[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 49 (Wednesday, April 17, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3446-S3450]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, for my friend from New York, I will just
move to table this amendment. But I think, because he approaches things
in such a scholarly manner, I should take just a few minutes to explain
why we cannot accept his amendment and why I will move to table.
Mr. President, I think that part of the disagreement we have with
respect to the appropriate standard of review in habeas petitions
involves differing visions as to the proper role of habeas review.
Federal habeas review takes place only after there has been a trial,
direct review by a State appellate court, a second review by a State
supreme court, and than a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. Thus we
have a trial and at least three levels of appellate review. In a
capital case, the petitioner often files a clemency petition, so the
State executive branch also has an opportunity to review the case.
But that is not the end. In virtually every State, a postconviction
collateral proceeding exists. In other words, the prisoner can file a
habeas corpus petition in State court. That petition is routinely
subject to appellate review by an intermediate court and the State
supreme court. The prisoner may then file a second petition in the U.S.
Supreme Court, and may also, of course, seek a second review by the
Governor.
So, after conviction, we have at least six levels of review by State
courts and two rounds of review--at least in capital cases--by the
State executive. Contrary to the impression that may be left by some of
my colleagues, Federal habeas review does not take place until well
after conviction and numerous rounds of direct and collateral review.
The Supreme Court has clearly held that habeas review is not an
essential prerequisite to conviction. Indeed, this very term, the
Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the Constitution does not
even require direct review as a prerequisite for a valid conviction.
Now that we have set the proper context for this debate, let us just
look at the proposed standard. Under the standard contained in the
bill, Federal courts would be required to defer to the determinations
of State courts unless the State court's decision was ``contrary to, or
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal
law, as determined by the Supreme Court . . . .''
This is a wholly appropriate standard. It enables the Federal court
to overturn State court decisions that clearly contravene Federal law.
Indeed, this standard essentially gives the Federal court the authority
to review, de novo, whether the State court decided the claim in
contravention of Federal law.
Moreover, the review standard proposed allows the Federal courts to
review State court decisions that improperly apply clearly established
Federal law. In other words, if the State court unreasonably applied
Federal laws, its determination is subject to review by the Federal
courts.
What does this mean? It means that if the State court reasonably
applied Federal law, its decision must be upheld. Why is this a
problematic standard? After all, Federal habeas review exists to
correct fundamental defects in the law. After the State court
[[Page S3447]]
has reasonably applied Federal law, it is hard to say that a
fundamental defect exists.
The Supreme Court, in Harlow versus Fitzgerald, has held that if the
police officers' conduct was reasonable, no claim for damages under
Bivens can be maintained. In Leon versus United States, the Supreme
Court held that if the police officers' conduct in conducting a search
was reasonable, no fourth amendment violation would obtain and the
Court could not order suppression of evidence obtained as a result of
the search. The Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed the principal
that no remedy is available where the Government acts reasonably.
Why then, given this preference for reasonableness in the law, should
we empower a Federal court to reverse a State court's reasonable
application of Federal law to the facts?
Our proposed standard simply ends the improper review of State court
decisions. After all, State courts are required to uphold the
Constitution and to faithfully apply Federal laws. There is simply no
reason that Federal courts should have the ability to virtually retry
cases that have been properly adjudicated by our State courts.
I think that once we cut away the camouflage surrounding the
arguments against our proposed habeas reform package, we find two
things: First, a disagreement with the death penalty as a punishment.
That is a legitimate disagreement. I, personally, am in favor of the
death penalty, but I would very sparingly use it. But there are others
who very sincerely believe that the death penalty is wrong. I can
understand that. Many people have moral or ethical concerns about the
death penalty, and many more in this country, the vast majority,
believe we should have a death penalty for the most heinous murders and
crimes in our society. I am appreciative, though, and sensitive to the
concerns of others who feel otherwise. Many of my colleagues have
heartfelt views on this matter, and I respect the sincerity of those
views.
But if the arguments against meaningful habeas reform are in reality
arguments against the death penalty, then let us debate the efficacy of
the death penalty. Let us decide whether death is the appropriate
sanction for people like those who murdered the 168 individuals in
Oklahoma City. I am prepared to debate the point. But let us not
disguise this argument.
The second argument I think my friends are making is that they
fundamentally distrust the decisions of State courts. They believe that
State courts are somehow incompetent to try important cases. They
believe that State juries are somehow not as good as Federal juries;
that State court judges are not as qualified as Federal judges; that
State prosecutors and defense attorneys are not as adept as their
Federal counterparts. Although I generally disagree with this argument,
I can understand it. I can debate it. I can argue about the merits of
having State criminal justice systems at all. I can debate the issue of
whether something magical happens when a State court judge becomes a
Federal judge. But if this is what really concerns the opponents to the
habeas reform, then let us debate the point straight up. We should not
allow this debate to be derailed.
My good friend, the Senator from New York, referred to the Great
Writ, which is part of the Constitution. He need not fear for the Great
Writ, if this proposal is enacted, in other words, if our bill is
enacted. The Great Writ of Habeas Corpus contained in the Constitution
applied to only two circumstances: No. 1, to challenge an illegal
imprisonment before trial; and, No. 2, to determine whether the trial
court had jurisdiction to hear the case.
The habeas corpus we are reforming is the statutory form of habeas
corpus. There are some in this body who oppose such reform. I believe
they are motivated in part, in major part, by their desire to stop the
death penalty or to oppose the death penalty. I can understand that
position, although I disagree with it, and I think the vast majority of
Americans disagree with it.
I believe convicted killers should be punished, and the particularly
heinous killings ought to be punished with the death penalty. I think
the survivors and family, the victims of this type of heinous murder,
have a right to see that those who killed their loved ones are justly
punished. That is why we have to pass this provision. It is long
overdue.
To me, and I think to many others, almost everybody in law
enforcement today, the habeas corpus provision that we have in this
bill is a good one. The standard is a good one. The deference to State
law is good, because it just means that we defer to them if they have
properly applied Federal law. We should not give some judge who hates
the death penalty a right to disrupt that whole process when there is
no legal justification for doing so. Frankly, we have allowed the
procedural justifications to exist for far too long and that is what
this is all about.
So, having said that, I have letters from all kinds of law
enforcement organizations, including some organizations that have
fought for civil liberties all of their existence, that support our
habeas corpus reform because it is time to have that in law. It is time
to get rid of the charade. They support the habeas corpus reform more
than any--or the death penalty reform, more than any other provision in
this bill, although there are many good provisions in this bill.
Having said all that, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my
time, and, on behalf of Senator Dole and myself, I move to table the
amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, might I ask for 30 seconds to thank my
friend and respond?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I thank him for his thoughtful, careful
response. I would like to make the point that my concern is not with
the death penalty but with habeas corpus itself. I have had a long
experience, as the manager has had, with problems of terrorism. As I
said a moment ago, the only time the terrorists ever win is when they
begin to make you change your own fundamental political and judicial
processes, and that is what I fear this will do. It is of some relief
to hear the distinguished manager's statement that the Great Writ will
remain substantially intact.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if I can have 30 seconds. The Great Writ
will not be affected by this one bit. I appreciate his concerns, and I
believe he will find this provision will help us in fighting violent
criminals.
So I move to table the motion. I believe we have the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table the motion to recommit.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 35, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 66 Leg.]
YEAS--64
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Bryan
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Pressler
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--35
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bumpers
Byrd
Cohen
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Glenn
Harkin
Heflin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
[[Page S3448]]
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--1
Mack
So the motion to lay on the table the motion to recommit was agreed
to.
Mr. HATCH. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I move to recommit the conference report on
the bill S. 735 to the committee of conference with instructions to the
managers on the part of the Senate to disagree to the conference
substitute recommended by the committee of conference and insist on
inserting the following language to prohibit the distribution of
information relating to explosive materials for a criminal purposes.
I send the motion to the desk.
The motion is as follows:
Motion to recommit the conference report on the bill S. 735
to the committee of conference with instructions to the
managers on the part of the Senate to disagree to the
conference substitute recommended by the committee of
conference and insist on inserting the following:
SEC. . PROHIBITION ON DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION RELATING
TO EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS FOR A CRIMINAL PURPOSE.
(a) Section 842 of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to teach or
demonstrate the making of explosive materials, or to
distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole
or in part, the manufacture of explosive materials, if the
person intends or knows, that such explosive materials or
information will be used for, or in furtherance of, an
activity that constitutes a Federal criminal offense or a
criminal purpose affecting interstate commerce.''.
(b) Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by designating subsection (a) as subsection (a)(1) and by
adding the following new subsection:
``(a)(2) Any person who violates subsection (1) of section
842 of this chapter shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use
within the limit of the time I have.
This provision is very straightforward and simple. It is beyond me
why it was taken out of the Senate version of the language that was
sent to the House.
I have heard many colleagues stand up on the floor here and rail
against pornography on the Internet, and for good reason. Even when we
thought we had corrected the language that Senator Exon introduced to
comport with the first amendment, I still hear in my State, and I hear
of people writing about how so and so is promoting pornography on the
Internet because they will not ban pornography on the Internet.
Yet, in the bill, we came along--all of us here--and the genesis of
this came from Senator Feinstein, when it was initially offered. The
majority leader, Senator Hatch, and I had some concerns with this, and
we thought the language to ban teaching people how to make bombs on the
Internet or engage in terrorist activities on the Internet might
violate the first amendment. Senators Dole, Hatch, and I worked to
tighten the language and came up with language that was tough and true
to civil liberties. It was accepted by unanimous consent.
We have all heard about the bone-chilling information making its way
over the Internet, about explicit instructions about how to detonate
pipe bombs and even, if you can believe it, baby food bombs. Senator
Feinstein quoted an Internet posting that detailed how to build and
explode one of these things, which concludes that ``If the explosion
don't get'em, the glass will. If the glass don't get'em, the nails
will.''
I would like to give you a couple of illustrations of the kinds of
things that come across the Internet. This is one I have in my hand
which was downloaded. It said, ``Baby food bombs by War Master.'' And
this is actually downloaded off the Internet. It says:
These simple, powerful bombs are not very well known, even
though all of the materials can be obtained by anyone
(including minors). These things are so--
I will delete a word because it is an obscenity.
powerful that they can destroy a CAR. The explosion can
actually twist and mangle the frame. They are extremely
deadly and can very easily kill you and blow the side of a
house out if you mess up while building it. Here is how they
work.
This is on the Internet now. It says:
Go to Sports Authority or Herman's Sport Shop and
buy shotgun shells. It is by the hunting section. At the
Sports Authority that I go to you can actually buy shotgun
shells without a parent or an adult. They don't keep it
behind the glass counter, or anything like that. It is
$2.96 for 25 shells.
And then it says:
Now for the hard part. You must cut open the plastic
housing of the bullet to get to the sweet nectar that is the
gun powder. The place where you can cut is CRUCIAL. It means
a difference between it blowing up in your face or not.
Then there is a diagram, which is shown as to how to do that on the
Internet. Then it says:
You must not make the cut directly where the gun powder is,
or it will explode. You cut it where the pellets are.
And then it goes through this in detail. And then it gets to the end,
and it says:
Did I mention that this is also highly illegal? Unimportant
stuff that is cool to know.
And then it rates shotgun shells by two numbers, gauge, pellet size,
and goes into great detail. It is like building an erector set. It does
it in detail.
So what Senators Dole and Hatch and I did, we said you should not be
able to do this, but we have a first amendment problem, possibly. So we
added a provision that says that you have to have the intent, when you
are teaching people how to do this, that the person using it is using
it for the purpose of doing harm.
So it seems to me that this is pretty straightforward. Granted, I
want to stop pornography on the Internet. I think pornography does harm
to the minds of the people who observe it, particularly young people.
But if that does harm, how much harm is done by teaching a 15-year-old
kid, a 12-year-old kid, or a 20-year-old person, with great detail, how
to build a baby food bomb, or how to build an automatic particle
explosion provision, or how to build light bulb bombs.
It says:
An automatic reaction to walking into a dark room is to
turn on the light. This can be fatal if a light-bulb bomb has
been placed in the overhead light socket. A light-bulb bomb
is surprisingly easy to make. It also comes with its own
initiator and electric ignition system. On some light-bulbs,
the light-bulb glass can be removed from the metal base by
heating the base of the light bulb in a glass flame, such as
that of a blowtorch and a gas stove.
And so on and so forth. It goes on to explain how if you attach a
plastic back to the light bulb when you remove the glass part but leave
the filament and attach it and tape it there, when someone comes in and
turns on the light, it blows up the room. Or, if you want to just play
a prank, you could put odorous, smelling materials in the bag. It would
blow up the bag. But you can put anything in it, and it blows it up.
We said in the language we passed that it shall be unlawful for any
person to teach or demonstrate the making of explosive materials, or to
distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part,
the manufacture of explosive materials if the person intends or knows
that such explosive material, or information will be used for, or in
the furtherance of, activity that constitutes a Federal criminal
offense, or a criminal purpose affecting interstate commerce. And the
House took it out. The House removed it.
I want to say to all of you who are going to probably vote down my
putting this back in, I want to hear you explain to your folks back
home when a commercial is run on your television station that Senator
Jones or Senator whoever voted against prohibiting on the Internet
explicit directions how to make a bomb knowing that the person intends
to use it. I want to hear your
[[Page S3449]]
explanation of that. I want to be there when you explain that one.
Let me read the statute again. It says: It shall be unlawful for a
person to teach or demonstrate, et cetera, if the person intends or
knows that such explosive material or information will be used for, or
in the furtherance of, activity that constitutes a Federal crime.
``Knows or intends'' is a pretty a high standard falling, in my view,
and in the view of constitutional scholars, well within our first
amendment privileges. I just think this is crazy.
Let me go on just a few more moments, and then I will stop. The
provision is pretty straightforward. If you are one of the guys who has
made a name for himself by bringing manifestoes like ``The Terrorist
Handbook'' or ``How to Kill With Joy,'' which literally are on the
Internet, and if someone comes to you and says, ``Tomorrow morning a
group of police officers are going to be meeting at the Fifth Street
precinct, and I want to blow them up,'' and if you say to them, ``Here,
let me tell you how to make a bomb,'' arguably at that point the police
can get you on a conspiracy charge. That is possible. That is possible.
But if you just know what they are about, you see them all out there in
a car, you look down and see that they have this plan, and you go ahead
and tell them how to make a bomb, it is not a violation of the law to
teach them how to make the bomb. Is not that incredible?
Last June, all of us in this body agreed to this. I hope we will
agree to it again because let me tell you, if this will kill the bill,
as I am sure my colleague from Utah is going to say it will, I want to
hear--if this is the only change in the bill--I want to see those House
Members stand up and say, ``The reason I am not voting for this
terrorist legislation is because I want to continue to allow people to
teach people how to make bombs,'' knowing that they are going to be
used to commit a crime or kill someone, ``And that is why I am voting
against this bill,'' because it now contains a provision that prohibits
that, I think maybe this is time to face down some of those people over
there. Let them stand up and tell all of our colleagues around the
Nation, and tell the parents around the Nation, that that is the reason
they are voting against the terrorism bill.
I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will only take a couple of minutes, and
then I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.
The constitution of conspiracy to use an explosive to commit a felony
is already provided for in precedent law, 18 U.S.C. 844(h). Thus,
anyone who trains a terrorist to make a bomb as part of such a
conspiracy would certainly be prosecuted under current law.
I want to make it clear that I do not entirely disagree with Senator
Biden's position. However, we have been facing down this problem for a
year now. Friday is the day where we commemorate this awful tragedy.
Frankly, we have gone through every detail in this bill, and we have
not been able to get it exactly to Senator Biden's desire, or even
mine, but this is it. This is the bill. And anything short of this is
going to amount to losing the bill.
Like I said, I do not entirely disagree with Senator Biden's
position. However, there are many who have raised first amendment and
intellectual property concerns about this provision. They are
legitimate concerns. As the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which
handles all of the patents, copyrights, and trademark issues, I can say
they are legitimate. So, consequently, we have included a study in the
bill to ensure that we can criminalize efforts to distribute bombmaking
materials without impinging upon constitutional freedoms. Besides,
there is little doubt that anyone who knowingly transmits information
to use explosives to commit a felony is already subject to Federal law;
18 U.S.C. 844(h) does that.
So, frankly, I would like to accommodate the distinguished Senator
from Delaware, but we tried to and we have been unable to accommodate
him. Frankly, I contend that any return to the conference will kill
this bill.
I am prepared to yield. I apologize for not being able to do more.
But we think we have brought this bill back to a very, very strong
level, and we have had a lot of cooperation with Members of the House
in doing so and the leadership on the Judiciary Committee--both
Democrats and Republicans.
Yes, it is not a bill that any one of us in here thinks is totally
what we want, but I think the vast majority of us will believe that it
is a pretty darned good bill that is going to make a real dent in
terrorist activities in the future and will, I think, correct some
inequities of terrorist activities in the past.
So I am prepared to yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me respond about this conspiracy. I
acknowledge that, if, in fact, there is an agreement with the
bombmaker, the bomb teacher, and the bomb user, and they could prove
that, then they can get the bomb teacher as part of this conspiracy.
That is not how this happens. The way it happens is someone walks in
telling me--and looking like they are something out of a movie--telling
me, and I do not know them, that they want to learn how to make a
fertilizer bomb. ``I want to learn how to make a bomb out of baby food,
a baby-food bomb, or a light-bulb bomb''--that is all they tell me, and
I do not know them from Adam. I sit down and tell them how to make the
bomb. The ability to prove that there was a conspiracy to commit a
crime requires that there be an ability to be an agreement between the
two of us about the crime that was about to be committed.
I am saying it should be a national crime if you intend, or you know
the person is about to do something wrong regardless of whether you
know what the crime is, what they are going to do with it. Obviously,
if a 14-year-old kid comes to you and says, ``By the way, I want to
learn how to make a baby-food bomb that has the ability to blow up, has
the power, like advertised here, that can bend the frame of a car,''
you are telling me that you have to be able to prove conspiracy. If the
guy says, ``I am happy to show you how to make that, just like I can
show you how to make a rocket in the field for a science class,'' there
is no distinction. And under this law, there is no conspiracy.
You vote against this, and it means someone can show a kid how to do
that and not have to wonder why this kid is asking me how to make a
powerful bomb that can bend the frame of a car. You cannot prove
conspiracy. But it should be wrong. It should be wrong. And how any of
you can vote here and say that is not wrong is beyond me.
I think it is about time we make some of those people hiding over in
the House side stand up. Make them stand up.
I want to be there when some punk on the New York subway decides he
wants a baby food bomb just for the kicks of it, just to see what it is
like, and sets it off. You mean to tell me when we find the guy who
taught him how to do it, we should say, ``No problem; you didn't do
anything wrong. It's OK; no problem.'' I think we should throw the
sucker in jail.
I cannot understand how you all can vote against this. I understand
the rationale. The rationale in part is 35 House Members, or 75 House
Members or 99 House Members will turn down the whole bill because of
this. I do not believe for 1 second that if this single provision were
added to the bill, with all the stuff they have on habeas corpus they
want, with all the other stuff they say they want, they are going to
vote down this bill because now you are going to be able to arrest some
wacko teaching our kids how to make bombs when you know they are going
to use them. I cannot believe that. I think we are being cowardly in
our willingness to confront whoever the cowards are over there who will
not allow us to protect ourselves. This is crazy.
I yield the floor. I yield back my time. I am ready to vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BIDEN. That is a good reason to do it.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I hear the Senator. I do really think,
though, we ought to consider winding this up. Personally, I think there
comes a time when enough is enough on these motions to recommit because
what we are trying to do is to get this bill through. Frankly, we have
people in the House on both extremes, both the far left and far right,
who disagree on some of these things. I do not think it is unreasonable
to request a study so that we
[[Page S3450]]
look at this matter, consider the first amendment implications and
other implications and do it right, although I have some sympathy with
what the Senator said.
I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time, and I move to
table.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield myself 20 seconds on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, no one asked for a study on pornography. No
one asked for that. I did not hear anybody stand up here and say,
``Let's have a study on pornography. I wish to stop pornography on the
Internet.'' I did not hear anybody say, ``Let's not do it. Let's have a
study.'' When it comes to a bomb, teaching our kids how to make bombs,
we want to study it.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, like I say, I am sympathetic to what the
Senator is trying to do. He knows that. But he also knows that we have
gone through this and we have come up with this bill after a year of
intensive battling, fighting. And it is not just the conservatives that
were there; it is the far left.
We have worked hard on this, and this is the bill we could come up
with. Do we want to do something about terrorism or do we want to kill
the bill? That is what it comes down to. Frankly, it is not just any
one of these things. It could be any one of these things. We have
worked it out. It is a good bill, and it will make a difference. It
will start fighting terrorism right now. In the end, it seems to me if
we can ever get to a final vote on this, we will have something of
which virtually everybody who thinks about it will be proud.
So I move to table the motion on behalf of Senator Dole and myself
and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the
motion to table the motion to recommit. The yeas and nays have been
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 67 Leg.]
YEAS--51
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--48
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Specter
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Mack
So the motion to lay on the table the motion to recommit was agreed
to.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________