Bill Frist

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will find out shortly how the distinguished Senator from West Virginia did vote.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will yield.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. I want to spend a few minutes discussing the underlying bill, and then later have an opportunity to come back and talk specifically about some amendments that will be coming to the floor. I will in part be talking about the procedure as a medical procedure, and also discuss some of the myths that surround the very specific procedure that is defined in this particular bill. I rise to speak on this particular issue with a deep passion not only for the protection of life but also for the ethical practice of medicine. Before coming to the Senate, I had the opportunity to study and practice medicine for 20 years. Although I am not an obstetrician, I have delivered many babies in the past. I have had the privilege, as a cardiovascular surgeon, to operate on a number of premature infants born probably about 3 or 4 weeks later than the infant--or the fetus, in this case--that is depicted in this picture, about 3 weeks after that. I do speak as a surgeon and a board-certified surgeon. This is a surgical procedure. I have had the opportunity to do thousands of surgical procedures as well as mend the hearts and vascular systems on babies this size. As a surgeon, let me say that there are certain ethical bounds to the application of surgical procedures, and these are bounds that in a moral sense should never be crossed by a surgeon. It is interesting that the people who developed this procedure, and its loudest proponents, are not surgeons but practitioners, and they are not board certified in a field that would be consistent with performing procedures such as this. That is important because people have this image that once recognizing there are hundreds and indeed thousands of these procedures, in all likelihood, performed every year, that you would have certified surgeons performing them, but that is not the case. For the most part, general practitioners are performing these procedures. From a medical standpoint, I took an oath to treat every human life with respect, with dignity, and with compassion. Abortion takes life away, and partial-birth abortion, this particular procedure, does so in a manner that is brutal, barbaric, and morally offensive to the medical community. I will not concentrate on the politics of partial-birth abortion, but talk a little bit about the disturbing facts of partial-birth abortion as a surgical procedure, a procedure that clearly should and must be banned. The fact is that partial-birth abortion is a repulsive procedure. The procedure is straightforward in description; people have seen the various charts. This depicts a late stage in that particular procedure. It begins, as described by its greatest advocate, by, inside the uterus, manipulating the fetus and turning the fetus around so it can be delivered feet first, delivering the feet through the uterus and through the cervical canal to the position that is depicted in this particular diagram, and then taking scissors which are about 8 inches long, called Metzenbaum scissors, and thrusting them into the back of the base of the skull. Then, because that opening is not sufficient to drain the brains from the fetus itself, it requires a forcible opening of the scissors. If you were to take a regular pair of scissors-- although the Metzenbaum scissors are longer--forcibly opening those scissors so the end of the scissors will split the skull wider so the brain can be evacuated and other contents within the skull. Once the skull is allowed to collapse because of the evacuation of the brain and the intracranial contents, the skull itself collapses. And you can see how large the skull is to actually come through the cervical canal and through the birthing canal. It is necessary at this late stage because, as you can see, this, if born now, would be a premature infant. I will come to what the survival is if at this stage this fetus was actually delivered alive instead of dead. The thrusting of the scissors into the base of the skull and the cranium itself takes this living fetus and kills the fetus itself. One of the problems is at this late stage in development, the neurological system is fully developed, fully developed to the point that with cervical blocks, which is the type of anesthesia typically used, or as is described by the father to this procedure, the fetus itself will feel that pain of thrusting the scissors in the back of the head. This particular procedure is most commonly performed between 20 and 27 weeks. That is in the second trimester of pregnancy. People ask how far developed the fetus is. Pictorially, that gives you a pretty good idea of how well developed the fetus is. But to put that in perspective, 20 to 27 weeks, that is when most of these are performed. If you look at the early side of that, between 20 and 23 weeks, if that fetus was not killed but was just delivered at that point in time, overall survival today is about 30 to 50 percent. If you go to the period of 24 to 25 weeks--remember, this procedure is performed between 20 and 27 weeks--overall survival if the fetus had not been killed by using the scissors, the survival rate would be around 60 to 90 percent. So these are premature infants. That is why people such as Senator Moynihan, who used to be in this body, call it the equivalent of infanticide, because these are performed at a time where if the infant were not killed, the infant would be delivered and although, yes, premature, would have better than a 50/50 percent chance of survival. So when you hear about the procedure itself and you listen to the description, it is hard to imagine a more grotesque treatment or tortuous treatment of what, if delivered without being first killed, would face a fighting chance of being a healthy human being. Partial-birth abortion exists today. The procedure is performed in America every day. That is the reason this body, I believe strongly, must act and act with a ban to put a stop to this morally offensive procedure that is a fringe procedure, that is a rogue procedure that is being applied each and every day. We must stop it. The reason I describe--it is worth looking at these pictures--this procedure in detail is not to shock. That is not the purpose. It really is to inform. The description I gave you is a typical medical way of describing the procedure itself. I will say, being a physician and being board certified, it is my responsibility not to shock but to depict the procedure as spelled out in the bill, a very specific procedure as it really is, the reality of the procedure itself. It is critical that we debate this in terms of that framework of reality, no matter how disturbing the reality is. There are a number of arguments by people who say, no, we should allow this procedure, as morally offensive and repulsive as it is, to continue. I would like to take some of those myths. I will present them as myths because that is what they are. First, some say that partial-birth abortion may be necessary to preserve the health of the mother. That is not true. Never has partial-birth abortion, the specific procedure that is described in the bill itself, never has it been the only procedure or the best procedure available in the case of a medical emergency. You have to remember that this procedure takes 3 days. In fact, the alternative procedure--I am not an advocate of the alternative procedure that is accepted within the medical community--does not take 3 days. So when you are talking about medical emergencies and people say, it is the best alternative out there, that is not true. It is a dangerous procedure. The only advantage I can see of partial-birth abortion--which is a disturbing advantage; therefore, I wouldn't call it an advantage or a benefit--is the guarantee, by the thrusting of the scissors into the brain and evacuation of the brain, of a dead infant. Still, in the remote chance--and I argue hypothetical, because I have not been able to talk to anybody today who has said partial-birth abortion would be required to save the life of a mother because, remember, it takes 3 days. When you have procedures that are within ethical bounds, accepted by the medical profession and taught in medical schools, you have alternative procedures. But in the remote chance--again I argue hypothetical--the ban would not apply if it were to save the life of the mother. Second, some would say that partial-birth abortion is the best option to preserve the health of the mother. I argue, no, it is a dangerous option. Let me paraphrase an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, published on August 26, 1998. There are ``no credible studies'' on partial-birth abortion that ``evaluate or attest to its safety'' for the mother. Partial-birth abortion, as described in the bill, is more dangerous to the health of the mother than the alternative procedures. There is a much greater danger. The cervix itself is right here on the chart. This is the uterine cavity. You see the size of the head and the instrumentation of the hand and the instruments, which expand the cervix, which is the smallest part of the bottom of the uterus. When you overextend and expand that, you come to what is called cervical incompetence. This comes to the health of the mother long term, because cervical incompetence can have longstanding side effects to the mother. Right here, those are the Metzenbaum scissors. It looks like a suction device. You can see those are about 8 inches long. Metzenbaum was the person who first described these scissors. The blunt instrumentation is done blindly. You cannot see. What you are doing is putting two fingers down, pulling down on the shoulders, putting the scissors on the top, and feeling this little indentation and thrusting inside. It is all done blindly--the manipulation of the two fingers and the manipulation of turning the fetus itself, as well as putting in the blunt instrument of the scissors. Once you insert the scissors that deeply into the uterus blindly, forcibly into the skull, if it doesn't go into the skull, it perforates the uterus. The alternative procedures today--again, I am not supporting third trimester abortions and, to me, they are all repulsive. But it is important for people to know the alterative procedures don't involve the Metzenbaum scissors. It is done with an injection into the heart itself directly, or guided by ultrasound, very carefully controlled. It is not this blind procedure. Comparing the various procedures is important because we keep hearing from certain people that this is the safest, or will be the safest or best alternative. It is simply not true. It is more dangerous. There is the danger of infection because of the increased manipulation that is required in this procedure itself, secondary to the performance of this procedure. The third myth is the medical community--I was jotting notes when people were saying it infringes on the doctor-patient relationship. It says specific medical procedures that should not be banned by Congress. You know, first of all, that is not true. As a physician, you don't like big government coming in and telling you what you can and cannot do. Most people in life don't like Government intruding into their lives. And that doctor-patient relationship being as special as it is, you don't want Government coming in and saying yes, no, come in with that procedure. I feel the same way, generally. But as I opened up, I said there are certain ethical bounds and, yes, as a profession, we take certain oaths. One of them is the Hippocratic oath of doing no harm. But there is a certain ethical boundary and framework that, no matter who or what you are, you never go outside. But we have people going outside those ethical bounds. I argue that they are hurting women, when alternative procedures that are much safer are available. Thus, we must put a stop to that. And because it is performed every day, and it is outside of the ethical bounds, we are obligated to redefine those bounds in this particular case. The bill says this is a rogue procedure that is never medically necessary and is condemned by the medical community. It has absolutely no place in the doctor-patient relationship. This is where the myth comes in, because that relationship is built on trust. That is the whole essence of the relationship between a woman and her physician, or a patient and a doctor. That trust has got to be built on moral behavior. What makes medicine a profession is this body of professional ethics, coupled with the specialized knowledge; and this goes outside the bounds of that framework of ethics, of morality. Thus, I argue that this procedure, performed as it is across this country today, is offensive, is repulsive to this whole concept of the doctor-patient relationship, which is built on trust and moral behavior. This procedure is not moral. People have made comments, ``Where is the AMA?'' There have been statements that the AMA does not oppose partial-birth abortion, or does. Let me just say the American Medical Association has supported this ban in the past. They oppose this specific procedure in this bill better, I would say, because it is more specifically defined than in the past bills; they oppose this specific procedure. People say, well, the AMA is not out there saying this is the greatest bill on earth today. That is because it goes back to what I said, that they don't like the idea of anybody coming in and telling a professional what to do and what not to do. Let me leap back to what I said, and then I will go back. The people who invented the procedure are not surgeons. They are not board certified. They operate outside the peer-reviewed literature. You cannot really go and find--because it is not accepted--this particular procedure in the peer-reviewed literature, which shows a certain amount of acceptance and respect in the mainstream community. It is simply not there. The fourth myth I want to comment on is that some say making these specific techniques of partial-birth abortion a crime would make performing all late-term abortions almost impossible, and it would discourage doctors from performing legal abortions in all circumstances. I put this second to last in terms of the myths. I oppose abortions, but for those people who believe in abortions, it is important for them to know this is a myth. I can say that because in the bill, the partial-birth abortion is very specifically and tightly worded and described, so that the ban, or the prohibition, would be just on the techniques that were described earlier and that have been pictorially described on the floor of the Senate--that is, the partial-birth abortion procedure. There are alternative procedures, and I also find those offensive; but some people do not find them offensive. Those would still be legal. So this idea that a very tightly worded ban on a specific procedure, which is a subset of other types of procedures that are done, would stop, would make all abortions illegal, is simply not true. Again, I come back to those alterative methods are safer. The fifth and last myth is that some say partial-birth abortion is accepted as mainstream medicine. That is not true. This is a fringe procedure. It is not found in the common medical gynecological textbooks, obstetrics textbooks that our medical students are taught with today. It is not taught in medical schools or surgical residency programs. It is outside the mainstream. If one looks at all the obstetrics and gynecologic residency programs, only 7 percent provide routine training for even mainstream third-trimester or late abortions. That is only 7 percent. To the best of my knowledge, none--none--in the residency programs teaches or would teach this specifically described partial-birth abortion procedure. Today's doctors are simply not trained with this procedure--yet we have people performing it--because it is dangerous, because it is a rogue procedure, and because it is outside the mainstream of generally accepted medical and surgical practice. I will mention one last time, the most prominent practitioners of partial-birth abortions are not trained obstetricians, but are general practitioners. Partial-birth abortion is an affront to the safe and reputable practice of medicine. The question often arises as to how often these abortions, using this technique, are performed. It is hard to get good data, but if we look at the data that is provided and that we can collect, it is not as uncommon a practice as one might think. In 1996, the research arm of Planned Parenthood asked doctors for the first time a question on partial-birth abortion. The question produced an estimate at that point in time, 1996, that 650 such abortions were performed using this technique annually in the United States. The same survey found that in the year 2000, over 2,200 partial-birth abortions were performed in the United States--2,200 deaths purposely caused by this technique, by this rogue procedure. That is why we have this call to action which we have debated on this floor now in this Congress and, indeed, in the last Congress and in the Congress before that. An interesting side piece of data is that Kansas, the only State that requires separate reporting for partial-birth abortions, in 1999 said 182 procedures of partial-birth abortion were performed on viable fetuses. Of interest to all, 182 of those procedures were performed for mental health reasons, but not for physical health reasons--not for physical health reasons. It is important to understand because we have an exclusion for life of the mother, but none of those was performed for life of the mother. Why? Because there are alternative procedures that are safer and quicker and less invasive for the mother. A vast majority of Americans support a ban on partial-birth abortion. Their will was reflected in the 104th Congress and in the 105th Congress, and in both of those Congresses the House of Representatives passed this ban and the Senate passed this ban. Sadly, both of those efforts were vetoed by President Clinton. Today, partial-birth abortion remains the law of the land, and we are going to change that. It is going to be changed in this body, and hopefully we can complete this bill tomorrow night and then move to the House of Representatives and then a bill will be sent to the President which I expect will be signed. Partial-birth abortion is a morally offensive procedure. It is time to ban it. We as a society respect human life far too much to let it be ravaged in such an inhumane way: a living infant partially delivered, stabbed with 8-inch scissors, emptied of the contents of its skull, and then pulled from its mother dead. Never has this procedure been the only or the best one available to protect the health of the mother. In fact, as I pointed out, partial-birth abortion carries a greater risk of doing harm. That is why this procedure is morally offensive to doctors, not only as individuals but as professionals. In closing, I ask my colleagues, as we debate this bill, that we do so with the barbaric reality, with the brutal reality of this heinous procedure in mind, and not be sidetracked by the myths of partial-birth abortion, especially that would in any way imply that this is an accepted mainstream medical procedure. It simply is not. Instead, we need to ask one simple question: Does partial-birth abortion carry the danger of doing unnecessary harm to a mother, to an infant, and to our conscience as a nation that values the sanctity of human life? The answer is yes. That is how I will vote, and I urge my colleagues to vote the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell) is necessarily absent.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, there are five individuals who are on the Executive Calendar. This is the last of the five. I will ask unanimous consent for him, as well, but clearly we want to move ahead as much as possible and want to continue to work with the other side. We do want to reach out once again. These unanimous consent requests are a part of our efforts to reach out and advance the process. I hope we can resolve this shortly. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to Calendar No. 55, Timothy Tymkovich, to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Tenth Circuit, there be 4 hours for debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member, or their designees, and that following the conclusion of that time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to Calendar No. 36, Jay S. Bybee, to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Ninth Circuit, there be 4 hours for debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member, or their designees, and that following the conclusion of that time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, thank you for presiding this morning. I appreciate your participation as our Presiding Officer in what we all recognize is an important moment for the Senate, the Senate that we all serve. I have asked for this session over approximately the next hour and a half because one of our most important roles as Senators is to vote on executive nominations, including judges, lifetime appointees, who serve such a vital role in our constitutional design. Because of the current debate, I have looked to our Founders for some guidance. John Adams, who helped create our Federal judiciary with his independence and its lifetime appointments, gave us a guide. He wrote that judges should be: Men of experience on the laws, of exemplary morals, invincible patience, unruffled calmness, indefatigable application. . . (and) subservient to none. This is a high standard for a nominee and one I believe that Miguel Estrada has met. But it is also a charge for our Senate as the steward of an independent judiciary. Has the Senate met the Adams test or has this unprecedented filibuster and delay brought us all to the point of failing to meet that charge of John Adams? Elected by my constituents, I am a Senator. Selected by my colleagues, I serve as Republican leader. Recognized by the Chair, I act as majority leader. With these responsibilities, I am entrusted as a guardian of the Senate. Its institutions, its traditions, its obligations are my unique charge, not only as leader but as a Member. I am sensitive to this serious responsibility and I look forward to the discussion over the next hour and a half as we elevate the debate to what was intended under advise and consent as spelled out in the Constitution. As we move forward in the conversation over the course of the morning, with not just this nomination at issue but, really, our overall function as an institution under scrutiny, I will listen to all to hear their concerns and ideas about how best to move forward in a way that does justice to this nominee, but also to our institution and our Constitution. To that end, our president, George Bush, has sent a letter to Senator Daschle and myself on this topic. Among his observations, he wrote the following: I ask Senators of both parties to come together to end the escalating cycle of blame and bitterness and to restore fairness, predictability, and dignity to the process. I ask that the Senate take action, including adoption of a permanent rule, to ensure timely up or down votes on judicial nominations both now and in the future, no matter who is President or which party controls the Senate. This is the only way to ensure that our judiciary works and that good people remain willing to be nominated to the Federal bench. All senators should have a chance to have their voices heard and their votes counted. All Presidents should have their judicial nominees considered and voted upon in a reasonable time. All nominees considered and voted upon in a reasonable time. All nominees should have the certainty of an up-or-down Senate vote within a reasonable time. All judges should have the assurance that vacancies on their courts will not persist for years. And all Americans should have the assurance that the federal courts will remain open and fully staffed to resolve their disputes and protect their rights and liberties. As leader, I tend to listen closely and patiently to the deeply held opinions expressed on the floor in hopes we can rise above the moment and act as our Founders intended. I ask unanimous consent the letter dated March 11 to myself and Senator Daschle from the President of the United States be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will designate Senator Hatch to be in control of the remaining time on the Republican side. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I appreciate the consideration of both sides of the aisle. We extended the debate for an additional 20 minutes. Normally we would have completed at 12:30. I think that represents the fact that the debate has been valuable, informative, and I do appreciate so many Members on both sides of the aisle coming forward and speaking during this period of time where my objective, as I said 2 hours ago, was to elevate the debate and talk about advice and consent as spelled out in the Constitution. Much of what we have heard about is larger than any single nominee, even one as distinguished and compelling as Miguel Estrada. I think most of us would agree that the process of advise and consent has gone awry. I suspect most of us will probably have different viewpoints on why that has happened, why it has evolved to the point where we are today. I respect those differing views. One thing is clear to me--the system is not working well, it is broken, and that is a disheartening thought on my part. But to America it is an unfortunate truth. I think it is coming to the time we need to stop blaming each other and find a way to fix the system itself. With 17 unanimous consent requests, 100 hours of debate, still the nominee being subjected to a filibuster, where we don't see an end in sight, an up-or-down vote, I conclude the system is not working. As has been pointed out, filibusters on executive nominations--until now, recently--has been exceedingly rare. As leader, that strikes me as a good thing. But it seems to be changing, and that is why it is important for us to carefully examine advise and consent as spelled out in the Constitution and our interpretation of that. I do want to make a proposal for the other side of the aisle and I ask the assistant minority leader to think about it. The proposal is not in the form of a unanimous consent request at this point but possibly after lunch today. The proposal recognizes the context in which we find ourselves. It may be possible in the near future that we will have a military conflict, although I hope and pray that is not the case. But we need to begin later this week, and aggressively next week, addressing the issue surrounding the Federal budget. We want to focus on the economy and get it moving again. We have Medicare and prescription drugs, which we must address. We have a lot to do. The proposal that I will make--and I would like for the other side of the aisle to consider this--to the chairman and ranking member is that arrangements will be made for Miguel Estrada to appear again before the Senate Judiciary Committee in exchange for a date certain for an up-or-down vote on his nomination. The second hearing is something we had not believed was appropriate, but I want to show both sides of the aisle that we are trying to reach out to do everything possible to go that extra mile and try to get an answer that works. This is not a formal unanimous consent request at this time, but I do want to offer that opportunity. Again, it would be in exchange for a vote, up or down, at a time certain--to actually have another formal Judiciary Committee hearing with Miguel Estrada. It is my hope the other side of the aisle will decide it is time to conclude the debate and that we can focus on the challenges that lie ahead.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the intention is to be equally divided. I would like it to be back and forth, if we can do that. Let me take this opportunity to say that the purpose is because we are all running around doing so many different things over the course of the day. I ask my Senate colleagues to pay attention to what I am about to say because the purpose is to bring as many people to the floor to listen and discuss and debate what the Constitution says and our interpretation of the Constitution at an elevated level. That is the purpose in setting aside that time from 11 to 12:30. Time should be equally divided, and look for some outstanding discussion on what is a very important principle in our Constitution.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today we will once again resume consideration of the nomination of Miguel Estrada to be a circuit judge for the DC Circuit. Senator Hatch will be here to continue to discuss the merits of this well-qualified nominee and our hope is for an up-or- down vote. Under the order of last week, at 5 p.m. the Senate will proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 19, S. 3, the partial-birth abortion ban bill, with the time until 6 p.m. equally divided for debate. I understand that Senator Murray will be here to offer an amendment to that legislation, and thus I encourage Members who would like to debate that amendment to remain after the scheduled 6 p.m. vote this evening. The rollcall vote will be on the nomination of Gregory Frost to be a U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio. For the remainder of the week, we will continue consideration of the partial-birth abortion bill and should complete action of that bill this week. In addition, on Tuesday, tomorrow, from 11 a.m. to 12:30 we will consider the Estrada nomination for the purpose of discussion regarding the Senate's constitutional role of advise and consent. I encourage all Members to be present to participate in this institutional debate. Rollcall votes will occur each day this week as we attempt to complete the items mentioned. I thank all Members.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) are necessarily absent.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 2 p.m., Monday, March 10. I further ask unanimous consent that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume executive session for the consideration of the nomination of Miguel Estrada. I further ask unanimous consent that when the Senate proceeds to the consideration of Calendar No. 19, S. 3, the partial-birth abortion bill, under the order entered into yesterday, the time from 5 to 6 p.m. be equally divided between Senator Santorum or his designee and the minority leader or his designee.

Mr. FRIST

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

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 Senate proceed to a period of morning business.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, on this day in the halls of the United Nations Security Council and in the distant lands of the Middle East, the United States is making a stand for the causes of freedom and democracy, for order and peace. The President and the Congress have made clear that we will no longer tolerate Saddam Hussein's production or possession of weapons of mass destruction. Further, it is our solemn belief that the people of Iraq deserve to live in freedom. They have suffered long enough under the tyranny and the oppression of the day. As is so often the case, challenging the status quo is not easy even if that status quo is a dictator pursuing and possessing weapons of mass destruction that are explicitly prohibited by the United Nations Security Council. We are fast approaching that moment of reckoning with Saddam Hussein. If he were to voluntarily disarm, it would be welcomed. But he will not. If he flees his country, the chances for peace are much better. But he will never flee unless he is absolutely convinced that there are no other options for his survival. If individuals within Saddam's regime rise up and overthrow him, there will be an opportunity for a new beginning in Iraq. But none will take this brave step if they doubt the fortitude of the United States and the international community. Let there be no mistake about our Nation's purpose in confronting Iraq. Saddam Hussein's regime poses a clear threat to the security of the United States, its friends and its allies. And it is a threat that we must address, and we must address now. Recall that in 1991 we were concerned Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction to further his expansionist desires in the Middle East. Now, a decade later, we live with the reality--the reality--that terrorists may acquire and use such weapons on our soil. I have no doubts that terrorists seek such weapons to use against this Nation. I am equally certain that Saddam Hussein possesses such weapons and would provide them to terrorists, if he has not already. And it is this nexus of a tyrannical dictator, those weapons of mass destruction, and terrorists who seek to inflict harm--grievous harm-- upon the American people that compels us to act now. The Senate--this body--and the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly last fall to authorize the President to use force, if necessary, against Iraq if Saddam Hussein did not disarm. In those votes, the Congress stated unambiguously that the United States will not tolerate the pursuit and possession of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein. Nothing has fundamentally changed. I guess one could say the possible exception to that statement would be we have even further evidence, because of the passage of time, that Saddam Hussein will not voluntarily disarm. Last fall, to reaffirm the broad international commitment to disarm Iraq, President Bush successfully pursued a United Nations resolution that offered Saddam Hussein a final chance to meet the demands of the world community or face the consequences. Saddam has missed his final chance. Now we are told the United States must pursue a second resolution before Iraq can be disarmed. The United Nations Security Council, on 17 separate occasions, over a 12-year period, demanded the disarmament of Iraq. For the record, this will not be a second resolution, but this will be an 18th resolution over this 12-year period. Nothing in history has been made more meaningful by repeating it 18 different times. In the end, it is not a multilateral approach our opponents seek--for the United States is already joined by a multitude of others who share our commitment to disarm Saddam. No, it is the false comfort of unanimity to which they aspire. When everyone is responsible, no one is accountable. My friends, the hour has arrived for democratically elected leaders to stand up and be counted. Will the free world tolerate Saddam Hussein's continued brutality, his possession of weapons of mass destruction, and his continued defiance of the international community, or will we act to stop it now? To those who would suggest we are acting in isolation to confront Saddam's evil, I remind you we are not alone in the conviction. In the past month, the leaders of 18 European countries have publicly endorsed the U.S. call for final action, including force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein. Over two dozen countries are providing basing for our troops, access for our aircraft, and material support in preparation for a possible conflict with Iraq. And if it comes to that, with allies such as the United Kingdom, Australia, Spain, Italy, Denmark, as well as many of the new democracies of Eastern Europe all on our side, we will not carry this burden alone. America is at its strongest when it is standing in common cause with our friends and allies. The inverse, of course, is that America's allies are at their strongest when they are standing with the United States. To those leaders who have spoken out with us against the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, I commend your courage. As America has risen to challenge the threats posed and supported by Saddam Hussein, you chose to stand by her side. And such loyalty and such leadership will not soon be forgotten. Some of our erstwhile allies would be well advised to recall their own freedom was regained by such courage and conviction. I remind them their own liberation in World War II was a less popular undertaking than a possible war in Iraq. What about popular opinion at the time? If one goes back and looks at surveys and polls from the time, in October 1939, when asked whether the U.S. should enter the war in Europe, only 16.8 percent of Americans responded yes. And 17.2 percent said yes in December 1939. In July 1940, 26.9 percent said yes. After winning reelection in 1940, President Roosevelt tried to move public opinion toward greater U.S. involvement, while offering significant material support to the allied war effort. Yet asked again in January of 1941 whether they would support a declaration of war, only 14 percent of the American people responded yes. And as late as October 1941, President Roosevelt commented that 70 percent of Americans wanted us to stay out of the war in Europe. Sadly, at that time, many around the world recoiled at the thought of confronting Nazi Germany head on. After all, it was Europe's war, not ours, and Hitler was killing foreign Jews, not Americans. Many leaders of the day demanded we look after America first. They called for our country to stay within its borders, protected by the false security of two oceans. But then, as now--on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001--we were reminded that America is most vulnerable to attack when it is in retreat. President Roosevelt demonstrated then, as President Bush does today, that the essential measure of a world leader is not in his ability to chase public opinion--no--but, rather, his courage to make the country safer by leading public opinion. President Bush deserves much credit for confronting the grave and growing threat posed by the mad pursuit of a ruthless tyrant for the world's most deadly weapons. The President is right when he says that neither more time nor more inspections will stop Saddam. The consequences of war with Iraq cannot be certain and those feelings of uncertainty we felt as the issues surrounding Iraq and the future have been discussed on the floor today. But our goals and our motives must be understood for what they are. We seek to defend our own people. We seek the liberation of the Iraqi people. We seek the foundation of a democratic government in Baghdad, and we seek the spread of peace in the Middle East. These are worthy goals of a great nation, and they are goals worth fighting for.

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. 50, 51, 57, 58, and 59. 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. That is the time that has been set aside, similar to today. There had been a request from both sides of the aisle today to spend time talking about the issue that has been discussed; that is, Iraq and the events there. Similarly, people have asked, well, we have been on Estrada, but why don't we take a period of time to give focus to the big issues that affect the institution in terms of advice and consent and balance of power. In response to that, we have set aside this period between 11 o'clock and 12:30 on Tuesday. It is my hope that we have many Senators here to participate in that debate because I look forward to it. The whole purpose is to set that period aside. We will discuss the best way to construct that between both sides.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we can assure the other side that we will be engaged just in discussion on the Estrada nomination and have no intention to be voting during that period. We will be continuing the very important discussion on the nomination itself. My goal in that discussion next week is to begin to talk, not to extend what has been a very good debate, but have a discussion on this nomination in terms of the constitutional significance of advice and consent. Monday, hopefully in the afternoon, some of that discussion will begin, and then also continue that through Tuesday. I do thank the assistant minority leader and really the whole other side of the aisle. We have had a productive week. We made real progress to complete the treaty yesterday, a very important initiative. I look forward to next week being a productive week.

Mr. FRIST. For the information of all Senators, on Monday, the Senate will once again resume consideration of the Estrada nomination. We will continue to pursue an agreement to allow for an up-or-down vote which is the end point for this nomination. At 5 o'clock on Monday, the Senate will begin consideration of S. 3, the partial-birth abortion bill. A number of Senators have indicated they will be available to make their opening statements on that bill during Monday's session. As a reminder, the first rollcall vote of Monday's session will occur at 6 p.m. on the nomination of Gregory Frost to be a U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio. I thank all Members for their attention.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now resume consideration of the Moscow Treaty and that Senator Feinstein be recognized in order to offer an amendment. I would simply add the chairman is tied up in a committee hearing, but I know he would want the Senator from California to go ahead.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in Dirksen Room 226. Agenda I. Nominations Timothy M. Tymkovich to be U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Tenth Circuit; J. Daniel Breen to be US District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee; Thomas A. Varlan to be US District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee; William H. Steele to be US District Judge for the Southern District of Alabama; and Humberto S. Garcia to be US Attorney for the District of Puerto Rico. II. Committee Business Committee Rules Subcommittee Organization III. Bills S. 253, A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns. [Campbell/Leahy/Hatch/ Grassley/DeWine/Kyl/Sessions/Craig/Cornyn/Graham/Feinstein/Schumer/ Edwards]. S. 113, A bill to exclude United States persons from the definition of ``foreign power'' under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 relating to international terrorism.[Kyl/Hatch/DeWine/Schumer/ Chambliss].

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. For the information of Senators, tomorrow morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. There will be no rollcall votes during tomorrow's session. The next vote will occur Monday, March 10, at 6 p.m.