Space

[Page: S6455]

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana retains the floor.

AMENDMENT NO. 4058

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I wonder if I can inquire from the Senator from New Hampshire what amount of time he requests we yield on this?

Mr. SMITH. I believe under the request I had 20 minutes. Probably very close to that amount of time.

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, may I just make a unanimous-consent request before the Senator makes his statement? I ask unanimous consent that Linda Taylor, a fellow in my office, be given the privilege of the floor during the pendency of S. 1745.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 18 minutes remaining.

Mr. COATS. I yield all time remaining to the Senator from New Hampshire.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, some things are very predictable around here. One of the most predictable is that somebody every year gets up there in the authorization debate and tries to kill the ASAT Program. This is not a harmless amendment. This is a very serious amendment that can do damage to the national security of the United States.

I might say very bluntly and honestly, I do not have any parochial interest in this. I have a national interest in this. There is not anybody working on this in my State. It is not a jobs issue in my State. This is a national security matter, and year after year I stand up and engage in debate on this, and in committee, as the opponents continue to go after this program.

This amendment is designed to kill ASAT , to kill the kinetic energy program plain and simple. That is exactly what it is designed to do. That is what they are trying to do. We have invested $245 million in this program. We have 2 years left, at approximately $75 million a year, to complete this program. This technology works. It has already been tested. It works. We are going to throw it down the tube, throw it away.

What is ironic to me is that some of the things that Senator Bingaman has said on this issue are reasonable. In fact, I offered to work with the Senator in committee to address his concerns over the section dealing with the space architect. But, we could not reach a compromise. There was no interest in having a compromise. He wants the whole thing. He wants to defeat it.

So here we are again, rather than simply addressing the concerns that he has over the space architect issue, the Senator from New Mexico now is going after the entire program--all or nothing.

The truth is, this amendment circumvents the authorization and appropriations process totally. It allows the space architect to singlehandedly decide if the Pentagon spends the money that has been authorized and appropriated in both 1996 and 1997 for ASAT . That is an assault on the jurisdiction of this committee, the Armed Services Committee, and the Appropriations Committee. There is a process in place, a correct process, to seek reprogramming or rescissions, and that works pretty well around here. But to say that the space architect, whose identity I would venture to say very few of my colleagues even know, can decide whether or not he wants to comply with the law, this represents an enormous erosion of the Senate's jurisdiction and particularly that of the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees.

We voted on this issue many times, both Republicans and Democrats, under Democrat control, under Republican control. The Senate has always gone on record in support of this program, and yet the assaults continue. The Armed Forces have testified that they need this capability. The Armed Forces have said they need this capability. The taxpayers have invested millions in its development. Now, when we are so close to completing the program, why kill it? You should not kill it on the money, because you have invested so much, but more important--much more important--you should not kill it because of the technology.

Let us talk a little bit about why it makes no sense to kill it and why it is a threat to our national security to do that.

The global spread of advanced satellite technology has made it possible for countries to obtain this high-definition imagery for satellites in low orbit or to buy that information. This data is crucial because in a future conflict, the United States has to be able to neutralize a hostile satellite. How are you going to do that? This is how you do it, with kinetic energy ASAT . But at present, we do not have that capability. We simply do not have the capability.

If you think back, during the gulf war, the Iraqi Air Force was destroyed or forced out of the air in the first few days of fighting, and Iraq had no reconnaissance capability. This lack of Iraqi overhead surveillance made it possible for the allies to mass their forces and sweep across the desert to bring a swift conclusion to a war that could have cost thousands--thousands --of American casualties.

Gen. Charles Horner, Desert Storm air commander, said that the diplomacy that we used convinced France and Russia not to sell reconnaissance data to Iraq. Suppose they had it? We had no way to stop them with that kind of reconnaissance. ASAT destroys those satellites, Mr. President. Why would anyone want to stop that technology?

Satellites that can be placed up in the air, over the Earth in low orbit with a capability to spy on the United States, spy on our forces, collect data, transmit data, what does ASAT do? What does this satellite do? It disables. It disables that satellite and keeps that enemy from collecting that information.

Why would anyone want to deny the United States of America the capability to do that? It baffles me. I cannot understand it. Every year, year after year, we have to take the same position--for 6 years I have done it--defending this system, while those in this Congress and some in the administration try to kill it, try to kill the capability of the United States to take out a satellite that could destroy American forces.

Some say, `Well, nobody out there has any capability for satellites. What do we need ASAT for?' According to the U.S. Space Command, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, and Ukraine, to name 30. They do not have any capability? It is out there, folks.

You say some of those are friendly countries. That is right, and they sell this technology and there are a lot of people out there buying it.

`Why not just jam them?' they say. We do not have the capability to do that.

A U.S. antisatellite capability--and this is a very important point, I cannot emphasize this strongly enough to my colleagues--is a disincentive for a potential adversary to spend their resources on military satellites. A U.S. kinetic energy ASAT could help constrain the proliferation of such systems. Why would somebody want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop satellites to put in space to spy on us or to use to collect data against our forces if they know we can disable them or disarm them? The chances are they will not. Yet, here we are, here we are, saying, `Let's kill the program.'

Russia leads the world in space launches of military satellites.

Ukraine is building a series of radar satellites.

China is launching military recon satellites and have been doing it for 20 years. They are selling space launches and satellite technology all over the world.

United Arab Emirates reportedly has ordered a military reconnaissance satellite from a consortium of Russian firms.

On and on and on, and yet we stand here on the floor today having to defend attacks on us, those who support this system. I have had enough of it, Mr. President, to be very blunt about it. I have had enough of it. I am tired of it. I think it is outrageous that people come down on this floor and put our forces at risk to try to kill the technology that works, that protects us.

Let me repeat, had Saddam Hussein had the capability, had he had these satellites, we would have lost thousands of Americans because we could not have disabled them. We have the technology. It works. Why are we not using it?

It does not make any sense, Mr. President, not to continue this technology. This technology was designed, developed, manufactured, and integrated under the Kinetic Energy ASAT Demonstration Validation Program from 1990 to 1993 and ground tested, and it works. Here we are having to defend it from these attacks.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 30 seconds remaining.

[Page: S6456]

Mr. SMITH. The distinguished chairman, Senator Thurmond, has asked for a little of my time, so I will just conclude by saying, if we lose this vote and lose this technology and end this technology, ASAT , it, in my opinion, will be a direct threat to the thousands of American men and women all over the world who wear the uniforms of the Armed Forces of the United States.

It is an unprecedented erosion of our constitutional prerogative. When we take the oath to the Constitution, we take an oath to protect and defend America. This protects and defends America. I have been hearing a lot of this talk. I have heard some of it already, and we will hear a lot more, about how we are going to do this stuff with lasers, disable all these satellites with laser technology, that that is the thing of the future. It might be, but it is not here yet. What are we going to do here in between?

For those who might not care about the military application--or maybe you care about space junk--kinetic energy ASAT disables satellites. It does not break them up into hundreds of pieces and create space junk. It disables them. It is a very important point.

I would think the Senate would want to think long and hard before ending this technology because this amendment will do that. That is what it is designed to do.

There will be another amendment coming to cut the funding off just in case this one does not work. We face that every year.

I want to conclude on this point, Mr. President. I have been on the Armed Services Committee here in the U.S. Senate under Democrat and Republican leadership. We have fought this fight every year. And Democrats, when they were in the majority, were some of the strongest supporters on that committee of this program.

This is not a Republican-Democrat issue here. This is a national security issue. It deserves to be supported. Why some in the administration have taken the position that it ought not to be, and some in the Senate, I do not know. But I know this is dangerous. This is a dangerous amendment. I do not say that about very many amendments on this floor. This is a dangerous amendment. This could cost American lives, and not too far in the distant future either. This could be very close in the immediate future. This could cost American lives.

We have the technology to disable satellites. We ought to use it. It is proven. We have expended roughly two-thirds of the money. It is in place. The military supports it. And those policymakers who do not are ill-advised. They are wrong. They are absolutely wrong. We have an obligation to stand up and be heard on this, when these kinds of things happen.

So I am proud to say, Mr. President, that I support this program, not for any parochial reasons, but for national security reasons. I am standing here on the floor today because this system works. It is necessary for the security of the United States of America. It protects American lives. It ought to be funded fully. It ought not to be in any way diminished.

So I ask my colleagues, please, do not fall for this faulty line, this false information, and to support kinetic energy ASAT .

I yield the floor, Mr. President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, how much time is left?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has 3 minutes, 20 seconds.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, first, I want to commend the able Senator from New Hampshire for the excellent remarks he has made on this subject. He has made a very emphatic case for our side. I am very proud that he has done that today.

Mr. President. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico. A similar variation of the amendment was offered in the committee during markup and it was not accepted.

The Congress has authorized and/or appropriated funds for the kinetic energy antisatellite technology program since 1985. For the past 3 years the administration has not complied with the law and obligated the funds for the program. Every year, as a result, we have to take actions to force the Department to comply with legislation to compel them to obligate the funds for this particular program.

Mr. President, the Under Secretary of Defense for Space, Bob Davis, has stated on many occasions that there is a need to develop systems to counter the space threat. The Congress has supported the kinetic energy antisatellite technologies for that purposes, as well as other technologies which are not ready for production or are years away from deployment. The KE-ASAT program is the only near-term program to meet a potential enemy satellite threat.

The U.S military relies on space for surveillance, communications, navigation, and attack warning. It is important for the United States to ensure its freedom to use space. If our adversaries achieve the ability to control space and the United States does not have the capability to turn this around, we will lose our military advantage.

Mr. President, I, again, oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum for Robert T. Howard, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Budget by Jay M. Garner, Lieutenant General, USA, commanding, be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the memorandum was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Space and Strategic Defense Command,
Arlington, VA, January 3, 1996.
Memorandum for MG Robert T. Howard, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Budget.
Subject: Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite (ASAT ) Technology Funding Reduction.

1. USASSDC nonconcurs with action proposed by Program Budget Decision 719, which rescinds $30M from the ASAT program in support of the Bosnia Supplemental. USASSDC believes kinetic energy technology will prove to be a vital capability for the future. In addition, the kill vehicle currently being tested may have applicability to other programs.

2. The total KE ASAT technology program encompasses four years (FY96-99) at a cost of $180M, which includes the $30M currently being considered for rescission. The program is structured to develop incremental technology improvements (and possible insertion into other programs), necessary kill vehicle and booster procurements, and testing. For example, in FY96, weapon control system integration, software upgrades, and kill vehicle refurbishment will be accomplished in support of a planned hover test. This hover test, along with kill vehicle qualification testing and hardware in the loop simulation planned for FY97 will facilitate full up flight tests during FY98. As in the past, we expect continued Congressional funding and support of this program to not affect Army's research and development account, or overall total obligation authority (TOA). Based on this level of funding a contingency deployment capability will be achieved by FY99.

3. The current contract with Rockwell will terminate on January 31, 1996. If allowed to do so, ASAT contingency capability will be delayed by a minimum of one year depending on when funding is made available.

4. Point of contact for this action is LTC Robert M. Shell at (703) 607-1934.
JAY M. GARNER,

Lieutenant General,
USA, Commanding.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bingaman amendment on ASAT programs. His amendment would simply remove two very onerous provisions from the bill and permit the Department of Defense `Space Architect' to complete a study we have required, and determine which anti-satellite technologies are most appropriate for the U.S. military.

His amendment would not kill the ASAT Program, as its opponents have charged. In fact, his amendment would leave in place $75 million for U.S. ASAT programs, which was added by the committee majority, for the ASAT Program. This is funding the administration did not request, but which was added by the majority.

I believe it would be appropriate to eliminate the funding as well as the two provisions in the bill, because I do not believe there is a need to fund this ASAT Program. But this amendment by Senator Bingaman is a compromise that would leave in place all the funding added by the Committee majority, but strip out the two provisions that were in the bill. It would leave the Department of Defense the option of pursuing the kinetic energy ASAT Program if it is considered appropriate technology. But the bill mandates that the Pentagon choose the KE ASAT , without even knowing the results of the current study being conducted by the `Space Architect.'

So the amendment offered by Senator Bingaman is a very reasonable compromise that leaves open all ASAT options while keeping $75 million that was not even requested by the Administration. Although I do not believe that this funding is justified, I think the underlying provisions in the bill are totally unjustified and should be rejected by the Senate.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Bingaman amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. SMITH. At this time, not to interrupt the debate, I would like, if the Senator from New Mexico is finished, to move the amendment, or at least ask for the yeas and nays. Let me just ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I did want to conclude my debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table is not in order at this point.

Mr. SMITH. I will withhold.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico controls 10 minutes, 52 seconds.

AMENDMENT NO. 4058, AS MODIFIED

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, I am informed by the floor staff that I need to send a modification to the desk. It is a technical modification to make it clear as to which page and which line is being proposed for striking in this amendment. I send that modification to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.

The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

Beginning on page 33, strike out line 3 and all that follows through page 34, line 2, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

SEC. 212. SPACE CONTROL ARCHITECTURE STUDY.

(a) Required Consideration of Kinetic Energy Tactical Antisatellite Program.--The Department of Defense Space Architect shall evaluate the potential cost and effectiveness of the inclusion of the kinetic energy tactical antisatellite program of the Department of Defense as a specific element of the space control architecture which the Space Architect is developing for the Secretary of Defense.

(b) Congressional Notification of Any Determination of Inappropriateness of Program for Architecture.--(1) If at any point in the development of the space control architecture the Space Architect determines that the kinetic energy tactical antisatellite program is not appropriate for incorporation into the space control architecture under development, the Space Architect shall immediately notify the congressional defense committees of such determination.

(2) Within 60 days after submitting a notification of a determination under paragraph (1), the Space Architect shall submit to the congressional defense committees a detailed report setting forth the specific reasons for, and analytical findings supporting, the determination.

(c) Report on Approved Architecture.--Not later than March 31, 1997, the Secretary, of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the space control architecture approved by the Secretary. The report shall include the following:

(1) An assessment of the potential threats posed to deployed United States military forces by the proliferation of foreign military and commercial space assets.

(2) The Secretary's recommendations for development and deployment of space control capabilities to counter such threats.

(d) Funding.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall release to the kinetic energy tactical antisatellite program manager the funds appropriated in fiscal year 1996 for the kinetic energy tactical antisatellite program. The Secretary may withdraw unobligated balances of such funds from the program manager only if--

(A) the Space Architect makes a determination described in subsection (b)(1); or

(B) a report submitted by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (c) includes a recommendation not to pursue such a program.

(2) Not later than April 1, 1997, the Secretary of Defense shall release to the kinetic energy tactical antisatellite program manager any funds appropriated for fiscal year 1997 for a kinetic energy tactical antisatellite program pursuant to section 221(a) unless--

(A) the Space Architect has by such date submitted a notification pursuant to subsection (b); or

(B) a report submitted by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (c) includes a recommendation not to pursue such a program.

Beginning on page 42, strike out line 15 and all that follows through page 43, line 9

[Page: S6458]

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just respond briefly. I do not think I will take the full 10 minutes. The Senator from New Hampshire says that this amendment that I have offered is an effort to kill the ASAT Program. That is clearly not true. There is nothing in the amendment that I have offered which in any way tries to delete or reduce or diminish funding for an ASAT Program. I made it very clear that I support that funding. The funding remains in the bill.

The Senator from New Hampshire is saying that the Pentagon is trying to kill its own ASAT capability. I have real trouble understanding that logic or believing that that is a credible line of argument.

The real question we are trying to pose here, Mr. President, is, should we allow the Pentagon to come forward with their own recommendation on what makes the most sense, what is the best option for an ASAT capability, or should we prejudge that?

I remember a story that I heard when I was in school about how Henry Ford used to say, `You can have any color of Model-T Ford that you want as long as it's black.' What we are saying here in the existing bill to the Pentagon is, `You can pursue any option you want to obtain ASAT capability as long as you take the one we want you to take.' That is not a smart way for us to proceed. We do not have the technical capability here in the U.S. Senate to prejudge this study that the Pentagon is engaged in.

My colleague from New Hampshire says that the military supports this kinetic energy ASAT capability; they want to go ahead and fund it. If that is true, then why do we have to mandate in the bill that they have to fund it? Why do we have to mandate in the bill that they cannot spend any money for these other purposes unless they fund it, unless they choose that option?

I think clearly what the majority in the committee is trying to do in this bill is to take away the options of the Pentagon and say the Pentagon has to fight the way we say or else we will impose sanctions upon them.

My colleague from New Hampshire says that anyone who would support this amendment, the amendment I have offered, is trying to put our forces at risk. Why is it putting our forces at risk to let the Pentagon decide what makes the most sense, what is the most effective for protecting our forces? I have real difficulty understanding that kind of logic.

Mr. President, the amendment that I have offered is not an effort to kill the ASAT Program. It is not an effort to reduce funding for the ASAT Program. There is nothing in the amendment that does either of those things. What it says is, let us give them the money, let us give them the ability to come back and recommend to us the proper use of that money to gain the greatest capability for protecting our own forces.

To me that is common sense. I have great difficulty seeing why we even have to argue about it.

I am reminded, as I hear the debate raging around here, that when I was practicing law, a more senior member of the bar early on in some of the trial practice I engaged in said there is a simple rule in trying a lawsuit. When the facts are on your side, pound away at the facts; when the law is on your side, pound away at the law; when neither are on your side, pound away at the table. That is what is happening here. Neither the facts nor the law nor common sense are on the side of those who put this provision in the bill.

We clearly should delete this provision. Let the Pentagon make its own recommendations as to what option is best for our troops. That is what I favor doing. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND. I yield the remainder of the time to the able Senator from New Hampshire, and I ask unanimous consent that 2 additional minutes be allowed the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to an additional 2 minutes, but I would like 2 minutes on my side.

Mr. THURMOND. I have no objection.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized for up to 2 minutes and 58 seconds.

Mr. SMITH. I will respond to my friend from New Mexico. We worked very closely together on the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee. I will not pound the table. I am not even going to raise my voice. The truth of the matter--and the Senator knows this full well--the administration did not request any funding in their budget for the ASAT Program.

Unless I am missing something in the logic here--I do not believe I am; maybe the Senator would like me to miss it and would like others to miss it--unless I misunderstand something, if the administration does not request it and the policy folks do not want it, if we send it back to the space architect, who is a policy person, to study it, you can pretty well conclude what the results will be. They will not fund it.

When I say this is a deliberate attempt to kill the Kinetic Energy ASAT Program, I mean what I say. It is true. It will kill it. The other thing that we need to understand here, the Army supports the Kinetic Energy ASAT Program. They objected to the rescission list. They objected to this being listed as a rescission item. They did not win the debate. The policy people won.

The Senator's amendment sends this back to the space architect. He will study it diligently over the next few weeks, months, whatever it takes, and then announce that we do not need it, and kill it. This is not an objective decision here. This person was not objective. This person made up his mind already. He does not want it. If he wanted it, he would have funded the remainder of it, which has already been--as we said earlier, we have already expended $245 million on this program, and we have already proven that it works, and we already have the technology in place. All we are asking for is the completion. That is the reason why this is a killer amendment.

We should not be cute about the process here. When somebody opposes something, you give it back to them to make the decision, you can pretty well guess what the decision is going to be. That is a little bit disingenuous. They did not fund it. The administration does not want this program. The administration is getting quite a reputation around here for not expending moneys that we have appropriated and authorized. They are getting pretty good at it, and they are doing it without legislation. They are just doing it. They are just saying, `We do not want this, so even though you authorized it and appropriated it, we are not going to spend it.'

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

The Senator from New Mexico has 7 minutes 45 seconds.

[Page: S6459]

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, again I will not take the full 7 minutes, but let me conclude by saying that I think there is clearly a failure to communicate here on this issue.

My colleague from New Hampshire says that the Army wants this program. Looking at the facts: The administration asked for a fairly healthy defense budget; the Armed Services Committee, in the bill that is before the Senate here, added about over $12 billion to that--something in that range. In order to come up with that additional money, we went to each of the services and said, `What is on your wish list? Are there things you would like to have funded that we were not able to fund, or that the President did not request, or that the Pentagon did not request, the Secretary of Defense did not request?' The Army gave us over $2 billion worth of those, more like $3 billion. I am not sure of the exact amount.

Again, there was nothing in there for this ASAT capability. The argument that the Army wants this, they just never want us to give them any money for it, is a hard one for me to understand. I think, clearly, this is not a program I am trying to kill. We are not touching the money. The money has been added here, and we are saying, `Fine, let's go ahead and spend the money for whichever option the Pentagon wants to pursue.' But let the Pentagon make the judgment. Do not try to prejudge the right technology in order to develop this ASAT capability. That is all we are saying.

The end of the amendment that I have offered, I think, makes it very clear that not later than April 1, 1997, the Secretary of Defense shall release to the kinetic energy antisatellite program manager any funds appropriated in 1997 for the Kinetic Energy Tactical Antisatellite Program pursuant to section 221(a) unless the space architect has by such date submitted a notification; or a report submitted by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (c) includes a recommendation not to pursue such a program.

What I am trying to do in my amendment is to protect the ability of the Pentagon to use the money in the most effective way. We are not in favor of mandating a result in an ongoing study where they are trying to make a judgment as to what is the best use of this money to protect our own forces.

I have confidence that the Pentagon will make a judgment based on their honest and expert opinion as to what makes sense for the country and for our own forces. I do not think we need to prejudge that. Accordingly, I hope very much that my amendment will be agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask that Senator Bumpers be added as a cosponsor to my amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have no additional debate.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent upon

disposition of the Bingaman amendment, that Senator Ashcroft and Senator Kennedy be recognized to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes each.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to table this amendment, and I 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 is on agreeing to the motion to table.

The yeas and nays have been ordered.

The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] would vote `no.'

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

Rollcall Vote No. 162 Leg.

• Abraham
• Ashcroft
• Bennett
• Bond
• Brown
• Burns
• Campbell
• Chafee
• Coats
• Cochran
• Cohen
• Coverdell
• Craig
• D'Amato
• DeWine
• Domenici
• Faircloth
• Frahm
• Frist
• Gorton
• Gramm
• Grams
• Grassley
• Gregg
• Hatch
• Heflin
• Helms
• Hutchison
• Inhofe
• Kassebaum
• Kempthorne
• Kyl
• Lott
• Lugar
• Mack
• McCain
• McConnell
• Murkowski
• Nickles
• Pressler
• Roth
• Santorum
• Shelby
• Simpson
• Smith
• Snowe
• Specter
• Stevens
• Thomas
• Thompson
• Thurmond
• Warner

• Akaka
• Baucus
• Biden
• Bingaman
• Boxer
• Bradley
• Breaux
• Bryan
• Byrd
• Conrad
• Daschle
• Dodd
• Dorgan
• Exon
• Feingold
• Feinstein
• Ford
• Glenn
• Graham
• Harkin
• Hatfield
• Hollings
• Inouye
• Jeffords
• Johnston
• Kennedy
• Kerrey
• Kerry
• Kohl
• Lautenberg
• Leahy
• Levin
• Lieberman
• Mikulski
• Moseley-Braun
• Moynihan
• Murray
• Nunn
• Pell
• Pryor
• Reid
• Robb
• Sarbanes
• Simon
• Wellstone
• Wyden

• Bumpers
• Rockefeller

The motion to table the amendment (No. 4058), as modified, was agreed to.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.