[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3918-S3922]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
vote on the conference report accompanying S. 1, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 1) 
     to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on 
     States and local governments; to strengthen the partnership 
     between the Federal Government and State, local and tribal 
     governments; to end the imposition, in the absence of full 
     consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on State, 
     local, and tribal governments without adequate funding, in a 
     manner that may displace other essential governmental 
     priorities; and to ensure that the Federal Government pays 
     the costs incurred by those governments in complying with 
     certain requirements under Federal statutes and regulations; 
     and for other purposes, having met, after full and free 
     conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
     their respective Houses this report, signed by all of the 
     conferees.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the conference report.
                              section 105

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I invite the chairman of the Budget 
Committee to engage in a colloquy with me on section 105 of the 
conference report on S. 1, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
  During consideration of S. 1 before the full Senate, I offered an 
amendment which makes clear that nothing in this legislation denies 
Federal funding to States, local, or tribal governments because they 
are already complying with all or part of a Federal mandate. That 
amendment is now section 105 of the bill.
  The conferees modified my language by stating that my amendment made 
reference to any mandates that are funded pursuant to section 425(a)(2) 
of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, as 
added by section 101 of this act.
  However, the report language accompanying S. 1 refers to section 
425(b)(2).
  I ask the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, is this reference in 
the conference report incorrect?
  [[Page S3919]] Mr. DOMENICI. Yes; the Senator is correct. The report 
language inadvertently refers to section 425(b)(2) when it should have 
been referring to section 425(a)(2). I appreciate the Senator from 
Wisconsin bringing this to the Senate's attention and it is my hope 
that this colloquy sets the record straight on the intent of the 
conferees on this language.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, when the Senate considered the 
unfunded mandates bill earlier this year, I voted against it. I am 
prepared to vote against the final version of that bill now. My 
concerns about S. 1 were not addressed in conference and, in fact, one 
could argue that bill comes back to us in worse shape then it left.
  The conference made two substantive changes in the bill. First, 
judicial review has been added to an already unwieldy process and, 
second, the threshold above which CBO must provide cost estimates for 
private sector unfunded mandates has been reduced from $100 to $50 
million.
  These changes only reinforce my criticism of S. 1 as passed by the 
Senate in January: The procedural hurdles created by this legislation 
will only add to the arsenal of dilatory tactics which already have the 
ability to nuke necessary legislation and destroy public faith in the 
Congress.
  Last year, I supported legislation that would have addressed the 
problem of unfunded mandates in an appropriate and effective manner. 
That bill, S. 993, would have required Congress to think carefully and 
critically about the mandates we were about to impose upon State and 
local governments. We would have to acknowledge the magnitude of the 
burden before we passed legislation. Congress could no longer hide 
behind ignorance. I believe this bipartisan effort would have remedied 
the problem of the Federal Government imposing mandates without 
thorough consideration of the financial burdens already faced by other 
levels of government.
  The pending legislation, however, goes well beyond that. Not only is 
S. 1 procedurally flawed, it also enshrines the misguided principle and 
the unjustified presumption that the Federal Government should not 
impose requirements on the States unless it pays them to carry out the 
mandate. Supporters of the bill will respond that a simple majority can 
waive the requirements of this bill; however, the politics of such a 
waiver make this an unlikely occurrence. Clearly, the presumption is 
that unfunded mandates are inherently bad. I don't agree with that 
premise.
  Many in Washington seem to have forgotten that State and local 
governments benefit from a clean environment and a healthy work force. 
I believe it is the Federal Government's responsibility to act when 
State and local government don't want to spend the money to prevent 
pollution or to immunize children. We should be there to stop gun-
running across State lines or the spread of HIV-contaminated blood. We 
have a role in fighting the flood of illegal immigrants across our 
borders or the flow of people across State lines as a result of benefit 
shopping.
  I am proud to represent a State which has some of the toughest 
environmental laws in the country. New Jersey cares for its disabled. 
We have tough gun control laws and occupational safety regulations. But 
these strengths could
 become a disadvantage to us if Federal standards are weakened or 
eliminated. I'll provide an example which was only too true for my 
State just a few years ago.

  In the late 1980's, hundreds of millions of dollars were lost to New 
Jersey's economy because of another State's negligence. Raw sewage and 
medical waste originating from a neighboring State washed up on our 
beaches. This well-publicized problem not only tarnished by State's 
reputation--tourism is our largest employer--it cost us millions to 
clean it up. Federal Government intervention was necessary. An unfunded 
mandate was imposed upon the polluting State, but it was a necessary 
mandate and I believe it was proper that it was largely unfunded.
  Today we are institutionalizing a dangerous precedent: unless the 
Federal Government pays, States do not have to comply with Federal 
standards. Many States will have no incentive to try to prevent 
transborder pollution. Why should a State worry about its neighbors 
when it could spend that money on its own constituents. Would enough 
U.S. Senators look with sympathy on those States who are victims of 
another's pollution so that they would waive the requirements created 
under this legislation? I hope so, but I have enough doubts that I must 
vote against this conference report.
  Why has the Federal Government set standards to prevent States from 
cutting off food stamps to children or eliminating aid to legal 
immigrants? Because we know that some States, but for the Federal 
standards, would do exactly that. We created these standards because we 
did not want the kind of country where kids in one State would be 
denied nutritional assistance while the children of another 
jurisdiction received the benefits of such aid. We did not want a 
society that would cause some citizens to be disadvantaged merely 
because they had the misfortune of being born or raised in a State 
which did not place the same priority on pollution prevention or on 
caring for poor children.
  Mr. President, we do need to deal with the problem created when one 
level of government shifts the cost of programs to another level of 
government. But we have to do so in a way which is consistent with both 
the Federal structure of our society and the compassion which powers us 
as a people. I do not believe this bill is consistent with those 
characteristics of our country. And I fear that it is simply a 
precursor of efforts to develop no-strings block grants which could, in 
the name of flexibility, destroy the ability of all Americans--wherever 
they live--to count on their Government to provide certain levels of 
services and meet certain standards of conduct.
  For me, then, this is just the first step in what I suspect will be a 
long but ultimately triumphant fight to preserve the Federal nature of 
our system and the national character of the American experience.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, when I came to the Senate 2 years 
ago, I was surprised to discover that there was almost no discussion 
about the impact of mandates imposed by the Federal Government on State 
and local governments. Yet, today we are voting to implement 
legislation that shows that Congress promises to curb the practice of 
imposing Federal mandates on State and local governments without 
advance, complete disclosure of the impact of those mandates. As a 
strong supporter of this legislation, I am happy that we were able to 
come together to pass this long needed legislation.
  S. 1 has achieved an important balance--a balance between the 
benefits of mandates and their costs. We have also achieved an 
important balance between the Federal, State, and local governments' 
roles in the writing of Federal regulations to implement legislation. 
Creating a mechanism that will help ensure that the voice of State and 
local governments is heard in Washington before legislation is enacted 
is both sound policy, and something that has long been needed.
  S. 1 will make Federal officials more accountable. The Federal 
Government has foisted too many of the costs of Federal mandates on 
State and local governments for too long. Asking the Federal Government 
to make its decisions with good information--with the best information 
we can get on the State and local governments that will have to live by 
those decisions--should not be
 controversial. Rather, it is the way decisions should always have been 
made, and the way decisions should always be made in the future.

  S. 1 requires the congressional committees to report on the costs and 
benefits anticipated from any Federal mandates contained in the bills 
they report to the Senate for action, including the effects of the 
mandate on health and safety, and the protection of the environment.
  S. 1 has also achieved a better balance between the Federal, State, 
and local governments' roles in the writing of Federal regulations to 
implement legislation. Now State and local governments are partners to 
the Federal Government in writing these implementing regulations. 
Mandates impact big cities and small communities differently, yet 
rarely are regulations 
 [[Page S3920]] written to be sensitive to those differences. S. 1 
requires that special outreach efforts be made to ensure that the 
voices of all State and local governments are heard.
  S. 1 is an important step in the right direction. It creates 
equilibrium between the Federal Government and State and local 
governments. Now agencies will be required to estimate the costs of new 
rules to governments and industries and also analyze the effect of new 
rules on the U.S. economy, employment, and international 
competitiveness.
  To further increase the Federal Government's accountability, State 
and local governments will now be allowed to challenge whether or not 
Federal agencies have completed required
 cost-benefit analysis. As State and local governments have to live by 
those decisions, it is right that Federal officials are held 
accountable for their analysis. However, the purpose of the bill was 
not to have courts second guess the Congressional Budget Office's 
attempts at analysis, which are often done quickly to satisfy numerous 
requests, but to redress failures of an agency to prepare written 
statements of mandate cost estimates.

  S. 1, however is not a repudiation of the whole idea of mandates. The 
mandates that the Federal Government used to make real progress in 
civil rights and our treatment of the disabled, for example, were 
essential to our progress as a nation, and as a people. I applaud the 
fact that S. 1 recognizes how essential those mandates were and are, 
and that under the terms of the bill, future civil rights legislation 
which builds on this tradition will be exempt from S. 1.
  S. 1 is necessary not because mandates are wrong in principle. The 
real reason it passed is because of the budgetary shell game that was 
played in the 1980's. The 1980's were a time when many domestic 
programs were slashed, with mandates pushing the responsibilities onto 
hard-pressed State and local governments. I was in the Illinois House 
when President Reagan introduced the New Federalism. It was supposed to 
redefine the relationship among Federal, State, and local governments. 
What it really did was to make large cuts in Federal taxes, and push 
off the responsibilities of providing necessary services to State and 
local governments--without sending the money. The net result of that 
exercise in
 fiscal subterfuge was an explosion of Federal debt from only about $1 
trillion in 1980 to closing in on $5 trillion now.

  S. 1 is designed to ensure that the kind of budget fraud we saw in 
the 1980's won't be repeated in the remainder of the 1990's, or in the 
next century. S. 1 cannot undo the mistakes made in the 1980's. What it 
can do, and what we must do, is help ensure that we don't repeat those 
mistakes. Now Congress will make informed decisions that give the 
interests of State and local governments the attention and 
consideration that they deserve.
  S. 1 had strong bipartisan support when it passed the Senate on 
January 27, 1995, with a vote of 86-10. It also had strong support in 
the last Congress, when the Democrats controlled both the House and the 
Senate. S. 1 has strong support from Democratic mayors such as Mayor 
Richard Daley of Chicago, and from other Democratic and Republican 
mayors across the country. Governor Edgar of Illinois wrote me 
supporting S. 1, and numerous county boards in Illinois also wrote in 
support of this legislation. It is clear that unfunded mandates have 
consumed an increasing share of State and local budgets, and that it is 
time for a change.
  We are all in this together, Mr. President. The Federal Government, 
State governments, and local governments, are all trying to meet their 
responsibilities to the American people. S. 1 will promote cooperation 
between the various levels of government, and make it easier to address 
the problems that the American people elected us all to solve.
  I want to conclude my remarks by congratulating my colleague from 
Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, and my colleague from Ohio, Senator Glenn, 
for their leadership in crafting this legislation. I am pleased that we 
have the opportunity today to enact this important and meaningful 
reform.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the conference report on 
S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. It is great pleasure to 
speak on the floor about a conference report on this bill, because it 
means we have come a long way.
  I remember when Senator Domenici and I introduced our own bill on 
unfunded mandates in the fall of 1993. I have been working to rein in 
Federal mandates ever since.
  I want to start by thanking the ranking member of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, Senator Glenn. Senator Glenn had been a leader in 
mandate reform long before this issue was popular. Under his 
leadership, the committee held three hearings on this bill before our 
markup last year. One of those was a field hearing that I chaired in 
Minot, ND. And of course, we had our joint hearing with the Budget 
Committee in January.
  I would also like to salute Senator Kempthorne for his hard work on 
this bill. I knew it was his top priority when we both joined the 
Senate 2 years ago. And his efforts have today borne fruit with the 
adoption of this conference report on S. 1.


                       curbing unfunded mandates

  Mr. President, S. 1 has a simple premise--that the Federal Government 
should not impose financial mandates on State and local governments 
without adequate consideration of those mandates, and that we should 
try our best to provide funding for those mandates.
  Much of this bill matches closely S. 1592, the Fiscal Accountability 
and Intergovernmental Reform Act, or FAIR Act, which Senator Domenici 
and I introduced in the last Congress. S. 1 would require that the 
Congressional Budget Office review legislation for the costs that 
mandates would impose on State, local, and tribal Governments. If a 
bill is not analyzed by CBO, a point of order could lie against the 
bill. S. 1 would also require regulatory review of proposed rulemakings 
proposed by agencies in the executive branch. This is a vital step 
because Congress cannot always anticipate how a regulation will be 
interpreted. S. 1 would closely parallel the regulatory review 
Executive orders issued by President Clinton. I am pleased to see these 
two principles of my own mandate relief bill at the heart of S. 1.
  During my work on mandate relief, I have heard from State and local 
officials in North Dakota about the costs that Federal mandates impose. 
Examples of especially burdensome
 mandates include cleanup responsibilities under Superfund. The city of 
Minot is entangled in a wrangle with potentially responsible parties 
over cleanup costs for old Minot landfill. The Minot landfill, used 
between 1962 and 1970, is now a Superfund site. The city of Minot has 
been working to clean up that site since 1986. To date, Minot has spent 
$873,000 in order to comply with environmental mandates.

  Water testing mandates can also be unreasonable--Sherwood, ND, 
population 286, must spend $2,000 annually--half its budget--to test 
its water supply. Even small communities must have clean drinking 
water. But they should also have flexibility in abiding by burdensome 
mandates. And they certainly are entitled to know how burdensome a bill 
could turn out to be.


                        private sector analysis

  Another part of our society that needs notice of and information on 
costly mandates is the private sector. I am very pleased that the 
conferees have retained an amendment on this subject that I offered in 
markup last year. My amendment would require that the CBO analyze 
mandates on the private sector. The requirement is not as strict as 
that for analysis of intergovernmental mandates--if CBO cannot 
reasonably make an estimate of a private sector mandate, the bill would 
create no point of order--but the argument is the same.
  My point in offering this amendment was simply that there is no 
reason not to analyze costs on the private sector if we do the analysis 
for the public sector. To pretend we need to have CBO analyze the 
impact of public sector mandates, while skipping over the private 
sector, is to violate elementary economics. The private sector is three 
or four times bigger than the public sector. If we should assess the 
impact of unfunded mandates on local governments we surely should 
assess the impact on our Nation's businesses. The 
 [[Page S3921]] private sector is the foundation on which we build the 
budgets of the Federal Government and the State and local governments.
  I know some of my colleagues are concerned about analyzing private 
sector mandates. However, the analysis required by my amendment is no 
great mystery. We already examine the impact of paperwork on the 
private sector. Federal agencies must calculate the hours required to 
fill out paper. The Internal Revenue Service performs analysis of tax 
legislation and possible effects on the private sector. The Joint Tax 
Committee performs the same function for proposed legislation.
  The Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs has a regulatory review program that oversees the 
development of all Federal regulations. President Clinton's Executive 
Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review--requires agencies to 
conduct analysis of costs to the private sector of proposed 
regulations. The Office of Management and Budget therefore has 
developed a reservoir of knowledge on the impact of public laws.
  Federal agencies have long experience in analyzing the costs to the 
private sector of relevant legislation and regulation. USDA studies the 
impacts of laws on our Nation's farmers. The Commerce Department's 
Bureau of Economic Analysis reviews economic impacts on the private 
sector. Our trade agencies study the economic impact of trade policies. 
EPA has calculated that the costs of environmental mandates to the 
private sector has risen from $16.2 billion in 1972 to an estimated 
$76.1 billion in 1995--constant 1986 dollars.
  And the duties that S. 1 would impose on the Congressional Budget 
Office are not new. The CBO has estimated private sector effects of 
complicated legislation--NAFTA and two proposed health care reform 
bills are outstanding examples.
  So, Mr. President, the analysis of private sector costs is not rocket 
science. And this information will be cheap at the price. The CBO has a 
running start, and can use its knowledge base from existing analyses 
and models. This conference report authorizes $4.5 million a year for 
the CBO for this mandate review analysis work to begin.
  I predict that CBO review will pay for itself many times over by 
enabling the Congress to avoid burdening businesses with ill-considered 
mandates. I would like to thank the conferees for retaining my private 
sector amendment in this bill.


                            other amendments

  Let me also briefly mention two other amendments of mine that the 
Senate added to this bill. A number of North Dakotans have been 
particularly irked by the requirement that Federal building projects be 
built according to metric measurements rather than English ones. This 
is increasing the cost of medical staff housing being built on an 
Indian reservation in my State. Fortunately, the Indian Health Service 
has now agreed to drop this costly and unworkable requirement, which 
would have delayed staffing for an Indian hospital.
  However, as a policy matter I think we need to suspend this mandate 
now, study its costs, and decide whether we really need it. I offered 
an amendment to do that on the floor, and after some discussion the 
Senate passed that amendment. I am pleased that the conferees have 
retained that amendment in the conference report.
  Lastly, title III of the conference report retains my suggestion that 
we not set up a new commission to study Federal mandates but rather 
assign that task to the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental 
Relations [ACIR]. ACIR has the knowledge, experience, trust and network 
to get this study done and do it well. I did not understand why we 
needed a new commission when this Congress has been working hard to cut 
boards and commissions. I am glad the conferees have taken my point and 
have provided that ACIR shall do the studying. I look forward to 
working with the Senator from Idaho, the Senator from Ohio, and other 
interested Senators to ensure that the ACIR receives the funding that 
this bill authorizes for both this fiscal year and next.
  Mr. President, let me just conclude by saying that I am pleased that 
the long unfunded mandates debate has finally come to fruition. I would 
thank Senators Glenn and Kempthorne for their leadership on this issue, 
and for their willingness to hear out my concerns with this bill and 
make changes. I think our consideration of this bill on the floor 
improved it markedly, and I appreciated the opportunity to help in that 
effort.
  This bill makes a real and positive change in the relationship 
between the Federal Government and State, local, and tribal 
governments. I hope the House will pass S. 1 tomorrow, and I look 
forward to the President's signing this bill very soon.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will be voting in opposition to the 
conference report to S. 1, because the problems I had with the bill as 
it passed the Senate have not been resolved or abated in the conference 
report. I had hoped to be able to support legislation this year to 
address the unfunded mandates problem of State, local, and tribal 
governments. I was a cosponsor of last year's bill, S. 993, which was 
wholeheartedly endorsed by all the organizations representing majors, 
Governors, State legislators, county officials, and other local elected 
officials. Last year's bill would have forced Congress to estimate the 
costs of Federal mandates and authorize appropriations to the level of 
the estimated costs. In the words of the State and local officials last 
year, it was a tough, important, meaningful bill.
  Having served on the Detroit City Council for many years in the 
1970's, I am well aware of the problems and constraints Federal 
mandates place on local officials. My first Senate campaign in 1978 was 
based on my desire to make the Federal bureaucrats more sensitive to 
local concerns. And I know these problems continue and that Congress 
simply hasn't paid enough attention to the costs we impose on State and 
local governments. Yet, I did not support S. 1 as it passed the Senate, 
and I cannot support the conference report.
  In some respects, S. 1 simply goes too far; in other respects, it 
promises more than it can deliver. It goes too far in taking CBO cost 
estimates and locking them in for at least 5 years as the level at 
which we are expected to fund State and local governments. While these 
cost estimates may be useful for us in assessing the costs and benefits 
of legislating in a particular area, they are far too unreliable to 
serve as the basis for a mandated level of appropriations. An effort 
was made to address this concern when Senator Byrd offered an amendment 
to require agencies to notify Congress when the level of appropriations 
falls short of the CBO cost estimate. That was an improvement; but it 
wasn't enough, because absent our enactment of another law in response 
to that notice, the mandate at issue would expire. S. 1, therefore, 
ends up requiring that we legislate twice on the very same issues--once 
when we appropriate at a level less than the estimated cost of the 
mandate and once again to affirm that prior appropriations amount.
  S. 1 is inadequate in that it fails to address what I believe will be 
the real life concerns of State, local, and tribal governments in the 
next 10 years as we face scarce Federal resources. The problem won't be 
so much the number of mandates we place on State and local governments; 
it will be the fact that we will be pulling out Federal funds and 
assistance used to address problems that won't go away when the Federal 
money does. We will be cutting funds for education, the homeless, 
community
 development, you name it, and State and local governments will be left 
to solve the problems with their own resources. S. 1 does not address 
that situation.

  Another problem with S. 1 is the inherent unfairness in the bill's 
treatment between the public and private sector. S. 1 requires us to 
overcome a point of order if we don't pay for a Federal 
intergovernmental mandate, but it doesn't create a similar point of 
order for private sector mandates. There is a presumption created 
thereby that we should fund the mandate or not apply it to the public 
sector. This is particularly troubling when the State, local, or tribal 
government is acting in the same capacity as a private sector entity. 
S. 1 could put private entities at a competitive disadvantage relative 
to State, local, and tribal governments 
 [[Page S3922]] that operate the same kind of businesses.
  S. 1 also has the potential of causing havoc in the legislative 
process and aiding in the very gridlock we are all so desperate to 
avoid. It's very important that we require an analysis of the impact of 
costs on State and local governments and the private sector before a 
committee reports a bill to the full Senate for consideration. That's 
what the hearing process is supposed to be about. The public is 
supposed to let us know just what the consequences of our proposals 
could be. And, it's very important that the requirement for a cost 
analysis be enforced by saying that a point of order will lie against a 
bill
 that doesn't have that cost analysis. But to go to the next step and 
say that an often problematical cost estimate will now become the 
actual cost--that what CBO estimates will be the cost to State and 
local governments for each year of the authorization, moves from being 
a cost estimate to an assertion of actual costs and that that level of 
costs should be funded--that is an unreasonable approach. And the 
mechanisms used to enforce that approach could cause endless delays and 
tie up the legislative process.

  For these reasons, Mr. President, I will vote against the conference 
report. I do want to commend, however, Senator Glenn and Senator 
Kempthorne in their successful effort on this bill. Setting aside our 
differing opinions on the final outcome, I think these two gentleman 
have conducted themselves in a remarkably able fashion with good humor 
and a strong sense of fairness. I particularly appreciate Senator 
Glenn's efforts to be responsive to my concerns, and I congratulate him 
on accomplishing passage of this bill. The State and local officials 
have a great friend and supporter in the senior Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The yeas and nays have been 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 9, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 104 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--9

     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Sarbanes
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________