[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 22693-22697]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 22694]]

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.
  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:


[[Page 22695]]

       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 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.

[[Page 22696]]


  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 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.

[[Page 22697]]


  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.

                          ____________________