[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1610-1611]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




USA PATRIOT ACT ADDITIONAL REAUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2006--MOTION 
                               TO PROCEED

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a few moments I will have a very brief 
statement about what went on with the vote on the asbestos bill, but 
for our colleagues, I wish to outline where we are going tonight and 
over the next several days.
  Calendar No. 360, S. 2271, is the USA PATRIOT Act Additional 
Reauthorizing Amendments Act. This bill addresses some of the concerns 
of Members on both sides of the aisle as it relates to the PATRIOT Act. 
I believe that we strongly support it and we are prepared to consider 
this measure next.
  Therefore, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of S. 2271, the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing 
Amendments Act of 2006.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feingold, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I had hoped we would at least be able to 
proceed to that bill tonight. As our colleagues know, this bill is 
ready to go. It is an important bill. It is important for the safety 
and security of the American people. It is a bill we have worked on for 
a long period of time, and we believe there is overwhelming support for 
this bill. The consent I asked for was for the Senate to begin 
consideration of that legislation. We had the objection from the other 
side of the aisle that was expressed.
  I now move to proceed to S. 2271. The motion to proceed is now 
pending and is debatable. We have been told that there will be an 
effort to filibuster the motion to proceed. Therefore, I now send a 
cloture motion to the desk and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to S. 2271: to clarify that individuals who receive 
     FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that 
     individuals who receive National Security Letters are not 
     required to disclose the name of their attorney, that 
     libraries are not wire or electronic communication service 
     providers unless they provide specific services, and for 
     other purposes.
         Bill Frist, James Inhofe, Richard Burr, Christopher Bond, 
           Chuck Hagel, Saxby Chambliss, John E. Sununu, Wayne 
           Allard, Johnny Isakson, John Cornyn, Jim DeMint, Craig 
           Thomas, Larry Craig, Ted Stevens, Lindsey Graham, Norm 
           Coleman.

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, again, the motion is pending, and if the 
Senators desire to debate the motion they should be prepared to do so. 
The Chair is obligated to put the question. I put Members on notice 
that they should remain on the floor if they feel the need to hold up 
this important legislation; otherwise, we will be proceeding to the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, with respect to the vote we took minutes 
ago on the asbestos legislation, it does mean that legislation is, in 
essence, off the floor now, and that we are proceeding with the 
consideration of the PATRIOT Act, although we have an obstruction 
underway and we have a threatened filibuster underway, and we will 
address that in the coming days.
  The vote on the motion to waive the point of order on the asbestos 
bill was 59 to 40. In order to have the option to keep a heartbeat at 
least in this piece of legislation, because it is so important to 
victims, to our economy, to jobs, what I did, as an advocate for the 
Specter-Leahy bill, is I switched my vote from yes to no. From a 
procedural standpoint, what that allows me to do as leader is to bring 
that back to the floor at some appropriate time if there is indication 
to do so in the future.
  We did have one absentee vote tonight that could have made the 
difference, and with that I switched my vote. I do want to make it very 
clear, because there is always misunderstanding in terms of when a 
Senator switches his vote, I strongly support the Specter-Leahy bill, 
and I switched my vote for procedural reasons.
  So this vote did reflect 59 to 40 on the floor, although the actual 
vote is depicted as 58 to 41.
  Let me also add, and I think I speak for the majority of my 
colleagues, that I am disappointed in the fact we are not able to 
proceed with this asbestos litigation bill. The consequence of this 
vote tonight is that victims who are in need are not going to receive 
fair and just compensation. They deserve it. They need it. The problem 
has been clearly spelled out on the floor of this body.
  We have made progress over the last couple of weeks in that people 
recognize this is a serious problem that has gone on for too long, yet 
has to be addressed in a legislative way, that it denies justice to 
victims, that it hurts and punishes our economy and, unless it is 
addressed, will continue to destroy jobs in this country.
  Unfortunately, by refusing to move forward on this bipartisan bill, a 
bipartisan bill, the Senate chose to protect special interest groups 
rather than the interests of those innocent victims who deserve more. 
The cost to our society will be felt unless it is addressed sometime in 
the future.
  I do thank all of those who acknowledge there is a real and serious 
problem that Congress should debate, and it must be resolved at some 
point in the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to address the issue that was just 
considered before the Senate and say that I hope, now, that we can work 
together on a bipartisan basis to find some accommodation--not to 
create a trust fund, in an amount that has never been established, with 
contributions that have never been disclosed publicly but, rather, 
something that is much more open and transparent.
  The starting point is obvious. Some States have already addressed 
this issue with significant changes in the existing tort system that 
make it more fair and quicker for victims to get compensation. I think 
that is the way to address this, and I hope that now we can have an 
effort by Members from both sides of the aisle on a bipartisan basis to 
establish this.
  I do quarrel with the leader's conclusion that special interests 
defeated this legislation. Let's be very honest with the American 
people. This bill was a

[[Page 1611]]

clash of the special-interest titans on both sides. Senator Bennett of 
Utah, on the other side of the aisle, whom I respect very much, came to 
the floor and listed 10 major corporations that, with the passage of 
this legislation, would have saved $20 billion in liability--$20 
billion that they would otherwise have to pay to victims of asbestos 
exposure around America. To say that everyone opposing this bill was a 
special interest but 10 companies that were $20 billion ahead if this 
bill passed were not special interests defies a rational explanation.
  I would also add that I think we have to consider the fact that when 
we come down to consider this bill, there is going to have to be give 
and take on both sides, and I hope we can reach that point. Those in 
the legal community, as well as those who represent the businesses and 
insurance companies who have stakes in this fight, have to be willing 
to give some ground and to work toward compromise.
  I came to Congress years ago, and when I arrived the first issue with 
which I was confronted was asbestos. It is still here today and there 
are more victims today and we have to find a reasonable way to help 
those victims.
  I am heartened by Senator Cornyn of Texas, who has been willing to 
come to this floor and talk about the medical criterion alternative. I 
don't know if we can reach an agreement, but I sure want to try. I have 
said to my colleagues on this side of the aisle who did not agree with 
the disposition on the last vote that we should put our heads together 
and see if we can come out with a reasonable answer to this challenge 
we face. I sincerely hope that can be done.
  I do have to say I wish the first bill we were considering would not 
have been this so-called Armageddon of the special interest groups. 
Wouldn't it have been much better for us to have considered Medicare 
prescription drug Part D reform when we have millions of seniors across 
America struggling to understand this complicated system, wrestling 
with plans that may offer the drugs that they need for their life-and-
death situations; wanting the pharmacies they have always trusted to be 
included; hoping that they can pay the price of this plan?
  I hear from these people every day. You would think that Members on 
both sides of the aisle would be receiving these phone calls and, if 
they have, you wonder why that was not the first bill that was brought 
up. It would have been a reasonable thing. Some have even suggested we 
should have brought up ethics reform before we did anything else, and 
we have introduced a bill on the Democratic side that will try to move 
toward significant ethics reform. I hope those on the Republican side 
who feel the same way will join us and make their own suggestions. But 
shouldn't we move to that legislation? That may not be popular with 
some of the power brokers in this town, but if we want to restore the 
confidence of the American people in Congress and the people who work 
here, it certainly ought to be high on their agenda.
  There again is another issue that we have not considered--ethics. 
Medicare; prescription drugs Part D; addressing the issue of LIHEAP--
that's the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program--are 
critically important across the Nation. We left that undone--
underfunded from last Congress. I think there is bipartisan support--I 
know there is--for us to return to that issue, another one which will 
help a lot of needy families, vulnerable Americans across our Nation 
who are faced with staggering and record heating bills. That, again, is 
an issue that does not have a special interest constituency, but it is 
certainly one that families are concerned about across our country.
  I know we are not ready to bring up the issue of health care because 
we need to do some work on it. For 5 years, we have done virtually 
nothing and the cost of health insurance has gone up, the coverage has 
gone down, people are more vulnerable today than they were a few years 
ago and more people are uninsured. We ought to be talking about 
reasonable bipartisan efforts to deal with health insurance and making 
it more affordable and more accessible for every American family. That 
is something that could be done.
  When some come to the floor and say: This is the No. 1 issue facing 
Congress, the people I represent think there are other issues far more 
important, issues that relate to their everyday lives and the 
livelihoods of their families. I hope we can return to those issues.
  We have expended a lot of effort and energy on this issue. Perhaps by 
working on a bipartisan basis we can find a way through this. But in 
the meantime, let's take up some of these equally important, if not 
more important, issues for families across America.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________