[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 120 (Friday, September 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10227-S10231]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 10 
a.m. is equally divided between the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Abraham, 
and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, or their designee.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, time is very limited this morning, so I 
will be brief.
  We are voting shortly on cloture on a Motion to Proceed. In other 
words, Senators will be deciding whether or not we can simply consider 
this important measure.
  We all know how contentious the issue of abortion can get around 
here, and across the country. But this matter is not really even about 
abortion. This bill is simply about protecting the health and safety of 
minor children and the rights that their own states have concluded 
their parents should have. Specifically, it simply seeks to enforce 
state laws requiring parental involvement in their minor daughter's 
abortion so that someone other than those parents cannot readily avoid 
those state laws by taking a young girl across state lines for an 
abortion, certainly not without the notification to their parents.
  But whether my colleagues agree or disagree with this bill, or 
whether, like the Clinton administration, that want to modify or limit 
it, there is simply no reason to vote no on just proceeding to a 
discussion.
  The concern has been expressed that there be an opportunity to offer 
relevant amendments. Mr. President, no one has suggested otherwise. 
Let's have at it. The only action that would preclude amendments is a 
no vote this morning.
  We are prepared to debate and vote on amendments. That opportunity 
was available at committee and it can be worked out here. In fact, the 
amendments offered or filed at committee would likely be germane post-
cloture even if this were a cloture vote on the bill itself, rather 
than a motion to proceed.
  So let's not look for excuses here. I urge my colleagues to vote yes 
and allow us to consider this important legislation. American 
families--parents and their children--deserve no less.
  Having said that, I want to personally pay my respects to the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator Abraham, for the 
leadership he has provided on this. Without him, we wouldn't be this 
far. I have to say he has been a great leader on the Judiciary 
Committee. I personally appreciate the efforts he has made on this bill 
thus far. I will support him every way I possibly can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his 
kind remarks and look forward to

[[Page S10228]]

working together on this and other legislation.
  At this point, I yield up to 3 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the purpose of this legislation is very 
simple: It is to make it a crime to transport a child across State 
lines if this circumvents State laws requiring parental involvement or 
if it circumvents State laws requiring a judicial waiver for a minor to 
obtain an abortion. It is that simple.
  Many States, as we know, have laws saying a parent or guardian has to 
be notified if a child is trying to get an abortion. But not all States 
have these laws. What is happening now, far too often in this country, 
is that people who aren't parents, who aren't guardians, are taking 
these children across State lines, secretly, to get abortions in 
another State where parental notification is not required. It is that 
simple.
  What we are addressing in this bill, and what Senator Abraham is 
addressing, is an obvious circumvention of these State parental consent 
and notification laws. This bill, then, has two purposes: to protect 
the health of children and to protect the rights of parents. In fact, 
it might not be much of an exaggeration to say that these two purposes 
really boil down to just one purpose, because, Mr. President, 
empowering parents is the single biggest investment we can make in 
ensuring the health of our children.
  What we are saying with this legislation is that, yes, parents have 
the right to be involved in a moral and medical decision that affects 
their children's welfare. They have the right to do this. They have the 
duty to do this. When it comes to parental notification on abortion, 
the American people have reached a clear consensus. By a huge majority, 
80 percent, favor parental notification; 74 percent favor not just 
parental notification but parental consent, as well--74 percent. This 
is a clear expression of the national wisdom. This legislation is an 
effort to make that kind of informed decision possible.
  Now, earlier this year, we in Congress worked on another bill, one 
that is now law. In that bill, the President and the Congress mandated 
that the flight of a parent to another State to avoid paying child 
support would be a Federal crime. I worked with Senator Kohl to 
champion the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act in order to protect the 
interests of America's children. We have to pursue very vigorously 
those who would harm our children, either by omission or by commission.
  Mr. President, the very same principle is embodied in the Child 
Custody Protection Act that we are considering today.
  There are those living among us, Mr. President, who would place our 
children in harm's way by transporting them across State lines to 
achieve dangerous goals, both physically and emotionally. One such goal 
is abortion. The right of citizens to pass and enforce laws regarding 
the rights of parents is completely violated by the ability of others 
to transport children to another State to obtain an abortion. As a 
Nation, we must use all the resources available to us in order to 
protect our children and our families from this conduct.
  That is our purpose here today. Senator Abraham has shown strong 
leadership in bringing this legislation forward. I thank him for his 
work on this important bill, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for his 
leadership on this very important issue. I am here to offer my 
wholehearted support for him in his efforts on this piece of 
legislation.
  Currently, 22 States require parental notification if a minor is 
going to receive an abortion. Each year, thousands of adults 
deliberately circumvent these laws by taking children across State 
lines to receive an abortion in another State which does not require 
parental consent.
  This legislation would make it a Federal criminal offense to take 
children across State lines to receive an abortion without the 
knowledge of their parents. By implementing this safeguard legislation, 
we will insulate our children from exploitation by adults who do not 
want the parents involved in the decisionmaking process for an 
abortion, and who may not have the child's best interests at heart.
  The decision to have an abortion is a critical one, which I hope 
women of all ages would not choose. However, despite an individual's 
personal opinion about abortion, the majority of Americans, myself 
included, believe it is imperative for the parents of minor children to 
be included in this life-altering decision. According to a 1996 Gallup 
poll, 74 percent of Americans support requiring minors to get parental 
consent for an abortion. According to the Supreme Court, ``the medical, 
emotional, and psychological consequences of an abortion are serious 
and can be lasting; this is particularly so when the patient is 
immature.'' Clearly, our Nation's children should not be kept from 
their parents when making an important life decision, particularly one 
with such broad ramifications as an abortion.
  I find it unbelievable that schools throughout the country are unable 
to dispense even a simple aspirin to a child without written consent 
from their parents; yet, every day thousands of adults are permitted to 
escort children across State lines for an abortion which has serious 
physical and mental effects.
  This is simply preposterous. A child cannot receive over-the-counter 
medications like an aspirin to relieve a headache while at school, but 
we allow that same child to have an abortion without the consent or 
knowledge of their parents and guardians.
  It is my firm belief that we must pass this law and stop people from 
bypassing the laws of our individual States. I would like to stress 
that this bill does not impact the individual rights of States, nor 
does it alter, supersede, or override existing laws in the individual 
States. What the Child Custody Protection Act does is protect the 
current laws of States which have chosen to implement parental 
notification. Most important, this legislation protects our children 
from making a life-altering decision without the guidance of their most 
trusted and caring advisers, their parents. The mental and physical 
well-being of thousands of children depends on us passing the Child 
Custody Act.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I add my compliments to Senator Abraham 
from Michigan for his outstanding work in crafting this professionally 
drafted, constitutional, and well-done amendment.
  There was a recent article in the New York Times by an abortion 
doctor who admitted to doing 45,000 abortions. He said in that article 
that parents ought to be consulted in these circumstances. He said 
that, when someone--often some young man--takes a very young girl 
across a State line to a State where abortions don't require parental 
consent, he is jeopardizing the health of that young girl, because the 
parents won't even know to watch out for her health. Having had the 
abortion a long distance away, the girl won't be able to return to the 
abortion clinic for follow-up. The parents won't be watching their 
daughter's health and the complications that can arise. The doctor said 
that pro-abortion forces do themselves a disservice when they oppose 
such legislation as this. I think that is plainly so from a medical 
point of view. I think it is plainly so from a family point of view. 
Young toughs who have impregnated a young girl ought not to be able to 
avoid their responsibility by secretly taking her away to a distant 
place, without the knowledge of her parents. This is basic.
  I was a Federal prosecutor for nearly 15 years, and during that time 
we had what we call the Mann Act. It prohibits the interstate 
transportation of a female across a State line for the purpose of 
prostitution or other immoral purposes. That is a law that has been 
upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court. This bill will be upheld by the 
Supreme Court. It is consistent with American law. I am amazed that we 
can't even get the bill up for a vote and that there are people 
opposing it.
  I thank the Senator from Michigan for his leadership.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, because the first 4 minutes of this 
debate

[[Page S10229]]

was lost due to other business before the Senate, I ask unanimous 
consent that we extend the time for debate an additional 5 minutes, 
which would move the cloture vote to 10:05.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to express my 
views on the vote we are taking today regarding the Child Custody 
Protection Act. I will vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed 
to consideration of this legislation because I believe it is an issue 
that merits consideration by the full Senate.
  Based on my conversations with Pennsylvanians throughout the 
Commonwealth in recent weeks, I am well aware of the strong views on 
either side of this issue. It is the responsibility of the Senate to 
deliberate over proposals concerning matters as complicated as an 
individual's right to an abortion, particularly when minors are 
involved and there are substantial State interests at stake as well. 
While I am troubled by some of the implications of this bill, I believe 
it is important that this is debated by the entire body, not just the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time be taken out of the minority side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the chairman of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Hatch, and also my good friend from 
Michigan, Mr. Abraham, have said that the majority is prepared to 
debate and vote on amendments to this bill. I know that a number of my 
colleagues want to bring amendments that are also important for the 
health and safety of American families and children.
  I have some concerns, as I have expressed to the Senator from 
Michigan, on the overall bill. But with the assurances that we are 
going to have debate--I am not talking about dilatory debate, I am 
talking about real debate and amendments--I am prepared to take Senator 
Hatch and others at their word and proceed to this bill and work 
through it.
  Having said that, I have some difficulties with aspects of the bill. 
I note for my colleagues that those difficulties go to particular 
constitutional and legal issues, not to the underlying concerns the 
Senator from Michigan has expressed.
  The Senator from Michigan has expressed some very real concerns, many 
of which I share. He has done it in a way that shows a deep, heartfelt 
concern, a concern of conscience, and I applaud him for that. We will 
work through these particular things in the same way. As the Senator 
from Michigan knows, I did not take steps to delay this bill from 
coming out of committee. This bill deserves to have a vote. We deserve, 
some of us, and probably both sides, to have a vote on some of the 
amendments. We will do that.
  I will urge my colleagues to vote to move forward with this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  I see nobody on our side looking for further time. I will yield, if 
this will help the Senator from Michigan, the remainder of my time to 
him, with the understanding that if somebody comes up I am sure he will 
take care of their time.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Vermont 
for his remarks both here as well as in the committee when we dealt 
with this issue. I think he and other members of the other side on this 
debated in a very thoughtful fashion some of the issues at stake.
  In light of his comments, it is my hope, obviously, that we will 
agree to this cloture motion this morning overwhelmingly, and then 
hopefully the Senate can begin to discuss a list of potential 
amendments that might be debated on it for whatever time and we would 
then call the bill up.
  If there are others here who would like to speak at this point, I 
yield to them some time. I see there is one request.
  Let me yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania for 1 minute to comment 
on the legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. Now that the Senator from 
Vermont has agreed to support the motion to proceed--that is 
heartening--we can now get to this.
  I came here to plead that we at least be given the opportunity to 
discuss this issue. On this bill, while it is obviously important to 
the entire country, the case which has been highlighted, which is the 
one that is the most disturbing, is the case from Pennsylvania of a 
horrible situation where a young girl 12 years old was raped by a boy 
18, was given alcohol, and was impregnated while she was unconscious. 
The stepmother of the boy, without the knowledge of the little girl's 
mother, took her across the State line to have an abortion.
  In fact, there are a series of false pretenses, which I will outline 
in the debate that we hope now to have on the full bill. It shows how 
this law is necessary to protect the rights of parents, and the State 
of Pennsylvania wants to protect them. The State of Pennsylvania has a 
law in place that says you need parental consent. Parents in the State 
believe they should be able to rely upon the law, that they should be 
able to have that right that the State of Pennsylvania suggested that 
we have, that the people of Pennsylvania should have their laws 
honored, and that people, by crossing State lines, should not be able 
to evade what is the law within Pennsylvania. This is less an abortion 
issue than it is a State rights issue.
  As Senator DeWine mentioned in his debate, we have done things just 
recently with child support to get better enforcement of State 
decisions across State lines to protect children and to protect 
families. This is just another instance where we should do that--
protect the rights of parents and protect the rights of children within 
the borders of the State, as the State legislatures and Governors have 
enacted laws to do so.
  I commend the Senator from Michigan for his work to fight through the 
Judiciary Committee and to get this bill to the floor, and to now get 
it to a point where hopefully we can begin the debate and we can begin 
to move forward with the debate of these amendments.
  I understand States rights and enforcing State laws is an important 
issue that we debate here often in the Congress. But there is none more 
important, as far as I am concerned, than to protect the lives and 
health of children and the rights of parents. That is exactly at the 
heart of this legislation.
  I congratulate the Senator.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for 
his support as well as for his work on a number of other related 
issues, including the one we will be debating here soon for the Senate. 
He has given leadership in a variety of areas--especially in the area 
of abortion rights, which has been, I think, a source of great strength 
to people who care deeply about this topic. We look forward to working 
with him later this week on a related matter that will come before the 
Senate.
  In light of the current floor situation, I don't think there will be 
other speakers joining us. I intend to make a few remarks now, and, at 
the end of that time, if no one else has come to the floor to speak, I 
will yield back the remainder of the time that has been afforded me by 
the minority and seek unanimous consent that we vote as originally 
planned.
  In light of Senator Leahy's comments, it seems that probably the 
motion to proceed will receive enough votes for cloture and then we can 
begin moving forward.
  As I said in my remarks to the Senate yesterday, this is an issue 
that would seem to me to be one that people, regardless of their view 
on the underlying issue of abortion rights, could agree on; that is, 
that the Supreme Court of the United States has deemed it to be 
constitutional for States to enact parental involvement statutes--
parental consent or parental notification statutes. Based on that 
decision,

[[Page S10230]]

about 22 States have enacted such laws. The families in those States, 
the parents in those States, and the children in those States have a 
right to rely on those laws. Those laws have been enacted to protect 
young women who are minors who might consider an abortion. The reason 
for that is very simple.

  The abortion procedure is a serious medical procedure. The 
consequences of that procedure are very serious. There is no one in a 
better position, particularly with extremely young women, to know about 
their health considerations better than the parents. Of course, there 
are certain instances where parents may not be appropriate because of 
abusive situations. The States have addressed that. And the courts have 
permitted States to address that with bypass procedures and other 
mechanisms to allow young women to have options in those rare 
instances. But other than in those rare instances, these laws make 
sense. I think an overwhelming percentage of Americans support them.
  The problem is that these laws lack forcefulness. It is possible to 
circumvent them very easily by simply transporting the child across a 
State line for an abortion. Our legislation is simply an effort to 
clarify which laws would apply in the new jurisdiction where that 
abortion might be performed. This legislation says that the laws of the 
States which have enacted parental consent laws still have meaning, 
still have consequence, and the families in those States still have the 
ability to rely on those laws.
  I cited yesterday on the floor the case that was presented in our 
hearings of Joyce Farley who was victimized by just such a situation--
the Senator from Pennsylvania just alluded to it--where her 12-year-old 
daughter was raped by a neighbor, became pregnant, and then, in an 
effort to try to cover up that act, the neighbor's parent drove the 
child out of Pennsylvania, where parental consent laws are required, to 
the State of New York, where they had the abortion performed, falsified 
documents pretending she was the mother, brought the child back to 
Pennsylvania, and left her 30 miles from home in a very, very serious 
state of health. The child became very sick, finally got home, and 
finally told her mother what had happened. Only because her mother was 
a nurse was proper medical attention at that point applied and the 
little child's life saved.
  This doesn't, in my judgment, seem to me to be a situation where we 
can simply allow this to continue. For that reason, our legislation is 
aimed not at changing the underlying abortion laws of States, not at 
changing or in any way enhancing the parental notification laws, but 
simply saying that where the laws exist, they have to be enforced 
regardless of where the child is taken for an abortion. That is what 
the purpose of the legislation is.
  I hope today we can move forward on this motion to proceed. Then I 
hope we can work together, regardless of what people's position might 
be on the abortion question and the underlying question, to say that 
parents and families in these situations should be protected and shall 
be protected by this Congress.
  Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Indiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to speak in support of S. 
1645, The Child Custody Protection Act.
  The purpose of this act is to prohibit the transportation of minors 
across state lines with intent to avoid application of a state law 
requiring parental involvement in a minor obtaining an elective 
abortion.
  As I imagine the fear, confusion, and perceived isolation of a minor 
child who learns that she is pregnant, I can think of few situations 
where the support and security of family is more desperately needed. 
Many states have enacted laws to assure that parents are involved. This 
bill would assure that these state laws are not easily circumvented by 
crossing state lines.
  There is an even more sobering aspect to this issue. A significant 
reason behind evasion of the State's parental involvement law can be an 
effort to cover up statutory rape violations.
  In a study of 46,000 pregnancies by school-age girls in California, 
researchers found that seventy-one percent, or over 33,000, were 
fathered by adult post-high-school men. Another study reports that 58 
percent of the time it is the girl's boyfriend who accompanies a girl 
for an abortion when her parents have not been informed of the 
pregnancy.
  Obviously, many of these men are vulnerable to statutory rape 
charges. This vulnerability provides these men with a strong incentive 
to pressure the much younger girl to agree to an abortion without 
revealing the pregnancy to the parents. Currently, a man seeking to do 
so can evade the law and hide his crime by driving his victim across 
State lines.
  Opponents of this legislation argue that in some families, ideal 
relationship may not exist with the parents--that in families where 
abuse is present, for example, parental involvement would be 
detrimental. This concern is addressed in that judicial bypass 
provisions exist in every state with a parental notification 
requirement. These judicial bypass procedures are not onerous. A recent 
study of Massachusetts bypass procedure published in the American 
Journal of Public Health reported that only 1 out of 477 girls was 
refused a judicial authorization. Furthermore, the average hearing 
lasted less than 13 minutes.
  Passing this bill will not force parental disclosure in instances 
where abuse exists within a family. Conversely, failure to pass this 
legislation could compromise parental support from the majority of 
families where good counsel and loving support would be provided.
  Americans support the concept of parental involvement. In a 1996 
Gallup poll seventy-six percent of those polled favored laws requiring 
the girls under the age of 18 get either parental consent or at least 
inform their parents before obtaining an abortion. This conviction is 
reflected at a legislative level by the 22 states that have enacted 
laws requiring parental notification.
  This is not a broad piece of legislation, it has in fact been 
described by the media as ``narrowly tailored to address a specific 
problem.'' The act does not establish a national requirement of 
parental consent or notification prior to the performance of an 
abortion on a minor under 18. Nor does it attempt to regulate any 
purely intrastate activities related to the procurement of abortion 
services. S. 1645 simply helps effectuate the policies of States that 
have decided to provide a layer of protection of their own residents 
against these dangers to children's health and safety by requiring 
parental involvement in the abortion decision.
  Minors must not be left alone to make these crucial decisions. 
Abortion is a major medical procedure, highly invasive and often 
emotionally traumatic. There are hundreds of accounts of women who as 
adults, decide to undergo an elective abortion and are then plagued by 
profound regret, health complications and emotional trauma for having 
made that decision.
  How much greater is the potential for a hasty and regrettable 
decision when the mother is herself a child who may not fully 
understand her options and the consequences of her choices?
  I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture to proceed to this bill and 
to support this important legislation, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I know Members are anxious to get to this cloture 
vote. I strongly support the efforts of the Senator from Michigan and 
the Senator from Pennsylvania and others to deal with this important 
item. I commend them for their perseverance in pursuing this. I think 
it is important that we move forward with this and support it.
  It is designed in a way to protect the rights of children, the rights 
of parents, and the rights of States. I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I note there are no other individuals on 
either side of the aisle here to speak at this point, and so in that 
the hour of 10 o'clock, which was the original time that this vote was 
slated to occur, has arrived and there are no other speakers, I ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw the most recent unanimous consent 
agreement that was entered into, yield back all remaining time, and 
proceed at this point to a vote on the motion to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S10231]]

                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provision of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to S. 1645, the Child Custody Protection Act:

         Trent Lott, Orrin Hatch, Spencer Abraham, Charles 
           Grassley, Slade Gorton, Judd Gregg, Wayne Allard, Pat 
           Roberts, Bob Smith, Paul Coverdell, Craig Thomas, James 
           Jeffords, Jeff Sessions, Rick Santorum, Mitch 
           McConnell, Chuck Hagel.


                            Call of the Roll

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
under the rule is waived.


                                  Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 1645, 
the Child Custody Protection Act? The yeas and nays are required under 
the rule. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Kerrey), the 
Senator from Illinois (Ms. Moseley-Braun), and the Senator from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 265 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Kerrey
     Moseley-Braun
     Rockefeller
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 97, the nays are 0. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The question is on the motion to proceed.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of New Hampshire). Without 
objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________