by the Rules Committee together with a 

proviso making television coverage of the Senate permanent: 

reduces the debate cap after cloture is invoked from 100 

hours to 30 hours; reduces the three-day rule on the 

availability of reports to two days, including Saturdays; 

waives the reading of the Journal by majority vote rather 

than by unanimous consent; eliminates the Committee of the 

Whole proceedings during consideration of treaties; 

requires that a copy of a conference report be available on 

each Senator's desk before it can be called up; and 

prohibits the official noting of a Senator's absence from 

committees during television coverage of Senate 

proceedings.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Farm Act Amendments (S. 2143) 

Harkin, et al., amendment: Expresses sense of Congress 

that Secretary of Agriculture should institute advance 

recourse loan program for 1986 crops equal to 50 percent of 

amount producer would be eligible to receive at harvest. 


(65-18) 

Yeas (65) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Bumpers, Byrd, 

Cranston, DeConcini, Dixon, Dodd, Exon, Ford, Glenn, 

Gore, Harkin, Hart, Heflin, Hollings, Kennedy, Kerry, 

Leahy, Levin, Matsunaga, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, 

Moynihan, Nunn, Proxmire, Pryor, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, 

Sasser, Simon, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Andrews, Boschwitz, Cochran, D'Amato, Danforth, 

Denton, Dole, Domenici, Durenberger, Gorton, Grassley, 

Hatfield, Heinz, Kasten, Lugar, Mattingly, McClure, 


Simpson, Symms, Thurmond, Wallop, Weicker 

Nays (18) 


Lautenberg, Pell 


Chafee, Cohen, East, Evans, Garn, Goldwater, Gramm, Hatch, 

Hawkins, Hecht, Helms, Roth, Rudman, Trible, Warner, Wilson 


Democrats (9) 

Bradley-2, Burdick-2AY, Chiles-2, Eagleton-2, Inouye-4, 

Johnston-2, Long-2AY, Riegle-4, Stennis-2 


Armstrong-2, Humphrey-2, Kassebaum-2AY, Laxalt-2, 

Mathias-2, Specter-2, Stafford-2, Stevens-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents declared that the Federal government must 

provide credit relief to farmers for this spring's planting

season. Farmers have not been able to plant this spring 

because of the uncertainty of credit availability. The 

manner in which the Agriculture Department has interpreted 

the recently-passed farm bill has caused many farmers to 

fall through the financing "safety net." While admitting 

that this amendment would provide only a short-term 

solution to the immediate problem, they stressed that 

farmers need to plant their crops now. There will be time 

later to look for long-term solutions. 

Opponents asserted that the only true effect of this 

amendment would be to create more indebtedness for farmers 

who are already burdened with sums they cannot repay. It 

is bad policy; it is too expensive; and the possibility of 

a Presidential veto is high if it passes. This amendment, 

they claimed, is subject to a point of order under section 

311 of the Budget Act as a result of the 

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation because it would add 

$3-3.5 billion to the Federal deficit in FY 1986. If the 

Budget Act is waived, it would send a message to the 

American people that the Senate does not intend to abide by 

the landmark legislation it recently passed. In addition, 

advancing CCC loans would make the CCC an unwelcome 

competitor with agricultural banks, the Farm Credit System, 

and other institutions.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Nomination of Richard E. Lyng to be Secretary of 

Agriculture 

Confirmation. 

Nomination Confirmed 

(95-2) 

Yeas (95) 







Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Pryor, Rockefeller, 

Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon, Stennis, Zorinsky 








Quayle, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Specter, Stafford, Symms, 


Nays (2) 


Proxmire, Riegle 


Democrats (1) 

Inouye-4 


Goldwater-2, Stevens-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the nomination, which was ordered reported by 

the Agriculture Committee by voice vote, noted Mr. Lyng's 

strong background in the field of agriculture. After 

graduating cum laude from the University of Notre Dame with 

a Ph.D. in commerce, he served as president of a 

family-owned seed and bean production and processing

company, and later as president of the American Meat 

Institute and on the boards of various other 

agriculture-related businesses. He was appointed Director 

of the California State Department of Agriculture under 

Governor Reagan, and then served as Assistant Secretary of 

Marketing and Consumer Services for the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture under President Nixon. During President 

Reagan's first term, he served as Deputy Secretary of 

Agriculture. Presently, he works for Lyng and Lesher, an 

agricultural consulting business. Many felt that his 

longstanding relationship with President Reagan would be an 

asset in representing the farmers to the White House. 

Opponents questioned Mr. Lyng's ability to understand and 

respond to the agricultural problems of the midwest because 

of his recent lobbying activities aimed at reducing dairy 

price supports and his consistent opposition to the Milk 

Diversion Program--actions which could undermine an already 

poor dairy farm economy.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Armor-Piercing Ammunition (H.R. 3132, P.L. 99-408) 

Thurmond motion to table Symms amendment: Permits sale of 

armor-piercing ammunition which could be used 

interchangeably in rifle or handgun. 


(88-10) 

Yeas (88) 







Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Proxmire, Pryor, Riegle, 





Durenberger, Evans, Goldwater, Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, 

Hatfield, Hawkins, Hecht, Heinz, Humphrey, Kassebaum, 

Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, Mathias, Mattingly, Murkowski, 

Nickles, Packwood, Roth, Rudman, Specter, Stafford, 


Nays (10) 


East, Garn, Hatch, Helms, McClure, McConnell, Pressler, 

Quayle, Simpson, Symms 


Democrats (1) 

Inouye-4 


Stevens-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment insisted that Congress should 

be focusing on prescribing penalties suitable to the crime 

rather trying to help protect police officers by limiting 

the availability of a few types of bullets. There are many 

other types of bullets not included in the bill's

prohibitions that will pierce a standard police vest on 

impact. If Congress can limit the second amendment right 

to bear arms on the basis of the armor-piercing capacity of 

ammunition, it might limit the quantity and types of 

ammunition in future years. In addition, they claimed, the 

amendment is needed to protect the industrial uses of solid 

projectiles. The oil industry uses single metal bullets in 

oil exploration. Steel manufacturers use them to remove 

slag build-up from furnaces. They are used also by the 

construction industry. 

Opponents of the amendment claimed that it could have a 

fatal impact on the bill because it would incorporate a 

vague and ambiguous standard of intent into the definition 

of armor-piercing ammunition and severely limit the type of 

bullets to be regulated. It would preclude Congress from 

regulating ammunition that is intended for rifle use but 

which also can be used in handguns. They also argued that 

proving what kind of a gun ammunition is intended for could 

be a difficult task for manufacturers. In addition, the 

amendment does not provide a definition for hand gun--which 

will provide a giant loophole for criminals. The Federal 

Law Enforcement Officers Association openly opposes this 

amendment, as does the Police Foundation.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Vote No. 28 HR 3132 03/06/86 CQ Admin: 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Armor-Piercing Ammunition (H.R. 3132, P.L. 99-408) 

Passage. 

Bill Passed 

(97-1) 

Yeas (97) 














Humphrey, Kassebaum, Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, Mathias, 


Packwood, Pressler, Quayle, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Specter, 

Stafford, Thurmond, Trible, Wallop, Warner, Weicker, Wilson 

Nays (1) 


Symms 


Democrats (1) 

Inouye-4 


Stevens-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

The bill was cleared for the President on August 13, 1986, 

after the Senate agreed to further House amendments. H.R. 

3132 became Public Law 99-408, approved August 28, 1986.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Vote No. 29 SJR 225 03/11/86 CQ Admin: 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment (S.J. Res. 225, 

Rejected) 

DeConcini motion to table Metzenbaum amendment (to Thurmond 

substitute amendment): Adds new section that requires 

President to submit balanced budget to Congress each fiscal 

year. 


(54-44) 

Yeas (54) 


Bentsen, DeConcini, Dixon, Long, Proxmire, Simon, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Boschwitz, Chafee, Cochran, Cohen, D'Amato, 



Hawkins, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, Kassebaum, Kasten, Laxalt, 


Pressler, Quayle, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Specter, Stafford, 

Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, Wallop, Warner, Wilson 

Nays (44) 


Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Bradley, Bumpers, Burdick, 

Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, Dodd, Eagleton, Glenn, Gore, 

Harkin, Hart, Heflin, Hollings, Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, 

Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Matsunaga, Melcher, 


Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser, Stennis 


Andrews, Armstrong, Humphrey, Mathias, Nickles, Weicker 


Democrats (2) 

Exon-2AN, Ford-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment (voting nay) asserted that the 

President's role in submitting and upholding a balanced 

budget must be spelled out, just as the role of Congress to 

adopt a balanced budget is codified by the resolution. 

Ronald Reagan campaigned strongly for a balanced budget but

as President has yet to submit a balanced budget to 

Congress. While he has been President, the national debt 

has doubled, yet he continues to crusade for a balanced 

budget. The President should be held accountable in this 

process. 

Opponents of the amendment (voting yea) stated that it was 

inappropriate because a Constitutional amendment should 

deal with broad principles--not with detailed processes. 

The resolution already requires the President to uphold a 

balanced budget. Therefore, this amendment is redundant. 

Not only would it introduce the President into the 

budgetary process by Constitutional mandate--a role the 

framers of the Constitution gave to Congress--but it also 

could enhance the possibility of an "imperial presidency." 

The careful separation of powers that exists between the 

three levels of government must not be altered.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Rejected) 

Metzenbaum amendment (to Thurmond substitute amendment): 

Provides that any State may bring suit to compel compliance 

with Constitutional requirement of balanced budget. 


(14-84) 

Yeas (14) 


Bingaman, Cranston, Dodd, Eagleton, Glenn, Harkin, Hart, 

Inouye, Kerry, Lautenberg, Levin, Matsunaga, Metzenbaum 


Mathias 

Nays (84) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Biden, Boren, Bradley, Bumpers, Burdick, 

Byrd, Chiles, DeConcini, Dixon, Exon, Gore, Heflin, 

Hollings, Johnston, Kennedy, Leahy, Melcher, Mitchell, 

Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Proxmire, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, 












Democrats (2) 

Ford-2, Long-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents asserted that the amendment would allow States 

to sue to enforce provisions of the balanced budget 

Constitutional amendment and to seek Supreme Court relief. 

They stated that the biggest weakness of the resolution is 

that it contains no mechanism for enforcement. To enact an

unworkable Constitutional amendment, with no manner by 

which to enforce it, is deceptive to the taxpayers of this 

country. Budget predictions have seldom been accurate, and 

in a trillion dollar budget even a two percent error would 

mean $20 billion--which may not be discovered until after 

the end of the fiscal year. 

Opponents claimed that the amendment could upset the 

careful balance contained in the resolution with respect to 

judicial review. It has already established the 

appropriate balance between the three levels of government 

by refusing to permit Federal courts to involve themselves 

in fundamental budgetary allocations, while not undermining 

their equally fundamental obligation to interpret the law. 

This amendment would inappropriately inject unelected 

judges into the delicate budgetary process. Congress has 

many available avenues by which to comply with the 

requirements of the balanced budget Constitutional 

amendment as it now stands without resorting to court 

action. It may increase taxes; rescind budget authority 

for unobligated balances of budgetary appropriations from 

previous years; defer the date of the obligation of funds; 

place a surtax on any number of items; or waive the 

requirements by a three-fifths vote of both Houses of 

Congress. Many objected to including details in the 

Constitution which should deal with broad principles.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Rejected) 

Simon motion to table Heflin amendment (to Thurmond 

substitute amendment): Provides for automatic waiver of 

balanced budget amendment during any fiscal year in which 

declaration of war is in effect and establishes 2-stage 

waiver process for periods of undeclared war. 


(52-48) 

Yeas (52) 


Burdick, Chiles, DeConcini, Dixon, Hart, Hollings, Long, 

Metzenbaum, Moynihan, Proxmire, Simon, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Armstrong, Boschwitz, Cochran, D'Amato, Danforth, 

Dole, Domenici, Durenberger, East, Garn, Gramm, Grassley, 


Kassebaum, Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, McClure, McConnell, 

Murkowski, Nickles, Packwood, Pressler, Roth, Rudman, 

Simpson, Specter, Stafford, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, 


Nays (48) 



Byrd, Cranston, Dodd, Eagleton, Exon, Ford, Glenn, 

Gore, Harkin, Heflin, Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, 

Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Matsunaga, Melcher, Mitchell, 

Nunn, Pell, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser, 

Stennis 


Andrews, Chafee, Cohen, Denton, Evans, Goldwater, Gorton, 

Heinz, Mathias, Mattingly, Quayle, Stevens, Wallop 


Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment stated that it would correct a 

serious defect in the Constitutional amendment, which does 

not deal with the issue of undeclared war, and could prove 

vital to the Nation's security. The U.S. can be faced with 

military emergencies which threaten national security and

equire significant expenditures to support without a 

formal declaration of war. In fact, the Nation has been 

involved in only five declared wars. All of the 

significant military actions of the past few decades, 

including the Vietnam and Korean conflicts, have been 

undeclared wars. This amendment would give Congress and 

the President the necessary flexibility to respond rapidly 

when such military emergencies arise. The two-stage waiver 

process would prevent abuse of the budget waiver and ensure 

that it would not be initiated unless a prolonged military 

conflict occurs which presents an imminent and serious 

military threat to the U.S. It also is important that the 

security of the Nation not rest on the nine votes in the 

Senate and 43 votes in the House which constitute the 

difference between a majority and a three-fifths vote by 

the full membership. Congress can approve a military 

action under the War Powers Act by a simple majority vote 

of those present and voting, but under the provisions of 

the proposed Constitutional amendment, a three-fifths vote 

would be required in order to provide the necessary funds. 

There have been many important Senate votes decided by a 

small margin including the vote to declare the War of 1812 

(a seven vote margin), the extension of the draft just 

prior to World War II (a one vote margin), and the 

withdrawal of troops from Vietnam (a nine vote margin). The 

Nation's defense is at stake here--not just the Federal 

budget--and we must insure that Congress retains the 

necessary tools to combat any security threat to the U.S. 

Opponents of the amendment termed it an unnecessary 

encumbrance to the waiver process which would endanger 

adoption of the Constitutional amendment to balance the 

budget. Under the reported resolution, Congress would 

retain the flexibility necessary to respond to a national 

security crisis. It could: (1) waive the balanced budget 

requirement by a three-fifths vote and provide whatever 

funds were necessary to address the threat; (2) transfer 

funds from other budget areas or increase taxes by a simple 

majority vote; or (3) maintain a contingency fund as part 

of the approved balanced budget to be activated, by a 

majority vote, when needed to address a military threat. No 

military conflict which posed an imminent threat to the 

Nation, opponents insisted, would be abandoned because 

Congress could not muster a three-fifths vote. Congress 

has always responded to such emergencies and will continue 

to do so. Others asserted that the amendment went too far 

and would make it too easy to find excuses for creating 

deficits. Still others disagreed and stated that the 

amendment did not go far enough in that a military conflict 

had to exist, at the risk of American lives, before a 

waiver could be justified. Many others opposed the entire 

proposition that the Constitution should be amended to 

include a balanced budget requirement. The Constitution is 

not the place to deal with problems of fiscal policy, they 

commented, and the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget

Act of 1985 should be given a chance to work before the 

Senate even considers that option.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Rejected) 

Thurmond motion to table Metzenbaum-Riegle-Moynihan 

amendment (to Thurmond substitute amendment): Provides 

that no social security benefits may be reduced in order to 

comply with Constitutional amendment requiring balanced 

budget. 


(57-42) 

Yeas (57) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, DeConcini, Dixon, 

Exon, Heflin, Hollings, Levin, Long, Nunn, Proxmire, 

Pryor, Simon, Stennis, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Armstrong, Boschwitz, Cochran, Danforth, Dole, 

Domenici, Durenberger, East, Garn, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, 

Hatfield, Hecht, Helms, Humphrey, Kassebaum, Laxalt, Lugar, 


Packwood, Quayle, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Stafford, Stevens, 


Nays (42) 


Bradley, Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, Dodd, 

Eagleton, Ford, Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Inouye, 

Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Matsunaga, 

Melcher, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, Pell, Riegle, 

Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser 


Andrews, Chafee, Cohen, D'Amato, Denton, Evans, Gorton, 

Hawkins, Heinz, Kasten, Mathias, Pressler, Specter 



Goldwater-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment stated that it would protect 

social security benefits from being cut in order to balance 

the Federal budget and reinstate the important policy

decision to take social security off budget, as agreed upon 

in the Gramm-Rudman legislation. Social security should 

not be considered a part of the Federal budget. It is a 

separate, financially-sound trust fund financed through a 

dedicated payroll tax and is prohibited by law from ever 

running a deficit. Several proposals have been made during 

the last four years to cut social security in some way and, 

unless the trust fund is exempted from the mandates of the 

proposed Constitutional amendment, its surpluses will only 

be an even bigger target for cuts in order to offset other 

Federal spending. If an attempt to make economic policy 

part of the Constitution is acceptable, then the question 

of whether the social security program should be part of 

the Federal budget is a related and extremely important 

matter which deserves to be addressed. 

Opponents of the amendment maintained that the 

Constitutional amendment to balance the budget would not 

jeopardize social security under any circumstances. It 

does not mandate spending cuts, tax increases, or any other 

specific legislative action. Congress still will be 

responsible for deciding how best to comply with the 

Constitutional amendment's requirements, and the social 

security program can only be modified if Congress so 

chooses, as under current law. Congress has never been 

insensitive to the needs of the elderly, and there is no 

reason to think that it will begin to do so now. This 

amendment would take the unprecedented step of 

incorporating a statute into the Constitution, thereby 

endangering Congress' ability to adjust social security to 

meet future needs and making it possible to exempt any 

program from the constraints of a balanced budget by 

offering it as an amendment to the social security law. 

Social security again is being used as a political tool, 

they claimed, and this amendment is being offered to try to 

kill the underlying proposal. The Constitutional amendment 

to balance the budget is needed, however, to ensure the 

future economic security of the Nation which will benefit 

all Americans, regardless of age.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Rejected) 

Byrd substitute amendment (to Thurmond substitute 

amendment): Provides that Congress shall ensure that 

Federal expenditures do not exceed Federal receipts, except 

in war or military conflict, or when three-fifths of each 

House provides otherwise. 


(35-64) 

Yeas (35) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Byrd, Cranston, 

Eagleton, Exon, Ford, Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Heflin, 

Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Levin, Matsunaga, 

Melcher, Metzenbaum, Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Pryor, Sarbanes, 

Sasser 


Andrews, Denton, Mathias, McClure, Stevens, Warner 

Nays (64) 


Bradley, Bumpers, Burdick, Chiles, DeConcini, Dixon, Dodd, 

Hart, Hollings, Lautenberg, Long, Mitchell, Proxmire, 

Riegle, Rockefeller, Simon, Stennis, Zorinsky 



D'Amato, Danforth, Dole, Domenici, Durenberger, East, 

Evans, Garn, Goldwater, Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, 

Hatfield, Hawkins, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, Humphrey, 

Kassebaum, Kasten, Lugar, Mattingly, McConnell, Murkowski, 


Specter, Stafford, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, Wallop, 




Laxalt-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents asserted that the substitute amendment offered a 

much more workable alternative to the resolution. Its

goals are the same--to achieve a balanced budget by force 

of Constitutional mandate--but its language is more 

suitable for the Constitution. The Constitution should not 

contain the details concerning how the goal would be 

achieved. Words and phrases should be chosen with the 

greatest of care to provide for the essential flexibility 

which is necessary in developing Constitutional language 

that will serve for generations to come. The substitute 

achieves this by stating a general requirement for the 

management of the people's money and allowing for 

exceptions in an acceptably comprehensive manner. 

Opponents declared that due to its breadth of phraseology, 

the substitute would not establish the linkage between 

taxing and spending decisions, as intended by the 

resolution, but merely would perpetuate current practices. 

The language in the substitute is sufficiently broad, they 

contended, to prevent it from achieving the stated 

objective of fiscal responsibility and accountability. 

Terms such as "expenditure of money" or "military conflict" 

are so ambiguous that they would cause reams of 

Constitutional problems in the future.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Rejected) 

Thurmond motion to table McClure-Mattingly amendment (to 

Thurmond substitute amendment): Adds new section which 

requires one percent annual reduction in outlays as 

percentage of GNP to level no higher than 20 percent of 

GNP. 


(87-13) 

Yeas (87) 





Hollings, Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, 


Mitchell, Nunn, Pell, Proxmire, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, 

Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon, Stennis 




East, Evans, Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, 

Hawkins, Hecht, Heinz, Kassebaum, Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, 

Mathias, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Packwood, Pressler, 


Thurmond, Trible, Warner, Weicker 

Nays (13) 


Heflin, Moynihan, Zorinsky 


Armstrong, Garn, Goldwater, Helms, Humphrey, Mattingly, 

McClure, Symms, Wallop, Wilson 


Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Although proponents appeared to use GNP and national income 

interchangeably, they, in fact, are not the same. National 

income excludes depreciation and other allowances for 

business and institutional consumption of durable capital 

goods and indirect business taxes. For example, in 1984

GNP was $3.775 trillion while national income was $3.039 

trillion. 

Proponents of the amendment claimed it would restore 

responsibility to government by not only requiring a 

balanced budget and maintaining it, but also by putting a 

Constitutional cap on the amount of money that could be 

obtained for this objective through taxation. Without such 

protection, Federal spending could continue to soar and 

Congress could use this balanced budget Constitutional 

amendment as a rationale to explain why taxes have to be 

increased. This amendment would be the first step in 

achieving the goal of getting spending back to the level 

where Americans can see the rewards of labor as being more 

important than those of leisure--a goal which could never 

be attained if taxes continuously rise. 

Opponents of the amendment asserted that the resolution was 

developed to create a more neutral budget process and to 

eliminate bias in spending and tax policy. This amendment 

would inappropriately skew the system in favor of lower 

spending and lower taxes. No one can predict accurately 

the economic situation in five or ten years, and this 

amendment would tie the hands of Congress in the future as 

to the methods it must use to achieve a balanced budget. 

This highly complicated issue deserves study and committee 

hearings.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Rejected) 

Hatch-Thurmond, et al., modified amendment (to Thurmond 

substitute amendment): Prohibits public debt increase to 

fund any excess of outlays over receipts for any fiscal 

year, unless three-fifths of each House provides for by 

law. 


(57-40) 

Yeas (57) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Boren, Burdick, Chiles, DeConcini, Dixon, 

Heflin, Leahy, Long, Nunn, Proxmire, Pryor, Simon, Stennis, 

Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Andrews, Armstrong, Boschwitz, Cochran, Cohen, 

D'Amato, Danforth, Denton, Dole, Domenici, East, Garn, 

Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, Hawkins, Hecht, Helms, Humphrey, 

Kassebaum, Kasten, Laxalt, Mattingly, McClure, McConnell, 

Murkowski, Nickles, Pressler, Quayle, Roth, Rudman, 

Simpson, Specter, Stafford, Stevens, Thurmond, Trible, 

Wallop, Warner, Wilson 

Nays (40) 


Biden, Bingaman, Bradley, Bumpers, Byrd, Cranston, Dodd, 



Levin, Matsunaga, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, 

Pell, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser 


Chafee, Durenberger, Evans, Gorton, Hatfield, Heinz, Lugar, 

Packwood, Weicker 



Goldwater-1, Mathias-1, Symms-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents stated that the amendment would clarify that an 

increase in the public debt is only subject to a

three-fifths vote if those increases were intended to fund 

an excess of outlays over receipts. This additional 

provision, they maintained, would provide the 

Constitutional amendment with the needed enforcement 

mechanism that it now lacks. It would make it harder to 

vote for deficit spending and force the government to find 

more creative ways to finance its debts and keep within 

fiscal constraints. 

Opponents contended that the amendment would make it harder 

to honor obligations that the Federal government has 

already incurred and more difficult to raise the public 

debt limit to carry out those obligations. It would codify 

into Constitutional law a process that would not be fair to 

people who, in good faith, have relied on the good credit 

of the Federal government. Congress should make it hard to 

incur debt but not harder to pay the bills that have been 

incurred. Ironically, there are more than enough Senators 

who avidly support a balanced budget amendment--certainly 

more than enough to do the job of balancing the budget.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Committee Funding (S. Res. 353) 

Stevens modified amendment: Transfers $1.5 million of 

unexpended funds from FY 1985 to special reserve to be made 

available for use from March 1, 1986, through September 30, 

1986, and authorizes Rules Committee to adopt regulations 

governing use and transfer of this reserve. 


(27-69) 

Yeas (27) 


Gore, Nunn, Sasser 


Andrews, Boschwitz, Cochran, Danforth, Denton, Dole, 

Durenberger, East, Evans, Gorton, Hatch, Laxalt, McClure, 

McConnell, Murkowski, Packwood, Pressler, Quayle, Roth, 

Simpson, Stevens, Thurmond, Wallop, Warner 

Nays (69) 




Eagleton, Exon, Ford, Glenn, Harkin, Heflin, 

Hollings, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, 

Levin, Long, Matsunaga, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, 

Moynihan, Pell, Proxmire, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, 

Sarbanes, Simon, Stennis, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Armstrong, Chafee, Cohen, D'Amato, Domenici, Garn, 

Gramm, Grassley, Hatfield, Hawkins, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, 

Humphrey, Kassebaum, Kasten, Lugar, Mattingly, Nickles, 

Rudman, Specter, Stafford, Symms, Trible, Weicker, Wilson 


Democrats (2) 

Hart-2, Inouye-2 


Goldwater-1, Mathias-1 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents asserted that the amendment would make available

to the Rules Committee $1.5 million from the unexpended 

balance of funds authorized by the previous funding 

resolution for a special reserve to meet the unexpected 

needs of individual committees. It would simply provide 

that if any committee requested additional funds, it would 

not have to go through the often lengthy process of 

reporting a resolution to the Senate and Senate floor 

consideration, with the possibility of riders being 

attached to it and hindering its passage. Frequently, 

these requests need to be acted upon in a very timely 

manner, and there should be a procedure to allow small 

amounts of money for extraordinary and unexpected expenses 

of committees to be funded by the Rules Committee from 

prior year unexpended funds. This process would not make 

permanent additions to a committee's funding base, they 

noted, thereby saving money by not building in an 

allocation to any committee on a permanent basis. 

Opponents termed the amendment unnecessary because the 

Senate rules already provide procedures for resolving any 

committee's financing problems that might occur. They 

pointed out that in the last six years, there have been 

seven requests for supplemental help for committees, 

totaling only $700,000, and not one has been rejected. 

There is no urgent need for the creation of a slush fund 

for committees, because the requests will continue to be 

dealt with effectively and on a timely basis when a crisis 

arises. Since it is difficult to predict accurately 

additional funding requirements before the September 30 

deadline, many committees might be tempted to request money 

they probably will not need. If this amendment passes, the 

manipulation of the money by a few members of the Rules 

Committee, or its staff, could exist as a dangerous 

possibility.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Vote No. 37 HJR 534 03/13/86 CQ Admin: 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Urgent CCC Supplemental Appropriations, 1986 (H.J. Res. 

534, P.L. 99-263) 

Gramm motion to waive Budget Act with respect to House 

amendment (which directs FmHA to use already appropriated 

funds for insured operating loans) because it would 

increase budget authority by $900 million, thereby 

violating Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. 

Motion Rejected 

(1-92) 

Yeas (1) 


Durenberger 

Nays (92) 







Moynihan, Pell, Proxmire, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, 

Sasser, Simon, Stennis, Zorinsky 






Lugar, Mattingly, McClure, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, 


Stafford, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, Wallop, Warner, 



Democrats (4) 

Hart-2, Inouye-2, Nunn-2, Sarbanes-2 


Goldwater-1, Laxalt-2, Mathias-1 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

The sponsor of the motion openly opposed his own motion but 

moved to waive the Budget Act so as to require a super

majority vote on the matter. However, this motion did not 

preclude the next vote (No. 38) on the Chair's ruling 

which could be overturned by a simple majority. No 

arguments were offered for the motion. 

Opponents contended that the amendment violates the Budget 

Act and would set a bad precedent for waiving the Budget 

Act for every program that would violate it under the 

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation. The President will most 

likely veto the bill, they insisted, if this amendment is 

passed. Seven hundred and fifty million dollars have 

already been transferred from the emergency fund, which has 

been counted in the budget totals, to be used for the same 

purpose as the $1 billion in this amendment.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Vote No. 38 HJR 534 03/13/86 CQ Admin: 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Urgent CCC Supplemental Appropriations, 1986 (H.J. Res. 

534, P.L. 99-263) 

Domenici motion to table Cochran appeal from Chair ruling 

that House amendment (which directs FmHA to use already 

appropriated funds for insured operating loans) violates 

Budget Act because it would increase budget authority by 

$900 million, thereby violating Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. 


(61-33) 

Yeas (61) 


Bentsen, Bingaman, Bradley, Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, 

DeConcini, Dixon, Dodd, Hollings, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, 

Levin, Long, Metzenbaum, Moynihan, Pell, Proxmire, 

Rockefeller, Simon 



Dole, Domenici, East, Evans, Garn, Gorton, Gramm, Hatch, 





Nays (33) 


Baucus, Biden, Boren, Bumpers, Burdick, Eagleton, 

Exon, Ford, Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Heflin, Johnston, 

Kennedy, Matsunaga, Melcher, Mitchell, Pryor, Riegle, 

Sarbanes, Sasser, Stennis, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Andrews, Cochran, Denton, Durenberger, Grassley, 

Hatfield, Nickles, Pressler, Stevens 


Democrats (3) 

Hart-2, Inouye-2, Nunn-2 


Goldwater-1, Laxalt-2, Mathias-1 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description

Proponents of the motion stated that the Chair ruled that 

this amendment would violate section 311 of the Budget Act, 

and that ruling is absolutely true. It would be improper 

procedure and bad policy to overturn this decision. A bad 

precedent should not be set for waiving the Budget Act for 

every program that would violate it under 

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. That would break down the 

discipline being asserted under Gramm-Rudman, and other 

Appropriations Subcommittee Chairmen would not feel 

constrained to stay within their ceilings. Deficit 

spending is no way to help farmers, they argued. If this 

amendment is adopted, the President will veto this bill, 

and farmers need the $5 billion CCC appropriation. 

Opponents of the motion claimed that the Senate must vote 

to overrule the Chair in order for the measure to be sent 

to the President without delay, so that, with his 

signature, funds can go directly to the FmHA and CCC to 

help farmers by getting them advance deficiency payments. 

Funds must be made available to the farmers so they can 

plant. If the motion to table is not defeated, the Senate 

will not have a chance to help the beleaguered farmers. 

This vote is not symbolic of whether one agrees with 

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings or not, they contended, but merely 

makes funds previously approved available until expended, 

subject to the sequester order under Gramm-Rudman. This is 

not the first test of Gramm-Rudman, they noted, and asked 

why objections had not been raised last December when the 

farm bill conference report was brought up. It was subject 

to this same point of order, as confirmed by the Chair on 

December 18. They concluded that the point of order was 

not raised then because the farm bill affected the rich as 

well as the poor--whereas this program being voted on today 

helps only poor farmers who cannot get credit.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Budget Reconciliation, 1985 (H.R. 3128, P.L. 99-272) 

Domenici motion to table Wilson-Cranston perfecting 

amendment (to Simpson-Domenici amendment): Restores 

House-passed amendment on section 19 which strengthens 

States' review of proposals by Secretary of Interior to 

conduct exploration for oil and gas off State's coastline 

on Outer Continental Shelf. 


(53-35) 

Yeas (53) 


Bentsen, Bingaman, Boren, Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, Dixon, 

Exon, Ford, Glenn, Heflin, Johnston, Long, Pryor, 

Rockefeller, Stennis, Zorinsky 



Danforth, Denton, Dole, Domenici, East, Garn, Gorton, 

Gramm, Grassley, Hatfield, Hecht, Helms, Humphrey, 

Kassebaum, Kasten, Lugar, Mattingly, McClure, McConnell, 

Murkowski, Nickles, Pressler, Quayle, Rudman, Simpson, 

Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Wallop, Warner 

Nays (35) 


Baucus, Bradley, Chiles, Cranston, Dodd, Gore, Hollings, 

Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Matsunaga, Melcher, 

Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, Pell, Proxmire, Riegle, 

Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon 


Cohen, D'Amato, Durenberger, Evans, Hatch, Hawkins, Heinz, 

Laxalt, Packwood, Roth, Stafford, Weicker, Wilson 


Democrats (8) 

Biden-2AN, DeConcini-2, Eagleton-2, Harkin-2, Hart-2, 

Inouye-2, Kennedy-2, Nunn-2 


Goldwater-1, Mathias-1, Specter-2, Trible-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description

Proponents of the amendment declared that it would make 

beneficial changes that relate directly to the rights of 

affected States to obtain an input in the Interior 

Secretary's planning of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil 

and gas leases. Section 19 of the OCS Lands Act of 1978 

was designed originally to give States a leading role in 

OCS decisions, but it currently gives the Interior 

Secretary too much discretion to discount the States' 

recommendations. Since 1982, 12 coastal States have 

brought court challenges to the current leasing program. 

This amendment would compel the Secretary to give more 

consideration to reasonable State recommendations; insure 

that the Interior Secretary takes into full account the 

marine and coastal environmental values when weighing a 

decision; and reinforce the original intent of Congress on 

this law. It would add no new steps or delays to the 

leasing process, they pointed out, nor would it have any 

budgetary impact. 

Opponents of the amendment argued that it should be 

rejected because the process of working out problems with 

OCS oil and gas leases is ongoing. The appropriate 

legislative committees are continuing to study the 

situation, although no legislative proposals have been 

submitted for deliberations yet. They claimed that this 

amendment was put into this bill at the last minute in the 

House for political reasons in California and would be 

disruptive to Federal land management. Moreover, the 

Administration opposes allowing the parochial interests of 

an individual State to delay or sabotage OCS oil and gas 

leasing deals that benefit all Americans. Indeed, this 

bill will be vetoed if it contains this amendment. 

The bill was cleared for the President on March 20, 1986, 

and enacted as Public Law 99-272, approved April 7, 1986.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Nomination of Sidney A. Fitzwater to be U.S. District Judge 

Dole, et al., cloture motion on nomination. 


(64-33) 

Yeas (64) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Boren, DeConcini, Hollings, Johnston, 

Long, Pell, Pryor, Simon, Stennis, Zorinsky 










Nays (33) 


Biden, Bingaman, Bradley, Burdick, Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, 

Dixon, Dodd, Eagleton, Exon, Ford, Glenn, Gore, 

Harkin, Hart, Heflin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, 


Nunn, Proxmire, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser 


Democrats (2) 

Bumpers-2, Inouye-4 


Mathias-1 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

The cloture motion, presented on March 14, 1986, was signed 

by Senators Dole, Thurmond, Gramm, Evans, Cochran, Simon, 

Armstrong, Hatch, McConnell, McClure, Heinz, Quayle, 

Gorton, Grassley, Domenici, and Stevens.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Nomination of Sidney A. Fitzwater to be U.S. District Judge 

Confirmation. 


(52-42) 

Yeas (52) 


Pell, Pryor, Simon 





Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, Hawkins, Hecht, Helms, Humphrey, 


Murkowski, Nickles, Packwood, Pressler, Quayle, Roth, 

Rudman, Simpson, Stafford, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, 


Nays (42) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Bradley, Burdick, 

Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, Dixon, Dodd, Eagleton, Exon, 

Ford, Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Heflin, Hollings, 

Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Levin, Long, 


Proxmire, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser, Stennis, 

Zorinsky 


Heinz, Specter 


Democrats (3) 

Bumpers-2, Inouye-2, Leahy-2PN 


Mathias-1, McClure-2 

Live Pairs (1) 

DeConcini (D-PPY) 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the nomination, which was reported by a vote

of 10 to 5, noted Mr. Fitzwater's B.A. and J.D. from 

Baylor University, and his law practice in Houston and 

Dallas from 1976 to 1982, when he was appointed to be a 

district judge in Dallas County. As the youngest district 

judge in the history of Texas, he received top ratings in a 

poll of judges by the Dallas Bar Association in 1983. The 

sign posting incident in one Dallas precinct, although 

regrettable, is not enough, they argued, to deny Mr. 

Fitzwater a Federal judgeship. 

Opponents maintained that Mr. Fitzwater should have refused 

to participate in the "Republican Ballot Security Program" 

in Dallas in 1982 which used scare tactics to keep minority 

voters from voting. Three other sitting judges refused. 

The nominee showed a lack of respect for democracy's most 

basic right--the right to vote. Mr. Fitzwater knew that 

the signs were posted in a partisan effort and were 

misleading in their representation of Texas voting laws. 

The Texas legislature subsequently acted to preclude this 

from happening again. The sign posting, they argued, 

compromises the public's perception that courts and judges 

are a forum for fair, unbiased, and impartial adjudication 

of disputes. At age 32, Mr. Fitzwater has not shown the 

qualities needed for a lifetime appointment to the Federal 

judiciary.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Federal Debt Recovery (S. 209, P.L. 99-578) 

Passage. 

Bill Passed 

(95-1) 

Yeas (95) 







Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Proxmire, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, 











Nays (1) 


Heflin 


Democrats (2) 

Boren-2, Inouye-4 


Mathias-1, McClure-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

The bill was cleared for the President on October 8, 1986, 

after the Senate agreed to House amendments. S. 209 became 

Public Law 99-578, approved October 28, 1986.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

National and Dulles Airports Transfer (S. 1017, in P.L. 

99-500) 

Dole, et al., cloture motion on motion to proceed to 

consideration of bill. 

Cloture Motion Rejected 

(50-39) 

Yeas (50) 


Boren, DeConcini, Dixon, Glenn, Matsunaga, Pell, Zorinsky 


Armstrong, Boschwitz, Chafee, Cochran, D'Amato, Denton, 

Dole, Domenici, Durenberger, East, Evans, Garn, Gorton, 

Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, Hawkins, Hecht, Helms, 



Simpson, Specter, Stafford, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, 


Nays (39) 


Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, Chiles, 

Cranston, Eagleton, Exon, Ford, Gore, Harkin, Hart, 

Heflin, Hollings, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, Levin, Melcher, 

Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Proxmire, Pryor, 

Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon, Stennis 


Abdnor, Andrews, Goldwater, Heinz, Humphrey, Pressler 


Democrats (7) 

Bentsen-2, Bradley-2, Dodd-2, Inouye-4, Lautenberg-2, 

Leahy-2AN, Long-2 


Cohen-2, Danforth-2, Mathias-1, McClure-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 


by Senators Dole, Trible, Kasten, Cochran, Garn, McConnell, 

Wilson, Rudman, Stevens, Stafford, Danforth, Laxalt, 

Warner, Gorton, Kassebaum, Quayle, Domenici, Simpson,

Helms, and Hecht.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


99-500) 

Dole, et al., second cloture motion on motion to proceed to 

consideration of bill. 


(66-32) 

Yeas (66) 


Bentsen, Boren, DeConcini, Dixon, Dodd, Glenn, Gore, Hart, 

Heflin, Inouye, Kerry, Lautenberg, Long, Matsunaga, 

Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Pryor, Rockefeller, Zorinsky 




East, Evans, Garn, Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, 

Hatfield, Hawkins, Hecht, Helms, Kassebaum, Kasten, Laxalt, 

Lugar, Mattingly, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Packwood, 



Nays (32) 


Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Bradley, Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, 

Chiles, Cranston, Eagleton, Exon, Ford, Harkin, 

Hollings, Johnston, Kennedy, Leahy, Levin, Melcher, 

Metzenbaum, Proxmire, Riegle, Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon, 

Stennis 


Goldwater, Heinz, Humphrey, Mathias, McClure, Pressler 


Democrats (1) 

Mitchell-2 


Cohen-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 


by Senators Dole, Trible, Warner, East, Gorton, Garn, 

Evans, Denton, Specter, Durenberger, Helms, Hatfield,

Kassebaum, Simpson, Cochran, and Kasten.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Rejected) 

Passage (Rejected). 

Bill Defeated 

(66-34) 

Yeas (66) 


Bentsen, Bingaman, Boren, Chiles, DeConcini, Dixon, 

Exon, Ford, Gore, Harkin, Heflin, Hollings, Johnston, 

Long, Melcher, Nunn, Pell, Proxmire, Pryor, Sasser, Simon, 



Abdnor, Andrews, Armstrong, Boschwitz, Cochran, D'Amato, 

Danforth, Denton, Dole, Domenici, Durenberger, East, Garn, 

Goldwater, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, Hawkins, Hecht, Helms, 

Humphrey, Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, Mattingly, McClure, 


Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Specter, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, 

Trible, Wallop, Warner, Wilson 

Nays (34) 


Baucus, Biden, Bradley, Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, Cranston, 

Dodd, Eagleton, Glenn, Hart, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, 

Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Matsunaga, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, 

Moynihan, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes 


Chafee, Cohen, Evans, Gorton, Hatfield, Heinz, Kassebaum, 

Mathias, Stafford, Weicker 


Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 

Section 1. Total outlays of the United States for any 

fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts to the United 

States for that year, unless three-fifths of the whole 

number of both Houses of Congress shall provide for a 

specific excess of outlays over receipts. 

The public debt of the United States shall not be increased

to fund any excess of outlays over receipts, for any fiscal 

year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of both 

Houses of Congress shall provide, by law, for such an 

increase. 

Section 2. Any bill to increase revenue shall become law 

only if approved by a majority of the whole number of both 

Houses of Congress by roll call vote. 

Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall 

transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United 

States Government for that fiscal year in which total 

outlays are not greater than total receipts. The President 

may also recommend an alternative budget in which total 

outlays exceed total receipts, which shall be accompanied 

by a detailed explanation of the need for such excess. 

Section 4. The Congress may waive the provisions of this 

article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war 

is in effect. 

Section 5. This article shall take effect for the fiscal 

year 1991 or for the second fiscal year beginning after its 

ratification, whichever is later. 

Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this 

article by appropriate legislation.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Nicaraguan Contra Aid (S.J. Res. 283) 

Kennedy, et al., amendment: Prohibits funds that would 

support, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary 

operations in Nicaragua. 


(24-74) 

Yeas (24) 


Bingaman, Burdick, Cranston, Dodd, Ford, Harkin, Hart, 

Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Levin, Melcher, Metzenbaum, 

Pell, Proxmire, Riegle, Sarbanes, Simon 


Hatfield, Mathias, Specter, Stafford, Weicker 

Nays (74) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Biden, Boren, Bradley, Bumpers, Byrd, 

Chiles, DeConcini, Dixon, Eagleton, Exon, Glenn, 

Gore, Heflin, Hollings, Johnston, Lautenberg, Mitchell, 

Moynihan, Nunn, Pryor, Rockefeller, Sasser, Stennis, 

Zorinsky 





Grassley, Hatch, Hawkins, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, Humphrey, 






Democrats (2) 

Long-2, Matsunaga-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents declared that the amendment would stop all aid 

to the Contras or paramilitary groups in Nicaragua, thereby 

terminating the Reagan Administration's policy of the past 

five years in that region. This policy violates the 

charters of the United Nations and the Organization of

American States which, in general, prohibit the 

intervention of a state, by force or threat of force, into 

the affairs of another state. U.S. policy, which has 

spurred a wave of anti-Americanism, is counterproductive to 

its aims. It has not worked, nor is there any evidence 

that it will ultimately succeed. Recent experience in 

Vietnam and Lebanon should have taught the U.S. that 

military means do not solve economic, social, and political 

problems. The Contras have not gained the support of the 

people despite widespread discontent with the Sandinista 

government. In fact, Contra activity has achieved one goal 

only--it has weakened the economic structure of Nicaragua, 

causing hardship for the ordinary civilian. If the Reagan 

Administration's current policy is continued, U.S. combat 

forces will be fighting in Central America. Adoption of 

this amendment would renew support for the Contadora 

process of the Latin American countries that represent 90 

percent of the population, 90 percent of the territory, and 

90 percent of the resources of the continent. 

Opponents claimed that the amendment would eliminate any 

chance for a compromise diplomatic solution in Nicaragua. 

Presently, the Sandinista government has no incentive to 

agree to a compromise. With U.S. aid, the Contras may gain 

the extra leverage they need for diplomatic solutions in 

the future. Ending aid has been tried and has failed in 

getting a negotiated settlement. In fact, providing 

nonlethal aid to the Contras over the past nine months has 

been successful, they claimed. The staff of the Senate 

Intelligence Committee has been carefully overseeing the 

humanitarian aid being sent to the Contras, and most of it 

has reached its desired destination. The U.S. must not cut 

off all of this aid that is desperately needed in the fight 

against the Marxist Sandinista government. It is essential 

to give the support which the President's negotiator, 

Philip Habib, has asked for to facilitate negotiations.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Helms substitute amendment: Makes funds available after 

May 15, 1986, if President makes certain certifications. 


(39-60) 

Yeas (39) 


Boren, Heflin, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Armstrong, Cochran, D'Amato, Danforth, Denton, 

Dole, Domenici, East, Garn, Goldwater, Gramm, Hatch, 

Hawkins, Hecht, Helms, Humphrey, Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, 


Pressler, Quayle, Roth, Simpson, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, 


Nays (60) 








Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon, Stennis 


Andrews, Boschwitz, Chafee, Cohen, Durenberger, Evans, 

Gorton, Grassley, Hatfield, Heinz, Kassebaum, Mathias, 

Packwood, Rudman, Specter, Stafford, Weicker 


Democrats (1) 

Rockefeller-2AN 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents asserted that the only hope for the restoration 

of freedom in Nicaragua is embodied in the military 

struggle of the Contras to guarantee the establishment of 

representative democracy. The Contras have stated that 

they seek to assure government respect for free speech, 

worship, and association--rights that are being denied

systematically by the Sandinista government. Last October, 

the Sandinistas broadened restrictions on its citizens' 

civil liberties and received aid from the Soviets and 

Eastern Bloc countries, claiming it did so in response to 

U.S. aggression and counterrevolutionary activity. The 

U.S. cannot allow the Marxist Sandinistas to continue to 

threaten the regional peace as they tighten their 

totalitarian hold on the country. The Sandinistas will not 

engage in serious, productive negotiations for peace; nor 

will they make meaningful internal and democratic reforms 

unless they are faced with the certainty that the 

opposition will survive and must be included in the 

political process. The U.S. must support the 

well-organized "freedom fighters" who have declared their 

support for the basic rights, which every American enjoys. 

Opponents insisted that the U.S. should not continue to 

fuel the fires of violence and warfare by supplying the 

Contras with more military aid. They declared that the 

Contras are not "freedom fighters," but are terrorists 

perpetrating acts of violence and indiscriminate aggression 

against men, women, and children.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Sasser-Gore substitute amendment: Restricts aid to 

Nicaraguan Contras to $30 million in humanitarian 

assistance; prohibits assistance by or through CIA or other 

intelligence entity; and requires U.S. to begin serious 

bilateral negotiation with Sandinistas without requiring as 

precondition negotiations first between Sandinistas and 

Contras, if ceasefire is established. 


(33-67) 

Yeas (33) 


Baucus, Biden, Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, Cranston, DeConcini, 

Dodd, Eagleton, Exon, Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Hart, 

Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Levin, Matsunaga, 

Melcher, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, Pell, Proxmire, 

Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon 


Hatfield 

Nays (67) 


Bentsen, Bingaman, Boren, Bradley, Chiles, Dixon, Ford, 

Heflin, Hollings, Johnston, Leahy, Long, Nunn, Stennis, 

Zorinsky 











Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents stated that the amendment would protect 

legitimate U.S. security interests and promote stability in 

Central America. It would establish specific, achievable 

policy goals with respect to Nicaragua and create concrete

inducements for the Administration and the Sandinistas to 

negotiate a diplomatic solution. The U.S. should not grant 

military aid to the Contras until all diplomatic 

alternatives have been exhausted. The eight nations 

involved in the Contadora process asked that this military 

aid not be granted and have indicated that it could 

jeopardize diplomatic efforts in the region. Military 

assistance only escalates the conflict in Central America, 

encourages further militarization in Nicaragua, and 

bolsters the Sandinista's internal support. It allows the 

Sandinistas to justify the curtailment of civil liberties, 

rationalize their economy's poor performance, and further 

consolidate their authoritarian regime. The U.S. should 

commit itself to a bipartisan foreign policy in Central 

America which emphasizes negotiations and diplomacy. Only 

through such direct, bilateral negotiations will the U.S. 

be able to protect its national security interests, avoid 

further involvement of U.S. military forces there, and 

ensure that Nicaragua will not become the base of Soviet 

operations in Central America. If the Nicaraguan 

government does not want to negotiate in good faith, let 

this hypocrisy be exposed to the world. Some proponents 

commented that $100 million in military aid to the Contras 

cannot be justified when it has no hope of accomplishing 

its objectives and could be better spent on needy citizens 

here in the U.S. who are being left hungry and cold because 

of drastic budget cuts. 

Opponents maintained that the amendment showed a clear 

disregard for the Constitutional separation of powers, 

undercutting the President's foreign policy initiatives and 

removing any incentive which the Sandinistas might have to 

negotiate. The U.S. has made numerous, sincere, but 

unsuccessful, attempts to negotiate with the Sandinistas 

during the last six years. It, too, has pledged to 

participate in new bilateral talks in support of a 

Contadora agreement, simultaneously with the Contras, in 

response to any meaningful changes in the Sandinista 

regime. Now it is up to the Sandinistas to demonstrate 

that they genuinely want peace. This amendment merely 

would keep the doors open for the Soviets and Cubans to 

continue their massive military buildup in Nicaragua. The 

Sandinistas would continue to "give lip service" to 

negotiations while they seek to defeat the Contras and 

export their Marxist-Leninist revolution throughout Central 

America. An antagonistic government in Managua is an 

ongoing threat to the U.S. and its allies in this 

hemisphere, they declared, and $100 million in aid to the 

"freedom fighters" is a modest price to pay for limiting 

the Sandinistas' revolution. It is a choice between giving 

aid in support of those who wish to preserve freedom and 

support our own national interests or procrastinating 

further which is to "choose dishonor, . . . inherit war, 

and risk defeat." This aid request will not be enough to 

force the Sandinistas to negotiate with their countrymen,

they admitted, but, in conjunction with other economic and 

diplomatic pressures, it may provide sufficient pressure to 

force the Sandinistas into moving toward a more open, 

democratic society.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Lugar motion to table Cranston-Sasser perfecting amendment 

(to Lugar substitute amendment--Vote No. 51): Bars funds 

to Contras except for non-lethal, humanitarian assistance 

if (1) Sandinistas agree to cease-fire, abolish state of 

national emergency, and pursue bilateral negotiations with 

U.S., or (2) President fails to pursue such direct 

bilateral negotiations, unless Congress adopts resolution 

finding that Sandinistas refused to participate in good 

faith. 


(66-34) 

Yeas (66) 


Bentsen, Boren, Bradley, Chiles, DeConcini, Dixon, Ford, 

Heflin, Hollings, Johnston, Leahy, Long, Moynihan, Nunn, 






Hatch, Hawkins, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, Humphrey, Kassebaum, 

Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, Mattingly, McClure, McConnell, 




Nays (34) 


Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, Cranston, 

Dodd, Eagleton, Exon, Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Hart, 

Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Levin, Matsunaga, 

Melcher, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Pell, Proxmire, Pryor, 



Cohen, Hatfield, Mathias 


Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment stated that aid to the Contras 

should be restricted until the U.S. has completely

exhausted the possibilities for a negotiated settlement. 

This amendment would not affect humanitarian, nonlethal 

assistance to the Contras, but would encourage direct, 

meaningful bilateral negotiations between the U.S. and 

Nicaragua, without requiring the initial participation of 

the Contra forces. To ensure their commitment to the 

negotiations and as preconditions for bilateral 

negotiations with the U.S., the Nicaraguan government must 

agree to a cease-fire and end its repressive state of 

national emergency. It is ridiculous to expect the 

Sandinistas to agree at the outset to sit down with a 

"terrorist" Contra force that is "seeking to shoot its way 

back into power" or to participate in the multilateral 

Contadora negotiations while the U.S. is simultaneously 

attempting to overthrow their government. The Contras are 

a "mercenary force created by, funded by, and largely 

controlled by the Government of the U.S." Therefore, it is 

only realistic and reasonable for the negotiations to 

initially begin between Washington and Managua. Some 

stated their opposition to any U.S. assistance to the 

Contras but supported this amendment as an effort to 

improve a "flawed resolution." 

Opponents of the amendment maintained that this was just 

another effort to try "unwisely and unconstitutionally" to 

force the President into negotiations "with people that he 

does not want to negotiate with under conditions that he 

does not choose to negotiate." The President has stated, in 

a letter to Senator Lugar on March 27, 1986, that 

conditioning U.S. aid to the Nicaraguan resistance on the 

initiation of direct bilateral talks, without first 

requiring that the Sandinistas talk to their own internal 

opposition, would undercut seriously our allies in that 

region and undermine our foreign policy worldwide. It 

would only afford the Sandinistas the opportunity for 

further duplicity, he cautioned, and result in added delays 

in resolving the conflict. This is the Sasser amendment 

(Vote No. 48) revisited, opponents claimed, and should be 

defeated as well.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Lugar motion to table Kennedy amendment: Prohibits 

introduction of U.S. civilian or military personnel into or 

over Nicaragua for purpose, directly or indirectly, of 

combat unless: (1) Congress declares war or authorizes 

introduction of forces in advance, or (2) President 

determines that forces are necessary to evacuate U.S. 

citizens or to respond to military attack on U.S. 


(68-32) 

Yeas (68) 


Bentsen, Boren, Bradley, Bumpers, Byrd, Chiles, DeConcini, 

Dixon, Ford, Glenn, Heflin, Hollings, Johnston, Long, 

Moynihan, Nunn, Pryor, Stennis, Zorinsky 








Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Stafford, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, 


Nays (32) 


Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Burdick, Cranston, Dodd, Eagleton, 

Exon, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, 

Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Matsunaga, Melcher, Metzenbaum, 

Mitchell, Pell, Proxmire, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, 

Sasser, Simon 


Hatfield, Mathias, Specter, Weicker 


Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment asserted that it would prohibit 

the introduction of U.S. combat forces into Nicaragua 

without advance Congressional approval except under certain 

extreme conditions. It would not abrogate the War Powers

Act because that law was drafted to deal with unforeseen 

events. If the current policy of the Administration is 

continued in Nicaragua, it will lead to U.S. combat forces 

being dispatched to that country. The Administration's 

policy is flawed because it attempts to combine two 

separate policy issues--the disposition of the Nicaraguan 

government and American national security interests in the 

region. The first must be decided by the people of 

Nicaragua. The second is a legitimate U.S. concern which 

would be better served by peaceful negotiations than by 

military solutions which only help to polarize a 

deep-seated fear of an American military invasion, as has 

occurred in Nicaragua in the past. 

Opponents of the amendment asserted that it would impair 

the ability of the U.S. to carry out its obligations under 

the Rio Treaty. If, for example, Nicaragua attacked Costa 

Rica or Honduras and either country called upon the U.S. 

for assistance under the Rio Treaty, the U.S. would be 

unable to fulfill that commitment through collective 

military measures. In addition, this amendment is 

unnecessary since troops would not be introduced, they 

claimed, without extreme provocation because the 

Administration does not want to take that step any more 

than the proponents of this amendment. This amendment, 

however, could invite Soviet bloc escalation in the 

country. It, too, would go beyond the War Powers Act which 

at least gives the President the right to respond 

militarily in an emergency without first consulting the 

full Congress. It might even invite Constitutional 

scrutiny since it would attempt to tie the hands of the 

Commander in Chief.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Lugar, et al., modified substitute amendment: Provides 

$100 million, by transfer from already appropriated FY 1986 

DOD funds, to aid Nicaraguan Contras of which $30 million 

is for humanitarian aid (including anti-aircraft weapons); 

delays delivery of $75 million for 90 days to give 

Sandinistas opportunity to negotiate with Contras and 

Contadora process time to achieve regional settlement; 

allows release of $15 million every three months beginning 

July 1 if President certifies that there is no reasonable 

prospect of achieving agreement; and gives Congress right 

to disapprove additional aid by enactment of joint 

resolution. 


(53-47) 

Yeas (53) 


Bentsen, Boren, Bradley, Chiles, Dixon, Heflin, Hollings, 

Johnston, Long, Nunn, Stennis 


Abdnor, Armstrong, Boschwitz, Cochran, Cohen, D'Amato, 

Danforth, Denton, Dole, Domenici, East, Garn, Goldwater, 

Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, Hawkins, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, 


McClure, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Pressler, Quayle, 



Nays (47) 


Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, Cranston, 

DeConcini, Dodd, Eagleton, Exon, Ford, Glenn, Gore, 

Harkin, Hart, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, 


Pell, Proxmire, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, 



Andrews, Chafee, Durenberger, Evans, Gorton, Hatfield, 

Mathias, Packwood, Specter, Stafford, Weicker 


Office Note 

(no text)

Description 

Proponents asserted that the amendment would provide three 

months for all concerned parties to reassess Nicaraguan 

policies. By restricting funds for 90 days and only 

supplying $30 million in humanitarian assistance, the U.S. 

would encourage the Sandinistas to rethink their 

intransigent position. If the Sandinistas know that the 

U.S. will not supply the additional aid to the Contras in 

that period and begin to institute reforms, then a great 

step toward peace might be achieved. With this amendment, 

the U.S. would restate its commitment not only to the 

Contadora process, but also to supplying humanitarian funds 

and, if necessary, military aid later to those who support 

freedom and democracy. This amendment represents the best 

compromise by which the four U.S. policy goals in Central 

America can be furthered--to end Nicaraguan support for 

guerrillas in neighboring countries and to make Nicaragua 

retract its stated goal of "revolution without borders;" to 

sever Nicaraguan military and security ties to Cuba and the 

Soviet Union; to reduce Nicaragua's military forces to 

levels that would restore military equilibrium; and to 

fulfill the original Sandinista promises to support 

democratic pluralism and respect for human rights. 

Opponents argued that this amendment would promote the 

current U.S. policy in Central America which will lead only 

to military involvement and loss of American lives. It 

violates international law, and is inconsistent with 

traditional U.S. values by, dividing--rather than 

uniting--this country, and isolating the U.S. from its 

allies in Central America and elsewhere. U.S. support of 

the Contra military leadership allows the Sandinistas to 

pose as defenders of their nation against U.S. oppression 

and strengthens their control on Nicaragua. It also puts 

Soviet and Cuban involvement in a much better light to 

Nicaraguans. With regard to accountability for the use of 

these funds, GAO has stated that there is no way to detect 

if U.S. humanitarian funds have been used in the past for 

their intended purposes. Although the ongoing Contadora 

talks have not been fruitful yet, that does not mean they 

will not be successful. On January 12, 1986, Argentina, 

Brazil, Peru, and Uruguay joined the four Contadora nations 

to sign the Carabadella message that reaffirms the belief 

that peace and positive change in Nicaragua must come 

through regional cooperation and direct talks between the 

U.S. and the Sandinistas. However, President Reagan 

refuses to negotiate unless the Sandinistas negotiate first 

with the Contras--a precondition designed to prevent 

bilateral talks. The U.S. policy of arming the Contras 

will never advance the goals of peace, but a negotiated 

settlement would. After more than five years and 

considerably more than $100 million in aid to the Contras, 

there is little evidence that the Contras have been able to 

gain the support of the people, despite their discontent 

with the current Sandinista government. Some compared this

pattern of incrementally increasing aid and support to the 

well established pattern of the Vietnam conflict. They 

termed the Administration's proposal altogether inadequate 

to its declared objectives and, accordingly, a formula for 

failure.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Vietnam Veterans Charter (S. 8, P.L. 99-318) 

Passage. 

Bill Passed 

(94-3) 

Yeas (94) 




Exon, Ford, Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Heflin, 








Durenberger, Evans, Garn, Goldwater, Gorton, Gramm, 

Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, Hecht, Heinz, Humphrey, 



Quayle, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Specter, Stevens, Symms, 

Thurmond, Trible, Warner, Weicker, Wilson 

Nays (3) 


East, Helms, Wallop 


Democrats (1) 

Eagleton-2 


Hawkins-2AY, Stafford-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

S. 8 became P.L. 99-318, approved May 23, 1986.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


99-500) 

Trible motion to table Lautenberg, et al., amendment: 

Expresses sense of Senate that Executive Branch should 

rehire, as new employees, air traffic controllers fired in 

1981, who meet Federal civil service standards and insure 

that no involuntary displacement of existing FAA personnel 

results. 


(57-39) 

Yeas (57) 


Boren, Bumpers, Chiles, DeConcini, Exon, Ford, 

Heflin, Long, Nunn, Pryor, Stennis, Zorinsky 



Cohen, Danforth, Denton, Dole, Domenici, Durenberger, East, 

Evans, Garn, Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, Hecht, Heinz, 



Packwood, Pressler, Quayle, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Stevens, 

Symms, Thurmond, Trible, Wallop, Warner, Wilson 

Nays (39) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Bradley, Burdick, Byrd, 

Cranston, Dixon, Dodd, Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Hollings, 

Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, 


Proxmire, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon 


D'Amato, Hatfield, Mathias, Specter, Weicker 


Democrats (1) 

Eagleton-2 


Goldwater-2, Hawkins-2, Stafford-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description

Proponents of the amendment asserted that the combination 

of increased air traffic and the failure of the air traffic 

control system to keep pace with that traffic has seriously 

eroded the margin of safety in U.S. skies. This amendment 

would help to rectify this problem by allowing the 

selective rehiring of previously terminated air traffic 

controllers who have been denied employment in the Federal 

Aviation Administration since the 1981 strike. It does not 

suggest that all of those who struck be granted amnesty and 

returned to work at the expense of those currently in the 

system. It merely would allow some of those now excluded 

from the system to apply for positions and give the Office 

of Personnel Management the discretion to discriminate 

between those who led the strike in 1981 and those who only 

followed their union leaders. It is wrong to exclude any 

pool of talent in this highly specialized field in the 

effort to address a serious national aviation safety 

problem where there are currently only 8,300 

full-performance level controllers compared to 13,000 in 

1981. Clerical personnel are being counted to up the total 

and to make the public think there are 14,000 controllers. 

Opponents of the amendment claimed that it would interject 

further tension and pressure into the air traffic 

controller system and send the wrong message to the union. 

It might solve the problem in the short-term, but in the 

long run, it does not address the shortage of skilled air 

traffic controllers in the U.S.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


99-500) 

Trible motion to table Pressler perfecting amendment (to 

Pressler amendment No. 1731): Changes composition of Board 

of Washington National and Dulles International Airports 

Authority to include two appointees each by Virginia and 

Maryland Governors and D.C. Mayor and five by President. 


(52-44) 

Yeas (52) 


Bentsen, Dodd, Gore, Inouye, Johnston, Kerry, Lautenberg, 

Long, Metzenbaum, Nunn, Rockefeller 


Armstrong, Chafee, Cochran, Cohen, D'Amato, Danforth, 


Goldwater, Gorton, Gramm, Hatfield, Hecht, Helms, Humphrey, 


McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Packwood, Quayle, Roth, 

Rudman, Simpson, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, Wallop, 

Warner, Wilson 

Nays (44) 


Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Bradley, Bumpers, Burdick, 

Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, DeConcini, Dixon, Exon, Ford, 

Glenn, Harkin, Hart, Heflin, Hollings, Kennedy, Leahy, 

Levin, Matsunaga, Melcher, Mitchell, Moynihan, Pell, 

Proxmire, Pryor, Riegle, Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Andrews, Boschwitz, Grassley, Hatch, Heinz, 

Mathias, Pressler, Specter, Weicker 


Democrats (2) 

Eagleton-2, Stennis-2 


Hawkins-2, Stafford-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description

Proponents of the amendment stated that it would 

redistribute the composition of the governing board of 

Washington National and Dulles Airports so that a single 

State, Virginia, would not dominate the decisions of this 

authority. It would give a substantial vote to all three 

local constituencies with the balance of the membership 

appointed to represent the overall national interests of 

these uniquely national airports. This amendment would 

help rather than hurt other States' interests, because the 

views represented would be more diverse and reflective of a 

broader constituency. 

Opponents of the amendment noted that the Holton Commission 

and the Commerce Committee addressed this issue and 

concluded that the existing formula would best serve the 

objectives sought by this legislation. The national 

interests are fully protected by the provision of a 

presidential appointee on the board, the prohibition on any 

action that would diminish service at the airports, and by 

the provision, under the terms of the agreed-upon lease, of 

Congressional oversight responsibilities and the right to 

ensure that these airports are run properly.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


99-500) 

Kassebaum motion to table Gramm substitute amendment (for 

Kassebaum-Hollings, et al., amendment): Requires 

Department of Transportation and FAA to reclaim all landing 

slots allocated to private airlines and sell them to 

highest bidder. 


(82-14) 

Yeas (82) 




Exon, Ford, Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Heflin, Hollings, 


Long, Matsunaga, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, 


Sasser, Simon 



D'Amato, Danforth, Denton, Dole, Domenici, Evans, Garn, 

Goldwater, Gorton, Grassley, Hatfield, Hecht, Heinz, 


McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Packwood, Pressler, Roth, 

Rudman, Simpson, Specter, Stevens, Thurmond, Trible, 

Warner, Weicker 

Nays (14) 


Hart, Zorinsky 


Armstrong, Durenberger, East, Gramm, Hatch, Helms, 

Humphrey, McClure, Quayle, Symms, Wallop, Wilson 


Democrats (2) 




Office Note 

(no text)

Description 

Proponents of the substitute amendment claimed it would 

show who wants to get some value out of these slots rather 

than just complain about the new DOT rule which gave the 

slots at the four busiest airports--LaGuardia, Kennedy, 

O'Hare, and National--to the incumbent airlines already 

having them. Selling these landing rights to the highest 

bidder would result in better use of the slots and create 

an incentive to build more of them. While the 

Kassebaum-Hollings amendment might comprise one step in the 

right direction away from government regulation, it does 

not go far enough. The ability to buy the slots is clearly 

the measure of who can provide the greatest service to the 

American people. Market forces should determine allocation 

in order to arrive at maximum efficiency. The process 

today is dependent on political favoritism--since acquiring 

a new slot is quite expensive in terms of payments to 

lawyers and lobbyists who help get a positive decision from 

the airport authority. 

Opponents of the substitute amendment stressed that it 

would give the current airlines a means of acquiring 

airline slots on the basis of financial value without 

regard to service, schedules, or distance that the aircraft 

is going to travel. It makes no provision for the impact 

on commuter and small airlines serving small- and 

medium-sized communities which would suffer a severe 

economic disadvantage in a buy-sell system. This proposal 

would bring chaos to this complex situation.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


99-500) 

Kassebaum-Hollings, et al., amendment: Requires Department 

of Transportation to repeal rule which permits airlines to 

buy, sell, and lease takeoff and landing rights at 

LaGuardia, John F. Kennedy, Washington National, and O'Hare 

airports. 


(82-12) 

Yeas (82) 



Burdick, Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, DeConcini, Dodd, 

Exon, Ford, Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Hollings, 


Long, Matsunaga, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, 






East, Evans, Goldwater, Grassley, Hatfield, Hecht, Heinz, 

Helms, Kassebaum, Kasten, Lugar, Mathias, Mattingly, 


Rudman, Simpson, Stevens, Thurmond, Trible, Warner, 


Nays (12) 


Dixon, Heflin 


Armstrong, Garn, Gorton, Gramm, Hatch, Humphrey, McClure, 

Quayle, Symms, Wallop 


Democrats (2) 



Hawkins-2, Laxalt-2, Specter-2, Stafford-2 

Office Note 

(no text)

Description 

Proponents pointed out that DOT has come forward with a 

rule that allows incumbent airlines at the four busiest 

airports in the country to buy and sell their takeoff and 

landing rights for which they never paid a cent--reaping 

profits of $750,000 to $1 million per slot. Commuter and 

other air service to small- and medium-sized communities 

will be drastically curtailed as it becomes vastly more 

profitable for them to sell their present rights at these 

airports to large airlines with high-passenger planes and 

longer, more profitable routes. If the current rule is 

allowed to be implemented, its application will expand from 

these four to an estimated 33 airports by the 1990's, 

creating an enormous monopolistic block to the development 

of new airlines. This amendment eliminates the airlines' 

incentive to pocket a slot in anticipation of the right to 

sell it for a huge price. Since ownership would be 

retained by the government, any revenue gained from leasing 

the slot would go to the Aviation Trust Fund, and no 

windfall profit would go to any airline. Eastern and USAir 

are estimated to have 50 percent of the approximately 4,200 

slots at the four airports which are valued at $4 billion. 

Politics, they insisted, has not been an influence in slot 

allocation. The allocation system has not worked because 

the industry has long believed that buy-sell would be 

implemented by rule. 

Opponents claimed that this amendment reverses the first 

step towards bringing the market forces to bear on the 

allocation of airline slots--an indispensable part of any 

effort to promote efficiency. Allocation based on 

bureaucracy, privilege, and politics is bound to fail. The 

airlines, they argued, have already been given something of 

value--the use of the slots, which they will continue to 

have as long as they use them. The ability to buy the 

slots, opponents insisted, is a clear measure of who can 

provide the greatest service. The barriers to entry of new 

airlines are greater under regulation than in the market 

process. Getting a slot today is quite expensive in terms 

of hiring lawyers and lobbyists.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


99-500) 

Trible motion to table Sarbanes-Mathias amendment: 

Provides that present nighttime noise limitations at 

National Airport may not be amended, unless present 

standards are made more restrictive. 


(60-37) 

Yeas (60) 


Bentsen, Bradley, Chiles, Dodd, Exon, Gore, Heflin, 

Inouye, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, Simon, Zorinsky 





Hatfield, Hecht, Helms, Humphrey, Kassebaum, Kasten, 



Specter, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, Wallop, Warner, 


Nays (37) 


Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, 

Cranston, DeConcini, Dixon, Eagleton, Ford, Glenn, Harkin, 

Hart, Hollings, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, 


Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Proxmire, Sarbanes, Sasser 


Cohen, Goldwater, Heinz, Mathias 


Democrats (1) 

Stennis-2 



Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment stated that it would assure

communities in the National flight paths that they will not 

have to contend with increased nighttime air traffic, while 

leaving the airport authority the option of imposing more 

restrictive nighttime noise standards. Current FAA 

regulations limit the noise levels of all National flights 

between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Since no one has proposed more 

restrictive regulations, it can only be concluded that the 

motive for removing the bill's freeze on these standards is 

to pave the way for easing the noise restrictions and 

allowing more late night flights. Area residents have 

fought too long and hard to have the limitations which have 

been imposed at National erased by a committee amendment 

which was adopted, in an attempt to "bury it from view," 

during a meeting which lasted only four minutes and took 

place two months after the bill had been reported. 

Opponents of the amendment claimed that the bill gives 

essential operational flexibility to the airport authority 

while adequately protecting area residents from noise 

pollution. Airlines, area residents, and the full Commerce 

Committee agree that reliance on the authority to balance 

these competing interests is preferable to a freeze. Local 

communities desire the standard's modification to prohibit 

all nighttime jet carrier operations, while the airlines 

want certain new quiet aircraft to be allowed to operate 

after 10 p.m. Both interest groups believe, however, that 

the new authority will be responsive to their concerns and 

should have the power to change the nighttime rules, as 

well as all other airport proprietary rules. This issue 

was fully discussed in committee on two separate days, and 

the committee report clearly indicates that the existing 

nighttime noise standard should be waived only in limited 

circumstances and by a minimal amount and that compensatory 

reductions should be sought from the petitioning carrier so 

that the overall noise impact is not increased.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


99-500) 

Trible motion to table Hollings-Mathias amendment: 

Requires that transfer price for Dulles and National 

Airports be equal to fair market value but not less than 

$111.4 million. 


(49-47) 

Yeas (49) 


Dodd, Gore, Inouye, Johnston, Long, Rockefeller 



D'Amato, Danforth, Denton, Dole, Durenberger, East, Evans, 

Garn, Gorton, Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, Hecht, Helms, 



Rudman, Simpson, Specter, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, 


Nays (47) 



Burdick, Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, DeConcini, Dixon, 

Eagleton, Exon, Ford, Glenn, Harkin, Heflin, 

Hollings, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, 


Pell, Proxmire, Pryor, Riegle, Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon, 



Andrews, Goldwater, Gramm, Heinz, Humphrey, Mathias, 

Mattingly 


Democrats (1) 

Hart-2 


Domenici-2, Hawkins-2, Stafford-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description

Proponents of the amendment declared that the $47 million 

transfer price does not accurately reflect the Federal 

investment in these valuable, profit making properties and 

that Congress would be fiscally irresponsible to do 

anything but seek fair market value for the airports. No 

one is arguing that the authority should pay an 

overburdensome, unfair price. They should not be allowed 

to acquire these capital assets at a ridiculously low 

price, however, which would give them an unfair competitive 

advantage. The Dulles access road alone cost $60 million 

to build, not to mention the cost of the facilities and the 

increased value of developmental land surrounding the 

airports. Furthermore, the financing of the transfer and 

future improvements with tax-exempt bonds will cost the 

taxpayers an additional estimated $712 million. The 

amendment's minimum price is the book value, as determined 

by GAO and the Department of Transportation (DOT). Any 

increased purchase costs could be covered by Airport and 

Airway Trust Fund monies for which the two properties will 

become eligible upon their sale and FAA redesignation as 

"public" airports. Congress and DOT should have requested 

such a redesignation long ago in order that Federal funds 

could be used to make needed improvements at these Federal 

airports--especially since the eight percent tax which 

supports the Fund always has been collected at these 

airports. Let us not extend this irresponsibility by 

giving this property away and depriving the Federal 

government of much needed revenue. Those who argue that 

this is a lease and not a sale should note that the 

legislation provides for the title transfer of all real 

property to the airport authority at the end of the 35-year 

lease. The requirement that these properties be used as 

airports would then cease, and the authority could take 

full advantage of their commercial property value. 

Opponents of the amendment pointed out that the bill 

requires the airport authority to pay $117 million for the 

transfer of the Washington National and Dulles 

International Airports--about $6 million more than the 

minimum purchase price specified in this amendment. The 

bill requires that the authority assume a $37 million 

shortfall in the Federal pension fund for airport employees 

and pay $36 million to Maryland, in addition to the $47 

million reimbursement of the Federal government. 

Furthermore, it will relieve the Federal government of a $1 

billion expenditure to expand and modernize the airports. 

Estimating the value of an airport is a difficult task, but 

the transfer price embodied in this legislation is fair and 

reasonable. The commercial value of the National and 

Dulles Airport properties would be priceless, but the 

legislation requires that they be operated as nonprofit 

airports. If income-stream analysis were used to determine 

their value, the price would be zero since no income can be 

derived from airport activities. The book value price 

unfairly includes the value of terminals built by the

airlines and given to the Federal government for which it 

should not be compensated. A higher price might raise more 

revenue for the Treasury, but would make it difficult, if 

not impossible, for the authority to make the dramatic 

improvements needed at the airports. Washington travelers 

would pay the higher price through increased fares and user 

fees.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


99-500) 

Baucus-Exon-Andrews, et al., modified perfecting amendment 

(to Symms amendment--Vote No. 60): States sense of Senate 

that Department of Agriculture should purchase pound of red 

meat to offset every pound coming to market as result of 

slaughter of dairy cows. 


(86-12) 

Yeas (86) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Bumpers, Burdick, 

Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, DeConcini, Dixon, Eagleton, 


Hollings, Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Levin, 

Long, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Nunn, Pryor, Riegle, 




Cohen, Danforth, Denton, Dole, Domenici, Durenberger, East, 


Hecht, Heinz, Helms, Kassebaum, Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, 

Mathias, Mattingly, McClure, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, 

Packwood, Pressler, Quayle, Roth, Simpson, Specter, 

Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, Wallop, Warner, Wilson 

Nays (12) 


Bradley, Dodd, Lautenberg, Matsunaga, Moynihan, Pell, 

Proxmire 


D'Amato, Goldwater, Humphrey, Rudman, Weicker 



Hawkins-2AY, Stafford-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents asserted that it would restore confidence in the 

cattle industry and rectify the problem currently facing 

that sector of the farm economy--the dramatic decrease in

cattle prices. The Department of Agriculture has not 

followed the provisions in the farm bill which provided for 

a very orderly market procedure with respect to the dairy 

buy-out program. Not only has that agency not followed the 

law, but the Department of Defense has not complied with 

the directive to purchase mainly American beef for its 

commissaries around the world. As a result, there is a 

beef surplus which has caused low prices and hardship for 

American cattlemen. This amendment is not an attempt to 

stifle further tax reforms, as some opponents have claimed, 

but is an effort to put priorities in order so that the 

April 15 deadline for the Budget Resolution can be met. 

Finally, they pointed out, cattlegrowers have never been 

participants in a price support scheme, nor are they asking 

for a handout now. This amendment demands only equitable 

treatment throughout the farm economy. 

Opponents contended that this amendment represents another 

attempt to kill tax reform efforts in the future. If the 

Department of Agriculture complied with the farm bill 

provisions, revenue would have to be raised most likely by 

a tax increase. Perhaps it would be more prudent to 

institute tax reforms before the budget resolution is 

passed, in order to ensure that tax reform--not a tax 

increase--will take place. Otherwise, this amendment, 

although nonbinding, blatantly demands the President to 

raise revenues and virtually forget tax reform.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


99-500) 

Symms, et al., amendment: States sense of Senate that tax 

reform should not be debated by Senate until budget 

agreement has been reached between President and Congress; 

and Department of Agriculture should purchase pound of red 

meat to offset every pound coming to market as result of 

slaughter of dairy cows. 


(72-24) 

Yeas (72) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Boren, Burdick, Chiles, DeConcini, Dixon, 

Dodd, Eagleton, Exon, Ford, Glenn, Harkin, Heflin, 

Hollings, Johnston, Kerry, Leahy, Levin, Long, Matsunaga, 

Melcher, Nunn, Proxmire, Pryor, Rockefeller, Simon, 



Abdnor, Andrews, Armstrong, Boschwitz, Cochran, Cohen, 


East, Evans, Garn, Gorton, Gramm, Hatch, Hecht, Heinz, 

Helms, Kassebaum, Laxalt, Lugar, Mathias, Mattingly, 


Rudman, Simpson, Specter, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, 


Nays (24) 


Biden, Bingaman, Bradley, Bumpers, Byrd, Cranston, Gore, 

Hart, Inouye, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, 

Pell, Riegle, Sarbanes, Sasser 


Chafee, Grassley, Hatfield, Humphrey, Kasten, Packwood, 

Roth 


Democrats (1) 

Moynihan-2 


Goldwater-2, Hawkins-2, Stafford-2 

Office Note 

(no text)

Description 

Proponents contended that there was not enough time to deal 

with tax reform while the pressing question of budget 

deficits remains unaddressed. They pointed out the 

similarity of the goal of this amendment to the letter to 

the President, signed by 50 Senators, stating that the 

Senate should not consider tax reform before moving on the 

budget in order to prevent sequester under Gramm-Rudman. 

Some noted the pointed criticism of Congress by the 

President for not meeting the April 15 deadline for passing 

a budget resolution--even though the White House continues 

to hold up action on it. While not wanting to instruct the 

Majority Leader regarding scheduling, most felt that a 

majority of Senators wants to get on with business and take 

up the bipartisan budget proposal which has been on the 

calendar since March 24. Some insisted that the budget 

should be considered right away without waiting for an 

agreement with the President. 

Opponents termed the amendment a delaying tactic by the 

opponents of tax reform. They emphasized that Congress 

must continue to work on tax reform as a high priority for 

this year, as well as the budget. Some questioned whether 

the public wants the deficit reduced more than it wants 

fairer taxes.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


99-500) 

Trible motion to table Mathias-Sarbanes amendment: 

Requires that revenue earned at Dulles or National Airports 

be used only at airport at which it was earned. 


(54-43) 

Yeas (54) 


Dixon, Glenn, Hart, Heflin, Inouye, Johnston, Long, Nunn, 

Rockefeller, Stennis 


Abdnor, Armstrong, Boschwitz, Chafee, Cochran, D'Amato, 


Garn, Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, Hecht, 

Helms, Kassebaum, Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, Mattingly, 


Quayle, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Specter, Stevens, Symms, 

Thurmond, Trible, Wallop, Warner, Wilson 

Nays (43) 



Burdick, Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, DeConcini, Dodd, Eagleton, 

Exon, Ford, Gore, Harkin, Hollings, Kennedy, Kerry, 


Mitchell, Moynihan, Pell, Proxmire, Pryor, Riegle, 



Cohen, Goldwater, Heinz, Humphrey, Mathias, Weicker 



Andrews-2, Hawkins-2, Stafford-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment contended it was necessary in 

order to keep from giving an unfair competitive advantage 

to Dulles over the Baltimore-Washington International 

Airport. It would eliminate the practice of using 

high-volume National Airport as a "cash cow" to underwrite

development at Dulles. While the prohibition added in 

committee against using landing and parking fee revenue 

earned at National for Dulles is helpful, it does not go 

far enough. 

Opponents of the amendment claimed that its real purpose 

was to increase costs and slow down airport improvements. 

By separating National and Dulles, it would drive up costs 

to the traveling public and destroy the symmetry of 

operation--creating an administrative nightmare. The two 

largest components of cross-subsidization are landing fees 

and parking--which the bill already prohibits. But this 

amendment would go way beyond that provision and curtail 

the use of such revenues in connection with the 

capitalization and the pledges for the proposed development 

bonds.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


99-500) 

Trible motion to table Exon amendment: Modifies 

composition of Board of National and Dulles Airports 

Authority to include three appointees each by Virginia and 

Maryland Governors and D.C. Mayor and four by President. 


(52-33) 

Yeas (52) 


Boren, Gore, Inouye, Long, Metzenbaum, Nunn, Rockefeller, 

Stennis 





Heinz, Helms, Kassebaum, Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, Mattingly, 


Quayle, Rudman, Simpson, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, 


Nays (33) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, 

Chiles, Cranston, DeConcini, Dixon, Dodd, Eagleton, 

Exon, Ford, Glenn, Heflin, Hollings, Kerry, Levin, 

Melcher, Mitchell, Pell, Proxmire, Riegle, Sarbanes, 



Goldwater, Humphrey, Mathias, Specter 


Democrats (9) 

Bradley-2, Harkin-2, Hart-2, Kennedy-2, Lautenberg-2, 

Leahy-2PN, Matsunaga-2, Moynihan-2, Pryor-2 


Andrews-2, Armstrong-2, Hawkins-2, Roth-2, Stafford-2 


Johnston (D-PPY) 

Office Note 

(no text)

Description 

Proponents of the amendment argued that the bill's proposed 

composition of the Board was weighted in favor of Virginia. 

They noted that it would be substantially easier for 

Virginia to obtain a majority on a controversial issue. 

The amendment would protect the Federal interest in these 

national airports and provide a balanced approach to the 

composition of the regional authority, with three members 

from each State and four from the Federal government. 

Opponents of the amendment argued that the composition of 

the Board fairly represents those who use the airport, plus 

gives Virginia two extra members because of the location of 

the airports. This issue, they noted, was addressed fully 

earlier during the debate on the Pressler amendment (Vote 

No. 54) which the Senate tabled by a vote of 52 to 44.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


99-500) 

Trible motion to table Mathias amendment: Requires 

Comptroller General to determine transfer price for Dulles 

and National Airports, which must be at least $108.6 

million. 


(46-39) 

Yeas (46) 


Boren, Dixon, Dodd, Gore, Johnston, Matsunaga, Rockefeller 




Gorton, Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, 



Simpson, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, Wallop, Warner 

Nays (39) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, 

Chiles, Cranston, DeConcini, Eagleton, Exon, Ford, 

Glenn, Hart, Heflin, Hollings, Kerry, Levin, Melcher, 

Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Nunn, Pell, Proxmire, Pryor, Riegle, 



Evans, Gramm, Humphrey, Mathias, Mattingly, Specter, 



Democrats (8) 

Bradley-2, Harkin-2, Kennedy-2, Lautenberg-2, Leahy-2PN, 

Long-2, Moynihan-2, Stennis-2 


Andrews-2, Armstrong-2, Goldwater-2, Hawkins-2, Roth-2, 

Stafford-2 


Inouye (D-PPY) 

Office Note 

(no text)

Description 

Proponents of the amendment stated that it simply puts a 

floor under the price to be paid for the lease by the 

Airport Authority, as determined by the Comptroller 

General. The Grace Commission thought it worth $341 

million while merchant bankers of London estimated $1 

billion. 

Opponents of the amendment contended that the $47 million 

figure was more than adequate compensation, especially 

considering it is for a lease term and not a sale. Any 

negotiated price will have to be approved by Congress. The 

present price is equitable, they insisted, given the 

uncertainty of the economics of this airport system and the 

need to insure obligations approaching $1 billion to 

improve and modernize these airports. The amendment's 

figure includes the $47 million hypothetical debt in the 

bill plus the costs for developing a prototype of the 

mobile lounges at Dulles and the construction of the Dulles 

access road--items which should not be included because 

they benefit a much larger group than the airport users.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


99-500) 

Trible motion to table Sarbanes amendment: Precludes 

commercial building development on property adjacent to 

Dulles Airport. 


(57-32) 

Yeas (57) 


Bentsen, Dodd, Glenn, Gore, Heflin, Inouye, Lautenberg, 

Long, Metzenbaum, Moynihan, Rockefeller, Stennis, Zorinsky 







Packwood, Pressler, Quayle, Rudman, Simpson, Stevens, 


Nays (32) 


Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, Chiles, 

Cranston, DeConcini, Dixon, Eagleton, Exon, Ford, 

Hart, Hollings, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, Levin, Matsunaga, 

Melcher, Mitchell, Nunn, Pell, Proxmire, Pryor, Riegle, 



Goldwater, Mathias 


Democrats (3) 

Bradley-2, Harkin-2, Leahy-2PN 


Andrews-2, Armstrong-2, Hawkins-2, Heinz-2, Roth-2, 

Specter-2, Stafford-2 


Boren (D-PPY) 

Office Note 

(no text)

Description 

Proponents of the amendment argued that it was necessary 

for the air safety of the traveling public. Without the 

amendment, there could be development on the airport 

grounds that might interfere with the safe operation of 

aircraft by limiting runway space. 

Opponents of the amendment insisted that safety was already 

taken into account with the adoption of the Metzenbaum 

amendment, by voice vote, which precludes all nonaviation 

use of these properties. They expressed concern that this 

amendment would limit airport expansion by limiting 

building on the perimeter properties for activities that 

bear on the operation and maintenance of the airport, such 

as fuel farms and hangars.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


99-500) 

Passage. 

Bill Passed 

(62-28) 

Yeas (62) 


Bentsen, Biden, Boren, Cranston, Dixon, Dodd, Gore, Hart, 

Inouye, Johnston, Kerry, Lautenberg, Long, Matsunaga, 

Metzenbaum, Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Rockefeller, Sasser, 

Zorinsky 




Garn, Gorton, Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, Hecht, Helms, 



Simpson, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, Wallop, Warner, 


Nays (28) 


Baucus, Bingaman, Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, Chiles, 

DeConcini, Eagleton, Exon, Ford, Glenn, Heflin, 

Hollings, Kennedy, Levin, Melcher, Mitchell, Proxmire, 

Pryor, Riegle, Sarbanes, Simon, Stennis 


Goldwater, Gramm, Humphrey, Mathias, Mattingly 


Democrats (3) 

Bradley-2, Harkin-2, Leahy-2AN 


Andrews-2, Armstrong-2, Hawkins-2, Heinz-2AN, Roth-2, 

Specter-2, Stafford-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Authorizes the transfer of Washington National and Dulles 

International Airports from the Federal Aviation 

Administration to an independent airport authority

(Authority) for a long-term lease of 50 years (one lease of 

35 years and a reward of 15 years) and at a cost of $47 

million, in order to improve management, operation, and 

development of the airports; permits the negotiation of a 

contract of sale during this period, but requires 

Congressional approval before the airports could be sold by 

the Federal government during the term of the lease. 

Provides that the Authority will be composed of 13 

members--five members appointed by the Governor of 

Virginia, three by the District Mayor, two by the Governor 

of Maryland, and three by the President; specifies certain 

powers of the new Authority; and requires a nine-member 

vote to approve bond issues and the annual budget. 

Sets forth the minimum requirements for the 50-year lease 

to secure important Federal and community interests in the 

future operation and development of the airports, including 

continued access for the FAA and all airport users on the 

same basis as at other airports accepting Federal 

assistance, and use of the leased property only for airport 

purposes; contains specific language to ensure that the 

Authority cannot lease space at Dulles Airport to 

nonaviation-related business. 

Establishes a condition to the lease that requires the 

Authority to employ published competitive procedures, to 

the maximum extent practicable, in acquiring supplies or 

services in excess of $200,000 or in the awarding of 

concession contracts; provides that this requirement could 

only be waived by a nine-member vote of the Authority. 

Maintains important rights and benefits of current Federal 

employees at the airports for five years following 

transfer, in a similar manner to the Alaska Railroad 

employees in the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act of 1982 (P.L. 

97-468), in areas such as position, salary, leave, 

retirement, and insurance benefits; continues the 

collective bargaining rights currently enjoyed by employees 

of the two airports for the term of the lease. 

Requires the Department of Transportation to repeal its 

rule permitting airlines to buy, sell, and lease takeoff 

and landing rights at the LaGuardia, John F. Kennedy, 

Washington National, and O'Hare airports; imposes a "use it 

or lose it" provision so that airlines will have to use a 

slot or face forfeiture; requires the FAA to fashion a new 

deadlock-breaking mechanism to encourage scheduling 

committees to reach a "slot allocation" agreement; and 

credits any proceeds from leasing takeoff and landing 

rights to the Aviation Trust Fund. 

Extends the Washington National Airport perimeter rule from 

1,000 miles to 1,250 miles.

Makes necessary changes to the Washington Airports Acts and 

other laws to permit these airports to function like other 

major airports after transfer. 

States the sense of the Senate that (1) tax reform should 

not be considered by the Senate until a budget agreement is 

reached, and (2) the Department of Agriculture should 

increase its purchase of beef for school lunch and other 

Federal programs.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Hydroelectric Power Relicensing (S. 426, P.L. 99-495) 

McClure motion to table Hart substitute amendment: 

Requires mandatory recapture by U.S. of hydroelectric power 

projects on public waterways held by private, for-profit 

entities when their license expires. 


(80-18) 

Yeas (80) 


Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Bradley, Bumpers, Byrd, 

Chiles, Cranston, DeConcini, Dodd, Ford, Glenn, Heflin, 

Hollings, Johnston, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Long, 

Matsunaga, Melcher, Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Proxmire, 

Riegle, Rockefeller, Stennis, Zorinsky 





Hatfield, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, Humphrey, Kassebaum, Kasten, 

Laxalt, Lugar, Mathias, Mattingly, McClure, McConnell, 




Nays (18) 


Baucus, Burdick, Dixon, Eagleton, Exon, Gore, Harkin, 

Hart, Inouye, Kennedy, Metzenbaum, Pell, Pryor, Sarbanes, 

Sasser, Simon 


Andrews, Pressler 



Goldwater-3, Hawkins-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the substitute amendment claimed that the 

bill short-changed the principal on which the original 

Federal Power Act was enacted--the principal that the water 

resources that generated this power are a public resource.

Natural resources, such as the forests and waterways, 

should be managed so as to maximize their potential benefit 

to the American people now and in the future. While the 

original act allowed private for-profit entities to operate 

where public bodies were unavailable, it did so only for a 

specified period of time. The bill today would grant 

existing hydropower licenses to continue in perpetuity by 

meeting the broadest requirements, while any competing 

entity would have to meet an impractical standard. This 

amendment would preserve the preference for public bodies 

holding hydropower licenses and extend it to rural electric 

cooperatives. 

Opponents of the substitute amendment contended that it 

would unfairly take electricity generated by hydroelectric 

facilities which are investor-owned utilities and give it 

to public power utilities. In many cases, it would wreak 

chaos and confusion. In addition, it would greatly 

increase the cost to the Federal government, necessitating 

the hiring of many new employees to manage what are 

presently non-Federal entities. The substitute is 

discriminatory because it requires a Federal takeover, 

whereas the bill protects the 76 percent of American 

electric consumers served by utility companies from an 

unjustifiable loss of hydroprojects which they have paid 

for through their rates.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Hobbs Act Amendments (S. 1774) 

Dole cloture motion on Dole motion to bring up bill. 

Cloture Motion Rejected 

(44-54) 

Yeas (44) 


Bentsen, Boren, Bumpers, Chiles, DeConcini, Pell, Pryor, 

Zorinsky 



Denton, Dole, Domenici, East, Garn, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, 

Hecht, Helms, Humphrey, Kassebaum, Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, 

Mattingly, McClure, McConnell, Nickles, Pressler, Quayle, 

Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, Wallop, 

Warner, Wilson 

Nays (54) 


Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Bradley, Burdick, Byrd, Cranston, 

Dixon, Dodd, Eagleton, Exon, Ford, Glenn, Gore, 

Harkin, Hart, Heflin, Hollings, Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, 

Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Long, Matsunaga, Melcher, 

Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Proxmire, Riegle, 

Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon, Stennis 


Andrews, D'Amato, Danforth, Durenberger, Evans, Gorton, 

Hatfield, Heinz, Mathias, Murkowski, Packwood, Specter, 

Stafford, Stevens, Weicker 




Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

The cloture motion, presented on April 14, 1986, was signed 

by Senators Dole, Helms, Wallop, Humphrey, Laxalt, Nickels, 

Mattingly, Gramm, Symms, Cochran, Denton, Simpson, 

Grassley, Garn, McConnell, and Hatch. 

BACKGROUND

The Hobbs Act, commonly referred to as the Federal 

extortion statute, provides strong criminal penalties (up 

to 20 years imprisonment, $10,000 fine, or both) for anyone 

who "obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement 

of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or 

extortion . . . or commits or threatens physical 

violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan 

or purpose to do anything in violation of this section . . 

. ." Under the Hobbs Act "extortion" is defined as "the 

obtaining of property from another, with his consent, 

induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, 

violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 

In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Enmons, 410 

U.S. 396, that the Hobbs Act was not intended to apply to 

violence committed during a lawful strike for the purpose 

of achieving legitimate collective bargaining objectives 

such as higher wages. 

This bill is the same as other legislation (S. 300) which 

was defeated by the Judiciary Committee last September. The 

following month, it was introduced and placed on the 

Calendar without being referred to committee.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


McClure motion to table Melcher amendment: Eliminates 

prohibition against issuance of any wheeling order which 

would preempt resale of existing contract for sale of 

electricity and requirement that wheeling order fully 

compensate utility and its consumers for cost of wheeling, 

and provides that wheeling must not unduly affect cost of 

service provided to customers. 


(77-21) 

Yeas (77) 


Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Bumpers, Byrd, Cranston, 

DeConcini, Dixon, Eagleton, Ford, Glenn, Heflin, Hollings, 

Inouye, Johnston, Kerry, Leahy, Levin, Long, Matsunaga, 

Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, 

Sasser, Simon 


Armstrong, Boschwitz, Chafee, Cochran, Cohen, D'Amato, 



Heinz, Helms, Humphrey, Kassebaum, Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, 


Packwood, Quayle, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Specter, Stafford, 

Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, Wallop, Warner, Weicker, 

Wilson 

Nays (21) 


Baucus, Bradley, Burdick, Chiles, Dodd, Exon, Gore, 

Harkin, Hart, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Melcher, Metzenbaum, 

Pell, Proxmire, Sarbanes, Stennis, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Andrews, Pressler 




Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment stated that it would remove the

unduly restrictive provisions of the Public Utilities 

Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 (PURPA) which have prevented 

FERC from issuing any involuntary wheeling orders. 

Admitting that the amendment may need further modification, 

the proponents described this as a symbolic vote on the 

issue of wheeling rather than on the proposal's substantive 

matter. Broader wheeling would provide for the efficient 

and fair distribution of electricity at reasonable rates to 

all customers. Many smaller public and private utilities 

have had problems, however, obtaining wheeling services 

from larger companies. FERC has not issued a single 

involuntary wheeling order even though there have been 

cases where conditions have justified such an order. Many 

utilities have even stopped petitioning FERC because the 

probability of prevailing before the agency is virtually 

zero. Instead, the utilities in need of wheeled power must 

submit to whatever terms the transmitting utility may 

offer, no matter how unfair. This amendment would broaden 

the opportunity to obtain wheeling orders by eliminating 

the prohibition against ordering wheeling by a utility 

which currently sells power to an applicant subject to a 

rate schedule on file with FERC. Utilities should not be 

allowed to refuse to wheel power to an applicant in 

perpetuity simply because it files a rate schedule with 

respect to the petitioning utility. Consumers would be 

protected by the amendment's requirement that a wheeling 

order would not unduly affect the cost of services provided 

by the licensee and the bill's stipulations that the 

petitioning utility must demonstrate that wheeling would 

(1) conserve significant amounts of money, (2) 

significantly promote the effective use of facilities and 

resources, or (3) improve the reliability of any electric 

utility system to which the order applies. In addition, 

the wheeling order could not be issued if it impaired an 

existing transmission contract, would be inconsistent with 

State law, provided for transmission of energy directly to 

an ultimate consumer, or would impair the ability of any 

affected electric utility to render adequate and reliable 

service to its customers. Wheeling is clearly in the 

public interest and must be addressed if this hydroelectric 

legislation is to be fair. 

Opponents of the amendment declared that trying to resolve 

the broad questions surrounding the wheeling issue in this 

legislation would be fatal to the bill. Transmission 

agreements between utilities are a very complicated matter 

which deal with their consumer markets and competitive 

positions and deserve full and separate consideration. 

Moreover, PURPA is working well to encourage voluntary 

wheeling and does not need modification. Over 1,300 

voluntary wheeling agreements have been approved by FERC 

since 1978. Only five applications for involuntary 

wheeling petitions have been filed with FERC, of which two 

are still pending, two were settled or withdrawn, and one 

was denied for competitive reasons. This amendment would

unfairly burden the transmitting utility with the cost of 

the wheeling and encourage the pirating of other utilities' 

customers. A fundamental problem is that State law usually 

requires that all customers within a geographic area are 

entitled to power at any time from that region's utility. 

Therefore, backup power would have to be maintained, at 

great expense, while the utility was wheeling services to 

the same area. Because of the displacement of the 

utility's own power while wheeling, the reliability of 

power transmissions could be detrimentally affected. The 

requirement that a wheeling order not "unduly affect the 

cost of services" provided to the affected utilities' 

customers is not sufficient protection for ratepayers. FERC 

hîSµ·i\è©‰Ø,¨/æN6ÎÜ_·6•Á

WÆ(%ØëmS-ë•õ>òo¨#(ZŠãçf¾Å£ê^ 

«€†; Åßo8¥¾êåÏ Éa¯öPW|–OÖoÉö^¡G7#Ïía¡éB¬72‘ 

¿‘½4B

8ÍrjÉúj–•2’¦+ -ÊóÐ…ít

RuCÆ

”AYÿ/¼ß¦ôïUŽ”¡ 

#Ý :—ñÄgÁ›


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


McClure motion to table Melcher amendment: Provides that 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in making 

determination regarding wheeling of power, need only 

consider existing retail customers and current level of 

service to such customers. 


(75-22) 

Yeas (75) 


Bentsen, Bingaman, Boren, Bumpers, Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, 

DeConcini, Dixon, Dodd, Eagleton, Ford, Glenn, Heflin, 

Hollings, Johnston, Leahy, Levin, Long, Matsunaga, 

Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, Simon 


Armstrong, Boschwitz, Chafee, Cochran, Cohen, D'Amato, 





Packwood, Quayle, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Specter, Stafford, 


Wilson 

Nays (22) 


Baucus, Biden, Burdick, Exon, Gore, Harkin, Hart, 

Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Melcher, Metzenbaum, 

Pell, Proxmire, Sarbanes, Sasser, Stennis, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Andrews, Pressler 


Democrats (1) 

Bradley-2 



Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Opponents of the amendment described it as the "same song,

second verse" of the preceding amendment tabled by the 

Senate (Vote No. 68). This amendment merely excludes the 

pirating of retail customers, thereby making it perfectly 

acceptable to pirate wholesale customers. It would 

unwisely foreclose the consideration by FERC, in judging 

wheeling petitions, of the wholesale customers currently 

being served or of the potential growth in the customer 

market and the concomitant increase in demand upon the 

utility's facilities. These complex interrelated economic 

and technical considerations are of vital concern to all 

utilities and should continue to be considered by the 

Commission in its rulings on wheeling petitions. This 

amendment is not intended to facilitate access to FERC for 

wheeling orders, as proponents claim, but is an attempt to 

change the criteria by which the Commission judges 

involuntary wheeling petitions. PURPA provisions have 

succeeded in encouraging voluntary wheeling arrangements, 

however, and do not need to be modified.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Johnston motion to table Melcher motion to reconsider Vote 

No. 69. 


(83-14) 

Yeas (83) 


Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Bumpers, Byrd, Chiles, 

Cranston, DeConcini, Dixon, Dodd, Eagleton, Ford, Glenn, 

Hart, Heflin, Hollings, Inouye, Johnston, Kerry, Leahy, 

Levin, Long, Matsunaga, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, 

Nunn, Pell, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sasser, Simon 


Andrews, Armstrong, Boschwitz, Chafee, Cochran, Cohen, 








Nays (14) 


Baucus, Bradley, Burdick, Exon, Gore, Harkin, 

Kennedy, Lautenberg, Melcher, Proxmire, Sarbanes, Stennis, 

Zorinsky 


Abdnor 



Goldwater-3, Hawkins-2, Weicker-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

No arguments were offered on the motion to reconsider the 

vote. See Vote No. 69 for arguments for and against the 

amendment.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


McClure motion: Sergeant at Arms to request attendance. 


(92-3) 

Yeas (92) 





Heflin, Hollings, Inouye, Johnston, Kerry, Lautenberg, 


Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, 






Hatch, Hatfield, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, Humphrey, Kassebaum, 

Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, Mathias, Mattingly, McClure, 




Nays (3) 


Biden, Proxmire 


Quayle 


Democrats (2) 

Kennedy-2, Stennis-2 



Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

McClure motion to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request 

the attendance of absent Senators.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


McClure motion to table Melcher amendment: Provides that 

wheeling order must not be likely to unduly affect cost of 

service provided to its customers. 


(78-16) 

Yeas (78) 


Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, 

DeConcini, Dodd, Eagleton, Ford, Glenn, Heflin, Hollings, 

Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, Leahy, Levin, Long, Matsunaga, 

Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, Simon 






Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, Mathias, Mattingly, McClure, 




Nays (16) 


Baucus, Bradley, Bumpers, Burdick, Exon, Gore, 

Harkin, Hart, Lautenberg, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Pell, 

Proxmire, Sarbanes, Sasser, Zorinsky 


Democrats (3) 

Dixon-2, Kerry-2, Stennis-2 



Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

No debate occurred on this amendment. See Vote Nos. 68, 

69, and 74 for arguments for and against provisions 

modifying the wheeling of power.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


McClure motion: Sergeant at Arms to request attendance. 


(91-3) 

Yeas (91) 



Burdick, Byrd, Cranston, DeConcini, Dixon, Dodd, Eagleton, 


Hollings, Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Leahy, 


Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, 






Hatch, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, Humphrey, Kassebaum, Kasten, 



Simpson, Specter, Stafford, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, 


Nays (3) 


Proxmire 


Quayle, Stevens 


Democrats (3) 

Chiles-2, Kerry-2, Stennis-2 


Goldwater-3, Hatfield-2, Hawkins-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

McClure motion to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request 

the attendance of absent Senators.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


McClure motion to table Melcher amendment: Adds 

requirement that wheeling order not significantly alter 

"existing competitive relationship" between utility and 

wholesale customers. 


(82-13) 

Yeas (82) 


Bentsen, Bingaman, Boren, Bumpers, Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, 

DeConcini, Dixon, Dodd, Eagleton, Ford, Glenn, Gore, 

Heflin, Hollings, Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, Leahy, Levin, 

Long, Matsunaga, Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Pryor, 

Riegle, Rockefeller, Sasser, Simon 





Hatch, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, Humphrey, Kassebaum, Kasten, 





Nays (13) 


Baucus, Biden, Bradley, Burdick, Exon, Harkin, Hart, 

Lautenberg, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Proxmire, Sarbanes, 

Zorinsky 


Democrats (2) 

Kerry-2, Stennis-2 


Goldwater-3, Hatfield-2, Hawkins-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment declared that it was yet 

another attempt to give "captive" small public and private 

utilities the opportunity to obtain a favorable ruling from 

FERC on their wheeling petitions. Since 1978, FERC has not

issued one involuntary wheeling order, thereby proving that 

PURPA has failed to facilitate the granting of such orders, 

even if all of the required conditions are met. The fact 

that FERC has not issued any wheeling orders also has 

detrimentally affected voluntary wheeling agreements. The 

applicant utility is "hostage" to the rates and conditions 

that the transmitting utility might offer because it cannot 

seek relief from FERC. This amendment would protect the 

transmitting utility from economic injury of any 

consequence while also serving the public interest. The 

need for these clarifying modifications to PURPA was made 

evident, they claimed, by FERC's decision regarding the 

Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) v. Kentucky 

Utilities Company. In its ruling against SEPA, the 

Commission specifically referred to the ambiguity of 

requirement that the order "reasonably preserve existing 

competitive relationships"--a mandate which has led to a 

most stringent, and often unfair, application of the 

standard. Senator Melcher said that he would prefer to 

negotiate acceptable compromise language regarding the 

wheeling issue, rather than continue to offer unacceptable 

amendments, but that he felt compelled to do so in order to 

keep the bill open until an accord could be reached. 

Opponents of the amendment stated that this proposal was 

not any more acceptable than the previously rejected 

amendments which attempted to do the same thing in a 

different way. Despite claims that the amendment merely 

seeks to clarify the PURPA provisions and facilitate the 

consideration of wheeling petitions by FERC, the real 

objective is to overturn the Commission's decision in the 

SEPA case and increase the opportunities for obtaining 

involuntary wheeling orders. While the proponents 

mistakenly portray the lack of involuntary wheeling orders 

being granted by FERC as evidence of the system's failure 

and a fault in the law, statistics prove otherwise. Over 

1,300 voluntary wheeling agreements have been approved by 

FERC in the last decade. The law is working. Even the 

Administrator of SEPA, that was denied a wheeling order, 

has written to say that his company has not had any other 

problems negotiating wheeling agreements and did not wish 

the law to be amended to further encumber the power 

marketing process.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Passage. 

Bill Passed 

(83-14) 

Yeas (83) 



Burdick, Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, Dixon, Dodd, Eagleton, 

Ford, Glenn, Heflin, Hollings, Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, 

Kerry, Lautenberg, Levin, Long, Matsunaga, Melcher, 


Rockefeller, Stennis 


Andrews, Armstrong, Boschwitz, Chafee, Cochran, Cohen, 






Simpson, Specter, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, Wallop, 


Nays (14) 


Biden, DeConcini, Exon, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Leahy, 

Metzenbaum, Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon, Zorinsky 


Pressler, Stafford 



Abdnor-2PN, Goldwater-3, Hawkins-2PY 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Amends the Federal Power Act (FPA) by eliminating the Act's 

municipal preference when a new license is issued for a 

previously licensed project, and providing instead a 

"tie-breaker" preference in favor of the existing licensee 

unless it is determined that the plans of another applicant 

would better serve the "public interest;" requires the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), in setting

elicensing terms and conditions, to consider as a 

parameter the fact that the project's structure and 

facilities are already present; makes the five factors 

specified in section 15 of the FPA the exclusive criteria 

for new licensee selection; limits new license terms to 30 

years (instead of 50 years as in current law) and permits 

FERC to issue a license for a term longer than 30 years, 

but not exceeding 50 years, if necessary, because of 

substantial new construction or significant redevelopment 

of the project in question; exempts the plans of Indian 

tribes from certain specified criteria to maintain the 

opportunity of tribes to acquire licenses. 

Codifies FERC's existing practice of licensing a proposed 

project which, in its judgment, is the one that is the 

"best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or 

developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit 

of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and 

utilization of waterpower development, and for other 

beneficial public use, including recreational purposes;" 

creates a statutory procedure under which FERC is required 

to consider the recommendations of certain agencies and 

Indian tribes affected by hydroelectric projects. 

Requires FERC, upon the filing of an application for a 

hydroproject, to seek to notify, by certified mail, the 

owner or owners of the property within the bounds of the 

project, as well as any State, municipality, or other local 

governmental entity likely to be interested in or affected 

by the application. 

Makes this bill inapplicable to any relicensing proceeding 

in which FERC issued an order awarding a new license on or 

before July 31, 1985, regardless of whether the order is 

subject to judicial review. 

Establishes identical license terms for conduit exemptions 

and exemptions for projects which are five megawatts or 

smaller (regulated under the Public Utilities Regulatory 

Policies Act of 1978 [PURPA]) as those specified for new 

licenses. 

Provides that no hydroelectric project, other than one 

located at an existing dam or for which a license or 

preliminary permit application was filed with FERC on or 

before April 11, 1986, may receive PURPA benefits (other 

than the regulatory exemption), unless the project is 

located at a government dam or meets mandatory Federal and 

State fish and wildlife terms and conditions. 

Authorizes FERC, after opportunity for a hearing on the 

record, to revoke a permit, exemption, or license for a 

significant violation of its terms; gives FERC authority to 

issue such orders as necessary to ensure compliance and to 

institute proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the

State in which the project is located to enforce a 

compliance order. 

Prohibits FERC from issuing a license under which it is 

impossible to prevent or adequately minimize the 

contravention of the policies expressed in the antitrust 

laws, or is not otherwise justified by the statutory 

expressed "public interest" consideration. 

Provides fair compensation to cities involved in 

hydroelectric relicensing proceedings currently pending 

before FERC by requiring that the existing licensee 

compensate the competing applicant for all costs in 

connection with the relicensing process should the existing 

licensee prevail because of the tie-breaker preference of 

this bill. 

Specifies that a utility may file an application for 

wheeling before termination of a rate schedule. 

Provides that nothing in this Act shall affect (1) the 

rights and jurisdiction of the U.S., individual States or 

Indian tribes, or other entities over waters of any river, 

stream, or groundwater resource, interstate compacts, or 

(2) otherwise alter or establish the rights of the U.S., 

individual States, Indian tribes, or any person with 

respect to any water or water-related right.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Vote No. 76 SCR 120 04/23/86 CQ Admin: 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

First Budget Resolution, 1987 (S. Con. Res. 120, Action 

Completed) 

Domenici-Chiles modified amendment: Expresses sense of 

Congress that $4.343 billion in spending (outlay) 

reductions in FY 1987, proposed by President in his budget, 

should be achieved by terminating 44 programs including 

WIN, general revenue sharing, TAA, UDAG, Federal crop 

insurance, rural housing loans/grants, Amtrak. 


(14-83) 

Yeas (14) 


Proxmire 


Armstrong, East, Garn, Gramm, Hatch, Hecht, Helms, 

Humphrey, Laxalt, McClure, Rudman, Symms, Wallop 

Nays (83) 




Eagleton, Exon, Ford, Glenn, Gore, Hart, Heflin, 



Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, 





Evans, Gorton, Grassley, Hatfield, Heinz, Kassebaum, 

Kasten, Lugar, Mathias, Mattingly, McConnell, Murkowski, 

Nickles, Packwood, Pressler, Quayle, Roth, Simpson, 

Specter, Stafford, Stevens, Thurmond, Trible, Warner, 



Democrats (1) 

Harkin-2AN 



Office Note 

(no text)

Description 

Proponents pointed out that the sponsors of the amendment 

did not believe it should be passed. The purpose of the 

amendment, they contended was to embarrass some Senators, 

who supported Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, into voting against 

this amendment. Each year, Federal spending rises higher 

and higher as costly programs that are scheduled to be 

terminated continue to be funded. 

Opponents declared that a vote against this amendment would 

not signify a reluctance to get the deficit under control 

because it would save only about $4 billion--certainly not 

enough money in these drastic cuts on the domestic side to 

make much difference in moving us toward the 

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings mandatory deficit target of $144 

billion for 1987. The amendment was offered to show that 

cutting domestic spending further will not resolve the 

budget deficit. Defense spending and tax revenues also 

have to be addressed. These 44 terminations would be both 

painful and unfair, as well as unproductive.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Completed) 

Andrews-Hollings, et al., amendment: Increases Education 

funding level by $1.2 billion in budget authority and 

offsets with unspecified revenue increase. 


(60-38) 

Yeas (60) 




Ford, Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Heflin, Hollings, Inouye, 


Melcher, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, Pell, Pryor, 



Abdnor, Andrews, Chafee, Cohen, D'Amato, Danforth, 

Durenberger, Gorton, Grassley, Hatfield, Heinz, Kasten, 

Mathias, Murkowski, Packwood, Pressler, Specter, Stafford, 

Stevens, Weicker 

Nays (38) 


Chiles, Exon, Johnston, Long, Nunn, Proxmire, 

Zorinsky 


Armstrong, Boschwitz, Cochran, Denton, Dole, Domenici, 

East, Evans, Garn, Gramm, Hatch, Hecht, Helms, Humphrey, 

Kassebaum, Laxalt, Lugar, Mattingly, McClure, McConnell, 

Nickles, Quayle, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Symms, Thurmond, 





Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents stated that the amendment was critical to 

ensuring the long-term stability of the Nation's 

educational system and maintaining its economic and 

military strength in an increasingly competitive world.

Since 1980, Federal funding for education has decreased by 

16 percent in real dollars, with devastating results. Only 

40 percent of the students eligible for compensatory 

education for the disadvantaged are now able to 

participate; nearly three million children have been 

dropped from the School Lunch Program; and U.S. dropout and 

illiteracy rates continue to rise. Congress must 

reestablish education as a national priority now, or the 

Nation will pay more later through increased dependence on 

Federal assistance. Federal funds remain a necessary and 

important funding source for public schools, and the 

Committee's recommended increase is not enough. These 

monies are targeted to the disadvantaged and handicapped 

and are crucial to assuring access to a quality education 

for all students. This amendment is neither excessive nor 

irresponsible. It would merely maintain the current level 

of Federal education funding, while also adhering to the 

strictures of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings 

Opponents stated that, considering the severe fiscal 

constraints on the Federal budget, the Committee's $400 

million increase for education was fair and reasonable. 

Despite the proponents' claims of drastic cuts over the 

past six years, funding has actually increased by 37 

percent for vocational rehabilitation, 13 percent for 

compensatory education, and 32 percent each for handicapped 

education and student financial aid programs. Furthermore, 

the pending budget resolution will provide only $17.7 

billion of the $260 billion that will be spent on education 

nationwide this year. This proposed increase of a mere 

one-half of one percent would certainly not be enough to 

make a major difference in the Nation's education system. 

Adoption of this amendment will only invite further 

proposals to violate the budget levels and thereby trigger 

more devastating cuts under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings 

sequestering provisions. During the current Federal budget 

crisis, it is only fair that States provide a larger share 

of education funding especially since this has 

traditionally been a State and municipal responsibility. 

Furthermore, the "unspecified revenue enhancement" to 

offset this increase is merely a "fancy codeword" for a tax 

hike for already overburdened American taxpayers. Others 

stated that they would have supported this funding increase 

if the monies had been transferred from another budget 

area.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Completed) 

Domenici motion to table Moynihan-Sasser-Byrd, et al., 

amendment: Provides $4.6 billion per year (full funding) 

through 1989 for general revenue sharing pending 

reauthorization and equal revenue increases. 


(54-41) 

Yeas (54) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Boren, Chiles, Cranston, Dodd, Eagleton, 

Exon, Kennedy, Mitchell, Nunn, Pell, Proxmire, 

Stennis 


Armstrong, Boschwitz, Chafee, Cochran, Cohen, Danforth, 

Denton, Dole, Domenici, East, Garn, Goldwater, Gorton, 

Gramm, Grassley, Hatfield, Hecht, Helms, Humphrey, 



Stafford, Stevens, Thurmond, Trible, Wallop, Warner, 


Nays (41) 


Biden, Bingaman, Bradley, Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, 

DeConcini, Dixon, Ford, Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Heflin, 

Hollings, Inouye, Johnston, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, 

Levin, Long, Matsunaga, Metzenbaum, Moynihan, Pryor, 

Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Andrews, D'Amato, Durenberger, Hatch, Heinz, 

Kasten, Murkowski, Specter 


Democrats (1) 

Melcher-4 


Evans-2, Hawkins-2AN, Mathias-1, Symms-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description

Proponents of the amendment asserted that the general 

revenue sharing program is one of the most successful and 

most efficient Federal-local partnership programs ever 

devised. Not only does revenue sharing help local 

communities provide essential services, such as law 

enforcement, fire protection, education, health programs, 

and many others, but less than two-tenths of one percent of 

its funds is used to administer the program. They noted 

the immense pressure placed upon local governments 

resulting from the 23.5 percent decrease in Federal grants 

to State and local governments since 1981. In addition, 

they pointed out that the virtual elimination of revenue 

sharing comes at a time when the Administration also 

desires to eliminate the deductibility of State and local 

taxes from the Federal income tax and limit the use of 

tax-exempt funds. It would be impossible for State and 

local governments to compensate for these losses, and the 

burden would ultimately fall on the taxpayer. This 

amendment would not increase the deficit because it directs 

the Senate Finance Committee to reauthorize revenue sharing 

at a level which is commensurate with the amount of revenue 

that can be "reasonably" raised. 

Opponents of the amendment declared that it would create a 

paradox for the Federal government. On the one hand, the 

Finance Committee might do nothing to comply with this 

amendment; on the other hand, it could mandate a tax 

increase that would add substantially to Federal spending. 

It would be impossible to pass this amendment within the 

budget constraints set for this year without causing an 

offsetting decrease in another program or an increase in 

Federal taxes. Its enactment could possibly cause 

across-the-board cuts to be triggered in order to bring the 

budget into compliance with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. Even 

though revenue sharing has been successful, dozens of other 

Federal programs merit financing more than it, and local 

and State governments should be able to finance these 

essential programs themselves by now.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Completed) 

Domenici motion to table Metzenbaum-Sarbanes-Bumpers 

amendment: Provides $200 million over three years in 

Health funding for WIC and Child Immunization and offsets 

by equal increase in revenue. 


(56-40) 

Yeas (56) 


Bentsen, Bingaman, Boren, Chiles, Eagleton, Exon, 

Heflin, Hollings, Johnston, Nunn, Proxmire, Stennis, 

Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Armstrong, Boschwitz, Cochran, Danforth, Denton, 

Dole, Domenici, Durenberger, East, Garn, Goldwater, Gorton, 

Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, 



Quayle, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Stafford, Stevens, Thurmond, 


Nays (40) 


Baucus, Biden, Bradley, Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, Cranston, 

DeConcini, Dixon, Dodd, Ford, Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Hart, 

Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Long, 


Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon 


Andrews, Chafee, Cohen, D'Amato, Specter, Weicker 



Evans-2, Hawkins-2AN, Mathias-1, Symms-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment emphasized that funding of 

these programs is essential as they form the front line in 

the battle against infant mortality, low birth weight, and 

childhood disease. This child health funding is an

investment--not a cost--of $200 million over the next three 

years that will save anywhere from $600 million to a 

billion dollars, because it will result in healthier 

children at birth. It, too, will help reduce an 

appallingly high infant mortality rate in the U.S., which 

ranks 16th among all nations. This amendment will purchase 

a complete immunization series for an additional one-half 

million infants, toddlers, and pre-schoolers. It will 

ensure food supplements for an additional 150,000 pregnant 

women and their infants and children. Certainly, there are 

corporate tax loopholes that could be closed that would 

cover this health care need. 

Opponents of the amendment pointed out that the health 

function is already $74 million above the 1986 level. They 

contended that there is sufficient money in the resolution 

for the appropriators to take steps to deal with adequate 

funding for these worthwhile programs. So it is not 

necessary to add $200 million more to these discretionary 

programs and require $200 million more in taxes on the 

American people. If we do not get the budget on target, 

sequestering will devastate these programs. This budget 

resolution, however, leaves more than enough room to make 

up the cuts in effect and return the programs to their 

authorized level.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Completed) 

Lugar motion to table Bumpers amendment: Increases Health 

funding level by $25 million for childhood immunization and 

offsets increase by reduction in International Affairs 

funding. 


(49-46) 

Yeas (49) 


Dixon, Johnston, Long, Pell, Stennis 


Abdnor, Armstrong, Boschwitz, Chafee, Cochran, D'Amato, 


Goldwater, Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, Hecht, 


Mattingly, McClure, McConnell, Murkowski, Packwood, 

Pressler, Quayle, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Stafford, Stevens, 


Nays (46) 



Burdick, Byrd, Chiles, Cranston, DeConcini, Dodd, Eagleton, 


Hollings, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Levin, Matsunaga, 

Melcher, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Proxmire, 

Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser, Simon, 

Zorinsky 


Andrews, Cohen, Nickles, Specter, Weicker 


Democrats (1) 

Lautenberg-2 


Evans-2, Hawkins-2, Mathias-1, Symms-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment stated that the childhood

immunization program has one of the highest benefit-cost 

ratios of any Federal program and deserves additional 

funding. The benefit-cost ratio is $10.30 to $1 for the 

polio vaccine and $23 to $1 for the rubella/measles 

vaccines--a combined savings of $1.5 billion on these two 

immunizations alone. While the amendment is not binding, 

it would send a message to the Appropriations Committee 

that the Senate wants full funding for childhood 

immunization programs and recommends the transferral of a 

minuscule amount of foreign aid funds in order to finance 

the increase. The Budget Committee has cut approximately 

11 percent from the Function 150 account, but surely an 

additional $25 million can be found in the remaining $12 to 

$13 billion to finance this highly beneficial program. 

Foreign aid is important to the Nation's security, but the 

health of children should be a national priority as well. 

Opponents of the amendment declared that the International 

Affairs Function includes funds for embassy security, aid 

to Israel and Egypt, and administration of U.S. base rights 

agreements with several important allies and should not be 

an "easy mark" to invade for funds for other programs. The 

Budget Committee's recommended funding level is more than 

$5 billion below the Administration's request and further 

funding reductions will only undermine allied relations, 

threaten national security, weaken the fight against 

terrorism, and force the U.S. to renege on its foreign aid 

obligations. Adoption of this amendment also would invite 

further raids on the account. Furthermore, the additional 

$25 million would merely go into the general health account 

with no assurance that it will ever be appropriated for the 

childhood immunization program.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Completed) 

Domenici motion to table DeConcini-Abdnor amendment: 

Increases Administration of Justice funding level by $200 

million in budget authority and $168 million in outlays for 

Customs Service, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, 

Secret Service and high priority law enforcement 

initiatives; and offsets these increases by reducing 

International Affairs and General Government funding. 

Motion to Table Failed 

(42-55) 

Yeas (42) 


Biden, Eagleton, Hart, Hollings, Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, 

Levin, Metzenbaum, Moynihan, Pell, Sarbanes, Simon, Stennis 


Boschwitz, Chafee, Cochran, Danforth, Dole, Domenici, 

Durenberger, Evans, Garn, Goldwater, Gorton, Hatfield, 

Hecht, Helms, Humphrey, Kassebaum, Kasten, Lugar, 

McConnell, Packwood, Quayle, Rudman, Simpson, Stafford, 

Stevens, Trible, Warner, Weicker 

Nays (55) 




Exon, Ford, Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Heflin, Kerry, 

Lautenberg, Leahy, Long, Matsunaga, Melcher, Mitchell, 

Nunn, Proxmire, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sasser, 

Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Andrews, Armstrong, D'Amato, Denton, East, Gramm, 

Grassley, Hatch, Heinz, Laxalt, Mattingly, McClure, 

Murkowski, Nickles, Pressler, Roth, Specter, Symms, 

Thurmond, Wallop, Wilson 



Cohen-2, Hawkins-2AN, Mathias-1 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description

Proponents of the amendment pointed out that without an 

increase, the Customs Service would have to fire 1,800 

employees in FY 1987. This cut could not come at a worse 

time in the effort to combat drug smuggling, especially 

across the southern border. At the same time, the Customs 

Service is the second largest revenue agency, bringing in 

over $14 billion a year, with a ratio of revenue collected 

to dollars spent on staff higher than the IRS. The Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which is deeply involved 

in antiterrorist efforts, will have to fire 650 without 

this funding. The Secret Service, another crucial part of 

the law enforcement system, would be forced to let go 350 

people. A small savings of $163 million in international 

affairs could be absorbed. Aid to Israel and Egypt need 

not be touched, but surely somewhere within the 89 percent 

increase in foreign operations appropriations over the last 

six years, there are items of less priority than combatting 

drug trafficking which threatens national security. This 

amounts to less than a two percent cut in foreign 

operations. 

Opponents of the amendment contended that the cut to 

international affairs funding would be devastating to 

national security. It would require eliminating needed 

funding for the Diplomatic Security Program or reducing 

funding for State Department expenses which have already 

been frozen. This debate involves three different accounts 

and should more properly take place during the 

Appropriations Committee process. The amendment would 

sacrifice the safety of Americans overseas for programs 

that could be funded from other areas of the budget. All 

the programs involved in this amendment are clearly 

discretionary, and the Budget Resolution purports to set 

only broad parameters in each function, not specific 

amounts for discretionary programs. The Budget Committee 

had already cut the amount requested by the President for 

international funding by more than any other account.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Completed) 

Domenici motion to table Melcher amendment: Increases 

Energy funding level by $21 million for MHD research and 

development and offsets increase by reducing National 

Defense funding. 


(79-18) 

Yeas (79) 


Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Bradley, Bumpers, Chiles, 

Cranston, Dixon, Dodd, Eagleton, Exon, Glenn, Hart, 


Leahy, Levin, Long, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, 

Proxmire, Pryor, Rockefeller, Stennis, Zorinsky 







Nickles, Packwood, Quayle, Rudman, Simpson, Specter, 



Nays (18) 


Baucus, Burdick, Byrd, DeConcini, Ford, Gore, Harkin, 

Inouye, Matsunaga, Melcher, Pell, Riegle, Sarbanes, Sasser, 

Simon 


Hatch, Pressler, Roth 



Cohen-2, Hawkins-2, Mathias-1 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment explained that MHD is an 

efficient, environmentally sound method of converting coal 

directly to electricity. This amendment involves a modest

amount but would serve notice that part of the $295 billion 

for DOD should be utilized for MHD under the auspices of 

the Department of Energy which has been doing MHD research 

for the last 18 years. 

Opponents of the amendment stressed that these sorts of 

transfers from one function to another are ineffective 

since the Appropriations Committee will go back through the 

budget and assign specific amounts to their subcommittees. 

The MHD question will be resolved on its merits within the 

appropriations process, they emphasized, and this type of 

amendment for a specific program is inappropriate when 

considering the Budget Resolution.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Completed) 

Hart-Chiles-Byrd, et al., modified amendment: Provides 

$14.2 billion over three years to foster economic growth 

and competitiveness through science and technology, 

resource development, and education and training; and 

offsets increase by increasing revenues. 


(32-65) 

Yeas (32) 


Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Bradley, Burdick, Byrd, 

Chiles, DeConcini, Ford, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Inouye, 

Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Levin, Long, 

Matsunaga, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Pell, Pryor, 



Specter 

Nays (65) 


Bentsen, Bumpers, Cranston, Dixon, Dodd, Eagleton, 

Exon, Glenn, Heflin, Hollings, Leahy, Moynihan, Nunn, 

Proxmire, Stennis, Zorinsky 












Goldwater-2, Hawkins-2, Mathias-1 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents asserted that this amendment would commit the 

Nation to key investments--for higher education, science,

etraining, and basic research. It would redirect Federal 

budget priorities toward the investments necessary to 

provide for the long term prosperity of this Nation. The 

Administration's policy over the past five years of "borrow 

and spend," as evidenced by the record deficit financing 

and staggering level of the public debt, has forced onto 

our children the bills that rightfully belong to this 

generation. This amendment would help reverse that course 

by investing some of today's resources in the future to 

promote economic growth, enhance international 

competitiveness, and provide for necessary investments in 

the future of our children and a skilled and flexible work 

force. It would increase the chances for all Americans to 

meet the competition by making our foundations stronger. 

This amendment makes clear that no cuts are to be made in 

military spending beyond those contained in the budget 

resolution reported out by the Committee and provides 

language disapproving any tax increase for middle America. 

Opponents declared that this amendment would add 

approximately $21 billion in new budget authority in the 

next three years and would raise taxes by $15 billion in 

just the first year. The resolution already includes $72 

billion in new taxes over three years. This amendment 

would raise that total to $87 billion. In addition, there 

is no guarantee that the money would be spent on 

revitalizing America's scientific education programs.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Completed) 

Wilson amendment: Increases Health funding level by $277.5 

million over three years for AIDS and Alzheimer's disease 

research and offsets increase by reducing General 

Government (Congressional newsletter) funding. 


(95-2) 

Yeas (95) 












Evans, Garn, Goldwater, Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, 

Hatfield, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, Kassebaum, Kasten, Laxalt, 

Lugar, Mattingly, McClure, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, 




Nays (2) 


Durenberger, Humphrey 


Democrats (1) 

Hart-2 


Hawkins-2, Mathias-1 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents noted the staggering increases in the cost of 

Congressional mail, 75 percent of which is for newsletters. 

This sizeable amount of money could be spent for a much

more worthwhile purpose--to find cures for two dreaded 

diseases afflicting more and more Americans. This money 

would measurably speed up testing and lessen the time it 

will take to make a breakthrough to find a cure and a 

vaccine to protect millions against these two killer 

diseases. 

While no statements were made in opposition, it was pointed 

out that there was nothing in the amendment about 

newsletters, or AIDS or Alzheimer's research. It only 

readjusts the funding for two functions, each of which has 

hundreds of accounts. Although the amendment calls 

attention to the amount spent for newsletters and the need 

for health research, these decisions will be made during 

the appropriations process.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Completed) 

Domenici motion to table Lautenberg, et al., amendment: 

Increases Natural Resources and Environment funding level 

by $451 million over three years for Superfund cleanup to 

bring EPA budget to baseline; and offsets these increases 

by reducing Energy funding level for government's enriched 

uranium program. 


(54-44) 

Yeas (54) 


Bingaman, Boren, Chiles, Dixon, Exon, Ford, Glenn, 

Gore, Heflin, Hollings, Johnston, Long, Metzenbaum, Nunn, 

Pryor, Sasser, Stennis, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Andrews, Armstrong, Cochran, Denton, Dole, 

Domenici, East, Evans, Garn, Goldwater, Gramm, Grassley, 

Hatch, Hatfield, Hecht, Helms, Kassebaum, Laxalt, Lugar, 


Pressler, Quayle, Roth, Simpson, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, 

Trible, Wallop, Warner, Weicker 

Nays (44) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Biden, Bradley, Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, 

Cranston, DeConcini, Dodd, Eagleton, Harkin, Hart, Inouye, 


Melcher, Mitchell, Moynihan, Pell, Proxmire, Riegle, 

Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Simon 


Boschwitz, Chafee, Cohen, D'Amato, Danforth, Durenberger, 

Gorton, Heinz, Humphrey, Kasten, Packwood, Rudman, Specter, 

Stafford, Wilson 



Hawkins-2AN, Mathias-1 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment emphasized that the funding

increases for Superfund cleanup and EPA efforts to ensure 

safe drinking water would be more than offset by recovery 

costs from the uranium enrichment program, as proposed by 

the President. In addition, these offsets plus interest 

savings would amount to $81 billion for reducing the 

deficit over three years. This Superfund level would make 

the budget consistent with the reauthorization as it passed 

the Senate. It is urgent, they argued, that cleanup of the 

800 sites designated as toxic proceed. To date, only a 

handful of the 800 toxic sites have been cleaned up. 

Opponents of the amendment noted the importance of EPA and 

the Superfund and pointed out that the budget resolution 

does not assume a cut in EPA funding but a 39 percent (or 

$300 million) increase for the Superfund program. The 

problem remains as to how the Superfund will be financed--a 

problem which the House and Senate have not resolved in 

conference. Then, too, there are no assurances under a 

budget resolution that this funding transfer could go for 

this purpose. Some opposed the amendment because of its 

decrease in the uranium enrichment program. Reduced 

uranium enrichment capacity could make the U.S. dependent 

on France, Japan, or some other foreign country for 

adequate supplies. Since 15 percent of our electrical 

capacity is dependent on nuclear energy, a reduction in our 

uranium enrichment capacity would increase the price of 

nuclear materials and eventually raise the price of 

electrical rates to consumers. So this amendment would 

only take money away from a program that needs it without 

assurances that the increase will be spent for the 

Superfund.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Completed) 

Moynihan-Mitchell, et al., amendment: Increases Education, 

Training, Employment, and Social Services funding level by 

$590 million over three years to restore funding for WIN 

and offsets by revenue increases. 


(55-40) 

Yeas (55) 




Ford, Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, 


Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, Pell, Pryor, Riegle, 



Andrews, Chafee, Cohen, D'Amato, Denton, Durenberger, 

Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, Heinz, Kasten, Murkowski, 

Packwood, Specter, Stafford, Thurmond, Weicker 

Nays (40) 


Chiles, Exon, Heflin, Hollings, Johnston, Nunn, 

Proxmire, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Armstrong, Boschwitz, Cochran, Danforth, Dole, 

East, Evans, Garn, Gorton, Gramm, Hecht, Helms, Humphrey, 


Nickles, Pressler, Quayle, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Stevens, 

Symms, Trible, Wallop, Warner, Wilson 


Democrats (1) 

Stennis-2 


Domenici-2, Goldwater-2, Hawkins-2, Mathias-1 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents pointed out that this was the only Federal

program designed to assist recipients of Aid to Families 

with Dependent Children (AFDC) to find work through 

training and placement services provided by the State 

welfare agencies. While the President espouses the concept 

of workfare for welfare mothers, he has proposed total 

elimination of the only source of Federal funds 

specifically dedicated to helping them achieve 

self-sufficiency. State programs have proved that the 

reduction in welfare costs that are attributable to this 

program are double the amount that the program costs. Over 

80 percent of those who have gone through the Massachusetts 

program are not on welfare one year later. The real 

savings, however, are to the Federal government in reduced 

AFDC payments, food stamps, and Medicaid expenditures. 

Opponents noted that funding for WIN has decreased 40 

percent since 1981 and contended that State and local 

governments should take the lead in this area. They 

insisted that WIN is not cost effective, that three out of 

four dollars go for State salaries and agency overhead, and 

that less than 23 percent is spent for job training. They 

maintained that there were other monies in this budget 

function for this purpose, especially with the adoption of 

the Andrews-Weicker amendment (Vote No. 77) that put $1.2 

billion of that $32 billion into the appropriations 

subcommittee that deals with WIN.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Completed) 

D'Amato amendment: Increases Health funding level by $100 

million each in FY 1987-89 for drug abuse education and 

rehabilitation, and offsets this by reducing Federal 

furniture acquisition. 


(82-12) 

Yeas (82) 




Eagleton, Ford, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Heflin, Kennedy, Kerry, 

Lautenberg, Leahy, Matsunaga, Melcher, Metzenbaum, 

Mitchell, Moynihan, Pell, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, 






Hecht, Heinz, Helms, Humphrey, Kassebaum, Kasten, Laxalt, 


Packwood, Pressler, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Specter, 


Wilson 

Nays (12) 


Boren, Exon, Glenn, Hollings, Johnston, Levin, Long, 

Proxmire 


Durenberger, Lugar, Quayle, Stafford 


Democrats (3) 



Goldwater-2, Hawkins-2AY, Mathias-1 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description

Proponents stated that while legislative action has been 

taken to increase law enforcement efforts against the use 

of illegal drugs, an equal effort has not been made to 

support programs aimed at drug abuse education, prevention, 

and rehabilitation. Forty-eight States have reported 

serious deficiencies in their ability to cope with the drug 

problem, and drug use continues to increase at an alarming 

rate. In the typical American high school, 41 percent of 

the students have been involved in the use of marijuana,13 

percent in the use of cocaine, eight percent in 

hallucinogenics like PCP, and six percent in opiates other 

than heroin. Drug and alcohol abuse continue to cause more 

than 60 percent of all crime in America and represent a 

$200 billion a year drain on the economy. The amount the 

Federal government spends on prevention and treatment has 

declined since 1980 and today represents only 20 percent of 

the total money spent on such programs. Adding $100 

million a year, to these programs over the next three years 

would: (1) teach millions of young people how to say "no" 

to drugs, and (2) provide residential and outpatient care 

to those who cannot obtain help from overcrowded 

rehabilitation centers. In order to be revenue neutral, 

the funding would come from an equal reduction in the 

amount the Federal government spends for new furniture and 

furnishings, which last year amounted to $820 million. With 

the exception of general government, no function would 

experience an overall cut of even 1/50th of one percent. 

While acknowledging that the amendment would not in any way 

be binding on the appropriators, proponents felt that its 

passage would make a clear statement that the Senate as a 

whole recognizes the magnitude and severity of the drug 

problem and considers it important to increase 

appropriations for drug abuse education and rehabilitation. 

Opponents argued that whatever the merits of the amendment, 

since it proposes reducing funds for other government 

functions. an assessment should be made first to determine 

whether such a reduction is justified by the facts. 

Regardless of how attractive it appears to reduce the 

amount the Federal government spends on furniture, more 

information should be known before taking such action.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Completed) 

Domenici-Chiles substitute amendment: Reduces FY 1987 

revenue increase by $5.5 billion; increases defense 

spending by $5.9 billion in budget authority and $1.5 

billion in outlays; increases domestic spending by $1.5 

billion; and offsets spending increases by $8.5 billion in 

re-estimates. 


(66-29) 

Yeas (66) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Bingaman, Boren, Bradley, Bumpers, Byrd, 

Chiles, Cranston, DeConcini, Dixon, Dodd, Exon, Ford, 

Hollings, Lautenberg, Leahy, Long, Matsunaga, Metzenbaum, 

Mitchell, Nunn, Proxmire, Riegle, Rockefeller, Simon, 





Durenberger, Gorton, Gramm, Hatfield, Heinz, Humphrey, 

Kassebaum, Lugar, Mathias, Mattingly, McConnell, Murkowski, 

Nickles, Packwood, Pressler, Quayle, Rudman, Simpson, 

Stafford, Stevens, Thurmond, Trible, Wallop, Warner, 


Nays (29) 


Burdick, Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Heflin, Johnston, 

Kennedy, Kerry, Levin, Melcher, Moynihan, Pell, Pryor, 

Sarbanes, Sasser 


East, Evans, Garn, Grassley, Hatch, Hecht, Helms, Kasten, 

Laxalt, McClure, Roth, Specter, Symms 


Democrats (3) 

Biden-2, Eagleton-2AY, Inouye-2 



Office Note 

(no text)

Description 

Proponents noted that there was not sufficient support from 

majority members (Republicans) to pass the budget 

resolution as reported from Committee and that the 

compromise represented by this substitute had been denied 

consideration. It includes a two percent COLA and 

additional funding from savings for science and technology, 

education, job hunting and child health and immunization. 

It slows the growth in Federal spending by cutting social 

spending while sparing vital programs for the elderly and 

indigent. It meets the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit 

targets, thereby avoiding the devastating indiscriminate 

cuts that would occur with sequestration. 

Opponents noted there had been no debate on defense and 

contended that there was no analytical basis for the $301 

billion figure. In contrast, the $295 billion level 

reported from Committee is ample. This $12 billion more is 

budgeted at rates higher than can be obligated. In spite 

of public sentiment to hold the line, defense is being 

increased at an unwarranted level. Throwing money at 

defense will not buy more defense--a further increase in 

unobligated and unexpended balances will only end up in the 

DOD slush fund. Other opponents objected that the defense 

figure was not higher and that the deficit not further 

reduced. Others opposed the tax increase assumptions, 

maintaining that such a sizeable increase would have a 

negative impact on the economy. Some surmised that this 

compromise would add $10 to $16 billion to the deficit.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Completed) 

Adoption. 

Bill Passed 

(70-25) 

Yeas (70) 




Exon, Ford, Gore, Hollings, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, 


Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Proxmire, 




D'Amato, Danforth, Dole, Domenici, Durenberger, Evans, 

Gorton, Hatfield, Heinz, Kassebaum, Lugar, Mathias, 


Rudman, Simpson, Stafford, Stevens, Thurmond, Trible, 

Warner, Weicker 

Nays (25) 


Glenn, Harkin, Hart, Heflin, Pryor, Zorinsky 


Armstrong, Denton, East, Garn, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, 

Hecht, Helms, Humphrey, Kasten, Laxalt, Mattingly, McClure, 

Roth, Specter, Symms, Wallop, Wilson 


Democrats (3) 

Biden-2, Eagleton-2AY, Inouye-2 



Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 

Budget Authority $1,101.3 $1,170.0 $1,220.9 Outlays 1,001.2 

1,051.2 1,084.0 Revenues 857.2 941.2 1,011.9 Resulting

Deficit 144.0 110.1 72.1 

COLAs/Federal Pay: Assumes that the full COLA in all 

programs will be paid regardless of the inflation rate; and 

assumes a two percent increase in civilian and military 

pay.sin 

Defense: Provides defense budget authority of $301 billion 

and outlays of $282.0 billion in FY 1987. (The budget 

authority level represents CBO's estimate of zero real 

growth in FY 1987, with a one percent real growth increase 

in FY 1988 and 1989.) 

Revenues: Assumes a revenue increase of $13.2 billion 

(which includes the $5.9 billion tax increase recommended 

by the President, $2.5 billion contained in the FY 1985 

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act [P.L. 99-272], and $5.4 

billion in unspecified increases); makes revenues subject 

to a three-year revenue reconciliation. 

Deficits: Projects deficits of $144.0 billion in FY 1987, 

$110.1 billion in 1988, and $72.1 billion in 1989. (Under 

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, the maximum deficits for FY 1987-89 

are $144.0 billion, $108.0 billion, and $72.0 billion, 

respectively.) 

Nondefense Spending: Adds $4 billion over a freeze in FY 

1987 for nondefense spending which includes additional 

funding for key Democratic initiatives (in the areas of 

science and technology, education, energy, environment, job 

training, child health and immunization, trade promotion, 

rural housing and postal subsidies, transportation, 

community and regional development, Medicare, housing, and 

veterans) and funding for 42 of the 44 programs slated for 

termination under the President's budget; assumes that the 

sale of Conrail to Norfolk Southern will be approved; funds 

general revenue sharing in FY 1987 at one-half of its 

current level, subject to authorizing legislation and an 

unspecified revenue increase to offset this amount.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Vote No. 90 05/06/86 CQ Admin: Y 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Nomination of James C. Fletcher to be Administrator of NASA 

Confirmation. 


(89-9) 

Yeas (89) 



Burdick, Chiles, Cranston, Dixon, Dodd, Exon, Ford, 

Glenn, Harkin, Heflin, Hollings, Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, 



Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Stennis, Zorinsky 





Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, Humphrey, 





Nays (9) 


Byrd, DeConcini, Eagleton, Gore, Hart, Kerry, Proxmire, 

Sasser, Simon 



Hawkins-2, Stevens-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of Dr. Fletcher's nomination, which was 

reported out of Committee by a vote of 15 to 1, argued that 

NASA has been without a permanent Administrator for too 

long, and it is imperative that it have strong leadership 

as soon as possible. Dr. Fletcher's character and 

professional abilities are impeccable, and his capacity for 

leadership was demonstrated while serving from 1971-77 as 

NASA's fourth Administrator. From 1964 to 1971, Dr. 

Fletcher was President of the University of Utah, and, 

prior to 1964, he had a distinguished career in the

aerospace industry. Dr. Fletcher is imminently qualified 

to restore public confidence in the space program and get 

the shuttle program back on schedule. 

Opponents did not question Dr. Fletcher's integrity or 

personal fitness. However, they pointed out that his past 

record shows that he was unwilling to face up to serious 

difficulties in the development of the space shuttle and 

was unresponsive to critical reports by GAO. NASA needs a 

tough new outsider--not a NASA "retread"--who will have the 

courage to resolve its problems.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Saudi Arms Sales Disapproval (S.J. Res. 316, Vetoed) 

Adoption. 

Joint Resolution Passed 

(73-22) 

Yeas (73) 





Heflin, Hollings, Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, 





Abdnor, Andrews, Armstrong, Boschwitz, Cohen, D'Amato, 

Danforth, Domenici, Durenberger, East, Gorton, Grassley, 

Hatfield, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, Kasten, Mattingly, 


Specter, Symms, Trible, Weicker, Wilson 

Nays (22) 




Chafee, Cochran, Denton, Dole, Evans, Garn, Goldwater, 

Gramm, Hatch, Laxalt, Lugar, Mathias, McClure, McConnell, 

Quayle, Simpson, Stafford, Thurmond, Wallop, Warner 


Democrats (1) 

Long-2 


Hawkins-2AY, Humphrey-2, Kassebaum-2, Stevens-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

995 AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles and associated spare parts, 

30 Sidewinder training missiles, training, technical 

assistance and support equipment (total estimated value: 

$98 million);

671 AIM-9P4 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, spares, and 

support equipment (total estimated value: $60 million); 

200 basic Stinger air defense guided missile systems 

including 200 missiles and launchers, an additional 600 

missiles, support and training equipment, spare parts, 

technical support and training (total estimated value: $89 

million); and 

100 air-launched Harpoon anti-ship missiles with 

containers, spare parts, technical assistance and support 

equipment (total estimated value: $107 million). 

The joint resolution, which subsequently passed the House 

on May 7, was vetoed by the President on May 21. The 

Senate sustained the veto on June 5, 1986, after the 

President had removed the 200 Stinger missiles from the 

package.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

DOD Reorganization (Joint Chiefs of Staff) (H.R. 3622, P.L. 

99-433) 

Goldwater motion to table DeConcini-Kassebaum amendment: 

Prohibits sale, donation, or other transfer of Stinger 

anti-aircraft missiles to democratic rebel forces in Angola 

and Afghanistan unless President certifies to Congress that 

they will be securely protected, as required of other 

allies. 


(63-34) 

Yeas (63) 


Bentsen, Bingaman, Boren, Bumpers, Byrd, Chiles, Dixon, 

Dodd, Exon, Glenn, Heflin, Levin, Long, Mitchell, 

Moynihan, Nunn, Rockefeller, Stennis, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Andrews, Armstrong, Cochran, Cohen, D'Amato, 


Goldwater, Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, Hecht, 

Heinz, Helms, Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, Mattingly, McClure, 

McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Pressler, Quayle, Roth, 



Nays (34) 


Baucus, Biden, Bradley, Burdick, Cranston, DeConcini, 

Eagleton, Ford, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Hollings, Inouye, 

Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Matsunaga, 

Melcher, Metzenbaum, Pell, Proxmire, Pryor, Riegle, 



Boschwitz, Chafee, Danforth, Kassebaum, Mathias, Specter 



Hawkins-2, Humphrey-2, Packwood-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment asserted that because of the 

escalation of terrorist incidents and the increasing

sophistication and destructive power of new weapons, an 

effort must be made to keep Stinger antiaircraft missiles 

from falling into terrorist hands. The Stinger is one of 

the most sophisticated and lethal American weapons in 

production. This shoulder-fired missile operated by a 

single person has the potential to shoot down a passenger 

airliner from several miles away. It represents the 

ultimate terrorist weapon and, therefore, no level of 

security should be sacrificed in order to keep it from 

falling into the hands of international terrorists in the 

Middle East or elsewhere. The weapon cannot be bought on 

the black market, and to relax security standards would 

increase that likelihood and work against U.S. efforts to 

control world terrorism. The United States has established 

strict guidelines for handling these weapons, which 

include: (1) storage in steel vaults; (2) 24-hour alarm 

security; and (3) the storage of launchers and missiles in 

separate locations. The rebel forces in Afghanistan and 

Angola should be provided with weapons that would be 

equally effective in advancing their cause but which would 

not be so destabilizing. Up to now, U.S. policy has not 

permitted the use of American weapons to support covert 

actions. To do so now could not only lead to the 

escalation of fighting, but could compromise our long-term 

security interests. The issue is more than whether to 

allow the use of the Stinger in two particular countries, 

but how this action would affect U.S. long-term policy. 

Opponents of the amendment claimed that it is outside the 

scope of the Defense Reorganization bill under 

consideration to focus on a specific weapon and an exact 

geographic location. Furthermore, the very nature of the 

amendment is so sensitive that it should only come to the 

floor after examination by the Foreign Relations, Armed 

Services, and Intelligence Committees. Even so, while the 

Stinger is a sophisticated and dangerous weapon, 

shoulder-borne weapons similar to it have existed for 

years, and this amendment would in no way limit their 

availability. The difficulty presented by the amendment is 

that it tries to "micromanage" foreign policy from the 

floor. This matter should be left to the discretion of the 

President, and not dealt with in legislation. This 

amendment would usurp the President's right to make these 

weapons available based on his best judgment, or that of 

the State Department, DOD, or the National Security 

Council. The Stinger is a dangerous and effective weapon, 

and could go a long way to equalizing the sides in 

Afghanistan and Angola. The safeguards required in this 

amendment are not applicable in any kind of hypothetical 

guerrilla warfare, and, therefore, would actually deny the 

President the right to make them available.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

DOD Reorganization (Joint Chiefs of Staff) (H.R. 3622, P.L. 

99-433) 

Passage. 

Bill Passed 

(95-0) 

Yeas (95) 













Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, Kassebaum, 





Nays (0) 


Democrats (1) 

Moynihan-2 


Hawkins-2, Humphrey-2, Mathias-2, Packwood-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Office of the Secretary of Defense: Establishes in statute 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD); repeals the 

Secretary's authority to change functions, powers, and 

duties specified in law and to reorganize DOD positions and 

activities established in law, but provides that the 

President would be authorized to do so in time of 

hostilities or imminent threat of hostilities; requires the 

Secretary to include in his/her annual report to Congress a 

discussion and justification of major military missions and

a discussion of the relationship of foreign policy, major 

military missions (such as NATO), and military force 

structure to each other; requires the Secretary to inform 

the President of the qualifications needed by an appointee 

to a political position, provide annually to the Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff written policy guidance for 

the preparation and review of contingency plans, and keep 

the Secretaries of the various military departments 

informed on military operations and DOD activities that 

directly affect their responsibilities; directs the 

Secretary to establish procedures to review the programs 

and budgets of the Defense Agencies and DOD Field 

Activities. 

Under and Assistant Secretaries: Provides for two Under 

Secretaries of Defense (one for Acquisition and one for 

Policy) who shall be civilians appointed by the President 

subject to Senate confirmation; restates current authority 

for the appointment of 11 Assistant Secretaries of Defense, 

but specifies in statute the title and duties of only the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. 

DOD Comptroller: Establishes in law the position of 

Comptroller of DOD (designated as an Assistant Secretary) 

and assigns to that position the same duties now assigned 

to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). 

Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS): Requires JCS members to have 

served in at least one joint duty position for a 

substantial period of time, but permits the President to 

waive this requirement in the national interest; recognizes 

in statute the role of all JCS members to be military 

advisers to the President, the National Security Council 

(NSC), and the Secretary of Defense, and authorizes any JCS 

member to provide advice on a particular matter to any of 

these officials upon request; permits a JCS member to 

submit advice in disagreement or in addition to the advice 

provided by the Chairman. 

JCS Chairman: Designates the Chairman of the JCS as the 

principal military adviser to the President, the NSC, and 

the Secretary of Defense; requires the Chairman to consult, 

unless impracticable, with other JCS members, and, when 

appropriate, with the unified and specified combatant 

commanders in carrying out his/her advisory duties; 

specifies that the Chairman would serve for an initial 

two-year term and may be reappointed for two additional 

two-year terms; permits the President under certain 

conditions to extend a Chairman's term to eight years; 

provides that, notwithstanding the appointment date, a 

Chairman's term would end six months after a new President 

takes office; requires the Chairman to convene regular JCS 

meetings, to prepare fiscally constrained strategic plans, 

and to advise the Secretary on the extent to which the 

Military Departments' program recommendations and budget

proposals conform with the priorities established in 

strategic plans and with the operational requirements of 

the unified and specified combatant commands; highlights 

the review of major manpower requirements and the 

assessment of joint military requirements for defense 

acquisition programs as separate duties of the Chairman; 

directs the Chairman to advise the Secretary on the wartime 

preparedness of certain Defense Agencies; requires the 

Chairman to prepare and review contingency or operational 

plans which conform to the President's and Secretary's 

policy guidance, and to advise the Secretary on critical 

deficiencies and strengths in identified force capabilities 

and assess their effect on meeting national security 

objectives and on strategic plans; specifies that the 

Chairman may not exercise executive authority by actually 

assigning logistic and mobility responsibilities, but may 

only recommend their assignment; requires the Chairman to 

submit to the President, the NSC, and the Secretary any JCS 

member's advice in disagreement or in addition to his/her 

own; requires the Chairman to submit a report to the 

Secretary on the appropriateness of the roles and missions 

of the Military Services, with the first report due within 

one year of enactment and subsequent reports every three 

years or as the President requests. 

JCS Vice Chairman: Creates a new position of Vice Chairman 

of the JCS who must be a military officer appointed by the 

President, subject to Senate confirmation, and would hold 

the grade of a 4-star general or admiral, outranking all 

other military officers except the Chairman; requires that 

the Chairman and Vice Chairman be members of different 

branches of the armed forces, but permits the Secretary to 

waive this restriction for transition purposes; sets forth 

the duties of the Vice Chairman as those delegated to him 

by the Chairman with the approval of the Secretary; 

provides that the Vice Chairman, unless directed otherwise 

by the President or the Secretary, would act as the 

Chairman in event of a vacancy in that position or in the 

absence or disability of the Chairman; authorizes the Vice 

Chairman to attend all JCS meetings, but prohibits him/her 

from voting except when acting as Chairman. 

Joint Staff: Places authority over the joint staff with the 

Chairman; permits the Chairman to select a Director of the 

Joint Staff, after consultation with other JCS members and 

subject to the Secretary's approval, and to extend the 

terms of duty of Joint Staff officers beyond the statutory 

four-year limit; limits to 1,617 the number of civilian and 

military personnel serving on the Joint Staff. 

Combatant Commands: Establishes the basic framework for DOD 

administrative regulations dealing with the combatant 

commands; retains, with modification, the President's 

authority to establish combatant commands and to prescribe 

their force structure; specifies that the combatant

commands are responsible to the President and the Secretary 

for the performance of military missions assigned to them, 

and that, unless otherwise directed by the President, the 

chain of command for their operational direction runs from 

the President to the Secretary to the commanders of unified 

and specified combatant commands; authorizes the President 

or the Secretary to place the JCS Chairman in the channel 

of command communications between the Secretary and the 

combatant commanders; authorizes the combatant commanders 

to specify the chains of command and organizational 

relationships within their commands; expands and 

strengthens the assignment, powers, and duties of 

commanders of unified and specified combatant commands; 

provides the combatant commander with personnel authority 

over his/her key command personnel; makes the Secretary of 

Defense responsible for providing for the administration 

and support of forces assigned to each combatant command. 

Joint Duty: Directs the Secretary to ensure that the 

Services' personnel policies enhance the ability of 

officers to perform joint duties. 

Defense Agencies and DOD Field Activities: Reenacts the 

Secretary's authority to establish common supply and 

service activities in a new section dealing with defense 

agencies and DOD field activities in order to give more 

statutory emphasis to agencies which have important 

resource management responsibilities. 

Personnel Reduction: Requires a reduction of 7,747 in DOD 

management headquarters personnel, and a reduction of 9,947 

in non-headquarters personnel assigned to the Defense 

Agencies and DOD Field Activities. 

Military Departments: Sets forth the responsibilities of 

the Secretaries of the Military Departments to the 

Secretary; specifies that the Secretaries have the 

authority to perform the construction, outfitting, and 

repair of military equipment; provides uniformity for all 

three departments and states that the order of seniority 

will be established by the Service Secretary, subject to 

approval by the Secretary of Defense; requires the 

elimination of duplication between the headquarters' staffs 

of each Military Department. 

National Security Strategy and Other Reports: Requires the 

President to submit annually to the Congressional Armed 

Services and Foreign Relations Committees a comprehensive 

report on U.S. national security strategy; waives the 

requirement for various Presidential and DOD reports, 

notifications, and studies to be provided to Congress.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Drug Exports (S. 1848) 

Hatch motion to table 

Metzenbaum-Gore-Sarbanes-Kennedy-Matsunaga amendment: 

Requires manufacturers to test each batch of infant formula 

before it leaves factory for level of required nutrients 

and to ensure it contains no hazardous extraneous material. 

Motion to Table Failed 

(29-66) 

Yeas (29) 


Long, Stennis, Zorinsky 


Armstrong, Cochran, Danforth, Domenici, East, Evans, Garn, 

Goldwater, Gorton, Gramm, Hatch, Hecht, Helms, Laxalt, 

Lugar, McClure, McConnell, Quayle, Roth, Simpson, Stafford, 

Symms, Thurmond, Wallop, Warner, Weicker 

Nays (66) 






Lautenberg, Levin, Matsunaga, Melcher, Metzenbaum, 




Abdnor, Andrews, Boschwitz, Chafee, Cohen, D'Amato, Denton, 

Dole, Durenberger, Grassley, Hatfield, Heinz, Kassebaum, 

Kasten, Mattingly, Murkowski, Nickles, Pressler, Rudman, 

Specter, Stevens, Trible, Wilson 


Democrats (1) 

Leahy-4AN 



Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment stated that it would strengthen

the Infant Formula Act of 1980 to ensure that defective and 

life-threatening infant formula will never again reach the 

marketplace. The Act has been crippled by weak regulations 

which allow infant formula manufacturers to establish their 

own, often ineffective, quality control standards. Since 

its enactment, there have been numerous instances in which 

the Nation's infants have been exposed to unsafe formula 

before manufacturers have detected nutritional deficiencies 

or other problems with their products and initiated 

voluntary recalls. The amendment also would establish FDA 

recall procedures for unsafe infant formulas--an authority 

which the agency currently does not hold. The amendment is 

not related to the bill, they admitted, but this urgent 

matter requires the Senate's immediate attention. Although 

hearings on this issue have been requested on three 

separate occasions, they have yet to be held. 

Opponents of the amendment declared that it was nongermane 

and could be very detrimental to consideration of the bill. 

More importantly, however, the amendment is unnecessary 

because the Infant Formula Act is working to protect this 

Nation's children from exposure to unsafe infant formula. 

Since its enactment, there have been no known cases of 

infants in the U.S. being adversely affected by 

nutritionally deficient or adulterated infant formula. 

Problems that have occurred have been resolved quickly. 

Recalls of defective formula have been initiated by the 

responsible manufacturers; those who have ignored current 

laws would ignore these proposed regulations as well. The 

amendment proposes to replace the current system of FDA 

notification by formula manufacturers with a pre-market 

approval requirement which is more time consuming, 

burdensome, and costly. Such a system was specifically 

rejected during consideration of the Infant Formula Act in 

favor of the notification requirement which the Labor and 

Human Resources Committee reported which would "assure 

consumers a reasonable standard of safety while not 

unreasonably burdening the industry." FDA opposes further 

regulation of the infant formula industry and has stated 

that experience has not "revealed any deficiencies in the 

existing notification system that would require a 

pre-market approval system to correct."


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Hatch motion to table Metzenbaum amendment: Requires that 

export of antibiotic drugs be governed by same conditions 

as apply to other drugs. 


(76-18) 

Yeas (76) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Biden, Boren, Bradley, Byrd, Chiles, 

Cranston, DeConcini, Dixon, Dodd, Eagleton, Ford, Glenn, 

Gore, Heflin, Hollings, Johnston, Lautenberg, Long, Nunn, 

Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sasser, Stennis, Zorinsky 










Nays (18) 


Bingaman, Bumpers, Burdick, Harkin, Hart, Inouye, Kennedy, 

Kerry, Levin, Matsunaga, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, 

Moynihan, Pell, Proxmire, Sarbanes, Simon 


Democrats (1) 

Leahy-4PN 




Exon (D-PPY) 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment contended that there was no 

reason to treat antibiotics differently from other drugs 

that come under this bill. Both are required to undergo

extensive testing prior to approval for use in the U.S. 

Antibiotic use in the third world has become so widespread 

that it is rapidly becoming ineffective. The use of 

antibiotics throughout the world carries many opportunities 

for abuse. Adequate information about adverse drug effects 

are frequently not provided, and drugs that have been 

ordered off the domestic market by the FDA have continued 

to be exported for many months. 

Opponents of the amendment pointed out that antibiotics 

have been readily exportable for 40 years. Many of the 

largest antibiotics manufacturers have located their 

testing plants in the U.S. This amendment would force 

manufacturers to construct new plants overseas, worsening 

the trade deficit. Opponents insisted that these drugs 

provide the best hope in developing countries for combating 

illness, and far outweigh any adverse effects, including 

bacterial resistance. The problems identified with 

antibiotics usage are not safety problems inherent with the 

drugs but "proper use" problems--which are local problems 

that should be solved locally.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Hatch motion to table Metzenbaum amendment: Makes any 

unapproved drug subject to new application in order to be 

exported. 


(83-10) 

Yeas (83) 




Exon, Ford, Glenn, Gore, Heflin, Hollings, Johnston, 

Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Levin, Long, Matsunaga, 

Mitchell, Nunn, Pell, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sasser, 






Hatch, Hatfield, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, Kassebaum, Kasten, 



Simpson, Specter, Stafford, Stevens, Thurmond, Trible, 


Nays (10) 


Biden, Harkin, Hart, Inouye, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Moynihan, 

Proxmire, Sarbanes, Simon 


Democrats (1) 

Leahy-4PN 


Armstrong-2, Hawkins-2, Humphrey-2, Packwood-2, Symms-2 


Eagleton (D-PPY) 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment emphasized that it would assure 

that before an unapproved drug could be exported, it has to

have had some basic clinical trials and must be the subject 

of a new FDA drug application. In contrast, only a filed 

application is required by the pending bill. Medical 

personnel representing organizations in 20 different 

countries have written asking that drugs which the U.S. is 

not willing to use on its own citizens be prohibited from 

entry in their developing countries where "made in America" 

denotes a well-tested product. The pharmaceutical 

companies have waged a massive lobbying effort because they 

want to produce drugs here without satisfactory 

protections. The manufacturing of drugs abroad has never 

been a question. 

Opponents of the amendment maintained it would undermine 

the intent of the bill. It requires drug manufacturers to 

seek approval in this country at the same time they are 

seeking approval abroad. The new biotechnology concerns 

will be unable to afford this dual process and will have to 

manufacture offshore. This amendment would encourage what 

this bill attempts to stop--erosion of U.S. innovation in 

science to foreign countries. It will undercut the bill's 

attempt to keep jobs here.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Hatch motion to table Metzenbaum amendment: Provides that 

if either Secretary of HHS or Agriculture determines that 

exported drug is present in country to which shipment is 

not authorized, U.S. shall immediately prohibit export of 

that drug. 


(83-8) 

Yeas (83) 




Exon, Ford, Glenn, Gore, Heflin, Hollings, Johnston, 

Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Long, Matsunaga, 

Melcher, Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Pryor, Riegle, 

Rockefeller, Sasser, Simon, Zorinsky 





Hatfield, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, Kassebaum, Kasten, Laxalt, 

Lugar, Mathias, Mattingly, McClure, McConnell, Murkowski, 

Nickles, Pressler, Quayle, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Stevens, 


Nays (8) 


Biden, Chiles, Harkin, Hart, Inouye, Metzenbaum, Proxmire, 

Sarbanes 


Democrats (1) 

Stennis-2 


Armstrong-2, Goldwater-2, Hawkins-2, Humphrey-2, 

Packwood-2, Specter-2, Stafford-2, Symms-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment contended that it is necessary 

if the Senate is serious about enforcing any of the 

transshipment provisions of the bill. The procedure in the

ill provides no real protection since its standard is so 

difficult to apply that it has been used only once in 20 

years to recall a drug. Yet, since 1971, there have been 

7,000 drug recalls in this country. This bill allows drugs 

produced here to be exported if they are approved in one of 

15 other countries. An alarming percentage of drugs that 

are approved in these other countries do not get approved 

in the U.S. 

Opponents of the amendment maintained that its unreasonable 

restriction makes the bill unusable. It makes the mere 

presence of a drug in an unauthorized country a serious 

violation of law, regardless of whether the exporter had an 

involvement. This provision would encourage drug companies 

to build their facilities abroad--a trend which the bill 

seeks to change. While some opponents sympathize with the 

amendment's intent, they opposed its overly broad language 

stopping shipment to any authorized country if the drug 

appeared in any unauthorized country illegally. The 

safeguards in the bill, they insisted, are sufficient to 

deal effectively with transshipment. In fact, the 

amendment's restrictions may actually deny life-saving 

medication to foreign patients.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Hatch motion to table Metzenbaum amendment: Requires 

Office of Technology Assessment to conduct study on 

labeling of drugs sold in U.S. and by U.S. manufacturers in 

certain foreign countries and analyze whether differences 

in labeling are based on valid scientific evidence. 


(62-29) 

Yeas (62) 


Bingaman, Boren, Bumpers, DeConcini, Dixon, Dodd, Eagleton, 

Ford, Heflin, Hollings, Inouye, Johnston, Lautenberg, Long, 

Nunn, Pell, Stennis, Zorinsky 





Hecht, Heinz, Helms, Kassebaum, Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, 

Mattingly, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Pressler, Quayle, 

Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Stafford, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, 


Nays (29) 


Baucus, Bentsen, Biden, Bradley, Burdick, Byrd, Chiles, 

Cranston, Exon, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Kennedy, Kerry, 

Leahy, Levin, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moynihan, 


Simon 


Mathias, Specter 


Democrats (2) 

Glenn-2, Matsunaga-2 


Armstrong-2, D'Amato-2, Hawkins-2, Humphrey-2, McClure-2, 

Packwood-2, Weicker-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description

Proponents of the amendment noted that it would require 

only a study of labeling practices in third world countries 

in order to ascertain the adequacy of drug labeling. It 

carries no penalty or enforcement provisions. While the 

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association opposes it, the 

Senate ought to adopt it anyway so that Congress can find 

out the facts about labeling. 

Opponents of the amendment termed it a "killer" amendment 

that would cost $10 million for OTA to implement. In 

addition, it bypasses the bipartisan board which determines 

what studies OTA will conduct and, instead, politically 

mandates OTA action. This amendment aims at extending U.S. 

labeling authority into foreign countries, they claimed, in 

derogation of the rights and abilities of these 

governments.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Passage. 

Bill Passed 

(91-7) 

Yeas (91) 




Eagleton, Exon, Ford, Glenn, Gore, Heflin, Hollings, 

Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Levin, Long, 

Matsunaga, Melcher, Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Pryor, 

Riegle, Rockefeller, Sasser, Simon, Stennis, Zorinsky 





Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, Hecht, Heinz, Helms, Humphrey, 





Nays (7) 


Biden, Harkin, Hart, Leahy, Metzenbaum, Proxmire, Sarbanes 



Hawkins-2, Packwood-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Adds a new section to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act of 1938 to permit the export of new drugs, new animal 

drugs, or biologicals which have not yet been approved for 

sale in the U.S. to the following three categories of 

countries: 

First tier country--defined as a country which has an 

adequate governmental health authority that approves drugs, 

including adequate scientific review of studies relating to 

their safety and effectiveness; accurate labeling 

information that conforms with law; the ability to detect

and record certain serious safety problems with drugs, 

including adverse reactions; and sufficient procedures and 

trained personnel to administer and enforce the policies of 

the agency, including the capability to remove problem 

drugs from the market. 

Second tier country--defined as a country which has an 

adequate governmental health authority to assure that 

labeling information for each drug accurately reflects the 

labeling approved or licensed by a first tier country, and 

is adequate to meet the third and fourth requirements for 

first tier countries. 

Third tier country--defined as a country not included in 

either of the first two categories, but for which the 

Secretary determines, on the basis of scientific evidence, 

that the shipment of a particular drug is justified to 

promote the public health in that country because of 

diseases or health conditions which do not exist to a 

significant extent in the U.S. (i.e. a tropical disease). 

Requires the Secretary to identify the first and second 

tier countries within 90 days of enactment and to provide a 

reasonable opportunity for public comment; lists 15 

developed nations which are to be included in the list of 

first tier countries unless the Secretary determines that a 

country should not be included because it does not have an 

adequate health authority to approve drugs. 

Sets forth the following statutory requirements that a drug 

must meet before it can be shipped to an approved country. 

Requires submission of a "notice of intent to ship" at 

least 90 days before the first shipment of the drug which 

identifies the drug to be shipped, each country to which it 

will be shipped, and, if it is to go to a second tier 

country, a copy of the labeling; requires a written 

agreement from each importer that the drug will not be 

reexported to an unauthorized country without prior written 

consent by the appropriate Secretary; requires assurances 

that reports of serious adverse drug reactions known to the 

exporter will be transmitted promptly to the Secretary for 

inclusion in the drug master file. 

Authorizes the appropriate Secretary to stop export anytime 

after the shipment of a drug becomes permitted; gives the 

shipper of a stop export an opportunity to remedy the 

violation before the order is issued. 

Allows the appropriate Secretary to prohibit the shipment 

of a drug to any authorized country if the drug has been 

determined to present an imminent hazard to the public 

health in that country; provides that a determination will 

not be stayed pending final action by a reviewing court.

Prohibits shipment to an importer who is reexporting a drug 

to an unauthorized country where the drug presents an 

imminent hazard to the public health, and gives the 

importer an opportunity for a hearing; requires the 

Secretary to notify the governments of the countries 

involved. 

Requires a biennial study on the extent to which drugs 

shipped under this authority are introduced into 

unauthorized countries, the effect on the health of those 

countries' populations, and the extent of labeling 

compliance with drugs shipped to second tier countries; 

calls for a study, within five years of enactment, that 

assesses the economic impact of this bill on employment, 

capital investment, trade, and international health. 

Assures that so-called "tropical diseases" under the Orphan 

Drug Act are eligible for the development assistance and 

market protection afforded by this Act. 

Regularizes notification procedures currently required by 

law for the export of a hazardous product or substance; 

mandates prior notification of foreign officials and 

provides a common format containing minimum information 

about the nature of the product and why it was banned or 

restricted in the U.S.; requires the compilation of an 

annual compendium listing all final affirmative actions by 

U.S. agencies banning or severely restricting substances. 

Permits the interstate shipment of confections containing 

alcohol to States in which the sale is lawful. 

Requires manufacturers of infant formula to test each batch 

of formula before it leaves the factory for the level of 

required nutrients and to ensure that it does not contain 

any hazardous extraneous materials; provides for routine 

testing of nutrient levels during the formula's shelf life; 

requires all testing records for liquid and dry infant 

formulas to be retained for one year after the formula's 

shelf life expires; establishes recall procedures for any 

formula which does not meet nutrient requirements or is 

otherwise adulterated. 

Establishes in law the Food and Drug Administration.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Military Retirement (H.R. 4420, P.L. 99-348) 

Glenn motion to table Simon amendment: Provides that 

persons entering military after bill's enactment shall 

receive retirement benefit COLA's calculated annually on 

original base amount of retiree's annuity, rather than 

compounded. 


(86-7) 

Yeas (86) 



Burdick, Byrd, Cranston, DeConcini, Dixon, Dodd, 



Leahy, Levin, Matsunaga, Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, 

Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sasser, Stennis 






Kasten, Laxalt, Lugar, Mattingly, McConnell, Murkowski, 

Nickles, Pressler, Quayle, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Specter, 

Stafford, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, Warner, 


Nays (7) 


Eagleton, Long, Metzenbaum, Proxmire, Simon, Zorinsky 


McClure 


Democrats (2) 

Chiles-2, Melcher-2 


Hawkins-2AY, Humphrey-2, Mathias-2, Packwood-2, Wallop-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents of the amendment argued that it would save $1

illion a year from military retirement costs without 

affecting the quality of the military. By calculating the 

cost-of-living allowance from the retiree's base pay, 

rather than compounding the COLA, the most inflationary 

aspect of indexing would be eliminated, while affecting 

only a small part of the military. In fact, only 12 

percent of those who enlist ultimately retire, and 

two-thirds of those who do retire get another job that most 

likely would be covered by Social Security. The existing 

retirement system was established at a time when military 

pay was very low. That no longer being the case, the 

reason for the generous retirement program no longer 

exists. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 

this amendment would reduce military personnel from the 

current 2.2 million level by 8,000 persons over the next 20 

years. While this figure is difficult to substantiate, a 

difference this size is nominal and could be made up by 

offering bonuses for enlisting or reenlisting. The actual 

recruitment value of promising to compound retirement pay 

is probably minimal; it is not a primary concern among 

recruits. Comparing the compounding of COLA's for military 

pay with compounding of COLA's for social security does not 

take into consideration that social security payments 

average about nine years while military retirement may 

continue for 35 years. Nor is it analogous to compounding 

income in a bank account. A bank compounds income for 

leaving money in; the military retirement system compounds 

income for taking money out. In addition, virtually no 

private sector retirement program includes cost-of-living 

indexing; only government systems do. This amendment, they 

emphasized, would affect only those who enter the service 

after the bill takes effect. 

Opponents of the amendment claimed that the proposed method 

of calculating the COLA would be unfair to retirees in 

their 60's, 70's and 80's, at a time in their lives when 

they need financial security most. By calculating the COLA 

from the base pay, a retiree's standard of living begins to 

deteriorate from the point of retirement. Under the 

proposed formula, the annual military retirement annuity of 

an enlisted member would, 25 years after his retirement, be 

worth only 66 percent of the amount it was worth at the 

time of his retirement. After 35 years, it would be worth 

half. Such a formula has not been added to any other 

retirement system: not civil service, Congressional, 

judicial, veterans or social security. There is no 

justification for making the military an exception. To 

attract the kind of volunteers the armed services need, 

with the capabilities necessary to build a strong military, 

the inducement of a good retirement program is important. 

The Uniformed Services Retirement Cost Reduction Act under 

consideration will cut retirement costs by $2.9 billion. 

When combined with legislation passed in 1980, which 

established that base retirement pay would be calculated 

from the average of the highest three years of basic pay,

the overall reduction in future military retirement costs 

amounts to 27 percent. The Simon amendment would save an 

additional $1 billion. Its savings, along with the savings 

already in this bill and the 1980 Act, would reduce future 

military retirement costs by 32 percent. The exact impact 

of the amendment is difficult to assess, but common sense 

suggests that reducing retirement benefits by nearly 

one-third would make it difficult to retain the best 

qualified and most capable members of the military.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Military Retirement (H.R. 4420, P.L. 99-348) 

Goldwater amendment: Prohibits use of funds to procure 

T-46 trainer aircraft. 


(79-14) 

Yeas (79) 



Burdick, Byrd, Cranston, Dixon, Dodd, Eagleton, Exon, 

Ford, Glenn, Gore, Harkin, Hart, Hollings, Inouye, Kennedy, 

Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Long, Matsunaga, Melcher, 


Rockefeller, Simon, Zorinsky 


Abdnor, Andrews, Armstrong, Boschwitz, Chafee, Cohen, 

Danforth, Denton, Dole, Domenici, East, Evans, Garn, 

Goldwater, Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, Hatfield, Hecht, Heinz, 

Helms, Humphrey, Kassebaum, Kasten, Lugar, Mattingly, 

McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Pressler, Quayle, Roth, 

Rudman, Simpson, Stafford, Symms, Thurmond, Trible, Warner, 

Wilson 

Nays (14) 


DeConcini, Heflin, Johnston, Moynihan, Sarbanes, Sasser 


Cochran, D'Amato, Hatch, Laxalt, McClure, Specter, Stevens, 

Weicker 


Democrats (2) 

Chiles-2, Stennis-2 


Durenberger-2, Hawkins-2, Mathias-2, Packwood-2, Wallop-2 

Office Note 

(no text) 

Description 

Proponents contended that these funds should not be 

expended since the Air Force does not want any FY 1987 

funds for production of the T-46 trainer. Three 

Secretaries of the Air Force and the Secretary of Defense

have stated they do not intend to bring the plane into 

inventory this year. The Air Force plans to continue R&D 

on the trainer and defer procurement until sufficient funds 

are available, probably in the 1990's. The existing T-37 

trainer is old but serviceable, and its service life can be 

extended from 15,000 to 18,000 hours at no cost, and to 

25,000 hours for $200 million. By contrast, the T-46 would 

cost more than $3.5 billion for development and 

procurement, with a life cycle cost of more than $6 

billion. The aircraft is now grounded because of several 

production problems. In addition, it has several dangerous 

design flaws including structural vibration problems and an 

inadequate stall warning system. The Federal government 

faces budget problems that will still be around in the 

1990's. It might be appropriate to cancel the entire 

program, redefine training needs over the next few years, 

and start over. The willingness of the Air Force to cancel 

T-46 production adds to the credibility of their analysis. 

Congress should not force upon the Air Force a program it 

does not want. 

Opponents claimed that the amendment is not germane to the 

bill. These funds, which Congress duly authorized and 

appropriated, should not be rescinded. Furthermore, the 

Air Force needs a new trainer and had lobbied Congress for 

seven years to obtain funding. The problems with the T-46 

are limited to production, and those flaws have been 

substantially corrected. The question is whether to build 

the trainer now or postpone it, and deny pilots the modern, 

effective training they need. The T-37 trainer currently 

in use is 30 years old, and does not have a pressurized 

cabin, which restricts its flying in all-weather training, 

or side-by-side seating for student and instructor. The 

T-46 has these features, consumes 66 percent less fuel, and 

costs 30 percent less to operate and maintain than the 

T-37. The House Armed Services Committee and both 

Appropriations Defense subcommittees strongly support 

production of the T-46. The Air Force admits the T-46 

performs satisfactorily. The reasons cited for not seeking 

production funds in 1987 are manufacturing problems, 

schedule delays, and budget restraints. According to 

General Gabriel, Chief of Staff for the Air Force, and 

other Air Force personnel, the problem is not with the 

plane but with prioritizing expenditures. The Secretary of 

Defense has stated that no money would be spent on the 

trainer in this year's budget because it would divert funds 

needed more urgently elsewhere. The Air Force has asked 

for increased funding for the F-16 and the C-5B aircraft, 

totaling more than $600 million over the current fiscal 

year. The Air Force will have to obtain a new trainer by 

the 1990's. If the T-46 is killed now, Fairchild Aircraft 

Company, the prime contractor, which has invested a 

considerable amount in the program, would not survive to 

bid on the contract again. Congress and the Air Force 

should consult to determine if the primary contractor can

deliver the product with the required quality at a 

reasonable cost. An Air Force report indicates that a five 

year delay in T-46 procurement would add $900 million to 

the cost of the program. In addition, it would cost $250 

million for retooling for production by a new prime 

contractor, and $200 million to modify the T-37 trainer to 

operate in the interim period. The Air Force has already 

spent $600 million on the new trainer. To permit the Air 

Force to spend its limited funds on more aircraft instead 

of adequate training for its pilots would be "an abdication 

of our 

responsibÜ+ÛêKÑj)YóCÊâŒçÛW½sðF;,

1986 - The Exon Library

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?