Bill Frist

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we in the Senate today had the experience of participating in the joint meeting in the House Chamber listening to Prime Minister Tony Blair. I opened the Senate this morning pointing out that we would be welcoming and honoring our distinguished visitor in this joint meeting. I mentioned that he is the fourth sitting Prime Minister to address a joint session of the Congress, preceded only by Winston Churchill, Clement Atlee, and Margaret Thatcher, three of histories great leaders. Today's historic tribute gave us the opportunity to reaffirm our abiding friendship and our deep respect both for the man, Prime Minister Tony Blair, as well as the people of the United Kingdom. Our two nations have stood shoulder to shoulder to defend the free people around the world. We had the opportunity to meet with the Prime Minister before the address. We were able to directly express our appreciation to the Prime Minister and for him to reflect to the people of Britain for their courage and their resolve. As you sat in the majestic House Chamber and listened to those words, I think we were all affected very directly because it helped elevate the debate which seemed to have mired down in part of the way it has been handled by the media but also the way it has been handled by a number of our colleagues both in this Chamber and in the other Chamber. The words from Tony Blair really did elevate it. There is just one passage I want to quote from what the Prime Minister said today in the Chamber: And I know it's hard on America, and in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places I've never been to, but always wanted to go. I know out there there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, ``Why me? And why us? And why America?'' And the only answer is, ``Because destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do.'' The Prime Minister continued: And our job, my nation that watched you grow, that you fought alongside and now fights alongside you, that takes enormous pride in our alliance and great affection in our common bond, our job is to be there with you. You are not going to be alone. We will be there with you in this fight for liberty. We will be with you in this fight for liberty. And if our spirit is right and our courage firm, the world will be with us. I mention this passage because, as we sat there for that 30 minutes or so, this passage where he mentions that ``destiny put you in this place in history'' is one that just struck a chord. I contrast that with the debate that has seemed to play out in the media over the last week in regard to the quality and integrity of the case made by President Bush for the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime. I have to say, as I have heard people comment on the case that has been made for this war, I have been increasingly disturbed. In part it is because of the sound of shaking confidence by people who intend to shake the confidence, or who want to instill or inject into the American people self-doubt about America's mission in Iraq. But when you stepped back and listened to the Prime Minister today, all of a sudden you realized that a bloody tyrant no longer rules in Iraq. It made you realize that a man who, without regret, murdered members of his own family, as well as tens of thousands of his own citizens, has now been removed from power. The perpetrator of one of the past century's most gruesome crimes against humanity--the use of chemical weapons on thousands of innocent Kurds--no longer is free to pursue such weapons. The aggressor in the gulf war who, a decade ago, invaded his neighbor, only to be driven out by a mighty coalition, no longer threatens the volatile region of the Middle East. Now all of this second-guessing is perplexing to me. If you look over the last week, we have had things mentioned like Watergate, which was referenced by candidates eager for the next election. You hear candidates using words like ``impeachment'' being laid upon the table. We have seen, over the last week, special e-mails going out from party headquarters, saying: More money needed to fan the flames of controversy. Indeed, we know all these campaigns have begun, and there are many people who seem to be eager to topple the leader. I mention all that because of the contrast in what we heard today from Tony Blair, who elevated the facts and the greater cause of liberty, in contrast so much to what our media and the candidates have focused on. This whiff of politics is in the air. What bothers me about it is that there is a cost if we get in and play a game of politics at this juncture in history. As I listened to the Prime Minister today, I thought, what does this do to the reputation of our country, to the position of our President? Prime Minister Tony Blair helped put that into perspective today. Indeed, the record is replete with the case against Saddam Hussein, such as the mass graves. Our colleagues who have just come back from Iraq so vividly described standing at these mass graves the size of football fields--thousands of graves exposed. And really only now are the thousands of widows and mothers and orphans--all victims, also-- able to openly grieve. Who will ever forget the pictures we have seen of those desperate citizens of Baghdad, actually clawing at the ground in a vain search for these hidden prisons that might hold their loved ones. You see these images of mass graves. Our colleagues have come back--and we have had two delegations over there, and another one will be going shortly--with descriptions of the unmistakable mark which these mass graves represent of history's tyrants, the legacy of this regime, and the shame of anyone among us who would have tolerated it for one day longer than we knew it to be a fact. As I listen to some of the candidates and colleagues and critics, it leads me to ask: Are we deaf in some way to the plight of the Iraqi people based on the facts that we know? Is the suffering of the Iraqi people--when we think about those graves or about the thousands of Kurdish individuals upon whom Saddam Hussein inflicted chemical weapons of mass destruction--it makes you ask is our moral purpose as a Nation so diminished that we do not see the justice of our own cause, that larger purpose, that sense of liberty and fighting for liberty that Prime Minister Tony Blair talked about today? We heard in this body all of the evidence on Iraq before the war. We had the opportunity, through open hearings, closed hearings, classified information. I clearly was convinced. I had the opportunity to sit in my office, which is just probably 200 steps from where I am speaking now, and listen to about 12 Kurdish physicians who came to visit the United States. They came to see me because I am a physician. They simply laid it out to me that they took care of thousands of people-- these are the physicians who took care of thousands of people who were poisoned with chemical weapons from Saddam Hussein--thousands of people, not 10 or 15, but thousands. They talked about the peeling of skin. They talked about the suffocation. They talked about people dying before their eyes. They also told me they are still taking care of those people who survived, although we know scores of thousands of people died from these chemical weapons imposed or inflicted upon them by Saddam Hussein; but, indeed, these doctors I talked to in my office months ago are still treating some of the victims from that atrocity. Yet, at the same time, we have heard discussions this past week with some questioning whether this tyrant was capable of possessing and using such weapons again. There seems to be a disconnect over much of the discussion of the last week. This week people said: After all, he declared himself free of these weapons. But as we all know, he denied again and again--and it was part of the resolution--those inspectors the opportunity to prove him wrong. So I am perplexed and bewildered by those who would accept the word of an inhumane, callous, mass murderer at this point in time, and whose word they seem to even be holding higher than that of the President of the United States. It is a travesty to me. It is nonsense, and it really comes back to that basic question: Is there anybody in this Chamber who would honestly dispute that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction; that he used weapons of mass destruction; and that he never abandoned that course? I really don't think so. We can take it a step further. Is there anybody in this Chamber who believes that we would have been all, in some way, better off with Saddam Hussein still in power? The answer is clear. Indeed, 9 months ago, 77 Members of this Chamber voted to authorize the President to use force in Iraq. In that resolution, we enumerated very clearly the many reasons. First, the Senate found--this was 9 months ago--that Saddam Hussein was developing, did possess, and had used weapons of mass destruction. That is No. 1. No. 2, 9 months ago, based on the information that was available to us and the briefings that we had, the Senate found that Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. And after being driven back by an international coalition, Saddam Hussein unequivocally agreed to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction and to prove so to the world community. No. 3, the Senate found that Saddam, in fact, used denial, used deception, and used harassment to thwart efforts by international inspectors to prove compliance with those terms. Fourth, the Senate reiterated its finding from 1998 legislation that Saddam Hussein had a continuing program to develop weapons of mass destruction in material breach of his terms of surrender in the gulf war. Finally, and fifth, the Senate listed the myriad of United Nations Security Council resolutions reaching the same conclusions that the Senate had reached. I wish to stress once again, because it is important to understand, this was 9 months ago, and 77 Members of this Chamber voted with this understanding. All of these findings were made on thorough intelligence briefings. They were considered judgments by Members of this body, all separate from any report about a uranium purchase from Africa, which has tended to be the focus of people over the last week. On October 9, 1998, 2 years before the current President was elected, Senators then wrote to President Bill Clinton demanding military action against Saddam Hussein. This is 1998. They wrote: We urge you to take necessary actions (including if, appropriate, air and missile strikes) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs. This was followed by a December 17, 1998, letter calling for the use of military force again by then-President Clinton ``to compel compliance or to destroy to the best of our ability Iraq's capability to build and deliver weapons of mass destruction and threaten its neighbors.'' What is incredible to me now is that some of those very same people who signed those letters now are questioning whether an honest case was made by President Bush that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The very same people signed those letters. So I am moved to ask, What reversed the conclusion that they had so confidently reached 5 years ago? Was it in some way a change of facts or was it a change just in the Presidency? Yes, my implication is what we have seen over the last week is a matter of politics, and I think, again, of the Prime Minister's visit today and his message of what this war has meant to free people, yes, in Iraq, but around the world. All of this is a serious matter. It demands our attention. I say that because as I speak, we all know that American soldiers, British soldiers, coalition soldiers stand in harm's way. We all sort of stand in fear of turning on the television at night, in the morning, or reading in the paper once again of tragic casualties. All of that speaks to me that we must redouble our efforts against the small but determined enemy to stabilize Iraq. A democratic and prosperous Iraq, just as the Prime Minister said today, will not only change the Middle East, it will change the world for the better. It is a worthy cause of our Nation and one that we simply will not--will not--permit to fail. Mr. President, I will, in the interest of time, probably have more to say about this next week. This is the nature of the debate. Again, I express my appreciation on behalf of the Senate to the Prime Minister for joining us today.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. 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. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene on Monday. Under the order entered earlier, the Senate will begin consideration of the Homeland Security appropriations bill during Monday's session. Again, no rollcall votes will occur but it is hoped that Senators will be present to debate and offer amendments. Next week we will complete the Homeland Security appropriations and continue to work through other appropriations bills as available. I, once again, commend Senator Stevens for his tremendous efforts over the last 2 weeks. As mentioned earlier, with tonight's vote, we have now passed 3 of the 13 appropriations bills. We have a lot of work to do during the remaining 2 scheduled weeks prior to our August recess. I have announced on many previous occasions that the Senate will spend the last week prior to the recess on the Energy bill. I encourage Members who intend to offer amendments to the bill to notify the chairman and the ranking member prior to that last week. I mentioned this morning and want to mention again that I will continue to try to reach an agreement for the filing of those amendments. Members have had an adequate time to draft and file those amendments. Again, we started this bill in the Senate on May 6. Therefore, I will continue to try to reach that consent agreement with the other side of the aisle, the agreement to have a filing deadline for the amendments. I do wish all a restful weekend. I look forward to our continuation of the appropriations process next week.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed, en bloc, to the immediate consideration of the following Energy bills: Calendar No. 198, S. 470; Calendar No. 199, S. 490; Calendar No. 200, S. 499; Calendar No. 201, S. 546; Calendar No. 202, S. 643; Calendar No. 203, S. 651; Calendar No. 204, S. 677; Calendar No. 205, S. 924; Calendar No. 206, S. 1076; Calendar No. 207, H.R. 255; Calendar No. 208, H.R. 1577; and H.R. 74, which is at the desk. I further ask unanimous consent that, where applicable, the committee amendments be agreed to; that the bills, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and passed; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 1 p.m. Monday, July 21. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 1:30 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion 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. 92, S. 314.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1399 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 212, S. Con. Res. 53.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, July 21, at 1:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 192, H.R. 2555, the Homeland Security appropriations bill.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, let me comment briefly on Prime Minister Tony Blair's address to the joint meeting of Congress this afternoon. It is a historic time. This afternoon, the Senate and the House of Representatives have that distinct honor of welcoming British Minister Tony Blair to address this joint meeting of the Congress. This type of address is the highest honor which Congress can bestow. Prime Minister Blair will be the fourth sitting Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to address a joint session of the United States and Congress, preceded only by Winston Churchill, Clement Richard Atlee, and Margaret Thatcher--three of history's greatest leaders. Today's historic tribute signifies our abiding friendship and our deep respect not only for the Prime Minister but for the great people of the United Kingdom. Throughout the last century, the United Kingdom and the United States have stood shoulder to shoulder to defend the free people of the world. That is because our two nations share more than just history. We share deeply held principles of devotion to governance with the consent of the electorate, a devotion to justice based on the rule of law and the principles of due process and devotion to economic freedom based on a belief that every individual should be free to express his or her God- given talents. Together, the United States and the United Kingdom defeated the twin evils of fascism and communism. Today, we stand together to defend democracy everywhere. In Africa, the Middle East, and Europe, Prime Minister Blair has led the way to bring freedom to the oppressed, relief to the suffering, and the promise of peace to those living in war-torn regions. In Sierra Leone, Prime Minister Blair led the effort to end a brutal and senseless civil war. In Kosovo and the Balkans, the Prime Minister rallied our two great nations to bring stability and security to that troubled region. In our great time of need, Prime Minister Blair has shown tremendous courage; he has shown tremendous resolve to defeat our enemies no matter how deep their caves or how fearsome their arsenal. In Afghanistan, the United Kingdom contributed forces to Operation Enduring Freedom and led the International Security Assistance Force. In Iraq, Prime Minister Blair worked tirelessly to build the coalition to free the Iraqi people from the savagery of Saddam Hussein, a man who--and we should never forget this--used chemical weapons to commit mass murder against his neighbors as well as his own people. Under the Prime Minister's leadership, the United Kingdom sent over 30,000 troops--nearly a fourth of the British military--to fight alongside our valiant women and men. We are grateful for the Prime Minister and the British people for their strength and their resolve. This afternoon, on behalf of the people of the United States, we will pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his courage and his vision. We will listen to his counsel. We will reaffirm the bond between our two great nations, purchased not by treasure or self-interest but by loyalty and brave mutual sacrifice. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise this morning to address a very specific situation--a dire situation--that exists in the administration of justice for the people of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan, the States that make up the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am joined this morning by other Senators from the Sixth Circuit and, most notably, we are joined on the Senate floor by many Members of the House of Representatives, representing the four States of the Sixth Circuit. This morning, we will be meeting with Michigan's attorney general, Mike Cox, and several other Michigan leaders. They flew down today to make their case in the Senate, encouraging us to do our job and move forward with the stalled Michigan nominations to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. They will be presenting the Senate leadership with a petition of thousands of Michigan citizens asking the Senate to end this delay on the so-called Michigan four. This petition corresponds with a concurrent resolution which has been introduced in the Michigan Legislature, also asking the Senate to end the almost 2-year delay on the Michigan nominations. The people and leaders of Michigan are not just speaking for themselves; they speak for the people from all of the States concerned and affected by this inexcusable delay. That includes the people of Tennessee, Kentucky, as well as Ohio. That is why last week I took the rare, but not unprecedented, action of vowing for discharge of these four stalled nominations from the Judiciary Committee, because the delay of these nominations affects more than the State of Michigan, and the entire Sixth Circuit congressional delegation does have an interest on behalf of the people of the States and districts we represent. In response to my discharge motion, my colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois, objected on behalf of the two Senators from Michigan on the basis that the stalled Michigan nominations had not had a hearing. I thought at the time it was an odd objection given that the Senators from Michigan are the ones who are obstructing such hearings from even being held. Nevertheless, I respectfully considered the objection and studied the record of the Michigan nominations. This morning, I have sent a letter to Senator Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, along with Senator McConnell, who also signed and wrote this letter with me, asking them to hold hearings on these nominations as soon as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Kentucky to share his concern as to the effect this particular delay of the Sixth Circuit nominees has on the people we serve every day and how their real lives are being affected. I think that is what drives us in moving forward, recognizing this delay is simply unacceptable.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. That does bring into focus what we are here to do. For me, that brings into focus why, for us to be good stewards of the judiciary, we need to accelerate this process and move it forward. Indeed, that is what the Constitution calls upon us to do. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. FRIST. I yield the remainder of our time to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. FRIST. Will the Senator from Kentucky yield for a question?

Mr. FRIST. After looking at the record, I have reached the conclusion that the objection to these nominees having hearings is based not on any substantive concerns about their qualifications, or their temperament, or about their integrity. Indeed, these four nominees are held in the highest regard and enjoy solid reputations. Nor is it based on a failure of the White House to properly consult with the Michigan Senators. In fact, it appears that the administration has been extremely solicitous of their views, having engaged in extensive and good-faith consultation, as that term is properly understood. Rather, based upon review of the record of consultation and correspondence, it appears that the Michigan Senators object to the consideration of these nominees for purposes totally unrelated to their personal qualifications. Simply put, they believe that two Clinton nominees from Michigan who were not confirmed should be renominated by President Bush. Because the White House has not taken this extraordinary step of renominating two of former President Clinton's nominees, the Michigan Senators have decided to block, to obstruct, all four of Michigan's circuit court nominees. I might add, they are blocking the district court nominees as well. I believe the reason it is important for us to shed light on this issue is--and I am sure the American people and my colleagues will agree--that this is not a valid reason to hold the people of the entire Sixth Circuit Court hostage and inflict damage and delay on our constituents. The situation is simply unacceptable and cannot continue. The Michigan Senators, I believe, should not be able to prevent the entire Senate from acting on four outstanding nominees who would fill what we all know are officially classified as judicial emergencies on the appellate court that is operating with fully one-fourth of its seats vacant right now. These are judicial emergencies. I should note that one of these nominees, Judge Henry Saad, was first nominated by the first President Bush and was never given a hearing. He has been waiting, in effect, for over a decade. It bears noting that when he is confirmed by this Senate, he will be the first Arab American to serve on the Federal courts. The Constitution of the United States requires that the Senate responsibly and expeditiously vote on the President's nominees--``yea'' or ``nay''--and allow the courts to get on with their work. Instead, what is happening is that the President's nominees to the Sixth Circuit are being held up, and the Senate is blocked from performing its constitutional duty. Among the 12 U.S. Courts of Appeals, the Sixth Circuit is now dead last in the timeliness of its disposition of cases. District court judges within the Sixth Circuit warn us that by having to perform regular duty as a substitute judge on the court of appeals, their own trial dockets have slowed considerably. Only a substantial commitment on the part of the senior judges of the Sixth Circuit, district judges from the within the Sixth Circuit, and visiting appellate judges from other circuits has kept the caseload even barely manageable. The Sixth Circuit is the third busiest court of appeals, and Chief Judge Boyce Martin has asked Congress to authorize a 17th judge for the court. The court would be overworked even if it had its full complement of 16 judges. According to District Judge Robert Bell, W.D. Michigan, ``We're having to backfill with judges from other circuits, who are basically substitutes. You don't get the same sense of purpose and continuity you get with full-fledged court of appeals judges.'' Furthermore, ``we don't have the time or the resources that the circuit court has. You can't help to conclude that if we had 16 full-time judges with the full complement of staff, that each case might get more consideration . . .'' Those are very troubling words: ``Each case might get more consideration.'' It is unconscionable that we would deliberately allow our courts to get clogged up, backlogged, and undermined because some in Washington wish to politicize the process. Our courts are supposed to be fair and impartial. They are supposed to serve both victims and defendants. We are undermining the rights of our fellow citizens if we do not resolve this issue. It is not just judges who are seeing what is happening. United States attorneys in Michigan tell us that the delays caused by the vacancies are complicating their ability to prosecute wrongdoers, defendants are able to commit more crime while awaiting trial, there is less consistency in the court's jurisprudence, and the United States is effectively being deprived of en banc review in some cases. A letter signed by 31 Assistant United States Attorneys in the Eastern District of Michigan states: [i]n years past, it was the normal practice of the Sixth Circuit that a case would be heard by the Court approximately three months after all briefs were filed, and in most cases an opinion would issue in about three additional months. At present, due to the large number of vacancies on the Court . . . it has been taking on average between twelve and eighteen months longer for most appeals to be completed . . . Moreover, they go on: [D]elays in criminal cases hurt the government . . . [T]he longer a case goes on, the more chance there is that witnesses will disappear, forget, or die, documents will be lost, and investigators will retire or be transferred . . . In some cases, convicted criminal defendants are granted bond pending appeal. The elongated appellate process therefore allows defendants to remain on the street for a longer period of time, possibly committing new offenses. In addition, the longer delay makes retrials more difficult if the appeal results in the reversal of a conviction. They go on: [T]he Sixth Circuit has resorted to having more district judges sit by designation as panel members. This practice has contributed to a slowdown of the hearing of cases in the district courts, because the district judges are taken out of those courtrooms. The widespread use of district judges also provides for less consistency in the appellate process than would obtain if full-time Circuit Judges heard most of the appeals. And they conclude: In some cases, the small number of judges on the Court has served to effectively deprive the United States of en banc review . . . Achieving a unanimous vote of all of those judges of the Court who were not part of the original panel is, as a matter of practice, impossible, and not worth seeking. However, if the Court was at full strength, an en banc review could have been granted with the votes of about two thirds of the active judges who were not part of the original panel. I quote their comments at length because I want to lay out in unambiguous terms what is happening to our justice system. Justice delayed is justice denied--justice denied to everyone, including victims, defendants, and the entire community. President Bush has nominated four well-qualified individuals from Michigan to fill these vacancies. The objections of the Michigan Senators are, in my view, unreasonable. The basis of their complaint is that two nominees were left without hearings at the end of President Clinton's term in 2001. They ignore the fact that two nominees were also left without hearings at the end of President Bush's term in 1993, which means that President Clinton got to appoint the same number of judges to the Sixth Circuit as the number of vacancies that came open during his Presidency. Both parties have left nominations ending at the end of Presidents' terms. But the effort by my Michigan colleagues to block nominations at the outset of a President's term is unheard of. Five of the Sixth Circuit's active judges--nearly half--were appointed by President Clinton. Let me read from the Grand Rapids Press. It makes the point well, saying: The Constitution does not give [Sens. Levin and Stabenow] co-presidential authority and certainly does not support the use of the Court of Appeals to nurse a political grudge . . . [Sens. Levin and Stabenow] have proposed that the president let a bipartisan commission make Sixth circuit nominations or that Mr. Bush renominate the two lapsed Clinton nominations. Mr. Bush has shown no interest in either retreat from his constitutional prerogatives. Nor should he. Movement in this matter should come from Sens. Levin and Stabenow--and, clearly, it should be backward. Our courts cannot work if we do not have judges to run them. And our communities suffer when our courts do not work--victims, who never see justice, defendants who hang in limbo, and communities that go unprotected. President Bush's judicial nominees deserve a simple up-or-down vote. That is all that is being asked. This is one of our most important constitutional duties. We cannot use the system to nurse grudges. The consequences are too great. The public expects us to do our duty. I call upon my fellow Senators to exercise their constitutional responsibilities and free the Michigan four. Mr. President, I yield the Republican time to the majority whip, the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters from White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales outlining the history of these nominations.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a request for testimony, documents, and representation in related criminal trepass actions in Arapahoe County Court in the State of Colorado. In these actions, seven defendants have been charged with criminally trespassing on the premises of Senator Wayne Allard's Englewood, CO, office on December 4, 2002. Upon its closing that day, the defendants refused repeated requests to leave Senator Allard's office, and, as a result, were arrested. Trials on the charge of trespass are scheduled to be held on or about July 23, 2003. The State has subpoenaed several of the Senator's staff members who witnessed the defendants' conduct. The enclosed resolution would authorize those staff members, and any other employees of Senator Allard's office from whom evidence may be required, to testify and produce documents in connection with these actions, with representation from the Senate Legal Counsel.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, under the agreement entered earlier, we have a lengthy lineup of Senators who intend to offer amendments to the Defense appropriations bill, as I just outlined. We will be voting throughout the day tomorrow and into the evening in order to complete this measure tomorrow afternoon or evening. I have had a number of discussions with the chairman of the committee. As he announced a few hours ago, if the Senate completes action on this bill, and if the Senate can begin consideration of the Homeland Security appropriations bill on Monday, the Senate will not be voting on Friday. I will have more to say tomorrow on the schedule for this week and next week, after we have made further progress on the pending legislation. I thank my colleagues. We continue to make good progress. I think it is clear if we finish tomorrow night, there being no votes Friday--and Monday is a no-vote day--we will be able to continue on Homeland Security early Monday during the course of the day. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, there will be no further rollcall votes tonight. I understand that under the order Senator Reed is to be recognized for up to 30 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that following his remarks my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, be recognized to speak as if in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes the Defense appropriations bill on Thursday, Senator Harkin be recognized to speak for up to 25 minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that the next order of Democratic first-degree amendments be the following, and further that if a Republican amendment is offered it be interspersed between the amendments mentioned: Dodd, Byrd, Wyden, Durbin, Biden, Byrd, Kennedy, Byrd, and Schumer.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning we will have a period of morning business for 30 minutes. Following that 30-minute period, the Senate will begin consideration of H.R. 2330, the Burma sanctions legislation. Under the order from last night, there will be 60 minutes for debate on the Burma bill with a vote on passage to occur later in a series of stacked votes. After that debate, we will resume consideration of the Defense appropriations bill for debate on the Dorgan amendment on war costs, to be followed by debate on the Bingaman amendment on detainees. The Senate will then conduct a series of three rollcall votes on the two amendments and passage of the Burma bill. These votes are expected to begin shortly after 12 noon today. Additional amendments will be offered over the course of the day, and therefore rollcall votes will continue throughout the day and evening in order to complete action on the Defense appropriations bill.