USA Patriot Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2005--Motion to Proceed

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

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 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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/