The acting President pro tempore: Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of S.J. Res. 45, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 45) to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Pending:
Lieberman/Warner modified amendment No. 4856, in the nature of a substitute;
Byrd amendment No. 4868 (to amendment No. 4856, as modified), to provide statutory construction that constitutional authorities remain unaffected and that no additional grant of authority is made to the President not directly related to the existing threat posed by Iraq; Levin amendment No. 4862 (to amendment No. 4856), in the nature of a substitute.
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
Amendment No. 4869, As Modified
The acting President pro tempore: Under the previous order, the clerk will report the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an amendment numbered 4869, as modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, together with procedures for the extension of such date unless Congress disapproves the extension)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. 5. TERMINATION OF THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) In General.--The authorization in section 4(a) shall terminate 12 months after the date of enactment of this joint resolution, except that the President may extend, for a period or periods of 12 months each, such authorization if--
(1) the President determines and certifies to Congress for each such period, not later that 60 days before the date of termination of the authorization, that the extension is necessary for ongoing or impending military operations against Iraq under section 4(a); and
(2) the Congress does not enact into law, before the extension of the authorization, a joint resolution disapproving the extension of the authorization for the additional 12-month period.
(b) Congressional Review Procedures.--
(1) In General.--For purposes of subsection (a)(2), a joint resolution described in paragraph (2) shall be considered in the Senate and the House of Representatives in accordance with the procedures applicable to joint resolutions under paragraphs (3) through (8) of section 8066(c) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1985 (as contained in Public Law 98-473; 98 Stat. 1936-1937), except that--
(A) references in those provisions to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives shall be deemed to be references to the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives; and
(B) references in those provisions to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate shall be deemed to be references to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
(2) Joint resolution defined.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the term "joint resolution" means only a joint resolution introduced after the date on which the certification of the President under subsection (a)(1) is received by Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: "That, pursuant to section 5 of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, the Congress disapproves the extension of the authorization under section 4(a) of that joint resolution for the additional 12- month period specified in the certification of the President to the Congress dated ____.", with the blank filled in with the appropriate date.
Mr. McCain: And the time is running; is that correct?
The Acting President pro tempore: There are 20 minutes overall--15 minutes to the sponsor of the amendment and 5 minutes in opposition. If nobody yields time, time will be deducted proportionately. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, does the distinguished Senator from Arizona wish to use any time at this point?
Mr. McCain: No.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The Acting President pro tempore: Fifteen minutes.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, how much time does the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts wish?
Mr. Kennedy: Four and a half minutes.
Mr. Byrd: I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. Kennedy: Mr. President, for the past few days we have debated the details of a resolution but not the implication of war with Iraq. We were into the debate on the resolutions for 2 days, and then a cloture motion was filed. I am reminded of the excellent statements made by my friend from West Virginia that this subject about war and peace deserves a longer period of time for discussion.
Earlier in the session, we debated for 21 days the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; 23 days on the energy bill; 19 days on trade promotion; 18 days on the farm bill--all extremely important, but this issue is far more so.
In facing the global challenges of these times, we defend American values and interests best when war is our last resort, not our first impulse. I commend President Bush for deciding in the end to take America's case to the United Nations. Make no mistake about it, this resolution lets the President go it alone. Iraq should have no doubt of the unity of the American purpose and the seriousness of our intent. Having suffered the tragedy of September 11, we will leave no stone unturned in the defense of innocent Americans.
The question is not whether we will disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction but how. And it is wrong for Congress to declare war against Iraq now before we have exhausted the alternatives. It is wrong for the President to demand a declaration of war from Congress when he says he has not decided whether to go to war. It is wrong to avert our attention now from the greater and far more immediate threat of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida terrorism.
Pick up the paper and see the different headlines: "Attacks Put Troops on Alert"; "They fear contact with al-Qaida"; "Tape, Assaults Stir Worry About Resurgent Al Qaeda"; and the list goes on about the al-Qaida activities all over the world.
We cannot go it alone on Iraq and expect our allies to support us.
We cannot go it alone and expect the world to stand with us in the urgent and ongoing war against terrorism and al-Qaida.
We cannot go it alone in attacking Iraq and expect Saddam to keep his weapons of mass destruction at bay against us or our ally Israel.
We cannot go it alone while urging unprincipled regimes to resist invasions of their adversaries.
The better course for our Nation and for our goal of disarming Saddam Hussein is a two-step policy. We should approve a strong resolution today calling on the United Nations to require Iraq to submit to unfettered U.N. weapons inspections or face U.N.-backed international force. If such option fails, and Saddam refuses to cooperate, the President could then come to the Congress and request Congress to provide him with authorization to wage war against Iraq.
By pursuing this course, we maximize the chance that the world can disarm Saddam without our going to war or, if war was necessary, we would be joined by allied troops in the cause. In the end, having tried these options and failed, our allies are far more likely to support our intervention should we elect to attack alone.
The world looks to America not just because of our superior might or economic weight; they admire us and emulate us because we are a friend and ally that defends freedom and promotes our values around the globe. Those same traits that are the envy of the world should guide us today as we conclude this important debate.
I thank the Senator from West Virginia, and I yield back to him the remainder of my time.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, I thank the Senator. How much time do I have?
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator has 11 minutes.
Mr. Byrd: I reserve the remainder of my time.
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, I understand we have 5 minutes. I yield that 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut however he chooses to use it.
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. Lieberman: I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arizona.
The amendment of the Senator from West Virginia which is before us would terminate, 12 months after the date of enactment of the underlying joint resolution, the authorization given in that resolution. In other words, it would put a time limit of a year subject to extension, but, nonetheless, a time limit for a year on the authorization provided in the underlying resolution.
I say to my colleagues respectfully, this amendment is unprecedented and unwise. It is unprecedented in the sense that in brief research overnight, I have not been able to find an occasion in which Congress has exercised authority with regard to military action under article I of the Constitution when Congress has attached a time limit to it.
There was one occasion when time limits were discussed with regard to the deployment of American forces in Bosnia, the Balkans, during the nineties, but I think we saw there why congressional imposition of time limits on authorization of military action is unwise.
Why is it unwise? It is unwise because it gives notice to our enemies that there is a limit to the authority we are giving the President as Commander in Chief of our military forces.
It allows them to calculate their actions based on that limited duration.
In Bosnia, when that deadline was articulated by the administration, it created expectations which were quite naturally frustrated and therein created a credibility gap.
There is a deadline in the underlying resolution, and the deadline is what it ought to be and always has been for military actions in which the Armed Forces of the United States have been involved. The authorization ends when the mission is accomplished, and in this case the authorization would end when the two missions stated were accomplished: When the President as Commander in Chief concluded that America was adequately protected, our national security was adequately protected from threats from Iraq, and that the relevant United Nations resolutions were adequately being enforced. That is the deadline.
If the mood of Congress should change, if the attitude of the public should change, Congress always reserves, as it has shown in the past, the power of the purse and the power to change its opinion. But this amendment at this time, as we try to gather our strength and unity of purpose to convince the international community to join with us, as they surely will, is to finally get Saddam Hussein to keep his promise to disarm at the end of the gulf war.
We need no limitations on authority. We need to speak with a clear voice. As it says in the Bible, if the sound of the trumpet be uncertain, who shall follow? And if we put a 12-month time limit on the authority of the underlying resolution, I fear that fewer will follow and the result will be much less than we want it to be.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia, which would sunset the authority Congress would grant to the President in this resolution to defend American security against the threat posed by Iraq.
As the Senator has pointed out, the 12-month limit on congressional authorization for the use of force his amendment would set could be extended by presidential or congressional action. However, these requirements are onerous and infringe upon the authority of the Commander in Chief to meet his obligations to protect American security.
The concept of imposing a deadline after which the President loses his authority to achieve the goals set out in the Iraq resolution strikes me as losing sight of the objective of a congressional authorization of the use of force: ending the threat to the United States and the world posed by Saddam Hussein's regime, so long as it possesses weapons of mass destruction and defies its obligations to the world.
So long as that threat persists, and with Congress and the President having agreed that Saddam Hussein's regime endangers America, congressional authority for the President to use force must remain in force until he has met our common objective of disarming Saddam Hussein.
To place a limit on the amount of time the President possesses this authority, once Congress has granted it to him, would only encourage Saddam Hussein to stall and temporize on his commitments, knowing that the clock is working in his favor. Such an incentive would make us less secure, not more secure.
If the vast majority of Members of Congress and the American people agree upon the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and if we accept that the President will confront this danger within the parameters we have laid out in this congressional resolution, what about that threat would change in 12 months, assuming we have not acted against it by that time, that would somehow negate the President's need for the authority to meet it?
If anything, the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime will only grow with time. Private and public estimates are that Saddam Hussein could possess nuclear weapons within six months to a year were he to acquire weapons-grade plutonium on the international market.
That's why the President has requested the authority to act now. Saddam Hussein represents a grave and gathering danger. I hope he is no longer in power 1 year from now. But there is certainly a chance he could be.
Congress cannot foresee the entire course of this conflict. Acting now to deprive the President 12 months from now of the authority we would grant him in this resolution would be an infringement on the authority of the Commander in Chief and a strange way to respond to the grave threat to American national security posed by Saddam Hussein's regime.
The Acting President pro tempore: Who yields time?
Mr. Byrd: I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Delaware.
Mr. Biden: Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut is right that article 1 of the Constitution does not provide for this, but article 1 of the Constitution also does not provide for a declaration of war before the President is asked to go to war. So this is a very different circumstance. The President has not asked us to go to war. He has said he wants the power to be able to go to war. It seems completely consistent with that request that we say: Yes, Mr. President, you have that power to go to war; you can do that within 1 year. If, in fact, you go to war in 1 year, you can extend that 1 year.
Let me put it this way. If we are 2 years down the road still fooling around with Iraq, then my friends from Connecticut and other places have been so dead wrong about what we are supposed to do that it would be amazing.
I point out that this is nothing like Bosnia and nothing like the Balkans. In that case, we were in the Balkans. There were forces there, and there were people on the floor who were attempting to put a time on how long they could stay after we had gone in, after we had already prevailed, after we were in place.
The third point I make in the 2 minutes I have is, we learned from Vietnam the power of the purse is useless. The power of the purse is useless because it presents us with a Hobson's choice. We have our fighting men and women in place and we are told, by the way, the President will not take them home so let's cut off the support for them so they have no guns, no bullets, no ability to fight a war. And no one is willing to do that. This is a prudent way to do this, totally consistent with what the President is asking. I think it makes absolute eminent sense. I congratulate the Senator. Even though I disagree with him on his underlying notion, I do think he is right on this point and I support him.
Mr. Byrd: How much time do I have remaining?
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator has 9 minutes 20 seconds.
Mr. Byrd: I ask to be notified when I have 2 minutes left.
Mr. President, 38 years ago I, Robert C. Byrd, voted on the Tonkin Gulf Resolution--the resolution that authorized the President to use military force to "repel armed attacks" and "to prevent further Communist aggression" in Southeast Asia.
It was this resolution that provided the basis for American involvement in the war in Vietnam.
It was the resolution that lead to the longest war in American history.
It led to the deaths of 58,000 Americans, and 150,000 Americans being wounded in action.
It led to massive protests, a deeply divided country, and the deaths of more Americans at Kent State.
It was a war that destroyed the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson and wrecked the administration of Richard Nixon.
After all that carnage, we began to learn that, in voting for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, we were basing our votes on bad information. We learned that the claims the administration made on the need for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution were simply not true, and history is repeating itself.
We tragically and belatedly learned that we had not taken enough time to consider the resolution. We had not asked the right questions, nor enough questions. We learned that we should have been demanding more hard evidence from the administration rather than accepting the administration at its word.
But it was too late.
For all those spouting jingoes about going to war with Iraq, about the urgent need for regime change no matter what the cost, about the need to take out the evil dictator--and make no mistakes, I know and understand that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator--I urge Senators to go down on The Capital Mall and look at the Vietnam memorial. Nearly every day you will find someone at that wall weeping for a loved one, a father, a son, a brother, a friend, whose name is on that wall.
If we are fortunate, a war with Iraq will be a short one with few American deaths, as in the Persian Gulf war, and we can go around again waving flags and singing patriotic songs.
Or, maybe we will find ourselves building another wall on the mall.
I will always remember the words of Senator Wayne Morse, one of the two Senators who opposed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. During the debate on the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, he stated: "The resolution will pass, and Senators who vote for it will live to regret it."
Many Senators did live to regret it.
The Tonkin Gulf Resolution contained a sunset provision to end military action. S.J. Res. 46 will allow the President to continue war for as long as he wants, against anyone he wants as long he feels it will help eliminate the threat posed by Iraq.
With the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, Congress could "terminate" military action. With S.J. Res. 46 , only the President can terminate military action.
I should point out that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and S.J. Res. 46 do have several things in common. Congress is again being asked to vote on the use of force without hard evidence that the country poses an immediate threat to the national security of the United States. We are being asked to vote on a resolution authorizing the use of force in a hyped up, politically charged atmosphere in an election year. Congress is again being rushed into a judgment.
This is why I stand here today, before this Chamber, and before this Nation, urging, pleading for some sanity, for more time to consider this resolution, for more hard evidence on the need for this resolution.
Before we put this great Nation on the track to war, I want to see more evidence, hard evidence, not more Presidential rhetoric. In support of this resolution, several people have pointed out that President Kennedy acted unilaterally in the Cuban missile crisis. That is true. I remember that. I was here. I also remember President Kennedy going on national television and showing proof of the threat we faced. I remember him sending our UN ambassador, Adlai Stevenson, to the United Nations, to provide proof to the world that there was a threat to the national security of the United States.
All we get from this administration is rhetoric. In fact, in an address to our NATO colleagues, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, according to the Chicago Tribune, urged our allies to resist the idea for the need of absolute proof about terrorists intent before they took action.
Before we unleash what Thomas Jefferson called the "dogs of war," I want to know, have we exhausted every avenue of peace? My favorite book does not say, blessed are the war makers. It says: "Blessed are the peacemakers." Have we truly pursued peace?
If the need for taking military action against Iraq is so obvious and so needed and so urgent, then why are nearly every one of our allies opposed to it? Why is the President on the phone nearly every day trying to convince our allies to join us?
So many people, so many nations in the Arab world already hate and fear us. Why do we want them to hate and fear us even more?
People are correct to point out that September 11 changed everything. We need to be more careful. We need to build up our intelligence efforts and our homeland security. But do we go around pounding everybody, anybody, who might pose a threat to our security? If we clobber Iraq today, do we clobber Iran tomorrow?
When do we attack China? When do we attack North Korea? When do we attack Syria?
Unless I can be shown proof that these distant nations do pose an immediate, serious threat to the national interests and security of the United States, I think we should finish our war on terrorism. I think we should destroy those who destroyed the Trade Towers and attacked the Pentagon. I think we should get thug No. 1 before we worry about thug No. 2.
Yes, September 11 changed many aspects of our lives, but people still bleed. America's mothers will still weep for their sons and their daughters who will not come home.
September 11 should have made us more aware of the pain that comes from being attacked. We, more than ever, are aware of the damage, the deaths, and the suffering that comes from violent attacks.
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. Byrd: I thank the Chair.
This is what we are about to do to other countries. We are about to inflict this horrible suffering upon other people.
Of course, we do not talk about this. We talk about taking out Saddam Hussein. We are talking about taking out Iraq, about "regime change."
I do not want history to remember my country as being on the side of evil.
During the Civil War, a minister expressed his hope to President Lincoln that the Lord was on the side of the North. The Great Emancipator reportedly rebuked the minister stating:
It is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation are on the Lord's side.
Before I vote for this resolution for war, a war in which thousands, perhaps tens of thousands or hundred of thousands of people may die, I want to make sure that I and this Nation are on God's side.
I want more time. I want more evidence. I want to know that I am right, that our Nation is right, and not just powerful.
And I want the language that is in this amendment so that Congress can oversee this power grab and act to terminate it at some point in time--giving the President the opportunity to extend the time but let's keep Congress in the act.
Senators, vote for this amendment. I plead with you.
The Acting President pro tempore: Who yields time?
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, I am opposed to the Byrd amendment, for this is a resolution to deter war.
The amendment proposed by Senator Byrd would insert into the joint resolution, language which would state that nothing in that joint resolution: is intended to alter the constitutional authorities of the Congress to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, or other authorities invested in Congress by Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution; or shall be construed as granting any authority to the President to use the U.S. Armed Forces for any purpose not directly related to a clear threat of imminent, sudden, and direct attack upon the U.S. or its armed forces unless the Congress otherwise authorizes.
The amendment of the Senator from West Virginia attempts to do something that the Framers of the Constitution did not attempt--to define, with particularity, the extent of the President's powers as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Specifically, it would limit the authority of the President to use Armed Forces to a narrowly defined set of circumstance--"a clear threat of imminent, sudden and direct attack upon the United States or its Armed Forces." Even when the United States enjoyed genuine geographic and political isolation from the Old World, such a limitation could not be maintained. Within a decade of the ratification of the Constitution, the United States engaged in an undeclared naval war with France. Shortly thereafter, we engaged in undeclared war with the Barbary States of North Africa, who had engaged in piratical depredations against American shipping.
In 1861, President Lincoln, faced with an unprecedented situation, imposed a blockade--an act of war normally employed against a foreign enemy--upon the Southern Confederacy. He did this without congressional authorization. The Supreme Court later upheld this action in the famous Prize Cases, stating that the President had a constitutional duty to meet the insurrection as he found it; the determination that a state of war existed was for him to make.
This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. Since 1945, Presidents of both parties have repeatedly committed American troops abroad without formal congressional approval. Whether in Korea, Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, or numerous other areas of the world, our Presidents have used their powers as Commander in Chief to protect the Nation and American interests whenever they, in their considered judgment, thought it best to do so. The Clinton administration, which committed American troops to military operations abroad on an unprecedented scale in situations not involving imminent danger of attack to the United States, did not request formal congressional approval for any of those oeprations-- believing that the President possessed the constitutional authority to do so. Indeed, the Secretary of State in 1998 publicly stated that the 1991 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, together with existing Security Council resolutions, constituted sufficient authority for the use of force against Iraq.
On September 11th of last year the American people awoke to the realization that they were in imminent danger, had been for some time, and this danger gives no warning. It is a different type of danger, but no less real and no less threatening to the Nation than more traditional ones. As the President reminded us in his speech to the Nation on Monday evening:
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints . . . confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror.
On the Today Show this week, Richard Butler, former head of UNSCOM, was asked how easy it would be for the Iraqis to arm a terrorist group or an individual terrorist with weapons of mass destruction. His response was "Extremely easy. If they decided to do it, piece of cake!"
They may already have done it. The danger is clear, present, and imminent. We must grant the President the authority to use armed force to protect the Nation, and the flexibility to employ that force as seems best to him. Our enemies are cunning and flexible; we cannot defeat them with anything less.
The Byrd amendment regarding preservation of Congress's constitutional authorities is unnecessary. The portion of the amendment that would limit the authority of the President to wage war is, arguably unconstitutional. The Congress can declare war, but it cannot dictate to the President how to wage war. No law passed by Congress could alter the constitutional separation of powers.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. Lieberman: Mr. President, I yield the remaining time on our side to my friend from Arizona.
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his thoughtful statement. I want to say in the few remaining seconds that to view the cause of the tragedy of the Vietnam war as being the Tonkin Gulf resolution is a somewhat, in my view, simplistic view.
There were a lot of factors that entered into the beginning and the continuation of the Vietnam war. The Tonkin Gulf resolution was simply window dressing. At any time the Congress of the United States could have reversed that resolution and chose not to.
The Acting President pro tempore: The time in opposition has expired.
The sponsor has 37 seconds.
Byrd: Mr. President, this is a Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again. Let us stop, look, and listen. Let us not give this President, or any President, unchecked power. Remember the Constitution. Remember the Constitution.
Mr. President, I yield back my time.
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. Lieberman: Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The Acting President pro tempore: They have not.
Mr. Lieberman: I ask for the yeas and nays.
The Acting President pro tempore: Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to Byrd amendment No. 4869, as modified.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. Reid: I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), are necessarily absent.
Mr. Nickles: I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Miller): Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 31, nays 66, as follows:
| Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YEAS--31 | ||||
| Akaka | Biden | Bingaman | Boxer | Byrd |
| Cantwell | Chafee | Clinton | Conrad | Corzine |
| Dayton | Dodd | Dorgan | Durbin | Feingold |
| Harkin | Hollings | Inouye | Jeffords | Kennedy |
| Kerry | Kohl | Leahy | Levin | Rockefeller |
| Sarbanes | Schumer | Stabenow | Torricelli | Wellstone |
| Wyden | ||||
| NAYS--66 | ||||
| Allard | Allen | Baucus | Bayh | Bennett |
| Bond | Breaux | Brownback | Bunning | Burns |
| Campbell | Carnahan | Carper | Cleland | Cochran |
| Collins | Craig | Crapo | Daschle | DeWine |
| Domenici | Edwards | Ensign | Enzi | Feinstein |
| Fitzgerald | Frist | Graham | Gramm | Grassley |
| Gregg | Hagel | Hatch | Hutchinson | Hutchison |
| Inhofe | Johnson | Kyl | Landrieu | Lieberman |
| Lott | Lugar | McCain | McConnell | Miller |
| Murkowski | Murray | Nelson (FL) | Nelson (NE) | Nickles |
| Reed | Reid | Roberts | Santorum | Sessions |
| Shelby | Smith (NH) | Smith (OR) | Snowe | Specter |
| Stevens | Thomas | Thompson | Thurmond | Voinovich |
| Warner | ||||
| NOT VOTING--3 | ||||
| Helms | Lincoln | Mikulski | ||
The amendment (No. 4869), as modified, was rejected.
The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, there will now be 45 minutes prior to the cloture vote on amendment No. 4856, as modified. Under the previous order, the first 15 minutes shall be under the control of the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, the second 15 minutes shall be under the control of the Republican leader, and the third 15 minutes shall be under the control of the majority leader.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes of my 15 minutes to the distinguish Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter.
