Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, there is objection.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to make one brief comment to the leader. I have no additional comment to make to the leader. I can pose it as a question, but I do not really need to. The leader is aware that there is no intention on the Republican side to filibuster this bill. I concur in his remarks about the bipartisanship that resulted in both of the bills passing today. There is one matter that needs to be resolved, as I understand it, with respect to this technical corrections bill, which does need to be dealt with, as the chairman of the committee noted. As far as I know, that is the only matter. There could be others, but I know of no intention on the part of anybody on our side of the aisle to raise extraneous matters to use the bill for any other purpose but to complete action on the bill. I am aware of the same matter that the majority leader is right now as the only matter that exists on our side. So there is no intention on our side of the aisle to filibuster the bill.

Mr. KYL. Sure.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, in our country over the last couple of hundred years, you never know what party is going to control the Senate or the Presidency. As a result, in doing the people's business, both parties have operated somewhat by tradition with respect to the nomination and confirmation of judges. It is important because it happens that, more often than not, in the last 2 years of a Presidency the other party controls the Senate. That has been the case in the last three Presidencies, and this Presidency. In this case a Republican is the Chief Executive and the Democratic Party controls the Senate. That has been the tradition. As a result, and since we do not know whether a Republican or a Democrat is going to be elected President next time or which party is going to control the Senate, it has been understood by both parties that you do not play politics when it comes to confirming judges because, while you may be able to stop the other party's President's nominations one time, they might be able to stop yours next time. Besides which, it is not good government. It is not doing the people's business. The President was elected fair and square. He has the right to submit judicial nominees and it is the Senate's obligation under the Constitution to act on those nominees. That is why my colleagues and I have pointed out the historical record, that, for example, since the Reagan and Clinton and first Bush administrations, during the last 2 years of the administration, when the other party controlled the Senate, the average for confirmation of circuit nominees is 17. The last President was President Clinton, Republicans controlled the Senate, but we confirmed 15 of his nominees for circuit judge in his last 2 years. If we were to do the same thing with regard to President Bush, we would have to confirm nine more circuit judges because there have only been six confirmed last year--none this year. The pace at which circuit judges are acted on ordinarily is a relatively slow pace. We would have to do two a month for the remaining time we are in session in order to achieve that. In fact, that would include the months of August and September, when we are not likely to be here in August and September is not likely to be a month where we would confirm judges. So we literally would have to confirm about three a month in order to achieve the same number as Clinton. Why are those numbers important? Not just because it is what we should be doing. The President has made nominations. The Judicial Conference says many of these are judicial emergencies, meaning we have vacancies in the circuits that need to be filled because there are not enough judges to do the people's business. We should do it because we should do it; it is our responsibility. But even if you only look at it from a political standpoint, the reality is that if this tradition is broken--of 15, 16, 17 judges in the last 2 years of the administration--then clearly we are going to devolve into a situation where, for political purposes, the party in power decides not to support--not even to have votes on--the nominees of the President. That is very bad. It is important that we maintain this tradition of doing at least 15--and we should do more than that--circuit judges in the last 2 years. My colleagues have spoken to different judges. Arlen Specter, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, who is the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, specifically mentioned Peter Keisler, who has been pending the longest. He has been pending for almost 2 years. In fact, he was nominated to the District of Columbia Circuit Court in June of 2006 and received a hearing in August of that year. He is widely regarded as well qualified, fair minded, and has received support from all over the political spectrum. He is a graduate magna cum laude from Yale University. He received his law degree from Yale Law School. He clerked for a judge on the DC Circuit and for a Justice in the U.S. Supreme Court. He served in the White House Counsel's Office, has been in private practice, joined the Justice Department where he was assistant attorney general for the civil division and was even Acting Attorney General during a brief time between the time that Judge Gonzales left the Attorney General's position and Judge Mukasey took his place. The American Bar Association has rated him ``unanimously well qualified.'' You cannot get a higher rating than that. The Washington Post--no particular friend of this administration--editorialized in favor of Keisler, describing him as a ``highly qualified nominee'' who ``certainly warrants confirmation.'' Keisler was also the subject of an editorial from the Los Angeles Times, which called him a ``moderate conservative,'' and supported his nomination. There have been some who say we should not fill the last seat on the DC Circuit because it doesn't have as many cases as other circuits. There was a point in time when that was true and I even noted that. But the reality is that today its caseload is increasing. It needs to be filled and Peter Keisler is one of the nominees who should be supported. I urge my colleagues to find a way to hold the hearings and to bring these nominees to the floor so the Senate can do its business and act on the nominees of the President for the circuit courts.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I wonder if I might interrupt the Senator to ask a couple of questions.

Mr. KYL. I think the Senator from South Carolina makes an exceedingly important point here, and that is that our theory, which was that the Muslim world itself had to reject this virulent, militant Islamist approach, which is manifested in the terrorism of al-Qaida; that until the Muslim world itself turned on those militants, those terrorists, it would be difficult for the West itself to actually defeat terrorism. It could pose a defensive posture, but it would not be defeated. What the Senator from South Carolina has said is what we are now seeing, as a result of the American support for the Iraqi people: A, a unification of the Iraqi people and, B, importantly, a rejection of this militant Islamist terrorism to the point that they are now joining in the fight and have something invested in that in terms of their country. The question I want to ask has to do with how all of this relates to American security. Yesterday, Senator Warner asked both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker whether, as a result of the success of the surge--and a key point that the Senator from South Carolina made, that now the Iraqi Muslim population was itself fighting to excise this cancer from the region--whether this fact does translate into America being safer. I wonder if the Senator could comment on both General Petraeus's response to that and Ambassador Crocker's response, and the Senator's own extensive experience and what his comments on that would be.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, that is an extremely important question because there is a lot of rhetoric about this war. The question is, What is the action line here, what can Congress do? Actually, it is a question of what Congress must do. As I understand it, looking at General Petraeus's testimony, he was very adamant that Congress needed to pass the supplemental appropriations bill that will actually fund the troops in the field. This money was requested over a year ago. It represents a little over $100 billion. According to his testimony, it is critical not only to the military needs but also he importantly talked about the Commander's Emergency Response Program, the State Department's Quick Response Fund, and the USAID programs. The Senator from South Carolina was talking a moment ago about this two-part process, not only the political reconciliation but the economic reconstruction of the country. General Petraeus himself, who clearly wants to get the troops funded, noted the interrelationship of the funding to help reconstruct the country, as well as to support the troops. We are very soon going to be in a situation, according to Secretary Gates, where the Armed Forces are going to have to allow money to be borrowed from their regular operational accounts to fund the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said the results of that would be a slowdown in training and equipping Iraqi forces, the halting of military operations and pay of defense personnel, and losing the ability to replace lost and damaged equipment by ongoing operations and, finally, that some operations simply would not be started because they will not know in advance that the funding will be there to complete the operation, something with which I am sure no operational commander in the field would want to live. My understanding of his testimony is he very strongly urged the Congress to quickly pass the supplemental appropriations bill so the troops in the field can be funded and do the mission, after all, we have sent them to do.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to my colleague there are going to be efforts apparently to hold this war funding hostage to other funding requests. For example, one of our colleagues said we are going to look at the supplemental not only for the $190 billion for the war--by the way, that figure is incorrect; it is $102 billion--but also what we can do on this bill for summer jobs programs. I submit it is important to fund the troops because we have sent them on a mission. They volunteered, and they deserve our support. We should not threaten to withhold that support unless there is also funding for other programs that have a far lower priority than the security of our troops and the security of the United States. I will also add one other point. In reading from what General Petraeus said yesterday and focusing right down on the American people, it is clearly in our national interest, he said, to help Iraq prevent the resurgence of al-Qaida in the heart of the Arab world. Both he and Ambassador Crocker said it is worth it to the United States that the success there is making us safer here at home. That is what it all gets back to, when folks say we need to have supplemental funding on other programs. This is making us safer at home. I will conclude. I want my colleague from Connecticut to comment for a moment, and the Senator from Tennessee also wanted a couple minutes at the end of our time. I assured him we would have a of couple minutes. We may have to ask for an extra minute or so.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter). Further, if present and voting the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would have voted ``yea.'' The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would have voted ``yea.'' The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

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

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside for the purpose of my offering an amendment.