[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 123 (Tuesday, September 10, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10125-S10129]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The Senate resumed the consideration of the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this Defense authorization bill has been 
done from the very outset in a very bipartisan spirit. Senator Nunn, I 
am sure, will speak on that side to that effect. We have worked 
together, Republicans and Democrats, to bring into the Senate a bill 
that we feel is fair and just. The House has already passed this 
particular bill. The President has said he will sign this particular 
bill. I urge all Senators to vote for this bill and show support for 
our Armed Forces, the men and women who are sacrificing by serving our 
country and risking their lives to protect the liberty and freedom of 
this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I share the sentiments of the Senator from 
South Carolina. This is a good bill for the men and women who serve in 
our military. This bill is an increase over the President's budget, but 
it is a decrease in real terms from last year's budget. So the decline 
in defense spending continues downward, but it is an incremental step 
upward from the President's budget.
  The President said he will sign this. Virtually every provision in 
the House bill that the administration objected to has been either 
taken out of this conference report or has been handled in a way 
satisfactory to the administration. That would include the arms control 
provisions relating to the ABM Treaty and missile defense. It would 
also include those members of the military service who have HIV who, 
under the House bill, would have been automatically expelled from the 
service. That provision has been dropped.
  So I urge those on this side of the aisle to vote for this bill as a 
strong step forward for our Nation's security.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997. 
I oppose the conference report for many of the reasons I opposed the 
Senate bill. Unfortunately, the conference report is in many respects 
worse than the Senate bill.
  The conference report includes $11.2 billion in unrequested funds, 
including almost $1 billion in additional funding for ballistic missile 
defense, hundreds of millions of dollars for unrequested military 
construction projects, and billions of dollars for weapons programs the 
Pentagon does not think it needs.
  Another troubling aspect of the conference report involves land 
conveyances. I have been very concerned by the yearly practice in which 
Members of Congress include special land conveyances in the Defense 
authorization bill enabling the transfer of Federal property outside of 
the requirements of the Federal Property Act of 1949. Having been 
unable to curb outright the practice of making these sweetheart land 
deals, I have worked to ensure that the properties are screened by the 
General Services Administration to make sure that there is no other 
Federal interest in the properties. The conferees found the idea of 
protecting the Federal taxpayers' assets so distasteful that they 
refused to require a Federal screening for the land conveyances 
contained in the House bill. This decision is unacceptable in my view 
and I did not sign the conference report in large part due to this 
decision.
  In addition, the conferees adopted a provision from the Senate bill 
which affords special retirement rights to a select group of employees 
affected by base closure. There has been no demonstrated need for this 
authority that will cost the American taxpayer millions of dollars in 
the out years and it is unfair to the hundreds of thousands of other 
Federal employees who have been affected by ongoing efforts to downsize 
the Government.
  I would also mention my concern with a provision in the conference 
report that terminates the defense business operations funds [DBOF] in 
the year 1999. The purported reason for this provision as I understood 
from its proponents is to instill more discipline in the Defense 
Department's financial management. I have been concerned about the 
state of the Government's financial management for years. I have worked 
to enact legislation creating the inspectors general and the chief 
financial officers. I have held numerous and long detailed hearings on 
the condition of DBOF. I agree that the Pentagon has an obligation to 
the American taxpayer to focus more attention on getting its financial 
house in order. But, I do not agree that terminating DBOF will 
accomplish anything other than to create chaos where we should be 
seeking progress.
  In addition, I have concerns about section 1033 of the conference 
report which significantly expands an existing program within the 
Department of Defense regarding the transfer of excess

[[Page S10126]]

personal property. The Senate bill was silent on this issue. The House 
bill however expanded an existing DOD program which enables State and 
local agencies involved in drug enforcement activities to have a 
preference to obtain excess DOD personal property. The House bill 
expanded this program to enable all law enforcement activities to have 
this preference. Beyond that the conference added counterterrorism as 
an additional preferential category.

  Now I bow to no one in my willingness to take action to enforce our 
drug laws and to fight terrorism. And it may be entirely appropriate 
for excess small arms and ammunition to be made available to law 
enforcement agencies for these purposes. However, I have serious 
concerns regarding the conference's approach. In particular, I have 
questions about the effect this provision will have on other entities 
entitled to receive excess property as a public benefit. I'm speaking 
not about small arms parts, but about computers, furniture, vehicles, 
and other equipment. Under current law potential beneficiaries to this 
equipment include, State agencies, hospitals, schools, the homeless, 
and other worthy causes. I do not believe that this concern was 
adequately considered in the conference. I intend to work with other 
Senators and Congressmen who share my concerns to clarify how the 
Secretary of Defense intends to implement this provision, and to take 
corrective legislative action if necessary.
  The conferees also dropped a provision from the Senate bill that 
would allow women who are serving in the military or who are 
servicemembers' dependents from obtaining abortions in overseas 
military medical facilities. We have debated this issue repeatedly and 
I am very sorry the conferees again chose not to afford women who are 
stationed overseas the same basic rights available to women living in 
the United States.
  Finally, I mention a number of House provisions that were dropped in 
conference: the so-called multilateralization and successor state 
provisions affecting the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the provision 
to repeal the don't-ask, don't-tell policy and the provisions relating 
to servicemembers diagnosed with HIV. I am genuinely pleased that these 
provisions were dropped from the conference report. However, I do not 
believe the mere elimination of completely unacceptable provisions from 
the conference report is a sufficient reason to support the conference 
report.


                         humanitarian demining

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to ask a question regarding 
section 1304 of the pending fiscal year 1997 National Defense 
Authorization Act. This provision would amend title 10, section 401 
entitled ``Humanitarian and civic assistance provided in conjunction 
with military operations.''
  The point that I would like clarified is whether the annual $5 
million cap in new subsection (c)(3) would be a U.S. Governmentwide 
cap, or whether it is a cap on only DOD humanitarian assistance 
appropriations.
  Mr. THURMOND. I can assure Senator Leahy that the cap imposed by 
section 1304 applies only to funds made available to the Department of 
Defense for humanitarian and civic assistance. It was not intended as a 
U.S. Governmentwide cap. It does not apply to funds that are made 
available to other Federal agencies such as the Department of State or 
the Agency for International Development.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator for his explanation.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my extreme 
disappointment in the outcome of the House and Senate conference on the 
Department of Defense authorization legislation. The Senate's version 
of this legislation contained an amendment offered by myself and 
Senator Snowe to allow women servicemembers stationed abroad to obtain 
privately funded abortions at military facilities. It was very 
unfortunate that this provision was dropped from the final version of 
this legislation during negotiations between the Senate and the House.
  Mr. President, my amendment simply restored a policy which responds 
to the unique needs of women serving overseas in our armed services. 
This policy, which was in place between 1973 and 1988 and between 1993 
and 1996, allowed women to use private resources for medical abortion 
services at military hospitals. This policy is necessary to ensure the 
health and safety of women servicemembers because overseas health care 
facilities often do not provide comparable and safe care. Women serving 
our country in the Armed Forces deserve the same quality of care as 
women in the United States and to put them at risk is dangerous, 
unnecessary, and plain wrong.
  Further, as I have said before, requiring a woman to travel to the 
United States to perform this procedure only delays a very time-
sensitive procedure and increases the cost--both for the individual and 
the taxpayer--when a woman is stationed abroad.
  We have had many debates in the 104th Congress about a woman's right 
to choose. My amendment simply guaranteed that women who serve in our 
Armed Forces have the same rights as women in the United States. It is 
a right women service personnel have held for most of the last 23 
years.
  Dropping my amendment is yet another in a long series of actions 
taken by this Congress to eliminate a woman's right to choose. From the 
first days of the 104th Congress to the closing hours of this second 
session, women have seen the new majority seek to undermine their 
rights at every opportunity. It saddens me to see the will of the 
Senate and the health care options of women serving in the Armed Forces 
traded away to the voices of extremism.
  This Congress must know that the women and men of this country are 
awake and aware of these actions. We will be back. I assure you.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference 
agreement on the fiscal year 1997 National Defense Authorization Act. I 
urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, which represents a 
reasonable and balanced compromise between the House and Senate on a 
number of very difficult issues.
  Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to highlight just a few 
of the very positive aspects of this bill.
  This bill provides $265.6 billion for defense activities for the 
coming fiscal year, implementing the decision of the Republican 
Congress to add $11.2 billion to the President's defense budget 
request. We fought hard for the last 2 years to add a total of $18 
billion to the inadequate defense budgets of this administration, 
because we recognized the need to ensure both current and future 
readiness of our military services.
  In the Readiness Subcommittee, we provided $1 billion more than the 
budget request for operations and maintenance of the Armed Forces, and 
$270 million more than requested for ammunition procurement. These 
increases will ensure sufficient funding for day-to-day operations and 
training for the coming fiscal year.
  The bulk of the added funding was allocated to military modernization 
programs. The bill authorizes an additional $6 billion for procurement 
of modern weapons systems, including tactical aircraft, sealift and 
airlift assets, improved communications systems, surveillance and 
reconnaissance, and other important warfighting equipment. The bill 
also adds $2.6 billion for research and development to maintain the 
technological edge of our military forces on the battlefields of the 
future, including a significant increase in both theater and national 
missile defense programs.
  The bill also includes a number of legislative provisions which, I 
believe, will serve the best interests of the taxpayer and the 
Department of Defense.
  First, the bill includes a new discretionary waiver of domestic 
source restrictions for our allies with whom we have reciprocal defense 
procurement agreements. This provision, which was included in the 
Senate bill, will provide the needed flexibility for the Secretary of 
Defense to purchase the best equipment at the lowest price for our 
military services. It will also help to promote continued free trade 
among our allies, rather than threatening reciprocal trade in defense 
items by restricting the United States to buying only American-made 
products. In my view, this is one of the most important provisions in 
this bill because of its potential to save money and preserve 
our longstanding positive defense trade balances with our allies.

  The bill also authorizes $14 million in a newly established account 
under the

[[Page S10127]]

control of the Secretary of Defense for antiterrorism activities and 
programs. This provision was added to make funds available for urgent, 
emergency requirements necessary to deter or defend against terrorism 
directed at our military personnel. The bombing of the U.S. military 
housing complex in Dhahran demonstrated the need for such an account.
  Last year, the Congress approved the enactment of several provisions 
related to accounting for missing service personnel which the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our warfighting CINC's opposed, 
arguing that they would interfere with their ability to conduct their 
missions in the event of war. This bill repeals several of those 
provisions without harming or limiting in any way the ability of the 
Department of Defense to continue its intensive program to locate and 
recover the remains of all those missing in action in wartime.
  I am particularly pleased that the conferees agreed to drop from the 
bill both the Senate and House provisions regarding discharge of 
military personnel who test positive for the HIV virus. This allows the 
Department of Defense to continue its current policy of non-
discrimination and fair treatment of all military personnel with 
conditions which prevent them from deploying with their units.
  The bill authorizes compensation for Vietnamese commandoes who 
participated in United States wartime operations in Vietnam and were 
captured by North Vietnam. Payment of these amounts is a matter of 
fairness and is long overdue.
  The conferees also approved a Senate provision, cosponsored by 
myself, Senators Lieberman, Coats, and Robb, which directs the 
Department of Defense to conduct a new assessment of U.S. national 
security strategy and military force structure requirements. This 
provision provides specific guidance to the Department for its 
Quadrennial Defense Review. The provision also establishes a 
nonpartisan panel of national security experts to review the 
Department's work and to provide an independent assessment of 
alternative force structures and strategies. In light of the continuing 
changes in the post-cold-war world, I believe it is necessary to 
conduct such a comprehensive reassessment of our national security 
posture.
  The bill also requires the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to 
provide an assessment of the readiness requirements of each of the 
services, using a tiered readiness concept that I discussed in a March 
1996 white paper. This report is important to the development of this 
concept, which could result in savings in operation and maintenance 
funding which could be reallocated to the modernization accounts where 
a significant shortfall remains.
  The bill also includes language requiring fair pricing of United 
States military equipment to be transferred to Bosnia under existing 
drawdown authority. Since the equip and train program for the Bosnian 
Muslims is an essential part of the exit strategy for United States 
troops serving in the peace implementation force [IFOR] in Bosnia, it 
is essential that the program be implemented properly and promptly if 
we are to meet the end-of-1996 withdrawal deadline for IFOR.
  Finally, the bill includes a provision requiring organizers of 
civilian sporting events to reimburse the Department of Defense for the 
cost of providing security and other support services, only if the 
event makes a profit. This provision is designed to ensure that defense 
dollars are available for defense purposes, but it will have no effect 
on the availability of our military services to provide needed security 
assistance at these events.
  Again, I thank Chairman Thurmond and his staff for achieving such an 
excellent conference agreement on these important issues.
  At the same time, Mr. President, I regret that the conferees deleted 
the Senate's provisions related to competitive allocation of workload 
among public and private maintenance depots. The Senate tried to take a 
positive step toward fair and open competition for depot maintenance 
work. I am sorry that the conferees were unable to agree to include 
these provisions, because it could have saved the taxpayers money and 
allowed the Pentagon to shed excess capacity at its government-owned 
depots.
  The most controversial aspect of the depot issue is the 60-40 rule 
which requires that at least 60 percent of all funds expended on depot 
maintenance be spent in public depots, owned and operated by the 
Department of Defense. I believe that this 60-40 rule is arbitrary and 
prevents the Department of Defense from taking actions that could 
potentially result in a savings of billions of dollars. I would like to 
point to a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office entitled 
``Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options.'' This report 
contains a section dealing with the depot issue and the potential 
savings that could be realized by relying upon the private sector to 
perform much of the work that the current 60-40 rule requires to be 
performed by the public depots. According to this report, cumulative 
savings after 6 years might amount to roughly $400 million, rising to 
over $3 billion after 10 years if the total workload assigned to public 
depots on a sole source basis is reduced to 30 percent. CBO estimates 
that, in the long run, DOD might save on the order of $1 billion 
annually if it used public depots only for those tasks that could not 
be handled competitively in the private sector. Estimated savings of 
shifting from public to private production range from 20 to 40 percent.
  Mr. President, although readiness has been used as the justification 
for maintaining the arbitrary 60-40 rule, I believe that it is a 
justification without foundation. DOD already relies on the private 
sector to repair many specialized components on its most up-to-date 
systems. Furthermore, since we rely upon the private sector industrial 
capability to supply our military forces with this equipment, it seems 
unreasonable to distrust this same private sector capability to 
maintain the equipment.

  That is the only major legislative provision which was resolved in a 
way that I cannot approve. In fact, let me say that I was very pleased 
with the resolution of a number of legislative provisions adopted in 
the last few days of the Senate's consideration of this bill. The 
conferees chose to remove legislative earmarks for all of these 
projects and considered each on a case-by-case basis. Of the most 
egregious legislative earmarks attached to the bill, none were included 
in this final conference agreement as legislative earmarks. For that 
wise decision, I thank the conferees.
  However, Mr. President, I note with serious disappointment that many 
of the special interest and pork-barrel items, to which I objected in 
the additional views I filed with the Committee, are included in this 
conference agreement.
  These programs are: $850 million in unrequested, low-priority 
military construction projects--$150 million more than the Senate-
passed bill; $780 million for unrequested Guard and Reserve equipment, 
including $189.6 million for four C-130J aircraft; $470.7 million for 
nine additional C-130J aircraft, only one of which was requested by the 
Air Force; $15 million for continued aurora borealis research and 
construction of the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program 
[HAARP], for which there is no current military requirement or 
validated use; $13 million for an unnecessary, duplicative, and 
cumbersome bureaucracy for oceanographic research, which the Navy does 
not need or want; and $701 million for advance procurement of a second 
new attack submarine, and language repeating the earmarking of these 
new submarines divided evenly between Newport News Shipbuilding and 
Electric Boat Shipyard.
  Mr. President, these pork-barrel projects add up to approximately 
$2.8 billion. I am astonished that, once again, after fighting hard to 
sustain a much-needed increase in the defense budget, the conferees 
chose to spend these funds on pork.
  Last year, we wasted $4 billion, or more than half of the total 
defense budget increase, on pork-barrel projects. I suppose this year's 
bill shows progress of a sort--we are only wasting $2.8 billion.
  But, Mr. President, I will say again that the American people will 
not stand for this type of wasteful spending of their tax dollars. If, 
we, in Congress refuse to halt the pork-barreling, it will be more and 
more difficult to explain to the American people why we

[[Page S10128]]

need to maintain adequate defense spending. I would prefer that the 
$2.8 billion wasted on pork-barrel projects had not been included in 
the bill. I hope that, next year, with the very real threat of a line-
item veto of some of these items, the Congress will stop wasting 
defense dollars on these kind of special interest items.
  Mr. President, let me conclude by saying, again, that I believe this 
is, overall, a very good conference agreement on the Defense 
authorization bill. Chairman Thurmond, Senator Nunn, and the staff on 
both sides of the Senate Armed Services Committee should be commended 
for their excellent work. I urge my colleagues to support this 
conference agreement.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will vote for the fiscal year 1997 
National Defense Authorization Act. I signed the conference report on 
this bill insofar as it pertains to bill language. I did not, however, 
sign the conference report's report language because I do not agree 
with the report language on the missile defense provisions, all of 
which were dropped from the bill. Several of my Democratic colleagues 
on the Senate Armed Services Committee took a similar position on the 
conference report's ballistic missile defense report language.
  I will vote for the national defense authorization bill because, 
unlike last year, the vast majority of provisions in the bill are the 
result of bipartisan drafting and have full bipartisan support. I 
commend Senator Thurmond and Senator Nunn for their efforts to improve 
the process of the Senate Armed Services Committee during this 
legislative session. I would also like to commend Senator Smith for 
fostering a cooperative working relationship on the Acquisition and 
Technology Subcommittee.
  Mr. President, let me briefly talk about the report language on arms 
control and ballistic missile defense. In order to get this bill signed 
by the President, the majority agreed very late in the conference to 
drop all of the provisions regarding multilateraliza- tion of the ABM 
treaty and theater missile defense demarcation, which the President's 
advisers had objected to. If these provisions had not been dropped, I 
would not be supporting this bill, nor would the President be prepared 
to sign this bill. However, having given up the bill language, the 
majority attempted in this report language to revive what they had 
given up. As a matter of law I would urge the President to treat this 
report language as totally nonbinding and certainly not representing 
the views of this conferee, and perhaps not even representing the views 
of the majority of conferees. This report language was first presented 
to the minority in the middle of the last night of conference, and we 
had no opportunity to discuss it at member level. I felt compelled to 
make my very strong views known, that this language is unacceptable to 
me and as I just said should be treated by the administration as not in 
any way having the force of law.
  The provisions dropped by the conferees raised serious legal and 
constitutional issues and would have infringed upon the President's 
prerogative to make foreign policy. What could not be achieved in bill 
language cannot be revived through report language. That is the 
strongly held view of at least this Senator.
  Mr. President, that having been said, there is much that is good in 
this bill. While I do not believe that all of the additional funding 
included in this bill is warranted, there are many provisions that I 
worked to have included and that will strengthen our national security. 
These provisions include the extension of flexible section 845 
authority to carry out advanced research projects to the services; the 
clarification of the section 2371, other transactions authority, to 
spur broader use by the services; a fair compromise with the 
administration with regard to dual-use technology programs; the 
reduction in the total amount allocated for the renovation of the 
Pentagon by $100,000,000; very strong support for the Department of 
Energy's stockpile stewardship program; very strong support for the 
Nunn-Lugar program and the Department of Energy's nonproliferation 
efforts. I also strongly supported the additional funds for the 
tactical high-energy laser program with Israel, and cosponsored an 
amendment with Senator Kyl to restrict remote sensing over Israel. I 
supported a pay raise and an increase in the basic allowance for 
quarters for our troops, which I believe is well deserved. The bill 
also includes a provision supported by the Environmental Protection 
Agency that could speed the process for opening the waste isolation 
pilot plant while retaining EPA's clear authority on health and safety 
matters.

  I have previously stated that we are entering a period of military-
technical transformation. I believe that by maintaining a strong lead 
in advanced technologies, and using these technologies as a force 
multiplier, we can meet our national security requirements with a 
smaller force structure and at reduced costs. I believe many of us on 
the Senate Armed Services Committee will be looking hard at the 
implications of these changes for our military during the coming years.
  I would like to address one issue that has raised some questions from 
my constituents in New Mexico. The House National Security Committee 
inserted a provision, sponsored by Congressman Thornberry, which allows 
certain Department of Energy sites, including the Pantex plant in 
Congressman Thornberry's district, to report directly to the 
headquarters office in Washington, DC, rather than through the 
Albuquerque Operations Office. The provision adds no value to the 
performance or reporting authorities for the Department of Energy. 
Indeed, if carried out, it would likely lead to balkanization within 
the weapons program. I am working with Senator Domenici to block this 
provision in the energy and water appropriations bill. If this attempt 
fails, I will pursue this issue in the next Congress to have the 
provision repealed.
  Despite my concerns regarding the excessive funds which have been 
allocated for missile defense, I will vote for the National Defense 
Authorization Act. The effort to prepare this legislation was 
significantly improved since last year, resulting in a bill which 
contains many provisions which I can wholeheartedly support. Despite 
some differences on emphasis or funding amounts, I believe we have 
struck a reasonable balance. I would again like to commend Senator 
Thurmond and Senator Nunn on their leadership on this defense 
authorization bill. I would also like to acknowledge that we are losing 
several valued members of the Senate Armed Services Committee at the 
end of this legislative year. Senator Nunn, Senator Exon, and Senator 
Cohen will all be retiring and moving on to new challenges. Senator 
Nunn, of course, is the ranking member and former chairman, and has 
dedicated countless hours over the past 24 years to the Armed Services 
Committee work. His expertise and strong leadership are widely 
recognized and will certainly be missed.

  Senator Exon has been our leader on strategic issues for the past 10 
years. His contributions both there and in tying our committee's work 
to the Budget Committee will be sorely missed.
  Senator Cohen has been one of the most productive members of the 
committee, a leader on issues ranging from acquisition reform to arms 
control matters and one of the members of the majority who has most 
frequently reached out to the minority to formulate truly bipartisan 
policies.
  We have all benefited from their participation and membership on the 
Senate Armed Services Committee. They will be sorely missed by this 
Senator. I would also like to thank the many Senate Armed Services 
Committee staff members who work so diligently on this complex and 
lengthy legislation and support us so well. I want to particularly 
thank Bill Hoene, who, this year, took on supporting the Acquisition 
and Technology Subcommittee, as well as supporting the Strategic 
Forces, and John Etherton, who has supported the Acquisition and 
Technology Subcommittee for many years. They were an effective team.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
conference report to accompany the Defense authorization bill, H.R. 
3230. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is 
necessarily absent.

[[Page S10129]]

  The result was announced, yeas 73, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 279 Leg.]

                                YEAS--73

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--26

     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Pryor
       
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________