[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2893-S2899]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             PRESIDIO PROPERTIES ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1995

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1296) to provide for the administration of 
     certain Presidio properties at a minimal cost to the Federal 
     taxpayer.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending: Murkowski modified amendment No. 3564, in the 
     nature of a substitute.

                    amendment no. 3564, as modified

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of my substitute 
amendment for the Presidio bill, offered in conjunction with the 
Senator from Alaska and the majority leader. Many people have been 
waiting a long time for this bill. I know the Senators from California 
and Congresswoman Pelosi have put a great deal of time and energy into 
this legislation, as have the staff from the Energy Committee and 
personal offices. In our efforts to try to reach consensus on all 
levels, we have managed to craft a bill that will provide enough 
balance and flexibility to incorporate all points of view. This bill 
offers a unique, creative and innovative approach to provide for the 
long-term protection and preservation of one of our Nation's greatest 
cultural, historical, and natural treasures.
  When I was a college student at San Jose State University, my buddies 
and I would often take off for the weekend to ``the city.'' One of my 
favorite places back then was the Presidio, and I spent a lot of time 
exploring the batteries and bunkers along the coast. It is just a 
spectacular site, situated on the threshold of the Golden Gate Bridge, 
overlooking the entire bay area. Last fall, I had the opportunity to 
visit the Presidio, and found that the base had changed very little in 
the years since I was a college student at San Jose.
  There is something very special about the Presidio. The natural 
beauty, as well as the impressive history of the site captivated me 40 
years ago, and continues to captivate millions of tourists, locals, and 
even some politicians today.
  Before Christopher Columbus arrived in the New World, the indigenous 
tribes of Ohlone and Miwok inhabited the area known now as San 
Francisco. Taking advantage of this unique natural harbor, these tribes 
flourished from fishing in the plentiful bay.
  When the land was finally taken over by the white new immigrants, the 
Presidio almost immediately became a strategic military post. For over 
220 years, the Presidio is the oldest continually operated military 
post, commanded first by Spain in 1776, then Mexico and finally the 
United States in 1846. The Presidio has played a supporting role in 
almost every single major military conflict the United States has ever 
engaged in, starting with the Spanish-American War to the Civil War, 
World War I, and of course, World War II. The Presidio served also as a 
refuge for an estimated 16,000 people after the great earthquake and 
fire of 1906, and was the very first Army airfield established in the 
Nation in 1921.
  Mr. President, the history of this national historic landmark is 
indeed distinguished and celebrated. I comment on it to describe to my 
colleagues the unique nature of this site and thus to explain the 
particulars of the legislation it requires.
  For the past 7 years, since the Base Closure and Realignment 
Commission [BRAC] included the Presidio on its list of bases to be 
closed, the fate of the Presidio has been somewhat uncertain. When the 
National Park Service took control of the post in 1994, along with the 
addition of one of the most glorious parks to the system, the Park 
Service was faced with one of their most complex and challenging 
management problems.
  Aside from its spectacular natural beauty, the Presidio is unlike any 
other national park. Scattered throughout the grounds are over 1,200 
residential units, more than 6.2 million square feet of building space, 
and dozens of miles of paved roads. Because of the nature of the 
historic facilities, the cost of maintenance and management of this 
site is a whopping $25 million a year, making it our most expensive 
national park. Faced with the fiscal realities that we, in the Federal 
Government, must confront, the question that was posed to Congress was 
this: How can we continue to protect and preserve the Presidio for the 
benefit of all Americans without draining the already limited reserves 
of the National Park Service?
  Mr. President, I believe the substitute amendment offered by Senators 
Dole and Murkowski and myself answers this question and in so doing, 
strikes the balance that we are all looking for.
  The bill before us today establishes a mechanism that will reduce the 
need for appropriations to operate the Presidio. Rather than seeing the 
infrastructure in the Presidio as obstacles to the preservation of the 
park, this bill will utilize these buildings to generate revenues that 
will be recycled back into the funds that manage the park. By weaning 
the Presidio off of Federal taxpayer dependency, this bill will 
eventually create a self-sustaining park. The management structure 
created by our bill will enable the Presidio to be used in such a way 
that it will pay for itself.
  Mr. President, our legislation will create a public-private 
management entity--the Presidio Trust--to provide for the management of 
the leasing, maintenance, and repair of the property within the 
Presidio. In addition, the National Park Service will continue to 
provide its expert guidance for interpretive services, visitor 
orientation, and educational programs. Under the structure of 
cooperative management, this bill will allow the trust (made up of 
private sector real estate and finance experts) and the Park Service to 
manage what they manage best, thereby eliminating costly bureaucratic 
blunders. If the bill is enacted, the Presidio will be the only unit of 
the National Park System, that will cost significantly less in 10 years 
than it costs today.
  Mr. President, as I mentioned, I had the opportunity to tour the base 
facilities in San Francisco, as well as meet with the various interest 
groups last fall. While there were some differences on what the 
legislation affecting the Presidio should include, the groups were 
unanimous in their belief that the base should remain as a unit of the 
National Park System. People expressed real fears that there was a 
movement to sell the Presidio to a private developer, and I stated, at 
the time, that a sale would happen, ``over my dead body.'' Many of my 
colleagues feel the same way.
  This bill will not enable private interests to develop swank upscale 
condos, or private dining clubs. This bill will cater only to the 
interests of all Americans, by protecting the invaluable cultural, 
historic, and natural resources of the Presidio for this generation and 
generations to come. It is quite simply a good government approach that 
strikes a balance with the fiscal realities of our time with the need 
for continued conservation and preservation. I urge my colleagues to 
support this worthy piece of legislation.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the substitute to H.R. 
1296.
  Mr. DOLE. Presidio properties bill, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOLE. As I understand, I do not know how many different projects 
are involved here, but they are all related and come from the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee. I understand the Senator from 
Massachusetts would like to add to that the minimum wage amendment, 
which we do not believe belongs on this bill. Maybe it will belong on 
some other bill. It should not be considered at this time.
  We would like to complete action on this. We have a number of items 
to complete this week, including, we hope, the farm bill conference 
report, line-item veto conference report, the omnibus appropriations 
bill, and, of course, the debt ceiling. It would be our hope we can 
complete action some time early on Friday. That may or may not happen. 
If not, I suggest we probably would have to be here on Saturday to 
complete action on those bills because some relate to whether or not 
the Government is shut down. The debt extension is very important, too.

[[Page S2894]]

  So we can avoid--there will be a cloture vote on this bill tomorrow 
morning rather early. We have not decided the exact time, so we stay on 
the matter and amendments germane to the pending business.


                Amendment No. 3571 to Amendment No. 3564

(Purpose: To provide for the exchange of certain lands within the State 
                              of Montana)

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] for Mr. Burns, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 3571 to amendment No. 3564.

  Mr. DOLE. 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:

       At the end of the amendment, add the following:

                        TITLE   --MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC.   01. LOST CREEK LAND EXCHANGE.

       (a) Land Exchange.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of Agriculture (referred to in this Act as 
     the ``Secretary'') shall acquire by exchange certain land and 
     interests in land owned by R-Y Timber, Inc., its successors 
     and assigns or affiliates (referred to in this Act as ``R-
     Y''), located in the Lost Creek area and other areas of the 
     Deerlodge National Forest, Montana.
       (2) Offer and acceptance of land.--
       (A) Non-federal land.--If R-Y offers fee title that is 
     acceptable to the United States to approximately 17,567 acres 
     of land owned by R-Y and available for exchange, the 
     Secretary shall accept a warranty deed to the land.
       (B) Federal land.--
       (i) Conveyance.--On acceptance of title to R-Y's land under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall convey to R-Y, subject to 
     reservations and valid existing rights, by patent, fee title 
     to lands and timber deeds of a value that is approximately 
     equal to the value of the land described in subsection (a).
       (ii) Timber harvest provisions.--
       (I) Practices.--Timber harvest practices used on the 
     national forest land conveyed under clause (i) shall be 
     conducted in accordance with Montana Forestry Best Management 
     Practices, the Montana Streamside Zone Management Law (Mont. 
     Code Ann. sec. 77-5-301 et seq.), and all other applicable 
     laws of the State of Montana.
       (II) Relation to planned sales.--Timber harvest volumes on 
     land conveyed under clause (i) shall be in addition to, and 
     not treated in any way as an offset against, the present or 
     future planned timber sale quantities for the National Forest 
     where the harvesting occurs.
       (III) Timber designations.--
       (aa) Contract.--To ensure the expeditious and efficient 
     designation of timber on land conveyed under clause (i), the 
     Forest Service shall contract with a qualified private person 
     agreed on by the Secretary and R-Y to perform the field work 
     associated with the designations.
       (bb) Minimum annual designations.--Not less than 20 percent 
     nor more than 30 percent of the timber on land conveyed under 
     clause (i) shall be made available by the end of each fiscal 
     year over a 5-year period beginning with the first fiscal 
     year that begins after the date of enactment of this Act, and 
     R-Y shall be allowed at least 5 years after the end of each 
     fiscal year in which to complete the harvest of timber 
     designated in that fiscal year.
       (3) Title.--
       (A) Review of title.--Not later than 30 days after receipt 
     of title documents from R-Y, the Secretary shall review the 
     title for the non-Federal land described in paragraph (2) and 
     determine whether--
       (i) the applicable title standards for Federal land 
     acquisition have been satisfied or the quality of title is 
     otherwise acceptable to the Secretary;
       (ii) all draft conveyances and closing documents have been 
     received and approved; and
       (iii) a current title commitment verifying compliance with 
     applicable title standards has been issued to the Secretary.
       (B) Unacceptable quality of title.--If the quality of title 
     does not meet Federal standards and is not otherwise 
     acceptable to the Secretary, the Secretary shall advise R-Y 
     regarding corrective actions necessary to make an affirmative 
     determination.
       (C) Conveyance of title.--The Secretary shall effect the 
     conveyance of land described in paragraph (2) not later than 
     60 days after the Secretary has made an affirmative 
     determination of quality of title.
       (b) General Provisions.--
       (1) Maps and documents.--
       (A) In general.--Maps pertaining to the land described in 
     subsection (a) are subject to such minor corrections as may 
     be agreed upon by the Secretary and R-Y.
       (B) Notification.--The Secretary shall notify the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives of any 
     corrections made pursuant to this subsection.
       (C) Public availability.--The maps and documents described 
     in subsection (a)(2) (A) and (B) shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the office of the Chief of 
     the Forest Service.
       (2) National forest system land.--All land conveyed to the 
     United States under this section shall be added to and 
     administered as part of the Deerlodge National Forest in 
     accordance with the laws pertaining to the National Forest 
     System.
       (3) Valuation.--The values of the lands and interests in 
     land to be exchanged under this section are deemed to be of 
     approximately equal value.
       (4) Hazardous material liability.--The United States 
     (including its departments, agencies, and employees) shall 
     not be liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the 
     Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), or any other 
     Federal, State, or local law, solely as a result of the 
     acquisition of an interest in the Lost Creek Tract or due to 
     circumstances or events occurring before acquisition, 
     including any release or threat of release of a hazardous 
     substance.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment regarding the 
Lost Creek Land Exchange Act of 1996.
  This amendment is important for the acquisition of the Lost Creek 
area of Montana for the public.
  I want to emphasize that this amendment is a starting point. I fully 
anticipate major changes will need to be made when this bill goes to 
conference with the House. Yet, the process needs to move forward.
  Under this amendment, 14,500 acres of blueribbon bighorn sheep 
habitat known as Lost Creek would became a part of the Deerlodge 
National Forest. For the past few years, local sportsmen and 
conservation groups, the Forest Service, and many others have been 
interested in the public acquiring this prime habitat. I, too, believe 
this is a worthwhile endeavor.
  The amendment would transfer the Lost Creek area, and 3,000 
additional acres currently owned by R-Y Timber, to the Forest Service. 
In return R-Y Timber will acquire the deed to land and timber.
  The Lost Creek area has been valued at about $8 million. And the days 
of the Federal Government simply paying the price tag are over.
  With assistance from the Forest Service, I am hopeful that 
alternative lands can be found to exchange for the Lost Creek area. The 
Forest Service has started this process.
  Mr. President, as I stated earlier the amendment I am offering is a 
starting point. I fully anticipate having to make substantial changes 
when we move to conference. I hope that the parties involved will 
continue to work together so this win-win bill can made it to the 
President's desk.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                  Amendment No. 3572 to Amendment 3571

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] for Mr. Burns, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 3572 to amendment No. 3571.

  Mr. DOLE. 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:

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be added insert the 
     following:

                        TITLE   --MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC.    01. LOST CREEK LAND EXCHANGE.

       (a) Land Exchange.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstnding any other provision of law, 
     the Secretary of Agriculture (referred to in this Act as the 
     ``Secretary'') shall acquire by exchange certain land and 
     interests in land owned by R-Y Timber, Inc., its successors 
     and assigns or affiliates (referred to in this Act as ``R-
     Y''), located in the Lost Creek area and other areas of the 
     Deerlodge National Forest, Montana.
       (2) Offer and acceptance of land.--
       (A) Non-federal land.--If R-Y offers fee title that is 
     acceptable to the United States to approximately 17,567 acres 
     of land owned by R-Y and available for exchange, the 
     Secretary shall accept a warranty deed to the land.
       (B) Federal land.--
       (i) Conveyance.--On acceptance of title to R-Y's land under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall convey to R-Y, subject to 
     reservations and valid existing rights, by patent, fee title 
     to lands and timber deeds of a

[[Page S2895]]

     value that is approximately equal to the value of the land 
     described in subsection (a).
       (ii) Timber harvest provisions.--
       (I) Practices.--Timber harvest practices used on the 
     national forest land conveyed under clause (i) shall be 
     conducted in accordance with Montana Forestry Best Management 
     Practices, the Montana Streamside Zone Management Law (Mont. 
     Code Ann. sec. 77-5-301 et seq.), and all other applicable 
     laws of the State of Montana.
       (II) Relation to planned sales.--Timber harvest volumes on 
     land conveyed under clause (i) shall be in addition to, and 
     not treated in any way as an offset against, the present or 
     future planned timber sale quantities for the National Forest 
     where the harvesting occurs.
       (III) Timber designations.--
       (aa) Contract.--To ensure the expeditious and efficient 
     designation of timber on land conveyed under clause (i), the 
     Forest Service shall contract with a qualified private person 
     agreed on by the Secretary and R-Y to perform the field work 
     associated with the designations.
       (bb) Minimum annual designations.--Not less than 20 percent 
     nor more than 30 percent of the timber on land conveyed under 
     clause (i) shall be made available by the end of each fiscal 
     year over a 5-year period beginning with the first fiscal 
     year that begins after the date of enactment of this Act, and 
     R-Y shall be allowed at least 5 years after the end of each 
     fiscal year in which to complete the harvest of timber 
     designated in that fiscal year.
       (3) Title.--
       (A) Review of title.--Not later than 30 days after receipt 
     of title documents from R-Y, the Secretary shall review the 
     title for the non-Federal land described in paragraph (2) and 
     determine whether--
       (i) the applicable title standards for Federal land 
     acquisition have been satisfied or the quality of title is 
     otherwise acceptable to the Secretary;
       (ii) all draft conveyances and closing documents have been 
     received and approved; and
       (iii) a current title commitment verifying compliance with 
     applicable title standards has been issued to the Secretary.
       (B) Unacceptable quality of title.--If the quality of title 
     does not meet Federal standards and is not otherwise 
     acceptable to the Secretary, the Secretary shall advise R-Y 
     regarding corrective actions necessary to make an affirmative 
     determination.
       (C) Conveyance of title.--The Secretary shall effect the 
     conveyance of land described in paragraph (2) not later than 
     60 days after the Secretary has made an affirmative 
     determination of quality of title.
       (b) General Provisions.--
       (1) Maps and documents.--
       (A) In general.--Maps pertaining to the land described in 
     subsection (a) are subject to such minor corrections as may 
     be agreed upon by the Secretary and R-Y.
       (B) Notification.--The Secretary shall notify the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives of any 
     corrections made pursuant to this subsection.
       (C) Public availability.--The maps and documents described 
     in subsection (a)(2) (A) and (B) shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the office of the Chief of 
     the Forest Service.
       (2) National forest system land.--All land conveyed to the 
     United States under this section shall be added to and 
     administered as part of the Deerlodge National Forest in 
     accordance with the laws pertaining to the National Forest 
     System.
       (3) Valuation.--The values of the lands and interests in 
     land to be exchanged under this section are deemed to be of 
     approximately equal value.
       (4) Hazardous material liability.--The United States 
     (including its departments, agencies, and employees) shall 
     not be liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the 
     Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), or any other 
     Federal, State, or local law, solely as a result of the 
     acquisition of an interest in the Lost Creek Tract or due to 
     circumstances or events occurring before acquisition, 
     including any release or threat of release of a hazardous 
     substance.

             TITLE   --VANCOUVER NATIONAL HISTORIC RESERVE

     SEC.   01. VANCOUVER NATIONAL HISTORIC RESERVE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Vancouver 
     National Historic Reserve in the State of Washington 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Reserve'', consisting 
     of the area described in the report entitled ``Vancouver 
     National Historic Reserve Feasibility Study and Environmental 
     Assessment'' published by the Vancouver Historical Study 
     Commission and dated April 1993 as authorized by Public Law 
     101-523 (referred to in this section as the Vancouver 
     Historic Reserve Report).
       (b) Administration.--The Reserve shall be administered in 
     accordance with--
       (1) the Vancouver Historic Reserve Report (including the 
     specific findings and recommendations contained in the 
     report); and
       (2) the Memorandum of Agreement between the Secretary of 
     the Interior, acting through the Director of the National 
     Park Service, and the city of Vancouver, Washington, dated 
     November 14, 1994.
       (c) No Limitation on FAA Authority.--The establishment of 
     the Reserve shall not limit--
       (1) the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     over air traffic control, or aviation activities at Pearson 
     Airpark; or
       (2) limit operations and airspace in the vicinity of 
     Portland International Airport.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this section.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do not intend to object to the amendment, 
but I think we ought to go by the rules. The Senator did ask for the 
yeas and nays, so that is business intervening?
  Mr. DOLE. Yes.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am disappointed that we have not had 
the opportunity until now to debate the minimum wage amendment. On 
April 1, it will be 5 years since the last time the minimum wage was 
increased.
  We are now at the lowest point we have been in nearly 40 years with 
regard to the purchasing power the minimum wage provides. That is 
unacceptable, at a time when we see CEO incomes going up by 23 percent 
to an average in the country today of $990,000--something we do not 
deny to them and something we certainly would not want to preclude. 
Many of them certainly deserve it.
  There ought to be recognition, however, as we consider welfare reform 
and all of the other legislative measures that we are contemplating, 
that we need to provide more opportunity for people to go to work, and 
we ought to give them an economic incentive to do so.
  People do not have the economic wherewithal, working full time at the 
minimum-wage today, to stay out of poverty. That is unacceptable. 
Sooner or later, we will have a vote on the minimum wage. Sooner or 
later, it has to be resolved. Sooner or later, this minimum wage 
increase must pass. We can do it sooner or we can do it later. Our 
preference is to do it sooner. This vehicle affords us the opportunity 
to do that. Whether it is this vehicle or any other bill, I certainly 
hope that we can do it soon.
  I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] 
is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3573

     (Purpose: To provide for an increase in the minimum wage rate)

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself, 
     Mr. Kerry, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Simon, Ms. Mikulski, 
     Mr. Levin, Mr. Harkin, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Pell, Mr. 
     Leahy, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Bradley, and Mr. 
     Daschle, proposes an amendment numbered 3573.

  Mr. KENNEDY. 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:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.   . INCREASE THE MINIMUM WAGE RATE.

       Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not 
     less than $4.25 an hour during the period ending July 3, 
     1996, not less than $4.70 an hour during the year beginning 
     July 4, 1996, and not less than $5.15 an hour after July 3, 
     1997;''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 3574 to Amendment No. 3573

     (Purpose: To provide for an increase in the minimum wage rate)

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3574 to amendment No. 3573.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page S2896]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

     SEC.   . INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE RATE.

       Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not 
     less than $4.25 an hour during the period ending July 3, 
     1996, not less than $4.70 an hour during the year beginning 
     July 5, 1996, and not less than $5.15 an hour after July 4, 
     1997;''.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] 
is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I just heard from the majority leader a 
few moments ago that we were not going to be able to have an 
opportunity to debate and take action on the minimum wage.
  We are required now to use whatever parliamentary means we can to try 
and permit working families to see a judgment about whether this body 
is going to make a statement about increasing the minimum wage. The 
majority leader had been a leader in 1989 when we restored the minimum 
wage up to the small increase in its purchasing power. If we could 
gather from the majority leader--I see that he is moving into the 
cloakroom at the present time, so I guess that is an indication of what 
the answer would be.
  We were going to try and get at least some agreement as to when we 
might be able to bring this up. We are denied even that opportunity to 
do so, in spite of the fact that there was an indication from the 
Republican leadership that we were going to have the minority leader or 
his designee be recognized to offer an amendment. And we understood, 
since that was not a fixed order, that that was the intention of the 
Republican leadership at that time. We were denied the opportunity to 
have the bill before us.
  Now we have the bill before us, and we were denied the opportunity to 
be able to debate that, or at least get a short time agreement. We are 
quite prepared to do it, as has been pointed out by my colleague from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, and Senator Wellstone.
  This is not a new issue. We were prepared to enter into a short time 
period, or at least have the opportunity to set a date for 
consideration of it. If the majority leader would let us have a fixed 
date for discussion on it--we were able to persuade the majority leader 
earlier on the health care bill to set a time for debate on it--we 
would certainly accede to the leader's recommendation, if we would have 
a precise time when we would be able to debate it. So if we were able 
to get a time definite, we would certainly respond to a request by the 
leader to have a time definite to be able to vote on this.
  Mr. President, raising the minimum wage has broad support among the 
American people. The question is whether it has the support of the 
Republican leadership here in the U.S. Senate, Senator Dole and the 
rest of the Republican leadership.
  As I mentioned earlier, Senator Dole supported this in the past. So 
the question is whether he is willing at this time to give an 
opportunity for us to vote on this measure now, or in the very near 
future.
  We believe that working families deserve a raise. Minimum-wage 
families deserve a raise most of all. Nobody who works for a living 
should have to live in poverty.
  It is basically the leader's decision that is going to make all the 
difference as to whether we are going to be able to act together, as we 
have in the past. We saw Republican Presidents, like Eisenhower, Nixon, 
Bush, who all supported that increase. And Republicans here, with some 
exceptions, supported that increase in 1989. All we are waiting for--
and I think what the working families in this country are waiting for--
is the majority leader to indicate that he, like others in this body, 
is on the side of working families. I hope that we will have a chance 
to do this because, as we have said, this issue is not going to go 
away. We understand the full agenda that is necessary for action.
  I would certainly ask the minority leader if the time could be 
established definite, if he would work out a precise time with the 
majority leader so that working families in this country would know 
when the Senate was going to debate this issue. We will have to try to 
do the best we can under the circumstances that we have, but I deplore 
the fact that we are effectively denied the opportunity to debate this 
issue and to take action. I think it is an issue of fundamental 
fairness and justice. It is an issue involving families, women, and 
children, and the Senate should not turn its back on those families 
this afternoon or in these next days.
  Mr. WELLSTONE and Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will defer to my colleague from Massachusetts. I 
will take 1 minute.
  I have been in the Chamber since this morning with my two colleagues. 
This amendment is simple and straightforward. It would increase the 
minimum wage from $4.25 an hour to $5.15 over 2 years--90 cents over 2 
years. I will say it one more time. Senators and Representatives gave 
themselves, a few years ago, a very hefty salary increase from about 
$100,000 a year to about $130,000 a year. It seems to me we can give 
heads of working families the same kind of increase.
  I do not think this is too much to ask. I think this is very much 
about economic fairness. While we are putting off a vote on this, there 
are many people who have to live with this minimum wage. This is 
extremely important to 200,000 working families in my State, much less 
their children, and I believe this effort to just block having an up-
or-down vote goes against the grain of what is called accountability. 
We will bring this amendment up over and over and over and over again 
until there is a vote.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we came to the floor this morning with the 
understanding that, while not as an official order, the minimum wage 
amendment was going to be offered. The minority leader was going to 
have time and the minority leader's designee was going to have an 
opportunity to submit the amendment. Senator Kennedy was the designee 
and, indeed, the Senator intended to offer the minimum wage amendment.
  We were blocked this morning from doing that, and now this afternoon 
a parliamentary process of what is called filling up the tree, putting 
in two amendments behind each other, which locks in the debate again, 
precludes a debate on the minimum wage at this time. But Senator 
Kennedy has submitted an amendment to the underlying amendment, and I 
have submitted a second-degree amendment to that not because we are 
trying to tie up the Senate and not because we are trying to delay the 
process of resolving this other legislation but simply because, as 
Senator Kennedy has said, we would like to have an answer. We would 
like to have a time.
  We work this out in the Senate all the time. We have an agreement 
with respect to the health care bill. We know there will be a time 
certain for debate on an issue of major importance to the American 
people. All we are asking for is some kind of bipartisan agreement and 
understanding as to when we can have a vote, a debate and a decision, 
on whether or not we are going to give working people at the lowest end 
of the income scale a pay raise. Corporate America has had a pay raise 
almost every day of the year last year. The stock market went up 34 
percent in 1 year. The chief executive officers of companies are 
walking away with, what, 200 times the salary of workers. It used to be 
only 50 times and now it is 200 times.

  The stark reality is that in the United States of America in 1996, 
the minimum wage earns you a record 40-year low, or is about to earn 
you a record 40-year low. It is a 25-percent reduction over what it was 
in 1979. Through the 1950's, the 1960's, the 1970's, and finally even 
in the 1980's, as the minimum wage gap got bigger and bigger between

[[Page S2897]]

what you earned working and the poverty level, we lifted it. All we are 
suggesting is that when a worker on the minimum wage earns three-
quarters of the level of the poverty rate in this country, let us at 
least lift it up to permit them to get out of poverty.
  If you are going to give meaning to the notion of work and you are 
going to give meaning to the notion of welfare reform, if you are going 
to give meaning to the values we talk about in this Chamber, you have 
to give meaning to work and the money that people earn for working. 
Nothing is more fundamental, and we hope that the Senate will have the 
opportunity to have a bipartisan vote on this issue.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KERRY. I would be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, the pending issue before 
the Senate is now the Kerry amendment. I was just wondering whether the 
Senator, my colleague and friend, would be willing to vote on this so 
that we are not going to delay this with the idea that we would vote 
at, say, 4 o'clock with the time evenly divided between those who 
support this measure and those who would be opposed. Would the 
Senator----
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say in answer to my colleague, I 
would be delighted to have any fair amount of time on both sides. I 
think it would be good if we could have that. I ask unanimous consent 
that we have a vote at a time certain and have a vote on my underlying 
amendment on the minimum wage at 4 o'clock.
  Mr. DOLE. I object.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts----
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the regular order is----
  Mr. DOLE. With no intervening action, I ask for recognition.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, are we going to get taken off our feet 
now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Is the Senator going to be taken off his feet?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend, the Senator from 
Massachusetts has the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was going to yield for a question of my 
colleague. I believe he wanted to ask me a question. I yield for the 
purposes of answering the question.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I just ask my colleague then if we are 
not able to get a time definite, which the Senator requested of the 
Senate--there was objection to that--has the Senator reached the 
conclusion that it is those who are objecting who are filibustering 
consideration of the minimum wage legislation? Would that be his 
conclusion, as it is mine?

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me answer the question of my colleague 
before I draw a conclusion. I wonder, since the majority leader is in 
the Chamber, if, without yielding my right to the floor, I could ask 
the majority leader if he believes it would be possible for us to work 
out some kind of agreement as to time for a vote.
  The majority leader was not in the Chamber, but I did say while he 
was out in the Cloakroom that this is not an effort to try to tie up 
the Senate. This is not an effort to try to delay the progress on this 
important legislation that we need to debate. This is simply an effort 
to try to see if we could reach a time certain for a vote on the 
minimum wage issue. I would ask the majority leader, without losing my 
right to the floor, if he would be willing to answer a question with 
respect to setting a time certain?
  Mr. DOLE. Let me indicate I would be happy to discuss it. I am not 
certain we could reach an agreement. But, obviously, this bill, this 
amendment will, in effect, defeat the Presidio bill. There will not be 
any vote on the amendment today. There will be a cloture vote tomorrow. 
I assume cloture will not be invoked. Then the bill will come down, and 
I assume then there will be an effort to offer it on the next measure 
sometime this week. But I assume with the AFL-CIO in town and with 
their pledge of $35 million, it is probably a fairly appropriate time 
for Democrats to discuss this measure.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, without yet responding to the last comments 
of the majority leader, I again might ask, again without losing my 
right to the floor, I wonder if I could inquire of the majority leader 
why it might not be possible to set a time certain sometime in the 
future, perhaps a week or 2 weeks so that we could have at least a 
consideration of this issue on the floor of the Senate. I wonder if the 
majority leader might be willing to commit to that?
  Mr. DOLE. Well, again, I will be happy to explore it. I have always 
been willing to explore any possibility. Maybe we could couple it with 
something we would like to do on this side of the aisle, something the 
majority leader might like to have happen. We could work some agreement 
like that. But, again, I have not--nobody has made a proposal except 
the amendment has been offered.
  I assume that sooner or later the issue will be voted upon, directly 
or indirectly, but not today and not tomorrow and hopefully not this 
week, because we have a number of issues before us and this will take, 
as everyone knows, considerable debate. It is an unfunded mandate. It 
is subject to a point of order, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office. We all voted to end unfunded mandates, and here we are about to 
impose, or would like to impose, at least some would like to impose, 
another unfunded mandate on the very political subdivisions we said we 
would not mandate different costs and expenditures, whatever. Unless 
somebody has a proposal to make, now there is an amendment pending, and 
my view is that we should debate it. If there is to be debate, that is 
fine. There will be no vote. We will just wait and have the cloture 
vote tomorrow morning.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Massachusetts has the 
floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield for a question to 
the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the leader be willing to find an agreeable time 
with the minority leader, the two leaders find an agreeable time, say, 
by June 10, to consider this legislation in the Chamber?
  Mr. DOLE. Again, I would be happy to discuss it with the 
distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. I am not certain I 
would make that agreement.
  I know it is important on that side of the aisle. It may be important 
to some on this side of the aisle. But it is also important to many 
small businesses in America. It is very controversial.
  I just do not believe it should be on this bill unless the intent is 
to kill this bill. Maybe it is. I happen to support it. There are 23 
States involved in this legislation: West Virginia, Massachusetts, 
California, Louisiana, Tennessee. I do not think the State of Kansas is 
involved, but there are a number of States--Colorado.
  So I hope we might dispose of the pending legislation and then 
complete action on a number of conference reports this week and get the 
omnibus appropriation bill passed and the debt ceiling extension. That 
would just about complete the week.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, could I reiterate? We were able to work 
out, obviously, a very agreeable approach to the question on health 
care which stymied us in a similar way for a period of time. I want to 
reiterate to the majority leader, we are not trying to kill this bill, 
at least for this reason. And we are not attempting to delay.
  Would it be possible to have an agreement that we will vote on this 
issue on a date certain between now and, say, the beginning of June? In 
a discussion with the majority leader, the minority leader and majority 
leader could arrive at a date certain for a vote?
  Mr. DOLE. Again, I am always willing to try to resolve some of the 
problems. This is not going to be an easy one because, as I recall, the 
first 2 years of the Clinton administration, when the Democrats 
controlled Congress, we did not have any votes on minimum wage. The 
Democrats did not bring it up. They controlled everything. They 
controlled the White House and the House and the Senate.
  Now, suddenly, after the AFL has their meeting and pledges millions 
and

[[Page S2898]]

millions of dollars, we want to bring it up on the floor. I can imagine 
what would happen in the liberal media if the corporations came to town 
and said we are going to put $35 million in the Republican campaigns. 
There would be headlines in all the papers. All the talk shows would 
stop in midair to get it on the air.
  I think there is also a very logical argument. There are going to be 
a lot of young people who lose their jobs. Many are black teenagers and 
many are young people whose parents live below the poverty line. So I 
think, if we are going to have this debate, it ought to be a lengthy 
debate. It ought to be on the merits. In my view, it cannot happen--I 
do not see how it can happen this week.
  Obviously, the Senator is entitled, as he did, to offer an amendment 
to the underlying bill. That was our mistake. We should have taken care 
of that. It will not happen again.
  But notwithstanding that, we can prevent a vote and we will prevent a 
vote because we do not believe it belongs on this legislation. There 
are 23 States that have an interest in the pending legislation. I do 
not believe even the Democrats, who have very important projects in 
this legislation, are very excited about having the two Senators from 
Massachusetts offer this minimum wage adjustment to their legislation.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say, in all respect, in response to 
the majority leader, we had a vote in the U.S. Senate last year and 51 
U.S. Senators voted that we should take up the minimum wage before the 
end of the last session. We did not do that.
  Now we are back. I did not even know about the AFL. I am glad you 
told me. Maybe I can arrange to get to the meeting. But I did not even 
know they were in town. We announced our intention to offer an 
amendment some time ago--Senator Kennedy, who has been leading on this 
effort, together with Senator Wellstone, a group of us--this has been 
something we have been trying to do for a number of years. The fact is, 
it is getting more necessary, not less, as a consequence of the fact 
that the wage each day is worth less.
  So, I say to the majority leader, we can always find a group that is 
in town at some period of time when some legislation is on the floor, 
and we all know Republicans collect far, far more money from interest 
groups than Democrats ever do. If we want to start pointing fingers at 
whose money comes from where, that is a different debate.
  The fact is, working people do not get the kind of money any of us 
get from anywhere, even from their work. That is what this debate is 
all about. Folks who are working and cannot even pay for medical 
insurance, let alone rent, let alone food.
  So I regret the majority leader will not say we can have a vote on 
this, will not even say we could have one by June. Therefore, Mr. 
President, I move to table my amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Is the question on the motion to table the Kerry amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Yes.
  Mr. DOLE. The yeas and nays have been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have been ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Let's have the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Kerry amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] 
is absent because of illness.
  The result was announced--yeas 0, nays 97, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 52 Leg.]

                                NAYS--97

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     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
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bradley
     Rockefeller
     Simpson
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3574) was 
rejected.

                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:


                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Kennedy 
     amendment No. 3573.
         Edward M. Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, Joe Biden, J.J. Exon, 
           Chuck Robb, Carol Moseley-Braun, Christopher Dodd, 
           Byron L. Dorgan, Claiborne Pell, Kent Conrad, John F. 
           Kerry, Ron Wyden, David Pryor, Russell D. Feingold, 
           Paul Sarbanes, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein, Frank 
           R. Lautenberg.

  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                            Motion to Commit

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] moves to commit the 
     pending bill to the Finance Committee with instructions to 
     report by April 21, 1996 amendments to reform welfare and 
     Medicaid.

  Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


               Amendment No. 3653 to the Motion to Commit

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the motion to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3653 to the motion to commit.
       Strike the instructions in the pending motion and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``to report back by April 21, 1996 amendments to 
     reform welfare and Medicaid effective one day after the 
     effective date of the bill.''

  Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 3654 to Amendment No. 3653

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3654 to amendment No. 3653.

[[Page S2899]]

       Strike all after the first word in the amendment to the 
     instructions to the pending motion and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``report back by April 21, 1996 amendments to reform welfare 
     and Medicaid effective two days after the effective date of 
     the bill.''

  Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we are prepared to vote on this motion at 
this time. Medicaid reform and welfare reform are high on everyone's 
priority list in America, particularly the voters and the taxpayers, 
and we would be prepared to vote on this motion, say, at 6 o'clock or 5 
after 6 or 6:15, or whenever.
  But I do believe now we are back on an issue that the American people 
are really concerned about: how we can save maybe $50 billion on 
welfare over the next 7 years by sending it back to the States, and 
maybe as much as $85 billion over the next 7 years on Medicaid by 
sending it back to the States, all in accordance with the 10th 
amendment to the Constitution, which says unless the powers vested in 
the Federal Government are denied to the States it belongs to the 
States and the people.
  That is what we will debate at this time, unless there is a 
willingness to accept the amendments, or we can debate tomorrow after 
the cloture vote, whichever the Democratic leader prefers.
  But I am prepared and now ask that we stand in recess until 9:30 
tomorrow morning.


                            Motion To Recess

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I now move the Senate stand in recess until 
the hour of 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 27, 1996.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. 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 Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], 
the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth], and the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. 
Simpson] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley], 
the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], and the Senator from Connecticut 
[Mr. Lieberman] are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] 
is absent because of illness.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 53 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Biden
     Bradley
     Jeffords
     Lieberman
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Simpson

                          ____________________