[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3013-3017]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT--Continued

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that instead of 1 
minute on each side between votes, there be 2 minutes on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2625

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Who yields time on the Frist 
amendment No. 2625? The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed 
with 2 minutes of debate prior to the vote. The Frist-Craig amendment 
is the pending amendment. I would like to close. I ask the Senator to 
proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am glad if Senator Craig wishes to 
close on this amendment. I would like to close on the next amendment, 
if that is agreeable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have seen a lot of phony amendments 
around here in the 42 years I have been here, and this is about as 
phony an amendment as one could possibly imagine.
  We have to ask ourselves, What is the problem? The problem has been 
17 law enforcement officers have been killed, according to the FBI, 
from armor-piercing bullets. Deer and ducks do not wear armor vests. 
Police officers wear armor vests. What do police officers do? They try 
and protect the public interest.
  What is out there now on the Internet? I have four different charts 
that show what is out on the Internet selling this armor-piercing 
ammunition. Let's just take a look at what the armor-piercing 
ammunition does.
  Armor-piercing projectiles contain a core of hardened steel or 
tungsten carbide which allows it to penetrate metal

[[Page 3014]]

objects. That is what our police officers are up against.
  The Craig amendment does what? It asks whether we ought to have a 
study of this kind of problem. In the meantime, if we accept that and 
oppose my amendment, we know there will be law enforcement officials 
who will be killed, shot, with these armor-piercing bullets.
  What in the world justification is there for hunters to use armor-
piercing bullets? Perhaps that can be answered. I have not heard it, 
but the Senator wants to have a study.
  What else will they do? They will increase the penalties. That will 
be fine. Tell that to the families after these police officers have 
been killed. What is going to happen after that? They will even provide 
the death penalty in some instances. This does not protect law 
enforcement officials, and I hope the Senate will support my amendment 
later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes has expired.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Fraternal Order of Police, 311,000 
police, oppose what the Senator from Massachusetts has just said. Their 
official organization says this is nothing more than a smokescreen to 
ban about 30 percent of ammunition that is currently in the market for 
the purpose of hunting, for the purpose of using in it a law-abiding 
way by sportsmen.
  Can a piece of ammunition, shot in a 30.06, that will kill a deer or 
an elk pierce certain types of armor? The answer is, yes, it can. The 
Senator from Massachusetts is truthful in that. But do we want to now 
summarily erase all of that from the market or do we want to do an 
official bona fide ballistic study, directed by the Department of 
Justice, to have a clear and clean understanding of what is, in fact, 
armor piercing and what is, in fact, a legitimate piece of ammunition 
that is used by marksmen, that is used by sportsmen, that is used in 
the legitimate business of hunting that we have longtime said is a 
great tradition in this country?
  Anti-gunners have always said, if you can't get the gun, go after the 
ammo--if you can't get the gun, go after the ammo. Clearly, the 
underlying amendment that we will debate next goes after the ammo. The 
Frist-Craig amendment says, whoa, wait a minute, let's make darn sure 
what we are doing is the right thing before we go there.
  No one is in favor of a cop-killer bullet. Shame on anybody who would 
accuse any Senator on this floor for being in favor of a cop-killer 
bullet. What we are in favor of is legitimate ammunition and its use, 
not its misuse, and not the ability to say, well, that is a good bullet 
but it was used badly; therefore, it ought to be eliminated.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
the Frist-Craig amendment relating to armor piercing ammunition. The 
Frist-Craig amendment restates existing law which prohibits the 
manufacture, import, or sale of armor piercing ammunition except for 
use by the United States Government or for export. Additionally, the 
Frist-Craig amendment requires the Department of Justice to study and 
report to Congress whether a uniform standard for the testing of 
projectiles against body armor is feasible.
  The Department would include in its study the standards which Senator 
Kennedy seeks in his proposed amendment. Ideally, this report will 
confirm or put to rest the issue of whether the amendment proposed by 
Senator Kennedy would have the effect of banning standard hunting 
information. This is a sensible approach to an issue which has so many 
legitimate hunters and other gun owners concerned. Finally, and 
importantly, the Frist-Craig amendment does something about Senator 
Kennedy's concerns in a way that his amendment does not. Specifically, 
the Frist-Craig amendment imposes serious penalties on those who use 
and carry armor piercing ammunition during and in relation to crimes of 
violence and drug trafficking crimes.
  The Frist-Craig amendment sends a clear message that those criminals 
who use this type of ammunition in their crimes that they will face 
significant punishment. Additionally, if the criminals murder someone 
with armor piercing ammunition in the course of a drug trafficking 
crime or crime of violence, they will face the full range of 
punishment, including the death penalty.
  The Frist-Craig amendment would therefore punish those who use armor 
piercing ammunition to carry out illegal activities while permitting 
those who intend to legitimately use ammunition with common and 
conventional hunting or sporting rifles to do so.
  It is through the Frist-Craig amendment that we would preserve what 
is the classic first deer rifle given to millions of Americans; that 
is, the 30-30 Winchester deer rifle. Finally, it is important to note 
that the Fraternal Order of Police, representing over 311,000 police 
officers nationwide, supports the Frist-Craig amendment.
  A difficulty many have with Senator Kennedy's amendment is the 
definition of body armor, which is directed at the minimum standard for 
protection of law enforcement officers. According to the Department of 
Justice, the minimum standard is level 1 body armor which is designed 
to resist bullets fired from various low caliber handguns, such as .22s 
or .380s. Therefore, under this amendment common handgun ammunition for 
other handguns, including .44 calibers and 9 mm, would be banned. 
Additionally, neither level 1 nor level 2 body armor is designed to 
prevent penetration by rifles. Therefore, to ban all ammunition that 
may penetrate level 1 body armor, or level 2 body armor for that 
matter, would in effect ban all rifle ammunition.
  I am troubled by this issue because I remember the draft AFT report 
issued in 1997 by ATF's career personnel that concluded that there was 
no need for new legislation. Unfortunately, those in that 
administration's political positions whose agenda was to push gun 
control legislation reversed those findings.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2625.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 12, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 27 Leg.]

                                YEAS--85

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--12

     Akaka
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Corzine
     Feingold
     Hollings
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Reed
     Sarbanes
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Domenici
     Edwards
     Johnson
  The amendment (No. 2625) was agreed to.

[[Page 3015]]




                           Amendment No. 2619

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 4 minutes of debate evenly 
divided before the vote on the Kennedy amendment.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I believe the Kennedy amendment is now up. 
Both the Senator from Massachusetts and I agree, this being his 
amendment, he should be able to close the debate.
  Let me suggest as clearly as I can to all of our colleagues, if you 
just voted yes on the immediate past amendment that passed by a very 
large margin, 85 to 12, then you would vote no on Kennedy. It is quite 
simple why.
  He sets a new ballistic standard. He does not allow the professional 
to determine what is or is not armor piercing. I don't believe a 
Senator wants to ban from the marketplace potentially 30 percent of the 
kind of ammunition that is now used in legitimate hunting.
  That is fundamentally the issue that is at hand, to reach out into 
the marketplace and arbitrarily draw a line when we all know that 
hunting weapons, when misdirected, have the potential of penetrating 
soft armor and other types of armor. Are they armor piercing? No. But 
they have the capability of phenomenal penetration. That is why they 
are hunting ammunition. That is why our sportsmen use them.
  It is not the role of the Senate to draw that kind of line and 
determine what is hunting and what is not in respect to this amendment. 
I believe that is the underlying basis of the Kennedy amendment.
  I ask that the Senate oppose it and vote no.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the current cop-killer bullets that we 
have accepted now took 5 years to pass in the Senate. We heard the same 
arguments. I was part of that whole effort. It took us 5 years to 
provide it. We have made very marginal progress on it.
  I raise this: Law enforcement officers killed and assaulted, on page 
17, law enforcement officers killed by firearms while wearing body 
armor. There it is, page 17: 17 law enforcement officers were killed 
while wearing body armor by armor-piercing bullets.
  Don't worry about this amendment. The only people who have to worry 
about this amendment are people who use sniper rifles and assault 
weapons and use armor-piercing bullets.
  That is the record. The FBI has stated that. We have a chance to make 
a difference. We have had a study. I can understand some people want a 
study. You can vote for this amendment.
  Let me finally say this has the support of the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, International Brotherhood of Police 
Officers, City Chiefs Association, National Organization of Black Law 
Enforcement, National Association of School Reserve Officers.
  This applies to sniper rifles and assault weapons. Some of these 
bullets can travel as far as a mile. Some of them have incendiary tips 
with electronic scopes. We are talking about homeland security and we 
are not even prepared to do something about armor-piercing bullets that 
can go through police officers' vests. It is as simple as that.
  If we care about our law enforcement officers trying to protect our 
people, we will at least resist letting snipers have armor-piercing 
bullets.
  Mr. CRAIG. I 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 amendment No. 2619.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 63, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 28 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--63

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Domenici
     Edwards
     Johnson
  The amendment (No. 2619) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 2631

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 4 minutes equally divided on 
the Levin amendment.
  The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of our 
colleagues, this is a key amendment to the underlying S. 1805.
  I yield to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I went to law school and studied the concepts 
of gross negligence and reckless conduct. There are thousands, in fact 
probably millions, of pages of case law trying to define those legal 
terms.
  The reality is no judge or lawyer can tell you today what they mean. 
They say it all depends. This amendment does not clear that up. In 
fact, it only adds to the confusion, because it statutorily creates a 
standard of care when there is no underlying cause of action, no basis 
for liability against the defendant. There will still be lawsuits to 
defend and lawyers to pay even if you win. I guess that may be the 
whole point of the proponents--create a requirement for manufacturers 
to defend themselves in court even though there is no legitimate cause 
of action against them. They pay more insurance, more lawyers, so even 
if they win, they lose.
  This bill is all about ensuring there is no cause of action against a 
manufacturer which makes a legal, nondefective product. It makes no 
sense to say unless he is grossly negligent. He is already liable if he 
is grossly negligent. Say the gun blows up and kills somebody; that 
standard applies already if there is a legal cause of action against 
him--in other words, a legal basis for holding him liable. It adds 
nothing but confusion when there is no underlying cause of action.
  Here is an example: You get yourself rear-ended by the guy behind 
you, and I am not that guy. You have no right to sue me. It doesn't 
change anything if we say in the law ``unless Kyl is grossly 
negligent;'' Kyl wasn't even there. All we are doing is adding 
confusion to this by adding this gross negligence language which, 
unfortunately, will cause a lot of people to have to defend themselves 
in court, pay lawyer fees, and at the end of the day we are trying to 
avoid that here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the purpose of this bill is said to be that 
you want to make sure you do not hold people accountable for the 
actions of others. That is what we have been told the purpose of this 
bill is. That is what the stated purpose of this bill is. This 
amendment says we surely should hold people accountable for their own 
actions. That is the difference. Are people going to be held 
accountable for their own reckless and grossly negligent conduct? The 
way this bill is written, the

[[Page 3016]]

only grossly negligent conduct or reckless conduct somebody is held 
accountable for is if that conduct is also illegal.
  What if the conduct is not illegal but is grossly negligent and 
reckless and causes the death or injury of somebody else? Should that 
manufacturer or that dealer be immunized if his own reckless or grossly 
negligent conduct is a proximate cause of death or injury? It is a 
simple provision. I am going to read it, if I have 20 seconds left:

       None of the provisions in the act shall be construed to 
     prohibit a civil liability action from being brought or 
     continued against the person if that person's own gross 
     negligence or reckless conduct was a proximate cause of death 
     or injury.

  The key word in this whole sentence is ``own.'' The key argument that 
the opponents of the amendment make is that you only should be 
responsible for your own actions, and I agree. The NRA has a point. You 
should be responsible for your own actions. This amendment says if your 
actions are reckless or grossly negligent, then you are not going to be 
immunized. This is not someone else's conduct. It is your own.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to table the Levin amendment and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 29 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Domenici
     Edwards
     Johnson
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I believe the order at hand is final 
passage on S. 1805, as amended. I turn to my colleague, Senator Reed, 
for any closing comments he would like to make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, despite the passage of three very important 
amendments for gun safety--one that closed the gun show loophole, 
another that extended the assault weapons ban, and a third to require 
child safety locks with all handguns sold in this country--the 
underlying bill still represents a fundamental undermining of a 
principle of law that has lasted for centuries, and that principle is 
that an individual is not just responsible to follow the statutes of 
this country, that individual is responsible to act reasonably. Even 
the most elaborate construct of statutes will never reach all the 
variations of human behavior. That is why this fundamental principle of 
responsible conduct must by maintained.
  This bill turns it on its head. This bill, if enacted, will be a 
license to be irresponsible, and there is no more graphic example than 
Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Washington State, the source of the 
weapons for the snipers who terrorized Washington, DC. The individual 
could not account for 238 weapons, had numerous citations by ATF, and 
was unaware that a weapon was shoplifted and had fallen into the hands 
of assassins. That is irresponsible conduct. That conduct would be 
immunized by this legislation.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote no, against this legislation. We 
have made progress on important gun safety measures, but the underlying 
legislation would say to gun manufacturers: You can be irresponsible 
through your distribution network to whom you sell; to dealers, you can 
be irresponsible to the customer to whom you sell. We don't want that. 
The peace, security, and safety of all of us cannot tolerate that, and 
I urge defeat of this measure.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we are about to vote on S. 1805, as 
amended. The House passed a clean S. 1805 with over a 2-to-1 margin. 
The President has asked for a clean bill. But in the process of the 
last 5 days we have added a great deal to this bill that makes it much 
less than clean.
  We have added back the assault weapons ban. We have added trigger 
locks. We put a new tripwire in gun shows that will allow law-abiding 
citizens to be at risk.
  I don't think we can go there, nor do I believe we should go there. 
I, and certainly my colleagues, have worked in good will, as have all 
who have come to the floor to debate this issue. There has been a real 
difference of opinion.
  I am now told even if we passed it, it would never get to conference. 
If you can't work the process and get to conference, how can you 
complete the legislative process for which the House and the Senate 
have always historically been known? To simply have someone say no to 
allow the difference between the House and the Senate to be worked out 
is the very clear message I am hearing at this moment. That is a 
message that doesn't work. If that is the strategy here, that we move 
legislation by offering amendments by working in a bipartisan fashion 
only to say no at the end, how can we accept the process and simply 
say, well, let us vote it out, anyway?
  This is a very important bill. There is no question about that. It 
was a substantial move in tort reform. It enshrined once again the 
historic tort belief that you as an individual are responsible for your 
own actions. If somebody acts criminally down the line and you have 
been law abiding and you are at risk, that is what the bill said. It 
wasn't convoluted. It was clear and it was clean. I worked on it a long 
while, as have many others.
  I am proud of our work product, and I would love to see this bill 
pass. But I now believe it is so dramatically wounded that it should 
not pass. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was 
read the third time.

[[Page 3017]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass? The yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 8, nays 90, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 30 Leg.]

                                YEAS--8

     Breaux
     Daschle
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     Pryor
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--90

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lott
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Edwards
     Johnson
       
  The bill (S. 1805), as amended, was rejected.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Arizona.

                          ____________________