[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1849-1851]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                PROGRAM

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, tomorrow--to explain what we did--following 
morning business, the Senate will resume debate on the motion to 
proceed to the PATRIOT Act amendments act. The cloture vote on that 
motion to proceed will occur at 10:30 in the morning. Under the 
agreement, once cloture has been invoked on the motion to proceed, we 
will proceed immediately to

[[Page 1850]]

the bill, and a cloture vote on the bill itself will occur at 2:30 p.m. 
on Tuesday, February 28, with a vote on final passage at 10 a.m. on 
Wednesday, March 1.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the leader.
  Mr. President, I will respond to some comments he made a few minutes 
ago. First, about the asbestos bill, I think the record speaks for 
itself. A 393-page bill came to the floor of the Senate. It was a 
fairly complicated bill, which would have affected hundreds of 
thousands, maybe millions, of Americans over the next 50 years, and 
created a $140 billion trust fund. It involved payments of billions of 
dollars into that trust fund by American businesses from a list that 
was never publicly disclosed. Then as the bill arrived on the floor, as 
we expected, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee filed a 
substitute to the bill, wiping away the 393-page bill, replacing it 
with a 392-page bill, and then we proceeded to debate.
  One amendment was called by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn. 
Objection was made on the floor to Senator Cornyn's amendment, and a 
motion to table and stop debate on his amendment was passed. At that 
point, we went into a question about whether that bill would satisfy 
the requirements of the Budget Act. Then, without another amendment 
being offered, the majority leader announced the Republican side was 
going to file a cloture motion to close down debate and amendments on 
this bill.
  To suggest that somehow we are inundating this body with amendments 
and debate is to overlook the obvious: One amendment was offered by a 
Republican Senator from Texas, and as we were waiting for the budget 
point of order, the majority leader suggested that we would close down 
debate on the bill, and that was the end of the story.
  So this argument that somehow we are dragging our feet here and 
somehow miring down the process with amendments--the record speaks for 
itself. That was not the case on the asbestos bill. Last night, when 
the budget point of order was called, it was sustained. That means, in 
common terms, that the bill was returned to committee because it was 
not written properly.
  It was not written in a way to comply with our Budget Act. So that is 
the state of affairs on the asbestos bill.
  Now comes the PATRIOT Act. If there is any suggestion in the majority 
leader's remarks that anything that has happened on the floor of the 
Senate yesterday or today in any way endangers America, I think the 
record speaks for itself. That is not a fact. The current PATRIOT Act, 
as written, continues to protect America until March 10. We could 
continue debating right here on the floor of the Senate up until March 
9 and even on March 10, and we would never have a gap in coverage of 
the PATRIOT Act as a law. So there is no endangerment of America, no 
lessening of our defense against terrorism by the possibility that the 
Senate might stop, reflect, consider, and even debate the PATRIOT Act.
  I am sorry that my colleague, Senator Feingold of Wisconsin, is not 
here to speak for himself, but he has been an extraordinary leader on 
this issue. He has taken a position which I think is nothing short of 
politically bold, if not courageous, in standing up and saying, even in 
the midst of terrorism, we need to take the time and debate the core 
values and issues involved in the PATRIOT Act.
  What has Senator Feingold asked for? He has asked for an opportunity 
to offer perhaps four amendments, four amendments, and he has gone on 
to say that he doesn't want days or long periods of time to debate 
them. He will agree to limited debate on each amendment. Nothing could 
be more reasonable. What he said is the Senate needs to face reality. 
This is an important bill. It involves our constitutional rights. And 
whether I would agree or disagree with any of Senator Feingold's 
amendments, I would fight, as long as I had the breath in my body and 
the strength to stand, that he have the right to express his point of 
view and bring this matter to a vote in the Senate. That is not 
unreasonable, nor is Senator Feingold unreasonable in his position. And 
for the suggestion to be made on the floor that somehow we have dragged 
this out for a lengthy period of time overlooks the obvious.
  The offer was made for two votes tomorrow on Senator Feingold's 
amendment and then a cloture vote tomorrow on the bill and, if cloture 
were invoked, pass the bill tomorrow. That offer was rejected by the 
Republican majority. Why? Not because of fear of terrorism but fear of 
debate. Not because of fear of threats to America but fear of threats 
that some amendment may be adopted, somehow upsetting an apple cart. 
Well, that is unfortunate. But this Democratic process is an open 
process--at least I hope it is--and we should protect the rights of 
Members on both sides of the aisle to offer amendments with reasonable 
periods of debate. We should have actual debate on the floor and then 
make a decision.
  One of my favorite friends and colleagues from the House was a fellow 
named Congressman Mike Synar of Oklahoma. He passed away about 10 years 
ago. I liked Mike so much. He was a close personal friend. He used to 
lament that so many of his colleagues in the House of Representatives 
were loathe to even engage in a debate on a controversial issue. He 
would listen to Members of the House of Representatives whining and 
crying about having to face a vote on a controversial issue, and Mike 
Synar used to say: If you don't want to fight a fire, don't be a 
fireman. If you don't want to vote on tough issues, don't be a Member 
of the U.S. House of Representatives.
  Well, the Mike Synar rule applies here. If you don't want to face the 
reality of the debate on critical constitutional and legal issues, I 
don't know why one would run for the Senate.
  What Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin has asked us to do is to 
consider amendments to the PATRIOT Act. What is wrong with that? That 
is as basic as it gets. That is why we are here. And whether I would 
vote for or against those amendments, I would defend his right to offer 
them, and I hope that the record will reflect what I have just said. He 
was ready to stand, offer the amendments with limited debate, and then 
move this bill to a cloture vote tomorrow, which, if it were invoked, 
would see the passage of the bill as soon as tomorrow. That offer by 
Senator Feingold was rejected.
  So to say that we are foot-dragging on this side of the aisle or that 
any Democratic Senator such as Senator Feingold is not trying to 
cooperate does not accurately state what we have been through to this 
moment on the PATRIOT Act.
  I will close by saying that despite partisan differences, there is 
partisan cooperation in this Chamber, and I wish to say as I close 
these remarks that I want to salute Senator John Sununu on the 
Republican side of the aisle; he has worked night and day over the last 
several months to come up with what I consider to be a reasonable way 
to end the current debate on the PATRIOT Act.
  We stood together, we worked together, we brought the issue to the 
floor. I don't think it is unreasonable to give Senator Feingold his 
moment to offer amendments with limited debate, bring them to a vote, 
put the Senate on the record, and move forward. To suggest otherwise 
does not reflect an accurate presentation of the facts as they 
occurred.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I find my colleague's comments in response 
to my statement that the problem is that we are seeing this whole 
pattern of obstruction and postponement--it is not just one bill, it is 
this whole series of bills--I find his comments responsive to several 
of the things I said but not really responsive to this pattern. I 
really just want to make that a comment and not get into a long debate 
about it. But I do want to point out that pattern of the things that I 
mentioned, like the PATRIOT Act as my colleague pointed out, it is time 
to bring this to a close.
  This thing is going to pass overwhelmingly, and that is exactly 
right. I rejected options to continue to amend

[[Page 1851]]

this forever. The problem, in part, that got us to this point is every 
time we come to an agreement which is a bill that, as written, will 
have overwhelming support in this body, somebody will come forward and 
say: One more amendment, one more amendment, one more amendment.
  It is exactly right. It is time to bring this to a close. This will 
pass with overwhelming support--not today, as it should have, or 
tomorrow or Monday or Tuesday, but on Wednesday morning. It is going to 
pass with overwhelming support.
  My point is this whole delay, this postponement, is stopping the 
Nation's business as we have to address other important issues--whether 
it is our budgetary issues, whether issues on health care or education 
or LIHEAP, flood insurance or lobbying reform. All these issues get put 
off another 4 or 5 days--yes, using the rights we have on this floor. I 
respect that. But to no avail. It is hurting the American people, not 
helping the American people.
  Asbestos--this is a complicated bill. It is a bill many of us have 
been working on for 3 years. We started the bill, not Tuesday or Monday 
of this week and not Friday of last week or Thursday or Tuesday, but I 
think it was Monday morning that we said: Let's talk about this bill, 
let's debate this bill and have unlimited debate. As I pointed out, 
they said: No, we are not going to go to the bill. We are not going to 
go to a bill which is an important bill which has to be addressed.
  We have 700,000 individuals who have filed claims for their 
illnesses, and 300,000 of those claims are still pending in the courts. 
Tragically, as I mentioned earlier, some of the most ill among those 
are among the worst served because of the delay in having the cases 
considered, and then, once considered, even if they get compensation 
for every dollar that is spent, 60 cents goes to the system and the 
trial lawyers and only 40 cents goes to the patient.
  Yet, because of this mentality of Democrats, obstructing--they say 
you are not going to go to the bill. You are going to have to file a 
motion to proceed and cloture on that motion to proceed to the bill, 
which is a waste of 2 days. Then the vote was either 98 to 2 or 98 to 
1. So once we got to the vote, they said: We will be with you, let's go 
ahead and consider it. And then to hear my colleagues say: We didn't 
have an opportunity to debate, when it was a request from your side of 
the aisle that we take a whole day, that we not have amendments but 
just to talk about it again--I am not sure why--but then to complain 
that we did not have time to offer amendments when it came to that 
first day--I think it was Wednesday; no amendments today--it is a 
little bit disingenuous, especially as it fits this larger pattern I 
laid out of the tax relief bill just to get to conference requiring 
three separate considerations on this floor, 17 rollcall votes for the 
first 20-hour limitation, the second 20-hour limitation requiring seven 
more rollcall votes, motions to instruct here all yesterday morning, 
nonbinding motions.
  The pensions bill, I still do not fully understand why there is delay 
in getting the pensions bill to conference, when the first request was 
made in December and the second one earlier this year, and then now, on 
an important bill, when people are out there saying we have to address 
the pension bill--it passed the Senate, passed the House of 
Representatives--we have to get it to conference so we can come up with 
a final product for the President to sign.
  Instead of arguing each of these individual bills, I just wanted to 
make the point that it is a pattern that we cannot continue. We have to 
work together in the Nation's interest, in the interests of the 
American people. Unless things are changed, we are not going to be 
delivering what we are responsible to do.
  Anyway, that is a little bit out of my frustration with the other 
side of the aisle in terms of the way they have conducted business, and 
I believe we can work together in a civil way to address these 
important issues in the coming days.

                          ____________________