Bill Frist

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, why don't we see what speakers we have. I have a general understanding. Let's begin the speeches now and we will alternate back and forth.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I suggest that we have a speaker for whatever time on that side and then come back to Senator Enzi and then back to his side.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, it was not specified last night, but our intent was to do morning business for an hour and at 11 o'clock to come back to the energy bill to continue the opening statements and comments and discussion on the ethanol amendment that was offered last week.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the sequence we just walked through is very important. The sense of urgency for the HIV/AIDS legislation, for me, really boils down to the fact that every 10 seconds somebody is dying from this little virus, and that is something that is going to take leadership from the United States--the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives--to act upon. Indeed, the President has acted; the House of Representatives has acted. The last hurdle to the reality of the United States being the true world leader in fighting HIV/AIDS is this body. When every 10 seconds a person is dying and we can make a difference, it becomes urgent, not just to this physician but to the Congress and to the United States. Following the jobs and growth package this week, we will immediately turn to H.R. 1298, which is the bipartisan United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003. I plan to bring that to the floor as soon as we complete the jobs and growth package and to complete it this week. It is my hope we will have good debate. We will have good debate. There are people on both sides of the aisle who have participated aggressively in the discussion and, indeed, have moved legislation--not successfully--but moved legislation forward in this body. We will have the debate. We will dispose of the amendments and proceed to final passage by the end of this week on this urgent issue. For the past 5 years, I have worked with Senators on both sides of the aisle, and House Members, all of whom are devoted to the idea that the United States can and, even more importantly, must play a leading role in our response to this global health crisis. It has taken a long time for people throughout the world, indeed the United States and-- maybe a little bit longer than I and others would like--for the Congress to realize what a moral crisis, what a public health crisis this pandemic is, all caused by a virus, an infection which emerged in this country about 22 years ago--in 1981, not that long ago. In previous Congresses, we passed legislation at the committee level. Sweeping legislation to accomplish the establishment of the U.S. leadership on the virus has been considered, but it has never made it into law. Now we have that opportunity. Indeed, I am committed to see that we seize that opportunity this week with no delays because it is such a huge global issue, an issue which I regard as one of the greatest moral challenges we have seen in this country in the last 100 years. I have chosen to begin our debate with H.R. 1298 because it is the bill that offers us the best hope that we can get the job done in an expeditious fashion and one that best assimilates the thoughts and ideas and works of past legislation from this body, on both sides of the aisle, as well as in the House of Representatives. What is making it possible now, after 5 years of working on this issue personally, again with colleagues from both sides of the aisle-- it is very clear--is the leadership of the President of the United States. It was his statement in the State of the Union Address this year where the President didn't just use rhetoric or give lipservice to the fight against this virus, but he made an unprecedented commitment to this public health challenge in a 5-year, $15 billion effort to combat HIV/AIDS globally. It was unprecedented. The President has claimed for our Nation the leading role in fighting this aggressive virus, this destructive virus, a virus that daily continues to take the lives of thousands of innocents, resulting in about 13 to 14 million young children today as orphans, and even that number will go to 30 to 40 million over the next 15 years. It should be recognized that the bipartisan bill we will consider is a product of a lot of work. People say it is a House-written bill. If you look at it, first, it is overwhelmingly bipartisan; secondly, if you read through the legislation, you see that it draws upon much of the effort from this body, on both sides of the aisle, from the various committees, that have addressed emerging infections in the past--from this body as well as the House. In the pages of that legislation, we will find much that is familiar in the proposals we have tried to pass before. Thus, Democrats and Republicans, once they read the bill, can claim satisfaction by finding that many of the provisions have been authored from Members on both sides of the aisle. That is the bill that is so close to becoming law. That is the bill we will be debating. The consensus on the legislation to fight global HIV/AIDS is deep, but I have to say it is very narrow. I don't reveal any secrets in acknowledging that there are very strong differences around the margins of this debate. But what is truly remarkable--people will see this as they look at the legislation itself, and I find it very encouraging--is that we have come to this point of consensus that will permit us to get this bill through this last hurdle, through the Congress, and to the President of the United States. The bill we bring to the floor does offer a 5-year plan, $15 billion to combat HIV/AIDS on a global scale. The bipartisan support is reflected in the fact that only one House Democrat voted against this bipartisan compromise bill. Thus, it is not a Republican bill; it is not a Democrat bill; it is a bipartisan bill. The vote in the House of Representatives was 375 to 41. The President and White House staff have reviewed the House bill, and the White House has informed me that the President would sign this bill as it currently stands. This means that Senate passage is the only remaining hurdle in the way of this 5-year, $15 billion commitment by the United States of America in the global fight against HIV/AIDS. We must pass this bill. We must pass this bill this week. I know some of my colleagues would change the legislation and tweak it, given the opportunity. I know some would add a little here and take away some there, change the language as it is written. In a perfect world, I would like to make several changes in the bill that I think have some merit. But as someone who has invested years of my own life, in terms of developing the legislation in this fight against AIDS and in educating others about this issue, and as a physician and someone who is familiar with infectious disease and has experience in treating this virus very directly, I have reflected on ultimately what is most important. My conclusion is that it is important for us to pass this legislation now and get this program established without further delay--not 6 months from now, not 3 months from now, not a month from now. It is a moral issue, and history will ultimately judge how this body responds to this devastating virus. There is no change I could personally propose to this legislation that is so significant that it would cause a delay in getting this bill to the President. Therefore, when we bring up the bill, I intend to offer no amendments. I will argue against any amendments. It is my hope that other Senators will reach that conclusion as well. The bill is a 5-year authorization and it is important for us to remember that no matter what final shape this bill takes as we pass it, this is the first major step. We still have a lot of work to do, but this is the first major step. We will have the ability in future authorizations and in the appropriations process to make other changes, to take the next step as they prove necessary. But now is the time for us to get the job done, create the capacity for that global response, and to give the President of the United States the leverage he needs to attract similar leadership from the world's other wealthy nations. With this legislation, the United States of America will clearly be leading this fight and will become an example for the other wealthy nations to participate. Simply put, too many innocent children and men and women and young people have been infected by this terrible virus. Too many have died. We have failed to act in the past. We have had good intentions, but we have failed to act in the past. We must not fail these people again. This is our opportunity. In closing, I appeal to my colleagues on both sides that we join together in passing this bipartisan bill. I acknowledge that it is not a perfect bill, but my conscience does not permit me to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is, without a doubt, one moment to put the global interests of others above our own differences and to do our work, to do good, and to reaffirm that which makes the United States of America not just a powerful Nation but indeed a great Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this renewable fuels amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Daschle, as well as a number of other Senators on both sides of the aisle who have worked on this important issue for a number of years. I think the fact that the Democratic leader and I have joined together to offer this amendment demonstrates the significance of this particular issue as well as the broad bipartisan support that this compromise package enjoys. I do want to take this opportunity to commend all of the cosponsors of the amendment, many of whom came to the floor yesterday morning to speak, for their hard work, their dedication over the years in forging this agreement. I also note that the President has made passage of this amendment a priority, and I commend him for his commitment to getting this done. This particular amendment will enhance America's energy independence and energy security by increasing the use of domestically produced, clean, renewable fuels. As the chairman of the Energy Committee has pointed out many, many times, America is dangerously dependent on foreign oil. We currently import 60 percent of the oil we consume, and that number is increasing. One of the major goals of this energy bill we are debating on the floor of the Senate is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This amendment is a critical component of that effort. The Frist-Daschle amendment establishes a national renewable fuels standard of 5 billion gallons per year by the year 2012, nearly tripling the use of ethanol and biodiesel over the next decade. It phases out the use of MTBE over a 4-year period and authorizes funding to prevent and clean up MTBE contamination from leaking underground tanks. And it repeals the Federal oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline, with strong antibacksliding language to ensure that air quality is not compromised. Mr. President, as I said, this amendment is the product of a great deal of work by many Members of the Senate over the last several years. It is a compromise that has broad, bipartisan support. It will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It will protect the environment. It will create jobs. It will increase farm incomes. It will stimulate investment in rural communities. I look forward to working with Senator Daschle and all of the other supporters of this package to get it adopted as expeditiously as possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 2 p.m., Monday, May 12. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that the Senate immediately proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 90, S. 2, the reconciliation bill, as provided under the previous order.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Madam 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, this amendment will change the way the Senate concludes debate on Presidential nominees. No longer will it be necessary to overcome a 60-vote barrier before Senators can exercise their power to consent to a nomination. Five months into the 108th Congress, we confront multiple filibusters of highly qualified and intellectually superior judicial nominees, filibusters that are unfair to the nominees, unfair to the President, and unfair to the majority of Senators--Senators who are ready to confirm them. Of course, we all fully respect and honor the views of any Senator who differs from our own assessment on the quality of any particular nomination, and I think if he or she finds a particular nominee unfit for any reason, they should vote to reject. But by denying the right of an up-or-down vote on a nominee and choosing, rather, to filibuster, they deny the Senate and each Senator the right to vote at all. The remedy is filibuster reform. Over time, many Democrats as well as many Republicans have proposed changes to introduce greater fairness in the Senate rules. It is to these proposals that I have looked in crafting this resolution. My proposal is similar to S. Res. 85, proposed in March by my distinguished Democratic colleague from Georgia, Senator Zell Miller. It also tracks a recommendation offered in 1995 by the distinguished Democratic Senators from Iowa and Connecticut, Tom Harkin and Joe Lieberman. Both the Harkin-Lieberman and the Miller resolutions provide for declining cloture requirements of 60, 57, 54, and 51 on successive cloture motions. They represent a wholesale reform of the cloture rule, applying to every debatable proposition. My resolution is different. My resolution, by contrast, is more narrowly tailored, tailored to respond to the problem at hand. My resolution applies only to nominations. It leaves the rest of rule XXII unamended. It addresses the very specific defect that needs repair. There are other differences, however minor, from these other cloture reform efforts. Unlike these earlier proposals, mine would not allow a cloture motion to be filed until a nomination had been pending before the Senate for at least 12 hours. This provision tracks language that the distinguished Democratic leader inserted into S. Res. 8, the power- sharing resolution he introduced in the last Congress. I share his purpose to ensure that there exists an adequate foundation of debate before cloture is sought. My resolution also provides for a step below constitutional majority of 51 votes on the fourth cloture attempt. Under my proposal, further cloture motions will require a majority of all Senators present and voting. This provision is included in response to colleagues who believe that supermajority voting requirements on nominations are unconstitutional. If 95 Senators are present, a 51-vote threshold is still a supermajority. Cloture by a majority of Senators present and voting has deep historical roots among Senate Democrats. In past years, such a change was offered by eminent and distinguished Senators such as Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, Paul Douglas of Illinois, and Wayne Morse of Oregon. These Senators proposed to reach all Senate debate, not just nominations. Under the proposed new procedures, cloture cannot be precipitously invoked. Not only is there a 12-hour waiting period, but in addition, the resolution tracks the provision from the Harkin-Lieberman and Miller initiatives that one cloture motion cannot be filed until disposition of the prior cloture vote. This is contrary to the present operation of rule XXII which permits multiple cloture motions to be advanced without waiting for the outcome of the cloture motion previously filed. Between the time a nomination is brought to the floor and the moment that it can be confirmed by a simple majority vote, the elapsed time would be 13 session days. I stated that I regret having to introduce this resolution. The right to debate is not unlimited but, indeed, it is precious and important. My first vote as a U.S. Senator was in 1995 to table the Harkin- Lieberman resolution even though I was a freshman in a newly elected majority, and the cloture amendment they proposed would have advanced our party. By contrast, in the Senate today are nine Democratic Senators who voted in favor of the sweeping Harkin-Lieberman reform. I ask: Will they now support my more narrow remedy? I was presiding when the distinguished Democratic Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd, took to the floor to contend that Harkin- Lieberman was unnecessary because it was primarily aimed at controlling filibusters on motions to proceed. ``No need to change the rules,'' said the Senator, ``because a leader could avoid such filibuster by offering nondebatable motions in the morning hour.'' The Senator did not argue the absence of a problem but, rather, the presence of an alternative solution, a safety valve so further limiting of debate was not required. I was persuaded by his logic. I opposed then, and would oppose now, comprehensive change in rules governing Senate debate. However, in the case of nominations, the safety valve of an alternative solution is not as readily at hand. Under existing cloture rules, the filibuster of a nomination is the last word and it is fatal. Filibustering nominations is a relatively new phenomenon, even as to the nominees for the executive branch, and it has emerged in this Congress as a particular problem relative to Federal judges. Prior to this year, the record number of cloture votes on any nominee was three, and on a judicial nominee the record was two. Already, we have had six cloture votes on the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, two cloture votes on the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and indeed threats from the minority for additional filibusters on other nominees. Clearly, we have entered upon a new era, damaging to the Senate as an institution, where a majority will be denied its right to consent to a nomination because a minority will filibuster to hold that nomination hostage. The need to reform the filibuster on nominations is obvious, and it is now urgent. Many will contend that the Senate should not rubberstamp Presidential appointments. I fully concur. The Senate's responsibility under article II to advise and consent is critical to maintaining the checks and balances of our constitutional system. For reasons sufficient unto itself, the Senate may reject any nominee. Brought forward to a vote, the Supreme Court nominations of Clement Haynsworth, G. Harrold Carswell, and Robert Bork all failed on the Senate floor, and not by filibuster. Scholars may argue whether these nominees should have been turned aside, but no one can dispute the Senate's right to reject them. The Senate's constitutional role must never be diminished. In the case of Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen, it is plain that the votes to confirm are present. They have the support of a majority of Senators. But the votes to confirm cannot be taken because these debates have been tainted by filibuster. Without filibuster reform, a disciplined minority can cast an ever-lengthening shadow over the confirmation process. Through reform, we will respect the right of all Senators to act upon a nomination brought to the floor. In so doing, we will strengthen the Senate as an institution and enhance its constitutional purpose. It is unfortunate that we have come to this point. I would have far preferred that nominations be given a floor vote after full and free debate. As the filibuster strategy emerged, I tried many times without success to secure agreements to vote at a time certain. Wanting to respect minority rights and, indeed, the right of all Senators, I withheld filing for cloture on the Estrada nomination until it had been pending for 13 days. But just as I act with regret, I act with determination. For almost all our Nation's history, filibustering nominations was unheard of and unknown. It was unknown when the cloture rule was adopted in 1917. It was unknown when the rule was extended to nominations in 1949. The renowned filibusters of the 1950s and 1960s never involved filibustering a judge. Senator Richard Russell of Georgia led both filibusters, but even in the face of glowing judicial activism neither he nor his allies ever filibustered a judge. Obviously, some respected traditions have changed. Senate rules are not immutable. Senate norms have altered over time, and our rules have changed in response. The initial cloture rule of 1917 was a reaction to cumulative and growing consternation over years of uncontrolled filibusters. The 1949 expansion reflected frustration that the original rule was too narrow and applied only to pending measures. In 1959 and 1975, the rule was amended because the hurdle for cloture was thought to be too high. In 1979, Senator Byrd successfully amended the rule to eliminate the abuse of postcloture filibuster. Before the practice of filibustering nominations takes deeper root and damages the Senate even more, it is time to amend our rules again. I act now as a first step to ensure we have a confirmation process that is fair to the nominees, that is fair to the President, and that is fair to all Senators. If we achieve that, we will also be fair to the American people.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, with some regret but determination, and along with 11 Senators, I submit today--let me read the list of Senators at this juncture who are cosponsors of this resolution, a resolution to amend the Senate rules. The cosponsors are: Senators Miller, McConnell, Stevens, Santorum, Kyl, Hutchison, Allen, Lott, Hatch, Cornyn, and Chambliss. I submit a resolution to amend the Senate rules. At this point I will send the resolution to the desk. I ask it be referred to the appropriate committee.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, just in closing, on my behalf, the whole purpose of submitting this resolution today is to further elevate the debate in recognition that things change in the Senate over time. As we look back over the cherished history we all share--and it is our heritage--things today are different, and there are times for the rules to change. When you even contemplate changing the rules, you have to give a great deal of thought and debate and discussion, and that is what is underway today in submitting this resolution. I believe it is a reasonable, commonsense way of addressing an approach to addressing the issue. I look forward to the continued debate, in referring it to the appropriate committee, where that debate can begin. And we can be commenting on the floor itself. Again, this proposal is a bit different from the others that have been submitted in the past. It is similar in many ways in drawing upon previous legislation. It is different in the fact that it is narrow and applies to nominations; that there is this 12-hour period to give adequate time to have the debate and discussion; to start off with a threshold that is 60 votes, but over a period of 4 steps comes down to ultimately what is a majority vote of those present. The only other difference is the cloture votes would be filed sequentially. You have to dispose of one cloture vote before you go to the next, again to make sure we do not cut off adequate time to have a debate, but also to assure, at the end of the day, that the right of every Senator to express themselves in an up-or-down vote will be present. So I am very excited about the resolution itself. Again, we are trying to do it in a very deliberate, a very focused, a very disciplined way. That is the purpose of the submission of the resolution today. I do hope it provokes discussion and debate on this floor and in committee so we can bring this, what is unprecedented in terms of partisan filibusters, to an end as it applies to judicial nominees. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST

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

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Madam 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. 167, 168, 173, and 174. 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 139 submitted earlier today by Senator Sununu.

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements regarding this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will resume consideration of the energy bill. When we return to the energy bill, I will be offering the first amendment. That amendment will be the ethanol amendment that a number of Senators referred to during yesterday's session. This amendment will be offered on behalf of myself and Senator Daschle as a leadership amendment. Today, Members are welcome to speak on that amendment or the energy bill in general. However, as I announced, there will be no rollcall votes during today's session. On Monday, the Senate will begin consideration of the jobs/growth bill. The order allows for up to 2 hours of consideration during Monday's session, but there will be no rollcall votes on Monday as well. I will have more to say on next week's schedule later today, but looking over that schedule this morning, at this juncture I do want to tell my colleagues it is going to be a very busy week that likely will go late Friday. Although I am not planning to go into Saturday, in looking at what we need to accomplish next week in terms of the jobs and growth package, in addressing, on Thursday, HIV/AIDS, and then during the week, on Friday or sometime during the week addressing the issue surrounding the debt limit--all three of those issues we need to complete next week. I do want to notify my colleagues, it is going to be a long week that will likely extend late into Friday. At this time I have a statement on another subject. The subject is being introduced and talked about in terms of the backdrop of what we have seen occur in the last 5 months on the floor of the Senate in terms of the use of a filibuster being used in an unprecedented way with regard to the nominations for judicial vacancies.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, for the information of all Senators, on Monday the Senate will begin consideration of the reconciliation bill. The bill was passed out of the Finance Committee last evening. The Senate will debate the jobs and economic growth package for up to 2 hours on Monday. However, we will not be considering amendments on that day. Therefore, as announced earlier, there will be no rollcall votes on Monday. On Tuesday, the Senate will begin consideration of amendments, and therefore Senators may expect rollcall votes. I anticipate that the first vote on Tuesday will occur at approximately 12 noon. That vote may be in relation to an amendment to the reconciliation bill, or perhaps any executive matter that can be cleared. Throughout next week, as I said in the opening this morning, we will have busy sessions. I will share with my colleagues the importance of addressing three major issues, all of which have to be addressed next week. We have the jobs and economic growth bill, which we will begin Monday; and at that point we have certain time limits we will be dealing with on Monday and Tuesday and, likely, into Wednesday. Next week, we will also be considering the bipartisan global HIV/AIDS bill, a bill that is very important to this country, and internationally, as we look at the ravages of this virus, as well as the debt limit legislation--legislation about which we have had discussions on both sides of the aisle, and we have agreed that it needs to be dealt with soon and in a timely manner. In order for the Senate to complete action on these measures, late nights next week are likely. Rollcall votes should be expected throughout the week, including throughout Friday. Again, I mentioned this morning that if we work efficiently during the week, I think we can finish Friday afternoon. If not, there is a chance we will have to go into the weekend. I mention that because I know, as the week goes forward, I will be hearing about scheduling conflicts. I want my colleagues to know upfront that we need to address these important issues. If we cannot do it in a timely way, we may have to go into Saturday. I have no further announcements to make at this time. I will be making further announcements next week regarding specifics of the schedule as we progress on the items I have mentioned.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, 6 months ago, I traveled to Prague to support and bear witness to the historic decision of President Bush and the leaders of the Atlantic alliance to invite seven countries to join NATO. Today, on the 58th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day, the United States will vote to ratify in this Senate that vision of a free Europe, stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. I commend the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, and the ranking member, Senator Biden, for their efforts to support this goal. I also thank the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, for helping to make this happen. In the few years I have been in Washington and in my few short months as majority leader of the Senate, I have seen few ideas that are so untroubled by political differences, that so united the Senate and the Nation, and that so completely fortified the very foundation of our liberty--that democratic government shall be defended and that freedom shall prevail. These are exhilarating times in which we live. In just over a dozen years, we have seen the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of captive nations, the collapse and defeat of tyrannical dictatorships, and the birth of new democracies across Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Each of these victories for freedom has been hard fought and each is worthy of defending. It should be instructive to us that all seven of these soon-to-be NATO Allies were already on our side in the recent fight to liberate Iraq because they had to fight for their own liberation. They understand that freedom is not free. It has often been said that during the long years of the cold war, America's example inspired Europe's freedom fighters, but to many of us, it is their example which is truly inspiring. To those from the ranks of Europe's new democracies who watch this morning as we cast our votes on this important treaty, I say: Thank you for your example and thank you for your inspiration. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the resolution of ratification.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following this vote, the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair in order for Members to greet our guests.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, momentarily we will be voting on passage of the resolution of ratification for a historic treaty. Members are gathering now for this important vote. Therefore, I will defer my comments on today's schedule until later. At this time we will proceed with the final remarks prior to the vote.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. The plan is to be on the energy bill and continue the debate and start the amendment process tomorrow, Thursday. The plan is to hopefully start that--although I am not sure--in the morning after we finish the vote.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter I sent to Vice President Cheney on the appointment of Richard W. Bratton, of Wyoming, to the Citizen's Coinage Advisory Commission.