[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.
____________________