---

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 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:

Roll 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	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 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 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:

Roll 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.