[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 63 (Tuesday, May 10, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2828-S2832]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                        Egypt's Political Future

  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, more than 2 months ago, a popular uprising 
in Egypt swept President Hosni Mubarak from power after 30 years in 
office. The Egyptian military is now charged with reforming that 
country's political system in preparation for parliamentary and 
Presidential elections.
  History teaches us this sort of transition happens in three phases, 
not two. First, the dictator falls. Next follows a weak interim 
government. Only then does a final permanent government enter the 
scene.
  We remember the French Revolution with the fall of Louis XVI, then 
the hopefulness of the French First Republic, and then finally the rise 
of Napoleon.
  We remember the October Revolution--first the fall of the czar, then 
the hopefulness of the interim Kerensky government, and finally the 
rise of the Soviet Union. Most recently we remember Iran--first the 
fall of the shah, then the hopefulness of the interim Bakhtiar 
government, and finally the rise of Khomeini.
  Today we are watching this sequence play out in Egypt. First Mubarak 
fell, then came the jubilation of Tahrir Square and the hopefulness of 
an interim military government, and now we are left to wonder what act 
3 will bring.
  Will Egypt remain a strong U.S. ally in the region; will it uphold 
the Camp David peace treaty with Israel; will it commit to the rule of 
law and human rights at home; or will Egypt fall into the hands of the 
radical Muslim Brotherhood; will it drift toward Iran and embrace the 
enemies of Israel?
  Unfortunately, recent developments indicate Egypt is moving in the 
wrong direction. The Muslim Brotherhood is gaining additional influence 
and may soon gain significant legislative power.
  According to a poll released on April 25 by the Pew Research Center, 
78 percent of Egyptians hold a favorable view of the Muslim 
Brotherhood--and that is better than the youth-led ``April 6 Movement'' 
that removed Mubarak from power. In September's planned elections, the 
Muslim Brotherhood plans to contest anywhere between 30 to 50 percent 
of all parliamentary seats.
  Meanwhile, Egypt's foreign policy is shifting away from the United 
States and our allies and toward the Islamic Republic of Iran and its 
terrorist proxies. On April 18, Iran announced the appointment of the 
country's first ambassador to Egypt in 30 years. On April 27, Egyptian 
Foreign Minister Nabil Elaraby said he will meet with the Iranian 
Foreign Minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, in Indonesia on the sidelines of 
the Non-Aligned Movement Summit. The two officials will discuss next 
steps for the Iranian-Egyptian relationship. On May 3, Iran's Foreign 
Minister announced he would send his deputy to visit Egypt in the 
coming days.
  Egyptian authorities helped negotiate the recent reconciliation 
agreement between the terrorist movement Hamas and Fatah--a major 
setback to Israeli-Palestinian peace. When asked to comment on Hamas 
being a terrorist organization, Egypt's Foreign Minister said:

       [We must] allow someone who is fighting for a cause to see 
     the light of day at the end of the tunnel and enter into 
     peace.

  On March 28, Hamas submitted a request to the Egyptian Government to

[[Page S2829]]

reopen its Embassy in the Gaza Strip. On April 28, Egypt's Foreign 
Minister announced plans to reopen the Rafah border with Hamas on a 
permanent basis--a potential boon to the Hamas terrorist organization. 
On April 30, Al Hayat reported that Hamas would be relocating its 
offices from Damascus--sending the terrorist group's No. 2 man, Musa 
Abu Marzouk, to Egypt.
  Meanwhile, Egypt's commitment to democracy and human rights has 
suffered a serious setback following recent attacks on the country's 
Coptic Christian community that left scores dead and hundreds more 
injured. This follows the interim government's move to dismiss the 
Coptic governor of the city of Quena only days after his appointment--
caving to mass demonstrations organized by the Muslim Brotherhood.
  As one Coptic bishop told AFP:

       They are led by Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood, and 
     they are chanting: ``We won't leave until the Christians 
     leave.''

  Finally, on March 28, Dr. Maikel Nabil Sanad, a 25-year-old blogger, 
was arrested for ``insulting the military,'' and ``disturbing public 
security'' after posting comments on his blog that were critical of the 
military's role in the protests. This arrest clearly violated the 
International Covenant on International and Political Rights and the 
new government's commitment to the fundamental freedoms of its people. 
If Egyptians could freely express their views in Tahrir Square, they 
should have the freedom to express their views online.
  Mr. President, the trajectory of Egypt's revolution now faces two 
distinct scenarios: It could become a secular American ally that 
respects the rule of law, diversity, and a peace treaty with Israel; or 
it could become a Muslim Brotherhood-controlled ally of Iran that 
embraces terrorist groups such as Hamas, persecutes its own religious 
minorities, and rejects peace with Israel.
  We must do everything in our power to support the secular forces of 
Egypt or face the prospect of a strategic setback on the scale of Iran 
in 1979, laying the foundation for potentially yet another war in the 
Middle East.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, am I correct that we are now on the 
nomination of Ed Chen to the District Court for the Northern District 
of California?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today the Senate will finally consider 
the nomination of Judge Edward Chen to fill a judicial emergency 
vacancy on the District Court for the Northern District of California. 
Since 2001, Judge Chen has been a well-respected Federal Magistrate 
Judge on the court to which he is now nominated to serve as a Federal 
District Judge. His nomination has received the strong and consistent 
support of his home state Senators, Senator Feinstein and Senator 
Boxer, since he was first nominated over 21 months ago. When he is 
confirmed, Judge Chen will be only the second Asian Pacific American to 
serve on the district court bench in the 150-year history of the 
Northern District of California. The debate and vote we have today are 
long overdue.
  We are finally able to consider Judge Chen's nomination because of 
the vote the Senate took last week toward restoring a longstanding 
tradition of deference to home state Senators with regard to Federal 
District Court nominations. The Senate turned away from a precipice 
when 11 Republican Senators joined in voting to end a filibuster of the 
nomination of Jack McConnell to the District Court for the District of 
Rhode Island. In doing so, a super majority of the Senate came together 
to reject a new standard, which I believe is being unfairly applied to 
President Obama's district court nominees. Now, nearly 20 months after 
his confirmation hearing, and after having had his nomination reported 
favorably by the Judiciary Committee four times, Judge Chen's 
nomination will at last have an up-or-down vote in the Senate.
  We should have taken up and confirmed his nomination when it was 
first reported favorably by the committee nearly 19 months ago. The 
supposed ``controversy'' that has delayed and obstructed this 
nomination is in my view entirely misplaced, the result of applying a 
partisan litmus test. This should be an easy nomination to confirm. It 
is no surprise that Judge Chen's nomination received the highest 
possible rating from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee 
on the Federal Judiciary, unanimously ``well qualified,'' since he has 
had a distinguished legal career and has issued over 350 judicial 
opinions in his decade as a Federal magistrate judge.
  Judge Chen's nomination has received broad, bipartisan support from 
the judicial and legal community in California and from numerous bar 
associations, including the National Asian Pacific Bar Association, 
which has been a vocal proponent of this nomination. Judge Chen's 
nomination also has significant support from local law enforcement in 
the district he currently serves and would continue to serve if 
confirmed. Michael Hennessey, sheriff for the city and county of San 
Francisco, wrote: ``Judge Chen's solid record as a U.S. Magistrate 
Judge speaks for itself. He has published over three-hundred judicial 
opinions which are indicative of his work ethic and his thoughtful 
intellect as a respected magistrate judge.'' This praise is 
representative of the scores of letters of support we have received.
  I thank Senator Feinstein for her strong advocacy for Judge Chen's 
nomination the four times it has been considered and favorably reported 
by the Judiciary Committee. Any fair minded person who listened to the 
impassioned speeches Senator Feinstein has made about Ed Chen in the 
committee would have to be impressed. Senator Feinstein is right to be 
proud of her recommendation of Ed Chen to President Obama. As Senator 
Feinstein has explained, Judge Chen was the recommendation of her 
bipartisan Judicial Advisory Committee in California, putting the lie 
to the caricature from the far right that this was a partisan 
nomination. This is a fine man with sterling legal credentials and all 
the qualifications needed to be an outstanding Federal judge.
  The approach taken by opponents of Judge Chen's nomination threatens 
to take the Senate down a dangerous path of imposing partisan litmus 
tests in place of our constitutional duty to offer advice and consent 
on nominations. The debate in our committee on Judge Chen's nomination 
was ugly. One Republican Senator in explaining his opposition said that 
Judge Chen has the ``ACLU gene.'' I hope that we do not hear such a 
preposterous notion repeated today on the floor of the Senate. This is 
a distinguished Federal magistrate judge who has demonstrated that he 
knows how to be a fair and impartial judge.
  Our legal system is an adversary system, predicated upon legal 
advocacy for both sides. Certainly defending civil liberties is no 
vice. The other side appears to be suggesting that Judge Chen's work as 
a staff attorney at the ACLU many years ago, primarily representing 
individuals in discrimination and civil rights matters, somehow renders 
him unfit to be a judge. Since when do we impose a litmus test for 
nominees that they can never have been legal advocates? If we were to 
do that, we would have no judges. Almost every nominee who had been a 
practicing lawyer would be disqualified by one side or the other.
  Surely Judge Chen's work while in private practice as a member of the 
legal team that represented Fred Korematsu in a lawsuit that 
successfully overturned his prior conviction for violating the Japanese 
Internment Order during World War II does not render Judge Chen unfit 
to be a judge. In my view, that important advocacy to right a wrong 
from one of the dark chapters in our history serves as proof that 
President Obama made a wise choice in nominating Judge Chen for the 
Federal bench. Indeed, just a few years ago this Senate passed a 
resolution acknowledging that wrong and seeking to help right it.
  The question for me about this nominee is the same question I have 
asked about every judicial nominee, whether

[[Page S2830]]

nominated by a Democratic or a Republican president whether he or she 
will have judicial independence. Does the nominee understand the role 
of a judge, and how it differs from the role of an advocate?
  With this nominee, Judge Chen, that is not a hard question to answer. 
We know that he understands the role of a judge because he has been 
doing it for 10 years on the court to which he has now been nominated. 
As Judge Chen said in response to a question from Senator Sessions: 
``The role of a judge is to be fair, neutral, and evenhanded in 
applying the law and finding facts
. . . without regard to personal preferences.'' His 10 years as a 
Federal magistrate judge resoundingly have answered any concerns about 
bias or partisanship on his part. His testimony before the Judiciary 
Committee reflects his understanding of the proper role of a judge.
  There was no need for the delays that plagued this nomination. There 
were no ``extraordinary circumstances'' that held up this nomination 
for nearly 2 years. With judicial vacancies at crisis levels, affecting 
the ability of courts to provide justice to Americans around the 
country, we should be debating and voting on each of the 12 judicial 
nominations reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee and pending 
on the Senate's Executive Calendar, in addition to Judge Chen. No one 
should be playing partisan games and obstructing while vacancies remain 
above 90 in the Federal courts around the country.
  Judge Chen, born and raised in Oakland, CA, as the son of two Chinese 
immigrants, spent much of his childhood helping his mother and siblings 
support a small family business after his father passed away. After 
earning his A.B. from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1975, 
and his law degree from Boalt Hall School of Law in 1979, Judge Chen 
clerked for Judge Charles Renfrew on the court to which he has now been 
nominated, the Northern District of California, and then for Judge 
James Browning on the Ninth Circuit. After a distinguished career in 
private practice and as a staff attorney for the American Civil 
Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California, Judge Chen was 
selected to serve as a Federal Magistrate Judge for the Northern 
District of California, having since been reappointed upon the 
recommendation of the nonpartisan Merit Selection Review Panel. His 
story is a moving reminder of what it is possible to achieve in this 
great Nation through hard work.
  I congratulate Judge Edward Chen and his family on his confirmation 
today. I commend Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer for their 
steadfast support of his nomination.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. Is time being 
divided?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes, it is.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided 
during the quorum call.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Senate Daily Digest proceeded to call the 
roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I see the distinguished senior Senator 
from California on the floor. I will yield, of course, to her. She has 
been indefatigable in her support of Judge Chen in the committee, in 
the Halls of the Senate, and in her steadfast work with the leadership 
to get this nominee before us. I can brag about all the work she has 
done easier than she might, but I hope Judge Chen and his family know 
they had as strong and as stalwart a supporter on the Senate Judiciary 
Committee as they could possibly have with Senator Feinstein.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Senate Daily Digest proceeded to call the 
roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I wish to thank Chairman Leahy for 
his leadership on this particular judgeship. I believe he is accurate 
in everything he said, and I very much appreciate his stalwart support.
  I rise to add my support to the nomination of U.S. Magistrate Judge 
Edward Chen to become a U.S. district judge in the Northern District of 
California. I recommended Judge Chen to the President, so obviously he 
has my strong support.
  I wish to tell my colleagues a little bit about him. He was born and 
raised in Oakland, and he is the son of Chinese immigrants. His father 
immigrated to the United States in the 1920s, and that was followed by 
his mother in the 1930s. He attended public schools in Oakland and then 
went on to the University of California at Berkeley, where he received 
his undergraduate degree with great distinction, and then on to Boalt 
Hall School of Law, where he graduated in the top 10 percent of his 
class.
  He was a law clerk to District Judge Charles Renfrew on the U.S. 
District Court for the Northern District of California, as well as to 
Circuit Judge James Browning on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit. He then began his legal career as a litigator, first at the 
private law firm of Coblentz, Patch, Duffy, and Bass and later as a 
staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union.
  In 2001, he was appointed to be a U.S. magistrate judge for the 
Northern District of California, and he has served in that capacity for 
the past 10 years.
  So today Judge Chen is a solid, tested, and respected judge with over 
a decade of experience on the Federal bench. In these 10 years as a 
judge, he has written more than 350 published opinions. I would point 
out that not one of those opinions has been criticized by anyone in the 
20 months this nomination has been awaiting action in the Senate. Nor 
has there been any criticism of any of his published opinions.

  In fact, there is a broad consensus among those who have reviewed his 
judicial record that he is indeed a very good judge.
  He was recommended to me by a bipartisan judicial advisory committee. 
That committee reviewed his record, and spoke with judges, attorneys, 
and litigants who knew his work as a judge. The committee unanimously 
recommended that I forward his name to the President, and I did.
  The San Francisco Bar Association has rated him ``exceptionally well 
qualified.'' The American Bar Association has rated him ``well 
qualified''--their highest rating. And in 2009, a merit selection 
review panel, appointed by the U.S. District Court, thoroughly reviewed 
his record and recommended him for reappointment as a magistrate judge. 
That panel consisted of seven lawyers appointed by the district court. 
They solicited public comments on Chen's work as a judge. Only positive 
information was forthcoming.
  They talked to Federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office. 
Again, the reports were uniformly favorable. Prosecutors called Chen's 
analytical skills ``exemplary'' and said his rulings were ``balanced 
and well reasoned.''
  Defense attorneys were similarly positive. They described Chen as 
``respectful'' and ``considered'' in his judgments.
  Partners with large law firms called Chen ``prompt,'' ``well-
prepared,'' ``very intelligent'' and ``decisive.''
  Overall, the panel recommended unequivocally that Chen be reappointed 
for a second 8-year term as a magistrate judge. Obviously, he has 
served 2 years of that second term.
  I have the panel's full report here and would be pleased to share it 
with any Senator who wishes to review it.
  Since Chen's nomination for the district court, the reports we have 
received in the Senate from those who know Chen's work as a judge have 
been similarly positive.
  We have received letters urging Chen's confirmation from Republicans 
and Democrats, public officials and law enforcement, judges, civil 
rights groups, business leaders, and private lawyers. Let me share a 
few with you.
  Judge Lowell Jensen, whom I have followed for decades, was appointed 
to the U.S. District Court by President

[[Page S2831]]

Reagan. He also served as second in charge of the Department of Justice 
during the Reagan administration. He has worked closely with Chen on 
the Federal bench and had this to say about him, and this is a direct 
quote:

       I have found Judge Chen to be both an excellent jurist and 
     a person of high character. He brings a conscientious, 
     careful, and impartial approach to every issue and every 
     party. The decisions he makes reflect not only good judgment 
     but a complete commitment to the principles of fair trial and 
     the application of the rule of law. I support his 
     confirmation without reservation.

  I can say that Judge Jensen is one of the most distinguished judges 
in California.
  Former U.S. District Judge Fern Smith was also appointed by President 
Reagan to the Federal court. She writes:

       Both in my own dealings with [Judge Chen] and based on his 
     reputation among my former colleagues, I can attest to his 
     intellectual competence, his respect for the law, his 
     judicial temperament, and his integrity. I have no doubt that 
     Ed Chen would do honor to any of our 94 United States 
     District Courts.

  We have a letter from the president of the San Francisco Police 
Commission, a lifelong Republican, Thomas Mazzucco. He published an op-
ed in the Roll Call urging the Senate to confirm Chen and calling him 
``an experienced judge who understands the distinction between personal 
preference and judicial obligation, and who has always based his 
rulings--more than 300 decisions over eight years--solely on the law 
and the merits of a case.''
  The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Association said this:

       Chen has earned a reputation as an evenhanded jurist who is 
     constantly mindful of the role that judges such as himself 
     fulfill in our society: as keepers of the rule of law and 
     public trust in our system of justice.

  I have over 50 more letters, if anyone wishes to read them. They come 
from the mayors of San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose; the sheriff, 
city attorney, former chief of police, and former U.S. Marshal of San 
Francisco; the last 10 presidents of the bar association of San 
Francisco; the congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus; the 
National Asian Pacific American Bar; and many others.
  The judgment is clear: Ed Chen is fair. He is impartial. He is an 
excellent jurist, and has been for 10 years, and he deserves to be 
confirmed.
  You come back to Washington and what happens? Here is the story. 
Despite this long judicial track record and broad bipartisan support, 
this nomination has been sitting in the Senate for more than 600 days.
  The President first nominated Chen on August 6, 2009. That was 643 
days ago. Since that time, the minority has required the nomination to 
be sent back to the President three different times. The Senate 
Judiciary Committee has had to consider the nomination four different 
times.
  This is extraordinary--but then the Republicans have an extraordinary 
search engine. I will talk about that in a minute.
  This is a district court nominee with 10 years of judicial 
experience, with not a blemish on it. When other judicial nominees have 
come before the Senate, they have been criticized because they didn't 
have judicial experience or because there was no judicial track record 
to review. Well, here is a nominee who has both. Ten years on the 
bench; bipartisan support and uniformly positive reviews; more than 350 
published opinions, and there has not been a single criticism of a 
single one. But his nomination has been sitting in the Senate for 600 
days and sent back to the President 3 separate times.
  I find this to be a deeply disappointing testament to the situation 
we face in the Senate today. Let me pose the question that Police 
Commissioner Mazzucco--a Republican--asked in his op-ed:

       If Judge Chen--an experienced judge whose judicial record 
     proves he is committed to the rule of law, without bias or 
     favor, and who is widely respected by the bar that has 
     practiced before him--isn't qualified for the Federal bench, 
     then who is?

  I echo that.
  So what happened here? Well, let me take a few moments to address a 
couple of the attacks that have been made on Judge Chen.
  First, Judge Chen has been criticized because he worked as a staff 
attorney for the ACLU long before becoming a judge. No one disputes 
that. Chen was once an advocate, and that is a fact. But he also has a 
10-year record to prove that he has made the transition. He was once an 
advocate. He is now a judge--and a darn good judge.
  As a coalition of Northern California Asian American Bar Associations 
wrote:

       Chen has made a successful transition from a zealous 
     advocate to a balanced and conscientious adjudicator who is 
     committed to the impartial and active administration of 
     justice.

  Former Federal prosecutors from the Northern District of California 
made the same point. They wrote:

       Judge Chen consistently treats all sides evenly and 
     impartially, and conducts himself with the utmost propriety, 
     as is fitting for a judge. . . . While we are aware of his 
     previous position as a staff attorney at the ACLU of northern 
     California, Judge Chen does not show favoritism toward the 
     parties or issues before him.

  The record is available. The evidence is in. Chen understands the 
unique role of the impartial adjudicator. He knows what it means to 
decide cases evenhandedly. He has been doing it for more than 10 years.
  Let me turn then to some speeches that the ``search engine'' turned 
up. Since 2009, the Washington Times and others have used a handful of 
quotes from speeches Chen has given to try to paint him as someone he 
is not. As happens far too often, those quotes have been cut, spliced, 
and taken out of context. Let me give you an example.
  The effort to label Chen as a ``radical'' is based on a speech he 
gave to students following the funeral of a man by the name of Fred 
Korematsu. I want to take a moment to explain Korematsu and the case. 
Some of you may be too young to remember Mr. Korematsu and his fight 
against Japanese internment during World War II, but I am not.
  One of the singular experiences of my lifetime was when my father 
took me, as a small child, to the Tanforan Racetrack. That racetrack 
was a few miles south of San Francisco. During World War II, it was 
taken out of action as a racetrack and turned into an internment camp. 
It was fenced with barbed wire. Small buildings lined the center 
portion of the track. This is a photo of it. Here is the racetrack and 
here are the buildings. This is where Japanese Americans were 
essentially incarcerated for the remainder of World War II.
  Let me show you this. This is the order, which is from the Western 
Defense Command and Fourth Army Wartime Civil Control Administration--
instructions to all Americans of Japanese ancestry living in the 
following area, which is the city and county of San Francisco, lying 
generally west of the north-south line, and it describes that. It says:

       All Japanese persons, both alien and non-alien, will be 
     evacuated from the designated area by twelve o'clock on 
     Tuesday, April 7, 1942. No Japanese person will be permitted 
     to enter or leave the above-described area after 8 a.m. 
     Thursday, April 7--

  That is over half of the city of San Francisco.

     without obtaining special permission from the provost marshal 
     at the Civil Control Administration.

  Then they are told where they are to report--to the Civil Control 
Station--to receive further instructions. This must be done between 8 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Thursday, April 2, or between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Friday, April 3.
  That is their notice. They turn up, get in a bus, and then this is 
where they go, and where they remained until the end of the war.
  One young Californian, Fred Korematsu, challenged the internment. He 
took his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and he argued that 
the U.S. Constitution did not permit loyal American citizens to be 
forced into these camps solely because of their Japanese-American 
heritage, which was the case here. The Supreme Court heard his case, 
but he lost in a decision that is considered by many to be a black 
stain on the jurisprudence of our Supreme Court.
  Decades later, in 1983, Korematsu challenged his conviction again. 
This time, he was represented by a team of volunteer lawyers, including 
Edward Chen. This team put forward newly discovered evidence that 
demonstrated that prosecutors in Korematsu's original case had withheld 
evidence, specifically, U.S. Government intelligence at the time 
indicating the internment was not justified.
  This time they won. So four decades after the original internment 
order,

[[Page S2832]]

Fred Korematsu's conviction was overturned by the district court, and, 
four years later in 1987, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the 
Civil Liberties Act, issuing a formal, national apology for the 
Japanese internment.
  So this was the context of the speech in which Chen was speaking to a 
group of students and reflecting on the funeral of Fred Korematsu. He 
said in the speech that, at times, he had experienced ``feelings of 
ambivalence and cynicism when confronted by appeals to patriotism.'' He 
was referring to the internment of Japanese-American citizens for no 
cause other than they happened to be of Japanese heritage. I would 
think you could get a bit cynical about that. People who did not see 
this do not believe it ever happened. But it did happen, and it 
happened here. This was the condition in which people were kept. It is 
not right.
  But critics have picked out this line--``feelings of ambivalence and 
cynicism when confronted by appeals to patriotism''--and tried to use 
to paint Chen as unpatriotic. But they did not know the context. 
Sometimes things that have monumental importance at the time, such as 
the internment of Japanese-American citizens without due process, fade 
too quickly from our historical memory. I thought I would bring it back 
so this body could understand the total context.
  This was a very big deal. It was not a proud moment for our country. 
Congress and President Reagan rightfully issued a formal apology for 
the injustice that was done years later.
  To take a quote from a speech after Fred Korematsu's funeral and to 
use it to try to imply that Edward Chen does not love his country--it 
is shameful. It is also flatly inconsistent with the rest of the 
speech. Chen went on to say that when the congregation sang ``America 
the Beautiful'' at Korematsu's funeral, he was moved to tears because 
``the song described the America that Fred envisioned, the America 
whose promised beauty he sought to fulfill, an America true to its 
founding principles.''
  Fred Korematsu is no longer with us, but his daughter Karen sent me a 
letter about Edward Chen. Here are some of her words:

       My father's belief in our Constitution was unwavering, even 
     when he was treated unfairly. Like my father, Judge Chen is 
     adamant about upholding the Constitution, without bias or 
     prejudice.

  In my view, Edward Chen is a judicial nominee who has been treated 
extraordinarily unfairly. But he remains steadfast in his commitment to 
serving our country as a Federal judge, and he has a 10-year 
unblemished judicial track record to show that he will serve us 
exceedingly well.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the nomination of Judge Edward 
Chen to be a district judge for the Northern District of California.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  All time has expired. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Edward Milton Chen, of California, to be 
United States District Judge for the Northern District of California?
  Mr. LEE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 68 Ex.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Rockefeller
     Vitter
       
  The nomination was confirmed.

                          ____________________