European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - May 28, 1992, Darmstadt, Hesse                                Thursday May 28, 1992 the stars and stripes a Page 5enforce budget cuts lawmaker urges a file rep. Leon e. Panetta in the stars and stripes 10years ago May 28,1982 a Reagan administration sources in Washington said the United states was providing the British with sidewinder air combat missiles and ammunition.20 years ago May 28,1972 North vietnamese infantrymen fought their Way into Kon turn City again blowing up the main ammunition dump and engaging government forces in bitter Street fighting.30 years ago May 28,1962 a pro communist rebel forces reported to include North vietnamese attacked the defense perimeter of Thouei Sai nine Miles from Laos Border with Thailand. 40years ago May 28, 1952 a France Italy West Germany the Netherlands Belgium and Luxembourg signed a treaty forming themselves into a european defense Community with an army expected to total 1 million men by mid-1954. World War 50 years ago today 28 May �?T194 2 the push by the afrika Korps behind Britain a 8th army is stopped Short of the libyan coast. The remainder of Japan a Midway and Aleutian invasion forces sails the japanese think the  carriers Enterprise and Hornet Are in the South Pacific but they Are off Pearl Harbor where the Carrier Yorktown is undergoing emergency repairs to get it ready for the approaching Battle. By the los Angeles times Washington the chairman of the House budget committee proposed tuesday that Congress should commit itself to big tax increases and severe cuts in popular programs if it adopts a constitutional amendment requiring the . Government to balance its budget. Rep. Leon e. Panetta d-calif., fighting a lonely Battle against the amendment said the House should approve an enforcement mechanism to make sure any such constitutional change actually eliminates the record High deficit. A if the president and Congress were really serious about balancing the budget he would propose a balanced budget and the Congress would adopt one a he said. A instead we Are going through the charade of a constitutional  his comments came amid growing indications the House would Muster the two thirds majority necessary to approve the amendment. In the Senate sen. Robert c. Byrd d-w.va., has threatened a filibuster and the outcome remains Uncertain. The amendment probably  take effect until 1997 at the earliest provided it is ratified by 38 states. Panetta released a report outlining three scenarios for slashing $600 billion in debt Over five years bringing it Down ins and outs of amendment Washington a Congress seems ready to sign off on an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget. Here Are some questions and answers q How would the amendment work a a a it would forbid the government to spend More than it expects to collect in revenues each year. Spending could exceed revenues Only upon approval of three fifths majorities in the House and Senate. Q How would the amendment keep spending below revenues a the White House and Congress would have to draft the necessary tax increases and spending cuts. Q Why a constitutional amendment a supporters say nothing else has worked. Q aside from the three fifths vote arc there other ways out a critics say presidents and lawmakers could figure out accounting tricks that carry the appearance of compliance. To Zero in 1997. The deficit is expected to be about $350 billion this year. The report Calls for such Steps As a 5 percent National sales tax possible reductions in social Security and medicare and a $128 billion Cut in military spending beyond the Pentagon reductions already made. White House press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater accused Panetta of a crying Wolf with his suggestions. A we can balance the budget by Wise spending cuts and economic growth without tax rate increases a Fitzwater said. Panetta replied that a the Wolf is there and neither the White House nor anyone else should Blind themselves to the  Panetta also suggested that Washington should not be allowed to Dodge the Tough questions until after the november elections. . Not Likely to Cut nuclear tests by the new York times Washington the Bush administration has no immediate plans to place new limits on . Tests of nuclear weapons the White House said tuesday. The comments by White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater appeared to reject possible restrictions on testing outlined in an administration a options  but other officials said there had been no final decision. Some officials seem to support limits on the size and number of underground tests but Fitz Waters remarks coupled with opposition from defense Secretary Dick Cheney suggest that any curbs face an Uphill Battle. Nuclear testing is expected to be discussed by president Bush at a meeting next month with russian president Boris n. Yeltsin who has imposed a moratorium on russian testing through this year. The proposals include reducing the number of underground tests to three a year from six or instituting a broader policy that would eliminate virtually All tests by the United states by 1995. The administration is coming under growing criticism to curb its nuclear tests in the Post cold War Era. France has said it would halt nuclear testing prime minister Brian Mulroney of Canada has sought a moratorium. But last week China set off a 1-megaton test the largest underground test it Ever conducted and exceeding the 150-Kiloton limit that Washington and Moscow agreed to in 1990. Democratic leaders in the House and Senate support legislation imposing a moratorium. Despite the collapse of communism and the breakup of its soviet rival the Pentagon has fought any attempts to limit the nations underground nuclear tests. A i Haven to yet seen an argument for a lower level of testing than we currently have a Cheney said this week. The United states however has gradually reduced the number of underground nuclear tests from 18 in 1982 to seven in 1991, according to the arms control association. Six Are scheduled for this year. Proponents say tests Are necessary to ensure the safety and reliability of the country a nuclear stockpile. Officials also use tests to evaluate warhead designs. A amps file defense Secretary Dick Cheney death sentence based on Bible rejected source 2194 Days of War w. H. Smith publishers inc world almanac Book of world Var ii Bison books corp1981 a from wire reports Washington the supreme court has left intact a ruling by the Pennsylvania supreme court declaring that any death sentence is void if a prosecutor used a a religious writing a including the Bible As justification for the death penalty the state court ruled in the Case of Karl s. Chambers of York a. Chambers was convicted of first degree murder for beating an elderly woman to death with an a handle so he could Rob her of the Money she got by cashing her social Security Check. Chambers had seen her handling the Money As she bought groceries at a store in february 1986. Chambers conviction was upheld by the state court but not the death sentence. The state court also upheld a robbery conviction plus a 10 to 20-year sentence for that separate crime. When the Case was in the sentencing phase a prosecutor told jurors a Karl Chambers has taken a life. As the Bible says a and the murderer shall supreme court be put to  a that kind of plea the state court said in wiping out the death sentence a is a deliberate attempt to destroy the objectivity and impartiality of the jury. Our courts Are not ecclesiastical courts and therefore there is no reason to refer to religious rules or commandments to support the imposition of the death  Chambers is now entitled to a new sentencing hearing. The supreme courts order tuesday simply denied review of that outcome. This did not mean that the justices agreed with it but Only that they considered the Issue unworthy for review. In another Case the court ruled that states have Broad Power to protect voters against fraud and intimidation by Banning electioneering at polling places. Voting 5-3, the justices upheld a Tennessee Law that prohibits people from displaying or distributing Campaign literature or soliciting votes within 100 feet of polling places on election Day. The court said that while the 100-foot limitation May vary there Are similar Laws in All states. A an examination of the evolution of election Reform both in this country and abroad demonstrates the necessity of restricted areas in or around polling places a said Justice Harry a. Blackmun in the courts main opinion. The restrictions do not violate Freedom of speech he said because states have a compelling interest in shielding voters from undue pressure. The ruling gives states discretion in establishing the physical boundaries of the electioneering free zone. Dissenting were justices John haul Stevens Sandra Day of Connor and David h. Souter. Stevens writing for All three said a the hubbub of Campaign workers outside a polling place May be a nuisance but it is also the sound of a vibrant