[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 30 (Thursday, March 17, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT OF 1993

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, it is my hope that we can either 
shortly--within the next few minutes--reach an agreement with respect 
to a resolution on the Whitewater matter, or reach the point where it 
is clear that we cannot reach an agreement, and then just to proceed to 
debate and vote on the matter one way or the other, up or down. We are 
prepared to proceed in either form.
  We have an alternative resolution ready and, as I said earlier, we 
are ready to debate and vote on the matter one way or the other, as 
soon as possible. My understanding is that we have about finished 
action on this bill, and I hope we can complete action on the bill very 
shortly.
  I know my colleagues have been asking me about this matter about the 
schedule for the rest of the evening. We have had a number of different 
matters under negotiation all day, one having just been concluded. My 
hope is that we can complete action one way or the other on the 
remaining matter and finish action on this bill in the very near 
future, meaning shortly this evening.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1546

(Purpose: To include securities backed by commercial real estate in the 
               definition of a mortgage backed security)

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Bryan, Domenici, 
D'Amato, and Mack, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration. It deals with the securitization of commercial 
real estate. Let me now send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Riegle], for Mr. Bryan, Mr. 
     Domenici, Mr. D'Amato, and Mr. Mack, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1546.

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 160, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.   . COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE RELATED SECURITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 3(a)(41)(A)(i) of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(41)(A)(i)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or on a residential'' and inserting ``on 
     a residential''; and
       (2) by inserting before the semicolon ``, or on one or more 
     parcels of real estate upon which is located one or more 
     commercial structures''.
       (b) Amendment to the Revised Statutes.--Paragraph Seventh 
     of section 5136 of the Revised Statutes (12 U.S.C. 24) is 
     amended in the twelfth sentence, by striking ``(15 U.S.C. 
     78c(a)(41))), subject to such regulations'' and inserting 
     ``(15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(41)). The exception provided for the 
     securities described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) shall 
     be subject to such regulations''.
       (c) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller of the Currency shall 
     promulgate final regulations, in accordance with the 
     thirteenth sentence of Paragraph Seventh of section 5136 of 
     the Revised Statutes (as amended by subsection (b)), to carry 
     out the amendments made by this section.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall become effective upon the date of promulgation of final 
     regulations under subsection (c).
       (e) State Opt Out.--Notwithstanding the amendments made by 
     this section, a note that is directly secured by a first lien 
     on one or more parcels of real estate upon which is located 
     one or more commercial structures shall not be considered to 
     be a mortgage related security under section 3(a)(41) of the 
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in any State that, prior to 
     the expiration of 7 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, enacts a statute that specifically refers to this 
     section and either prohibits or provides for a more limited 
     authority to purchase, hold, or invest in such securities by 
     any person, trust, corporation, partnership, association, 
     business trust, or business entity or class thereof than is 
     provided by the amendments made by this subsection. The 
     enactment by any State of any statute of the type described 
     in the preceding sentence shall not affect the validity of 
     any contractual commitment to purchase, hold, or invest that 
     was made prior thereto, and shall not require the sale or 
     other disposition of any securities acquired prior thereto.

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, the Comptroller of the Currency has the 
responsibility for prescribing regulations and issuing orders to ensure 
the safety and soundness of national banks. Under section 5136 of the 
Revised Statutes (12 U.S.C. sec. 24), the Comptroller may prescribe 
limitations and restrictions on national banks' purchase of investment 
securities. Section 5136 further provides the Comptroller authority to 
regulate national banks' purchase for their own account of mortgage-
related securities, as that term is defined under the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934.
  While amending the definition of mortgage-related security to allow 
inclusion of mortgages on commercial structures, this amendment does 
not limit the Comptroller's authority to regulate national bank 
purchases of mortgage-related securities. For example, undue 
concentration of risk could arise if a bank invested in a security 
backed by a pool containing a small number of loans or a loan that 
represented a large percentage of the assets in the pool. The 
Comptroller has authority to require diversification in the pools of 
loans that underlie mortgage-related securities purchased by national 
banks. As another means of preventing concentration of risk, the 
Comptroller could prescribe regulations requiring aggregation and 
limitation of loans to the same borrower or aggregating securities with 
the same issuer or third-party credit enhancer. The Comptroller has 
authority to adopt such other provisions as may be necessary to address 
safety and soundness concerns.
  Investments by banks in mortgage-related securities would remain 
subject to relevant risk-based bank capital requirements.
  Inclusion of mortgages on commercial structures in the definition of 
mortgage-related securities could allow for greater investment in 
commercial real estate by institutional investors such as pension funds 
and municipalities. As in the 1984 Secondary Mortgage Market 
Enhancement Act, the States are given 7 years to limit this investment 
authority if they choose--the States' authority, of course, does not 
extend to national banks.
  The authority to invest in securities backed by mortgages on 
commercial real estate should be used carefully. While mortgage-related 
securities will continue to require a rating in one of the two highest 
rating categories by at least one nationally recognized statistical 
rating organization, recent experience demonstrates that commercial 
real estate can be a volatile investment.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, Senator Domenici and I are offering an 
amendment that will facilitate the creation of a secondary mortgage 
market for commercial real estate and, thereby, will help ease the 
credit crunch which persists in many parts of our country.
  This amendment is a significant first step towards removing the 
impediments that now exists in creating a viable secondary market for 
commercial real estate, and I hope we can make further strides when 
this bill goes to conference.
  Our amendment would allow securities backed by mortgages secured on 
commercial property to qualify as Mortgage Related Securities MRS. This 
qualification confers several significant benefits.
  Qualifying as a MRS authorizes federally and State-chartered 
institutions to invest in these commercial real estate mortgages and 
would remove a number of regulatory impediments to issuing these 
securities.
  Strengthening the secondary market in commercial real estate loans 
will foster economic growth, create jobs, and add to the financial 
stability of our lending institutions. These benefits will occur by 
increasing the flow of funds through capital markets and fostering 
liquidity.
  One of the most serious problems that has impeded the stabilization 
and recovery of real estate markets is the lack of liquidity.
  In residential markets, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have established a 
steady flow of capital into residential mortgages. It has endowed the 
market with a dependable flow of available credit to homebuyers and 
stabilized mortgage pricing across the country. A secondary market for 
commercial real estate would present these same advantages to lenders, 
borrowers, and investors in the commercial market.
  I believe this amendment will contribute to the recovery of our 
commercial real estate sector and help assure that the financial crisis 
experienced over the past several years, will not be repeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this important 
legislation because I believe it will provide liquidity that is 
desperately needed in the commercial mortgage area. I think Senators 
Domenici and Bryan in particular should be complimented, and I applaud 
my colleagues' efforts to promote stability in this critical market, 
which will ultimately bring greater stability to the overall economy. 
We still have some great problems as in relation to getting credit in 
the commercial real estate area, and I think the amendment will go a 
long way towards promoting that stability and making credit available.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan] and 
I introduced S. 1728, the Commericial Mortgage Capital Availability Act 
of 1993 last year. This bill addresses the credit crunch by removing 
impediments to securitization. This is the process Wall Street uses to 
convert relatively illiquid real estate assets into marketable 
securities that can be purchased by a broad range of investors 
including pension funds, banks, insurance companies, mutual funds, and 
investment funds. The securities are backed by pools of commercial 
mortgages or sometimes by a single property, such as a large urban, 
mixed use complex.
  Securitization makes money for lending recyclable. A banker makes a 
loan, sells it, takes the proceeds and lends out in again. Wall Street 
buys the loans, pools them, securitizes them and enables banks to make 
more loans without waiting for repayment month after month.
  In the last Congress, I chaired the Real Estate Task Force. We 
received recommendations from 40 or more real estate lending 
institutions. The task force examined ways to increase commercial real 
estate liquidity by expanding the secondary market. An expanded 
secondary market would make more credit available for commercial real 
estate and small business lending purposes.
  In April of this year, I held a Senate Banking Committee credit 
crunch hearing in New Mexico. Senator Bryan held a hearing on the same 
topic in Nevada. We came to the same conclusion--we need to make it 
easier for the secondary market in commercial real estate to function 
and grow.
  Testimony at the hearing in New Mexico included some very 
illuminating testimony from Lou Toulga who is an Albuquerque real 
estate broker and the chairman of the National Association of Realtors 
commercial investment committee.
  The commercial real estate market has been hurt because the 
traditional sources of funding for long-term loans have either 
disappeared, been traumatized, or experienced considerable price 
instability.
  He and other witnesses knew of many banks that are not making any 
commercial real estate loans. Those that do make loans only offer terms 
with very short amortization periods. This makes it difficult to 
satisfy debt coverage ratios and make cash flow work. Loan to value 
ratio limits are often below 60 percent and required debt coverage 
ratios are often above 1.5. Interest rates are higher too--the spreads 
against 10-year treasuries are now more than 200 basis points.
  Loan terms tend to be too short--5 years with the accompanying 
uncertainty of rollovers and the uncertainty of reappraisals and the 
potential of revaluations through the appraising process. To get a 20-
year loan on a building, a developer needs to have tenants with 20-year 
leases. This is usually impossible.
  Facing these serious obstacles the National Association of Realtors, 
the National Realty Committee and the Mortgage Bankers Association 
started a consortium to do the necessary work to create a secondary 
market for commercial lending. They have asked for Congress' help to 
eliminate some of the regulatory restraints in current law. Modify the 
Secondary Mortgage Market Enhancement Act to allow the securities 
from commercial loan pools to be accepted across all 50 States.

  We also need to deal with subordination. When a banker subordinates a 
particular obligation and sells it, he still needs to maintain the same 
capital requirements as if he had held on to the loan. This locks up 
capital that could be lent out for other productive purposes.
  We also need to modify ERISA to allow comparable treatment of 
commercial real estate. Commercial real estate should be treated as 
favorably as residential by allowing secondary mortgage securitization. 
This would provide parity under ERISA for commercial real estate.
  The bill Senator Bryan and I introduced does three things:
  Broadens the Secondary Mortgage Market Enhancement Act [SMMEA] to 
apply to commercial securities;
  Amends the Employment Retirement Income Security Act [ERISA] to 
include a class exemption for commercial mortgage securities. They 
would no longer be classified as prohibited transactions.
  Changes the regulatory treatment--risk-based capital requirements--of 
subordinated commercial loans to avoid forcing financial institutions 
to set aside more reserves than are really necessary for safety and 
soundness of the financial institutions.
  There continues to be a shortage of commercial mortgage credit. 
Mortgage loan renewals continue to be difficult to secure even 
notwithstanding long-term credit relationships.
  The amendment we are offering today accomplishes the following:
  Amending SMMEA to allow securities backed by mortgages secured by 
liens on commercial property to qualify as Mortgage Related Securities 
[MRS] as that term is defined by SMMEA would confer several significant 
benefits. It would authorize various federally and state-chartered 
institutions to invest in committed MRS; it would preempt State Blue 
Sky Laws; and it would provide various exceptions to the Securities Act 
of 1934 to allow for delayed settlements--up to 180 days--to account 
for the forward delivery nature of the mortgage market. MRS status is 
conferred on mortgage securities rated by at least two nationally known 
rating agencies in their top two investment grades. The mortgages 
themselves must be originated by federally-regulated mortgages.


                  policy arguments for smmea amendment

  There are, as indicated above, strong reasons to recommend conferring 
the benefits of SMMEA on the commercial real estate market. The 
expected increase in availability of credit could speed recovery from 
the commercial real estate depression which many markets are 
experiencing. While credit availability alone will not correct the 
effects of over building, at least it would assure that when rents and 
values stabilize, credit would be more readily available to help assure 
orderly disposition of REO and assets acquired by FDIC and RTC 
liquidators.
  There is a similar bill moving in the House and we hope that the 
differences can be worked out in conference to address the ERISA and 
capital requirements contained in our original bill.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleague from New 
Mexico, Senator Domenici, and the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan], in 
strong support of this amendment.
  This amendment addresses the commercial real estate credit crunch by 
removing impediments to securitization. As we all know securitization 
makes money for lending recyclable and this amendment will increase 
commercial real estate liquidity by expanding the secondary market. The 
expanded market would make more credit available for commercial real 
estate and small business lending purposes.
  It has become apparent that the commercial real estate market has 
been hurt because the traditional sources of funding for long-term 
loans have either disappeared or experienced considerable price 
instability.
  Facing these obstacles, Senator Domenici and Senator Bryan worked 
diligently to resolve a very serious liquidity problem. Special 
recognition must also be paid to the National Association of Realtors, 
the National Realty Committee, and the Mortgage Bankers Association for 
the efforts they have made to create a secondary market for commercial 
lending.
  Because of their tireless efforts, I am confident that the shortage 
of commercial mortgage credit that we have previously experienced will 
no longer be a problem. I applaud their efforts, and am pleased to be 
an original cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 1546) was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. RIEGLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. RIEGLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, just a few moments ago Senators Riegle 
and D'Amato asked the Senate to accept and the Senate did accept an 
amendment that was proposed by Senator Bryan of Nevada and the Senator 
from New Mexico. We introduced this bill as Senate bill 1728, and its 
title was the Commercial Mortgage Capital Availability Act of 1993.
  As we look across the real estate market and real estate business in 
the United States, we find that when it comes to residential mortgages 
and the financing of homes the United States has come upon a system 
which is absolutely the envy of the world. At the heart of it is a 
secondary market for the loans and mortgages that are put on housing 
either by the buyer of the house or the builder of the house.
  When that mortgage securing a loan is put on that house, the first 
lender, be it a bank or S&L, or other source of financing, does not 
have to hold that note and that mortgage subject to the vagaries of 
interest as it applies to the lending institution which means if they 
have low interest rate mortgages and they are paying a high interest 
rate on savings they soon go broke.
  So what has happened in America is all those mortgages and loans are 
taken out of the hands of the lender, are bundled and are purchased and 
sold in the marketplace.
  That is essentially what Fannie Mae, one of the America's large 
corporations, does. It is one of the principal sources of seeing that 
that secondary market works.
  Obviously, without that all of the lending institutions of the 
country would be bogged down with billions of dollars of mortgages on 
the houses of the United States and who knows whether we would really 
have a housing market like we have. Most would say it would not even 
work.
  But what this bill that we introduced, Senator Bryan and I, that is 
now an amendment that was adopted by the Senate at the request of the 
managers, attempts to do is to start to permit commercial mortgages, 
that is mortgages on commercial property, offices and the like, to 
develop a secondary market that will apply and buy them and bundle them 
so that the lending institutions of the United States will be available 
for more mortgages, more loans and notes and mortgages and will 
stabilize the real estate market as it applies to commercial real 
estate.
  As a matter of fact, just for discussion purposes, it might very well 
have been that if there was a secondary market for commercial real 
estate loans and the mortgages that secured them prior to the S&L 
crisis, it might very well have been we would not have had such a 
severe crisis because, for one thing, the secondary market establishes 
some very good, strong and firm standardization guidelines to be 
eligible for sale in the secondary market. Selling a loan is like 
recycling money. A banker receives the cash for the loan that he put 
out to finance it, so he can go on with some other business, and makes 
more loans and credit available. Those mortgages have to meet a certain 
standard. And maybe had we had a giant secondary market maybe the 
standards would have precluded some of the S&L's and banks from getting 
into the rather close-call mortgages that brought down a lot of that 
thrift infrastructure of the United States and cost us billions and 
billions of dollars.
  But that is not the purpose of the bill, because that is done and 
finished and I just give it as aside.
  There are many impediments to making the secondary market for 
commercial mortgages work. There are certain places within Wall Street 
and within the markets of America where programs of making commercial 
loans, commercial mortgages part of a secondary market are beginning to 
flourish, but it is a far cry from becoming a reality on the scale that 
our economy demands.
  What we have done in this amendment, and I will not go into the 
details, is take a very significant step toward making it easier and 
making it such that the market can take advantage of this kind of 
securitization--a secondary market broad in scope for commercial 
mortgages. And guess what it would do? I do not know how others in this 
Chamber find the real estate financing in their home States, but I meet 
families and developers and just a wide variety of people who have a 
very difficult time getting a long-term note and mortgage on commercial 
property. If you are buying it or building it today, you cannot even 
get 10 years of financing. You may get two 5-years as the best the 
lender can do. And guess what? The interest rates are substantially 
higher than they are for residential property and for many other kinds 
of properties that people are borrowing money for.
  That is because we have not found a way to set the appropriate 
guidelines that will permit that whole market of securities on 
commercial property to be in a secondary market which raises its own 
capital in completely different ways than the banking and lending 
institutions have to raise theirs.
  In my State, I allude to the fact that 2 years ago I was asked by the 
Republican leader to head a task force on real estate in the United 
States. We were overbuilt and that after the debacle of the S&L's, the 
downfall of the real estate market was putting a damper on America's 
economic growth. It was becoming a very big part of our inability to 
grow out of the recession. Addressing impediments to securitization was 
one of the suggestions that almost every real estate person large and 
small made. Let us see if we can get a secondary commercial market 
working here.
  I have the suggestions that were made back then and who made them in 
my State and other States, and they will be incorporated in the 
remainder of my statement.
  But I just wanted to come to the floor and share with my fellow 
Senators that if this finally gets done in conference and perhaps even 
made broader. We have to create a secondary market for commercial 
mortgages. This will be a giant step towards totally revitalizing that 
part of the American economic scene that is known as commercial real 
estate, a very big and important part, with many thousands of people 
employed in it and much capital invested in it.
  So I will now read my statement indicating with precision the various 
aspects of the amendment that was adopted and other remarks:

       Madam President, the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan] and I 
     introduced S. 1728, the ``Commercial Mortgage Capital 
     Availability Act of 1993 last year.'' This bill addresses the 
     credit crunch by removing impediments to ``securitization.'' 
     This is the process Wall Street uses to covert relatively 
     illiquid real estate assets into marketable securities that 
     can be purchased by a broad range of investors including 
     pension funds, banks, insurance companies, mutual funds and 
     investment funds. The securities are backed by pools of 
     commercial mortgages or sometimes by a single property, such 
     as a large urban, mixed use complex.
       Securitization makes money for lending ``recyclable.'' A 
     banker makes a loan, sells it, takes the proceeds and lends 
     it out again. Wall Street buys the loans, pools them, 
     securitizes them and enables banks to make more loans without 
     waiting for repayment month after month.
       In the last Congress, I chaired the Real Estate Task Force. 
     We received recommendations from 40 or more real estate and 
     lending institutions. The Task Force examined ways to 
     increase commercial real estate liquidity by expanding the 
     secondary market. An expanded secondary market would make 
     more credit available for commercial real estate and small 
     business lending purposes.
       In April of this year, I held a Senate Banking Committee 
     credit crunch hearing in New Mexico. Senator Bryan held a 
     hearing on the same topic in Nevada. We came to the same 
     conclusion--we need to make it easier for the secondary 
     market in commercial real estate to function and grow.
       Testimony at the hearing in New Mexico included some very 
     illuminating testimony from Lou Toulga who is an Albuquerque 
     real estate broker and the chairman of the National 
     Association of Realtors commercial investment committee.
       ``The commercial real estate market has been hurt because 
     the traditional sources of funding for long-term loans have 
     either disappeared, been traumatized or experienced 
     considerable price instability.''
       He and other witnesses knew of many banks that are not 
     making any commercial real estate loans. Those that do make 
     loans only offer terms with very short amortization periods. 
     This makes it difficult to satisfy debt coverage ratios and 
     make cash flow work. Loan to value ratio limits are often 
     below 60 percent and required debt coverage ratios are often 
     above 1.5. Interest rates are higher too--the spreads against 
     10-year Treasuries are now more than 200 basis points.
       Loan terms tend to be too short--five years with the 
     accompanying uncertainty of rollovers and the uncertainty of 
     reappraisals and the potential of revaluations through the 
     appraising process. To get a twenty year loan on a building, 
     a developer needs to have tenants with twenty year leases. 
     This is usually impossible.
       Facing these serious obstacles the National Association of 
     Realtors, the National Realty Committee and the Mortgage 
     Bankers Association started a consortium to do the necessary 
     work to create a secondary market for commercial lending. 
     They have asked for Congress' help to eliminate some of the 
     regulatory restraints in current law. Modify the Secondary 
     Mortgage Market Enhancement Act to allow the securities from 
     commercial loan pools to be accepted across all fifty states.
       We also need to deal with subordination. When a banker 
     subordinates a particular obligation and sells it, he still 
     needs to maintain the same capital requirements as if he had 
     held on to the loan. This locks up capital that could be lent 
     out for other productive purposes.
       We also need to modify ERISA to allow comparable treatment 
     of commercial real estate. Commercial real estate should be 
     treated as favorably as residential by allowing secondary 
     mortgage securitization. This would provide parity under 
     ERISA for commercial real estate.
       The bill Senator Bryan and I introduced does three things:
       Broadens the Secondary Mortgage Market Enhancement Act 
     (SMMEA) to apply to commercial securities.
       Amend the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) 
     to include a class exemption for commercial mortgage 
     securities. They would no longer be classified as 
     ``prohibited transactions.''
       Change the regulatory treatment (risk-based capital 
     requirements) of subordinated commercial loans to avoid 
     forcing financial institutions to set aside more reserves 
     than are really necessary for safety and soundness of the 
     financial institutions.
       There continues to be a shortage of commercial mortgage 
     credit. Mortgage loan renewals continue to be difficult to 
     secure even notwithstanding long-term credit relationships.
       The amendment we are offering today accomplishes the 
     following: Amends the Secondary Mortgage Market Enhancement 
     Act (SMMEA) to allow securities backed by mortgages secured 
     by liens on commercial property to qualify as Mortgage 
     Related Securities (``MRS'') as that term is defined by SMMEA 
     would confer several significant benefits. It would authorize 
     various federally and state-chartered institutions to invest 
     in committed MRS; it would preempt state Blue Sky Laws; and 
     it would provide various exceptions to the Securities Act of 
     1934 to allow for delayed settlements (up to 180 days) to 
     account for the forward delivery nature of the mortgage 
     market. MRS status is conferred on mortgage securities rated 
     by at least two nationally known rating agencies in their top 
     two investment grades. The mortgage themselves must be 
     originated by Federally-regulated mortgagees.
       There are strong reasons to confer the benefits of SMMEA on 
     the Commercial real estate market. The expected increase in 
     availability credit could speed recovery from the commercial 
     real estate depression which many markets are experiencing. 
     While credit availability alone will not correct the effects 
     of overbuilding, at least it would assure that when rents and 
     values stabilize, credit would be more readily available to 
     help assure orderly disposition of REO and assets acquired by 
     FDIC and RTC liquidators.
       There is a similar bill moving in the House and we hope 
     that the differences can be worked out in conference.

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Burns be made a 
cosponsor of the amendment that heretofore passed as if he were an 
original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I have a statement with reference to 
the basic underlying bill that praises it and sets out what it is going 
to do which I will now read:

       Madam President, I would like to thank and compliment 
     Senators Riegle, D'Amato, Shelby, and Mack for the leadership 
     they have exhibited on one or more titles of this bill. 
     Without their work, we would not be able to offer this bill.
       There is a tremendous need in this country for greater 
     access to capital. All throughout the country, we see women, 
     Indians and other groups eager to become significant 
     contributors to our economy--if only they are given the 
     chance. This bill will help them become significant 
     contributors.
       In New Mexico, we have two established community 
     development financial institutions: The New Mexico Community 
     Development Loan Fund and the Women's Economic Self-
     Sufficiency Team, both located in Albuquerque.
       We also have several CDFI Coalition Affiliates: Home 
     Education Livelihood Program, Inc., of Albuquerque; Siete del 
     Norte Community Development Corporation, Embudo, NM; the 
     Navajo Townsite Community Development Corporation in Navajo, 
     NM, and the Granada De Valley, Santa Fe, NM.
       Let me take one of these programs, the Navajo Townsite 
     Community Development Corporation and tell you about the big 
     difference it has been making with a little money. In the 
     past 4 years, they have worked with McKinley County, the 
     State of New Mexico legislature, the U.S. Department of 
     Health and Human Services, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the 
     Navajo Nation's Divisions of Economic and Community 
     Development.
       They have used $5.4 million for social, economic and 
     infrastructure programs to benefit the 3,100 residents of 
     Navajo, McKinley County, NM. They helped finance a shopping 
     center; provided start up funds for several businesses; and 
     helped fund a day care center. All in all, the program has 
     lead to the creation of almost 100 jobs.
       Another New Mexico fund is WESSTcorp which is a nonprofit 
     agency created to help women start and grow their businesses. 
     Over the past five years WESSTcorp has helped more than 250 
     women develop their businesses and has enjoyed a zero default 
     rate.
       The New Mexico Community Development Loan Fund is a 
     private, nonprofit financial intermediary created in 1989 and 
     dedicated to the economic and social empowerment of the 
     people of the State. It currently has $820,000 in capital 
     under management. Their capital has come from Catholic women 
     religious groups, Protestant religious groups, Jewish 
     synagogues, foundation program-related investments, 
     corporations, and Federal economic development programs. It 
     is well underway. It has made 17 loans totalling $284,571. 
     All loans are current and the fund has experienced no losses. 
     These loans are making a big difference all over the State.
       The New Mexico Community Development Loan Fund has financed 
     an organic grower to buy equipment; helped finance inventory 
     for a nonprofit store which sells crafts made by low income 
     artisans from New Mexico. It has financed a transitional 
     housing project in Santa Fe. It has financed a grass-roots 
     organization which provides various health and social 
     services to low income villages near Las Cruces. It helped 
     finance an expansion of a health care facility used by farm 
     worker families and the elderly.
       Another interesting project helped financed the Costilla 
     co-op's purchase of materials necessary to make Hispanic folk 
     art dolls that are sold. Another loan helped buy industrial 
     sewing machines for a Southwest fashion cottage industry in 
     Costilla and Amalia. It helped finance land acquisition for 
     the Grant County Cooperative Ownership Development 
     Corporation in Silver City. This small business incubator 
     center will help other small businesses develop by holding 
     down the costs of offering services. Another loan helped the 
     Santa Fe Housing Authority set up a renters' fund for single 
     mothers and fathers who needed down payment assistance.
       Nationwide, community development loan funds have loaned 
     more than $100 million which has leveraged $760 million in 
     public and private capital to finance 15,000 housing units 
     and to create 3,500 jobs for poor Americans. Hopefully, 
     this bill will help these types of endeavors. I commend 
     the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee 
     for the improvements they have made in this bill.
       I also am pleased that the manager's amendment includes a 
     data collection provision which will in the future help the 
     Banking Committee and lending institutions evaluate lending 
     practices to women and other minorities.
       The Community Development Financial Institutions title of 
     the bill have the government playing a role that private 
     micro loan funds, low income credit unions and nonprofits 
     have been pioneering for years.
       These private initiatives have shown us that people and a 
     little money can make a big difference. I hope this bill 
     takes the $382 million we are authorizing and puts into place 
     the policies that will assist in making an even bigger 
     difference.
       I also want to thank the chairman and the ranking member 
     for including Indian reservations in the definition of an 
     eligible investment area. Senator Campbell and I filed an 
     amendment to insure that the Indian reservations are treated 
     like the urban and rural enterprise zones. The amendment was 
     incorporated when the Banking Committee considered the bill. 
     This bill, in conjunction with the provisions included in the 
     Reconciliation bill should help spur investment on Indian 
     reservations. These are enclaves in our nation of extreme 
     deprivation--too many times overlooked because they quietly 
     suffer. Their needs don't scream out on the front pages of 
     the newspapers.
       I am very pleased that we are including the Small Business 
     Securitization Act in Title II of this bill. It will help 
     address the credit crunch. It is a market driven approach 
     that won't cost the federal government a single dollar. It 
     significantly removes current legal impediments to the 
     securitization of small business loans.
       Securitization is the banking world's version recycling. A 
     bank makes a loan to a small business, and rather than 
     waiting for that small business to pay back the loan before 
     the bank can make another loan, bank sells the loan so that 
     it can be pooled, securitized and sold in the secondary 
     market. The bank then can immediately make another loan to 
     help another business. That is why I call securitization 
     ``recycling'' financial resources.
       This bill will bring new sources of funds to small and 
     medium sized businesses. It will enable pension funds, 
     insurance companies, trust departments and other 
     institutional and private investors to invest in small 
     business loans made by other financial institutions. Another 
     benefit is that by increasing the number of participants in 
     the market it will increase competition and lower interest 
     rates. Hopefully, eventually, this will enable financial 
     institutions to increase their volume of lending to better 
     meet the credit needs of small businesses.
       The bottom line is that this bill means more credit for 
     small businesses at lower rates.
       The Home Equity Protection Act is another title in the bill 
     which I feel is important. Predatory lending operates in a 
     credit vacuum created when mainstream banks abandon direct 
     lending in minority neighborhoods. Making matters worse, 
     lending practices shifted from ``ability to pay'' to ``asset-
     based lending.'' With asset-based lending the loan is made 
     based on the value of the security, rather than on the 
     borrower's ability to pay. This sometimes leads to 
     unaffordable loans.
       This bill goes after the equity skimmer who originates 
     loans because it can charge enormous up-front fees, and then 
     sells the loan. The manager's amendment includes language to 
     make sure this legislation does not have unintended 
     consequences of making less fair credit available. With a 
     series of safeguards, the amendment provides regulatory 
     flexibility.
       Finally, Madam President, I would like to express my 
     support for an amendment included in the version of this bill 
     the House passed dealing with Federal Home Loan Banks that 
     Representative Baker offered. It increased the non-Qualified 
     Thrift Lending Borrowing Limit from 30 percent to 40 percent 
     of total advances. This amendment, too, will help the credit 
     crunch. Let me explain why.
       Banks will comprise 60 percent of the systems' stockholders 
     by the end of this year.
       The preponderance of the new members have been small to 
     mid-size community commercial banks: 58 percent have total 
     assets of $100 million or less, and 83 percent have total 
     assets of less than $500 million. The average asset size is 
     about $265 million and the average mortgage asset level is 
     about $96 million.
       New members are predominantly commercial banks, but also 
     include 50 credit unions and 19 insurance companies. Despite 
     being newcomers to the System, these new stockholders are 
     already using the FHL Banks almost as much as traditional 
     thrift stockholders. In fact, the smaller community 
     commercial banks already use the Banks to a greater extent 
     than their thrift counterparts.
       The current 30 percent cap on advances to nonqualified 
     thrift lending institutions threatens to impede the Home Loan 
     Banks' ability to serve the community commercial banks. The 
     cap originally was included in FIRREA to protect thrifts 
     access to advances, but has proven unnecessary. Raising the 
     cap will increase the money available to commercial banks, 
     which they in turn can make available to borrowers for the 
     formation of new businesses.
       This provision in the House bill is particularly important 
     to the Dallas region, which is responsible for New Mexico. 
     They are projected to bump up against the 3 percent cap in 
     the near future. I hope the conferees will take the Baker 
     amendment.

  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      unanimous-consent agreement

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized to offer an amendment in behalf of myself and Senator Dole, 
that the amendment be read, that following the reading of the 
amendment, Senator Dole be recognized to address the Senate for up to 
10 minutes; that following Senator Dole's remarks, I be recognized to 
address the Senate for up to 10 minutes; that upon the use or yielding 
back of that time, the Senate vote on the amendment, that no second 
degree amendments to the amendment be in order, and that no motions to 
recommit be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           amendment no. 1547

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I send a sense-of-the-Senate amendment 
to the desk and ask that it be read by the clerk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       At the Appropriate place insert the following:
       Sec.  . It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (a) Congress has a constitutional obligation to conduct 
     oversight of matters relating to the operations of the 
     government, including matters related to any governmental 
     investigations which may, from time to time, be undertaken.
       (b) The Majority Leader and the Republican Leader should 
     meet and determine the appropriate timetable, procedures, and 
     forum for appropriate Congressional oversight, including 
     hearings on all matters related to ``Madison Guaranty Savings 
     and Loan Association (`MGS&L'), Whitewater Development 
     Corporation and Capital Management Services Inc. (`CMS').''
       (c) No witness called to testify at these hearings shall be 
     granted immunity under sections 6002 and 6005 of Title 18, 
     United States Code, over the objection of Special Counsel 
     Robert B. Fiske, Jr.
       (d) The hearings should be structured and sequenced in such 
     a manner that in the judgment of the Leaders they would not 
     interfere with the ongoing investigation of Special Counsel 
     Robert B. Fiske, Jr.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Republican 
leader is recognized for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I think it is clear from this resolution 
there will be a rollcall vote on it. I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, at least as far as the Senate is 
concerned, we understand our obligations, congressional oversight--we 
understand the serious nature of that obligation. As I pointed out 
earlier, it goes back to 1946, and there are four or five statutes, 
plus implications in the Constitution, that we have oversight 
responsibility.
  That is paragraph (a).
  Paragraph (b) indicates that the two leaders will meet and determine 
the appropriate timetable, procedures, and forum for appropriate 
congressional oversight, including all hearings related to the Madison 
Guaranty Savings & Loan Association, Whitewater Development Corp., and 
Capital Management Services. I think that would cover anything that has 
been mentioned thus far. In fact, it would cover the insolvency and 
regulation of Madison Guaranty, the relationship of the Madison 
Guaranty Savings & Loan Association to its affiliates, and so forth, 
the Federal regulatory agencies--everything that has been discussed 
plus, I assume, like anything else, if something popped up, it would 
probably be broad enough to cover that, too.
  In an effort to make certain we do not compromise the investigation 
of Robert Fiske, paragraph (c) talks about no grants of immunity. As I 
pointed out earlier, I do not think, by having that in advance, it is 
going to keep people from telling the truth. It will not keep us from 
getting documents. It will not keep the regulators from cooperating.
  I point out again, in the Watergate hearings, John Dean was not 
granted immunity, John Erhlichman was not granted immunity, Bob 
Halderman was not granted immunity--several others were not. They still 
were convicted and testimony was given, so it worked at Watergate. It 
did not work in Iran-Contra. And we see no reason it will not work in 
the event of hearings in the so-called Whitewater matter.
  I think the final paragraph, (d), the thing that we do not want to 
do--speaking now, not as a Republican, but speaking as a Member of this 
body--is to give any public official, whether it be Robert B. Fiske or 
somebody else, a veto power over what Congress can do, what Congress 
should do and has the right to do and has a mandate, as far as I am 
concerned, for the American people, to carry out oversight 
responsibilities.
  So we have tried to not interfere with that but also to let the 
leaders make a determination that we can proceed without interfering 
with the ongoing investigation. But the bottom line is that Robert 
Fiske cannot have a veto. I do not care how many letters he writes or 
how many statements he makes on television. Congress has some 
responsibility, too. We had some difficulty with that particular 
paragraph, because I know my colleagues on the other side keep citing 
the Fiske letters, the Fiske this and the Fiske that. We are not trying 
to compromise the investigation, but it could happen sometimes that 
Congress might determine something is more important than getting a 
conviction somewhere or doing something else the special counsel might 
do. Congress has some real responsibilities, as I pointed out earlier 
for the record.
  So I hope there would be a unanimous vote for this resolution. I hope 
I could get together with the majority leader next week and start 
working, if we can. We have not reached an agreement yet. It is not 
going to be easy. We have already had a preliminary discussion. We 
trust each other. It will be in good faith, I have no question about 
that. We may not be able to put it together. If not, we will be back on 
the floor, I assume, with additional amendments or whatever.
  So I thank the majority leader, and I thank my colleagues on this 
side of the aisle.
  I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maine and 2 minutes to the 
Senator from New York.
  Mr. COHEN. I thank the minority leader for yielding.
  Madam President, let me just make this point. It has been reiterated, 
over and over again, that Iran-Contra, the hearing into Iran-Contra was 
a failure. It was not a failure. It was necessary to conduct that 
hearing to find out what in fact took place. Let me submit that, 
notwithstanding the fact that Oliver North and Admiral Poindexter and 
perhaps several others were not successfully prosecuted ultimately 
because the law was interpreted differently than we had understood it 
to be before, nonetheless it was far more important for this country to 
have learned about an off-the-shelf, self-sustaining, covert capability 
that was being conducted by members of the White House staff--far more 
important that we learn about that and put a stop to it than worry 
about whether or not certain individuals would be convicted later on.
  So to those who maintain it was a mistake, I say it was not a 
mistake. It was the right thing to do. If any mistake was made, that 
had to do with the granting of immunity, in which case we do not intend 
to repeat that mistake.
  The important language in this particular resolution is ``hearing 
should be structured and sequenced.'' There shall be hearings, and they 
shall be structured and sequenced--meaning we can have hearings on the 
matters pertaining to Washington occurring while President Clinton is 
President and has been President, and allow the hearings pertaining to 
those events that occurred years ago in Arkansas to be taken on a much 
longer-term basis.
  So in this resolution the language, I think, is significant: 
Structured. It shall be structured and sequenced. So we anticipate a 
series of hearings and not just one at the end of the Fiske 
investigation.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, some weeks ago I predicted that we 
would have hearings. There were those who said no, there was no need, 
we would not have them. I think the great strength of our democracy is 
that we will get to the facts and at times, those facts may not be 
pleasant. I paraphrase the concerns and thoughts of my two colleagues, 
the Senate majority leader and his colleague from Maine, when they said 
that is our obligation. The abuse of power is something that is 
important to curb and to expose. I am pleased that we have been able to 
come to this point, where there will be hearings as outlined.
  I am pleased that the white waters have finally parted and the Senate 
can pursue its march for the truth. I believe that we have learned how 
to avoid some of the pitfalls that have been referred to in the past. 
Once we get to the truth, we can continue the business of the people, 
and all of us--Democrats and Republicans--can say that we have upheld 
the law.
  I am pleased that we have come to this point. It is something that I 
was confident we would arrive at.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, is there any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOLE. I yield it back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized for up to 10 
minutes.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I am pleased to sponsor this 
amendment. It is completely consistent with all of my previous public 
statements on this matter. I have stated from the outset that Congress 
has a serious oversight responsibility that it will meet and that it 
will do so in a manner that does not interfere with the investigation 
of the special counsel.
  The Senator from New York said that he predicted hearings, and others 
said there would not be hearings. I know of no such person. I did not 
ever state that nor did anyone else to my knowledge.
  What was stated was that the demand made by our colleague for 
immediate hearings would not be met and has not been met under this 
amendment. I am pleased that our colleagues have agreed not to pursue 
that request and have agreed to proceed in the manner which I suggested 
at the outset and which I have consistently suggested throughout; that 
is to say that we will meet our oversight responsibilities, but we will 
do so in a responsible and serious manner, not in a political circus, 
but one which will be set up in a way that will not interfere with the 
ongoing investigation of the special counsel.
  That is both in terms of the structure of the hearings and the timing 
of the hearings.
  I emphasize, as did the Republican leader, that this requires us in 
good faith to meet, to discuss the matter, and to make a determination 
as the best and most appropriate manner to proceed consistent with this 
resolution which restates Congress' obligation. And being the author of 
the amendment, it is drafted with the words that I have consistently 
used in this matter; that no witness called to testify will be granted 
immunity over the objection of the special counsel, another concern 
which I have expressed throughout, and the final paragraph, which I 
quote:

       The hearings should be structured and sequenced in such a 
     manner that in the judgment of the leaders, they would not 
     interfere with the ongoing investigation of Special Counsel 
     Robert B. Fiske, Jr.

  This is the responsible way to deal with this matter. This is the way 
to have the hearings at a time and under conditions and circumstances 
which will not interfere with the special counsel's investigation, 
entirely consistent, indeed identical, to the position which I have 
stated from the outset.
  I repeat, I know of no Member of this body who has ever said there 
should never be hearings. That may have been said, but I did not hear 
it and I never read it. Every Member whose statements with which I am 
familiar has stated that there should be hearings. The disagreement has 
been over the time and the conditions and the circumstances.
  I am very pleased that our colleagues have now agreed to do so in the 
manner which I have previously suggested. That is to say, at a time and 
under conditions and circumstances which will not interfere with the 
investigation of the special counsel.
  Madam President, I thank my colleagues. I thank the Republican leader 
for his cooperation and for our colleagues who have been involved in 
this matter. I think this is the way to proceed.
  There are two things that will come out of this. The first is that, 
as I have said all along, there will be and there should be appropriate 
and serious congressional oversight. The second thing is that the 
special counsel's investigation can go forward and not be interfered 
with by the actions of Congress.
  I think those are two important objectives that have been attained by 
this resolution, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the majority leader yield back the 
remainder of his time?
  Under the previous order, the majority leader controls the remaining 
4 minutes and 40 seconds of time.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, my understanding is that the Senator 
from Texas wishes to discuss a matter unrelated to this amendment, an 
amendment of his own, which he will discuss. Therefore, I ask unanimous 
consent that he be recognized for 5 minutes to discuss his amendment, 
and that upon the completion of his remarks, the Senate proceed to vote 
on the pending matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader reserves his 4 minutes 40 
seconds. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I thank the majority leader for allowing 
me to speak now.
  It seems almost superfluous trying to talk about the underlying bill 
given the magnitude of the discussion just having gone on here. I 
thought of offering an amendment to deal with the implicit usury limit 
which is part of this bill. I am very concerned about it, because I 
think it represents bad public policy.
  But I realize that at 9 o'clock at night, when we are getting ready 
to vote on an amendment regarding the Whitewater matter, few will be 
paying any attention to the underlying bill that is before us. So I 
thought, Madam President, that I would simply remind my colleagues of 
the usury limit provision in this bill, point out how unenlightened a 
policy this represents, and say to my colleagues that I am hopeful that 
when we go to conference with the House we will end up modifying or 
dropping these provisions.
  I ask my colleagues to note the paradox, in that all over the world 
tonight, countries in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, in Asia 
that have been dominated by Marxism for 30 years, are now repealing 
laws exactly like the bill that we are about to pass.
  Under the provisions of subtitle B of title I of the bill that is 
before us, if interest rates on a loan that uses an underlying mortgage 
as collateral are above a certain level specified in this bill, a 
variety of restrictions are imposed on the lender. This is, in reality, 
a usury limit. We have debated usury limits for hundreds of years. In 
fact, St. Thomas Aquinas presented a clear explanation as to why we 
should not be in the business of trying to set interest rates by law 
and why, by doing that, we hurt the very people we are trying to help.
  The bill before us, by imposing an implicit usury limit, is simply 
going to mean that what we are doing is not helping the people who will 
not be able to borrow at that rate. When we say that people cannot lend 
at certain interest rates without suffering all kinds of restrictions, 
then we take the profitability of that loan away. What we are doing is 
hurting people. People who could have obtained a loan at a higher 
interest rate will now be forced to go to pawnshops, they will be 
forced to borrow from their brother-in-law, they will be denied credit, 
they will be denied the ability to get access to capital that might 
have allowed them to start a business, that might have allowed them to 
go to trade school.
  And so the bottom line is, we have an unenlightened policy before us 
in this bill that imposes by law a price control on interest rates and 
that, in doing so, hurts the very people that it is supposed to help.
  You would think in 1994 that no such proposal could be given serious 
consideration by the Senate, that it would be laughable to consider it 
here, but it is clearly not so.
  So, I am going to vote for the Whitewater resolution, but I am going 
to vote against the underlying bill because it is a bad bill. It 
represents policy which is rejected almost worldwide today. Only on the 
floor of the Senate are we still debating and voting on usury limits, 
to allow the Government to interfere with the ability of the market 
system to set interest rates.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back his time.
  The majority leader controls 4 minutes and 30 seconds.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, we will now vote on this amendment. 
That will be the last rollcall vote unless some Senator now states that 
he or she will insist on a recorded vote on the underlying bill.
  There has been no such request, and I would hope there will be none. 
That way Senators could vote on this resolution and depart. Therefore, 
there will be no vote on final passage. That will be by voice vote. 
This will be the last vote this evening. We will be in session tomorrow 
dealing with another bill.
  So, Madam President, I now yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1547. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] and 
the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] and the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 
Thurmond] would each vote yea.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 62 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Simpson
     Thurmond
       
  So the amendment (No. 1547) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I suggest the absence----
  Mr. DOLE. If the Senator will withhold that request, while the 
managers are conferring, I wonder if I might speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.

                          ____________________