[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 3 (Friday, January 25, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S111-S115]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         HOPE FOR CHILDREN ACT

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
now resume consideration of H.R. 622, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 622) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to expand the adoption credit, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Daschle/Baucus amendment No. 2698, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Smith of Oregon amendment No. 2705 (to the language 
     proposed to be stricken), to amend the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 to provide for a special depreciation allowance for 
     certain property acquired after September 10, 2001, and 
     before September 11, 2004.


                           Amendment No. 2705

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time until 
10:30 a.m. shall be equally divided and controlled for debate on the 
Smith amendment No. 2705.
  The Senator from Oregon is recognized on his amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the President pro tempore.
  Mr. President, it is a privilege this morning to speak about a 
component of the stimulus package which I think does garner wide 
bipartisan support. There are many good ideas. And I, as a Republican, 
stand in this Chamber to say I look forward to voting to extend 
unemployment benefits and health care benefits. I think these ideas add 
to the demand side of the equation by giving dollars to consumers--to 
taxpayers--who very much need to make ends meet and to meet life's 
necessities.
  There is a supply side to this debate that actually is central to an 
economic recovery, and that is the supply side of doing things which 
truly stimulate the economy, because if we want to get back to 
surpluses, the best way we can do that is by pursuing policies that 
will lend themselves to growth.

  The bonus depreciation amendment, which I have before the Senate this 
morning, does that very thing. It has won verbal support from the likes 
of Chairman Greenspan and former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert 
Rubin, who uniformly endorse a stimulus package, and specifically the 
immediate stimulative effect on the economy of the temporary enactment 
of bonus depreciation.
  I commend the majority leader for much improving his proposal as to 
the budget, as to the bonus depreciation from its initial offering. But 
for reasons I will point out, I think it still falls short of what it 
needs to be if we are truly serious about stimulating the economy.
  Senator Daschle's proposal will allow 30-percent bonus depreciation 
from only September 11 of last year to September 11 of this current 
year. This

[[Page S112]]

means it will only stimulate business purchases for the next 8 months, 
assuming we can get the stimulus package passed by February 1. It is 12 
months, but it is simply an inadequate period when you figure that 8 
months to make business decisions is all that is allowed. So we are 
left with a proposal to stimulate business that just simply lacks the 
weight that it needs to do the job.
  If you look at the facts on business investment, it has fallen 
precipitously since August of 2000. Consumer spending in this recession 
has been surprisingly resilient, but business investment has fallen off 
the table.
  Today's recession is caused primarily by a decline in business 
investment. Chairman Greenspan made that clear in his remarks to the 
Budget Committee yesterday. It is the central reason for this 
recession.
  So what kind of investment can we stimulate in the 8 months that 
remain under the underlying proposal? It probably gives businesspeople 
time to buy a chair and perhaps some new wastebaskets, a rug for the 
front office, but 8 months is not enough time to start major projects 
that would, in fact, employ thousands upon thousands of people. It does 
not allow time to build heavy equipment, modernize a lumber mill, 
restart a coal mine, revamp a corporate computer system, rebuild a rail 
bed, or even to construct an airplane. It doesn't allow enough time to 
obtain building permits, perform environmental reviews, complete 
architectural or engineering studies.

  My amendment allows bonus depreciation for farm equipment and 
improvements and special purpose agricultural and horticultural 
buildings. Farmers, unfortunately, may not see the turnaround they need 
in the next 8 months. I wish it were so. It may take longer than that. 
But when the farm economy does recover, they will need to update their 
equipment, and they ought to have the advantage of the bonus 
depreciation that we are offering long enough so they can have that 
advantage, too.
  Consider the airplane. If you want to build an airplane, the average 
is it takes about 18 months. So, clearly, that important industry, that 
very American industry, is left out of the calculation before the 
Senate, if my amendment is defeated. Eight months is simply not enough 
time to build an airplane.
  Moreover, an 8-month bonus depreciation period does not provide 
insurance against future down ticks in our recovery cycle. These 
commonly occur when an economy struggles to throw off the shackles of a 
recession. We need to create a booming economy, not only for today but 
for the next several years. So I emphasize that the majority's 8-month 
depreciation proposal lacks the economic weight that our economy now 
needs. I plead with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's 
recognize the realities of the business world and provide the kind of 
stimulus which is meaningful, weighty, and effective.
  Mr. President, I have been requested to add the names of Senators 
Collins and Allard as cosponsors. I ask unanimous consent that they be 
added.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following letters from the Association for Competitive Technology and 
the American Electronics Association in support of the Smith amendment 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   Association for


                                       Competitive Technology,

                                 Washington, DC, January 25, 2002.
       To All Senators: On behalf of thousands of information 
     technology (IT) companies and professionals, I am writing to 
     express my support for the Smith (OR) amendment that would 
     provide a 3-year, 30% bonus depreciation provision. Like 
     other companies in our industry, our members feel strongly 
     about depreciation and are paying close attention to this 
     vote.
       Small business drives the IT industry. No sector has 
     created more jobs or advances in technology. These businesses 
     have spent nearly $160 billion during the past two years on 
     acquiring new products used to develop cutting edge 
     applications and services. The end result has been a richer 
     computing experience for businesses and consumers.
       Enhanced depreciation schedules will improve small business 
     productivity, strengthen the U.S. economy and boost the IT 
     sector. Enhanced depreciation means small businesses will 
     have the IT tools they need to stay competitive--obsolete IT 
     tools will be one less obstacle in a small company's growth 
     and success. Favorable expensing rules will free-up small 
     business capital to grow business and increase jobs.
       Modernizing expense for high technology equipment can help 
     boost the economy at a time when we need it most. My member 
     companies feel that the time is now to address these changes 
     and the economic stimulus package it the right vehicle.
       The one-year, 30% provision in the Democratic stimulus bill 
     is unacceptable. The reality is that their ``year'' ends in 
     September 2002, which only provides seven months at the most 
     for companies to plan for and make technology purchases. We 
     hope we can count on you to do what's best for the technology 
     industry and vote ``Yes'' on the Smith amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jonathan Zuck,
     President.
                                  ____



                                                          AeA,

                                 Washington, DC, January 25, 2002.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the high-tech industry, I write 
     to express AeA's strong support for the Smith amendment 
     calling for a 30 percent bonus depreciation provision for 
     capital assets purchased over the next 36 months. We believe 
     that this is a meaningful accelerated cost-recovery provision 
     for American business and is essential to stimulate the 
     economy. Our industry is unified in its support of such a 
     measure.
       Please vote in support of the Smith amendment.
       A 30% bonus depreciation will stimulate greater investment 
     and provide the kind of stimulus that will strengthen our 
     companies and create more jobs across the country. The 
     current economic slowdown requires this kind of dramatic, 
     effective action by the Congress.
       AeA (American Electronics Association) is the nation's 
     largest high-tech trade association and is comprised of more 
     than 3,500 small, medium and large high-tech companies. 
     Passage of an economic stimulus package is very important to 
     the high-tech industry right now, and we hope the U.S. Senate 
     will act quickly to approve a stimulus package that includes 
     at least a 30 percent bonus depreciation provision.
           Sincerely,
                                                William T. Archey,
                                                President and CEO.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I also will note that President 
Bush also spoke in support of a bonus depreciation only a few days ago. 
I quote from him:

       But any good stimulus package plan must ask the question 
     ``how do we create more jobs?'' and one way to do that is to 
     accelerate tax relief for workers, and the other way to do 
     that is to make sure that the Tax Code doesn't punish 
     companies like Walker.

  That is the one he was visiting.

       We ought to allow them to accelerate the depreciation 
     schedule so it is more likely they will buy more equipment.

  That is simply what we are doing, Mr. President. We are trying to 
allow this bonus with enough time that they can take enough advantage 
of it for the greater advantage of our entire country.
  Mr. President, I think we all recognize that the No. 1 issue in the 
hearts and the homes of the American people is economic security, as 
well as national security. I, for one, was deeply disappointed that we 
went home for Christmas not as Santa Claus but as Scrooge. We should 
have done this before we left. I am glad, however, that the majority 
leader has brought it up and is allowing this to go forward now. I hope 
we are successful because I think we ought to show the American people 
that we are doing all we can to make this happen and are taking out the 
insurance policy that is necessary to support our economy and our 
people.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Brownback as a cosponsor of 
the amendment as well.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to vote for 
this amendment. I think it will win a lot of additional Republican 
support for the overall effort of the majority leader, and I think for 
the American people's sake that is important.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, how much time is reserved on our side on 
the Smith amendment?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The opposition has 11 minutes 44 seconds. 
The sponsor has 3 minutes 26 seconds.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. We reserve the time on our side.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Very well. Who seeks recognition?

[[Page S113]]

  The Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, in order to understand and evaluate this 
amendment, the first thing we have to do is understand our current 
economic condition. The day before yesterday, the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Crippen, informed us that the 
projection of $5.6 trillion of surpluses over the next 10 years that 
was made only 1 year ago has now been eroded dramatically, and that 
what is available to us over the next 10-year period is not $5.6 
trillion but $1.6 trillion. That is a loss of $4 trillion of projected 
surpluses in only 1 year.
  If we look to the causes for that dramatic change in our fiscal 
condition, what we see, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 
is that tax cuts accounted for 42 percent of the reduction in projected 
surplus; 23 percent is the result of economic changes from the economic 
slowdown; 18 percent is from other legislation, mostly as a result of 
the attack on this country of September 11 of last year; 17 percent is 
the result of certain technical changes. Examples of that are increased 
costs of Medicare and Medicaid.
  I think it is critically important, as we evaluate these amendments, 
to understand our current fiscal condition. The implications of this 
dramatic drop in the projected surpluses are that we have gone from a 
circumstance in which we were told last year that we would be virtually 
debt free as a Nation in the year 2008 to now Director Crippen telling 
us that instead of being debt free in 2008, we will have $2.8 trillion 
of publicly held debt. As Chairman Greenspan reported to the Budget 
Committee yesterday, that is the tip of the iceberg because we have 
other liabilities--so-called contingent liabilities--of another $10 
trillion.
  Mr. President, I think that should sober us in our deliberations 
today. The implications of all this are serious and far-ranging. It 
means the total Federal interest costs that we can anticipate are going 
up by over a trillion dollars. We were told last year we would expect 
interest costs to the Federal Government of $622 billion over this 
forecast period. That has now been increased to $1.6 trillion, an 
increase of over a trillion dollars.
  Mr. President, perhaps most alarming is that the truth is there are 
no surpluses left--no surpluses. The only place there is surplus money 
is in the Social Security trust fund account. If we remove the Social 
Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund, what we find--last 
year, we were told we would have $2.7 trillion in non-trust-fund 
surpluses. Now what we see is a $1.1 trillion deficit. What this means 
is any proposal before us will take the payroll taxes of our firemen, 
our policemen, our farmers, our carpenters, our teachers, those who 
work in our factories, even our own employees, and we will be taking 
every penny to pay for any of these provisions--however meritorious--
right out of the payroll taxes of the taxpayers of America--taxes they 
were told were being levied to pay for Social Security and Medicare and 
are now being taken not to pay for Social Security and Medicare--oh, 
no--but now to pay for any tax relief provision that is being 
considered in this Chamber.
  Mr. President, I believe that sets the very high bar with respect to 
any of these proposals.
  Now comes this well-intended amendment. I have high regard for the 
Senator offering this amendment. He is a respected member of the Budget 
Committee. I support bonus depreciation as part of a stimulus package, 
but bonus depreciation over 3 years defeats the purpose of a stimulus 
package.
  Stimulus packages, as Secretary Rubin described it to us, as Chairman 
Greenspan described it to us, are designed to change economic behavior 
now--not 3 years from now but now. And if instead of doing 1-year 
depreciation, we do 3 years' depreciation, what we have actually done 
is to encourage people to wait to make the investment. That is 
precisely what we should not do. What we need to do is encourage people 
to invest now.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. SARBANES. Isn't it, in fact, correct that this proposal, the 3-
year bonus depreciation, is contradictory within its own terms? What 
you want to do with a stimulus--and I am for a 1-year bonus 
depreciation because I think that may serve as an incentive for 
additional investment in order to realize the benefit of the bonus 
depreciation in the first year--if you make it a 3-year bonus 
depreciation, the latter part of the bonus depreciation is countering 
the front part of the bonus depreciation, which is exactly what we do 
not want. We want to do the 1 year.
  We will see what the 1 year gives us, where the economy is at the end 
of the 1 year and whether an additional effort is needed. But to do 3 
years so someone can say, I will not do it this year, I will not do it 
next year, I will do it in the third year of the bonus depreciation, is 
exactly contrary to what we are trying to accomplish. Isn't that, in 
fact, the case?
  Mr. CONRAD. It is precisely the case. Again I say, I am a supporter 
as well of bonus depreciation. I agree with everything the Senator from 
Oregon said with respect to the merits of bonus depreciation, but I 
have to say to my colleague, I think it would be a profound mistake to 
do 2 or 3 years because that simply encourages people to wait rather 
than creating an incentive to act now, to invest now, to give lift to 
the economy now. The message that is being sent is wait. That is not 
the message we ought to send.
  That is not just the conclusion of this Senator or the conclusion of 
the Senator from Maryland but the Congressional Budget Office, which at 
my request did an analysis of the various stimulus proposals and 
concluded on this whole question that, ``A longer period would give a 
bigger average yearly boost, but more of it would come at the end of 
the period than at the beginning, delaying the stimulative effect.'' 
Delaying the stimulative effect.
  Is that what we want to do, delay the stimulative effect? I do not 
think so. That goes directly counter to what a stimulus package is 
supposed to do.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. SARBANES. In fact, as I understand it, the Congressional Budget 
Office said in a report evaluating the various stimulus options:

       Extending the period during which such expensing could be 
     used would reduce the bang for the buck because it 
     would decrease businesses' incentive to invest in the 
     first year and increase the total revenue cost.

  We would lose on the stimulus front, and we would add to the deficit 
problem, which the Senator has so ably outlined, that we confront as we 
look out into the future.
  Mr. CONRAD. Actually, the result of passing the Smith amendment would 
have the perverse result of decreasing the impact of the stimulus and 
increasing the debt, increasing the deficits, which is the worst stew 
you could cook.
  Mr. President, I point out that as we started this whole question of 
stimulus, the budgeteers on the House side and the Senate side on a 
bipartisan basis agreed to a set of principles to apply. One of them 
was a stimulus sunset. That principle says:

       All economic stimulus proposals should sunset within 1 
     year, to the extent practicable.

  This amendment, as well intended as it is, violates that basic 
principle.
  Yesterday we heard from Chairman Greenspan. The headline in the 
Washington Post today is: ``Greenspan Doubts Need for Tax Cuts.'' While 
we may agree or disagree on that question, I frankly think additional 
stimulus would be a good insurance policy, but I think it should be, 
with respect to this provision, 1 year. I think that gives us the 
greatest stimulus and does the least damage to our long-term deficit 
situation.
  Chairman Greenspan yesterday said he is very conflicted about a 
stimulus package. He said:

       Since the nature of the coming recovery remains uncertain 
     and may be relatively weak, having some additional stimulus 
     could be helpful.

  I agree with him on that.
  He said:

       On the other hand, such a package would deepen the budget 
     deficit this year which would not be a good idea.

  Mr. Greenspan went on:

       There is a possibility, depending on the provisions of a 
     stimulus plan, that it could have a modest negative effect on 
     the long-term economic outlook.


[[Page S114]]


  Mr. President, it is very clear that the best advice we have gotten 
is that we should have stimulus, that we should have it limited to 1 
year so we do not dig the hole deeper in the outyears in light of the 
dramatic change in our fiscal condition.
  I will conclude by showing what the amendment of the Senator will do. 
The revenue lost this year is $39 billion, but that pales in comparison 
to the loss from 2002 to 2006 of $82 billion.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the opposition has now 
expired.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. SARBANES. And 30 seconds for the other side.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I will not object if we have 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair. I thank my good friend from Iowa.
  Mr. President, I want to add one dimension of this--the loss of cost 
in Federal revenue. There is also an impact of this on State revenue. 
One of the problems we are confronting by this economic downturn is 
what it has done to State budgets. Bonus depreciation over a 3-year 
period will cost significantly more to the State governments, whose 
revenue structures are tied to the Federal revenue structure, than the 
1-year plan. It is estimated, in fact, that it will probably cost the 
States in the billions just in the second year of a bonus depreciation. 
This is a further complication that arises out of this proposal.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for an additional 30 seconds on both 
sides.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending 
amendment violates section 311(a)(2)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974 and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The point of order is immaterial while 
time remains.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time this 
way: 1 minute to the Senator from Oklahoma, the remaining time to the 
Senator from Kansas, and the Senator from Kansas will go first.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, if I may in response----
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Time is running.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I have to yield time: 1 minute, half a minute, and the 
remaining time to the Senator from Kansas.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the Smith amendment but 
more to speak on behalf of the Boeing workers around my State and 
around the country. I have great respect for the Senator from North 
Dakota and the Senator from Maryland for the efforts they are putting 
forward.
  In the proposal they are putting forward, which basically has an 8-
month window, we are not going to build any additional planes based 
upon that.
  We need the longer depreciation period because a plane is a major 
investment project. It takes decisionmaking time to put that forward, 
and we need this greater depreciation.
  I have been in close touch with the Boeing workers in Wichita. We 
have other aircraft manufacturers that are located in Wichita, whether 
it is Cessna or Raytheon or Lear Jet, and they are saying we have to 
have this if we are actually going to stimulate people to buy 
airplanes.
  This is a major decision they have to make, and they need the longer 
timeframe for it to be able to occur. We are talking about thousands of 
jobs in this industry that were directly hit because of September 11. 
That is why I speak on their behalf, and I ask my colleagues to 
consider what impact this has had to aircraft manufacturing workers who 
were directly hit by the September 11 events. They need this longer 
depreciation schedule for major companies to make the decision to buy 
the planes.
  In an 8-month time period--that is the basic framework of this 1-year 
proposal--we will only have 8 months to act on it. Those decisions 
cannot and will not be made in that period of time that would be 
involved for a company to decide to put millions of dollars out for 
aircraft.
  They have been contacting me and are strongly supportive of the 
longer depreciation time period saying that is what we need, and I ask 
we consider what happens to the aircraft workers. That is what we ought 
to be thinking about on this particular amendment. If we want to 
stimulate this work, if we want to stimulate manufacturing, we need the 
Smith amendment for the longer timeframe.
  I reserve the remainder of our time, and I yield to the Senator from 
Oklahoma for his 1 minute.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first I wish to compliment my colleague 
from Oregon, Senator Smith, for his amendment because he is trying to 
put some stimulus in the stimulus package. Right now, under the so-
called Daschle package, there is no beef. There is nothing that is 
going to create jobs. The only thing that could even remotely be called 
a stimulus would be the depreciation section, and when one reads the 
depreciation section there is nothing there.
  I have heard colleagues say Senator Daschle's amendment has a 
depreciation section for 12 months. Well, 4 months of those 12 months 
have already expired. How many jobs are we going to create for the past 
4 months? That has already happened. There are only 8 months remaining. 
I doubt this is going to be enacted into law today, and so it is going 
to be less than 8 months. So the stimulative portion of this might last 
for 7 months.
  Senator Smith happens to have a business background. I used to be in 
the private sector. We cannot pass a bill and say to the business 
community, go out and make investments, and by the way you have to make 
the investment in the next 6 months and it has to be put into action, 
according to the Daschle amendment, by December. One just does not do 
it.
  One might buy a few little things but they are not going to make a 
significant investment. It will not happen. Jobs are not going to be 
created.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma has used 1 
minute.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on our 
side?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Thirty-five seconds.
  Mr. NICKLES. I will use the remainder of the time unless others want 
it.
  I, again, thank my colleague from Oregon because he is trying to put 
stimulus in this so-called stimulus package. If we want to strictly 
have a spending bill, let's have a spending bill. That is really what 
most of the Daschle package is.
  The Smith amendment says, let us have some stimulus. This has passed 
the House. It was part of the bipartisan bill that we had Democrats and 
Republicans say we can pass. It is one of the things for which the 
President has asked. Let us do something that would help create jobs. 
If we do not pass this amendment, I do not think the underlying 
amendment is worth passing. That is my observation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Gordon Smith amendment.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time has expired.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, in my role as Budget Committee chairman, I 
raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 
311(a)(2)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I move to waive the respective 
section of the Budget Act with regard to my amendment and ask for the 
yeas and nays on this motion.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page S115]]

  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Dodd), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and 
the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mrs. Clinton) and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) 
would each vote ``no.''
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from 
Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the 
Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. 
Voinovich), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would vote ``yea.''
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 39, nays 45, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 3 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Santorum
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Akaka
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     McCain
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Voinovich
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There will be order in the Senate.
  On this vote, the yeas are 39, the nays are 45. Three-fifths of the 
Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the 
motion is rejected.
  The amendment of the Senator from Oregon would result in a breach of 
the revenue floor set out in the budget resolution. The point of order 
is sustained. The amendment falls.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment 
No. 2698.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senator withhold briefly?

                          ____________________