[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 69 (Wednesday, May 18, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3088-S3093]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Energy Policy
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, over the past couple of days here on the
Senate floor we have had a lot of discussion about domestic energy
production and there have been a lot of good points made. But, frankly,
it is more of a political exercise than something that is going to help
the American people.
If one listened to the debate, one might think there is no consensus
and no way forward. I disagree with that. I think given our energy
challenges, including $4 a gallon gasoline, we need an energy policy
that encourages more affordable, reliable, and cleaner energy. I think
we can reach a consensus on a few areas, and let me raise a couple of
them today.
The first is natural gas exploration and development. In my own State
of Ohio, we have had exciting new developments over the past several
years. Geologists have known we have big shale formations in the
eastern part of the United States for years, but until recently we
haven't had the drilling technologies that allowed us to tap into these
huge reserves. We now have that.
In Ohio, we have both the Marcellus and the Utica shale finds that,
unfortunately, have not been tapped yet but have tremendous potential.
Some of the oil and gas reserve estimates associated with these finds
are truly amazing. For the State of Ohio alone, in one of those
formations--Utica--I am told we could yield over 15 trillion cubic feet
of natural gas. So this is a great opportunity both to be sure we have
the energy we need to power our economy but also to create jobs that go
into energy production.
By the way, other States around us, including Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, and upstate New York, as an example, have even more
production potential than Ohio. Already there are some Ohio counties,
such as Belmont County and Jefferson County and Columbiana County, that
are beginning to explore some of these finds, and we are very hopeful
that in some of these counties, where there is incredibly high
unemployment, we will be able to begin production soon. These counties
have been hard hit by the downturn in the economy, and they can use the
economic activity and the jobs that will be created by this production.
Earlier this year, I visited an Ohio company that is an example of
one of the industries that is going to benefit from this natural gas
production. It is V&M Star. It is a company that makes piping. It is
near Youngstown, OH. They just decided to expand their manufacturing
capability. Why? Because they are looking at Marcellus and Utica,
understanding this is going to create great opportunities for them.
They are investing in our State. They are investing in jobs. They are
doing it because of these finds. We have to be sure we put out the
Federal policies to promote and encourage the development of these
resources.
In addition to using natural gas for electricity generation and as a
feedstock for a lot of industries, including the chemical industry,
natural gas holds incredible potential as an alternative to gas. Today,
we are talking about the need to be less dependent on foreign oil,
which happens to be one of the top issues on both sides of the aisle.
Natural gas is a way we can do that very directly because it can be
used particularly in fleets. Today, the equivalent price for a gallon
of natural gas is $1.60. Think about that: as compared to $4 for
gasoline, $1.60 for natural gas. The infrastructure costs create some
challenges, but, again, for fleets, where there is central refueling,
it makes all the sense in the world. Widespread conversion of our
fleets, including our Nation's buses, garbage trucks, and utility
vehicles, would help reduce demand for gasoline.
America arguably has the greatest energy reserves in the world,
depending on which estimate you look at. We have to find a way to
responsibly tap these reserves, in a way that we can become less
dependent on foreign nations for energy needs, in a way where we will
stop sending so much of our wealth overseas to pay for foreign imports,
particularly of crude oil.
Ohio is still in the throes of an economic downturn. Today, we are at
9 percent unemployment in Ohio. Underemployment makes Ohio's situation
even worse. One way to create jobs and to get Ohio back on track is by
expanding, again, the use of our own resources, including natural gas.
There should be a consensus on this issue. We should be promoting
Federal policies to encourage the exploration and the development of
these resources, and we should do it now.
Another area where I think you could see some consensus on energy
policy in the short term in the Senate is in the area of energy
conservation and efficiency. We should both find more and use less. It
is that commitment to use less that led me, last week, to introduce
legislation with Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire called the Energy
Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act. It is S. 1000, for those
who would like to check it out.
It is a bipartisan bill, a targeted and achievable piece of
legislation that would leverage energy efficiency investments in a
number of areas, including the building and industrial sectors but also
with the Federal Government. It would help consumers and the Federal
Government save money on their energy bills and help industry improve
the efficiency of their production processes.
Again, this is an example of where we should be able to come together
as Republicans and Democrats to get something done. There is widespread
consensus that energy efficiency is the low-hanging fruit, a way to
reduce our energy use and, again, to make America's economy more
competitive. As with anything, the devil is in the details. There will
be some Senators who may disagree with some of the specifics in this
legislation, but, again, it is the type of bill we should be debating
on the floor of this Senate. With a little hard work, I believe it is
one we can ultimately get enacted into law.
Instead, again, we have spent the better part of this week debating
two bills; one that, in my view, would have done more harm than good,
by raising taxes on certain businesses, while doing nothing to increase
energy production or lower gas prices; and another one I supported that
I think would do a lot of good but we knew did not have the necessary
60 votes to move forward and, therefore, we were not able to make
progress this week for the American people.
We have all the ingenuity, the know-how, and the resources within our
own borders to be able to have the energy we need to run our economy
and to improve our economy and to create jobs. I hope moving forward we
can find agreement on these issues and begin to tap this great American
potential.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. CARDIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his suggestion?
Mr. PORTMAN. I will.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I rise in strong support of the nomination of Goodwin Liu to be U.S.
Circuit Judge for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. I urge my colleagues to invoke cloture on this nomination.
I am disappointed we had to file a cloture motion. I hope my
colleagues would want to vote up or down on this nomination, and I hope
they would vote for his confirmation.
As we begin the debate on the nomination of Mr. Liu, let me start by
telling my colleagues how thoroughly his nomination has been vetted by
the Judiciary Committee under the leadership of Chairman Leahy.
President Obama first nominated Goodwin Liu for this position in
February of last year. That was over 1 year
[[Page S3089]]
ago. The Judiciary Committee has held two separate hearings on this
nomination. Mr. Liu's latest set of questions and answers, for the
record, spanned over 130 pages. The Judiciary Committee has favorably
reported his nomination on three separate occasions: in May of 2010,
September of 2010, and April of 2011.
So I am disappointed my Republican colleagues have refused to allow
this nomination to come to a vote without the necessity of filing a
cloture motion. As we know, the majority leader has filed cloture on
this nomination. Senators have had ample information on the background,
experience and qualifications of this nominee and it is time for the
Senators to perform their constitutional duty to debate the nomination
and to vote up or down on this nominee.
I was privileged to serve on the Judiciary Committee in the 111th
Congress and participated in a debate of the Goodwin Liu nomination on
several occasions. I was pleased to cast my vote in favor of Mr. Liu's
nomination in committee, and I look forward to supporting his
nomination on the floor.
When I examine judicial nominations that are submitted by the
President, I use several criteria.
First, I believe judicial nominees must have an appreciation for the
Constitution and the protections it provides to each and every
American.
Second, a nominee must embrace a judicial philosophy that reflects
mainstream American values, not narrow ideological interests.
Third, a judicial nominee must respect the role and responsibilities
of each branch of government, including a healthy respect for the
precedents of the court.
Fourth, I look for nominees with a strong commitment and passion for
the continued forward progress of civil rights protections.
Finally, I want a judge who has the necessary experience,
temperament, and commitment to public service.
I wish to share with my colleagues a little background on Mr. Liu,
his qualifications, and why I intend to support his nomination.
Goodwin Liu, in many ways, embodies the American dream. He is the son
of immigrants to this country. His parents were doctors who came to the
United States from Taiwan in the late 1960s, when foreign doctors were
being recruited to work in underserved areas.
Goodwin Liu did not speak English until kindergarten. During high
school, Goodwin Liu had the opportunity to serve as a page in the House
of Representatives, after being sponsored by late Congressman Bob
Matsui of California, whom I had the privilege of serving with in the
House of Representatives.
Professor Liu has a sterling academic record. He earned his B.S., Phi
Beta Kappa, from Stanford University, where he was elected copresident
of the student body. A Rhodes Scholar, he earned his M.A. from Oxford
University. He received his J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was an
editor of the Yale Law Journal. He then went on to clerk for DC Circuit
Court Judge David Tatel and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Professor Liu has a track record of working on public policy issues
in public service. He worked for 2 years at the Corporation for
National Service. He served as a special assistant to the Deputy
Secretary of Education, where he worked on numerous legal and policy
issues.
Professor Liu has worked in private practice. After his clerkships,
he served as an associate in the Washington, DC, law firm of O'Melveny
& Myers, working on a wide range of business matters. About half his
practice consisted of appellate litigation, preparing him well to serve
on a court of appeals. He has also maintained an active pro bono
practice at that firm, which also tells me of his commitment to equal
justice under the law.
Professor Liu then went on to his current occupation, joining the
faculty of the University of California Berkeley School of Law and
helping to teach our next generation of lawyers. He serves as a
professor at the law school, was promoted to an associate dean of the
law school, and was elected to the American Law Institute.
Professor Liu has received the law school's Distinguished Teaching
Award. Professor Liu is considered an expert on constitutional law and
education law and policy, with a particular focus on the needs of
America's most disadvantaged students. He is the author of numerous law
review articles and the coauthor of an influential book on
constitutional law interpretation entitled ``Keeping Faith with the
Constitution.''
I heard my colleague talk about Goodwin Liu. But I would just urge my
colleagues not to penalize an individual because he is active or
expresses his own opinions. We should judge the nominees based upon
their qualifications and their commitments to interpret the law as
required on the court.
Professor Liu answered numerous questions about his approach to
constitutional interpretation during his two confirmation hearings. He
testified:
The role of the judge is to be an impartial, objective and
neutral arbiter of specific cases and controversies that come
before him or her, and the way that process works is through
absolute fidelity to the applicable precedents and the
language of the laws, statutes, or regulations that are at
issue in the case.
I do not know who would disagree with that. That is what many of us
have been calling for on both sides of the aisle.
He has also answered questions about his ideology as a judge. He
testified:
It would not be my role to bring any particular theory of
constitutional interpretation to the job of an intermediate
appellate judge. The duty of a circuit judge is to faithfully
follow the Supreme Court's instructions on matters of
constitutional interpretation, not any particular theory. So
that is exactly what I would do. I would apply the applicable
precedents to the facts of each case.
Once again, I could not agree with that statement more. In written
responses to Senators' questions, he also stated:
I do not believe it is ever appropriate for judges to
indulge their own values or policy preferences in determining
what the Constitution and laws mean.
Professor Liu certainly has written a number of thought-provoking
articles on controversial public policy issues of the day, but this
should not disqualify him from being a judge. I am confident Professor
Liu understands the difference between being an advocate and being a
judge and I hope we can draw that distinction and will respect the
difference if he is confirmed and puts on the judicial robe.
Specific questions concerning affirmative action were asked during
his confirmation hearings. So let me quote from Professor Liu's
testimony to the Judiciary Committee:
I absolutely do not support racial quotas, and my writings,
I think, have made very clear that I believe they are
unconstitutional.
He then said:
I think affirmative action, as it was originally conceived,
was a time-limited remedy for past wrongs, and I think that
is the appropriate way to understand what affirmative action
is.
I think we should take a look at his record on this, and I think it
is unfair to judge him based upon certain innuendoes.
Professor Liu also has broad support from distinguished legal
scholars from both parties. The former Solicitor General and White
House prosecutor, Ken Starr, praised Professor Liu's ``strong
intellect, demonstrated independence, and outstanding character''--
qualifications we all want to see on the court. We want to see
intellect, we want to see independence, and we want to see character.
Ken Starr summed that up fairly well.
In a March 19, 2010, letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr.
Starr joined with another professor, stating:
Goodwin is a person of great intellect, accomplishment, and
integrity, and he is exceptionally well qualified to serve on
the court of appeals. . . . What we wish to highlight, beyond
his on obvious intellect and legal talents, is his
independence and openness to diverse viewpoints, as well as
his ability to follow the facts and the law to their logical
conclusion. . . .
These are qualities we expect in a judge. And Goodwin
clearly possesses them . . . [A] judge takes an oath to
uphold and defend the Constitution, and in the case of a
circuit judge, fidelity to the law entails adherence to
Supreme Court precedent and . . . adherence to circuit
precedence as well. . . . Goodwin knows the difference
between what the law is and what he might wish it to be, and
he is fully capable and unafraid of discharging the duty to
say what the law is.
That is what Ken Starr said about a person he knows very well,
Goodwin
[[Page S3090]]
Liu, and he strongly recommends his confirmation to our colleagues. I
also want to discuss the importance of improving diversity on our
courts. If confirmed, Professor Liu would be only the second Asian
American currently serving on a Federal appeals court, and the only
Asian American in active service in the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit is home to over 40 percent of the Asian American
population in the United States. Finally, Professor Liu has received
the highest possible judicial rating, ``unanimously well qualified''
from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary.
With this distinguished record and recommendations that we have
received, we have an excellent nominee to serve on the court of
appeals. I urge my colleagues to vote for his confirmation.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is my privilege, it is my honor, to
support Goodwin Liu, a Californian--and a brilliant Californian--who
has been nominated by the President to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. And what a fine nomination this is. I thank the President for
his belief in Goodwin, and his, I think, amazing perception that this
is a young man--and he is young, he is about 40. This is a young man
who is just exceptional, is a perfect example of the American dream,
and someone who has worked so hard to put himself into this position
where he was nominated for this great honor.
I want to show folks a picture of Goodwin. He is a very special and
talented person. He has had a long struggle with this nomination, which
we will talk about. I also wish to thank, of course, Chairman Leahy for
working hard to bring this nomination to the Senate floor, and Senator
Feinstein, my colleague, for her hard work in the committee and her
leadership in helping to shepherd this nomination in the Senate.
This vote is not only historic, because Goodwin will make history--if
he gets this vote. This vote is long overdue. First, let me talk about
why it is historic. It is historic because if we get the 51 votes we
need today, Professor Liu will be one of only two Asian Americans
currently serving as a Federal appellate judge in the United States.
There is currently only one Asian American among the 160 active judges
on the Federal Courts of Appeals, and there is no active Asian American
judge on the Ninth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over an area that is
home to more than 40 percent of our Nation's Asian American population.
Let me repeat that. There is no active Asian American judge on the
Ninth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over an area that is home to more
than 40 percent of our Nation's Asian American population. The beauty
of our great Nation--one of the beauties--is our great diversity.
America is great because we are representatives of so many faiths and
so many ethnic backgrounds. We know all of our institutions, whether it
is here in the Senate or anywhere, all of our institutions do better
when they have a diversity of views and diversity. Clearly, when
someone as brilliant as Goodwin gets this nomination, we should be so
proud in this body. We should be joining hands over party lines. We
should be pleased that our court would have such a brilliant member.
Professor Liu was originally nominated in February 2010 for a
judicial emergency seat, one that has been vacant since January 2009.
So we have had a judicial emergency, and yet we have had a hard time
getting this vote to the floor.
Chief Justice Roberts called on Senators not to play politics with
our nominees. He warned that ``delays in filling vacancies have created
acute difficulties in some judicial districts.'' Undoubtedly, the Ninth
Circuit certainly is one of the jurisdictions that Chief Justice
referred to because the Ninth Circuit is the Nation's largest and
busiest appellate court in the country, accounting for over 20 percent
of all new appellate cases in the country, according to court
statistics.
Now, I have said--and I heard Senator Cardin, and I thought he just
did a beautiful job of laying out why he is supporting Goodwin Liu. But
I also heard some other comments that did not connect to Goodwin Liu. I
heard comments that just did not fit what Goodwin Liu has said about
his role as a judge.
So I wanted to put up a couple of the quotes directly from Professor
Liu and what he said about his role as a judge. He said:
I think the role of the judge is to be an impartial,
objective, and neutral arbiter of specific cases and
controversies that come before him or her. And the way that
that process works is through absolute fidelity to the
applicable precedents and the language of the laws, statues,
regulations that are at issue in the case.
Another statement by Professor Liu I wanted to share with you. He
said:
If I were fortunate enough to be confirmed in this process,
it would not be my role to bring any particular theory of
constitutional interpretation to the job of an intermediate
appellate judge. The duty of a circuit judge is to faithfully
follow the Supreme Court's instructions on matters of
Constitutional interpretation, not any particular theory. And
so that is exactly what I would do, is I would apply the
applicable precedents to the facts of each case.
It could not be clearer. So if you hear any colleague of mine saying
something else about how Professor Liu views the role of a judge in
this particular appellate area, just refer them to these quotes.
Professor Liu has sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee twice for
more than 5 hours--5 hours--answering any and all questions posed to
him during the hearing. He has also answered numerous written questions
from committee members. He has been voted out of the Judiciary
Committee three times.
I just ask the American people, as they tune in to this debate--they
may not be familiar with the confirmation process--if they think it is
fair for someone like Professor Liu--and we will put his picture back
up so we personalize this--this young man, this husband, this father,
this teacher, to have to sit for all of those hours, and then to
finally be brought to the floor, after the third time we voted it--that
is why I praised Senator Leahy for doing this again because sometimes
there are reasons that we go back and back and back. There are reasons
of fairness and justice and because we do not want to miss an
opportunity to put someone like Professor Goodwin Liu on the bench.
Now, I will tell you, there have been 12 months of attacks on Goodwin
Liu, misrepresentations, unfounded distortions of his record. I want
the American people to know this. Politics is tough. I can tell you,
running four times for Senate, it is tough. It is brutal. It is ugly.
But there is no reason to turn that venom on a nominee like this, and
it is offensive to me.
Through it all, Professor Liu could have said: You know what, I
cannot take this. I do not need this. My kids do not need this. My
family does not need this. But he showed courage and character and
dignity.
I was so pleased when President Obama nominated Goodwin Liu to serve
on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because Goodwin Liu is
considered one of the brightest legal scholars not just in California
but in the Nation. He is a respected authority on constitutional law.
At UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of law, where he is an associate
dean and a professor, he is admired widely for his writings and his
devotion to his students.
To Professor Liu, if you are watching these proceedings, I am proud
of you. To Professor Liu's wife, Ann, and his two small children,
Violet and Emmett, I say thank you for your patience and your
unyielding support. You should be so proud of your dad.
Let me tell you a little bit about Goodwin Liu's background. He was
born in Augusta, GA, the son of Taiwanese immigrants who came to this
country to practice medicine in underserved areas.
In 1977, they moved to Sacramento, where his parents were primary
care physicians for over 20 years. In Goodwin, his parents instilled
both perseverance and a strong work ethic, even leaving math problems
on the kitchen
[[Page S3091]]
table every day of the summer to supplement his school work. As a high
school student, he pulled all-nighters studying the dictionary to
expand his vocabulary and raise his SAT scores. His hard work paid off,
propelling him to Stanford University, where he graduated Phi Beta
Kappa, and then to Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes scholar.
I say to my colleagues on the other side, who often say it ought to
be the results of your life that count, it ought to be your record that
counts, it ought to be your qualifications that count--Stanford
University, Phi Beta Kappa, Oxford University Rhodes scholar.
Liu's experience at Stanford and Oxford in student government, as a
summer school teacher for low-income youth, codirecting a K-12 youth
education conference, and studying philosophy encouraged him to pursue
the law and public service. In fact, Liu spent the next 2 years at the
Corporation for National Service helping to launch the groundbreaking
AmeriCorps program. He led the agency's effort to build community
service programs at colleges and universities throughout the country,
and he traveled to over 30 States to encourage service among students.
The spark of public service and the law clearly ignited, Liu then
went on to attend Yale Law School. His stellar record of achievements
continued at Yale, where Liu, along with a classmate, won the prize for
the best team argument in the moot court competition. Several of his
papers won awards, and he earned prestigious clerkships on both the
court of appeals and the Supreme Court.
What more does anyone want from a nominee? I can't even imagine,
frankly, even matching this.
In between the clerkships, Liu again chose public service, working at
the U.S. Department of Education, helping to implement a congressional
appropriation to help turn around low-performing schools. Former South
Carolina Governor Richard Riley, who was Secretary of Education at the
time, called Liu a `` `go-to' person''--in his words--``for important
projects and complex issues because of Liu's ability to see the big
picture while also mastering the details of legal and policy
problems.'' What else do you want in a judge? He has an ``ability to
see the big picture while also mastering the details of legal and
policy problems.'' That is a quote from former South Carolina Governor
Richard Riley.
After completing his Supreme Court clerkship, Liu joined the
litigation practice at O'Melveny & Myers, working on a wide range of
business matters while maintaining an active pro bono practice. So you
have a person who worked in government, private practice, and in
education. He earned high praise from his peers, including Walter
Dellinger, chair of O'Melveny's appellate practice, who said Liu was
``widely respected in law practice for his superb legal ability, his
sound judgment and warm collegiality.''
Then Liu joined the faculty at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law
in 2003 and quickly established himself as an outstanding teacher as
well as a constitutional law and education law and policy expert.
Think about this. This is a young life, with all these experiences,
including raising a family.
In the classroom, Liu is popular and well regarded. His introductory
constitutional law course is consistently one of the most
oversubscribed at Boalt. They want to hear him. They want to be in his
presence to understand how the Constitution works and why this country
is so special. In 2009, Liu received UC Berkeley's Distinguished
Teaching Award, the university's most prestigious teaching excellence
award, and was selected by that year's graduating class to be
commencement speaker.
Students often remark on Liu's efforts to illustrate the impact of
the law on everyday life. As anyone who has taken his con law class
knows, to demonstrate that principle, Liu uses a wedding photo that
shows him and his new bride, Ann O'Leary, the Irish American daughter
of a social worker and union leader from Orono, ME. The two married in
Virginia, a State that restricted interracial marriages until the
Supreme Court invalidated the provision in the landmark 1967 case
Loving v. Virginia.
Berkeley Law School Dean Christopher Edley describes Professor Liu
this way:
Goodwin Liu is an outstanding teacher, a brilliant scholar,
and an exceptional public servant.
Professor Liu is widely respected and has tremendous support across
the legal spectrum and from both sides of the political aisle.
I want to read what Ken Starr said about Goodwin Liu. Remember Ken
Starr, the former Whitewater prosecutor? This is what he said. He wrote
this with Professor Amar in an op-ed piece that ran:
In our view, the traits that should weigh most heavily in
the evaluation of an extraordinarily qualified nominee, such
as Goodwin, are professional integrity and the ability to
discharge faithfully an abiding duty to follow the law.
Because Goodwin possesses those qualities to the highest
degree, we are confident that he will serve on the Court of
Appeals not only fairly and competently, but with great
distinction. We support and urge his speedy confirmation.
I point out to my Republican friends that Ken Starr is one of your
heroes. Come on, listen to what he says about Goodwin Liu. Don't come
to the floor and say things about Goodwin that aren't so. Please come
to your senses about Goodwin Liu.
There is another supporter I want to talk about too. This is former
Bush administration counsel, Richard Painter:
I have done my share of vetting judicial candidates and
fighting the confirmation wars. I didn't know much about Liu
before his nomination, but I became intrigued by the
attention the nomination generated, and I wondered if his
Republican critics were deploying the same tactics Democrats
used to attack Republican nominees. They were. If anything,
the attacks on Liu have been even more unfair. Based on my
own review of his record, I believe it is not even a close
question that Liu is an outstanding nominee whose views fall
well within the legal mainstream.
That conclusion is shared by leading conservatives who are familiar
with Liu's record. We even have a quote from Clint Bolick of the
Goldwater Institute, one of the most conservative institutes. They
endorsed Liu. This is what they said:
Because of his fresh, independent thinking and intellectual
honesty, as well as scholarly credentials and experience, he
will serve with distinction on this important court.
If that is not enough for my Republican friends, I have some more. I
have former Republican Congressman Bob Barr. He offered praise of
Professor Liu's ``commitment to the Constitution and to a fair criminal
justice system.'' Barr also noted that ``[Liu's] views are shared by
many scholars, lawyers and public officials from across the ideological
spectrum.''
Tom Campbell of California, a former Republican Congressman--someone
who actually attempted to run against me a couple of times for the
Senate--wrote that ``Goodwin will bring scholarly distinction and a
strong reputation for integrity, fair-mindedness, and collegiality to
the Ninth Circuit.'' Reflecting on Liu's many years of work in serving
the public interest, Campbell also said, ``I am not surprised that
[Liu] has again been called to public service.''
Yes, he has been called and nominated, but he won't be able to
continue his extraordinary work unless we get 51 votes here. I know
there is some letter that is circulating that attacks Goodwin Liu
again. I hope my colleagues will read not just what I am saying but
what leading Republicans are saying about how talented Goodwin Liu is.
Every single thing the man has done has turned to gold--every single
thing he has done. He is best at everything he does. Why would we lose
this opportunity for the American people to have him serve them in this
important capacity? I ask that rhetorically. I cannot imagine why
anybody would vote no.
Here is another one. Professor Liu has even drawn praise from Brian
Jones, who served as General Counsel at the Department of Education
after Liu's tenure there. This is what Brian Jones, the General Counsel
at the Department of Education, said:
During [2001 abd 2002], and even after he became a law
professor in 2003, [Goodwin] volunteered his time and
expertise on several occasions to help me and my staff sort
through legal issues he worked on during the previous
administration. In those interactions, Goodwin's efforts were
models of bipartisan cooperation. He brought useful knowledge
and careful lawyerly perspectives that helped our
administration to achieve its goals.
But I am convinced, based on his record and my own
experiences with him, that he is
[[Page S3092]]
thoughtful, fair-minded and well qualified to be an appellate
judge.
I don't know why the Republicans filibustered this nomination. I
don't know why they filibustered this. I don't understand it.
Let's look at some of the organizations that back Goodwin. Of course,
those in the Asian American community are so proud, as they should be
and as I am, because Goodwin is a Californian by choice.
In an op-ed published just today, former Secretary Norm Mineta, the
first Asian Pacific American member of a President's Cabinet; that is,
the Bush Cabinet, wrote that ``Professor Liu is an extremely well-
qualified nominee who has the intellectual capacity, experience,
temperament and integrity to be an excellent jurist.'' Mineta went on
to warn that ``if Liu is not confirmed, Asian Pacific Americans may be
left with the impression that there continues to be a glass ceiling
blocking Asian Pacific Americans from top-level leadership positions
regardless of their qualifications.''
Again, Norm Mineta--and anybody who knows Norm knows what a wonderful
human being he is. George W. Bush chose Norm Mineta, who is a Democrat,
to be the Secretary of Transportation. Norm Mineta says that because
Professor Liu is so qualified and has so much intellectual capacity,
such great experience, such great temperament, and so much integrity,
he warns that ``if Liu is not confirmed, Asian Pacific Americans may be
left with the impression that there continues to be a glass ceiling
blocking Asian Pacific Americans from top-level leadership positions
regardless of their qualifications.''
We also have a quote from the Committee of 100, a national nonprofit,
nonpartisan membership organization that addresses issues concerning
Sino-U.S. relations affecting the Chinese American community. They
wrote that ``[Liu's] ascension to the bench would signal that talented
people of all backgrounds are integral to our justice system.''
What we do here matters. It matters whom we send to these important
positions. We have someone here who will break down barriers, but, do
you know what, that would not be enough. He has to be great, he has to
be outstanding, and he is all those things. Yet we are very nervous
about getting 51 votes. We are very nervous that politics is being
played. We don't know what is going to happen at the end of the day.
That is why I am taking this time, because I want my colleagues to know
that if they cast an ``aye'' vote, it should bring a smile to their
faces, and they should feel good in their hearts and their minds that
they are doing the right thing.
Twenty-five prominent Asian-Pacific Americans who serve as general
counsel to Fortune 1000 companies and other large companies wrote:
Professor Liu has earned praise from conservatives and
progressives alike for his sense of fairness, open-
mindedness, and integrity. His intellect and qualifications
are beyond dispute. Indeed, Professor Liu has been rated
unanimously ``well-qualified'' by the American Bar
Association.
They go on:
It is worth noting that Professor Liu, if confirmed, would
become the only Asian Pacific American active appellate court
judge in the Ninth Circuit, and only the second Asian Pacific
American active appellate court judge nationwide. Especially
given the large number of Asian Pacific Americans in
California, Hawaii, and other states, covered by the Ninth
Circuit--
And I said before I think it is 40 percent of Asian Americans who
live in this particular area that the court covers--
the lack of an Asian Pacific American judge in this circuit
is striking. We feel that Professor Liu would serve our
country well and with distinction.
Professor Liu has drawn law enforcement support, including the
California Correctional Peace Officers Association, as well as the
National Asian Peace Officers Association, which noted that Professor
Liu has ``earned the respect of [its] members and the large audience of
the law enforcement community.''
David Lum, the president of National Asian Peace Officers
Association, went on to compliment Liu as ``a person of integrity,
dedication, passion, enthusiasm, and law and order.''
Liu has also received support from the business community, including
from the prominent business executives with whom Liu served on the
Stanford University board of trustees. In a letter of support, Liu's
fellow trustees wrote the following:
Across a wide range of complex issues, Goodwin routinely
asks thoughtful and incisive questions. He is good at
thinking independently and zeroing in on important issues
that need attention. Even in a room full of highly
accomplished leaders, Goodwin is impressive. He is
insightful, constructive, and a good listener. Moreover, he
possesses a remarkably even temperament; his demeanor is
unfailingly respectful and open-minded, never dogmatic or
inflexible. Given these qualities, it was no surprise that he
was asked to chair the board's Special Committee on
Investment Responsibility after serving just one year of his
five-year term.
Again and again, there is a thread running through this man's life at
40. That is how old he is, 40--40 years old. Everything this man has
done, this young man has been unbelievably--I want to say unimaginable
at his age that he has done all he has done.
They continue:
In short, Goodwin's strengths are exactly what we expect in
a judge: objectivity, independence, collegiality--
This is what the Stanford trustees say--
respect for differing views, sound judgment. Goodwin
possesses these qualities on top of the brilliant legal
acumen that is well-established by his professional record
and the judgment of those most familiar with his scholarly
work.
It goes on and on.
The President of Stanford University, along with two presidents
emeritus, wrote to endorse Liu's nomination. They said that Liu ``has
epitomized the goal of Stanford's founders, which was to promote the
public welfare by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and
civilization, teaching the blessings of liberty regulated by law, and
inculcating love and reverence for the great principles of government
as derived from the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.''
This eloquence that is coming out of people's mouths about Goodwin--
honestly, I have stood here many times, and I have spoken on behalf of
many nominees. I honestly have not had a situation where the eloquence
and passion of the supporters has come through as it has for this young
man. He is a blessing, honestly. I feel at this moment we need to back
him--all of us--and bring this country together around someone who
epitomizes the American dream.
I want to speak about, as I wind down, newspapers across the country
that weighed in to support Liu's nomination.
The Washington Post remarked that:
Mr. Liu has sterling credentials that earned him the
highest rating from the American Bar Association. And there
have been no allegations of impropriety to disqualify him
from serving. The brilliant professor [they call him], who
just turned 40 in October, testified that he would not allow
his academic musings to interfere with the duties of a lower-
court judge to follow precedent. He should be confirmed and
given the opportunity to demonstrate that he can do that.
I was going to ask unanimous consent because I know Senator Tester
has been waiting for 40 minutes--I ask the Senator, does he need about
5 or 7 minutes in morning business?
Mr. TESTER. Yes.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Tester be able to
speak for 7 minutes in morning business before we get to Senator
Grassley; is that acceptable?
Mr. GRASSLEY. If the Senator is done, that is OK.
Mrs. BOXER. I am almost done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I am closing in the next 2 minutes.
The Sacramento Bee noted that Liu would add luster to any court. The
Los Angeles Times joined the New York Times in endorsing his
confirmation.
We heard from Professor Liu when I opened, and I am going to close by
saying this: When we ask people in this country to give back to this
Nation and they step to the plate and they want to give their talent to
this Nation and they are supremely qualified and they bring with them
mainstream views, mainstream endorsements, bipartisan endorsements from
the progressive community to Ken Starr, for goodness' sake, give this
man an up-or-down vote and do not say that you believe that judges
deserve an up-or-down
[[Page S3093]]
vote when you are in the majority and suddenly say they do not deserve
it now.
I hope we will see the 60 votes for cloture and then the 51 votes for
confirmation. I am privileged to have had this opportunity to share the
story of Professor Goodwin Liu with my colleagues.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I think this is appropriate. I ask
unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.