[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 50 (Thursday, March 21, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2504-S2508]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Nomination of Adeel Abdullah Mangi

  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an exceptional 
American, Adeel Mangi, who is a nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Third Circuit. He is eminently, extraordinarily, very 
impressively qualified.
  He has degrees from Oxford University and Harvard Law School. For 
over 20 years, he has been a highly respected complex litigation 
attorney in one of our country's premier law firms, where he has become 
a star, a star in the legal profession as one of the very best trial 
attorneys in our country.
  Beyond finding success after success professionally for his clients, 
he has spent countless hours providing pro bono services for causes 
fundamental to our American ideals of freedom, liberty, and justice.
  The support of Adeel Mangi has inspired, for his nomination, 
incredible support. It has seen support across the ideological spectrum 
and speaks to the character and integrity of the man. Dozens of 
prominent State and national organizations, ranging from civil rights 
groups, law enforcement associations, anti-hate groups, professional 
legal groups, all have endorsed his nomination, including so many from 
New Jersey and of course the New Jersey State and Federal bar 
associations. Mr. Mangi has received the highest possible rating for 
judicial nominees from the American Bar Association.
  A bipartisan--bipartisan--group of former State attorneys general 
have written in support of his nomination, writing:

       It is our collective judgment that Mr. Mangi is eminently 
     qualified to sit on the Court. Mr. Mangi's legal career has 
     been exemplary of a commitment to the rule of law and 
     upholding constitutional principles.

  Folks from the left, folks from the right, law enforcement, civil 
rights groups, and more--he has not only earned this nomination from 
the President of the United States, but his qualifications from that 
have been celebrated by groups all across our political spectrum and 
people in charge of our public safety in New Jersey.
  Despite all of this though, what is outrageous to me, disappointing, 
and disheartening is that he is facing unimaginable attacks, not on 
anything that he has said or written, not on any of the cases that he 
has successfully tried, but he is facing attacks on his character.
  And these attacks are recalling some of the darkest chapters of our 
Nation's history. The attacks on him are unwarranted. They are 
untruthful. They have no basis in fact. And, sadly, they smack of 
bigotry.
  They intend to exploit people's fears. They intend to exploit 
people's fears of his faith. They are attacks on his character and his 
reputation, attempts to smear, attempts at fear.
  I was blown away when the Republican leader came to the floor today 
and said something I never imagined I would hear on this floor about a 
man of such character.
  He said that Mr. Mangi has ``anti-Semitic affiliations.'' Now, I know 
how people here feel when someone calls someone else racist or a bigot 
or makes accusations of hate, but the Republican leader said he has 
``anti-Semitic affiliations.''
  He said Mr. Mangi ``has repeatedly chosen . . . to mingle with 
supporters of terrorists and cop killers.''
  That is a staggering charge, and yet it is the pattern that we have 
seen against Mr. Mangi--attacks not on his writings, not on his legal 
work, not on anything he has said, one quote that has come from his 
mouth. They are making an accusation that he mingles with supporters of 
terrorism, people who want to threaten the lives of Americans.
  This is a continuation of what he faced in his confirmation hearing.
  I read to you the interrogation that was given to him by the junior 
Senator

[[Page S2505]]

from Texas. When asked if he would condemn an event by the Center for 
Security and Race at Rutgers Law, which had an event with a panelist 
who had been convicted once before of terrorism--an attempt to make an 
association, a trial of his character based on no association--Mr. 
Mangi responded: I never heard of this event prior to today. It was 
never brought to the advisory board, which met once a year to discuss.

  You see, he was on the advisory board of this organization at Rutgers 
Law that met once a year to evaluate scholarly writings to be included 
in an academic journal.
  And so Senator Cruz read a 2021 letter from the Center for Security, 
Race and Rights at Rutgers Law School related to the Israel-Gaza 
conflict. Mr. Mangi, again, explained that he had never seen the letter 
before. He was continuing to press that the letter--and repeatedly 
interrupted as Mr. Mangi tried to answer again and again.
  Mr. Mangi: ``Senator, I said this earlier, but let me repeat it 
because I think it is critical.''
  He is interrupted by Senator Cruz and asked a question that had never 
been asked before to any nominee--ever--before the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. Cruz: ``Do you condemn the atrocities of Hamas terrorists?''
  Mr. Mangi immediately, ``Yes. That was what I wanted to address.''
  Mr. Cruz: ``Is there any indication of those atrocities?''
  Again, a question never asked before.
  ``Senator, I will repeat myself,'' Mr. Mangi says.
  Interrupting him, ``I am going to ask you again, is there any 
justification for those [horrors]?''
  Mr. Mangi: ``This was going to be my next sentence, Senator, which is 
I have no patience, none, for any attempts to justify or defend those 
events. Senator, I don't think anyone feels more strongly than me.''
  And the Senator asked him whether he supported the 9/11 attacks--a 
question posed to no other American before our committee--the attacks 
of 2001.
  Mr. Mangi: ``Senator, I don't think anyone feels more strongly about 
what happened on 9/11 than someone who was there, who saw with my own 
eyes the smoke billowing from the towers.''
  What American is asked such questions? What American has to defend 
their condemnation for the 9/11 attacks? What American has to declare 
that they don't support terrorism? What American? Adeel Mangi, who 
happens to be a Muslim American.
  This is disgusting. This reeks of sort of old-style attacks to appeal 
to fear in order to smear someone's character based upon who they are, 
based upon their faith.
  And an accusation by our Republican leader that Mr. Mangi somehow 
mingles with supporters of terrorists and cop killers, while the Anti-
Defamation League--the preeminent American organization that fights 
against anti-Semitism, the preeminent organization that investigates 
anti-Semitism, the preeminent organization that time and time again 
condemns anti-Semitism--sprang to Mr. Mangi's defense.
  I quote from their letter:

       Mr. Mangi was subjected to aggressive questioning unrelated 
     to his professional expertise or qualifications. Rather, he 
     was forced to provide responses to a wide range of inquiries 
     regarding his views on global strategic considerations in a 
     manner that inappropriately politicized these issues and 
     raised serious questions regarding pretext and bias.
       Just as associating Jewish Americans with certain views or 
     beliefs regarding Israeli government actions would be deemed 
     antisemitic, berating the first American Muslim federal 
     appellate judicial nominee with endless questions that appear 
     to have been motivated by bias towards his religion is 
     profoundly wrong.

  The ADL then called on Senators to offer Mr. Mangi a fair vote, based 
on his qualifications, his fitness for the job, his legal acumen, his 
sense of fairness.
  But the ADL wasn't alone in responding to these attacks on his 
character. As the Republican leader said, ``mingling with supporters of 
terrorists and cop killers,'' ``anti-Semitic affiliations,'' Jewish 
groups jumped to his defense. The American Jewish Committee, the 
National Council for Jewish Women, a coalition of 15 Jewish 
organizations, representing more than a million Jewish Americans, have 
also voiced their condemnation of this line of attack and their support 
for Mr. Mangi.
  In Mr. Mangi's hearings, my colleagues asked the unbelievable that 
any American would be insulted to be asked: Was there any justification 
for 9/11?
  Was there any justification for 9/11?
  Never before asked to any other appellate nominee, but a Muslim 
American has to endure such questioning. This is unique and insidious 
to be directed to the first Muslim ever nominated by a President.
  And yet, even so, Mr. Mangi sat there in that hearing with grace and 
dignity and unequivocally affirmed his patriotism, unequivocally 
affirmed his condemnation of terrorism. With dignity and grace and a 
calm voice, he rejected anti-Semitism outright. He said there is no 
justification for terrorist attacks like 9/11; there is no 
justification for the horrors of October 7; and he reaffirmed his 
belief in the right for Israel to exist. This is all on the record.
  Mr. Mangi has faced accusations that tried to smear his character, to 
whip up fear against him, to turn him into something he is not. But 
this isn't the only angle of unfounded attack. Mr. Mangi is said to 
be--and I quote again--``he is said to be mingling with cop killers.'' 
``Mingling with cop killers''--the absurdity of that statement, the 
falsity of it is extraordinary. It is extraordinary in the face of all 
the law enforcement groups in my State that support him. It is 
extraordinary in the face of all the legal leaders and the law 
enforcement leaders in my State who support him.
  And where does this accusation even come from? What could possibly 
fuel such an accusation? It is because he served on an advisory board 
for a nonprofit called the Alliance of Families For Justice. What does 
this organization do? It supports formerly incarcerated individuals and 
their families through reentry services, legal support, and political 
advocacy. That is the organization.
  And how did he get affiliated with this organization? Well, as a pro 
bono case, he chose to represent the family of an inmate in New York 
State prison, a man who had disabilities, mental disabilities, who was 
murdered by correctional officers. And as is a tradition in our legal 
system, he provided that family not with criminal support but in a 
civil case. And he won that civil case. Not only did he win that civil 
case showing it was a wrongful death, but he won the biggest settlement 
for the family.
  Pastor Julia Ramsay-Nobles sent a letter to the Senate about this 
case. It captures the truth about Mr. Mangi's work with the Alliance 
For Families of Justice. It says:

       Dear Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Graham:
       My name is Julia Ramsay-Nobles. I am a Pastor who lives in 
     upstate New York. I recently learned that my attorney, Adeel 
     A. Mangi, has been nominated to serve as a Circuit Judge for 
     the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. I 
     was so happy and proud to hear the news. I wanted to send you 
     a letter to help you know Adeel as I know him.
       In April of 2015, I received the worst possible news: my 
     brother, Karl Taylor, who was incarcerated in an upstate New 
     York prison, had died. Karl suffered from serious mental 
     health challenges. The prison officials told me that he was 
     ``code blue,'' but did not explain what that meant. I could 
     not get any answers. I felt so powerless and helpless.
       Several months later, a community group introduced me to 
     Adeel and his team of lawyers . . . While I was hopeful--I 
     never give up hope--I also felt skeptical. Why would these 
     people care about what happened to my brother? Would they 
     care about me?
       Over the following five years, I came to know Adeel as a 
     man of integrity and an extraordinary lawyer. He and his team 
     spent five years investigating my brother's death and holding 
     the powerful to account. They delivered the answers that I 
     was seeking, horrific as they were. While we are from very 
     different backgrounds, we formed a close bond that I cherish 
     to this day.

  A Christian pastor, a Muslim lawyer, working together for American 
justice. And that affiliation with this organization focused on helping 
families of incarcerated people, an advisory board that he sat on that 
never had a meeting, where he just agreed to accept cases, that is the 
affiliation which has earned him to be called by one of the most 
powerful people in our country ``someone who mingles with supporters of 
cop killers.''
  That is a lie. It is a lie. It is smearing the character of an 
American who

[[Page S2506]]

stood up for the powerless. It is a lie, an attack on a man because of 
who he is.
  Never before has a judicial nominee before the Judiciary Committee 
been asked to renounce terror, never before has a nominee before the 
Judiciary Committee been accused of such baseless attacks.
  This is the world's most deliberative body, but we have not brought 
the world's most deliberative body to the point where we are not 
evaluating the character or the fitness of a supremely well-qualified 
nominee to serve in our judiciary. But what has this room become now? A 
place where ad hominem, salacious attacks that have no basis in fact, 
in fact, twist the truth, which is: This is a man who stands up for our 
shared values and our shared ideals, who stands for the honor of our 
flag and country. It is character assassination. It is guilt by 
association. It is a cancer on our society.

  We deserve better. Mr. Mangi deserves better. This is a man whose 
parents left their home country, yearning for a better future. They 
worked hard to put him through the best schools they could. They came 
to the United States because they believed in this Nation; they 
believed in our ideals. They had hope for the future that America would 
bring. They are proud Americans.
  He studied at Harvard Law School to pursue a legal career to uphold 
the ideals of justice that we swear to, the ideals of liberty and 
justice for all. He reached the heights of his profession. And because 
at the heights of his profession, he made a decision to serve his 
country, he is before us as a nominee by the President of the United 
States, the first Muslim-American nominee to the Federal Appeals Court. 
This should be a great American story. It should be something we 
celebrate. And yet he is attacked not because of what he has written, 
not because of what he has said, not because of cases he has taken, not 
because of an interview, not because of a college law school or grad 
school paper. He is being attacked by made-up charges that have been 
debunked time and time again by the facts.
  And how would any of us feel if we were applying for a position to 
serve our country--be it on the bench, be it in the military, be it in 
administration--and be subjected to this type of attack and accusation?
  Think about what they are going through now as a family. When you 
Google ``Adeel Mangi,'' when his children do or his grandchildren do, 
do you know what comes up? The Washington Times article which published 
an image that superimposed the green Hamas flag onto his face. When his 
children or grandchildren Google him, what will come up? The Judicial 
Crisis Network, a rightwing front group dedicated to attacking 
President Biden's judicial nominees. They have spent tens of thousands 
of dollars running an ad calling him ``Anti-Semite Adeel,'' complete 
with video of planes crashing into the Twin Towers on 9/11.
  It pains me to repeat those words into this historical record, but 
there is no other way to express how debasingly low groups have gone to 
attack him. It is grotesque.
  When Muslim Americans or any American that has their faith that might 
be different looks to the highest deliberative body in the land and 
what did they do when the first Muslim tried to reach for the appeals 
court to serve as a judge? What happened to him? This is the story that 
will be told. This is toxic. This is dangerous. This is cancerous.
  The attacks recall some of the darkest chapters of our history. It 
speaks back to the time when loyal Americans were sent to internment 
camps, not because of their beliefs, loyal Americans were sent to 
internment camps not because of things they said or they wrote; loyal 
Americans were sent to internment camps just because they were 
Japanese. It goes back to the dark chapters of our country, the Red 
Scare that led to the blacklisting, the persecution, the loss of jobs, 
the loss of reputation because of the Red Scare that was spread.
  There was a courageous Republican who stood on this floor during that 
time of the Red Scare, a courageous Republican. I want to read Margaret 
Chase Smith's words, perhaps to wake up the echoes of this body of how 
horrible and dark this moment is to maybe cast some light.
  Margaret Chase Smith, in the time of the Red Scare, spoke from this 
floor:

       I think that it is high time that we remembered that we 
     have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. I think it 
     is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as 
     amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of 
     trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.
       Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a 
     character prosecution [here] in the Senate, there is little 
     practical distinction when the life of a person has been 
     ruined.

  Margaret Chase Smith continues:

       Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in 
     making character assassinations are all too frequently those 
     who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic 
     principles of Americanism.
       The exercise of [our] rights should not cost one single 
     American . . . his reputation or his right to a livelihood 
     nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or 
     livelihood merely because [of what happens to be his beliefs 
     or, I add, his faith.]

  As a warning to a Republican leader that accuses a good American of 
mingling with supporters of terrorists and cop killers, of saying that 
he has anti-Semitic affiliations, I read these final words of Margaret 
Chase Smith:

       I do not want to see the Republican party ride to political 
     victory on the Four Horseman of Calumny--Fear, Ignorance, 
     Bigotry, and Smear.

  I doubt if the Republican party could, simply because I don't believe 
the American people will uphold any political party that puts political 
exploitation above national interest.
  Adeel Mangi is a great American. Adeel Mangi has served his nation. 
Adeel Mangi has risen to the top of his profession. Adeel Mangi has 
dared to represent the poor against the powerful. Adeel Mangi has 
become the first in our country's history to be nominated by a 
President of the United States to the highest court--to the highest 
appeals court.
  What has he been greeted with? A fair evaluation of his character? A 
fair evaluation of his body of work? A fair evaluation of his writings? 
A fair evaluation of his speeches? A fair evaluation of his 
temperament? No. He has been accused of mingling with terrorists and 
cop killers. He has been accused of being anti-Semitic. Why? Is it 
because he is Muslim?
  I heard a speech against him reading all the groups that stand 
against him. I read some of the supporters: the AFL-CIO; the SEIU; the 
Association of the Federal Bar of New Jersey; the Asian Pacific 
American Lawyers of New Jersey; the Capital Area Muslim Bar 
Association; Muslim American Judicial Advisory Council; Muslim Bar 
Association of New York; New Jersey Muslim Lawyer's Association; 
National LGBTQ+ Bar Association; New Jersey State Bar Association; 
South Asian Bar Association of New Jersey; South Asian Bar Association 
of North America; former attorneys general, Republican and Democrat, 
and U.S. attorneys, Republican and Democrat, of New Jersey; a group of 
New Jersey sheriffs; Hispanic American Law Enforcement Association; New 
Jersey Asian American Law Enforcement Officers Association; LGBTQ Law 
Enforcement Liaison of New Jersey; Muslim American Law Enforcement 
Association; the National Black State Troopers Coalition; NOBLE of New 
Jersey; NOBLE, Region 1; the National Organization of Black Women in 
Law Enforcement; the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and 
Jurists; the American Jewish Committee; the Anti-Defamation League; the 
Alliance for Jewish Renewal; Bend the Arc; Jewish Action; Carolina Jews 
for Justice; Jewish Community Action; Jewish Democratic Council of 
America; Jewish Women International; National Council of Jewish Women; 
New York Jewish Agenda; Society for Humanistic Judaism; T'ruah: The 
Rabbinic Call for Human Rights; the Shalom Center; the Workers Circle; 
Zioness; Alliance for Justice; the Leadership Conference on Civil and 
Human Rights; the National Women's Law Center; the NAACP Legal Defense 
Fund; the NAACP of Hunterdon County; People for the American Way; 
American Indivisible; Muslim Advocates; Muslims for Progressive Values; 
the Republican-appointed Honorable Timothy K. Lewis, former judge, U.S. 
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the U.S. District 
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; members of New Jersey's 
local leadership; former colleagues from a joint defense group;

[[Page S2507]]

Partners of Jewish Faith; the letter I read from Pastor Julia Ramsay-
Nobles; and the list goes on.
  Mr. President, I beg your indulgence because this is one of the 
sadder days I have had in the U.S. Senate. I believe in this place. I 
believe in these values. But I see this moment that we are about to 
take a step to break a barrier in this country. Even the State of 
Israel has had Muslims on their supreme court. But as soon as we try to 
elevate a Muslim man to our court of appeals, he gets attacked by the 
words of the Republican leader for ``mingling with terrorists and cop 
killers,'' for being an anti-Semite, denounced by Jewish groups, but 
yet those charges will forever be a part of this Record, that this 
deliberative body made those allegations against this man.
  Yes, I am sad, and yes, this is personal because my parents told me 
as a little boy, when I was the first one just to go to grade school, 
my brother and I, the first Black children to cross the threshold and 
go to a school--my parents told me: Stand proudly, and pledge 
allegiance to that flag because this country stands for you even though 
your skin color is different. This country's values are your values 
even though you go to a different church in town; that, yes, you may 
face discrimination by people who are cultivating in their baseness of 
values, but don't stop believing in love and community and peace and 
justice. That will light your way--good people from all backgrounds. 
You may be the only Black boy in your class, but it is an American 
classroom, and this country stands for justice and liberty and peace.
  Those values and that faith and that hope have driven me every single 
day to try to make this Nation better and more real. And then 10 years 
into my Senate career, I sit proudly as our President does something 
never done before--to nominate a Muslim for the court of appeals. And I 
see what happens to him. I see him slandered and maligned, dragged 
through the mud and accused of the most heinous things, having to 
defend his beliefs, having to say over and over again that he condemns 
9/11.
  So I want to take this moment to say this is a great American. No 
matter what happens to his nomination, this is a great American who 
should be proud of his work. We should celebrate him whether we vote 
for him or not. We should cherish a moment like this that makes 
history.
  For all of those children in our country who have parents like mine 
who say ``You may be different. You may look different. You may pray 
different. Your family may come from a different corner of the globe. 
But this is still the country for you,'' I tell those children ``Don't 
give up even though this ugly example hangs in the air. Don't give up 
even though this man has been trashed and smeared and maligned. Don't 
give up on this country.'' Do you know why? Because Adeel Mangi has not 
given up.
  You can write him down in history with your bitter, twisted lies, but 
no matter what you do to guys like him or me or everyone who loves this 
country, we will rise. Nothing you can do will ever, ever impinge the 
character of this great American. Nothing you can do will ever dim his 
love for this Nation.
  This is a sad time in the U.S. Senate. More people should be on this 
floor condemning what is happening to this man.
  But, today, I say ``God bless America'' because our truth, no matter 
what others do to it, I promise you, will go marching on.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with me today is Mr. Matt Turner, one of 
my colleagues in my Senate office.
  Mr. President, I want to talk about one of President Biden's nominees 
to be on the Federal Bench, but first I want to digress for a moment.
  I love animals, and I especially love dogs. If only people had the 
hearts of dogs, the world would be better off.
  The Presiding Officer and I, of course, are in the same profession--
politics. Politics takes a big heart and a lot of wind and a thick 
skin. I try not to worry too much about what anybody thinks of me--
except dogs. I really like dogs.
  I used to have a beagle. His name was Roger. I loved Roger to death. 
We lost him a few years ago to cancer.
  Roger was a stray. Actually, Roger was raised to hunt rabbits. If you 
know anything about beagles, when a beagle gets on a scent, the beagle 
is oblivious to everything else. They just follow that scent. Roger got 
on the scent and got lost and showed up at my house, so Becky and I 
took Roger in.
  Roger was a rascal. He was a rascal. He loved us, but he couldn't 
help himself. Whenever there was a small crack in the door, Roger was 
gone. He was out and gone, and he stayed gone 2 or 3 days. I would 
worry incessantly. Oh, is he hurt? Will he come back? I love Roger.
  He would always come back. But about half of the time when Roger 
would come back, he would come back dragging roadkill. I wouldn't let 
him inside with his roadkill, so he would go in the backyard, and he 
would hide his roadkill--he didn't think I was watching--Roger would 
hide his roadkill under the back porch.
  I miss Roger.
  Sometimes--not always but sometimes--the nomination process that the 
White House uses to select Federal judges--the nomination process is 
what I am talking about--looks to me like something Roger was hiding 
under my back porch. I just don't understand it. I don't understand the 
criteria or the process the Biden White House uses to put people on our 
Federal bench.
  Now, I am not suggesting that President Biden hasn't made some good 
nominations because he has, and I voted for his nominations who I 
thought were qualified. But I think it is also--any fairminded person 
would have to conclude that over the past several years, President 
Biden has nominated some people to the Federal bench who, quite 
frankly, are not qualified to judge a pie contest. That is just a fact. 
That is my opinion, but if you go look at the testimony of all of those 
nominees, I think you will see I am right.
  With respect, the President's pick of Mr. Adeel Mangi is, frankly, 
one of his worst.
  Mr. Mangi is affiliated with an organization that calls itself the 
Alliance of Families for Justice--the Alliance of Families for Justice. 
In fact, Mr. Mangi is not just affiliated with this group; he is on its 
advisory board.
  One of the Alliance's founders was a member of a domestic terrorist 
organization. What does that mean? One of the Alliance's founders was 
convicted of murdering police officers in cold blood. He killed cops.
  Now, the Alliance of Families for Justice on whose board Mr. Mangi 
sits--or at least sat--advocates for the release of people who kill 
cops. Let me say that again. I didn't know such organizations existed. 
The organization on whose advisory board Mr. Mangi sits or sat 
advocates for the release of people who kill cops.
  This organization has even called people who kill police officers 
freedom fighters. Freedom fighters. Why? I know that sounds crazy. That 
is because it is. It is also why so many law enforcement organizations 
have sent all of us on the Judiciary Committee letters opposing Mr. 
Mangi's nomination. I have never gotten so many letters or phone calls 
from law enforcement supporting or opposing--in this case, opposing--a 
nomination.
  For example--I am not going to read all of them. I would be here the 
rest of the evening. For example, take the National Sheriffs' 
Association. I think most of us have heard of them. The National 
Sheriffs' Association wrote to all members of the Judiciary Committee, 
and here is what they said. I am quoting now. These are not my words 
but the sheriffs' words. ``Mr. Mangi's association . . . with an 
organization advocating the release of convicted cop-killers is 
seriously disturbing.'' That is coming from the sheriffs.
  According to the National Sheriffs' Association, the Alliance's 
position--on whose advisory board Mr. Mangi sat or sits--according to 
the sheriffs, the Alliance's position ``is not only tone-deaf to the 
sacrifices made by law enforcement [officials], but also disrespectful 
to the victims of heinous crimes, as well as the family and friends of 
officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice.''
  We also heard from the National Association of Police Organizations. 
I think most people have heard of them.

[[Page S2508]]

They said this about Mr. Mangi's nomination: Mr. Mangi's ``conscious 
work with the Alliance shows an anti-victim and anti-police bias that 
would certainly cloud his decisionmaking as a judge.'' That came from 
the police. Those aren't my words; those are law enforcement's words.
  By itself, Mr. Mangi's work for and with this organization that I 
refer to as ``the Alliance'' should be disqualifying, but there is 
more. There is a lot more.
  From 2019 to 2023--4 years--Mr. Mangi also served on the advisory 
board of another group, and this group calls itself the Center for 
Security, Race and Rights--the Center for Security, Race and Rights. 
This organization is steeped in hatred and anti-Semitism. I don't know 
any other way to put it. I think any reasonable person who looked at 
the center's work would agree with me, at least as to my description.
  Now, every single American I know--and I will bet this is true for 
the Presiding Officer too--every single American I know remembers where 
they were on September 11, 2001. We call it 9/11. We don't even have to 
explain ourselves anymore; we just say ``9/11,'' and every American 
knows what you are talking about.
  On the 20th anniversary of 9/11, Mr. Mangi's Center for Security, 
Race and Rights, on whose advisory board Mr. Mangi either sits or sat, 
sponsored an event. Here is the title of their event: ``Whose 
narrative? 20 years since September 11, 2001.'' The purpose of this 
event was to blame America and blame Americans for 9/11. That is why 
they held the event. This event and the speakers there blamed ``U.S. 
imperialism''--not the terrorists; ``U.S. imperialism''--for the 9/11 
attacks that killed thousands of innocent American citizens.
  The event featured some of the most despicable speakers that even the 
most fertile imagination would be challenged to come up with. One of 
those speakers was Mr. Sami Al-Arian. Mr. Al-Arian was convicted of 
providing support to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Another speaker, 
Mr. Rabab Abulhadi, has ties to terrorist hijackers. A third speaker, 
Mr. Hatem Bazian, publicly called for an intifada in the United States. 
Hard men. Rough words. American imperialism.
  Mr. Mangi claims that he didn't know about this event--that is what 
he told the Senate committee--but his center has a long, long history 
of sponsoring vile, hate-filled events, and that is just a fact. That 
is not rhetoric; that is just a fact. Are we really expected to believe 
that Mr. Mangi had no idea what the center was up to? He sat on its 
advisory board, for God's sake.
  Now let's talk about the director of this center on whose advisory 
board Mr. Mangi sat. The director also has a vile history of bad 
behavior. In 2021, the director of this organization on whose board Mr. 
Mangi sat signed a letter. That letter is posted on the Alliance's 
website. So far as I know, you can go to it and read it right now.
  In the letter, the director says that she is ``in awe''--``in awe''--
``of the Palestinian struggle to resist violent occupation, removal, 
erasure, and the expansion of Israeli settler colonialism''--``Israeli 
settler colonialism.''
  Hamas murdered, raped, maimed Jewish men, Jewish women, little Jewish 
children, and according to Mr. Mangi's organization's director, it is 
Israel's fault.
  The center's director describes himself as being in respectful awe. I 
think the vast majority of Americans would describe themselves as being 
nauseated.
  The center's director, of whom I speak, also personally recruited Mr. 
Mangi to serve on the center's advisory board.
  Again, are we really expected to believe that Mr. Mangi didn't know 
about the director's vile behavior? Did Mr. Mangi not even run a single 
Google search on this person?
  On top of all of that, I do not believe--this is one person's 
opinion--I do not believe that Mr. Mangi told me the truth in our 
Judiciary hearing. When I asked him about his involvement with this 
radical organization, Mr. Mangi told me he only provided ``advice on 
academic areas of research.'' That is what he told me. He said: My only 
involvement is ``advice on academic areas of research.''
  Those aren't my words; those are Mr. Mangi's words. But it turns out 
he was also funneling money to the organization--tens of thousands of 
dollars from himself and from his law firm. I didn't know that at the 
time of the hearing. I wish that I had.
  With these facts in mind--and I have tried just to stick to the 
facts--I find it very hard to believe that anyone can in good faith--
no. Strike that.
  I find it hard to believe that a fairminded, objective person who is 
not involved in this nomination can defend Mr. Mangi's nomination. Some 
of my Senate colleagues are doing that. That is OK. Sometimes people 
disagree, and that is a good thing. I believe in having two sides, 
opposing sides, come together in a dialectic. Sometimes that is how you 
find the truth. But it has gotten kind of personal. I regret that.

  Some people--not all people; the Presiding Officer doesn't do this--
some people, when they are losing an argument, tend to rely on 
epithets, you know--``You are a racist'' or ``You are a sexist'' or 
``You are a misogynist'' or ``You are a Nazi'' or ``You are a bigot'' 
or, as in this case, ``You are Islamophobic.'' Some of the Members of 
this body have made that suggestion. They have suggested that all of 
the people who are opposing Mr. Mangi's nomination based on the facts 
that I have just tried to describe as fairly as I could--some Senators 
have suggested that asking Mr. Mangi questions about his involvement 
with these organizations is Islamophobic.
  One of my colleagues--which, again, is his right--came down to the 
Senate floor, and he said that certain Republican members of the 
committee ``believed that he,'' referring to Mr. Mangi, ``must be a 
terrorist because he is a Muslim.'' Wow. That got my attention. That is 
not true.
  I believe that Mr. Mangi is not qualified to be a Federal judge 
because he supports organizations that celebrate people who kill law 
enforcement officers; he supports organizations that hate Americans; 
and he supports organizations that hate Jews.
  When President Biden, as I said earlier, has nominated qualified 
people to serve on the Federal bench, I have supported them regardless 
of their race, regardless of their gender, regardless of their 
religion.
  I confess to asking tough questions in committee. That is my job. 
When you are put on the Federal bench, you are there for life--for 
life. You are unelected, and you are there for life, and you have the 
full power of the United States of America, the most powerful country 
in all of human history, behind you, so you had better get it right.
  Just a few years ago, for example, I voted to confirm one of 
President Biden's nominees, Mr.--now judge--Zahid Quraishi. Mr. 
Quraishi happened to be at the time the first Muslim-American Federal 
judge. I voted for him. He is doing a great job. Unlike Mr. Mangi, 
Judge Quraishi was not on the board of an organization that celebrates 
and advocates for the release of cop killers. He was not on the board 
of an organization that sponsors anti-American events and blames 9/11 
on American imperialism. Judge Quraishi was qualified and is qualified 
to serve on the Federal bench. Mr. Mangi is not. He is just not. That 
is not Islamophobia; that is just a fact. And I think anyone who is 
being honest with themselves--particularly if you go look at the 
confirmation hearings and read the evidence--I think any person who is 
being honest with themselves would agree.
  So, for these reasons, I ask my colleagues to oppose Mr. Mangi's 
nomination, and I urge President Biden to withdraw it.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.