Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I wish to expand on what the Senator from Utah was just talking about. To put this in context, I remind my colleagues we are talking about the nomination of a very distinguished lawyer, Miguel Estrada, by President Bush to serve on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. There have been two primary objections recently raised by Members of the other side of the aisle to this nomination. The first includes a recitation of a long list of nominees of previous Presidents--I presume primarily President Clinton--who allegedly were not considered by the Republicans. I do not have the information. It has not been given to me, so I cannot vouch for its authenticity. But if that is the basis for denying a vote to Mr. Estrada, then it is nothing more than retribution or spite. I cannot believe that is the motivation of any of my colleagues on the other side. I refuse to believe that. So of what relevance is it that in previous Congresses some other President's nominee was or was not given a vote? What is the relevance to this individual, Miguel Estrada, who, by everyone's admission, is an extraordinarily well qualified lawyer? It has no relevance at all. The other line of thought is that he has not answered questions, and that is what Senator Hatch was just talking about. He answered every question that was asked of him. He was in a hearing from 10:06 a.m. until 5:25 p.m. There were other candidates on the panel with him, but hardly any questions were asked of them. Almost all of the questions were asked of Miguel Estrada. He answered them all, until there were not any more to be asked. Then there was the questionnaire. Senator Hatch noted the questions that have been asked by Senators in writing, in addition to the others. There was the questionnaire from the Judiciary Committee with 25 pages of answers. They are all right here. I will not suggest they be printed in the Record because I presume they already have. Every question was answered fully and satisfactorily, as far as I am concerned. I think one of them is especially interesting. It used to be there was not a litmus test for judges. When President Reagan was nominating judges, some people on the other side thought President Reagan was asking these nominees their opinions on how they might rule on a case. They said that was a litmus test and that would be wrong. They were wrong. He never had such a litmus test. But the committee has had a question in its file ever since--and I think even before then--that has been asked of every single nominee, and this is one of the questions to which Miguel Estrada responded. Let me read the question and his answer. The question is: Has anyone involved in the process of selecting you as a judicial nominee discussed with you any specific case, legal issue, or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as asking you how you would rule on such case, issue, or question? If so, please explain fully. Answer: No. Mr. President, that is just about all he got in the hearing by the members of the other side of the aisle in the Judiciary Committee on how he would rule and what he felt about certain specific cases, legal issues, or questions. Specific cases were mentioned by name. Specific hypothetical questions were asked of him. Apparently, it is not OK for the President to find out how a candidate might feel about an issue, but Senators, by golly, we have the right and, in fact, it is so important to us, or to some of the body, that we are going to deny a nominee a vote even; we are going to deny the other Senators to have the opportunity to vote yes or no if we did not like the way he answered one of those questions. Senator Hatch is right; it is not that he did not answer the questions. It is that some people did not like his answers to the questions. If so, vote no, but do not deny everyone else the opportunity to vote, and that is what is going on here. It is called a filibuster. Our friends on the Democratic side have acknowledged that is exactly what they are engaged in: a filibuster of a judge. That is fundamentally wrong. It destroys the comity between the three branches of Government. It seeks to modify the majority vote confirmation process to an extra-majority requirement. It is going to poison the consideration of nominees of every President from here on, Democrat or Republican. This is one of those issues which, when once let out, you can never bring back; the horse will have been out of the barn. Never in the history of the Senate has a partisan filibuster succeeded in preventing the confirmation of a judge. That is what is at stake here. Of course, also at stake is the confirmation of a very decent, very fine, very forthright, and highly qualified candidate for judge. There was one other criticism I noticed early on, but I have not heard it recently, and that is he had no prior judicial experience. Senator Hatch pointed out the literally scores of Federal judges who became a judge when they were a lawyer. Not everybody can be born a judge, you see. First, you have to be a lawyer, and then somebody has to appoint you judge. So not everybody has experience as a judge when they are asked to be a judge. Current members of the U.S. Supreme Court, in fact, five out of the nine members of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the court to which Mr. Estrada is being nominated, were not judges before they were nominated. Mr. Estrada is a Hispanic lawyer. Are we going to create a new bar for minority lawyers? You have to be a judge before you can be elevated to the next level of the court? Not very many minority lawyers have been appointed or nominated as judges. President Bush is nominating a lot of them, that is true, but they are not judges now; they are lawyers. Are we going to create a bar that says if you are not already a judge, you cannot become a judge in the next level of the court? I do not want to see us setting a glass ceiling for minorities just because not as many of them have gotten to be judges. I think that is a very pernicious argument made with respect to Miguel Estrada. Five of the nine members of the court were not judges before they were nominated to serve. Why does it matter with respect to Miguel Estrada? I did not hear arguments made from the other side with respect to those nominees, so why with regard to Miguel Estrada? It is not right. I quoted yesterday, when the Senator from Vermont was on the floor, his own words, so I feel it appropriate to mention them again. He himself, the former chairman, now ranking member, of the Judiciary Committee said what many of the other leaders on the other side of the aisle have said: That filibustering a judge is wrong. And the Senator from Vermont said he would oppose--strongly oppose, I believe were his words--any filibuster of a judge regardless of whether he supported the nominee. You can always vote yes or no, but you should at least vote to invoke cloture. Madam President, I will give you an example. Twice I voted to invoke cloture so we could come to a vote on two of President Clinton's nominees. I supported one; I opposed the other. That is our right. I have good reasons for opposing the judge I opposed, but I believed my colleagues needed or had the right to vote on both of the candidates, and so I voted for cloture in both cases. That is the same point the Senator from Vermont made earlier: That we should vote for cloture and have an up-or-down vote. I will later bring to the floor the literally scores of statements by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle over the years who have made the point over and over that filibustering a judge is wrong, that they would oppose it regardless of how they felt about the nominee, and that they would vote to invoke cloture. What has changed with Miguel Estrada? Why is he different? Why all of a sudden has their strongly held opinion, which was expressed before, changed? It is not that my colleagues are not consistent. Obviously, they want to be consistent. So it must be something else. It must be that in this nominee they see something very bad. They must see a reason why we should not even be allowed to vote on the nominee. It is so bad with Miguel Estrada that they are not willing to put it to a vote. They have to prevent the vote from occurring. What is it about Miguel Estrada that is so dangerous or so bad? If my colleagues say it is not about Miguel Estrada, it is the process, he would not answer the questions, Senator Hatch and I have already responded to that. He answered every question he was asked. Any more questions? As Senator Hatch said, the problem is they do not necessarily like all the answers. That is their right. We do not all agree with each other. That is why we have votes and the majority wins. I get back to the question, Why is it different with Miguel Estrada? There were 30 questions asked in the hearing that was held, and he answered them all. Maybe they did not like the answers. So vote no. But why would the other side deny the right of the Senators to cast a vote on the nominee? At the end of the day, the American people are going to look at this and wonder what is going on, what is this all about. Why will a minority of the Senate not agree to let the others vote? Is it because the candidate is not well qualified? No. This candidate had the highest rating that the American Bar Association can give a candidate. Is it that he does not have any experience? No. He is one of the most experienced lawyers in the country. In fact, he has argued at least 15 cases to the U.S. Supreme Court. I practiced law for 20 years and only went to the Supreme Court three times, which is pretty good. Most lawyers never get there. Fifteen times he has argued cases. He answered every question that was asked of him. He has been strongly recommended by members of the bench and bar all over the country, Democrats and Republicans, including members of the former Democratic administration. There has been a question raised about when he was an Assistant Solicitor General and was providing advice to his seniors, should his confidential memos be released to the public? For the first time, our colleagues on the other side say, oh, yes, we want to see all of that. Now, I would kind of like to see the staff memos going to the Senators on the other side. Would that be fair? Would that be right? No, it really would not. Much as I would like to see what kind of advice they are getting, that would not be right. What about someday when very highly qualified staff of some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to be nominated for the court? That happens actually fairly frequently. Staff of the Judiciary Committee have been nominated to various courts. In fact, one of them serves no less than on the U.S. Supreme Court. How about asking for the memos that he sent to his boss advising his boss on various issues prior to his confirmation? What would we get there? I think we would get pushed back by Members saying, wait a minute, I was asking for his personal advice. I was asking for his judgment. I was not asking him for what he necessarily believed personally, and what he told me cannot be taken as something he personally believed but rather what he thought was the best advice for me on this particular issue. That is why our employees are protected from having to disclose all of the information they give us as their best judgment on different issues, because we are not asking them necessarily what they believe in their head or their heart. We are asking them for what the law is on this, what their recommendation is as to what I should do on this, knowing my views, not theirs. So to ask a young lawyer in the Solicitor General's Office to disclose all of the advice that he gave his bosses is nothing more than an unprecedented fishing expedition. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is this the precedent that they want to create? When they seek to have one of their staff members nominated to a high court, do they expect to see a request for all of the memos that this staff person gave to them because they just might be useful in opposing the nomination? Maybe he said something that we could pick apart somehow or another. That is what is going on, and that is why four Democratic Solicitors General and three Republican Solicitors General, those who are living today, all wrote a letter unanimously saying this should not be done and all of them would have recommended against it. I happened to work for one of the Solicitors General who is no longer alive. One of the things he told me over and over again was that this is an office considered by some to be the tenth Justice on the Court. The Solicitor General is literally almost a member of the Court in a sense because of the objectivity and forthrightness with which he or she represents the views of the Government before the Court. The Court often solicits a brief from the Solicitor General saying, we have heard from both sides in this case but we would like to hear from the lawyer for the Government, the Solicitor General, who is supposed to be a very honest, forthright, and objective person. That is the office in which Miguel Estrada was working. If we ever get to the point where the decisions made by the Solicitor General, based upon the advice from the lawyers that work for him, do not represent the best objective advice, do not represent the best truth and the proper reading of the law as they can bring forth but, rather, now must take into consideration political considerations that arise from the fact that these memos and this advice would be disclosed publicly, the Solicitor General is no longer going to be deemed the ``tenth Justice.'' The Government is no longer going to be solicited for its advice to the Court on these important matters because the consideration would be, well, what did they have to consider politically since the whole world is going to read these memos and is going to know what the advice was that was given. It does not work that way. It cannot. That is why it would be wrong. Many of my colleagues on the other side know that it would be wrong. They know they are never going to get the memos. They know they should not get the memoranda. But because they can ask for it knowing that it is not going to come, they have an excuse to be able to say, gee, we do not have all the information we need. I do not think that is the motivation of any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle because I think they realize this is not something that historically has been requested and should be requested. So when you parse out all of the different objections to Miguel Estrada, it all boils down to abstract process and, from some of the outside groups anyway, retribution. It has nothing to do with his qualifications. It seems to me that common decency and fairness would cause each one of the 100 of us to look deep within ourselves and say maybe we vote yes, maybe we vote no on his nomination, but we should not deny him a vote. That is partisanship and negativity and obstructionism that is not worthy of the Senate. So we should not do that. We should agree to let this nominee be voted on, cast the vote we believe is appropriate, and then move on with the Nation's business. At a time when we may well be on the brink of engaging in military conflict, and the President has a great many issues on his agenda to deal with in that regard, I think it is unseemly for the Senate to be holding up, filibustering, one of his highly qualified nominees to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. As the Senator from Nevada said earlier today, everything has been said, it is just that everybody has not said it. Fine. Come on down and say it so we can get on with the vote, confirm Judge Miguel Estrada, and move on with the Nation's business.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. There were several votes against cloture that did not pass unanimously.

Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield me 10 seconds?

Mr. KYL. I voted for invoking cloture on the Paez nomination because, of course, I agree with Senator Leahy that we should not filibuster a judge nominated by the President.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa give me 15 seconds, and I will be happy to respond.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, since the Senator from Vermont just mentioned my name, may I briefly respond?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, in this wonderfully written piece, Rudy Giuliani talks about the astonishing record of this immigrant from Honduras, speaking only a few words of English, who attended Columbia, made Phi Beta Kappa, graduated magna cum laude, then went to Harvard Law School, and became editor of the Law Review. He clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals and then for Justice Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court. He joined the Solicitor General's Office, serving as an assistant under two Presidents, a Republican and a Democrat, and he was a partner in a prestigious law firm. He has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court. And he has ``little relevant experience''? The courts are full of judges who were not judges before they were appointed to the court. At some point, a person has to go from being a lawyer to a judge before he can be a judge. Certainly, there are a lot of non-lower-court judges, district court judges, who have been appointed not only to the circuit court of appeals to which this nominee is nominated, but also even to the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, I believe that in this piece Giuliani points out that on this very circuit, Chief Judge Harry Edwards who, when President Carter appointed him--and he was even younger than Miguel Estrada--did not have previous judicial experience, nor did five of the eight justices now on the court. So that is not a predicate for serving on this court. This is hardly a rookie candidate. I think you carry this argument too far. I urge my colleagues to consider this. With respect to many minorities, they are almost saying, you are not going to get a chance because we don't have that many minorities who serve on courts today. If the requirement for service on a higher court is that you already are a judge, we are going to cut off a lot of minorities from consideration. That is a glass ceiling, Mr. President, which we should not impose. Finally, the Senator from Vermont talked about a lot of candidates he supported who had not been confirmed. But that is not relevant to Miguel Estrada. The question before us today is: should Miguel Estrada be confirmed? I know the Senator from Vermont is not saying he opposes Mr. Estrada for spite or for retribution because of candidates he supported. That would not be appropriate. I know the Senator does not mean that. Let's get back to Miguel Estrada and talk about his qualifications. It boils down to two things, it seems to me: Is this person qualified to serve on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals? To that, there can be no answer but as the American Bar Association unanimously said, he is very well qualified. To the second point, after we are done talking about Miguel Estrada, after everything has been said, should we call for an up-or-down vote, or is this going to be the first time in the history of the Senate where we kill a nominee for circuit court by a partisan filibuster? That would be, as the Senator from Vermont pointed out, a very bad precedent, and I hope all the rest of my colleagues join the Senator from Vermont in objecting and fighting against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody they oppose or support. If we approach this nominee in this way, I think we will confirm Miguel Estrada, and it will do the Senate proud and it will do the Nation proud. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL. I thank Senator Leahy. I was hoping I would be able to speak a little bit earlier because there are specifically some things the Senator from Vermont said, so I am pleased he is here and I can respond to couple of comments he made. He is someone who, as chairman of the committee and now as ranking member, has important remarks about this process. I want to specifically relate to some of the things he did have to say. There are two aspects of this nomination of Miguel Estrada that should catch our attention. The first has to do with the qualifications of this extraordinary American. The second has to do with the process by which he is being considered. If we are not careful, this body could set a very bad precedent. If Senators actually decide to filibuster the nomination of Miguel Estrada, something I understand is being considered by the leadership on the other side, if the decision were made to filibuster him and his nomination failed as a result, it would be the first time in the history of the Senate. It would drastically change the way nominations for high judicial office are considered by the Senate, essentially substituting a 60-vote majority required for confirmation for the 50-vote majority that has heretofore been the standard. We can talk later about situations in which motions for cloture have been filed for one reason or another, but there has only been one real filibuster in the Senate in the past, and that was the filibuster of Justice Abe Fortas. His nomination was withdrawn after a cloture petition failed. In other words, debate was not cut off. The filibuster did continue. But that was a bipartisan filibuster, almost evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. It was not a concerted effort by one side or the other to galvanize their members into speaking as long as it took to cause the withdrawal of the nomination by the leader. If the minority leadership decides to engage in that tactic with respect to Miguel Estrada, it would be not just unfortunate but permanently damaging to the relationship between the Senate and the executive and to the process by which we confirm nominations. It is both a matter of tradition and comity. I know there are some who make the argument that there is a requirement the Senate's confirmation process be by majority vote. I don't think that case has been definitively established, but it certainly has been a matter of tradition. There is a reason for it. That goes to the second. It has been a matter of comity. The way our separation of powers works is each branch respects the power of the other. Now, when the Founding Fathers set it up, they were clear to provide jurisdiction, but they left a lot of gray area between the jurisdiction of the three branches; and over the course of 200-plus years, the three branches of Government have accommodated to each other's jurisdiction in a way with which the Supreme Court has infrequently, but importantly, dealt. The Supreme Court, as a matter of fact, exercising that degree of judgment and comity, generally has stayed out of what it calls political issues, for example. Part of that comity is that the Senate has always believed it important to consider the most important nominees of a President and that the votes on those nominees be determined by a majority vote rather than extraordinary majorities or special procedures of the Senate. That is because, in the modern idiom, ``what goes around comes around,'' which is a crude way of saying we know that, over the long haul, all of us are going to be in the majority and in the minority and each will serve under Presidents of different parties. If we are to cooperate over the long haul in the Government to ensure that the judiciary is made up of people who are the very best qualified candidates and that we respect the judgment of the American people in electing a President, the Senate is required to give those nominees its very best judgment, thorough consideration, but at the end of the day a vote to confirm by 51 rather than a supermajority. In fact, no less an expert in the area than the distinguished Senator from Vermont, the former chairman and now ranking member of the committee has been among what I would call the very responsible members of his party who have spoken out on this issue in the past and have urged against the use of filibuster as a technique for holding up the nomination of judicial nominees; in fact, have even voted for cloture but against the nominee on the merits. I have done the same thing with respect to two nominees President Clinton nominated. It is quite possible to oppose someone on the floor but to understand that we should never get the Senate in a position where filibustering a judge is the order of the day and, therefore, a 60-vote majority is required for confirmation. Since Senator Leahy is here, because I think he said it very well, in two different contexts, I will quote his own words on the subject. On June 18, 1998, Senator Leahy said: I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I have opposed or supported. I think that is the essence of the tradition of this body: That while we may have disagreements sometimes and we are each free to cast a vote against a nominee, we understand that a filibuster to prevent a nominee from being voted on would be very wrong; it would set a very bad precedent. I think Senator Leahy was exactly correct when he uttered those words. In fact, he also said a year later, on September 16, 1999: I do not want to get into having to invoke cloture on judicial nominations. I think it is a bad precedent. He said it more succinctly than I have tried to say it here, but I agree with the distinguished ranking member of the committee that a filibuster on a judge, whether you oppose or support a nominee, is wrong and it should be fought. I hope Senator Leahy will fight it. Many in his party would like to see a filibuster. Nobody disagrees that everybody should have a complete say on the matter. I agree with that. We are willing to talk about Miguel Estrada for as long as it takes. Because he is so well qualified, it is fun to talk about him, and it is going to be good to get him confirmed. When the talking is over, we need to have a vote up or down. May I also turn to a couple of other things the Senator from Vermont said. He talked about uniting and not dividing. I don't think there is anything divisive about Miguel Estrada. He is one of the kindest appearing people you can ask for. The ABA has given him a unanimous well-qualified rating. They take into account judicial temperament as well as qualifications. He has a great life story. He is certainly not a controversial person. So I personally don't think words such as ``narrow, ideological court-packing'' and the like are the way to describe the President's approach to this. The President is certainly not trying to divide the country in nominating a very well qualified Hispanic judge such as Miguel Estrada. Actually, I think the concern is more to another point the Senator from Vermont made, which is that, in some people's view, there is not enough of a record on Miguel Estrada, that maybe he is a closet ideologue. I have heard that phrase bandied about. Again, the ABA's rating--considered to be the gold standard by many colleagues-- would demonstrate that he is not an ideologue. There is no evidence of that. I think some are searching for that evidence, and they don't have anything against him, so they are saying the record is incomplete. So it is a catch-22. I also note that the Judiciary Committee itself, then including under the leadership of the Senator from Vermont, has always submitted a questionnaire to our judicial nominees. One of the questions goes right to the point of trying to determine whether or not anybody is applying a litmus test to the nominee. I can remember back in Ronald Reagan's days there were opponents of President Reagan who said: You are applying a litmus test on the abortion issue. Reagan said: I never asked anybody their view on the question. The Judiciary Committee wanted to make sure nobody was trying to find out what a nominee's positions were on issues they would be confronting on the court. That would be wrong. Therefore, one of our questions to every judicial nominee is: Has anybody ever asked you about your specific views on issues or about cases and how you might rule on cases that might come before you? And, if so, please state the circumstances and the names. The committee, in other words, wanted to make sure nobody was trying to find out from candidates how they would rule on particular issues, or what their particular ideology was, because we didn't believe that to be appropriate in judging nominees. Now it appears that there are some who believe exactly the opposite, that indeed we must find out everything we can about the ideology of a candidate, and if it is not considered ``mainstream enough'' by some, that would be grounds for denying the confirmation of the candidate. That has never been the test and should not be now. I hope we can continue to apply the questionnaire from the Judiciary Committee and ensure that candidates are not punished for not answering questions that we ourselves don't think it appropriate to ask. The Senator from Vermont made one rather astonishing claim, and that was that--I believe I have the quotation--Miguel Estrada has had ``little relevant experience.'' My goodness, if it hasn't been put in the Record, I ask unanimous consent that the op-ed in the New York Post today by Rudolph Giuliani be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. on aviation security.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing entitled ``The Small Business Healthcare Crisis: Possible Solutions'' and other matters on Wednesday, February 5, 2003, beginning at 10:00 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

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 5, 2003, in Dirksen Room 226 at 9:30 a.m. Tentative Agenda Panel I: the Honorable Paul Sarbanes; the Honorable Barbara Mikulski; the Honorable Byron Dorgan; the Honorable Mike DeWine; the Honorable John Ensign, and the Honorable Earl Pomeroy. Panel II: Jay S. Bybee to be U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Ninth Circuit. Panel III: Ralph R. Erickson to be United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota; William D. Quarles, Jr. to be United States District Judge for the District of Maryland; Gregory L. Frost to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio.

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 5, 2003 at 10 a.m. to hold a committee business meeting. Agenda The Committee will consider and vote on the following agenda items: TREATY: Treaty Doc. 107-8, Treaty Between U.S. and Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions (``Moscow Treaty'') LEGISLATION: S. , an original bill, the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003 (tentative) S. , an original resolution regarding committee funding for the 108th Congress COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION MATTER: 1. Sub-commitee Membership for the 108th Congress NOMINATIONS: 1. FSO Promotion List, Nicely, et al dated January 15, 2003

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open Executive Session during the session on Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., to mark up original bills, entitled, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003 and the CARE Act of 2003.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 2:15 p.m., to hear testimony on Revenue Proposals in the President's FY 2004 Budget.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 10 a.m. to consider pending calendar business. agenda On Wednesday, February 5, at 10 a.m., the Committee will hold a Business Meeting in Room SD-366 to consider the following items on the Agenda: Agenda Item #1: S. 111--A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the national significance of the Miami Circle site in the State of Florida as well as the suitability and feasibility of its inclusion in the National Park System. Agenda Item #2: S. 117--A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or exchange certain land in the State of Florida, and for other purposes. Agenda Item #3: S. 144--A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to provide assistance through States to eligible weed management entries to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private land. Agenda Item #5: S. 210--A bill to provide for the protection of archaeological sites in the Galisteo Basin in New Mexico, and for other purposes. Agenda Item #9: S. 214--A bill to designate For Bayard Historic District in the State of New Mexico as a National Historic Landmark, and for other purposes. Agenda Item #10: S. 233--A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of Coltsville in the State of Connecticut for potential inclusion in the National Park System. Agenda Item #11: S. 254--A bill to revise the boundary of the Kaloko-Honkohau National Historical Park in the State of Hawaii, and for other purposes. In addition, the Committee may turn to any other measures that are ready for consideration.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. on the state of professional boxing.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 5, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Mr. William H. Donaldson to be a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a business meeting on Wednesday February 5, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. in SD-124. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss and vote on the following: Committee funding resolution, subcommittee assignments, and committee rules.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, at the height of the Renaissance, Leonardo da Vinci said: ``When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.'' From that day to this, men and women have toiled and sacrificed, even given their lives to the achievement of manned flight. Poems have been penned, speeches have been delivered, and history has been written honoring those men and women who have lived and some, unfortunately, who have died, to achieve our dreams--the dreams of all mankind. To honor the memory of these gallant seven, we must devote the resources, and the far-reaching inquiry, needed to find out what happened on February 1, 2003, and achieve the remedy so that this tragic accident will never be repeated. As a nation we mourn the loss of the crew of Columbia, but as members of the family of man, we should celebrate their courage, their dedication, and their desire to better us all. To the families of these heroes, here and abroad, we pledge to preserve and nurture the enterprise of space exploration. Our quest will continue. They will guide us on our way. I would like to close with an observation that speaks to the spirit of exploring the unknown. It is from another member of the NASA family, astronaut Michael Collins. He said: ``It is human nature to stretch, to go, to see, to understand. Exploration is not a choice, really: it is an imperative.'' I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I did find what I was looking for. The Senator has made exactly the right point. Inspectors can verify someone who wants to be in voluntary compliance, but inspectors cannot find something you are trying to hide. Two comments. Secretary Wolfowitz said, on January 23: It is not the job of inspectors to disarm Iraq. It is Iraq's job to disarm itself. What inspectors can do is confirm that a country has willingly disarmed and provide verifiable evidence that it has done so. Then Secretary Powell had said this in the Washington Post a week ago: The question isn't how much longer do you need for inspectors to work. Inspections will not work.

Mr. KYL. Might I just make one final comment to the Senator from Pennsylvania?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, that is exactly right. The analogy is a good one. It is somewhat similar to what Secretary Powell has said. If I can find that, I will put it in the Record right here. But it is also interesting that not only is their job not to be a detective but, rather, to verify voluntary compliance. But since the resolution, passed by the Senate, authorizing the President to use force if necessary, here is what has happened: The inspectors have not have been able to interview any Iraqis in private. The inspectors have still not received from Iraq a full list of Iraqi personnel involved with the WMD programs. The inspectors have not been able to employ aerial surveillance. They will not guarantee the safety of the U-2 planes. In fact, they shoot at our pilots every day as we try to surveil their country. Inspectors have caught Iraqis concealing top secret information. Inspectors have evidence that Iraq has moved or hidden items at sites just prior to inspection visits. And, of course, Iraq did not provide a complete declaration of the WMD program as it is required to do. So as to the question of what has changed with respect to inspections, it is all bad news, not good news.

Mr. KYL. If I may further respond to the Senator from Pennsylvania, this is not just our view, Secretary Powell's view, or President Bush's view. The letter we saw in today's Wall Street Journal by prestigious leaders in countries such as Great Britain, Portugal, Italy, and the Czech Republic said this: Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein's last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. Sadly, this week, the U.N. weapons inspectors have confirmed that his long established pattern of deception, denial, and noncompliance with U.N. Security Council resolution is continuing. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those resolutions.