Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain and myself I am introducing legislation today that would codify the largest water claims settlement in the history of Arizona. This bill represents the tremendous efforts of literally hundreds of people in Arizona and here in Washington over a period of five years. Looking ahead, this bill could ultimately be nearly as important to Arizona's future as was the authorization of the Central Arizona Project, CAP, itself. Since Arizona began receiving CAP water from the Colorado River, litigation has divided water users over how the CAP water should be allocated and exactly how much Arizona was required to repay the federal government. This bill will, among other things, codify the settlement reached between the United States and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District over the state's repayment obligation for costs incurred by the United States in constructing the Central Arizona Project. It will also resolve, once and for all, the allocation of all remaining CAP water. This final allocation will provide the stability necessary for State water authorities to plan for Arizona's future water needs. In addition, approximately 200,000 acre-feet of CAP water will be made available to settle various Indian water claims in the State. The bill would also authorize the use of the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund, which is funded solely from revenues paid by Arizona entities, to construct irrigation works necessary for tribes with congressionally approved water settlements to use CAP water. Title II of this bill settles the water rights claims of the Gila River Indian Community. It allocates nearly 100,000 acre-feet of CAP water to the Community, and provides funds to subsidize the costs of delivering CAP water and to construct the facilities necessary to allow the Community to fully utilize the water allocated to it in this settlement. Title III provides for long-needed amendments to the 1982 Southern Arizona Water Settlement Act for the Tohono O'odham Nation, which has never been fully implemented. This bill will allow Arizona cities to plan for the future, knowing how much water they can count on. The Indian tribes will finally get ``wet'' water, as opposed to the paper rights to water they have now, and projects to use the water. In addition, mining companies, farmers, and irrigation delivery districts can continue to receive water without the fear that they will be stopped by Indian litigation. While some minor issues remain, we have every confidence that these issues will be resolved as the legislation progresses. In addition, we hope that negotiations with the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the only party not yet included in the settlement, will move forward so that all claims can be resolved by this bill. In summary, this bill is vital to the citizens of Arizona and will provide the certainty needed to move forward with water use decisions. Furthermore, the United States can avoid litigating water rights and damage claims and satisfy its trust responsibilities to the Tribes. The parties have worked many years to reach consensus rather than litigate, and I believe this bill represents the best opportunity to achieve a fair result for all the people of Arizona.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain and myself I am introducing legislation today that would codify the largest water claims settlement in the history of Arizona. This bill represents the tremendous efforts of literally hundreds of people in Arizona and here in Washington over a period of five years. Looking ahead, this bill could ultimately be nearly as important to Arizona's future as was the authorization of the Central Arizona Project, CAP, itself. Since Arizona began receiving CAP water from the Colorado River, litigation has divided water users over how the CAP water should be allocated and exactly how much Arizona was required to repay the federal government. This bill will, among other things, codify the settlement reached between the United States and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District over the state's repayment obligation for costs incurred by the United States in constructing the Central Arizona Project. It will also resolve, once and for all, the allocation of all remaining CAP water. This final allocation will provide the stability necessary for State water authorities to plan for Arizona's future water needs. In addition, approximately 200,000 acre-feet of CAP water will be made available to settle various Indian water claims in the State. The bill would also authorize the use of the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund, which is funded solely from revenues paid by Arizona entities, to construct irrigation works necessary for tribes with congressionally approved water settlements to use CAP water. Title II of this bill settles the water rights claims of the Gila River Indian Community. It allocates nearly 100,000 acre-feet of CAP water to the Community, and provides funds to subsidize the costs of delivering CAP water and to construct the facilities necessary to allow the Community to fully utilize the water allocated to it in this settlement. Title III provides for long-needed amendments to the 1982 Southern Arizona Water Settlement Act for the Tohono O'odham Nation, which has never been fully implemented. This bill will allow Arizona cities to plan for the future, knowing how much water they can count on. The Indian tribes will finally get ``wet'' water, as opposed to the paper rights to water they have now, and projects to use the water. In addition, mining companies, farmers, and irrigation delivery districts can continue to receive water without the fear that they will be stopped by Indian litigation. While some minor issues remain, we have every confidence that these issues will be resolved as the legislation progresses. In addition, we hope that negotiations with the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the only party not yet included in the settlement, will move forward so that all claims can be resolved by this bill. In summary, this bill is vital to the citizens of Arizona and will provide the certainty needed to move forward with water use decisions. Furthermore, the United States can avoid litigating water rights and damage claims and satisfy its trust responsibilities to the Tribes. The parties have worked many years to reach consensus rather than litigate, and I believe this bill represents the best opportunity to achieve a fair result for all the people of Arizona.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will speak about the nomination of Miguel Estrada to be a judge for the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. That is, of course, the pending business before the Senate, and it is the business which we will complete before we can move on to other matters, such as the adoption of a budget, and the consideration of the President's economic growth and jobs creation package. But I do not think the President is going to back down on his nomination. Yet I heard a member of the other side of the aisle yesterday, on television, say as far as he was concerned, that nomination would never come up for a vote; that is to say, at least until he ``answered'' the questions of the Members of the other side. I would like to set the record straight. Through an entire day of hearings, and some 30 questions that were asked of him, Miguel Estrada answered the questions posed. There has been an opportunity to follow up with written questions. If Members have not availed themselves of that opportunity, then that is their problem, not his. Miguel Estrada has answered all of the questions put before him. He is one of the most competent, qualified, brilliant lawyers the President could have nominated for this position. And really nobody disputes that. So the business about not answering questions is really a smokescreen. It is a smokescreen for opposition to his candidacy based upon the fact that President Bush nominated him and President Bush is a conservative President. President Bush, I suspect, is more representative of the mainstream of the thinking in this country than certain people on the fringe of either the Democratic party or the Republican party. So I do not think one can simply say because President Bush has nominated somebody that they are extremist or rightwing or that they are ideologves. In fact, the people who have opposed Judge Estrada's nomination have confirmed as much by saying they simply do not know enough about him. So I am a little tired of those who say, on the one hand, we do not know enough about him but, on the other hand, he is some kind of an ideologve. The fact is, he isn't. They do not have anything to suggest he is. It seems to me in the great American idiom, it is time to put up or shut up. Now, we are not going to shut the Democratic side up. If they want to keep talking about Miguel Estrada, they can talk, as far as we are concerned, as long as they want to. But they should be addressing his nomination instead of speaking about other things or simply not being here on the Senate floor debating his confirmation. His confirmation is the pending business. If Members have a concern about him, they ought to bring it forth. If they have some evidence that he has done something in his background that isn't right, then they ought to bring it forth. If they have an objection to one of his opinions, then they should bring that forth. None of this has happened or will happen because, in fact, there is nothing there. That is why they are regulated to saying: Well, we just don't know enough about him. It is time for those who oppose Miguel Estrada to be honest about their opposition, to come forth and talk to the American people about it, and find out what the American people think about their opposition to Miguel Estrada. I put together just a few quotations of people around the country who have commented on his nomination. I would like to just read a few of them. We are all aware of the fact the American Bar Association--whose opinion used to be the ``Gold Standard'' for Democrat Members in the Senate on judicial nominations--rated Miguel Estrada well qualified unanimously. That is their highest rating. And they take into consideration everything, from judicial temperament, to educational background, to experience. Obviously, if someone were way outside the mainstream or too political, the American Bar Association would not have unanimously indicated their approval of the candidate. This is from Ruben Navarette, who wrote in the Dallas Morning News-- by the way, a very competent journalist who used to write for the Arizona Republic, one of my hometown newspapers: Miguel Estrada deserves a hearing, and Mr. Bush deserves to have his nominees considered in a timely manner. The only thing preventing that in the case of Mr. Estrada is Democrat fear of the political damage they could sustain from such a nomination. So spoken by Ruben Navarette. Ron Klain is a former counsel to Vice President Gore. He said this just about a year ago: I have no doubt that on the bench, Miguel will faithfully apply the precedents of his court, and the Supreme Court, without regard to his personal views or his political perspectives. His belief in the rule of law, in a limited judiciary, and in the separation of powers is too strong for him to act otherwise. That goes directly to this business that somehow or other Miguel Estrada--though he has not written anything or said anything that would lead to this conclusion--could not be trusted to apply the rule of law as he understands it from the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is a former counsel to Vice President Gore saying he knows Miguel Estrada is beyond that, that Miguel Estrada is a person who understands his role as a judge, his belief in the rule of law, and a limited judiciary, and the separation of powers and, therefore, that he would act in accordance with what we understand to be the correct role of a judge in these circumstances. There was a statement I thought particularly interesting from former Solicitors General. Remember that Miguel Estrada was an Assistant Solicitor General. This is the office in the Department of Justice that actually represents the Government before the U.S. Supreme Court. Miguel Estrada has argued 15 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In a letter signed by colleagues from the Office of the Solicitor General under Presidents Clinton and George H. W. Bush, dated September 19, 2002, I quote: Miguel is a brilliant lawyer, with an extraordinary capacity for articulate and incisive legal analysis and a commanding knowledge of an appreciation for the law. Moreover, he is a person whose conduct is characterized by the utmost integrity and scrupulous fairness, as befits a nominee to the federal bench. In addition, Miguel has a deep and abiding love for his adopted country and the principles for which it stands, and in particular for the rule of law. Again, Democrats and Republicans alike affirm the fact that Miguel Estrada is above partisan politics and appreciates his role as a judge, applying the law of the precedents of the courts and of the Supreme Court. Seth Waxman was former Solicitor General during the Clinton administration, a well-respected lawyer. This is what he wrote: During the time Mr. Estrada and I worked together, he was a model of professionalism and competence. In no way did I ever discern that the recommendations Mr. Estrada made or the analyses he propounded were colored in any way by his personal views--or indeed that they reflected any consideration other than the long-term interests of the United States. It is astounding to me that our friends on the other side of the aisle, despite the recommendations of high level Clinton administration lawyers affirming the professionalism and honesty and credentials of Miguel Estrada, would still contend that they don't have enough information about him. I suggest to my colleagues that they consult some of their friends in the former Clinton administration, former Solicitors General, and ask them about Miguel Estrada. If they are saying they don't know enough about him, there are some very highly qualified people to whom they could speak. I doubt there is anybody they could speak to who knows Miguel Estrada well that wouldn't confirm his qualifications to be on the court. Instead they are relegated to dark, suspicious comments such as, ``Well, maybe he believes things that we don't know about because he just hasn't answered our questions thoroughly enough.'' I suggest they talk to those who have worked with him on a day-in and day-out basis. They will find that he is not only highly qualified but very fair. Just perhaps one or two other comments. Then I will yield to my friends. Rick Davolina, LULAC national president, said: We are confident that Mr. Estrada will fulfill the duties of the United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit with fairness, intelligence, and commitment to the ideals of the United States. I had a call from one of the local LULAC officials over the weekend who confirmed LULAC's position and support of his nomination. Elizabeth Lisboa-Farrow, chair of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, said: From his humble beginnings as an immigrant from Honduras who achieved a stellar academic career . . . to his varied and impressive achievements in the Justice Department and private firms, Mr. Estrada has shown himself to be one of superior talents and accomplishments. From the Hispanic community, from newspapers around the country, from former Clinton administration officials and others who know Miguel Estrada well, there is no doubt in their mind that he is not only qualified to serve but that he would do so applying the precedents of his court and the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, I again ask my colleagues again on the other side of the aisle, if you have concerns about Miguel Estrada, bring them to the floor. Let's talk about them. Let's debate them. But at the end of the day, it is only fair to give Miguel Estrada a vote so that he can be confirmed as a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I was extremely disappointed to learn of yesterday's ruling by the Supreme Court of Belgium that Prime Minister Sharon of Israel could be tried in the Belgian courts for alleged war crimes once he leaves government service. The ruling also immediately makes retired IDF General Yaron and other eligible to be brought to trial at the convenience of the Belgian lower court. This action appears to supercede the authority of other national court systems, the International Court of Justice in The Hague, as well as the International Criminal Court which, for better or worse, was established last year with authority to try war crimes. The ruling sets an unwelcome precedent: empowering non-Belgian nationals to bring claims against other non-Belgian nationals in a Belgian court for alleged crimes having no connection to Belgium. The Belgian Supreme Court has now ruled that its lower courts have the right to sit in judgment of people who come from another nation and have allegedly committed a crime in a foreign land against another set of people from yet another foreign land. This is bad law and bad policy. With this ruling, Belgium has set itself and its legal system above all other nations. Belgium's status should be no different from that of any other sovereign state, entitling it to enact laws and judge its own citizens or anyone who commits crimes against them. But the Belgian legislature and its court has raised its country's justice system above those of every other nation, and is trying to impose its rule on the citizens of countries with no connection to Belgium. Even the Belgian prosecution noted its opposition to pursuing the complainants' petition. I hope that the Secretaries of State and Defense take note of this action by one of our NATO allies, especially as we prepare to potentially send our young men and women into battle in a land far away. There is no reason why they too, and their commanders, could not be similarly charged and prosecuted. What the Belgian court did was wrong. Our government should call upon them to consult with our Ambassadors to Belgium and NATO and express to the Belgian government an appropriate level of concern.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a Judicial Nominations hearing on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 in Dirksen Room 226 at 9:30 a.m. Tentative Agenda Panel I The Honorable Richard C. Shelby United States Senator (R- AL); The Honorable Jeff Sessions United States Senator (R- AL); The Honorable Ben Nighthorse Campbell United States Senator (R- CO); The Honorable Wayne Allard United States Senator (R-CO); The Honorable George F. Allen United States Senator (R-VA); The Honorable Lamar Alexander United States Senator (R-TN); and The Honorable Chris Cannon United States Representative (R-UT). Panel II Timothy M. Tymkovich to be United Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit Panel III J. Daniel Breen to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee; William H. Steele to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Alabama; Thomas A. Varlan to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee; Timothy C. Stanceu to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade; and Marian Blank Horn to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 10:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a CONFIRMATION HEARING on the President's nomination of Mr. Ross O. Swimmer to be Special Trustee for American Indians at the U.S. Department of the Interior.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in Executive Session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 12, 2003. The following agenda will be considered: Agenda Adopting sub-committee memberships Adopting committee rules S.____, Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 (CAPTA reauthorization) S.____, NIH Foundation S. 239, Trauma Care S.____, Birth Defects S.____, Animal Drug User Fee Act

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a Hearing on The Reconstruction of Afghanistan: An Update. Agenda Witnesses: Panel 1: The Hon. David T. Johnson, Coordinator for Afghanistan Assistance, Department of State, Washington,

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., to hear testimony on Examination of Proposals for Economic Growth and Job Creation: Incentives for Investment.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a business meeting regarding S. 195, Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2003; Several Committee Resolutions on GSA Prospectuses; and Committee Funding Resolution. The meeting will be held in SD 406.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and transportation and the House Subcommittee on Science and Space be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. on the Challenger Space Shuttle in Russell SR-325.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in open and closed session to receive testimony on current and future worldwide threats to the National Security of the United States.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I think I counted 30 questions that were orally asked during the course of a hearing that, as I understand it, went from 10:06 a.m. to 5:25 p.m. In addition to that, the committee routinely sends a questionnaire to these candidates. That questionnaire was provided to Miguel Estrada, and it was returned. It is some 25 pages in length and is a complete answer, and he does not refuse to answer any of the questions that were posed by the committee. These are the same questions that are asked of every nominee who comes before the committee. May I also ask the Senator from Utah if the answers to this questionnaire have been printed in the Record, and if they have not, if the Senator from Utah would place them in the Record?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, my final question to the Senator from Utah, if he would yield please.

Mr. KYL. This goes back, I would advise the Senator from Utah, to the question of whether or not there has been a full opportunity to discover what this nominee believes, what his background is, whether he is well qualified, whether there has been an opportunity, in other words, to question him and whether he has provided full and complete information. Would the Senator from Utah advise all of us how many hours, if it was hours, this nominee was before the Judiciary Committee and whether he answered all of the questions that were put to him at that hearing?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Utah to yield for two other questions.

Mr. KYL. Further on this line of inquiry, if I could ask the Senator from Utah to yield, other than the case of Justice Abe Fortas, does the Senator from Utah know of any situation in which a nominee for the Supreme Court or the circuit court of appeals, for example, got to the floor of the Senate and then was stopped by a filibuster?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Utah, first of all, if the Senator is aware there are many nominees who, for one reason or another, never got out of the Judiciary Committee? In other words, isn't it correct there are many nominees who, for a variety of reasons, do not make it to the floor of the Senate? Is that correct?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to address a question to the Senator from Utah if he would yield.

Mr. KYL. With respect to the Paez nomination, is it not also true that a majority of the Republicans supported the cloture motion vote so that Judge Paez could get a vote but that many of those very same Senators then voted against him? Having given everyone in this body an opportunity to vote, they exercised their right to vote against him but did not deny the right of all the other Senators to vote for him, and that he was confirmed?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield for one final question?

Mr. KYL. The Senator, of course, makes the point. The cloture motion in the case of Judge Paez was filed by the party in control of this body, by the distinguished majority leader of the Republican Party at that time, Trent Lott. I would also ask this question: Is it not true that the debate for Richard Paez lasted 1 day; that there was no filibuster of his nomination?

Mr. KYL. To the Senator from Utah, I have three questions regarding the Paez nomination which he just referred to. The first is if the Senator from Utah could tell us which party was in control of this body and by whom the cloture petition was filed.