[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21344-21347]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
          RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--Continued

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that there be 30 minutes for debate 
equally divided in the usual form in relation to the Kyl amendment 
regarding impact aid prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with 
no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  H.R. 3061 is now pending before the Senate. The Senator from Arizona 
is recognized to offer an amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2075

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for himself and Mr. 
     McCain, Mr. Domenici, and Mrs. Hutchison, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2075.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place add the following:
       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no 
     appropriation contained in this Act for the purposes of 
     school repair or renovation of state and local schools shall 
     remain available beyond the current fiscal year unless 
     assistance under such program is provided to meet the 
     renovation or repair needs of Indian schools and schools 
     receiving Impact Aid or under the jurisdiction of the 
     Department of Defense or the Bureau of Indian Affairs prior 
     to making such assistance available to other schools: 
     Provided further, notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Education is not authorized to expend 
     or transfer unexpended balances of prior appropriations 
     appropriated for the purposes of school repair or renovation 
     of state and local schools to accounts corresponding to 
     current appropriations provided in this Act: Provided, 
     however, that such balances may be expended and so 
     transferred if the unexpended balances are used for the 
     purpose of providing assistance to meet the renovation or 
     repair needs of Indian schools and schools receiving Impact 
     Aid or under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense or 
     the Bureau of Indian Affairs prior to making such repair or 
     renovation assistance available to other schools.''.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I note that this amendment is cosponsored by 
the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, my colleague from Arizona, 
Mr. McCain, and the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison. It is an 
amendment which we have debated before but which I now present as the 
appropriate time for getting this done.
  This amendment would make it very clear that the Federal Government 
from now on must give absolute priority to Indian military and impact 
aid schools when it allocates funds for school renovation or repair. 
The amendment establishes this priority by directing the Secretary of 
Education to direct any school construction funds not expended in a 
given fiscal year only to those categories of schools that fall within 
the exclusive responsibility of the Federal Government; namely, the 
impact aid schools, Department of Defense schools, and Bureau of Indian 
Affairs schools.
  This priority would apply to unexpended funds from fiscal years 2001 
and 2002.
  As I said, this debate is not a new one. The question before us is, 
should the Federal Government concentrate on meeting its fundamental 
existing obligations or should we define our mission as finding new 
things for the Federal Government to do first?
  Most aspects of primary and secondary education have traditionally 
been, and remain, the responsibility of States and local school 
districts. But there are certain facets of elementary and secondary 
education in this country that are the clear and only responsibility of 
the Federal Government. Those are the education of our Indian children, 
the children on reservations, and the so-called impact aid schools.
  Yet proponents of finding new things to do with Federal education 
dollars propose branching out into new areas and ignoring this 
fundamental Federal obligation to, first of all, take care of these 
kids' educational needs.
  So under this bill, the way it is written right now, without my 
amendment, for the first time the Federal Government begins building 
schools, which is a State responsibility, while ignoring the obligation 
to the Indian children and the children on American military bases.
  The Federal Government has a huge unmet obligation to address the 
infrastructure needs of schools administered under the auspices of the 
BIA, as well as those schools impacted by the presence, within their 
taxing jurisdictions, of Federal installations through the program 
known as impact aid.
  Yet by extending this unauthorized school construction program--and I 
note ``unauthorized''--the money in this Labor-HHS bill has never been 
endorsed by the Senate on a recorded vote. The language in the bill 
would entangle the Federal Government in the business of building and 
repairing local schools, while leaving the existing needs on the 
Federal reservations unmet.
  Impact aid provides funds for school facility repair and renovation, 
especially on, as I said, the schools that are largely on Indian lands. 
All told, impact aid assists 1,600 schools serving 1.2 million 
federally connected children. In addition, the Department of Defense 
operates 70 schools nationwide.
  Impact aid construction has not been fully funded since 1967. The 
result is a huge backlog of projects estimated to exceed $2 billion. 
These numbers only hint at the grim reality faced by students and 
teachers in these impacted districts.
  A school board member in a military impact aid district told 
Education Week that some districts conducted so much of their business 
in portable classrooms and aging buildings that they ``more closely 
resemble prison camps than schools.''
  He went on to say: ``Our troops are in Bosnia and those are the kinds 
of schools their kids''--that is, the children of war-torn Bosnia--
``are in.''
  The Military Impacted Schools Association has estimated it would take 
$310 million to meet facilities needs in their members' districts.
  The situation for Indian impacted schools is even more dire. 
According to a 1996 study by the National Indian Impacted Schools 
Association, a typical district of this type had more than $7 million 
in facilities needs.
  It is important to reiterate that these federally impacted districts 
cannot rely on the local property tax base to fund repairs and 
construction, unlike nearly all of the districts that would receive the 
funds appropriated under this bill.
  The superintendent of one district in my State, for example, reports 
that his

[[Page 21345]]

jurisdiction contains exactly four taxpayers. I know in one of the 
counties in my State, where I had to help because of the large amounts 
of Federal land, only 1 percent of the land--and most of the taxing 
comes from property taxes--was non-Federal land in this community; in 
fact, only 3 percent in the entire county. Most States do not have that 
problem.
  But since the Federal Government has the obligation of educating 
these kids, then it is important for us to ensure that the priority for 
construction be given to these districts. The facilities, as I said, 
are in dire straits on our Indian reservations, which educate about 
50,000 Indian students. The education of Indian children, which 
includes the provision of safe and adequate facilities, is a specific 
trust responsibility of the United States and is codified in numerous 
treaties and acts of Congress.
  Nobody who believes in keeping our treaty obligations to Native 
Americans can vote against this amendment because its purpose is to 
ensure that we meet the obligations of these treaties.
  According to testimony from the Director of the Office of Indian 
Education Programs, half of the schools within the jurisdiction of the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs have exceeded their useful lives of 50 years 
and more than 20 percent are over 50 years old.
  No fewer than 96 schools need to be entirely replaced. Many students 
lack access to computer and science labs, gym facilities, and other 
basic resources.
  At least one school in my State lacks even a library and basic dining 
facilities.
  The Committee on Indian Affairs estimates it would take $2.1 billion 
to address these schools' current repair and renovation needs.
  I am pleased that President Bush has made it a priority to address 
the construction needs of Indian and impact aid schools. But that will 
only occur if we can adopt the amendment that I have proposed.
  The President's fiscal year 2002 budget proposal provided for a 
significant increase in impact aid construction. This is the first step 
toward keeping the promise that we made to our Native Americans.
  By passing my amendment, the Senate will make it clear that Congress 
shares this commitment and will put existing Federal obligations ahead 
of proposals to involve the Federal Government in areas that can and 
should be addressed by States and local governments.
  For those colleagues who want to know where the major impact of this 
is, I will candidly tell you, my State of Arizona is one of the States 
of major impact because of the large number of Indian students we have 
in Arizona and the large number of students being educated in 
affiliation with military bases.
  Other States, however, that are also very heavily impacted and that 
would be benefited significantly by this amendment are the States of 
New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Missouri, and 
Nebraska. Those are, candidly, the States that receive the most 
benefit. But almost every State would, in some respect, benefit by the 
allocation of these funds on this priority basis.
  Mr. President, I am going the reserve the remainder of my time to see 
if there is any response to my amendment. I will be happy to reply to 
any points that any of my colleagues may have if there is any objection 
to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am beginning to wonder where my friend 
from Arizona was a couple hours ago. I ask him, where was he? Senator 
Inhofe of Oklahoma just came to this Chamber 3 hours ago and offered an 
amendment which was approved by the Senate. The Senator from Arizona 
raised no objection, none. None of his staff came to me to raise an 
objection.
  And what did the Inhofe amendment do? It reduced the funding for 
impact aid construction. It transferred the money to basic support 
payments.
  Three hours ago we voted unanimously, as a Senate, to reduce impact 
aid construction. Now the Senator from Arizona comes to this Chamber 
and wants to increase impact aid construction. I ask, where was he 3 
hours ago? Why didn't he oppose the Inhofe amendment?
  I think what that shows is really what the Senator from Arizona is 
after: They want to undo what the Senate did earlier by a vote of 54-
45; that is, to provide renovation and construction money for schools 
all over America.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I do not have much time, but I am delighted to yield.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I ask my colleague, does it seem odd--and I speak as 
someone who has been very committed to impact aid schools in my State--
that some people would have voted earlier to spend billions of dollars 
in tax relief that went into the hands of people already millionaires, 
and then to come to us today to tell us the only way we can help repair 
and build impact aid schools is to take it from other schools that are 
in desperate need of school construction and repair? Does it seem to 
the Senator that the goal here is an ideological issue to make sure 
that somehow the Federal Government does not get into the business of 
assisting school districts with school construction and that is what 
seems to be the end product of this amendment?
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank my friend from South Dakota for pointing that 
out. I am glad I yielded to him. I had not thought of it that way.
  The Senator is absolutely right. This is an attempt by my friend from 
Arizona to try to undo what we did earlier and then, as the Senator 
pointed out, to take money from some poor schools and put it into 
certain poor schools. That is what he is trying to do.
  I don't know. I cannot believe the Senator is really serious about 
this. First of all, last year, Congress approved $12.8 million for 
impact aid construction.
  This year, with the leadership of my good friend from Pennsylvania, 
Senator Specter, and I and others on our committee, we raised that from 
$12.8 million to $68 million. Last year, impact aid construction was 
$12.8 million. We raised it to $68 million in our bill. The Inhofe 
amendment earlier knocked it down to $35 million. That is still three 
times more than what we spent last year. I am proud of that increase. 
We fought hard for it.
  But I ask the Senator from Arizona, where was he 3 hours ago, to come 
over here and fight against the Inhofe amendment?
  I am proud that we stuck up for impact aid schools and school 
construction. Again, last year, Senator Specter and I, in conference--I 
say this to all Senators who are here or may be watching on their 
sets--carved out of our construction money $75 million for impact aid 
construction. We will be happy to do that again in conference to make 
sure our Indian schools and impact aid schools can get some of this 
money. I wish now that maybe we had opposed the Inhofe amendment and 
maybe the Senator from Arizona would have helped us round up some 
votes. That was $68 million.
  Under the wording of the amendment of the Senator from Arizona, there 
are 10 States that have applied for school renovation and repair money. 
The money has not gone out yet. His amendment would say: You are not 
going to get it. That is money we appropriated last year. Those States 
are Alaska, Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Georgia, New 
Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, and Utah. All those 
States would have the money taken away. I hope Senators understand that 
when they come over here to vote.
  Again, this is nothing more than a bald face attempt to undo what the 
Senate did earlier today when we said, I thought very loudly, 54 votes 
to 45 votes, that we wanted to provide school construction money. I 
can't speak for my friend from Pennsylvania, but we did carve out the 
money last time. When we get into conference, we will try to undo what 
Senator Inhofe did earlier and try to get that money back up to the 
level at which we initially agreed upon in our committee on a 
bipartisan basis, which was $68 million.

[[Page 21346]]

  I am certain we could at least carve out that much more for Indian 
schools. We did it last year, and I am sure we can do it again this 
year.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains for Senator Harkin?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 8\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask the Senator to yield me 4 minutes.
  Mr. President, I join the chairman of the subcommittee in opposing 
the amendment by the Senator from Arizona. I believe that impact aid is 
very important, beyond any question.
  We have the responsibility, as proponents of this bill, to make a lot 
of allocations. We try to do it as fairly as we can, recognizing all of 
the priorities which are present.
  Senator Harkin pointed out that we raised impact aid from $12.5 
million last year to $68 million. It is difficult to follow all the 
matters. Another Senator approached us and has raised a concern. I made 
a statement that there would be an effort made in conference--that is 
always uncertain--to put back some of the money which was transferred 
by the amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe.
  As Senator Harkin has already noted, last year we did make an 
allocation from school construction money. Basically, this is a dispute 
about the role of the Federal Government in school construction.
  We had a very spirited debate on the amendment by the Senator from 
New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, earlier today. A margin of 54-45 on a hotly 
contested issue is a fairly decisive margin.
  It is my view that we will try to improve the position of impact aid 
which the Senator from Arizona wants once in conference, but the 
allocations which we have made here, taking the bill as a whole, 
represent a fair allocation.
  In dealing with a budget of this size, we have had relatively few 
amendments offered signifying relatively little opposition to the 
priorities which were established first by the chairman and the ranking 
member and then by the full subcommittee and then by the full 
committee.
  I oppose the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes, 45 seconds.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If no one yields time, time will be charged 
equally to both sides.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if no one is speaking, this might be a 
good time for a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, as a matter of courtesy, I was trying to 
enable those in opposition to the amendment to continue to speak.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Allard be added as a cosponsor 
to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me respond to the two questions the 
Senator from Iowa asked. The first question was where was I during the 
Inhofe amendment. He presumes, I gather, that I opposed the Inhofe 
amendment. I didn't oppose the Inhofe amendment. I don't. I guess I 
would ask where he was. It was approved on a voice vote unanimously, as 
I understand it.
  Second, he characterizes my amendment as an attempt to undo what we 
already did today. I want to make clear that I will characterize my 
amendment as I did in my opening presentation. What we did earlier 
today is not what this amendment is all about.
  The amendment I presume the Senator from Iowa is referring to is the 
amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire. That is an 
amendment which would have transferred the funds from the program the 
Senator from Iowa supports to title I programs. My amendment doesn't 
have anything to do with title I programs. My amendment says merely 
that the priority in the expenditure of school construction funds--that 
is what they are used for: construction, repair, renovation, and so 
on--that the priority for that funding be first to the Federal area of 
responsibility, the Indian kids, the kids on the military bases, the 
impact aid districts; in other words, those children who are the 
responsibility for being educated by the Federal Government should have 
the first priority in the school construction funds.
  I am not trying to undo what we did earlier today. I supported the 
Gregg amendment. But what I would prefer to see us do is to say that 
the funds that we are going to put forth for construction of schools be 
prioritized, and that the first priority be the responsibility of the 
Federal Government.
  That is for two reasons: No. 1, the States and local school districts 
have the ability to fund the construction of the schools that they have 
a tax base to fund. As I pointed out, in some of these reservation 
areas, be it military reservation or other Federal reservation, there 
is not the tax base to support it.
  Second, we have a huge unmet obligation. We as Federal legislators 
should be ashamed that there is an over $2 billion shortfall in the 
funding of Indian school construction. That is our obligation. It is a 
treaty obligation.
  All I am saying is, we take the Federal obligation, put that at the 
top, and then the other schools can be funded. Those are the State and 
local schools' responsibilities. Up until last year, the Federal 
Government had never paid a dollar for construction of those schools. 
Let's keep the priority we should have had in the first place to fund 
our obligation first, the Federal schools, and then the rest of the 
money could go to the funding of the State and local schools.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I still didn't hear the answer to the 
question, where he was, and if he opposed the Inhofe amendment or not. 
I didn't hear about that. Nonetheless, we do have an obligation to our 
Indian schools and our places where we have military bases, that kind 
of thing, for impact aid. There is no doubt about that.
  Obviously, under the wording of his amendment, there would be no 
money left for any other States that don't get any impact aid 
whatsoever. Again, we are trying to be fair about this and to answer 
the needs of construction all over America.
  Let's face it, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that 
the repair needs of our schools in America are about $187 billion.
  And so we are trying to get a billion out nationally. But as I 
pointed out and Senator Specter pointed out earlier today, that money 
is leveraged. We have experience in knowing how that money is 
leveraged. So we might get maybe 7 to 10 times leverage on that. So $1 
billion might equal $7 billion to $10 billion in construction in 
schools. So it helps, but it is nowhere near what needs to be done all 
over this country.
  Under the amendment by the Senator from Arizona, there would not be 
any money left for anyone. All of the money would go to Indian schools 
and to the impact area aid schools, where there are military bases. I 
don't think that is what we want to do here.
  As I said, we carved out money last time. I have talked to a lot of 
my friends who are Native Americans in Indian territory. They were very 
appreciative of that money. We carved out $75 million. Quite frankly, 
we accepted the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. However, it is 
my intention, along with the ranking member, to make sure we meet our 
obligations again this year in carving it out again in the conference 
committee when we go to conference.
  The last thing I will mention is that the amendment offered by the 
Senator

[[Page 21347]]

from Arizona is also retrospective. It goes back last year and takes 
money from last year that States have already applied for; it takes 
that money away from them, too. I hardly think we want to do that.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. INHOFE. On this point, I have looked at the Kyl amendment, and 
his language affects a different section. Mine is just found in the 
section dealing with impact aid under ``basic support.'' Now, the 
change in funding came from the construction portion of that section, 
which is a different section. That is my understanding, and it would 
not make the conference report.
  Mr. HARKIN. Also, the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma reduced 
impact aid construction. I don't care what you say. It puts it into the 
basic impact aid.
  Mr. INHOFE. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is correct. So this Senator from Arizona wants to 
boost up impact aid construction. This is really to take away school 
construction money. I don't think we need to talk anymore about it. We 
all know what this is about.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will set the record straight. The Senator 
said he didn't get an answer to my question. I was in a briefing during 
the Inhofe amendment in S-407 as a member of the Senate Intelligence 
Committee on some other matters. I didn't object to the Inhofe 
amendment. Like the Senator from Iowa, I was willing to have it 
approved on a unanimous vote. The Senator from Oklahoma has explained 
that it deals with a different section of the bill. That is irrelevant.
  There is one central question before us. I ask my colleagues to focus 
on this carefully. Until last year, there had never been a thought that 
the Federal Government would begin building schools that had always 
been the responsibility of our States and the local school districts. 
There was never a thought that we would do that. Our school 
construction effort was always targeted to our one area of 
responsibility--the kids on the military reservations, Indian 
reservations, and the other Federal impact aid areas. That was our 
responsibility, and it remains our responsibility now.
  But what we are now proposing to do is to take the school 
construction money and distribute it all around the country to States 
and local school districts. I am sure there is a lot of good politics 
in that, Mr. President, but it is the wrong policy for those of us at 
the Federal Government level who have a responsibility to these other 
children. We are not meeting that responsibility.
  If we were building the schools on the Indian reservations or taking 
care of these military children, that would be one thing. I have 
pointed out that we were failing miserably in that responsibility. I 
ask colleagues, how can we sit here and blithely spend over $900 
million on schools around the country that could just as easily be 
built by the taxpayers of those jurisdictions, while ignoring our 
responsibility to the very kids who are our responsibility and whom the 
States and local governments can't take care of.
  What sense does that make? How does that make us feel at night when 
we go to bed and say we have done a good thing today--violating 
treaties with our Native Americans and denying the kids of the people 
we put in harm's way serving in the military the kind of education 
other kids get because we want to sprinkle that money around the 
country rather than putting it in the area of responsibility that we in 
the Federal Government have.
  That is horrible public policy. The only way to set it right is to 
reorder the priorities and put back as the first priority our 
responsibility of funding the schools in the military and for the 
Indian reservations, and that would remain our top priority for school 
construction. To do that, we need to vote yes on the Kyl amendment. I 
urge colleagues to do that.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.


                       Order of Procedure--votes

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
to request the yeas and nays en bloc on the two conference reports.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on both conference reports.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and 
I move to table the Kyl amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 47 seconds.
  Mr. KYL. I will yield back my time. I am sorry we have to confuse the 
issue by moving to table it. In view of that, the proper vote here now 
is a ``no'' vote to table the Kyl amendment. I yield back my time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the first vote 
be the normal 15 minutes and the subsequent two be 10-minute votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to table the Kyl amendment and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) 
and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 319 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Conrad
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hagel
     Sessions
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was 
agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________