[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 11 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S442-S446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                   BALANCED BUDGET DOWNPAYMENT ACT, I

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask the Chair if there is an 
opportunity to make a statement without interrupting the discussion on 
the amendment of the Senator from Iowa?
  Mr. President, clearly, since there is a moment of time, I just 
wanted to make a point about an amendment that I was going to offer. I 
have decided not to do so, not because I do not think it is warranted 
and justified and ought to be presented, but it is very obvious to me, 
after having seen the vote that was taken on the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Massachusetts to increase education funding 
substantially so we can meet our needs for our young people and to 
provide the kind of education that is essential if the United States is 
going to maintain or improve its leadership in global affairs, 
economics, science, et cetera--I saw what happened with that vote. We 
did not get 60 votes in favor of it, whatever the technicality was, to 
waive the budget, et cetera.
  So, when I look at an amendment I was going to offer on environmental 
protection, it seemed to me that the handwriting was on the wall or 
that the toxics were in the ground or in the air, and that we were not 
going to get anywhere with a vote.
  Mr. President, the American people clearly want to see an end to the 
partisan bickering, and it seems we are making some progress in that 
direction.
  At the same time, Mr. President, I do want to register my concern 
about the stop-start way we are now financing much of the Government.
  Continuing resolutions and shutdowns are no way to run a Government. 
The resulting uncertainty and chaos has a serious impact on States and 
local governments, on Federal employees, and on Americans throughout 
the country.
  I also want to take a few moments to discuss the impact of the 
current CR on an area of particular concern to me: the environment.
  Mr. President, I had planned to offer an amendment to protect 
environmental programs during the life of this short-term spending 
measure. My amendment would have frozen EPA's funding at last year's 
levels, as opposed to the roughly 14-percent cut called for in this 
bill.
  However, I recognize that my amendment would be subject to the same 
point of order that was raised on Senator Kennedy's amendment. As with 
his amendment, I am confident this amendment would receive a majority 
of votes, but not enough to overcome the parliamentary objection.
  I also am concerned that, if my amendment were adopted in the Senate, 
the House leadership would refuse to put such a CR up to a vote, and 
the result would be another Government 

[[Page S443]]
shutdown. I do not want that to happen. And I will not be offering my 
amendment. But I do want to take this opportunity to emphasize the 
importance of adequately funding EPA--and preferably doing so on a 
longer-term basis--when the pending CR expires in March.
  Mr. President, it is time to make protection of our environment a 
national priority. Americans have a right to know that their air is 
clean enough to breathe, their water is clean enough to drink, and 
their children are not going to get sick because they live near a toxic 
waste dump.
  The American people feel strongly about this, Mr. President. Poll 
after poll shows very strong public support for protecting our 
environment. Even Republican polls have reached that conclusion.
  One recent Republican poll by Linda DiVall showed that only 35 
percent of voters would support a candidate who supported the one-third 
cut in EPA funding in the House Republicans' VA/HUD appropriations 
bill. The same poll showed that while 6 out of 10 Americans say there 
is too much Government regulation generally, only 1 in 5 believe that 
statement applies to the EPA.
  Unfortunately, despite the broad public support for environmental 
protection, this Congress has treated these programs very poorly. 
Funding for EPA has been under serious attack. And EPA's budget has 
been subject to stop-start budgeting, which has created tremendous 
uncertainty and which has had a serious impact on environmental 
programs.
  For example, many toxic waste sites are not getting cleaned up 
because of budget uncertainties and inadequate funding. These cleanups 
typically take a long time, and sometimes are costly. Since EPA does 
not know how much money it will have, it has been forced to shut down 
many projects that already have been underway, and to delay others.
  This will end up costing taxpayers millions of dollars. It also will 
mean that many sites will remain filled with toxic wastes, placing 
nearby residents at additional risk.
  Mr. President, EPA is not an agency with a fat budget. It has been 
underfunded for years. EPA has already eliminated all of its temporary 
employees, and the Agency now has 1,300 employees less than its 
authorized ceiling. If the level in the continuing resolution continues 
for the rest of the year, EPA will be forced to furlough all its 
employees for 10 to 12 workdays.
  Mr. President, furloughs at EPA are not what the people want. They 
want a Federal Government that will take responsible and prudent steps 
to improve our environment. To to that, in my view, we should be 
increasing EPA's budget, not cutting it, as this bill would do.
  Mr. President, deep cuts in EPA's budget inevitably will have an 
adverse impact on our environment, and on the many hard-working people 
who work at the Agency. But I also want to point out to my colleagues--
especially those on the other side of the aisle--that cuts in EPA have 
a direct impact on many businesses in the private sector. Under 
President Reagan, EPA entered an era of substantial privatization.
  Today, over 80 percent of the Superfund budget and 52 percent of the 
rest of EPA's budget goes to private contractors. Those companies and 
their employees will suffer needlessly if EPA's budget is slashed.
  Other companies that rely on EPA also will be hurt by EPA cuts. For 
instance, EPA is required to certify new pesticides before they can be 
marketed. However, under this CR, many of these certifications will not 
be done. That means these products will not be approved for the coming 
growing season. Farmers, consumers and the agricultural chemical 
community all will be adversely affected.
  Mr. President, our Nation has made enormous progress since the 
environmental movement was ignited by Earth Day in 1970. Environmental 
laws have made our water safer to drink, cleaned up our oceans and 
rivers, made the air cleaner, and protected our land from destruction. 
We can not afford to turn back now.
  I have heard it said over and over that we need to balance the budget 
because we are piling debt onto our children. But what about the 
environment we are leaving our children? In my view, and the view of 
the American people, that simply has to be a national priority.
  Mr. President, at the expiration of this continuing resolution, I 
really hope that the Congress will approve a budget for EPA that 
protects the environment. And not for 6 weeks at a time. But for the 
rest of the fiscal year.
  That is important for the Agency to operate effectively. It is 
important for its employees, who need to plan their work, and their 
lives. It is important for the many private contractors and their 
employees, who depend on this funding. It is important for States and 
localities, which also rely on EPA funding to administer environmental 
programs. And, most critically, it is important to all Americans who 
care about the quality of our environment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent an article appearing today in 
the New York Times, on the front page as a matter of fact, be printed 
in the Record at the appropriate place.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 26, 1996]

     Worried Republicans Begin Backpedaling on Environmental Issues

                       (By John H. Cushman, Jr.)

       Washington.--Republicans are increasingly worried that by 
     imposing deep cuts on environmental programs they are doing 
     even deeper political damage to their party, and they are 
     beginning to back away from further confrontations on 
     environmental issues.
       As a result, it now appears more likely that Congress might 
     loosen somewhat the fiscal vise that has gripped 
     environmental agencies during the long budget impasse, while 
     a number of proposals favoring mining, logging, oil and other 
     big industries could vanish from the legislative landscape.
       Administration officials and environmentalists can hardly 
     claim victory yet. The administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, Carol M. Browner, said that at a Senate 
     hearing on Friday, she would testify that the cuts already 
     imposed, and the slightly less severe ones still to come, 
     would force the agency to delay some of its highest 
     priorities, including new measures to control dangerous 
     pollutants in drinking water.
       But some environmentalists are starting to say, with a hint 
     of wonder in their voices, that they are close to success in 
     making environmental programs what one lobbyist called a 
     ``third rail,'' political slang for issues like Social 
     Security that are best not touched because they carry such 
     voltage with voters.
       Increasingly, Republicans are echoing the same message.
       This week, 30 Republican moderates in Congress wrote 
     Speaker Newt Gingrich to complain that the party had ``taken 
     a beating this year over missteps in environmental policy'' 
     and calling on him to correct the course during the 
     continuing budget talks.
       ``If the party is to resuscitate its reputation in this 
     important area, we cannot be seen as using the budget crisis 
     as an excuse to emasculate environmental protection,'' said 
     the letter, drafted by Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, a maverick 
     Republican environmentalist from upstate New York.
       Even some of the party's more conservative advisers are 
     sounding similar alarms these days.
       ``Our party is out of sync with mainstream American 
     opinion,'' wrote Linda DiVall, a Republican pollster, in 
     reporting to congressional clients on a recent nationwide 
     survey on environmental issues.
       But many in the party's leadership are reluctant to change 
     course. They say the problem is not their agenda but the way 
     they have explained it.
       ``What is out of sync is the distortion of our record by 
     the administration and by radical environmental groups who 
     want to continue to overregulate the economy,'' said Rep. 
     John A. Boehner of Ohio, head of the House Republican 
     Conference.
       Environmental groups have mounted a sustained campaign all 
     year to get their millions of members to complain to 
     lawmakers about the Republican agenda, and it appears that 
     the effects are increasingly being felt.
       Last week, during the congressional recess, the entire New 
     Jersey delegation of eight Republicans and five Democrats 
     wrote to the Republican leadership asking that full financing 
     be restored to the Superfund program, a reaction to news that 
     the EPA had suspended the clean-up of hundreds of toxic waste 
     sites.
       In his State of the Union address, President Clinton spoke 
     at length about environmental issues, which usually take a 
     back seat to others. He won applause and loud cheers when he 
     denounced the environmental proposals of the Republicans and 
     challenged Congress to ``re-examine those policies and 
     reverse them.''
       The problem for the Republican leadership, though, is that 
     many of those proposals are at the heart of their promise to 
     roll back federal regulations, and many of the party's 
     leaders, including Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas, the majority 
     leader, and Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, one of Gingrich's loyal 
     lieutenants, are among their most vigorous advocates.
       In a speech to the National Association of Manufacturers on 
     Thursday, DeLay, the majority whip, accused Clinton of lying 
     in his 

[[Page S444]]
     speech when he said that by voting to cut environmental enforcement by 
     25 percent, Congress was serving the interests of corporate 
     lobbyists at the expense of clean water and children's 
     health.
       ``That isn't just misrepresenting the truth; that is 
     outright lying,'' DeLay said.
       But Ms. DiVall, whose clients include a conservative 
     Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas, 
     said in her polling report that some of the party's 
     environmental policies were broadly disdained by Democrats 
     and Republicans alike--and by most independents, most young 
     people and most women.
       ``By greater than a 2-to-1 margin, voters have more 
     confidence in the Democrats than Republicans as the party 
     they trust most to protect the environment,'' her report 
     said. ``Most disturbing is that 55 percent of Republicans do 
     not trust their party when it comes to protecting the 
     environment, while 72 percent of the Democrats do trust their 
     party.''
       The poll came up with especially strong signals on the 
     Republicans' efforts to cut spending at the EPA.
       ``Attacking the EPA is a nonstarter,'' Ms. DiVall wrote.
       Her polling found that only 35 percent of the public would 
     vote to re-elect members of the House who supported the 
     Republican-backed bill cutting financing for the agency, by a 
     third, while 46 percent said they would vote not to re-elect 
     them. If voter turnout in November is higher, she warned, the 
     results would be worse.
       Warnings like that seemed to be having an effect on 
     Thursday, as the House leadership brought to the floor the 
     latest stop-gap spending bill, to keep the federal government 
     open until March. Previous temporary spending bills have 
     singled the EPA out for especially severe cuts, especially in 
     enforcement and clean-up activities.
       The measure, passed by the House on Thursday night, would 
     still cut the agency's financing, just as deeply as the 
     spending bill Clinton vetoed in December but not as deeply as 
     the cuts since Oct. 1, when the fiscal year began.
       The Interior Department, another environmental agency that 
     has been operating without a final agreement on its budget, 
     would be financed until March. But the real issue facing that 
     agency is not how much money it can spend, but rather what 
     environmental policies it must follow.
       One of the biggest fights of the past year was over changes 
     the Republicans proposed in the mining law. Favored by 
     industry and opposed by environmentalists, the measure was 
     part of Interior bill and the broader budget bill, both of 
     which Clinton vetoed.
       On Thursday, Jack Gerard, an industry spokesman, said the 
     budget impasse had ``at least for now halted progress toward 
     passage of mining law reform.''

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. So, I am hoping we get on with the resolution, the 
CR, not that I like it, frankly, but we do have to maintain the 
constancy of our work force, get the jobs done as well as we can at the 
moment. I am terribly disappointed at the relatively low levels of 
funding----
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, may we have order so the Senator can be 
heard?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senate will please 
come to order. Senators to the left of the Chair please take your 
conversations into the Cloakroom.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, rather than take any more time, I will 
yield the floor at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I do not believe there is any more discussion. Senator 
Harkin indicated he had finished his discussion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on a motion to waive.
  Is there further debate on the motion?
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Order Of Procedure

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what we may propose here, at the Democratic 
leader's suggestion, is to vote on this matter, vote on final passage, 
vote on the START treaty, vote on DOD, and then anybody who may wish to 
discuss these matters can do that.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the majority leader yield for a question? Can we 
make those votes 10-minute votes?
  Mr. DOLE. Sure. I would put them en bloc.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would support you fully and completely.


  Vote On Motion To Waive The Congressional Budget Act--Amendment No. 
                                  3122

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to waive the 
Budget Act with respect to amendment No. 3122.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], the 
Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. 
Coats], the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], the Senator from 
North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth], the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], the 
Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], and the Senator from Alabama [Mr. 
Shelby] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present, and voting, the Senator from 
Colorado [Mr. Campbell] would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 
Hollings] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 45, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 3 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--45

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bennett
     Campbell
     Coats
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Hollings
     Kyl
     Shelby
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and 
sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected, and 
the amendment fails.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, with the passage of the Balanced Budget 
Downpayment Act, instead of the headline reading ``Government Shuts 
Down,'' it will read ``Government Scaled Down.''
  Instead of adding to the frustration that the American people have 
with Government, we'll be adding to the amount of money we are saving 
taxpayers.
  Instead of punishing Federal employees; we'll be eliminating 
unnecessary Federal programs.
  Everybody knows that this bill is not perfect.
  Each of us, if given the opportunity, would write it differently.
  Some, like President Clinton, would prefer to spend more tax dollars.
  Others, like me, would spend less. But I think we can all agree that 
this bill is much better than shutting down the Government.
  The bottom line here, Mr. President, is that with this Balanced 
Budget Downpayment Act, we fulfill our commitment to keep the 
Government open, while at the same time we ensure at least $30 billion 
in budgetary savings for the current fiscal year.
  This puts the focus back where it belongs: On cutting unnecessary 
Washington spending and reducing the budget deficit.
  And let me leave no doubt: The Republican promise to the American 
people to balance the budget the right way in 7 years is not something 
we are willing to sacrifice.
  We will never relent in our fight to protect future generations of 
Americans and leave them the legacy of a better America. And today's 
continuing resolution is a genuine downpayment on that promise.
  Let me also briefly mention that this continuing resolution includes 
the fiscal year 1996 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, which has 
been held up for many months by pro-abortion special interest groups.
  I am pleased that the resolution contains many provisions which I 
drafted or strongly supported. These include:
  An assurance that countries which have embarked on the peace process 
in 

[[Page S445]]
the Middle East--Israel, Egypt, and Jordan--will receive important 
support for their search for a just and lasting peace.
  A restriction on aid to Bosnian Serbs, a doubling to $100 million in 
military draw down authority to equip, arm, and train Bosnian 
Government forces, and a provision limiting assistance to any country 
which harbors international war criminals.
  A requirement of human rights certification before additional 
assistance can be provided to Haiti. This is in response to the 
overwhelming evidence indicating that elements of the Government of 
Haiti have been involved in political assassinations--a sad outcome for 
a U.S. military operation that was alleged to be about democracy and 
the rule of law.
  Assistance for critical states on the periphery of the newly 
resurgent Russia--especially Ukraine and Armenia. This bill also 
provides for the Transcaucus enterprise fund--an idea I first proposed 
in 1994.
  This bill also contains provisions to encourage the administration to 
honor its stated commitment to expand NATO eastward--sooner, rather 
than later. The Republican Congress has repeatedly been forced to push 
the Clinton administration on the issue of NATO expansion--another case 
where the administration's deeds have not matched their words.
  Finally, the bill contains the Humanitarian Aid Corridors Act--a 
limitation on aid to countries which impede the delivery of U.S. 
humanitarian aid to other countries. This important provision will help 
ensure we get the best bang for our foreign aid buck. I was proud to be 
the lead sponsor of this provision.
  Mr. President, it has been a long and difficult process to get the 
foreign operations conference report to this point. And let me 
congratulate subcommittee Chairman McConnell for his leadership and 
perseverance.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I wanted to take this opportunity to 
address several of the votes cast today. Among other items, the Senate 
voted today to uphold the Budget Act with respect to the Kennedy and 
Harkin amendments. Let me make my position clear; I support full 
funding for education and continued vigilance over Medicare fraud. In 
the past, I have offered several amendments to protect education 
spending from cuts as well as to create new initiatives to fight 
Medicare fraud. My Medicare fraud amendment was a key part of the 
Medicare reforms vetoed by the President as part of the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1995.
  Nevertheless, I did not support any amendment to the continuing 
resolution which would result in the shutdown of the Federal 
Government. By forcing this bill to return to the House for additional 
debate, these amendments would have done just that. Already we have 
seen the Government shut down twice in the past few months. The most 
recent shutdown lasted a record 21 days. Another shutdown is simply 
unacceptable.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Before final passage, I would like to take the 
opportunity to explain further my concerns about several provisions in 
this bill.


             Restrictions on Population Planning Activities

  I am dismayed by the provision in this continuing resolution which 
restricts the funds that may be made available for our international 
population assistance program and the U.S. contribution to the United 
Nations Population Fund [UNFPA].
  The proponents of this language know that it is extremely unlikely 
that an authorization bill will pass before the July 1, 1996 deadline. 
Therefore, the bill provisions restricting funding to 65 percent of 
fiscal year 1995 levels and the obligation of funds to monthly 
apportionments of 6.67 percent will go into effect. When this occurs, 
our international family planning efforts will be devastated. The 
result--more unintended pregnancies and more abortions.
  Let me give you a present day example. The former Soviet Union has 
the highest abortion rates in the world. In 1991, an estimated 12 to 15 
million legal and illegal abortions were performed. The average woman 
will have between four and six abortions during her lifetime. Some 
women have as many as 20 abortions. This is appalling. Why do these 
countries have such high abortion rates? The answer--the unavailability 
of modern contraceptives.
  Last year, in the foreign operations bill I was able to secure 
funding to allow the Agency for International Development to develop a 
comprehensive family planning program in the former Soviet Union. AID's 
efforts in Russia, Moldova, Belarus, and Ukraine have begun to have an 
impact on the abortion rate. We have data from the Ukraine that shows a 
reduction in the number of abortions.
  So what are we doing today? We are drastically cutting funding to 
United States-supported international family planning programs, and we 
are reducing AID's flexibility to respond to areas, like the former 
Soviet Union, where the need for family planning is so great. We are 
ensuring that the world will return to the old ways--the old Russian 
model--with increases in unintended pregnancies and abortions.
  As a pro-life Senator who strongly opposes abortion, I am 
disheartened by the lack of understanding and foresight of our 
colleagues in the House who have been unrelenting in their insistence 
on these restrictions.


                         Human Embryo Research

  I remain concerned about using this continuing resolution to place 
restrictions on research. However, I understand from the National 
Institutes of Health that this will not effect any current grants 
because the NIH is not funding research in this area at this time. It 
is my hope that the authorizing committees will take the time necessary 
to fully examine the issue of human embryo research and its 
ramifications before further restrictions are placed on funding. This 
is an important issue which deserves our full consideration.


                           Education Funding

  I would like to add, Mr. President, that I regretfully oppose the 
amendment by my colleague from Massachusetts, to increase funding for 
education programs. While one of my highest personal priorities is to 
increase funding for these programs. I cannot in good conscience 
support an effort which gives us all a rhetorical win but not a 
substantive win. Increasing funding for these programs for 45 days has 
little to no practical effect. Aside from the fact that most education 
programs are forward funded and thus, not impacted in the next 45 
days--over $13 billion or 54 percent of education moneys are, by law, 
not available until July 1 and another $7.5 billion or 31 percent are 
not obligated until the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year--
this amendment does not provide any certainty for the long term. It may 
also jeopardize our ability to enact legislation necessary to stabilize 
national education spending.
  The best action we can take for education is to pass this continuing 
resolution and then proceed as rapidly as possible to consider the 
fiscal year 1996 Labor, HHS, Education appropriations bill. The Senate 
bill, reported from the committee on September 15, includes $22.3 
billion indiscretionary spending for education programs, an increase of 
$1.5 billion more than the House-passed bill and the entire amount of 
increase given to the Senate Labor/HHS Subcommittee in its 602(b) 
allocation. Without a Senate-passed bill we are negotiating from a 
position of weakness with the House. Passage of this bill will provide 
the baseline on which true long-term planning can take place in school 
districts and classrooms all across this country.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to ask consent now that we have three 
consecutive votes. I will make the request here.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 2880 be advanced to 
third reading. I now ask for the yeas and nays on final passage of H.R. 
2880.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Is there 
a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays 
are ordered.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.

                  UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT--S. 1124

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that it be 
in order for me to ask for the yeas and nays on adoption of the 
conference report to accompany S. 1124, the DOD authorization bill, and 
that the vote 

[[Page S446]]
occur on adoption of the conference report immediately following the 
vote on H.R. 2880.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

                          ____________________