[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 114 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9958-S9962]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              S.J. RES 20

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr President, I strongly support S.J. Res. 20, and I 
commend Senator Leahy for sponsoring the resolution to block the EPA's 
mercury cap and trade rule.
  The mercury rule is a rule that only an administration bought and 
paid for by big energy could love. It's a shameful rollback of the 
Clean Air Act to allow owners of fossil fuel power plants to avoid the 
expense of installing new technology to reduce dangerous emissions.
  Mercury is an extremely dangerous neurotoxin that accumulates in the 
environment. It is particularly harmful to pregnant women, and puts the 
fetus at risk of serious developmental disorders.
  The Centers for Disease Control has reported that 630,000 of the 4 
million infants born in the United States each year--16 percent--are at 
risk for mercury-related brain damage. In the Northeast, this figure 
translates into over such 84,000 newborns per year.
  Last week, the Mount Sinai School of Medicine Center for Children's 
Health and the Environment reported that the cost to the Nation of the 
impact of mercury on children's brain development is $2 billion a year.
  These newborns are being poisoned by the mercury which coal-fired 
power plants spew into the air and eventually pollutes the water, and 
enters the food chain. Mercury advisories now apply to nearly a third 
of the area of America's lakes and 22 percent of the length of our 
rivers.
  Incredible as it seems, however, EPA--the agency charged with 
protecting the environment--has issued a rule that would actually lead 
to more of this toxin in the water we drink and the air we breathe.
  Obviously, it's important to have adequate power to keep the lights 
on. But we also need to protect our children's health. We can do both 
by requiring that power plants use the best technology to control 
mercury emissions.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for passage on this needed resolution to 
restore a sensible anti-mercury policy for the Nation.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to give my 
reasons for voting against the so-called Leahy-Collins resolution.
  I believe mercury pollution is a real problem, particularly for 
vulnerable populations, including children. Given these concerns, I 
support efforts to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power 
plants, which account for 42 percent of U.S. emissions. This is in line 
with my support for many years for clean coal technologies, which will 
allow our Nation to utilize our most abundant natural resource in a 
cleaner, more efficient manner.
  Debate on this resolution has revolved around two regulatory 
approaches--a maximum available control technology, MACT, rule or a 
cap-and-trade rule. I suggest that there is a third option that 
combines elements of both. A MACT system is enormously expensive on its 
own, costing up to $358 billion according to the Energy Information 
Administration, compared to $2 billion estimated by EPA for a cap-and-
trade approach. However, a cap-and-trade-only system is inadequate on 
reducing pollution levels around specific plants, referred to as ``hot 
spots.'' The Leahy-Collins resolution would tie EPA's hands by 
restricting it to a MACT-only approach.
  Under a third option, EPA could set a national emissions level, based 
on the best available science to protect public health and the 
environment, and implement a cap-and-trade system to meet this goal 
with the addition of measures to take care of hot spots, EPA could 
require reductions at specific plants. To this end, I have written the 
Administrator of the EPA urging this hybrid approach, which would meet 
environmental goals while balancing the implementation costs faced by 
consumers.
  I ask unanimous consent that my letter to EPA Administrator Johnson 
be printed in the Record.

[[Page S9959]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 13, 2005.
     Hon. Stephen L. Johnson,
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Administrator Johnson: I am writing regarding the 
     Clean Air Mercury Rule announced by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) on March 29, 2005 and urge that you 
     reconsider this rule.
       Mercury pollution is of great concern to me. The 
     Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is party to a suit in the U.S. 
     Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which seeks to overturn 
     the mercury rule.
       As you reconsider this rule, I propose that the most 
     reasonable approach to reducing U.S. mercury emissions from 
     power plants would include a national cap with plant-specific 
     reductions for those facilities found to be responsible for 
     high levels of local mercury deposition, as some call ``hot 
     spots.'' This would provide the flexibility needed by utility 
     companies to make decisions on the appropriate mercury 
     reductions at their plants, while avoiding the potentially 
     inevitable problem of fuel switching to natural gas under a 
     Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard.
       Reducing mercury pollution is extremely important to the 
     nation. Beyond that, there are specific concerns the 
     Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has, which concern this rule and 
     the problems Pennsylvania faces with mercury-contamination 
     fish advisories for every water body in the state.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward 
     to your response to these concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Arlen Specter.

  Mr. SPECTER. I assure my colleagues and my constituents that I will 
be monitoring this situation as the current mercury rule is litigated 
in the court system and as EPA considers further mercury emission 
control options.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I will vote against S.J. Res. 20, the 
joint resolution of disapproval concerning the mercury emissions rules 
that were promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA, on March 15, 2005. At the same time, I have 
some significant reservations about the sometimes questionable 
decisions that the administration made to revise the regulations and 
achieve the final result. In short, I cannot condone this rule making 
process; I remain very concerned about the possible impacts these new 
regulations could have on eastern coal; and I urge the administration 
to increase its commitment to funding important mercury control 
technology programs.
  On one hand, coal, electric utility, and other industry interests are 
concerned that returning to the more stringent mercury control 
standards proposed by the Clinton administration would lead to negative 
economic impacts, including fuel switching to natural gas. They believe 
that the intent of S.J. Res. 20 would be to force the EPA to require a 
90 percent reduction in mercury emissions from each coal-fired 
powerplant, and this would also directly impact West Virginia's 
chemical, agricultural, and industrial uses of natural gas. I am 
therefore concerned that a vote for S.J. Res. 20 would support 
regulations that are more draconian and costly than could be borne by 
the economy at this time.
  However, like the United Mine Workers, I remain concerned about the 
potential impacts that the clean air mercury rule could have on eastern 
coal. Time and again, eastern coals have sustained the brunt of the 
clean air regulations at the expense of western coals. Since the 
passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, western coal production 
has continued to climb at a steady pace while eastern and interior 
basin coal production, and important union mining jobs, have suffered 
significantly. I am troubled by evidence that, in making changes to 
these regulations, the Bush EPA was swayed by and, in some cases, 
simply copied recommendations by western coal industry interests.
  Furthermore, it is important to bring to light several important 
reviews of these regulations by the Government Accountability Office, 
GAO, and the EPA inspector general. The GAO as well as the EPA 
inspector general criticized the EPA for ignoring critical information. 
Based on these reviews, the administration did a very poor job of 
analyzing the mercury emissions data, the economic analysis, and other 
critical health-based factors. It appears that the administration 
already had reached a predetermined answer and then worked backwards to 
achieve that end.
  Finally, I have been very concerned about this administration's 
commitment to funding fossil energy research. The industry argues that 
there is not a sufficient, reliable suite of technologies to meet these 
mercury emissions standards for some years to come. Because I believe 
that there are negative health impacts to pregnant mothers and young 
children from exposure to mercury, we should take economically and 
environmentally sound actions to achieve these reductions. However, 
this administration has not increased the critical funding required to 
find the mercury control technologies that would enable the U.S. to 
meet these emission reductions sooner. The administration could do a 
lot more to get these technologies in place by increasing funding for 
these important programs.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today the Senate will be voting on a measure 
that has a direct impact on the lives of thousands of people in 
Connecticut and around the country. By voting yes today on the 
bipartisan S.J. Res. 20, Congress can reverse the EPA decision to not 
regulate mercury emissions under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. 
Under Section 112, powerplants would be required to reduce emissions of 
mercury and other pollutants by the maximum achievable level of control 
by installing stringent pollution control equipment. In March 2005, EPA 
issued a rule rescinding an earlier 2000 finding that it is appropriate 
and necessary to regulate mercury from power plants. Instead, EPA 
advocates a cap-and-trade system over plant-specific controls.
  Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that affects the heart, brain, and 
immune system. By putting forth this irresponsible rule, EPA is putting 
the lives of millions of people at risk, especially those of children 
and pregnant women. Scientists have well-documented evidence of mercury 
toxicity. In the Northeast, a public health crisis is looming as there 
are estimates that over 84,000 newborns each year will be at-risk for 
irreversible neurological problems and cardiovascular abnormalities.
  While mercury is prevalent in many household, medical, and industrial 
products, the largest U.S. source of mercury emissions are powerplants. 
The mercury is carried by the wind from powerplants and settles in the 
lakes and rivers hundreds of miles from the source of pollution. The 
pollution knows no boundary and that is the problem facing Connecticut. 
We do have a few less-than-perfect powerplants, but the majority of our 
mercury pollution comes from sources outside the State and region.
  So prevalent is the pollution that 44 States have issued fish 
consumption advisories. In some States, no lake or river is habitable. 
In Connecticut, pregnant women and small children are advised to eat no 
more than one meal of freshwater fish per month. All others are advised 
to eat no more than one meal of fish per week. With statistics like 
this, it is clear to see that in addition to the public health 
consequences, there are clear economic challenges as well. Fishing is a 
big contributor to our local economies, contributing nearly $116 
billion to the national economy.
  In 2002, Connecticut took the first step in reducing mercury from the 
waste stream and by prohibiting the sale of many mercury products. 
Further, the State has implemented a comprehensive public education, 
outreach and assistance program. But individual States cannot address 
the problem of mercury emissions on their own because emissions travel 
far and wide. The EPA has dropped the ball and we will all suffer for 
it.
  The EPA had a chance to take a stand for the public health and 
economic well-being of citizens across this country. Under Section 112 
of the Clean Air Act, a nearly 90 percent reduction in mercury 
emissions by 2008 could have been achieved. Instead, the EPA chose to 
pursue an emissions cap-and-trade program that will likely achieve only 
a 70 percent reduction in emissions by 2018--ten years later. Because 
the cap-and-trade system does not require plant-specific controls, 
there are even some estimates that the reductions may not occur until 
20 years out. We can simply not afford the delay. The Northeast States 
for Coordinated

[[Page S9960]]

Air Use Management, NESCAUM, have determined that cost-effective 
technologies to reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent or greater are 
already commercially available.
  Today, we have a chance to undo what the EPA is championing and stand 
up for the people of this country. There is widespread opposition to 
the EPA rule from states, localities, health professionals, groups of 
faith, and many sportsmen and women. I urge my colleagues to vote for 
S.J. Res. 20.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I offer my full support of the 
resolution and wish to thank Senator Leahy, Senator Collins and the 
other cosponsors of this resolution who joined Senator Leahy, Senator 
Collins and me in bringing it forward.
  One in 12 American women of childbearing age have mercury blood 
levels that put their fetuses at risk for developmental delays. 
Developmental delays are a human tragedy, often denying children their 
full intellectual and psychological potential. This human tragedy means 
that our schools and educational system face costs and burdens borne in 
meeting the special needs of these children, burdens that make it that 
much harder for our schools to achieve their overall mission of 
delivering the highest quality education to all Americans. At a time of 
increasing global economic competition in which human capital may be 
our most precious resource, we simply cannot afford to squander our 
people or divert the resources of our schools when we can prevent the 
problem in the first place.
  That is why in 1990, Congress passed and President George H.W. Bush 
signed, comprehensive clean air legislation that, among other things, 
put in place a mechanism for dealing with power plant mercury emissions 
aggressively.
  Unfortunately, the EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule defies that clear 
intent of Congress and the first President Bush by failing to achieve 
anywhere near the full level of cost-effective and timely reductions in 
the emission of mercury from power plants, one of the critical sources 
of mercury in the environment.
  The EPA's mercury rule depends on the agency's decision to undercut 
the Clean Air Act's mechanism for addressing mercury emissions from 
power plants. This resolution explicitly disapproves that undercutting 
decision.
  The resolution should be adopted because the EPA must engage in a new 
rulemaking that is sound and that yields the proper level of reductions 
that the Clean Air Act contemplates and public health and economics 
demand.
  Findings from both the Government Accountability Office and the EPA's 
Inspector General suggest that the EPA has much to repair in the 
rulemaking that led to the current rule. The GAO found that the EPA did 
not adequately evaluate the health benefits that would be achieved from 
requiring more aggressive mercury reductions than called for under the 
current rule. The EPA Inspector General determined that the agency did 
not evaluate what level of emissions reductions were technologically 
achievable, as required by the Clean Air Act. In addition, the EPA 
ignored an EPA-funded study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis 
pointing to substantial additional cardiovascular-related heath 
benefits associated with mercury reduction.
  The Clean Air Mercury Rule was developed and promulgated at the same 
time that the Clean Air Interstate Rule was. The levels of mercury 
reduction expected to occur as a collateral result of reductions in 
sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen under the Interstate Rule are 
almost exactly those required by the Mercury Rule. This seeming 
coincidence raises the strong suspicion the EPA suborned its entire 
analysis of the Mercury Rule to the preordained goal of requiring under 
the Mercury Rule to effect no additional reductions in mercury than 
would be achieved as a collateral effect of the Interstate Rule. The 
flagrant flaws in the EPA's Mercury Rule rulemaking that both the GAO 
and the Inspector General exposed only reinforce that suspicion.
  In contrast, the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to make a 
determination, after careful economic, technological, environmental, 
and public health analysis whether it was ``necessary and appropriate'' 
to regulate utilities' mercury emissions as a hazardous air pollutant 
under section 112. In December of 2000, the EPA, following the Clean 
Air Act's requirements, determined that power plant mercury indeed was 
a hazardous air pollutant, meaning that regulations under Section 112 
of the Clean Air Act were ``necessary and appropriate.'' Once that 
determination was made EPA was required to put in place new technology-
based regulations of mercury emissions from power plants, regulations 
that would call on each electric generating unit in the country to take 
technologically feasible actions to reduce its harmful emissions.
  In contrast to the clear letter and spirit of the law, the new 
mercury rule leaves hundreds of large coal-fired power plants with 
absolutely no mercury controls until after 2020--if ever. In fact, the 
Congressional Research Service estimated that only 4 percent of 
installed power plant capacity is projected to require control by 2020 
under this rule.
  In addition, overall reduction levels under the new rule would be far 
below what can be achieved cost-effectively. In June, the GAO reported 
that the technologies exist for capturing 30-95 percent of mercury from 
coal. Recent tests have shown average removal rates of 70-95 percent 
for all coals, with those technologies applicable to the coals that 
account for 90 percent of power production showing mercury capture in 
excess of 90 percent. Currently, drastic reductions are underway in the 
State of Massachusetts, with mercury technology vendors working to meet 
a State-mandated 85 percent control level. Many, including vendors, 
state that 70-90 percent control can be achieved by the end of this 
decade. Associated costs to electricity consumers would increase by a 
mere 1-5 percent, according to the GAO report. These findings strongly 
suggest that the technology to control mercury is available now. By 
turning its back on a regulatory program that would achieve this level 
of control, the current EPA mercury rule turns its back on tens of 
thousands of children who will continue to be exposed unnecessarily to 
the development risks of mercury.
  The EPA puts great stock in the use of cap-and-trade in its rule, 
and, as my colleagues in the Senate know, I, too, believe that cap-and-
trade is a valuable tool for emissions control programs. In this case, 
I believe that cap-and-trade is the wrong tool to use, at least without 
specific technology requirements and much more stringent reduction 
requirements. Connecticut suffers from deposition of mercury emitted 
from upwind sources, and many highly populated areas within range of 
power plants are seeing significant deposition. To deal with mercury 
emissions, the case is strong, and the Clean Air Act reflects this, for 
requiring plant-by-plant controls.
  At the same time, the EPA did next to nothing in its rulemaking to 
refute this case and to demonstrate that power plants' mercury 
emissions were only widely dispersed and yielded no local deposition. 
Instead, the EPA used an atmospheric model that masked, rather than 
revealed, whether mercury emissions have local deposition impacts. The 
EPA's model divided the Nation's atmosphere into a hypothetical grid of 
individual parcels that, at 500 square miles each, were so big that the 
model simply could not detect local emissions plumes and deposition 
even if it were occurring. When the model is run, the emissions of any 
large power plant within any of the model's grids are immediately 
dispersed by the model throughout the entire volume of that 500 square 
mile grid; the model simply cannot detect localized deposition 
occurring in any area smaller than 500 square miles! Thus, this 
technique cannot possibly reveal local effects occurring downwind of a 
large source. In effect, the model design itself created a self-
fulfilling prophecy, which could only show the result that EPA wanted--
that power plants emissions were dispersed, with no local deposition. 
In these circumstances, EPA has failed to make its case that cap and 
trade is the right tool to achieve both overall reductions and prevent 
harmful local effects.
  Lastly, there is reason to believe that EPA overstated the role of 
global mercury emissions in high-deposition areas. If so, the case for 
plant-specific reduction requirements is even stronger. At the same 
time, even if one of the

[[Page S9961]]

keys to addressing mercury deposition in the U.S. is inducing other 
countries to reduce their emissions, there can be no more effective way 
to accomplish that than if the U.S. itself adopts stringent controls on 
its own power plants and thus stimulates the development and widespread 
use of the technologies to achieve those reductions. If we want other 
Nations to follow our policies and use our technologies then we must 
act first.
  For these reasons, Congress must adopt this resolution and the EPA 
must go back to the drawing board and produce a mercury program that 
will truly protect the American people.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, earlier today I was necessarily detained 
from voting on S.J. Res. 20, ``A Joint Resolution disapproving a rule 
promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
to delist coal and oil-direct utility units from the source category 
list under the Clean Air Act.''
  Mercury emissions and rulings by Federal agencies concerning the 
environment are extremely important. Although my vote would not have 
changed the outcome, I respectfully request that the Record show that 
had I been able to cast my vote, I would have joined with the majority 
of Senators who voted to uphold the administration's rulings and 
against the resolution of disapproval.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we make a mistake when we say this is a 
matter of cap and trade. It is not. We are talking about a toxic waste, 
one that causes birth defects, IQ loss, mental retardation, and 
continues to poison children and pregnant women. One-sixth of pregnant 
women are affected. That is not cap and trade. This idea that we are 
only talking about 1 percent, of course, is not the case. Forty percent 
of the mercury comes from the United States. We are talking about the 
40 percent that is affecting our rivers, our streams, our children. Do 
we simply ignore the proliferation of warnings all over the country 
that fish caught in our streams and lakes and rivers are unsafe to eat? 
Do we allow this rule to move forward when it has been harshly 
criticized by the Bush administration's own EPA inspector general? When 
the Government Accountability Office has said there are major 
shortcomings in the analysis? Or do we uphold the bipartisan work that 
produced the Clean Air Act that protects the health of pregnant women 
and children and try and clean this up now?
  Every one of us will give speeches about how family friendly we are. 
We are talking about children. We are talking about pregnant women. I 
can't think of anything more family friendly than to remove this threat 
of mercury from them. If we vote this down, we are telling a whole 
generation of women and children their health is less important than 
energy company profits. We are going to tell them, rather than go to 
the scientists, rather than go with what the Bush administration's own 
inspector general said, instead we will take the regulations that were 
written, in many parts, verbatim by the industry.
  What are we going to say to the families who live in the hotspots of 
today or tomorrow? This rule is a danger to America's women and 
children. It is time to do it over and do it right. I hope my 
colleagues will support the resolution. This is not a moot point. If we 
pass this resolution, maybe it will be enough of a signal to have 
people go back and do what the inspector general of the EPA said, what 
the Government Accountability Office has said, and actually do it 
right, actually follow their own procedures.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me address a couple things that were 
stated. First, let me inquire as to the time remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 30 seconds 
remaining. The Senator from Vermont has no time remaining.
  Mr. INHOFE. First, it is the Energy Information Administration that 
came out and did the study on this. They said that there would be fuel 
switching. I only have to ask the question, if you are not able to use 
coal-fired plants, what are you going to switch to? Is it going to be 
windmills? There would be fuel switching, and it would have a 
devastating effect in terms of the problems that already exist in terms 
of the cost of natural gas.
  The Senator from Vermont is passionate on this subject, and I don't 
want to be critical. But in talking about hotspots, that is the same 
thing that they said about acid rain--there are going to be hotspots--
and it didn't happen. Thirdly, the point that was brought up on being 
family friendly. When you look at the fact that they say studies show 
that not a single woman or child has a blood mercury level approaching 
the level at which even the smallest affect was observed in any study, 
where is the real problem there? If you want to be family friendly, 
let's be a little concerned about the cost of fertilizer, about the 
cost of heating our homes when winter comes.
  This is an exercise in futility. The President has already announced 
if this thing should pass--they will feel good and rejoice--he will 
veto it, and you can't override a veto. It is a done deal. The current 
rule regulates mercury for the first time. The current rule's cost is 
$2 billion, as opposed to $358 billion, a huge difference. A vote for 
this rule is a vote to drive the remaining chemical plants overseas. A 
vote for this rule is going to be a vote to increase the cost of 
fertilizer for every farmer in America. The cap and trade worked on 
acid rain, and it will work accurately now. All the talk about U.S. 
powerplants. They only contribute 1 percent of the mercury that is in 
the system now globally.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. All time 
has expired.
  Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to a vote on 
passage of the joint resolution.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question 
is, Shall it pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 225 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hatch
     Rockefeller
       
  The joint resolution was rejected.

[[Page S9962]]

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________