[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2164-2170]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   USA PATRIOT ACT ADDITIONAL REAUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2006--
                               Continued


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant 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 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, Arlen Specter, Thad Cochran, Richard Burr, 
           Mel Martinez, Jim Bunning, Jon Kyl, Craig Thomas, Mike 
           Crapo, David Vitter, Bob Bennett, Norm Coleman, Michael 
           B. Enzi,

[[Page 2165]]

           Lindsey Graham, Jeff Sessions, Saxby Chambliss, John 
           Cornyn, John Thune.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise to explain why I will oppose cloture 
on the PATRIOT Act Amendments Act. In brief, I will vote against 
cloture to register my objection to the procedural maneuver under which 
Senators have been blocked from offering any amendments to this bill.
  While I will vote against cloture, I nonetheless support the 
underlying bill offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, which 
improves the PATRIOT Act. The Sununu bill puts in place more checks on 
the expanded authorities granted to the Government by the PATRIOT Act, 
without interfering with the Government's ability to protect Americans 
from terrorism.
  I support the PATRIOT Act. I voted for it in 2001, and I voted for a 
reauthorization bill that passed the Senate unanimously last summer. In 
December, however, I voted against cloture on a conference report to 
reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. I opposed that bill because it returned 
from the House-Senate conference without adequate checks to protect the 
privacy of innocent Americans.
  In my view Congress should give the executive branch the tools it 
needs to fight terrorism, combined with strong oversight to protect 
against Government overreaching and abuse of these tools.
  Senator Sununu has negotiated several needed improvements with the 
White House. His bill would allow for judicial review of the gag order 
imposed by the PATRIOT Act when the Government seeks business records. 
It would also restrict Federal access to library records, and it would 
eliminate the requirement that recipients of a national security letter 
tell the FBI the identity of any lawyer they consult.
  The Sununu bill is a step in the right direction, and therefore I 
will support it.
  Of course even a good bill can be improved. That is why we have an 
amendment process in the Senate. The junior Senator from Wisconsin has 
tried to offer a small number of relevant amendments that I believe 
would make this bill even better. I am disappointed that he has been 
denied that opportunity by a procedural maneuver known as ``filling the 
amendment tree.''
  This is a very bad practice. It runs against the basic nature of the 
Senate. The hallmark of the Senate is free speech and open debate. Rule 
XXII establishes a process for cutting off debate and amendments, but 
rule XXII should rarely be invoked before any amendments have been 
offered. There is no reason to truncate Senate debate on this important 
bill in this unusual fashion.
  I will vote against cloture to register my objection to this flawed 
process.
  I expect that cloture will be invoked and that the Sununu bill will 
pass. I also expect that the PATRIOT Act reauthorization will pass, now 
that it has been improved. But the passage of these measures should not 
be the end of our work. The Senate should continue the effort to 
strengthen civil liberties in the war on terror.
  I welcome the bill of Senator Specter which includes many of the 
improvements Senator Feingold seeks. I look forward to working with him 
to have his legislation enacted into law as soon as possible.
  In this and other areas, we should give the Government the tools it 
needs to protect our national security, while placing sensible checks 
on the arbitrary exercise of executive power.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 
2271, the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 
2006, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory 
under the rule. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 69, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 23 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--30

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inouye
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 69, the nays are 
30. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Democratic leader.


                     Senator Leahy's 12,000th Vote

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, today Pat Leahy, senior Senator from 
Vermont, reached a Senate milestone, to say the least. A few minutes 
ago he cast his 12,000th vote. He has voted in the Senate 12,000 times. 
This is quite an accomplishment. He joins a very elite club, led by the 
distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, who has 
voted more than 17,000 times; Senator Kennedy, more than 14,000 times; 
Senator Inouye, more than 14,000 times; Senator Stevens, more than 
14,000 times; Senators Biden and Domenici, just over 12,000 times.
  Pat Leahy came to the Senate in 1974, the youngest Senator in Vermont 
history and the only Democrat ever elected to the U.S. Senate in the 
entire history of the State of Vermont--the only one, the first and 
only. He has been in the Senate 32 years. In each of those votes, 
Senator Leahy voted to make Vermont a better and stronger place.
  Senator Leahy has a lot of things in mind when he comes to cast a 
vote, but No. 1 on the list is Vermont. That is one of the principal 
reasons Vermont is a great place to live, work, and raise a family.
  I have worked very closely with Pat Leahy. He is a Senator's Senator. 
He is able to be as partisan as any Senator we have, but he is also a 
person who can be as bipartisan as any Senator who has ever served in 
the Senate. The first example of that is his work with his colleague, 
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.
  I like Pat Leahy for lots of reasons. His legislative skills, of 
course, are one of the reasons. But, to me, everything pales when I 
think of his wife Marcelle. She is a wonderful human being. Pat Leahy 
is who he is because of the wife he has chosen. They have been married 
more than 40 years. She is a registered nurse. Marcelle Leahy is as 
kind and gentle as anyone would expect a nurse to be. I care about her 
a great deal.
  Pat and Marcelle are very proud of their three children and certainly 
very proud of their grandchildren. All of us who have been in talking 
distance of Pat Leahy have heard about his grandchildren. He is not 
bashful about bragging on his grandchildren. His newest grandchild was 
born earlier this month--in fact, about 27, 28 days ago.
  I don't think Vermont could ask for anyone better than Pat Leahy. I 
have been very impressed with his work. On the Judiciary Committee, he 
has been an advocate for fairness. He has worked with us on judges. It 
has been difficult and tiresome at times, but he has always done what I 
believe to be an outstanding job and a fair job.

[[Page 2166]]

  For farmers, his work on issues relating to dairy has been historic. 
He has saved hundreds of family farms just in Vermont, and thousands 
and thousands around the country in his work on agriculture. His 
environmental credentials are unsurpassed by anyone.
  Some would question his musical taste, but as far as I am concerned, 
that is also great. Emmylou Harris, to whom he introduced me, is my 
favorite. I think I met her personally because of a birthday party Pat 
Leahy had. Then, of course, I am happy to say that Pat Leahy and I are 
Deadheads.
  He is a wonderful man and a great Senator. I congratulate him on 
reaching this milestone and look forward to watching him cast thousands 
of votes in the years ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I join in paying tribute to the 
distinguished Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy. Our friendship 
precedes the service of both of us in the Senate. I first met Senator 
Leahy at the National District Attorneys Convention in Philadelphia in 
1970. Senator Leahy was the district attorney of Burlington, VT, and I 
was the district attorney of Philadelphia. That friendship was renewed 
when I was elected to the Senate in 1980. Senator Leahy had already 
been here for 6 years. We have worked together for 25 years plus on 
Judiciary and Appropriations and on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, 
Human Services and Education. It has been a very close working 
relationship, and never as close as it has been for the past 14 months 
as we have worked together on the Judiciary Committee with some very 
significant accomplishments for the Senate and for the American people.
  Last year, when I had a problem or two, besides working with Senator 
Leahy on the administration of the Judiciary Committee I had a period 
where I was bald. On our frequent visits together, the only way we 
could be distinguished was by the color of our ties. I usually wore red 
and he customarily wore green, so people knew who was who.
  Earlier today I received this picture of Senator Leahy with his new 
grandson. The grandson is a few weeks old, but I am pleased to report 
to C-SPAN viewers, if there are any, that the grandson has more hair 
than Senator Leahy.
  Pat Leahy is a great Senator and he is a great friend. It is a great 
achievement to cast 12,000 votes. I have been here for a good many of 
them, and he has even been right some of the time. I am delighted to 
join in praising my good friend Senator Pat Leahy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, when you reflect back to that many votes, 
that many thousands of votes, very quickly you could go back and look 
at various issues Pat Leahy has been involved with. I think that is 
important to do. It reflects a great legacy for our country, what he 
has stood for, the values and principles.
  I wish to add to the accolades what I have found, and that is, as I 
have gone around the world over the last several years in humanitarian 
causes, part of which is done as official CODELs as a Senator but even 
more than that as a volunteer physician, going on the ground into 
communities, into villages all over the world, what is interesting to 
me--people don't care about the majority leader, they don't care about 
the typical names you hear from the Senate floor, but Pat Leahy's name 
comes up again and again from the underserved, from the people who have 
suffered the tragedy of landmine injuries. It is remarkable. It is 
something we don't talk about on the floor a lot. But to have real 
people thousands of miles away coming forward with his name reflects 
the great legacy he leaves, that he continues to leave, and I am sure 
there will be another 12,000 votes as we come forward.
  I do want to express both to him and to Marcelle, a nurse, who 
greatly influenced his life and for whom he has so much love that he 
expresses so directly to so many of us in casual conversations or the 
sorts of occasions that people don't see--that is the Pat Leahy I want 
to recognize today--congratulations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it has been my distinct pleasure to be 
either the ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee or the 
chairman with my good friend Pat Leahy. Part of what Senate etiquette 
tells us is we are supposed to refer to each other as ``my good 
friend,'' but in the case of Pat Leahy, it is not only Senate etiquette 
but it is the case that he has become a good friend.
  Twelve thousand votes is quite an accomplishment, but beyond that, I 
have enjoyed the spirit of bipartisanship with which we have pursued 
each Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for each of the last 14 
years, whether he was chairman or I was chairman. We tried to develop 
the expenditures of the Federal Government in a way that made sense for 
America and also had an impact on the rest of the world.
  The majority leader has mentioned the landmine crusade Senator Leahy 
has led for a long time. He is indeed known around the world for that. 
It has been an extraordinary crusade. He deserves enormous credit for 
leading it and is widely known around the world for that.
  I thank him for his extraordinary service over the last 14 years in 
which I have been associated with him. It has been a pleasure to work 
with him every year. I, too, wish him 12,000 more votes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is hard to put in words what I feel as I 
listen to my good friends, Harry Reid and Arlen Specter, Bill Frist and 
Mitch McConnell, saying such nice things. They are friends. We work 
together. Harry--I should say, following Senate protocol, the 
distinguished Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid--was kind enough to 
first and foremost mention my wife Marcelle. There is no conceivable 
way I could have accomplished any of this without Marcelle. She has 
been my guiding light for well over 40 years. Nothing I have done could 
I have accomplished without her.
  Senator Specter was kind enough to hold up the picture of the latest 
member of our clan, Patrick Lucas Jackson. I think of that because I 
came here holding the actual pictures in my mind of my three children, 
Kevin, Alicia, and Mark, and their spouses, Carolyn, Lawrence, and 
Kristine, but also the pictures of four wonderful grandchildren: Roan, 
Francesca, Sophia, and now Patrick. To have them mentioned I realize 
there is another generation, and I hope their children will be proud of 
what their father does, but I especially hope the grandchildren, who 
will be the hope of our future, will feel the same way.
  Bill Frist, the distinguished Republican leader, and Senator Mitch 
McConnell, the distinguished deputy Republican leader, were kind to 
speak of the landmine issue and things we worked out together--both of 
them being Senators who have done so much in that same area.
  Sometimes we deal in issues people look at as just local issues or 
issues that affect only a few. What we have done in this case--Senator 
McConnell, who was so good to move to name the war victims fund the 
Leahy War Victims Fund--is something I will never forget; Senator 
Frist, who voluntarily goes into parts of Africa and elsewhere to use 
his medical skills. We talk of these kinds of things--the landmine 
issue; things Senator McConnell and I have done to bring medicine to 
parts of the world that never see it; efforts to eradicate polio, 
childhood diseases, to bring to people the ability to actually feed 
themselves. The people we help don't contribute to campaigns. When 
Senator McConnell and I pass a bill here on the floor, they don't know 
who we are. They do not know whether it is Republicans or Democrats. 
None of them know that. We will never meet most of them, but we like to 
think--I like to think--we have made their lives better.
  We speak of what we bring to this body. We all come from different 
backgrounds. It is not just our political background; it is how we are 
raised, it

[[Page 2167]]

is what our faith is. And if we believe in the best of what we learned 
when we were being raised or the best of what it is we believe in, then 
we have to help these people who will never be helped otherwise, and I 
have been proud to do that. I like to think what was instilled in me by 
my parents, Howard and Alba Leahy or in Marcelle by her parents, Phil 
and Cecile Pomerleau, brought about some of this, or just the 
upbringing in the special little State of Vermont.
  I will close with this. I didn't expect to say anything, but I was 
kind of overwhelmed by what was said by a dear friend like Arlen 
Specter, whom I have known since we were both prosecutors, a job that 
some days we think was the best job we ever had. It made me reflect on 
what a great honor it is for all of us, Republicans and Democrats and 
Independents, to serve in this body. Only 100 of us get a chance to do 
it at any one time, and someday we will be replaced by others. What an 
honor it is to be here and what a responsibility it is.
  I have seen the Senate go through many changes, but I have also seen 
the personal relationships the press doesn't see, the public doesn't 
see, the personal relationships we have built across the aisle and with 
each other. When we do, the country is better, the Senate is better, 
and people's lives are better.
  I must say that I was awed and humbled the first day I walked on the 
floor as a 34-year-old to be sworn in, where 30 minutes before I was 
the State's attorney sitting in a county in Vermont and 30 minutes 
later was then the junior Senator from Vermont. I still feel that same 
awe every time I walk on this floor. The day I stop feeling that awe, I 
will stop walking here.
  With that, I have said more than Vermonters usually do. I yield the 
floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the 
PATRIOT Act. I support the reauthorization of this law. It is vital we 
reauthorize it and make it permanent. Finally, we will be able to move 
this reauthorization forward with a series of votes this week. It has 
been lingering out there too long, especially since the House passed it 
over 2 months ago.
  The Senate needs to be taken seriously in the domestic fight against 
terrorism. Two months is too long to wait. I fear our delays have sent 
the wrong message to our antiterrorism investigators and prosecutors as 
well as those who would do us harm.
  In this body I hear a lot of critics of the President and his efforts 
to fight terrorism. Those critics always have problems but rarely do 
they have any solutions other than to do nothing. Doing nothing led us 
to 9/11, and we would be foolish to go back.
  The PATRIOT Act was one of the first things we did after September 11 
to make sure something like that never happens again. It passed the 
Senate 98 to 1. This Chamber can be pretty partisan at times, but at 
that time 98 Senators thought it went far enough to protect civil 
liberties.
  But now we hear how the PATRIOT Act is bad. The conference report we 
received in December makes permanent most of the expiring provisions of 
the existing law but with additional protections for civil liberties. 
But that was not enough, and 47 Senators filibustered the bill. So here 
we are today, 2 months later, about to pass some changes to the 
conference report and finally send something to the President.
  Now, do not get me wrong. I think the improvements in the conference 
report are positive. We absolutely should write protections into the 
law where they do not tie the FBI's hands in stopping terrorist 
attacks. But the FBI was not using the PATRIOT Act to bother law-
abiding Americans. We did not need to delay the law for 2 months. And 
we do not need to rewrite it from scratch, as some of my colleagues in 
the body are suggesting.
  It is important to protect Americans' civil liberties, and the 
original PATRIOT Act and the updated one do this. But I think some 
Senators are missing the point. Civil liberties do not mean much when 
you are dead. And that is what the PATRIOT Act is about: stopping us 
from ending up dead at the hands of terrorists.
  Some Senators make the PATRIOT Act sound like some huge expansion of 
law enforcement powers. That is simply not true. The PATRIOT Act 
brought our laws up to date with modern technology. It gave 
antiterrorist investigators the same tools as other investigators, and 
it tore down the artificial wall between intelligence and law 
enforcement. In other words, it removed the legal barriers that kept us 
from being able to prevent things like the September 11 attacks.
  As Senators, it is our job to fix the laws when they put Americans in 
danger. It is sad that it took September 11 for those problems to be 
exposed. But it is even sadder still that some want to second-guess 
those changes and turn our antiterror laws into a partisan issue. But 
the safety of Americans is not a partisan issue. We have to do 
everything we can within the Constitution to protect Americans from 
both foreign and domestic threats. We all swore an oath to do so when 
we joined this body.
  The PATRIOT Act is critical to protecting Americans, and now is the 
time to pass this bill once and for all.
  Just last week, we were reminded that there are those in America who 
want to do us harm. Three men in Ohio were indicted for conspiring to 
commit acts of terrorism, including trying to make bomb vests that 
could be used on the battlefield in Iraq or in a shopping mall in 
America. The enemy is not sleeping, and now is not the time for us to 
lose our resolve.
  Under the PATRIOT Act, we have captured over 400 terrorist suspects. 
That is a lot of people who want to do us harm. Over 200 terrorists 
have been convicted or pled guilty in investigations helped by the 
PATRIOT Act.
  Using the PATRIOT Act, our investigators have seized cash and drugs 
being used to fund terrorism. They have also captured weapons and broke 
up plans to smuggle weapons into the country, including antiaircraft 
missiles.
  Home-grown terrorists have been caught, also. The list of successes 
goes on and on. There are terrorists behind bars instead of advancing 
plots against us because of the PATRIOT Act tools and, more 
importantly, there are many Americans alive who may be dead if those 
terrorists were successful in carrying out their plots.
  We need the PATRIOT Act. We need to get it reauthorized and signed 
into law. Our terrorist investigators need their tools to be permanent. 
This gives them certainty. We need to send a strong message to the 
terrorists that we will come after them with everything we can.
  I urge my colleagues to support these bills and to drop their 
obstruction so we can do our job to protect all Americans.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Budget Priorities

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as we return from the President's Day 
recess, the Senate will be debating the future direction of our 
country.
  This debate will come in the form of the discussions we have on the 
Federal Government's budget.
  A budget is a statement of our priorities. Families across our 
country make difficult decisions every day while living within their 
own budgets,

[[Page 2168]]

choosing one priority over another and working hard to fulfill their 
own American dream.
  Likewise, our national budget and the way we spend tax dollars 
reflects our priorities as a Nation. We make difficult choices, 
establish priorities and try to set our Nation on a course to 
prosperity.
  Unfortunately, the President's recent submission of his fiscal year 
2007 budget and subsequent request for supplemental appropriations for 
the ongoing war in Iraq do not reflect the priorities our Nation needs 
to move ahead, and it makes the wrong choices in spending and saving.
  Taken together, they represent a callous disregard for fiscal reality 
and a failure to prioritize our country's most important needs.
  No American family would dare manage their finances this way, and I 
am on the floor today to say that we must take a different course.
  In the 3 years since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, our 
country and Congress have stood with the President in staunch support 
of our troops.
  While we are both proud and duty-bound to provide the resources our 
men and women in uniform need to do their jobs safely and effectively, 
it is disingenuous to continue to ask for ``emergency'' spending to pay 
for military action that has been ongoing for years.
  Year in and year out, the President asks the Congress to provide the 
resources for his Iraq policy outside the bounds of the traditional 
budget process, and in each one of those years, concerns over 
accountability swell and demands for a plan that will allow our troops 
to fulfill their mission and return home go unanswered.
  Like every American, we all want to succeed in our mission in Iraq. 
We want to achieve our military and policy goals, and to bring our 
troops home safely.
  We know that this will require sacrifice and that a U.S. presence 
will be required for some period of time.
  Despite these obvious facts, the administration continues to operate 
from the pretense that the cost of this ongoing war is unknowable and 
thus requires emergency spending.
  The continued adherence to this policy deliberately misleads the 
American people about the cost of this war.
  But it also misses a central point, the real emergency is here at 
home in our classrooms, in communities from the Gulf Coast to the 
Pacific Northwest, in our hospitals, and in our firehouses.
  The Senate has shown unwavering support for our men and women 
fighting overseas. These heroes deserve every bit of aid we can 
provide--be it the best body armor, the best equipment, or the best pay 
and health care.
  Time and again Democrats have stood shoulder to shoulder with the 
Bush administration to do just that--and in many cases we have pushed 
to provide more than the President requested for our troops, our 
veterans, and their families.
  My concern--and I know many of my colleagues share it as well--is 
that while we provide the best for our men and women overseas, we are 
doing far less for the men, women and children fighting to get ahead on 
our own shores.
  They too deserve the best--the best education, the best health care, 
and the best protection from terrorist attack. I don't think anyone in 
this Chamber today can honestly say that we are achieving that goal.
  I am here to say that this Senator will not stand idly by as we send 
billions to support and protect the heroes overseas while cutting basic 
needs for the heroes waking up every morning across our great Nation 
trying to provide themselves and their children a better life. We can 
and must do both.
  So, as the Senate prepares to consider the budget and support our 
troops, I am going to ask that we stand up to protect and support hard 
working American families right here at home. That means: Providing 
affordable, accessible health care for every American, ensuring the 
best education for our young people, taking care of our veterans when 
they return home, pointing our Nation down a path toward energy, 
independence, and protecting our homeland from both terrorists and 
natural disasters.
  The costs of mismanagement, corruption, and lack of investment at 
home are creating a crisis of confidence in our current path among the 
American people. We must change course.
  There is precedent in our Nation's history for future oriented 
investment during difficult times--in fact, troubled times demand that 
we don't just wallow in current events, but better prepare for our 
future.
  In 1862, our great Country was torn apart. The Civil War defined our 
Nation and determined our future. But war was not the only thing that 
was debated that year, and war was not the only thing that determined 
our Nation's fate: 1862 was also the year that legislation creating the 
land-grant college system was passed by Congress and signed into law by 
President Lincoln.
  Think of it, in the midst of war, when the Union's very existence was 
in question, our leaders took the forward looking step of establishing 
a path by which average Americans could improve themselves and 
contribute to the welfare of our Nation. And you know what--it worked.
  Today, those same land-grant colleges and universities are the envy 
of the world because of the great education they provide many Americans 
and the economic benefit they provide to our country.
  Today, we too, are in the grip of war, and there are forces arrayed 
against us that seek to do us real and lasting harm--we must combat our 
enemies with every ounce of energy we have.
  But like previous generations of American leaders, we also have an 
obligation to prepare the American people for the challenges we will 
confront in the future and to ensure that we are strong and secure in 
meeting those challenges head-on. Today, our efforts in this regard are 
woefully inadequate.
  To be strong in the future--to have the ability to fight the wars of 
the future, create the economy of the future, and lead the world in 
human liberty and freedom--we must create an environment of hope and 
opportunity here at home. And yes, this is an emergency.
  We all support our troops, and we will support the President's 
efforts to provide for their well-being and to ensure that they have 
the tools and resources they need to carry out their missions.
  But, candidly, we must be able to both support our troops and create 
a country full of hope and optimism for them to return to.
  To accomplish this we need to make changes in policy and allocation 
of resources, and I am going to demand that we consider these important 
questions when we debate the budget and the Iraq war supplemental 
appropriations request.
  As I have said before on this floor, the Federal budget is the 
statement of our priorities as a people, and it should be a moral, 
thoughtful document.
  Today, America's need for sound fiscal policy and a solid commitment 
to prosperity at home is not being met.
  We can do better. If the President and the majority won't lead our 
country toward a more hopeful, prosperous future, then we will.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak and have 
my speech recorded as if in morning business. I will use the time 
allotted with my hour postcloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dorgan pertaining to the introduction of S. 2341 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DORGAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 2169]]

  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Prescription Drugs

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, during this President's Day recess, I 
journeyed to Illinois and made stops in several cities. There were many 
places to visit, but I chose to visit drugstores. In each one of these 
towns, large and small, I sought out pharmacists--whether it was 
Collinsville, IL, or Decatur, IL, or Chicago--to talk about the 
Medicare prescription Part D plan. I thought the pharmacist was the 
right person to speak to because these pharmacists are on the front 
line in health care. Across America, many Americans view the pharmacist 
as their friend when it comes to their medical conditions and their 
health. So they have a good, trusting relationship.
  Also, of course, Medicare prescription Part D is the first time we 
are trying to provide prescription drugs to people under Medicare, 
something we should have done from the beginning, but we are doing now. 
We are not doing it very well.
  What I learned during my visit to Illinois is the fact that there are 
thousands of people in my home State who are struggling to make the 
right decision when it comes to their Medicare prescription drug 
program. They are struggling because there are some choices, and the 
choices are very difficult to evaluate. In Illinois, there are about 42 
different plans from which seniors can choose. If you seek the 
information on the plan, you are directed to a Web site. A Web site may 
be of value to many people who are following the Senate proceedings, 
but to many senior citizens it is terror incognito; it is unknown 
territory.
  Only one in four senior citizens have ever logged onto a computer. 
They do not have the luxury of going to the appropriate Web site using 
their mouse to click through the options trying to figure out the best 
choice. They are lucky, in many cases, to have one of their kids who 
will sit with them and work through the options.
  But, I tell you, some of the professional people I run into, educated 
people I run into, quickly tell me that this is not an easy thing to 
navigate. With 42 plans, you had better make the right choice.
  Most seniors start with the basic drug they are currently taking and 
they go to the prescription drug plan to see if that drug is offered by 
the drug plan. Then they calculate the prices of the drugs to try to 
determine how much they are going to have to spend to get into the 
program, or once in the program how they will pay for their drugs. What 
they come to learn, to their chagrin, is that many of the drugs which 
are part of the formulary or the drugs that are being offered in a 
program today are changed tomorrow. The drug you needed, the drug you 
are looking for may be discontinued tomorrow.
  In other words, instead of a discount you may have to pay the full 
price. It is really a classic bait-and-switch situation.
  Second, the price that is quoted to you for this drug may change as 
well. It is like following the stock market. You have had two different 
plans. These seniors are trying to choose the right one. The drugs that 
are covered can change day to day. The prices can change day to day. 
And seniors have to make their choice and live with it for a year.
  It is fundamentally unfair. It is unfair that the drug plans can 
change right as these seniors have made their choice. And the seniors 
can't change their drug plan for a year.
  I have introduced legislation that would give senior citizens that 
option, an option that if the price of the drug goes up 10 percent or 
more, or it is dropped from the formulary, you can change your plan 
without a penalty. I think that is only reasonable.
  I also have to tell you that many of these pharmacists are at their 
wit's end. They care for these people. They really do. These are 
customers of a lifetime, and they come to these drugstores--some of 
them--distraught over what they are going through with Medicare 
prescription Part D, and the pharmacist tries to help. He gets on the 
phone. He may call that drug plan and try to make sure that the seniors 
are being treated fairly. He may ignore the plan, which says don't give 
some tablets over the course of a month, and give the person what he 
knows they need.
  These are things he does at his own peril in terms of his own 
financial well-being.
  I talked to one pharmacist who said that the drug Ambien, which is 
used by some who can't sleep at night had been prescribed, and one of 
the seniors who signed onto one of the plans brought in his monthly 
prescription for Ambien and was told he could only have 18 pills.
  So the plan decided that whatever the doctor had said 
notwithstanding, whatever the condition, the senior citizen, 12 days 
out of 30, was not going to have their medication.
  That is the kind of thing these seniors are facing. It is no wonder, 
to me, that the seniors I meet and the pharmacists who are trying to 
help them are really upset about this plan. They understand, as I do, 
that this plan wasn't written for senior citizens. This plan was 
written for health insurance companies that make these plans available, 
as well as the pharmaceutical companies. They are the big winners in 
many respects, first, because Medicare is not offering an overall plan 
for every senior to choose. I think that is where we should have 
started.
  We have a Medicare plan in America. People were brought into it in a 
matter of a few months, and it has worked very well for 40 years. There 
could have been a Medicare prescription drug plan which would have been 
the basic template, the standard model that is available to every 
senior. If someone in the private sector wants to compete and offer an 
alternative, they could have. I would have voted for that. But Medicare 
should have been able to offer the basic fundamental model plan that 
every senior could turn to, and it would have been successful because 
Medicare, with the potential of bargaining for 40 million senior 
citizens, could sit down with that drug company and tell them you can't 
raise the price of drugs 10 percent a year, we just won't let you under 
the plan.
  You know what happened. The same thing happened in Canada. That is 
exactly what the Canadian Government did to these same American drug 
companies. They told them if they wanted to sell to the Canadian health 
plan, they couldn't keep raising the cost of the drugs every single 
year.
  That is why exactly the same drugs manufactured in the United States 
sell for a fraction of the cost in Canada because the Canadian 
Government stepped in.
  When we tried to do that on the floor of the Senate, the 
pharmaceutical companies fought us and won big time. Now we have 500 
plans across America trying to negotiate better prices. And you know 
what that means: You don't get the discount, the bulk discount, and the 
lower prices that can occur.
  We know the VA had already tried this. They offered the veterans who 
come to veterans clinics and hospitals prescription drugs at reduced 
rates because they bargained with the same drug companies, but these 
drug companies didn't want to give up their power in this negotiation. 
So they insisted that Medicare would not write a basic plan. They 
insisted that there be 500 plans across America. They knew they would 
make more money that way.
  I am sure they will--but at the expense of senior citizens and 
taxpayers.
  There is also this strange, inexplicable, indefensible element in 
Medicare prescription Part D known as the donut hole. The donut hole 
says as follows: Once you have spent out of pocket $2,200 for 
prescription drugs during the course of a year, you are on your

[[Page 2170]]

own--no protection, no payment. Everything from that point on is out of 
pocket. Until you have spent an additional $2,900 and reached $5,100 
total spending, then the plan kicks in and is generous to you.
  The donut hole means that seniors truly in need of medication can 
find themselves at some point during the course of a year reaching into 
their savings to pay for their prescription drugs. How often does that 
occur?
  When I went to the Order of Saint Francis Health Center in Peoria, 
IL, I met with the pharmacy, Wayne Beckman, and his wife Bev. I asked 
Bev if they had run into anyone who is concerned about this donut hole 
where they already spent out $2,200. She said: There was a woman in 
here yesterday who already reached $2,200 in the month of February. She 
was a transplant patient. She needed expensive medication.
  So, now, this woman having gone through all of these surgeries, all 
of this medical care, has to reach into her pocket and pay out $2,900 
before the Medicare plan kicks in again.
  Could we have dreamed up a more complex and convoluted approach to 
providing prescription drugs to seniors?
  I learned during the course of my visit that many of these seniors 
are desperate. They know they have to decide by May 15 to sign up for a 
plan. Some of them are not taking drugs at this moment but are afraid 
if they do not sign up for some plan and start paying for it that they 
will be penalized, which is part of the law as well. So they are trying 
to decide what the best decision might be.
  I really wish my colleagues in Congress would get out of these marble 
halls and get into some drugstores. I wish they would stop listening to 
lobbyists and start listening to pharmacists. If they did, they would 
realize what a bad law this is. This was passed 2 years ago. We were 
supposed to have all the time in the world to get this right, make sure 
that when the moment came that this plan went into place nothing like 
this would occur. Yet it does.
  Some of the, I guess, most painful stories involve victims who are in 
nursing homes--people who have really spent down everything they have 
in life. They have nothing left. How do they live? Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid. Medicaid, of course, is health insurance for 
the poorest among us.
  These poor people who usually don't have many friends, other than 
maybe a couple of family members, are sick in the nursing homes. Many 
of them are caught in the middle of this Medicare prescription Part D 
and what it does to them. Someone takes their prescription to a 
pharmacy and finds out they will not fill a month's prescription, only 
10 days, and Governors across America have had to step in to protect 
these people, these poor people, literally poor people, who need a 
helping hand.
  What a sad turn of events. What could have been a source of pride for 
America, for seniors, for all has turned out to be a national 
embarrassment, an embarrassment that could have been avoided.
  My colleagues have to understand unless and until we work to make 
Medicare prescription drugs Part D a program that reaches out and helps 
people, a program that is simple, fair, gives true discounts on their 
prescriptions, then we have not done a service to our seniors. These 
men and women are parents and grandparents, the greatest generation who 
served in America's past in so many different ways. How can we put them 
in this predicament? They, unfortunately, had to go to the back of the 
line when it came to passage of this bill. The prescription drug 
companies, as well as the insurance companies, were the ones that wrote 
the bill.
  I know what we have to do. We have to take from this calendar, after 
we finish the PATRIOT Act, we have to push aside all the special 
interest legislation. We spent a week and a half on a bill last week, 
the clash of the special interest titans over asbestos. We have to set 
those aside and say, for at least a week, instead of taking up special 
interest legislation, we are going to take up the Medicare prescription 
drug bill. We are going to make this work. We are going to finally put 
something together that is an honor to the people who are part of our 
Medicare system.
  I don't know if we can do that. When the President signed this bill, 
people said: You are going to have to change some parts of it. He said: 
I am not going to touch it, not a word.
  The President should show a little humility. All of us in public life 
should from time to time. As we look at this Medicare prescription drug 
program, we know it is not working for America, it is not working for 
seniors. It is causing much too much heartache, much too much concern.
  This much I will say I have learned, having been in public life a few 
years. There is one thing about senior citizens, they know who is on 
their side. They have long memories. I might add, they vote. If the 
leaders in Congress, the Republican leaders, the President's own party, 
do not understand how badly this Medicare prescription Part D program 
is working, some of the seniors may give them their medicine in 
November. They have to understand we have a responsibility to these 
people, not to the lobbyists in the hallway who represent the drug 
companies. They are doing quite well, thank you.
  We have a responsibility to the people whom we were sent to 
represent. They may not have a lobbyist, but they have a vote and a 
voice and we will hear from them.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________