[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 148 (Friday, November 15, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11162-S11166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HOMELAND SECURITY AND TERRORISM INSURANCE
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am curious, if I could get the attention
of the distinguished majority whip, what is the plan this morning, if I
can inquire of how we are going to proceed?
Mr. REID. We, of course, in 55 minutes, are going to vote on cloture
on homeland security. Prior to that time, it would be our desire to
move to the very important antiterrorism legislation that has been here
for more than a year. We are going to do that. We would like to do it
by unanimous consent. As the chairman knows, it is a nondebatable
motion to move to that matter. We are going to have a vote on that in
the near future. We do not know exactly when.
We are going to try to get a unanimous consent agreement, perhaps, to
only have one vote and get rid of the legislation. That would be
preferable, rather than trying to mess around with a cloture motion on
it because, if necessary, we will file cloture on it.
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
Mr. BYRD. Is the Senator talking about a conference report when he
says it is a nondebatable motion? Is he talking about a conference
report?
Mr. REID. Yes. What I am talking about is, we have terrorism
insurance legislation passed in the House last night.
Mr. BYRD. Is that a conference report?
Mr. REID. Yes, it is a conference report.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield further for a question?
Mr. REID. Yes. I am happy to yield.
Mr. SARBANES. I am taken aback by the notion that we are not going to
be able to go to this legislation by some unanimous consent, that we
are going to have to invoke cloture, and all the rest of it. I do not
quite understand where that opposition is coming from.
In fact, it passed the House on a voice vote without any opposition
whatever expressed over on the House side. And this is something that
has been laboriously worked over under the very effective leadership of
my very distinguished and able colleague from Connecticut. I was
operating under the assumption that we would be able to go to it in
short order.
People will want to make some speeches and explanatory statements, I
would assume, although I don't see any need for any lengthy debate or a
long involvement of time in order to finally conclude this legislation.
Mr. REID. I respond to my friend, the chairman of the Banking
Committee, logic, reason, common sense has not applied to this
legislation. We have worked on this for more than a year, and just when
it appears we are over the hill, some phantom objection comes and we
are not able to do it.
We are now at this point, and I think that what should happen is
there should be a couple of hours. This is some of the most important
legislation that has passed this body. It is extremely important to all
sectors of our economy. I think we should have a couple hours to
explain the legislation and then have a vote on it and get it out of
here and send it to the President's desk. I think that would be the
preference of a vast majority of the people here.
But I want to make it very clear to everyone here, if we cannot do it
in a logical, reasonable, orderly way, we are going to do whatever it
takes to get this legislation out of here. If we have to work tomorrow,
Sunday, Monday, this legislation will pass. And we are now in the
procedural perspective where alternatives to slowing this down are very
slim.
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator.
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield to the President pro tempore.
Mr. BYRD. I hope we are not going to work on Sunday. That is a
religious holiday for this Senator. We do observe religious holidays
around here. Furthermore, I think the distinguished Democratic whip's
mention of reason and logic and common sense should be applied to the
homeland security legislation as well.
I hope all Senators within the sound of my voice here in this Chamber
and listening on the TV--
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time controlled by the majority
leader has expired.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1
minute.
[[Page S11163]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I hope that all Senators within the sound of my voice will
vote no on cloture today. Here is a 484-page bill that we have not seen
until the wee hours of the morning on Wednesday, the day before
yesterday. And the Senators are being asked to invoke cloture on this
measure when we do not know everything about it. What is in it? We are
entitled to have some time to study this bill. We owe it to
our constituents.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield, if I may have an additional 2 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, could the Senator have an additional 10
minutes so we could discuss this?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. I just wondered, has the Senator noticed that the
newspapers are filled now with stories about provisions that are in
this legislation that have appeared, in a sense, out of nowhere? All of
a sudden they have manifested themselves in this legislation,
provisions that were not in this bill before, dealing with unrelated,
extraneous matters.
Mr. BYRD. Yes, exactly, one of which happens to appear to target a
facility for a district represented by a Member of the House from
Texas. We do not know what that facility is, but it has been slipped
into this measure.
Mr. SARBANES. I say to the distinguished Senator, I was not even
aware of that one. That one has not yet risen to the level of being
covered in these newspaper stories.
Mr. BYRD. I think that is where I got a glimmer of it, somewhere in a
newspaper story.
Mr. SARBANES. I missed that. But that is just another example of what
may well be stacked away--it is not as though this is simply or
straightforwardly a revision or an alteration of provisions directly
related to homeland security which we have been dealing with here, and
so there have been some changes or modifications.
As I understand it, it is becoming increasingly evident that there
are a number of provisions in here that have nothing to do with
homeland security. Is that the Senator's understanding?
Mr. BYRD. Exactly. And I am very much alarmed by it. I spent 3 hours
yesterday talking about some of these provisions. And, of course, there
is a provision in here to reward the pharmaceutical companies. That is
pork for pharmaceutical companies. That just came to light. That did
not go through any committee. That had no hearings, no testimony of
witnesses--just slipped into the bill in the wee hours of the morning
of Wednesday. It is alarming.
Here we are about to pass this massive bill without our knowing its
contents. It has never seen a day or an hour of hearings in any
committee, and it is just put together by somebody in the shades of
darkness. And then, here it is, dropped on our desks yesterday morning.
We are supposed to pass this. It provides for a massive shift of
power to the executive branch, a massive shift, and Congress will be
left out of the loop. I think we ought to at least have a few more days
to study this bill, have our staffs able to study it, and advise us as
to what is in it. That is all I am asking.
I do not doubt cloture will be invoked at some point, but it should
not be invoked today. We ought to at least have until sometime next
week to further study this before cloture clamps its beartrap on us.
Mr. SARBANES. I think the Senator raises a very important point. It
would at least then give us the weekend to go through the provisions of
this proposal.
Mr. BYRD. Yes. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland for
his observations.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator from West
Virginia will yield further for a question.
Mr. BYRD. I will be glad to, if I may do so.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, if the Senator from West Virginia
continues to have time--
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes.
Mr. DORGAN. I would like to make an inquiry similar to the inquiry
made by my colleague from Maryland.
There is an article in this morning's newspaper which contains some
information which is very surprising to me, which was referenced
briefly yesterday on the Senate floor, relative to the homeland
security bill. This homeland security bill has a provision in it which
says:
Riding along on legislation to create a new federal
Department of Homeland Security is a White House-backed
provision that could head off dozens of potential lawsuits
against . . . pharmaceutical [companies].
It goes on to further explain what this is. It says: Richard Diamond,
a spokesperson for the retiring majority leader in the other body,
Richard Armey:
. . . said the provision was inserted because ``it was
something the White House wanted. It wasn't [Armey's] idea.''
This is a circumstance where a homeland security bill contains a
provision dealing with protection for pharmaceutical companies. The
pharmaceutical companies, according to a Wall Street Journal article,
spent $16 million.
Mr. BYRD. How much?
Mr. DORGAN. They spent $16 million in the recent election. Much of it
went through organizations such as Seniors United and others set up to
move this money out under the guise of an organization called Seniors
United in order to defeat Democratic lawmakers and support Republican
lawmakers.
The point is, this provision now is slipped into a homeland security
bill. It has nothing to do with homeland security. Yet it is a
provision that likely will be very beneficial to the pharmaceutical
industry that spent $16 million in the last election.
Mr. BYRD. It is a blatant payoff to the pharmaceutical companies in
return for their massive contributions to candidates during the
election. That is a massive payoff.
Mr. DORGAN. If I may inquire further, has the Senator from West
Virginia or have other Senators heard from the President or the White
House by what justification would they insert--again, the White House
apparently wanted it; that is what the majority leader of the House
says--a special provision benefiting one industry in something called
homeland security. Has anyone heard an explanation of that?
Mr. BYRD. That was very revealing what the majority leader's staff
person from the other body had to say, pointing the finger at the White
House. That was very revealing. I hope we have more time.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield further?
Mr. BYRD. How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CARPER). There are 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. BYRD. I yield.
Mr. SARBANES. This morning the Baltimore Sun has an editorial--they
entitled it ``Homeland Insecurity''--discussing this legislation.
Mr. BYRD. And rightfully so.
Mr. SARBANES. One paragraph follows right along with what the able
Senator from North Dakota was bringing to our attention. I want to
quote it:
Most alarming is that the version of the legislation passed
by the House on Wednesday--with the Senate apparently soon to
follow--is a 500-page, 11th hour rewrite few lawmakers have
read and perhaps none fully understands.
Mr. BYRD. Well stated.
Mr. SARBANES. Continuing:
New snakes slither out daily, but doubtless many will
remain hidden until long after the measure is enacted into
law.
Mr. BYRD. Well stated. Well stated. I hope Senators will take notice
of that editorial. I hope the Senator will put that in the Record.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the
editorial in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Sun, Nov. 15, 2002]
Homeland Insecurity
ONE LAMENTABLE result of this month's elections is that the
stalemate has been broken over the creation of a monstrous
Department of Homeland Security. This cosmetic
[[Page S11164]]
response to the myriad failures that made the nation
vulnerable on Sept. 11, 2001, offers no assurance that
Americans will be safer. Instead, it poses new dangers.
Most alarming is that the version of the legislation passed
by the House on Wednesday--with the Senate apparently soon to
follow--is a 500-page, 11th-hour rewrite few lawmakers have
read and perhaps none fully understands. New snakes slither
out daily, but doubtless many will remain hidden until long
after the measure is enacted into law.
How can a bill that purports to protect the homeland be so
scary? Let us count some ways:
First, the basic concept is flawed. Combining 22 separate
departments and agencies with nearly 200,000 employees into
one super agency is a recipe for bureaucratic chaos that will
distract workers from their security duties rather than
sharpen their focus. New bosses, new locations, new personnel
rules, new rivalries, new turf battles. These are the issues
that will most concern workers in the years just ahead. How
helpful is that?
The recent squabble between the FBI and the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, neither of which is to be
included in the new department, demonstrates there is little
chance that blending separate agencies to eliminate overlap
and clarify control can be anything but a bloody task.
This proposal came originally from Democrats and was
opposed by President Bush. But the pressure on Congress to
take some action that promised Americans greater security was
so great that Mr. Bush decided to board the train before it
ran over him.
Second, the White House refused to accept a Senate
provision that would have created an independent commission
to investigate government failures that preceded the Sept. 11
attacks, squelching what looked like the best chance of
authorizing such an inquiry. Unless another opportunity
emerges soon, there may never be a detailed look at what went
wrong and why.
Third, union rights and other worker protections will be
stripped from the employees of the new department because the
president says he needs new flexibility to hire, fire and
move people around. No convincing national security rationale
has been offered to justify this broad power grab.
Fourth, citizen access to information about risks or
threats related to critical infrastructure is sharply curbed,
and criminal penalties will be imposed on workers who violate
these strictures. This is a sweeping and unjustified
infringement on press freedoms.
Fifth, the Defense Department is working on a plan to
collect financial and other personal information on all
Americans in the name of homeland security. The new
legislation doesn't permit this outrageous privacy
violation--but it doesn't prohibit it, either.
There's more, but critics are cowed.
Mr. Bush snatched the homeland security issue from Senate
Democrats, then clubbed them with it in a campaign that
challenged their patriotism. A cynical play that matches this
bill.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from
Michigan.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator can't do that. I have the floor.
Mr. REID. Oh, you have the floor. Sorry about that.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
As the distinguished Senator knows, we were on the floor last evening
talking about this very subject related to the pharmaceutical industry
and the fact that there is a provision in this bill that has been
slipped in, more for the financial security of Eli Lilly and the
pharmaceutical industry than homeland security. In fact, it jeopardizes
the rights of families who are now in court as a result of an additive
to a vaccine for infants that contains mercury, where the concern is
that it may, in fact, lead to autism. That is yet to be determined, but
there are serious issues of health.
What we now have in this homeland security bill is an effort to
eliminate any responsibility from the Eli Lilly company for the
possibility that a product of theirs may, in fact, lead to an extremely
harmful health problem for children, autism. I find it outrageous that
in the middle of trying to deal with homeland security and legitimate
issues for the American people that we would find it is, in fact, the
White House slipping into this bill an effort to protect people who
were clearly one of their biggest backers in the last campaign. It is
clear that when the pharmaceutical industry put up millions of dollars
to support the efforts finished on election day, they already are
receiving rewards as a result of what they did in the election.
The American people do not deserve this kind of approach. I
appreciate the Senator bringing it to our attention again. I know there
is an amendment to strike these items which I strongly support. I think
it is absolutely outrageous that, while we are trying to do something
serious for the American people, we would see this kind of help put
into this bill for an industry that is already heavily subsidized by
taxpayers.
Mr. BYRD. Absolutely.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator have
10 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request for 10 additional minutes for the Senator from West Virginia?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I didn't hear the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request that the Senator from West Virginia be recognized for an
additional 10 minutes?
Mr. DASCHLE. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD. Let me compliment the distinguished Senator from Michigan
for her correct, characteristic, acute perception of what is in this
bill. She spoke about this very item on yesterday. I wonder how many
Senators were listening. She is speaking again today, quite
appropriately, calling it to the attention of the Senate and the
American people. I thank her.
I yield to the distinguished Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for
yielding to me. Isn't it interesting, in the eleventh hour, the closing
hours of the session, when the country is at war and a bill that is
perceived to be vital to the defense interests of this country--
Mr. BYRD. Hear, hear.
Mr. NELSON of Florida.--that there would be suddenly inserted or
deleted--
Mr. BYRD. Oh, yes.
Mr. NELSON of Florida.--for example, the provision that was deleted
that passed unanimously in the Senate that we would have a bipartisan
commission to understand the ramifications of September 11? That was in
our version of the bill. And because the White House objected to that,
even though an overwhelming vote had taken place in the House of
Representatives, it was deleted. And because there was such an outcry,
the morning's news says they are going to try to resurrect some
bipartisan commission.
But it shows the legislative sleight of hand in the rush to
adjournment that would now delete a provision so important to the
security of this country, such as a bipartisan commission to find out
what went wrong in the intelligence apparatus that led to September 11
and at the same time would insert provisions into this bill that would
create all kinds of havoc, as enumerated by the Senator from West
Virginia and the Senator from Michigan.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Florida for his observations and for his contribution and for his
service to his country, his service here in the Senate.
Liberty, freedom, justice, and right cry out today to be heard here
on the Senate floor. I urge Senators not to vote later today for
cloture. Let's see what else is in this bill. Let us have time to amend
it, to correct the errors that may be in it, on behalf of the American
people. I ask that we not vote for cloture today.
I suppose my pleadings, my importunings will fall upon deaf ears in
many areas of the Senate Chamber, but please, let our constituents be
heard on this bill which comes to us in the name of homeland security
but within it has many injustices, many wrongs, I am sure, many things,
many provisions the American people do not want.
I yield to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from West
Virginia has done a tremendous service to our Nation by pointing out,
over the last several hours while we have been in session, some of the
flaws in this 484-page bill, which many of us have been trying to
study.
One of those flaws--and I would love to hear the Senator's comments--
is with regard to freedom of information and the provision of that
information
[[Page S11165]]
to the American people, and to the people in Congress who are
responsible for oversight of this new Department. Is it not true that
in this new Department there have been given broad waivers of
opportunity for the administration--any administration--to pick outside
advisory committees to come in and give advice, to make specific policy
recommendations with regard to the direction of the country--not unlike
what we saw with regard to our energy policy--and then not have any of
that information made available to the public, where it can be
challenged in situations where there is a serious concern about
conflicts of interest and about how people might approach these issues.
I think, if I have read this right, there is an almost blanket
ability for the administration--any agency, and not necessarily
Republican or Democrat--to completely keep from Congress, keep from the
State, keep from others the ability to understand what is taking place
within the policymaking arrangements of this new Department.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for what
he has just called to the attention of the Senate. What he has made
reference to, I have every reason to believe, is section 871 dealing
with advisory committees. Let me read it. I will have more to stay
about this. As a matter of fact, I will have an amendment to change
this. It is section 871:
Advisory Committees.
(A) In General.--The Secretary may establish, appoint
members of, and use the service of, advisory committees, as
the Secretary may deem necessary. An advisory committee
established under this section may be exempted by the
Secretary from Public Law 92-463, but the Secretary shall
publish notice in the Federal Register announcing the
establishment of such a committee and identifying its purpose
and membership. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence,
members of an advisory committee that is exempted by the
Secretary under the preceding sentence who are special
Government employees (as that term is defined in section 202
of title 18, United States Code) shall be eligible for
certifications under subsection (b)(3) of section 208 of
Title 18, United States Code, for official actions taken as a
member of such advisory committee.
A separate reading of this language does not stir one's blood, but a
clear understanding of the laws that are referenced begin to stir one's
blood.
Under current law, advisory committees may be appointed and the
President may exempt a committee on a case-by-case basis. The public
has a right to know what these advisory committees are doing. The
public has a right to know what is happening. They have a right to know
what is going on in Government, in these advisory committees.
But here is a provision that will give the Secretary blank authority
to keep from the public the knowledge of what these advisory committees
are saying, as to what's going on, and so on.
Mr. CORZINE. Will the Senator yield for one more quick question?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. CORZINE. Am I not correct this was neither in the original
Lieberman proposal that came out of the Governmental Affairs Committee,
nor was it in the compromise proposals that were on the floor before we
went into recess? This is another one of these midnight strikes,
additions, that is completely outside of any of the review process that
we normally have, is that right?
Mr. BYRD. To the best of my knowledge, it is. My staff, upon a
cursory examination of this bill, informs me this is something that is
new. So the President and the Secretary will be given blanket
authority. Whereas, at the present time, under the Advisory Committee
Act--I believe that is what it is called, and it is referenced in this
language--one has to see what is being said behind the lines here. But
now the Secretary would have blanket authority to shut out the press.
The press ought to be aware of what is in this bill, and the Senator
from New Jersey is calling the attention of the Senate and the world--
may we have order, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 36 seconds.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to take advantage of these few
seconds to thank the very able Senator from West Virginia for raising
these extremely important questions about this legislation. This
editorial I made reference to that was in the Baltimore Sun talked
about all these other provisions that were coming in, and it went on to
talk about the basic concept of this bill itself--something the Senator
has been addressing for days on the floor of the Senate. Listen to
this. They are talking about the homeland security bill:
First, the basic concept is flawed. Combining 22 separate
departments and agencies with nearly 200,000--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. SARBANES. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. I yield to the Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. I will quote this:
First, the basic concept is flawed. Combining 22 separate
departments and agencies with nearly 200,000 employees into
one super agency is a recipe for bureaucratic chaos that will
distract workers from their security duties, rather than
sharpen their focus. New bosses, new locations, new personnel
rules, new rivalries, new turf battles--these are the issues
that will most concern workers in the years just ahead. How
helpful is that? The recent squabble between the FBI and the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, neither of which is
to be included in the new Department, demonstrates there is
little chance of blending separate agencies to eliminate
overlapping, and clarifying control can be anything but a
bloody task.
Then they go on to say:
Union rights and other worker protections will be stripped
from the employees of the new Department because the
President says he needs new flexibility to hire, fire, and
move people around. No convincing national security rationale
has been offered to justify this broad power grab.
The problems inherent in this legislation, I have come to the
conclusion, will divert focus, energy, and attention from the
substantive challenge of providing homeland security to this kind of a
procedural fight.
They are going to have to get a new location, new organization. They
are going to be spending all their time on getting the boxes on the
chart instead of focusing on the substance of the job that confronts
them.
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. SARBANES. That is one of the basic points the Senator has been
making consistently, as I understand it.
Mr. BYRD. How telling, how telling, how revealing what the
distinguished Senator from Maryland just said in this excellent
editorial in the Baltimore Sun. I thank him for that.
Senators need to wake up. Senators need to wake up as to what is
going on.
Mr. President, I do not intend to take more time than I have because
I know the leaders want to speak. How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes and ten seconds.
Mr. BYRD. Does the distinguished Senator from Maryland have anything
further to say?
Mr. SARBANES. No. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield me 30 seconds for a parliamentary
inquiry?
Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for an inquiry? The majority leader
is in the Chamber and will take just a few seconds to offer a unanimous
consent request. Can that happen? Then this dialog can take place for a
long time after that.
Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield to the majority leader. I hope I retain my 2
minutes.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
distinguished Senator from West Virginia retain the remainder of his
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia retains the
remainder of his time.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, after I have propounded this unanimous
consent request.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--H. R. 3210
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately
[[Page S11166]]
upon passage of H.R. 5005, the homeland defense bill, the Senate
proceed to the terrorism insurance conference report to accompany H.R.
3210; that the Senate then vote immediately on cloture on the
conference report; that if cloture is invoked, the Senate then
immediately, without any intervening action or debate, vote on passage
of the conference report; that if cloture is not invoked, the
conference report continue to be debatable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I do not fully understand this request. I want to know what
this does to homeland security.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I can respond to the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia, this has no effect at all on the debate on
homeland defense. All Senators are protected with regard to their
rights under cloture, if cloture is invoked on homeland security. This
only deals with the next issue, the terrorism insurance bill, to be
taken up once homeland defense has been completed.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, further reserving my right to object, and I
will be very brief, I am supportive of the measure the distinguished
majority leader is seeking to advance in connection with this request.
Does this in any way have a psychological effect with respect to the
cloture we are going to vote on this morning?
I plead to Senators--further reserving my right to object--I plead
with Senators not to invoke cloture today. I understand cloture will be
invoked at some point. I just hope it will not be today. I hope we will
have the weekend for our staffs to study this bill so that we will be
better prepared after we have had more time to study it.
What I am concerned about is the desire to get to the bill about
which the majority leader is speaking and which I fully support. I hope
that desire will not have some psychological impact on Senators causing
them to vote for cloture today.
I wonder if our two leaders would propose a unanimous consent request
that would vitiate a cloture vote for today, push the cloture vote over
until Monday. I know cloture is going to be invoked, but for God's
sake, for Heaven's sake, for the sake of liberty and justice, and for
the sake of Senators being able to understand what they are voting on
in this 484-page bill that has been sprung on us--and we have only been
able to see it at the beginning of Wednesday, the day before
yesterday--would the leaders please consider at least vitiating that
vote and putting it over until Monday so that we and our staffs will
have some more time for study?
For Heaven's sake, would the majority leader and minority leader
consider this request? That is all I am asking.
I know cloture is going to be invoked at some point, but for Heaven's
sake, we have a right to know what is in this 484-page bill, and the
people out there who are watching this debate through those electronic
lenses have a right also to know. We have a duty to know what we are
voting on. At this moment, as we get ready to invoke cloture, we do not
know what is in this bill.
Mr. President, I remove my reservation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. I thank all of my colleagues. I thank in particular the
distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I yield the floor.
____________________