The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington.

MR. MAC NEIL: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After the News Summary, we cover the drama in the Senate over the balanced budget amendment with a debate between party leaders and the views of our regional editors and columnists. Also tonight, Richard Ostling, religion correspondent of Time Magazine, reports on the church- state case heard today by the Supreme Court. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MAC NEIL: For the second day in a row Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole put off a vote on the balanced budget amendment. He acknowledged that supporters of the constitutional amendment were one vote shy of the sixty-seven votes needed for passage. Last night, Dole abruptly called for a recess moments before the vote was scheduled to take place. When the Senate reconvened this morning, he called for another recess until noon tomorrow.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Majority Leader: This is no time for retreat. This is a time as far as this Senator is concerned for all of us who believe in the balanced budget amendment on both sides of the aisle to try to find one more vote.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE, Minority Leader: The word that I was given over a week ago was that we would have a vote last night. The vote wasn't going to be if we had so many votes we'd keep the deal. The vote was we're going to keep our deal, we'll have a vote, and that will be the end of it.

MR. MAC NEIL: Sen. Dole said later the vote will take place tomorrow afternoon. He said Republicans would attempt to revive the measure periodically if it failed this time. President Clinton opposes the amendment. His spokesman, Mike McCurry, said today regardless of the outcome of the Senate vote, the President intends to work with the Republican majority in Congress toward achieving a balanced budget. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: The Agriculture Department went after food stamp fraud today. It proposed legislation to make it tougher for grocery stories to participate in the program and to more closely monitor those stores that do participate. An estimated $1 billion is lost each year to food stamp trafficking. In economic news today, the Commerce Department reported the Gross Domestic Product rose at a revised annual rate of 4.6 percent. In the last quarter of 1994, the economy grew 4 percent for the whole of last year, the fastest rate in a decade.

MR. MAC NEIL: Former President -- Mexican President Carlos Salinas today withdrew his candidacy to head the World Trade Organization. Earlier in the day, White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta said the Clinton administration was reconsidering its endorsement of Salinas to head the organization. That followed news that Salinas's brother, Raul, was arrested for masterminding the assassination of a former government official in Mexico. Panetta also said the administration is investigating whether Carlos Salinas is linked to that assassination. In Mexico today, the chief prosecutor in the case said the murder may have been motivated by interests of the former President. Carlos Salinas called the allegation absurd. Colombia's efforts to stem the tide of cocaine and other drugs into this country were sharply criticized today in a State Department report. The report cited weak legislation, government corruption, and inefficiency. But the U.S. stopped short of imposing economic sanctions against Colombia, because of national security.

MR. LEHRER: The last U.N. peacekeeping forces withdrew from Mogadishu Airport in Somalia today. They left under cover from U.S. and Italian troops. We have more in this report from Leanne Raines of Associated Press Television.

LEANNE RAINES, Associated Press Television: As the U.N. contingent pulled out, hundreds of looters clambered over airport walls to make off with the few materials left behind. Somali militiamen's armed vehicles followed them in, and gunfire was heard as the militia chased the scavengers away. Some vehicles came so close to U.N. lines U.S. Marine Lt. Gen. Tony Zinni said his troops were forced to fire warning shots.

LT. GEN. TONY ZINNI, Commander, Operation United Shield: It was time to just let them know that we were here.

LEANNE RAINES: Many military officers feared Somali clans would battle for the airport once U.N. troops were withdrawn. The airport and seaport are believed to be highly prized potential sources of money. With Somali militiamen in place, U.S. commanders believe the threat of battle has passed. The U.N. troops withdrawn today are all that remain of an international force stationed to end famine and war. Fifteen hundred peacekeepers are due to ship out on Thursday. The U.S. led Marines sent to guard that retreat will then return to their ships offshore.

MR. LEHRER: Later in the day, a U.S. Marine killed a Somali gunman at the airport. The Somali had fired a grenade into the ocean behind U.S. lines.

MR. MAC NEIL: The Supreme Court heard arguments today on whether a public university must give funding to a student religious publication. The case involves the University of Virginia, which denied funds to a magazine featuring Christian views on various issues. The university cited its policy against funding publications of religious advocacy. The plaintiffs claim a violation of freedom of speech and the press. Representatives from both sides spoke outside the Supreme Court.

JOHN JEFFRIES, Lawyer, University of Virginia: There are several other categories that are not eligible for funding: lobbying activities, electioneering activities, social entertainment expenses, philanthropic expenses. The effort to portray this as a rule which excludes only religious activities is simply not true. This newspaper is start to finish proselytizing particular religious beliefs. We have no problem with that activity. We simply don't want to pay for it.

RONALD ROSENBERGER, Plaintiff: Proselytizing is really persuading. I think that anyone -- anytime anyone presents arguments publicly, of course, they have to persuade people to their viewpoint. I don't think there's any distinction between what we were doing in our magazine and what other students were doing in the other fifteen magazines that were all funded by the University of Virginia.

MR. MAC NEIL: We'll have more on the story later in the program, but first it's on to the balanced budget amendment and our regional columnists and editors. FOCUS - BALANCING ACT

MR. LEHRER: The big delay and the big vote on the balanced budget amendment is our lead story tonight. Last night, Senate Majority Leader Dole backed off a final Senate vote once he knew for sure it was going to lose by one vote. He continued that delay today. Our coverage begins with this update by Kwame Holman.

KWAME HOLMAN: On the verge of its historic vote on a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, the Senate last night sat stalled and in suspense for 37 minutes, and the vote never came.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Majority Leader: Madam President, I move the Senate stand a recess of 10 AM, Wednesday, March 1st.

MR. HOLMAN: Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole pulled the plug on the proceedings, as supporters of the balanced budget amendment were unable to round up one additional vote to pass it. A last minute flurry of negotiations with two Democrats had failed to change their minds, and Dole didn't want to see the amendment go down, at least not yet.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE: We still think there's some chance of getting this revolved by tomorrow morning so that we'll have 67 votes or maybe more.

MR. HOLMAN: Dole's move postponing the scheduled vote infuriated the leading opponent of the balanced budget amendment, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD, [D] West Virginia: Madam President, this -- this has every appearance of a sleazy, tawdry effort to win a victory at the cost of a constitutional amendment, at the cost of amending the Constitution of the United States. We've had our chances. Why don't we vote? I deplore -- I deplore this -- this tawdry effort here to go over till tomorrow, so that additional pressures can be made on some poor member in the effort to get his vote.

MR. HOLMAN: The Republican pressure last night fell on two Senators in particular, Democrats Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan, both of North Dakota. This morning, they told reporters they're demanding that protection for Social Security be written into the balanced budget amendment.

SEN. KENT CONRAD, [D] North Dakota: I have said I don't believe the Social Security trust fund surplus should be looted to balance the operating budget. Last night, the first suggestion was well, we will stop using the Social Security trust fund surpluses in the year 2012. Does that satisfy you? Well, if you look at the build- up of the trust fund, you find most of the money has been used by that time. We said -- I said, no, 2012, that's certainly not acceptable, and they came back and said, well, how about if we stopped using the Social Security trust fund surpluses by the year 2008? I said, no, that's not acceptable. So I -- I think we've just got a fundamental difference here with respect to this amendment.

MR. HOLMAN: It was Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici who did the negotiating with Conrad.

SEN. PETE DOMENICI, Chairman, Senate Budget Committee: I was asked to go talk to him. Our leadership knew that there was no possible way that we could do for him what he had been saying had to be done, so we offered a compromise. That's all we're going to do, and that is pretty much. I'm not at all sure that we would -- that offer is off the table at this point. I'm not sure we'll put it back on the table.

MR. HOLMAN: Domenici insists there's no way to reach a balanced budget without relying on the surplus in the Social Security trust fund.

SEN. PETE DOMENICI: The point of it is that there is just one American budget, and the surplus is on that budget. And how quickly can you get totally off it? We know we're going to get off it when we have to start using it, that's for sure, when we have to start using it to pay Social Security recipients. We ought to push back from that date and start doing it sooner than that but how soon, and however more soon you insist on doing it, that means more cuts or more taxes have to be imposed to get where you have to go. I don't think that's going to sell.

MR. HOLMAN: Meanwhile, on the Senate floor this morning, there was no vote, only some hard feelings left over from not voting last night.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: I thought we had a deal. I thought we had an agreement. I thought we were going to go to a vote. If we're not going to go to a vote, if we're going to delay that vote and bring it up some other time, I think it's imperative we have the notice of the Majority Leader in advance so that all members can be forewarned, but I must say I'm deeply disappointed, and this kind of instant rule-making is unacceptable.

MR. HOLMAN: And Majority Leader Dole was still smarting from the comments made last night by Sen. Byrd.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE: And I'd ask that some of the "tawdry" references, "sleazy" references, in my view, are uncalled for. This is a very important vote, so we're going to continue to try one vote. And if we fail on that, then when the vote's cast and endsup 66, I'll change my vote, and I'll enter a motion to reconsider, and that motion to reconsider is not debatable and can be called up any time by the leader. And I think sometime about next September might be appropriate to reconsider this whole issue. Don't want to do it too quickly but leave it out there a year, let's see what happens as we get near the election and the American people are a little agitated at Congress, as they should be.

MR. HOLMAN: And over on the House side, Speaker Newt Gingrich appeared agitated when he met with reporters today.

REPORTER: A few weeks ago, you came into the House gallery talking about after having passed the House, the balanced budget amendment would enjoy such massive public support there would be such a stampede the Senate would be overwhelmed, and it would pass the Senate. What happened?

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: Well, first of all, it never occurred to me you'd have two Senators who lied to their states to get re-elected. I mean, Feinstein just plain lied, and she went back home, she campaigned in a very close race, she said, "I'm for a balanced budget." It was a major campaign -- part of her program. She said, "I really am a fiscal conservative. We really need a balanced budget." She's now found the skinniest and most spurious of excuses to hide.

MR. HOLMAN: This afternoon, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein responded to the Gingrich attack.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, [D] California: I've been a mayor for nine years. I've been mao-maoed by the very best in the business, street people who really know how to do it, right up front, right up close, right up personal, and it doesn't move me. As a matter of fact, it moves me exactly the opposite way. So it doesn't work on me. I think their efforts have been counterproductive. I believe they have lost votes in the Senate, and, you know, Speaker Gingrich, if he keeps up with this, he will clad feet in concrete, and they won't be able to be moved.

MR. HOLMAN: Bipartisan supporters of the balanced budget amendment met late this afternoon for another strategy session but still without the one vote they need. Nevertheless, Senate Republicans have promised they'll go forward with the delayed vote on the balanced budget amendment tomorrow afternoon.

MR. LEHRER: Now, the view from the Senate leadership tonight. It comes from the Majority Whip Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, and Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, the co-chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Sen. Lott, where do matters stand tonight? Have you found the one vote yet?

SEN. TRENT LOTT, Majority Whip: We're still looking, and we think there's a good possibility of that, and we do expect a vote to occur at 2 o'clock on Thursday.

MR. LEHRER: Who are you working on right now?

SEN. LOTT: Anybody that'll stand still to listen to us. Of course, you know, it's down to 34 Senators out of 100 that haven't made it, you know, absolutely clear that they're going to vote for it, or said they're going to vote against it. So I suppose there are still four or five that are considering it that might still vote for it, and we are trying to talk to them. You know who they are. We'd be glad to talk to any of them, but I don't want to name them here in front of Chris. He might give 'em a call and say quit talking to these guys. But, for instance, Dianne Feinstein, I mean, she made it clear that I think she'd like to find a way to vote for it, and we'd like to help her to be able to do that.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Dodd, how does it look to you right now? Have you got any of your folks wavering?

SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD, [D] Connecticut: Well, I don't know. This is like trying to nail jello to a tree, I guess, in a sense, but this much is true, obviously. It was last evening's scene there with scrawlings on papers flying around after the speeches were given, hardly the way in which you'd like to see the Constitution, the organic law of this country, changed. Obviously, the votes weren't there. Sen. Dole has made it quite clear that if they're not there tomorrow, then he'll hold out the vote maybe to swing it when some member is not around. I don't think that's the way you ought to amend the Constitution. Hopefully, there will be plenty of notice, people given a chance to re-debate, re-focus on the question. Frankly, had there been an effort to take Social Security off the table, this matter -- even though I disagree with it -- the constitutional amendment -- but had that been done, I think the votes would have been there, maybe 70 votes, maybe more than 70 votes by just that absolute assurance that Social Security would not be on the table. This matter, frankly, would be behind us.

SEN. LOTT: Well, let me respond. You're right, Chris. You were honest in saying it as a matter of fact, that when there votes to take Social Security off the table or put language in the Constitution you correctly joined in working against that or voting against that. And I want to emphasize this. The discussions that were going on last night and the scrawlings on paper did not involve any changes in the language in the Constitution. It was a discussion on ways that the enabling legislation would be developed, would occur. So it did not involve any changes in the constitutional language. We are committed to the language that is in there. We made a legitimate change on judicial review. Sen. Nunn and Sen. Johnston, Sen. Slade Gordon had said, look, we need to do something specific on judicial review. They were right. We made that change. I thought that was a pretty good indication that where a legitimate argument is being made about the language in the constitutional amendment itself, we worked out an agreement.

MR. LEHRER: Social Security is not going to be in there. It's not going to be off the table.

SEN. LOTT: It is not going to be in the Constitution, but it is off the table, and we are prepared to work with any Senators who'd like to work on legislation, enabling legislation, or any way to further clarify the fact that Social Security is not going to be used to move the budget toward a balance. You don't need to do that. You shouldn't do it. We're not going to do it. Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, all regions have said that is not going to happen, and it's just being used as a red herring to try to block the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. That's what the question is. Can we get one more vote to pass the balanced budget amendment?

MR. LEHRER: I thought Sen. Domenici told Kwame Holman that, in fact, that money was needed the first few years to help balance the budget. It would be after the first few years that Social Security would not be used anymore. Did I misread that, Sen. Dodd?

SEN. DODD: You heard him exactly correctly. You're exactly right. And it's not taking pieces of it here. It's like moving the handkerchief around. Well, you take a little bit now and a little bit later and a little bit later. You know, quite candidly, those that deeply care about this, and all of us do, are not getting the kind of assurances. People who wanted it included in the constitutional amendment, look, we're exempting the Tennessee Valley Authority.

SEN. LOTT: Not in this amendment. Not in this amendment.

SEN. DODD: No, but you're --

SEN. LOTT: It's not in the amendment.

SEN. DODD: It's just the fact that you would take -- and absolutely take that off the table. What we're seeing is, see, you've got to take this off. It isn't just a question of what we want to do. It's a very firm contract made with the American people on this issue. They care very, very deeply about it. And the fact that you're unwilling to say specifically it's off the table absolutely makes it quite --

SEN. LOTT: Well, you weren't willing to do it, Chris.

SEN. DODD: -- clear -- I'm not putting into the Constitution dealing with this stuff.

SEN. LOTT: But you specifically --

SEN. DODD: No, no. I don't want -- I don't want the constitutional amendment, but members who do, members who do want it in there because they want to support this. The fact that you won't say categorically makes it quite clear that it is on the table, and that s --

SEN. LOTT: I will say categorically Social Security is not going to be used to balance the budget, and I want to emphasize TVA is not in the amendment language -- it's in the report language, and some of the same people that now are saying, oh, we must have more on Social Security beyond the assurances and the language that we already have that has been added to the side, you know, language not in the Constitution, itself, they're some of the same people that voted just a year ago or two years ago to raise taxes on Social Security recipients down to $19,000 a year income.

MR. LEHRER: Am I --

SEN. LOTT: Where were they then?

MR. LEHRER: Am I correct in reading you then, Sen. Lott? Did you think the Social Security thing is just a cover for people who don't want a balanced budget amendment?

SEN. LOTT: That's exactly right.

MR. LEHRER: Is that exactly right, Sen. Dodd?

SEN. DODD: No, no. Not at all. There are a lot of people out there who want it absolutely made clear, because they understand the gimmickry that goes on. Let me give you a quote of someone -- they said -- someone the other day said I'm interested in economic issues, but it seems as though my party's only interested in gimmicks, in procedures, they want to talk about balanced budgets, line-item vetoes, it's the Hoover administration all over again. The author of that quote is Jack Kemp made about a month ago when he declined to run for the presidency. He's absolutely right. Let's stop the gimmicks, roll up our sleeves, get the job done, get us on the right glide path. That's what the President offered us last year when he cut the budget by over $500 billion. That's what the American people want.

SEN. LOTT: All right. If you're going to quote Jack Kemp, I'm going to quote Michael Dukakis, who said that we need this balanced budget amendment to give us additional leverage that we need to actually do what we say want to do.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Now, I'm going to quote Newt Gingrich, Sen. Lott. He said that Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Daschle lied to their constituents on the balanced budget amendment. Did -- do you agree with him, that these two folks, your colleagues, are liars?

SEN. LOTT: I wouldn't say it that way, but it is a fact that six Senators that voted for the identical language one year ago are now indicating they're going to vote against it. What is the difference? If they were for it last year, why aren't they for it this year? The answer is, this year it is probably going to pass, and No. 2, because now there's a newRepublican majority, and they know, in fact, we're going to do what we say. What's really at stake here is after all these years of saying we ought to do something about the deficit, this would actually make it -- make us do it. The taxers and the spenders do not want this balanced budget in the Constitution. The American people do want it.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Dodd, what do you think of the "liar" comment?

SEN. DODD: Well, I think it's terribly unfortunate to use those words. I don't think the Speaker brings any credit to himself or to his office. That kind of language has no place in this debate. Bob Packwood voted against constitutional amendments. Now he's for them. You know, people look at these issues pretty seriously around here. They have deep concerns, legitimate ones. The Social Security issue is a very legitimate, very deeply felt concern. Look at the polls on this issue which I think are accurate. 80 percent of the American public say they like a balanced budget amendment. When you ask if you want to do it on the backs of Social Security recipients, the number drops down to somewhere around 32 percent. So it is a very serious issue that should not be taken lightly, and the fact that there is an admission that they're going to use the Social Security funds, at least a part each year, down the road here is a clear indication that these funds are in play, and the American people don't want that.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Lott, how do you explain that, that -- those polling results, that 70 percent of the people say, yes, balance the budget amendment, then when you ask about Social Security, it drops to 30?

SEN. LOTT: Well, you know, that's what's going on here. People say, oh, yes, we want to reduce the deficit, balance the budget, but they say, oh, not here, or not there, or not anywhere. That's why we need the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. For 22 years I've watched it, as Congress, many times in good faith, has tried to move toward balancing the budget and reducing the deficit and has not been able to do it. We must have this additional leverage to protect posterity because we're dumping this debt on our children and our grandchildren. And I'm telling you, if we don't have this balanced budget constitutional amendment, we will never get to a balanced budget anywhere in the foreseeable future. We need it.

MR. LEHRER: Senator Dodd, are you and your fellow Democrats willing to take the heat if there's only 66 votes tomorrow and the Republicans say, look, we'd have a balanced budget amendment that you wanted if it weren't for the Democrats?

SEN. DODD: No, listen, that's not taking the heat. You know, our good friends on the Republican side have either been in power or have known they've been in power since November 9th. It is terribly revealing, I think, they're now going into the fifth month, we don't have any indication whatsoever as to how they'd even deal with next year's budget, let alone one over the next seven years. Not a single word. Only thing we've heard is the whining and complaining about the President's proposal. Last year, Bill Clinton submitted a budget that passed the Congress without a single Republican vote that cut the deficit --

SEN. LOTT: By raising taxes.

SEN. DODD: Now, let me finish -- by $505 billion. That's not rhetoric. That's real action. He offered a budget this year that cut it by an additional $80 billion. That's not talk. That's real action. When are our friends, the Republicans, going to submit a budget that gives us some indication of what they're going to do? The only thing they've done is take $17 billion out of children's programs, nutrition, school lunch.

SEN. LOTT: Here we go, see. Not here, not here, not Social Security -- not nutrition --

SEN. DODD: Why pick on these kids?

SEN. LOTT: Let me get this in -- Chris, get used to it. You're in the minority. The Democrats had a chance for 40 years. We've had a chance to work on it for two months. We're going to submit a budget --

SEN. DODD: Let's see it.

SEN. LOTT: -- that reduces the deficit. We're going to do it.

SEN. DODD: Let's see it.

SEN. LOTT: And we're going to pass the constitutional amendment - -

SEN. DODD: Well, I'm waiting. We'll work with you if you give us what --

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Lott, a political question. It was suggested today that what's really at stake here is Sen. Dole's embarrassment over not being able to deliver the Senate on this key element of the Contract With America and that it steps on his presidential aspirations.

SEN. LOTT: Well, first of all, the Contract With America was in the House. The Senate is a different place. We have a different set of rules. We're talking about getting 67 Senators out of 100 -- that's always very tough. We have 52 Republicans and 14 Democrats that are committed to it. One more Senator -- any one of the thirty-four that are now either not committed or saying they're going to vote against it -- they are the difference between having a balanced budget to the constitutional amendment or not, so I think there's pretty good leadership when you've held the Republicans together 52 out of 53 and have been able to work with Democrats like -- and reach across the aisle to Paul Simon and John Breaux and Sam Nunn and a lot of others and, and get 14 Democrats ready to vote for it. So we're down to one. That's all it takes.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask another political question, Sen. Lott. Would you rather have the balanced budget amendment or the issue to use against the Democrats?

SEN. LOTT: I have for many years in the minority and the Congress had the issue, I wanted to do what is right for the people and pass this amendment. I want us to pass it. I'm not interested in getting the politics of it, if you lose it.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Sen. Dodd, what do you think is going to happen tomorrow?

SEN. DODD: Well, I don't think the votes are there right now, but, obviously, Trent and others are working their heads off to try and cut --

MR. LEHRER: Are you working on the other side?

SEN. DODD: Well, we're talking to people, but I think it also says something here. Look, this was down to the last minute here, and the notes were being written on the backs of envelopes. That's not a way to amend the Constitution. There are 292 words in this amendment, eight sections to it. That's more language than exists in the five amendments, first amendments to the Bill of Rights. Now this is really a contemporary problem. It's an economic theory. We're going to write it into the organic law of this country. That ought not to be in the Constitution, in my view. I think you make a tremendous mistake -- this straightjacket approach here -- roll up your sleeves, as the ad says on television, do it the old-fashioned way. Go to work. That's what the President has done -- the first three years in succession that we've had deficit reduction since the Truman administration. That's real action. Let's keep that up.

SEN. LOTT: We're going to have $200 billion --

SEN. DODD: But don't give up on these other missions.

SEN. LOTT: -- $200 billion deficits under President Clinton's proposed budget as far as I can see, $200 billion or more every year.

SEN. DODD: Not necessarily.

SEN. LOTT: And --

SEN. DODD: If you deal with the health care issue, you can change that.

SEN. LOTT: The only way the Democrats would reduce the deficit is by raising people's taxes. That's the way they've always done it.

SEN. DODD: No. No.

SEN. LOTT: I want to emphasize again we weren't working last night on any changes in the language in the Constitution. We were working on enabling legislation which would implement it or carry it out. And one final point. Thomas Jefferson said, look, we have a moral right and responsibility to make sure we don't dump debt on our children.

MR. LEHRER: I'm sure Thomas Jefferson also said at one time, what's going to happen tomorrow, Sen. Dodd?

SEN. DODD: Well, he also said, Thomas Jefferson said I want to make the Louisiana purchase, took 4 million more than the entire annual budget in that year in 1805 to buy it. Had Trent Lott had his way and had a constitutional amendment in place, Phil Gramm would be running for President of Texas today.

SEN. LOTT: Look. He bought my home county, home town. Be careful there. What's going to happen tomorrow, I believe that there is a possibility that we will find another vote and that it'll pass.

MR. LEHRER: Good possibility? On a scale of one to ten, above five?

SEN. LOTT: I'd give it a six.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

SEN. LOTT: Sixty-eight votes.

MR. LEHRER: Okay, 68 votes. Thank you both very much.

MR. MAC NEIL: Still to come, our regional editors and columnists and the church and state issue before the Supreme Court. FOCUS - EDITORS' VIEWS - BUDGET

MR. MAC NEIL: Now, how all this maneuvering over the balanced budget amendment is seen outside Washington. We hear from our panel of regional editors and columnists: Ed Baumeister of the Trenton, New Jersey Times; Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune; Lee Cullum of the Dallas Morning News; Gerald Warren of the San Diego Union- Tribune; and Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Constitution. Joining them tonight is David Sarasohn of the Portland Oregonian. Lee Cullum, do you think, as this debate has stretched out, that public opinion on the balanced budget amendment has shifted?

LEE CULLUM, Dallas Morning News: Robin, in my part of the country I think people have been for the balanced budget amendment for a long time, not everybody, of course, but this has become a Republican state in most respects, and Republicans have been pushing this idea for years. And now they're about to have it. I think they'll be mightily upset if they don't get that balanced budget amendment tomorrow.

MR. MAC NEIL: Ed Baumeister in New Jersey, is public opinion -- how is public opinion about it, and is it changing as the debate has gone on?

ED BAUMEISTER, Trenton Times: Well, I wish I could be as confident in speaking as these people in the Senate do for all of the American people. My sample is, is flawed, but I think the concern I'm picking up is there's a balanced budget amendment but behind it there are the usual Washington side deals. I mean, why are we talking about the Tennessee Valley Authority? What is this about Social Security anyway? So I think the sort of purity of balancing the budget has been somewhat compromised in some people's minds by the reality of how present day Washington works. You have to make these deals to get these things through.

MR. MAC NEIL: Clarence Page, what do you think about what's happening to public opinion on this issue? It looked only a few weeks ago as though it was going to roar through.

CLARENCE PAGE, Chicago Tribune: Well, you remember back then, Robin, I said, remember ERA, the Equal Rights Amendment, back in the early 70s, was roaring through Congress, roared through most of the states. When it got down to the last couple of states, Illinois being one of them, suddenly we saw this big backlash well up. I think that's going to happen with this balanced budget amendment. Ed Baumeister's right. We're seeing the side deals. I hope everybody was, was dutifully informed by that earlier discussion we saw between Senator Lott and Senator Dodd. It sounded so complicated, it make the Clinton health care plan look simple by comparison. I mean, this is going to be a complicated issue when it gets out to the states. One thing I'm hearing -- and Sen. Paul Simon is from Illinois, helped to spearhead this movement several years before the Republican takeover -- and what I'm hearing is concern not just about Social Security but also about if the federal government is going to be cutting the budget, who's going to pick it up, it's going to be the states. That's where this debate is going to take place, at the state level. I think you're going to see a big backlash welling up.

MR. MAC NEIL: You -- Gerald Warren in California, do you see a backlash? I see that your Democratic speaker of your assembly, Willie Brown, said the chances for ratification there were not even close in California.

GERALD WARREN, San Diego Union-Tribune: Well, I kind of differ with that. I think it would be close but I think it would pass, and it might not, but why not leave it up to the states? Isn't that what we should do? Look, the states have cut the budget. Clarence wonders who would spend the money. The people in the states want fewer dollars spent. They don't want just to shift it around from one agency to another. They want to be sure that the federal government will trim its budget the way states, counties, and cities have. And we haven't seen that that's going to happen yet.

MR. MAC NEIL: David Sarasohn, how do you see it from Oregon, where your Senator Hatfield is the only Republican who's strongly opposed to it?

DAVID SARASOHN, Portland Oregonian: I'd say in Oregon, there's a popularity of the amendment, and I think the amendment would be quickly ratified by the Oregon legislature at the moment, but I think there's a large number of things that in Oregon we need and we expect from the federal government. We want light rail in Portland. We're looking to maintain salmon in the Columbia River and the Bonneville Power Authority, and I think that there are a lot of questions that are going to come up, and I think that these are legitimate and important issues that Sen. Hatfield is raising. It's a very strangely worded and designed amendment at this point.

MR. MAC NEIL: Cynthia Tucker, how do you see the state of public opinion on this such as you can ascertain it there?

CYNTHIA TUCKER, Atlanta Constitution: Well, I think there is still a lot of support in Georgia for the balanced budget amendment. Sen. Sam Nunn, the senior Senator from Georgia, apparently has finally signed on to support it with some changes, but I think the public supports it in Georgia, because they have been misled by their politicians about what this means. I've always thought that this was rather an odd debate, grown men and women who have stood up before the voters and said, send us to Washington, because we have the courage and leadership to make tough decisions, are now saying, oh, my goodness, stop us before we spend again. And it's also interesting to me that this is becoming less and less a fiscal discussion and more and more a political one. If, in fact, they accepted a deal which says that federal judges cannot enforce the balanced budget amendment, then I don't see how we're any better off than we have been before. If they don't have to balance the budget, it seems to me they won't. And so I'm not sure why all this time is being spent on an amendment and not more time on really trying to make the tough choices involved in balancing the budget.

MR. MAC NEIL: How would you answer that, Lee Cullum?

MS. CULLUM: Well, I think Cynthia makes a good point. I too marvel that the Senate might tomorrow vote to amend the Constitution but preclude the federal judiciary from interpreting that amendment, except at the invitation of the Congress. I think if we're not careful, this amendment is going to be the next Gramm- Rudman deficit reduction law. It'll be effective sort of for a while as a restraining influence but ultimately will fail. I'm concerned about this aspect of it.

MR. MAC NEIL: Ed Baumeister, a lot of people were concerned, and in the Congress, as Sen. Nunn was, that if the amendment were passed and ratified by the states, and the Congress couldn't balance the budget, the courts would then balance the budget willy nilly. Is this an improvement on the amendment to your point of view, the sort of an amendment to the amendment that Sen. Nunn achieved?

MR. BAUMEISTER: Well, it's -- the Constitution says that the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, will interpret the Constitution. This amendment comes with a little fish hook in it, a little burr that says that this won't be done that way. I mean, it's one of the things I was talking about before that people say, wait a minute, what are the doing here, and, and I think it does begin to look like Gramm-Rudman, that they, they want to be on record --

MR. MAC NEIL: Just remind us. Gramm-Rudman was a bill passed in the mid 80s that said you have to balance the budget.

MR. BAUMEISTER: Yeah. And they found not only loopholes; they found superhighways through that. It's -- I suppose we should have expected it. I mean, we sent to Washington a bunch of people who wouldn't actually cut the budget but who would run up some flag that said, we're going to invent a mechanism to balance the budget. They're not doing the real thing, as Cynthia points out. They're simply not doing it. And they're not doing the real thing, they're doing what they always do. They're inventing something that is full of -- full of holes, full of loopholes, full of complications, and I think they're beginning to, as I said before, to lose some of the faithful who thought that this was a way forward.

MR. MAC NEIL: But they haven't lost you, Gerry Warren?

MR. WARREN: They haven't. No. About a year ago or so, Clarence made the statement on this program that people didn't want spending cuts. I don't think that was true then, and it's not true now. They want the spending cut. They want the federal government to be held to the same strictures that state governments and local governments are. You must balance the budget. Now, the courts will be able to say whether the laws by the Congress are constitutional or not, but they -- courts will not be able to tax people, and that's what Sen. Nunn was worried about. So people who don't want balanced budgets are represented by Sen. Dodd, but people who want balanced budgets are represented by the Republicans in this -- in this issue.

MR. MAC NEIL: David Sarasohn, what do you see as the politics of this? Clearly, Sen. Dole -- we heard him earlier -- by threatening to wait a while and then bring this up again in September if he doesn't win tomorrow -- saying closer to the election presumably the voters would be putting on more heat. What are the politics of the vote on this, including the Social Security side issue?

MR. SARASOHN: I think first this is popular at the moment there is an advantage to it, but I think people like a balanced budget, but I think people seem to be very wary of messing with the Constitution, and people have suggested here that there are two very unique aspects of this amendment. This is going to be the only part of the Constitution that federal judges are going to be prevented from enforcing. This is going to be the only part of the Constitution that Congress can suspend on a three fifths vote. Now, if you can imagine, Congress saying that we're going to suspend the first or fifth or fourteenth amendment for this year on a three fifths vote, you can see what a strange offering this is. And I think there is a possibility of making this clear. And people are going to get nervous about it. In terms of what it's going to be like next September I think at that point is going to get tied in with just how the Republicans have done in Congress since then. If people think at that point the Republicans have done a wonderful job, they'll probably think that they should have gotten this as well. If people think the Republicans have done some strange things then, this may look like a different issue.

MR. MAC NEIL: Lee Cullum, what do you see the politics of this in Texas? Is it an absolutely obligatory vote for Texas Senators for this?

MS. CULLUM: Oh, I think so, yes. I think the Texas Senators -- of course, Sen. Hutchison, Sen. Gramm running for President must be for this amendment. I think that the Republican Party will suffer if this amendment fails. I think that Texans have waited a long time for their moment, Texas Republicans, I mean, certainly not Texas Democrats, and I -- I think if it fails, then it will certainly redound to the disadvantage of the Republican Party.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you think that way, Gerald Warren?

MR. WARREN: Well, you know, I wish we didn't have to have a balanced budget amendment. The Democrats had many, many years to balance the budget, and they didn't do it. They didn't do it in the face of Gramm-Rudman. They didn't do it in the face of some arrangements with Ronald Reagan and with George Bush. But I think the people want that written into the Constitution so that there will be no alibies, you must balance the budget. And I think there will be a political cost for those who oppose this.

MR. MAC NEIL: Cynthia Tucker, you said it's popular still in Georgia. How do you see the politics of this vote? Some of the Senators were saying yesterday it's the most important vote they have ever or will ever pass in their Senate careers?

MS. TUCKER: Well, I think the politics are connected in this way, Robin. There is absolutely no doubt that most Americans believe that they are paying too much in taxes. And I think the way the balanced budget has been explained, most people believe that the balanced budget would go into effect, the budget will be balanced, and my taxes will decrease, or certainly my federal taxes will stop going up. And so, yes, I think that it was a very important vote on that basis or will be a very important vote for many Senators, especially those who are running for the presidency, however, let's cast this forward and say that the debate comes down to the state level and state legislators start thinkingvery seriously about what a balanced budget amendment might mean back at home. I think that considering all of the federal largess the states depend on, you might see very different politics played out on a state level, and I think that there is a very real possibility that even if this vote goes through the Senate, it will not make it through all the states that are required.

MR. MAC NEIL: How do you see the politics, Clarence Page? You have Sen. Simon, one of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate on the same side in this as some of the most conservative Republicans and Democrats in the Senate. How do you see the politics in Illinois?

MR. PAGE: Well, Sen. Simon's a man of great integrity, and he has also said he also said he is not going to run again. And I personally am sorry about that. He's stood up for this issue reluctantly like Gerry Warren was saying earlier, that if this is the way to get a balanced budget, then let's do it that way. Gerry, yeah, last year I did say that the public doesn't want spending cuts, and I'll say it again. They don't want spending cuts when it involves programs they like. The polling shows the public wants a balanced budget until they find out it's going to hit Social Security or some of the other middle class entitlements that they like. And I say this debate is going to start losing steam when people discover where those cuts are going to come. That's the politics of this, Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Go to Ed Baumeister on this. How important is this result? If the amendment fails tomorrow, whether it's by one vote or more, does this slow down the Republican train that has been chugging along very fast for the last couple of months, on all the other issues?

MR. BAUMEISTER: I think it does. It probably shouldn't in the best of all possible worlds, because these initiatives are severable, aren't they, the crime and the tort reform, and so forth, these other things are, but so much of this is perception, so much of this is, is based on the sort of mass and speed, this will clearly slow down the speed, and I think the rest of it might be in some danger.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you agree with that, Lee Cullum? You seem to be suggesting earlier it would hurt the Republicans.

MS. CULLUM: I think so. Yes, I think that it might begin a whole movement in the Senate to block the Contract for America, which will sail through the House and then founder on the shoals of politics in the Senate. It could be a real problem for Republicans, a serious problem.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you read it that way, Davis Sarasohn?

MR. SARASOHN: No, I don't think so, actually. I think this is going to be of use to them politically for a while, and I don't think it's going to be a loss of momentum, and I think it will, in fact, create some momentum for Democrats who will have actually shown they can do something right.

MR. MAC NEIL: So you don't it will -- it will cause the Republican Contract and all the other issues like massive regulatory reform, welfare reform, tort law reform, it will in any way effect all the progress of those other issues?

MR. SARASOHN: I think a lot of those things were going to run into a lot of difficulty in the Senate anyway. There's a different politics to the Senate, the different identity to the Republicans there. I think they're going to have some trouble there anyway, and I think this is a battle cry.

MR. MAC NEIL: A battle cry. Gerry Warren, how do you feel? How crucial is this vote tomorrow to the momentum for the momentum for all the other Republican so-called revolution?

MR. SARASOHN: I don't think it'll slow down the contract in the House at all. The Senate, as David says, is the body which deliberates a little bit more slowly than the House does. And so these critical issues like tort reform and some of the others will slow down in the Senate. But I don't see too many other votes coming along, other than cloture votes, that need 67 votes. It shouldn't have that much of an effect.

MR. MAC NEIL: And, Cynthia Tucker, what do you think about that?

MS. TUCKER: Well, I, quite frankly, think that the Republicans would enjoy using the failure of so many Democrats to support the balanced budget amendment on the campaign trail. On the other hand, I think it can't help but slow down the Republican juggernaut just a little bit, and it might encourage, despite the Republicans' clear intent to use it on the campaign trail against the Democrats if the vote fails. Still, I think it might encourage some Democrats to stand up more against some of these Republican proposals that they're skeptical of.

MR. MAC NEIL: Okay. Well, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. FOCUS - CHURCH & STATE

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, a separation of church and state case that was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court today. Richard Ostling, religion correspondent for Time Magazine, has our report.

RICHARD OSTLING, Time Magazine: When the University of Virginia was founded in 1819, most American colleges were private and committed to fostering the Christian religion. But this school in Charlottesville was set up as one of the nation's first public universities. That's because its founder, Thomas Jefferson, believes strongly in the separation of church and state. He also advocated the widest possible freedom of thought and speech. Those two principles of Jefferson are being pitted against each other in the Supreme Court case. Former student Ronald Rosenberger, the founder of "Wide Awake," a Christian magazine, is the plaintiff. He says the university's refusal to fund his publication denied his constitutional right to free speech and equal treatment.

RONALD ROSENBERGER, Plaintiff: I think it's an equal access issue. I feel like we have been discriminated against purely and simply because of our religious viewpoint, and I think that's intolerable.

YOUNG MAN IN GROUP: God, I thank you for this time, Lord, and I pray that you bless it and make it be as productive as we can possibly be unto Your glory. Amen.

MR. OSTLING: Rosenberger and the students who now work on "Wide Awake" write about current topics from a conservative religious viewpoint. The stated purpose of the magazine was to "encourage students to consider what a personal relationship with Jesus Christ means." The magazine has been freely distributed on campus, but Rosenberger wanted something else from the university. He wanted money to support the publication. But the student council which allocates funds denied his request. The council uses mandatory student fees to support more than 100 organizations, including 15 independent publications. Rosenberger's request was rejected because university guidelines ban direct funding of religious activity, as well as partisan political causes and social events. Law Professor Robert O'Neil, former president of the university, says that the funding ban stems from a Virginia law created by Thomas Jefferson.

ROBERT O'NEIL, Former President, University of Virginia: The central premise of that statute passed in 1786, really the cornerstone of what became the first amendment, the central premise of the statute is that government has no business taking one person's money to propagate or disseminate somebody else's religious views. In that sense, the issue that is central to the "Wide Awake" case is one with which Mr. Jefferson was really very familiar.

MR. OSTLING: Jefferson's statute was the basis for a phrase in the Bill of Rights written by another University of Virginia patriarch, James Madison. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The so-called "establishment" clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to command a strict separation between government and religion, especially when public funds are involved. The University of Virginia, like most public American colleges, refuses direct funding of religious groups. However, there is no restriction on student religious organizations, which operate freely on the Charlottesville campus. And the university provides incidental support, such as a non-sectarian chapel and other meeting places. "Wide Awake," like any other student publication, is offered office space and computers, but one court brief says if the university funds a magazine that ridicules established institutions, including the Christian religion, they cite "Yellow Journal," it should also fund a religious publication.

RONALD ROSENBERGER: When I came to the University of Virginia as a student, I found that the only time that Christianity was mentioned in the student media, it was in a derogatory sense. It was either mocked, or there was often anti-clerical, anti-religious types of comments under the "humor" journals that are funded by the university. So I was really seeking a forum for student expression, you know, from a viewpoint that has been formed by a larger religious framework.

MR. OSTLING: Law Professor John Jeffries, who is representing his university before the Supreme Court, says it's proper to fund "Yellow Journal" and not to fund "Wide Awake."

JOHN JEFFRIES, University's Lawyer: The university does not fund anti-religious materials as such. The character of the publication or of a particular article as anti-religious does not entitle it to funding any more than the character of an article as supportive of any particular set of religious opinions would necessarily -- couldn't be funded. What "Wide Awake" is, is a magazine devoted exclusively, explicitly, and in every respect and detail to the propagation of a specific set of religious beliefs.

MR. OSTLING: The university often has walked a fine line between student organizations and this funding and those who had funding denied. Many Muslim students, who worship weekly at an off-campus mosque, belong to a student association that received funding for its magazine "Al-Salam." The magazine, according to the University, was eligible for funding because its purpose and content were cultural and not religious.

JOHN JEFFRIES: When you're trying to assess what is and what is not primarily religious, there are inevitably questions of degree. But it's not an arbitrary line, it's a distinction based on the weight of the activity, and whether you would describe it as primarily religious or primarily cultural.

MR. OSTLING: When the university began questioning the appearance of religious material in the magazine, "Al-Salam" became more secular in order to maintain funding. Michael McConnell of the University of Chicago Law School, who represents Rosenberger, says the pressure to change "Al-Salam" to get funds illustrates the problem.

MICHAEL McCONNELL, Plaintiff's Lawyer: For the government to have this devil's bargain in which it will give money to groups only if they alter their speech in a secular direction, only if they hide their religious motivations, if they secularize themselves, it's not in service of freedom of religion.

MR. OSTLING: A student choir, like Voices, shows a different direction. Its activities became more explicitly religious with prayers and testimonies as part of performances. Then the choir decided not to seek further university funding. McConnell contends that the university policy has given a monopoly to secular viewpoints on campus when it should be neutral.

MICHAEL McCONNELL: It's our position that the first amendment has an ideal of a diverse and pluralistic public sphere, not a secular sphere, and not one in which any particular idea or viewpoint is given an institutional advantage.

JOHN JEFFRIES: The question is not whether this voice should be allowed as part of the marketplace ideas. Of course, it should be and is. We in no way suggest that there's anything wrong with proselytizing a particular religious belief. We simply don't want to pay for it.

MR. OSTLING: American religious groups are split on the "Wide Awake" case. A variety of moderate to liberal Jewish and Protestant organizations support the university's policy, and so does the American Civil Liberties Union. Conservative Protestant bodies, like the Southern Baptist Convention, back the students, but the campus minister for Southern Baptist, Wellford Tiller, says it's better for religion to stay clear of any government influence, even funding for a magazine.

WELLFORD TILLER, Campus Minister: It's inappropriate for government and religion to be entangled because faith has to be determined by the free will of the individual uncoerced by business or government or any outside force. We strongly feel that it's better to keep our distance, even it means a form of discrimination against religious speech, that better to have that relatively mild disadvantage rather than sort of go down the slippery slope of developing ties with a secular institution.

MR. OSTLING: It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide how to interpret the heritage of Thomas Jefferson and the Constitution's "establishment of religion" clause. The court's previous rulings on the clause have been widely criticized as vague and confusing. Because of that, it's possible the high court will fashion a broad new doctrine that could make the University of Virginia dispute a landmark in the law of church and state. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, the U.S. Senate remained in recess as proponents sought to secure the final votes needed for passage of the balanced budget amendment. The Agriculture Department proposed legislation to combat food stamp fraud, and the Commerce Department reported the economy grew 4 percent last year. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.