Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I simply would like to restate the request, if I may put it in those terms, certainly the invitation, of our chairman, noting once again Senator Baucus is necessarily absent. We have a long list of amendments. There is work to be done. On the other hand, it could be that people feel the product of the committee is so finely crafted that it would really be superfluous, if not at some level diminishing, to change it now that it has come to the floor, in which event we can be out of here in this regard by noon tomorrow. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank you for the answers to my questions.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. ``I'm macho, I will take this helmet off.''

Mr. MOYNIHAN. When you were in combat with those marines, were there marines who thought it was somehow unmanly to wear helmets?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. A combat marine.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Perhaps he will stay long enough to hear this question. The distinguished chairman, sometime Secretary of the Navy, was a combat marine in the Second World War; is that not right?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will the distinguished chairman yield for a question?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Populace.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, if I could detain my friend from Ohio and the distinguished chairman just another moment, we say that there are 40,000 lives lost a year on highways. When we began working on the epidemiology of automobile crashes--not accidents; they are not accidents; they are predictable events in a complex system--we were already approaching 50,000 deaths a year. In the interval since we began changing design with passive restraints and such, we cannot have but doubled the number of automobiles and doubled the number of miles, but the number of deaths has actually dropped. I make a point that this idea of passive restraints, where you build safety into the system, you will find in the Bible. And in the best tradition of this institution, I would like to cite--this was first found by William Hadden, Jr., the Dr. Hadden I mentioned. It is in Deuteronomy, chapter 22, verse 8: When thou buildest a new house, thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence. It is a simple idea. Have a railing so in the dark you do not step off and land 40 feet below. It is elementally good sense, but it is amazing how much argument it can take, and we shall hear more such argument tomorrow. But I wish the Senator from Ohio great good fortune.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. It is very generous of the Senator. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from Ohio would remain on the floor for just a moment, I would like to congratulate him for his remarks. I will be one of many Senators supporting him. This is very much a part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. But just to add to the remark, the Senator speaks of the fatalities. And could I suggest also that since 1965, when we established the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and began the work on vehicular design and crashworthiness, there has been the whole idea of seat belts, and now, of course, air bags, and the redesigning of the automobiles' interiors and such like; is very important work. Dr. William Haddon, whom I had worked with in Albany in the 1950's, became the first Director of that Administration. The idea that there are two collisions when a car hits a tree-- nothing gets hurt unless you have a thing about trees. It is when a person in the car--hits the inside of the car that you have a personal injury. We have done a very great deal of work in this regard over what is now a generation such that collisions which would once have been routinely fatal would now simply be seriously injurious. When we think of the number of lives that are at risk by raising the speed limit, which I think is the case, we could compound that by a factor, probably of tenfold, of injuries which need not be minor, which can be crippling, can be permanent, can be hugely costly, and can be avoided by maintaining the commonsense regulations we have in place, which we put in place by a long hard process of learning about what really was involved in managing this particularly implicitly dangerous system.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. He got it built. General Motors thought it up, you might say. And the Senator, the chairman, is highly correct. What we have seen is not the disappearance of the railroads but their disappearance as a principal mode of passenger transportation, save on certain corridors where it is efficient. If you were looking for the major reason for that--well, probably the airlines did it to continental transport, and the automobile. Although we may have overdone it. We had a very efficient rail system in Los Angeles, for example, which they closed down around 1950 and they wish they could get it back, now that it is probably too late. In any event, with tribute to my friends once again, the Committee on Environment and Public Works brings to this floor a near unanimous measure. I have been 19 years in that committee, and I do not think I can remember many times in which we have had a party-line vote. We have tried to think about the environment. We have tried to think about public works in terms of national interests. If we have not always succeeded, it is not for lack of trying. Once again, we have done that, and very much to be congratulated and thanked at a time when partisan issues rise, as they ought--but they rise a little higher even as we approach Presidential years. This is a good example of the capacity of the Senators between the different parties, different regions, different interests to cooperate and produce a fine bill. I for my part want to congratulate all those involved. Senator Baucus is necessarily absent or he would be saying substantially the same things from the point of view of the High Plains even as I speak from the point of view of the island of Manhattan. Mr. President, with great appreciation for all of the work that the Senator from Virginia has done, and with the expectation that we will now go forward and get it through the Senate in the same period, I want to thank him. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Surely.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, might I express my appreciation to the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia for his masterly account of the provisions in our bill and for his very thoughtful statement about the continuity of this act, S. 440, with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, which had among other purposes the declaration that the Dwight D. Eisenhower Interstate and Defense Highway System, had been built, finished. It took quite a bit longer and a very great deal more than we had expected. But we had done it. I would like to make just a slight modification to my friend's account because it is relevant. President Eisenhower would tell this story, and it is related in his book ``At Ease: Stories I Tell to Friends.'' It is 1919, a young Army lieutenant colonel, soon to revert to his peacetime rank of captain, Dwight D. Eisenhower, was given command of a serious military exercise. He was to assume that wartime events had disabled the railroads. He was to lead a convoy of army trucks across the country from Fort Meade, just out on the edge of the District, in Maryland, technically, to the Presidio in San Francisco. It took him 2 months. The convoy averaged less than 7 miles per hour. It proved that you could cross the continent by truck if you had to, but not if it was a wartime emergency. He wrote in his book: To those who have known only concrete and macadam highways of gentle grades and engineered curves, such a trip might seem humdrum. In those days we were not sure it could be accomplished at all. Nothing of the sort had ever been attempted. The idea for an interstate system emerged, if I could be just a little parochial, out of the 1939 World's Fair in Flushing Meadow, in Queens, NY, at the great General Motors Futurama exhibit. I can remember sitting there as a child, in one of those gliding contraptions that moved around and you saw this great scene of highways, with what we would come to call cloverleaf intersections crossing over one another, going through mountains. President Roosevelt who, along with most others here in Washington, was very much concerned that the Depression of the 1930's would resume with the end of World War II, in 1944 got a national interstate highway system authorized. But it was nothing more than that, an authorization. In New York we built the first segment as the Thruway, starting immediately in 1946, but the system lagged elsewhere. When President Eisenhower came to office he very much had that early [[Page S 8602]] command in mind, and he hit upon the idea with Jim Wright of Texas, a young Congressman at that time, to have a gasoline tax and dedicate it to the construction of this system. And, by golly, we did it. But there came a time when we in fact had done it, built the system, and yet a certain inertia, you might say, pushed us on and on, and we would just build another segment and yet another. We finally came up with a better idea, though, as the chairman has indicated--a new national highway system which would supplement the Eisenhower interstate system. It would consist of only about 4 percent of the Nation's road mileage, but it would carry 40 percent of its traffic. And it would be a combined, cooperative effort of State governments and the Federal Government at its best. In 1991, President Bush very much wanted to have this National Highway System, but in fact the Department of Transportation had not yet drawn it. We had a big meeting down at the Executive Office Building with a map of the country and lots of red lines over it, but it did not represent real highways. It just indicated what would be someday. That someday has come. We will have until the 1st of October--am I correct?

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to state my reasons for opposing the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995. Yesterday the Senate adopted amendment No. 1362 by a vote of 84-16. The amendment purports to prohibit computer transmission of obscenity and indecency. I voted ``no'' out of concern that we were taking this action improvidently and without adequate consideration for its significant constitutional and practical implications. In 1973, the Supreme Court in Miller versus California, and in several subsequent decisions, held that the Constitution does not protect obscenity, which the Court defined as material that appeals to ``prurient interests'' or is ``patently offensive.'' The government accordingly has the authority to regulate obscenity, and properly so. But we must do so with care. The amendment attempts to apply existing laws against obscene and harassing telephone calls to computer transmissions. Regrettably, the language of the amendment is too broad, raising serious questions of constitutionally under the first amendment. For example, the amendment could reasonably be interpreted to prohibit an individual from sending an annoying e-mail message. The penalty for such a transgression: a fine of up to $100,000 or up to 2 years in prison--or both. And, as was noted by Senator Leahy and others during the debate yesterday, the amendment likely makes unlawful on computers materials that are perfectly lawful in books or letters. I suspect the courts will take a dim view of this provision when it is challenged, which it surely will be. Similarly problematic is the failure of the amendment to recognize the difference between telephones and the unique characteristics of computers. In order to view the kinds of lewd and lascivious material complained of by the proponents of the amendment, an individual must take numerous affirmative steps to gain access to it via the on-line services where it can be found. I grant that this is not terribly difficult for one who is computer literate, but the fact remains that in order to look at this material on the computer, you have to actively seek it out. It does not just pop up on the screen when you turn it on. One who looks for and then views such material on his or her computer is in a very different position than a victim of obscene telephone calls. Yet the amendment fails to recognize this distinction. I am also troubled by the Senate's action on another amendment to this bill. This afternoon, by a vote of 67-31, the Senate tabled the Lieberman amendment to retain cable television rate regulation. Senator Lieberman knows the subject of cable rate regulation as well as anyone, having fought cable rate increases in Connecticut in the 1980's when he was State attorney general. He predicts that, without the reasonable rate restrictions in his amendment, cable TV rates will surely rise as a result of this bill. I am afraid he is right. Cable rates rose sharply after Congress lifted rate regulations in 1984, and they are likely to do again if we pass this legislation. This is why I supported the Lieberman amendment, and why I believe it was a mistake for the Senate to defeat it. For this and for the other reasons I have given, I will vote against the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995. the dole amendment on cable volume discounts

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, I rise today to salute my friend, Lane Kirkland, who yesterday announced that he would not seek reelection as president of the AFL-CIO. During his 16-year tenure as head of the AFL- CIO and his 50 years of service to organized labor, Mr. Kirkland devoted himself to improving the lives and occupations of unionized workers. He accomplished this mission with skill and determination. An editorial in today's New York Post remarked: We've always hailed his stalwart commitment to liberal anti-communism and his fealty to the concept of a global network of genuinely free trade unions. It's safe to say, in fact, that no one in the United States--apart from President Reagan himself--did more to hasten the demise of the Soviet empire than did Lane Kirkland. Lane Kirkland's presence at the helm of American labor will be sorely missed. As the New York Post concluded: His retirement marks the departure from the public arena of a larger-than-life figure--an able, courageous and principled individual whose shoes will be difficult to fill. I extend my thanks to Lane Kirkland for his dedication to working men and women, and I wish him the best of luck in the future.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, yesterday at Union College in Schenectady, NY, I was privileged to deliver the commencement address on the occasion of the bicentennial anniversary of that institution's charter. The elements, however, did not cooperate. As the thunder began to rumble, I cut my address short. But as this morning's Albany Times Union noted, my parting promise to the gathered was: ``I'll put the rest in the Congressional Record.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my address be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, as some Senators may know, I had intended to offer an amendment to the antiterrorism legislation to update the existing statute prohibiting the manufacture, sale, and importation of armor-piercing ammunition. My amendment would have simply revised current law to cover new projectiles capable of penetrating the soft body armor worn by most law enforcement officers. However, as part of the agreement negotiated by the managers to permit completion of the bill yesterday, all amendments relating to firearms were dropped. Senator Bradley and I planned to offer a separate amendment requiring development by the Department of the Treasury of uniform standards for the testing of armor-piercing ammunition. This is an important effort which I fully support, and I regret that we were not able to offer this amendment. Unfortunately, the amendment by the Senator from New Jersey failed to address the more immediate danger presented by the presence today in stores nationwide of certain bullets capable of penetrating police body armor. I learned of this ammunition only last week from the FBI. It obviously poses a serious threat to law enforcement. It has been well over a decade since I first introduced legislation to eliminate the armor-piercing bullets. I first became aware of problem in 1982, and with the help of the Patrolman's Benevolent Association of New York City, as well as other law enforcement groups, helped secure enactment in 1986 of the original statute banning so- called cop-killer bullets. In 1993, I secured passage of a provision in the crime bill, which became law in September 1994, to include in the definition of armor-piercing ammunition the Swedish-made M39B round. When I learned last week that other armor-piercing rounds exist which elude the ban, I immediately began work on an amendment to update the statute once again. Unfortunately, I was not in a position to offer this amendment to S. 735. As I have said, amendments on this subject were not permitted under the unanimous consent agreement. Even if not have proceeded without the cooperation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. I had gone to some lengths to solicit support for this amendment from both the FBI and the BATF. I had sought to draft language that would ban the new armor-piercing rounds without affecting nonarmor-piercing or other legitimate sporting rounds that pose no threat to law enforcement. Despite repeated inquiries to the FBI and BATF, however, I had no response. The administration took the position on Monday that all amendments should be resisted, and that was that. Mr. President, I regret that we were unable to proceed on the antiterrorism bill with my amendment to update the ban on armor- piercing ammunition. It is of great importance to the Nation's law enforcement officers. I hope we will be able to more forward on this matter in the near future.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, I am deeply concerned that the Senate has chosen in this legislation to radically alter the ancient writ of habeas corpus an subjiciendum. Four separate Democratic amendments that would have moderated the bill's extreme habeas corpus provisions were rejected today. It is troubling that the Senate has undertaken to revise the Great Writ of Liberty in a bill designed as a response to the Oklahoma City bombing. Habeas corpus reform has very little to do with terrorism. The Oklahoma City bombing was a Federal crime and will be tried in Federal courts. The controversy over habeas corpus is a result of excess litigation by State court prisoners who believe they were wrongly convicted in State courts. According to the Emergency Committee to Save Habeas Corpus, a group of 100 of the Nation's most distinguished attorneys, scholars, and civic leaders, ``Cutting back the enforcement of constitutional liberties for people unlawfully held in State custody is neither necessary to habeas reform nor relevant to terrorism.'' Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution provides that: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. The Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 permitted State prisoners convicted in State courts to challenge the constitutionality of their imprisonment in Federal district court. This is a right we have honored in the United States for well over a century. The legislation before us will require our Federal courts to defer to State court judgments unless a State court's application of Federal law is unreasonable. Our Federal courts will be powerless to correct State court decisions--even if a State court decision is wrong. The bill requires deference by the Federal courts unless a State court's decision is unreasonably wrong. This is a standard that will effectively preclude Federal review. This Senator understands the need for habeas corpus reform, and I would support legislation to impose reasonable limitations on appeals. But this bill goes far too far. It will in many cases transform the State courts--not the Federal courts established under article III of the U.S. Constitution--into the arbiters of Federal constitutionality. This legislation will eviscerate the writ of habeas corpus, and that is something this Senator in good conscience must oppose. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Emergency Committee to Save Habeas Corpus, and the list of its members, be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Commemorative Coin Act of 1995. This bill authorizes the striking of six coins in the next 2 years. The subjects to be commemorated are: the 200th year of gold coinage, the 50th anniversary of the United Nations and the Presidency of Harry Truman, the 150th anniversary of the Smithsonian, the Franklin Roosevelt Memorial in Washington, DC, the 125th anniversary of Yellowstone National Park, and the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, also in Washington. This past November, the congressionally established Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee published in its first annual report to Congress, which recommended a 5-year plan of coin programs. The committee concluded that the serious decline in commemorative coin sales necessitated a reduction in the number and amount of coins to be minted. Otherwise, the success of each individual coin program is threatened and the Mint runs the risk of losing money on them. This bill includes the coins recommended by the advisory committee and no others. It has the committee's full endorsement. It is a sensible package of commemoratives for deserving occasions and topics, limited in scope so that the numismatic market can absorb them all. As a Smithsonian regent I am delighted to offer a coin for the Institution. As a New Yorker I am equally pleased to offer one for the United Nations and one for President Roosevelt. Yellowstone, the Law Enforcement Memorial, and gold coinage will also make popular and worthy coins. I urge my colleagues to join the bipartisan support we have for the bill, and I ask that its text be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on May 20, 1995, Raymond W. Kelly, the esteemed former police commissioner of New York City, gave a moving commencement speech at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, NY. Senators will recall that, in addition to his service as the head of the Nation's largest police force, Commissioner Kelly recently returned from a very demanding assignment as director of the International Police Monitors in Haiti. In his speech, Commissioner Kelly urged the Class of 1995 to be, and I quote, ``America's new idealists. * * * America needs new, energetic voices to counter the current wisdom that says all government is suspect. The class of '95 should be that voice.'' In recognition of Commissioner Kelly's public service, Marist College awarded him an honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters. His fine commencement address truly deserves the attention of the Senate, and I ask that the text of the speech be printed in the Record. The speech follows: Remarks by Raymond W. Kelly President Murray, Brother Paul, Chairman Dyson, friends, family, and members of the class of 1995. I want to express my appreciation to Marist College and its board of trustees for conferring this honorary degree on me. And I want to express my congratulations to the class of '95 who earned your degrees the hard way. This honor permits me to share with the class of '95 the soaring reputation of this great institution; a reputation which has spread far beyond the confines of the Hudson Valley, across America and beyond, to some unexpected corners of the world. What Brother Paul Ambrose and the original Marist fraternity planted with their sweat and broad shoulders has blossomed beyond even their inspired dreams. It has blossomed because the secular community who followed in their footsteps kept the faith and worked hard. The result is this beautiful campus, a crown jewel on the Hudson River. But Marist College is far more than that. It has preserved what other institutions have lost, or are still trying to achieve: namely, a faculty that teaches, an administration that leads, and a board of trustees that governs. The result--and I know this first hand--are graduates who leave Marist College ready to take on the world, in all of its complexity, and even its dangers. Last fall, when President Clinton asked me to go to Haiti to direct the international police monitors, he put at my disposal over twelve hundred police professionals from around the world. In addition, I had United States Army and Marine Corps personnel reporting to me. Our job was to stop human rights abuses by a notorious Haitian police and military, and to establish an interim public security force. We did all that, and more. I was honored to lead the effort, but I certainly could not do it alone. With a large and highly skilled group from which to choose, I needed three individuals for key positions. I had neither the time nor the inclination to check their college credentials. I just went on my instincts that came with 30 years of judging leadership in the New York City Police Department and the United States Marine Corps. And today, I want the Marist College class of 1995 to meet the three individuals who I asked to go in harms way to lead Haiti out of the hell created by a brutal dictatorship. They are (and I'd like them to stand): [[Page S7709]] United States Marine Corps Major Samuel Delgado, military liaison for Haiti's second largest city, and Marist College graduate, class of 1977. United States Marine Corps Major Mario Labpaix, interpreter and military liaison for Haiti's largest city, and Marist College graduate, class of 1978. And former assistant commissioner of the New York City Police Department, Paul J. Browne, the deputy director of the international police monitors in Haiti, and Marist College graduate, class of 1971. They are three reasons who our mission in Haiti was a success. And if the President of the United States called again tomorrow and asked me for three good men, I'd call Delgado, Lapaix and Browne. And if the President of the United States called tomorrow and asked me for three hundred good men and women, I'd call the Marist College placement office. Professor Lavin described it as an ``uncanny coincidence.'' But I'm not so sure. It should be no surprise that the tenets of ethics and of public service rooted in the Marist tradition and carried forward in its classrooms emerge in its graduates, just when the world needs them most. I urge the class of 95 to hold fast to those tenets, and to make ethical conduct and service to your fellow human beings the hallmarks of whatever careers await you. America, and the world, sorely need both. America and the world also need people who will stand on principle. And, uphold in their daily lives the values that this institution believes in. My advice to the class of 95 is: Tell the truth, be loyal to your friends, but not blind to their failings, and set a standard of ethical conduct for yourselves and to be true to it no matter what. Whatever perceived advantage in your personal or public life is sacrificed by doing the right thing is not worth attaining if it means compromising what you believe in. One other thing: I have never made a career decision based on money, and I have never regretted it. I can see all of you with loan payments cringing. But I mean it. Simply put, money is overrated. America has plenty of money and plenty of money makers, what it needs is idealists. I urge class of 95 to be Ameria's new idealists. Somewhere between Dallas, Vietnam and Watergate, our idealism was shattered. Idealism was the great casuality of my generation. It need not be yours. America needs new, energetic voices to counter the current wisdom that says all government is suspect. The class of 95 should be that voice. America needs a conscience that counters the lie that the poor are responsible for their own plight. The class of 95 should be that conscience. America needs the confidence to refute the proposition that self interest should come before all other interests. The class of 95 should have that confidence. There is also a disturbing manifesto of government mistrust abroad in the land. It is embraced by a radical fringe that is not prepared to die for its cause but ready to kill for it. But it is not embraced by the radicals alone. It is espoused by newcomers to leadership who say they are drawn to government for the principal purpose of dismantling it. It has also given rise to a new mean-spiritedness and a new cynicism; one that casts a cold eye on the plight of the poor and the aspirations of minorities and immigrants. And it has given rise to a new isolationism which would confine American foreign policy to the dark parameters of narrow self interest. All of this suspicious introspection is unbecoming of the American character. Americans are, by nature, generous and optimistic and we need to reclaim our heritage. You need to reclaim it. I was recently told about a retired General Electric employee who had immigrated to the United States from the Ukraine during World War Two. He came, by way of Russia, by way of Germany, by way of France. He was a refugee. Along the way he met American soldiers, the first Americans he had ever seen. He said the Americans were fundamentally different from him and from everyone he had ever known. The Americans were full of hope. They were full of optimism and idealism. They laughed easily and looked to the future. He knew no one like them. They were unencumbered by the old European notions of family position, of wealth, of status. They were free of the elitism that held so many people back. He said he saw the Americans as ``a new tribe,'' completely and irresistibly different from his experience, and he desperately wanted to be a member of the tribe. That was 50 years ago. But the world still sees Americans in much the same way. In Haiti, we were welcomed as liberators by the poorest people in the Western Hemisphere. The graffiti on the walls in Port-Au-Prince said: ``Americans, please stay in Haiti for 50 years.'' American self-interest was served in Haiti, certainly as it applied to curtaining the flow of illegal immigration into the United States. But we also went to Haiti because it was the right thing to do. We put our might were our mouth was. We fed the hungry. We saved lives. We routed the bullies, and rescued fellow human beings from despots. We restored democracy. We treated some of the poorest people in the world with great dignity, which was a completely new experience for them. We need to practice that charity at home, and not be afraid to remain engaged abroad. America needs you to do that. America needs optimists. It needs idealists. America needs the class of 95 to be engaged in the world. If your country asks you to serve, say yes. If it doesn't ask, volunteer. We need to have the kind of faith in ourselves that the world has in America. We need Americans who believe, as President Kennedy did, that ``Here on Earth, God's work must truly be our own.''

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my vote on the Grams amendment No. 1182 be changed from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' This change will not affect the outcome of the vote.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Chair. (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.) Vote on Amendment No. 1195