Bill Frist

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of three Senate resolutions which were submitted earlier today.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, on S. Res. 380, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor, if I am not currently one.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 380, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 377, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, S. Res. 377 is the resolution honoring the life of Dr. Norman Shumway and expressing condolences on behalf of this body. I wish to pay tribute to a medical pioneer, a man who inaugurated a new era of medicine, my mentor in surgery and friend. Sadly, Dr. Shumway passed away late last week at the age of 83. He left behind a legacy as an inspirational leader, a healer, a guiding spirit who made my own professional field of heart transplants a reality. When all those around him said it was impossible, said it was a pipe dream, said it couldn't be done, his vision and his determination and his unrelenting commitment and pioneer attitude has saved thousands and thousands of lives. I had the distinct honor of studying under the tutelage of Dr. Shumway at Stanford University Medical Center in the early 1980s. I witnessed his rare gifts. Those gifts included a blend of long-term thinking, a love of medicine and healing, and a true pioneering spirit that inspired and attracted like-minded individuals from across the country and, indeed, around the world. He was fond of remarking that his role as a surgeon was comparable to that of being the world's greatest first surgical assistant in the operating room. When you are treating a patient, when you are operating on a patient, the surgeon stands on one side of the table and the first assistant across the way on the other side. It is that image of Dr. Shumway, on the other side, instructing, teaching, cultivating that expertise in the young surgeon, that stands out most vividly in my mind, the constant cajoling and instructing in very gentle, humble ways, the certainty of that guiding hand which would reach over if there was a slightly wrong move or a hesitant move that was made. I think his comment about being the world's greatest first assistant reflects that humility but also that comfort level and that competence that, coupled with his pioneering spirit, has proved to be revolutionary in the field of medicine and surgery. Now his humble, yet visionary, work is reflected in surgical programs all over the world because he was that first assistant, as he instructed and taught and inspired. Those surgeons he trained are now literally populating academic and clinical programs all over this country and indeed throughout the world. He loved his role as healer, and he cherished the opportunity not only to operate and to innovative but to inspire and to plant seeds, all a part of his mode of inspirational teaching. I have worked with a lot of cardiac surgeons, heart surgeons, in programs around the world, including Boston, MA, over in England, out on the west coast, down in the South at Vanderbilt and, more than anybody I interacted with over the 20 years I have spent in medicine, Dr. Shumway was the one, was the single one, who had the broadest, as well as the deepest, influence because of his unparalleled commitment to teaching in an inspirational way that encouraged others to go out and teach and to spread the word and to spread the technique and to spread what he indeed pioneered: heart transplantation, lung transplantation, heart-lung transplantation. He was a brilliant man, a pioneering spirit. Yet he was always accessible. He was always there on rounds. He believed in the team approach, of relying on the technician running the heart-lung machine, relying on the nurses who, with him, made rounds each morning and each evening to see his patients. His teachings were filled with turns of phrases and catchy one-liners and, in my own mind, as I stand here and recall listening to him, he would say things such as: Never be afraid to double dribble. I think about it a lot because what he was saying was if that first stitch you are about ready to put in isn't perfect, put in another stitch; don't be so bold, don't be so confident, don't be so cocky, where if you have a question you don't make absolutely sure that something is perfect. Never be afraid to double dribble. Dr. Shumway looked for somebody who had the passion for healing, and he would encourage their active pursuits. It is almost as if he had a sixth sense, both for inspiration but also in recognizing in others an ability or a desire to be innovative, to create, to think outside of the box in order to benefit humanity. He considered it part of his mission to nurture and cultivate his trainees' ambition and their drive and their desire. It didn't matter what your age was. It didn't matter what schools you had gone to. It didn't matter whether you were a first-year resident, an intern, or a fifth-year resident; if you had a good idea, if you had a creative idea, he would nurture it and he would put an environment around you to allow that idea to grow, to prove itself, to go down in defeat. He would even set up a laboratory around an intern or a first-year resident who had a creative idea that he thought just may work. It was a very different mentality than most people in his field of surgery in medicine. The traditional medical establishment, as I mentioned earlier, thought heart transplantation could never be done. Yet that sort of ``a little bit out of the box'' thinking, that pioneering spirit, did inspire some of the great innovations in medicine in the 20th century: Heart transplants, which he is known for, with the first successful heart transplant in our country--it came at the era I was there--the combined heart-lung transplant, where essentially you remove all of the organs from the top of the chest down to the diaphragm, taking that heart-lung out to transplant and repair and to have it replaced to give life to individuals with otherwise fatal diseases; the early work with left ventricular assist devices; the invention of the cardiac biopsy, where the catheter is inserted through the neck and you can actually sample pieces of the heart with a technique that takes literally about 2 or 3 minutes but allows you to determine whether a patient is rejecting that heart or has inflammation of that heart; the immunosuppressive protocols which made heart transplantation possible. These were all pioneering fields he jumped into, that he created, that he explored, and he did so with a disciplined approach, a scientific approach, an approach characterized by perseverance over a long period of time, in spite of a lot of people questioning and putting forth doubts as he went forward. In talking to a number of people who asked about this man and what his contributions have been, it has come to my attention, as I reflect upon it, that he has also encouraged people to go out and explore new fields. Some of the cardiac surgeons he trained--one went into public service for a period of time, but others went on to become lawyers, to become heads of the great universities of the country and, indeed of the world. Given the unique type of drive that inspired a person to study with Dr. Shumway, it is probably not all that unexpected because he did encourage people to figure out what their strengths were and how they could better humanity--whether it is the scientist in the laboratory, whether it is the clinical surgeon, whether it is the academic surgeon, whether it is the lawyer who ultimately best understood the delivery of health care and went off to participate in legal aspects of health care today. He also encouraged people to take risks, and to take risks in a very positive way, because if people did not work outside of their comfort zone he felt progress could never be made. But encouraging people to take those risks, he did so with science, with a strong foundation, with a good understanding of what limitations are, with a strong understanding of cost and risk and benefits. But that element of risk taking, calculated risk taking, is a legacy he has left many of us, and many of the people who have trained with him--thinking and saying and believing that is the only way progress in society takes place. Dr. Shumway was a legend in his field and his presence will be sorely missed. As I look back, I would never have had that blessing, and it is a blessing, to be able to transplant the human heart and I would have never transplanted a human heart if I had not had the opportunity to study under Dr. Norman Shumway. I would have never in my life been able to transplant the human lung, to give life to people who have an otherwise fatal disease, if I had not trained with and studied under Dr. Norman Shumway. I would have never put in any left ventricular assist devices for struggling, ailing hearts when people have had massive heart attacks. I would have never been able to do neonatal transplants on little infants. I mention those only because without that man and his vision, his philosophy of conceiving something and believing in it and doing it, it would have affected my life greatly. Indeed, in all likelihood I would not be on the floor of the Senate today if I had not had that exposure to Dr. Norman Shumway. Having had the honor of working with him, he was an inspirational leader. He was the guiding light who seemed to be able to pull it all together with his vision and with his determination and his dedication. He has affected the lives of thousands and indeed hundreds of thousands of people through his teaching and through his training around the world. He was my mentor, he was a great surgeon and a true friend, and someone I will miss dearly. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 379, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 378, which was submitted earlier.

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m., Friday, February 17. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and that Senator Salazar then be recognized to deliver George Washington's Farewell Address, as under the previous order. I further ask that following the address, the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair, and that when the Senate reconvenes, there be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today, by a vote of 96 to 3, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to proceed to the PATRIOT Act Amendments Act. I am disappointed that the other side of the aisle has forced us to spend these extra days, several extra days to get on to this bill. Under the agreement that was reached last night, I want to remind my colleagues that a cloture vote on the bill will occur at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 28, and then we will have a vote on final passage at 10 a.m., March 1. Tomorrow we will be in session, but there will be no rollcall votes. We have some outstanding legislative items to complete before the Presidents Day recess next week, so we will be in session and working tomorrow, Friday. In Senate tradition tomorrow, we will also hear Washington's Farewell Address which will be read by Senator Salazar when the Senate convenes.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 32 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Specter substitute at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements thereon be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today we will have a 30-minute period of morning business which will be equally divided between the aisles. After that time we will begin debate on the motion to proceed to the USA PATRIOT Act. Last night there was an objection from the Democratic side to my unanimous consent request to begin consideration of that bill and, because of that objection from the other side of the aisle and expected filibuster, I was forced to file cloture on the motion to proceed. That motion is debatable, and I will alert my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that they will need to remain on the floor during this motion. We only have a few days remaining before the Presidents Day recess, and we need to get to the substance of the underlying bill, the PATRIOT Act. Members have a right to filibuster proceeding to that measure, but I believe we will be able to invoke cloture by a wide margin, again, showing wide support for this important piece of legislation. I will announce the exact timing of the cloture vote when we have that locked in, but it could be as early as 1 o'clock in the morning when we could hold that vote. We will be in discussions with the Democratic leader in terms of the time of that vote and we will be able to announce that later today. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we are at a continuation of a sequence of events which has resulted in a lot of delay, a lot of postponement, really reflecting these insufferable attempts to put off the Nation's business with obstruction and stalling. It is disturbing to me because we have so many issues to address in securing America's future, securing America's future in terms of security, securing America's future when it comes to looking at health care issues, education issues, securing America's prosperity as we look at competition and innovation and things we can do to invest in math and science education, and making us more competitive and creating jobs with respect to China and India. There are so many issues, many of which were outlined by the President of the United States in the State of the Union Address. Yet we are going through this stall ball, which is reflected now on the PATRIOT Act, where we have the PATRIOT Act reauthorization being filibustered by the Democrats, which started in December when we had a filibuster on the reauthorization, and the filibuster now on the motion to proceed. Now, with that continued postponement and filibuster, there is no way to complete this reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act before we go on recess. There is no way to do it using the tools of the Senate, using the tools of the filibuster. And a filibuster I can understand if you are shaping the bill or if the outcome is not absolutely predetermined. But the outcome here is absolutely predetermined. There will be overwhelming support in this body for this bill. It is important to the safety and security of the American people. It breaks down barriers between the intelligence community and our law enforcement community, and it does so protecting the civil liberties of Americans. There is overwhelming support. The outcome is determined. Yet we have been in a quorum call for most of the day, and using the rules of the Senate. Again, people say: Well, if it is a filibuster, why aren't people talking all the time? With the rules of the Senate, you do not have to be talking, but you control the Senate in terms of time. With that, we are able to file cloture motions, and then you wait another 30 hours, and it is a series of cloture motions, which stretches the time out, again, really wasting precious time on the floor of the Senate when we should be governing, answering, responding to the problems of everyday Americans, the challenges of everyday Americans. Looking at what we have gone through recently, for example, the pensions bill, we passed the pensions bill on November 16, 2005, with a vote of 97 to 2, overwhelming support. I asked the Democrats to appoint conferees on December 15 of last year. I asked them to appoint conferees again, renewing that request on February 1. I have been in continued conversation and discussions with the Democratic leadership. Again: Not yet, postponement. We know the issues pertaining to the pensions bill. We can't respond until we can get to conference. The House is ready with conferees, but we can't go to conference until we appoint conferees. Yet once again, those names are not given. I have been in discussion with the Democratic leader. I understand we will be able to appoint conferees in the next 24 hours or so. But it is the pattern of postponement, delay, obstruction, and stopping the Nation's business that disturbs me. The asbestos bill, I said long ago that we would spend this period on asbestos. We were forced by the other side of the aisle to file cloture on the motion to proceed just to get on that bill, a bill that does address victims who are suffering from asbestos-related disease and who are not being compensated fairly. We voted in favor of cloture 98 to 1. Then we had delayed consideration of the bill by 3 days by forcing cloture, and then we had insistence on a day of debate only--again, postponement. The Alito nomination ended up being successful; the advice and consent was carried out. But once again, there was a week delay beyond which we had worked out a time line before we could bring the Alito nomination to the floor. Earlier this week and over the last couple of weeks, we have had to deal with the tax reconciliation bill to go to conference. The Democrats forced the Senate to consider the bill three separate times just to get to conference. We had 20 hours of debate the first time, with 17 rollcall votes, and then we had another 20-hour limitation, with 7 more rollcall votes. Then we had a series of votes yesterday morning on motions to instruct before we get to conference. All of that didn't change the bill at all. These are nonbinding motions to instruct--but again, another manifestation of stalling, postponing, delaying. It is frustrating because whether it is the tax relief bill or the Alito nomination or the asbestos bill or the pensions bill or, now, the PATRIOT Act, it is a pattern that, if we are going to be working together in the Nation's interest, we cannot continue over the course of the year; otherwise, we will not get anything done when we do have challenging problems with health care costs too high, things that we can do on education in terms of math and science, making our country and our students more competitive in the future, addressing issues surrounding funding our military. So with that, I plead to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work together to make progress. Let's be doing what we are supposed to be doing and that is governing in the Nation's interest. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the pending motion to proceed occur at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow with the mandatory quorum waived; provided further that if cloture is invoked, notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed immediately to the bill; I further ask consent that if a cloture motion is filed on the bill during Thursday's session, then that cloture vote occur at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 28; provided further that if cloture is invoked on the bill, then at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, March 1, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 229, S. 1777.

Mr. FRIST

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 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. 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 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.