[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7715-7718]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

     NOMINATION OF GEORGE H. WU TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of George H. Wu, of 
California, to be United States District Judge for the Central District 
of California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 20 
minutes for debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking 
member of the Judiciary Committee.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, with this confirmation--and I expect Mr. Wu 
will be confirmed--we will have confirmed 14 lifetime appointments to 
the Federal bench so far this year. This is March. I mention that 
because, when President Clinton was in office and the Republicans 
controlled the Senate, there were only 17 confirmations during the 
entire 1996 session of the Senate.
  For those who think there is partisanship in the confirmation of 
judges, yes, there has been. Fortunately, it has been my friends on the 
other side.
  Today the Senate continues, as we have since the beginning of this 
Congress, to make progress on judicial nominations. The Senate will 
consider and, I believe, confirm the nomination of George H. Wu to be a 
United States District Judge for the Central District of California.
  With this confirmation, the Senate will have confirmed 14 lifetime 
appointments to the Federal bench so far this year. There were only 17 
confirmations during the entire 1996 session of the Senate. I have 
worked cooperatively with Members from both sides of the aisle on our 
committee and in the Senate to move quickly to consider and confirm 
these judicial nominations so that we can fill vacancies and improve 
the administration of justice in our Nation's Federal courts.
  The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts lists 48 remaining 
judicial vacancies, yet the President has sent us only 27 nominations 
for these vacancies. Twenty-one of these vacancies--almost half--have 
no nominee. Of the 20 vacancies deemed by the Administrative Office to 
be judicial emergencies, the President has yet to send us nominees for 
10 of them. That means half of the judicial emergency vacancies are 
without a nominee.
  Judge Wu's nomination has the support of his home State Senators, and 
I thank Senators Feinstein and Boxer for their support of this 
nomination.
  Judge Wu has an extensive record of public service as a State trial 
judge, a

[[Page 7716]]

Federal prosecutor, and a law professor. In his 14 years on the State 
trial bench, Judge Wu has served in the Los Angeles Municipal Court and 
in the Los Angeles Superior Court, handling an array of criminal and 
civil cases. Previously, Judge Wu worked on complex commercial matters 
in private practice for two Los Angeles law firms. Judge Wu has also 
served as a law professor at the University of Tennessee School of Law, 
and as an assistant U.S. attorney and later assistant division chief in 
the civil division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central 
District of California.
  I am pleased that the nominee before us is an Asian-Pacific American. 
I have urged, and will continue to urge, the President to nominate men 
and women to the Federal bench who reflect the diversity of America. 
Racial and cultural diversity remains a pillar of strength for our 
country and one of our greatest natural resources. Diversity on the 
bench helps ensure that the words ``equal justice under law,'' 
inscribed in Vermont marble over the entrance to the Supreme Court, are 
a reality and that justice is rendered fairly and impartially. Judicial 
decisions should reflect insight and experiences as varied as America's 
citizenry. A more representative judiciary helps cultivate public 
confidence in the judiciary which strengthens the independence of our 
Federal courts.
  There is still much work to be done. Out of the 875 seats on the 
Federal judiciary, there are only 5 active Asian-Pacific American 
judges on the Federal bench, less than 1 percent of all Federal judges. 
President Bush has nominated only two Asian-Pacific American candidates 
during his 6 years in office, neither to a seat on a Federal circuit 
court. With outstanding lawyers like Dean Harold Koh of Yale, Professor 
Goodwin Liu of Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California 
at Berkeley, or attorneys Karen Narasaki, John Yang and Debra Yang, it 
is not as if there is a dearth of qualified candidates who would be 
universally endorsed.
  Our Nation has highly qualified individuals of diverse heritages who 
would help to unify our Nation while adding to the diversity of our 
courts. I hope the President will send us more consensus nominees that 
reflect the rich diversity of our Nation.
  I congratulate Judge Wu, and his family, on his confirmations today.


                 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

  Mr. President, this emergency supplemental bill that we are debating 
today has been long seen as our best chance of extricating ourselves 
from the quagmire in Iraq. As one of only 23 Senators who opposed the 
authorization of the use of military force, I have supported every 
credible proposal that has come before this body to bring our troops 
home.
  The war in Iraq was not about September 11. It was not about al-
Qaida. It was not about making our Nation safer. While no one can prove 
a negative, I believe the damage this war has done to our national 
security, our national interest, and our international standing has 
been incalculable. When we had a chance to capture Osama bin Laden, the 
master mind of 9/11, we let him get away because the administration, 
the Bush-Cheney administration, wanted to take our troops out of 
Afghanistan and send then to Iraq, a country that had absolutely 
nothing to do with 9/11. The injustices perpetrated at Abu Ghraib and 
Guantanamo have tarnished our national reputation and leadership, and 
the way Iraq has become a rallying cry for religious extremists has 
made the American people less safe.
  For whatever misguided reasons, the President started a unilateral, 
preemptive war in Iraq which has cost us thousands of American lives 
and made us less safe. I think that historians will look back at this 
war as one of the most costly, reckless mistakes made by any 
administration in this history.
  This supplemental contains another $96 billion to support U.S. 
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I supported the use of 
military force to remove the Taliban from power, and I support the 
continued efforts of our military and NATO forces against the Taliban 
and al-Qaida in Afghanistan. But I did not, do not, and will not agree 
to the use of the U.S. military to continue putting our people in 
harm's way in the middle of a continuing civil war in Iraq.
  This bill also contains money to help the people of Lebanon rebuild 
after the devastating war between Hezbollah and Israel last year, aid 
for refugees in Darfur, the Congo, Uganda, and other humanitarian 
crises, and to prevent the spread of avian influenza. It contains 
resources to help Kosovo as it moves toward independence, for Liberia 
to rebuild after their civil war, and to support the peace process in 
Nepal which finally has a chance to shed its feudal past.
  It contains a provision I sponsored, with the support of both 
Republicans and Democrats, to fix the illogical and unfair provisions 
in the Immigration and Naturalization Act that have been used to 
prevent victims of terrorist groups or members of groups who fought 
alongside the United States from admission as refugees or from 
obtaining asylum.
  As the chairman of the Senate's Subcommittee on State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs, I am also pleased to report the bill 
includes, for the first time, benchmarks on a portion of the 
reconstruction assistance for Iraq. We are not going to continue to 
pour billions of dollars into no-bid contracts that have been plagued 
by rampant fraud and shoddy workmanship. It is about time we put an end 
to the practice of handing out American taxpayers' money with no 
strings attached. These benchmarks reflect what the Iraqi Government 
itself has pledged and what even President Bush acknowledged is 
necessary if the Iraqi Government is to succeed in bringing stability 
to that country.
  So there is much in this bill that I support, but despite that, I do 
not support the funding to continue the military operations in Iraq, 
and I will vote against this bill unless it contains the provision 
relating to the withdrawal of our forces, which is similar to 
legislation which narrowly lost in the Senate last week. I voted for it 
then, and I will vote for it again.
  The withdrawal provision in this bill is not, in some respects, as 
definitive as what passed the House by the slimmest of margins last 
Friday. Like many others, I would have written it differently. I wanted 
a deadline for commencement of the withdrawal of our forces but also 
for completing it within a target date. I have cosponsored legislation 
that contains such a deadline. But this provision represents a 90-
degree change of course from the President's policy of escalation in 
the middle of a civil war. It is our best hope of obtaining the 
majority of votes needed to begin that process. So I am confident that 
once the withdrawal of our troops begins, there will be no turning 
back.
  We have to remove our troops from the Iraq civil war. That argument 
has been made eloquently, including by former senior military officers 
whose credibility is unimpeachable. Retired LTG William Odom, in an op-
ed piece of February 11 in the Washington Post, said it better than I 
ever could. It is the only way the Iraqis will make the difficult 
political compromises that can save their country from further 
destruction.
  The President has threatened to veto this bill if the troop 
withdrawal provision is included. That is not surprising for a White 
House that has stubbornly refused to change course even in the face of 
dwindling support from the American people whose sons and daughters are 
dying. For more than 4 years, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and 
former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, backed by a rubberstamp Congress, 
made one incompetent decision after another, arrogantly insisting they 
knew best and dismissing anyone who so much as questioned their policy 
for ``not supporting the troops.'' It has been reminiscent of the old 
``soft on communism'' and ``soft on drugs'' refrains that were used, 
and still are used, for political purposes to justify failed policies.
  None of us should be intimidated by these worn out arguments. If they 
want

[[Page 7717]]

to show their support of the troops, they should do something about our 
VA system. Fix up Walter Reed and fix up the other facilities where we 
are not giving proper help to our wounded soldiers when they return 
from Iraq. We Democrats want to support those troops, too, and not just 
to be at the parades when they go over but to be there to help them 
when they come back. If this administration wants to support the 
troops, it should have given them the equipment, the training, and the 
armor they still don't get in a war that has lasted longer than World 
War II. And they should take care of the wounded whose bodies, minds 
and lives have been shattered.
  None of us should have confidence in a failed war effort that has 
already wrought enormous toll in American blood, treasure, and 
credibility, not after the fiasco this White House has wrought. It is 
time for the Congress to act as the voice and the conscience of the 
American people.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to urge my 
colleagues to support the nomination of Judge George H. Wu to be U.S. 
district judge for the Central District of California. Judge Wu 
currently serves as a judge on the Los Angeles Superior Court, where he 
has presided since 1996, and before that was a judge on the Los Angeles 
municipal court from 1993 to 1996.
  He came to those judicial positions with an excellent academic 
background--a bachelor's degree from Pamona College in 1972 and a law 
degree from the University of Chicago in 1975. He has an outstanding 
record in the practice of law. He was assistant professor of law at the 
University of Tennessee College of Law from 1979 to 1982. He was an 
Assistant U.S. Attorney in the civil division of the Central District 
of California office in Los Angeles from 1982 to 1989. He later served 
as Assistant Division Chief in the U.S. Attorney's Office from 1991 to 
1993. Judge Wu is very well qualified, rated so by the American Bar 
Association. They unanimously rated Judge Wu as ``well qualified.''
  His nomination to the Federal bench is recognition of the 
contributions of lawyers from the Southern California Chinese Lawyers 
Association, where he was a member from 1984 until the present time.
  I recently spoke at the convention of lawyers from the Asian-Pacific 
American Bar Association, who made the point to me that there ought to 
be more representation, more diversity for judges with a background 
from Asia and specifically from China. There are not very many judges 
representing that particular group. I think it is a good idea to have 
diversity on the Federal bench among people from all walks of life, all 
backgrounds, all national origins, all ethnic representations, and 
applaud his nomination from that point of view, in addition to the 
excellent credentials which I have cited.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of his resume and 
background on two pages be printed in the Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              George H. Wu


  United States District Judge for the Central District of California

       Birth: November 3, 1950, New York, NY.
       Legal Residence: California.
       Education: B.A., Pomona College, 1972; J.D., University of 
     Chicago Law School, 1975.
       Employment: Associate, Latham & Watkins, Los Angeles, CA, 
     1975-1976, 1977-1978; Law Clerk, Hon. Stanley N. Barnes, U.S. 
     Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1976-1977 (and again 
     for brief periods in 1979 and 1980); Associate, Latham & 
     Watkins, Los Angeles, CA, 1977-1978; Assistant Professor of 
     Law, University of Tennessee College of Law, 1979-1982; 
     Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Civil 
     Division, Central District of California, 1982-1989; 
     Associate, LaBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae, Los Angeles, CA, 
     1989-1991; Assistant Division Chief, U.S. Attorney's Office, 
     Civil Division, Central District of California, 1991-1993; 
     Judge, Los Angeles Municipal Court, 1993-1996; Judge, Los 
     Angeles Superior Court, 1996-Present.
       Selected Activities: Member, Committee on Standard Jury 
     Instructions (Criminal and Civil) of the Superior Court of 
     Los Angeles County, California, 2000-2004; Member, Southern 
     California Chinese Lawyers Association, 1984-Present; Member, 
     Federal Bar Association, 1983-1986 (Member, Judicial 
     Evaluation Committee, 1984-1985); Member, Los Angeles County 
     Bar Association, 1983-1992 (Member, Committee on Federal 
     Courts and Practice, 1984, 1985); Member, Barristers--Los 
     Angeles County Bar Association, 1983-1986 (Co-Chairman, 
     Government Attorneys Committee, 1985-1986).
       Judge George Wu was nominated in the last Congress, but his 
     nomination was not acted upon prior to its adjournment.
       President Bush re-nominated Judge Wu on January 9, 2007. A 
     hearing was held on his nomination on February 6 and the 
     Judiciary Committee favorably reported him on March 1.
       Judge Wu is a highly qualified nominee with a distinguished 
     record.
       In 1972, he earned his B.A. degree from Pomona College. In 
     1975, he earned his J.D. from the University of Chicago Law 
     School.
       After law school, Judge Wu became an associate at the firm 
     of Latham & Watkins in Los Angeles from 1975 to 1976.
       Judge Wu subsequently served as a judicial clerk for the 
     Honorable Stanley N. Barnes on the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
     the Ninth Circuit.
       From 1979 to 1982 Judge Wu was an Assistant Professor of 
     Law at the University of Tennessee College of Law in 
     Knoxville, Tennessee, where his courses included civil 
     procedure, torts, and labor law.
       Judge Wu served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Civil 
     Division of the Central District of California office in Los 
     Angeles from 1982 to 1989 and later served as Assistant 
     Division Chief from 1991 to 1993.
       From 1989 to 1991, Judge Wu returned to private practice, 
     this time as an associate at LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae in 
     Los Angeles.
       In 1993, Governor Pete Wilson appointed Judge Wu to the Los 
     Angeles Municipal Court, which handles misdemeanor cases, 
     preliminary felony hearings, and small civil actions. In 
     1996, Governor Wilson elevated Judge Wu to the Los Angeles 
     Superior Court, which handles felony cases and larger civil 
     suits.
       The American Bar Association unanimously rated Judge Wu 
     ``Well Qualified.''

                       Attorney General Gonzales

  Mr. SPECTER. I note we are scheduled to vote on Judge Wu at 12:10. As 
ranking member, I have the balance of the time until that period. I 
choose to use it to comment briefly on a letter which I received 
yesterday from John M. Dowd, who is an attorney for Ms. Monica 
Goodling, who was counsel to Attorney General Gonzales and White House 
liaison. In this letter, Mr. Dowd asserts the basis for having Ms. 
Goodling claim her constitutional rights under the fifth amendment, and 
privilege against self-incrimination, not to testify before the 
Judiciary Committee on our inquiry into the eight U.S. attorneys who 
were asked to resign. Mr. Dowd makes the point emphatically that in 
asserting this privilege against self-incrimination, Ms. Goodling is 
not saying she has done anything wrong and explicitly denies any 
wrongdoing but cites Supreme Court authority for the right of an 
individual to claim the privilege against self-incrimination, even 
those who are innocent, as well as those who might have something to 
hide. There is a firm assertion of her innocence by her attorney and 
her own affidavit.
  I can understand the reasons for this claim of privilege and the 
reasons Ms. Goodling does not want to testify before the Judiciary 
Committee. In Mr. Dowd's letter, he references some of my prior 
statements and then says:

       Senator Schumer has no less than five times characterized 
     the Department's testimony to date as ``false'' or ``a 
     falsehood,'' and concluded that there have been misleading 
     statement after misleading statement, deliberate 
     misstatements.

  If a false statement has been made to a congressional committee, that 
constitutes a crime under title 18 of the United States Code, section 
1001. That was the basis on which the No. 2 man in the Interior 
Department entered a guilty plea during the course of the past week. 
Where there have already been characterizations, as cited by Mr. Dowd 
of Senator Schumer's statement that there are misleading statements 
which have been made, which I state is a crime, I can understand the 
sense of a potential witness in not wanting to be ensnared in that kind 
of proceeding where conclusions have already been reached by Senator 
Schumer who is in charge of the investigation.

[[Page 7718]]

  Mr. Dowd's letter further goes on, citing comments which I had made 
earlier, ``that Senator Schumer is using the hearings''--this is Mr. 
Dowd's statement--``hearings to promote his political party. That is 
not a legitimate reason for the Judiciary Committee to conduct 
hearings.''
  I have said in the Judiciary Committee hearings, in the presence of 
Senator Schumer, eyeball to eyeball, so to speak, that I thought there 
was a conflict of interest. In concluding there was a conflict of 
interest, I did not ask Senator Schumer to step aside. I said that was 
up to him.
  But following the testimony of U.S. Attorney Iglesias, from New 
Mexico, the very next day the Web site of the Democratic Senatorial 
Campaign had Senator Domenici's picture on it, urging his defeat in the 
2008 election. Then, shortly thereafter, there was a fundraising letter 
from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to raise money, 
saying the Democrats were elected to clean up Washington and this is an 
example of what needs to be cleaned up.
  Any of us may be subject to comment in a political situation. Senator 
Schumer has a right to make political hay out of whatever he chooses. 
But I think it is inconsistent with leading an inquiry, and I can 
understand Ms. Goodling's decision not to testify in this context. I 
think it is very unfortunate, because it is very important for the 
Judiciary Committee to get to the bottom of what has happened with the 
request for eight U.S. attorneys to resign. There is a cloud over U.S. 
attorneys, and I think it has had a distinctly chilling effect on all 
93 U.S. attorneys, not knowing what will come next.
  It is generally agreed that the President of the United States has 
the authority, standing, right to discharge U.S. attorneys for no 
reason at all. When President Clinton took office, in one fell swoop he 
replaced 93 U.S. attorneys and no one raised any question. But I think 
not if U.S. attorneys have been asked to resign and have been replaced 
for an improper reason, for a bad reason. Suggestion has been made that 
the U.S. attorney in San Diego, Ms. Lam, was replaced because she was 
hot on the trail of political operatives who may have been connected to 
former Congressman Duke Cunningham, who is now serving an 8-year 
sentence; or the allegation has been made--it has not been 
substantiated but it has been made--that New Mexican U.S. Attorney 
Iglesias was replaced for failure to prosecute a vote fraud case. An 
extended article in the New York Times a week ago Sunday gave extensive 
analysis, which might lead to the conclusion that there was 
justification for Mr. Iglesias's resignation, or perhaps there was not. 
But that is up to the Judiciary Committee to make a determination.
  So it is unfortunate that you have a situation where witnesses are 
not coming forward. It is my hope we would not rush to judgment on this 
matter, that we would avoid conclusory statements, and that instead we 
would wait until we find out what the facts are. If these U.S. 
attorneys were asked to resign for improper reasons, I will be among 
the first to say so.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is true Ms. Goodling's attorney has said 
that she will take the fifth amendment. Now, as both a former defense 
attorney and a former prosecutor, I respect the right under our 
Constitution for anybody to take the fifth so they won't say something 
that might incriminate them and bring about criminal charges against 
them from their own statements. But it is a little bit odd that in a 
letter from Ms. Goodling's attorney, he speaks that she does not want 
to face the fate of Mr. Libby, or words to that effect. Scooter Libby 
was convicted of perjury. He was convicted of obstruction of justice. 
While I realize many believe he is going to be pardoned, those are the 
reasons he was convicted.
  I would have assumed that Ms. Goodling--who has been a very high-
ranking member of the Department of Justice, would come in and tell the 
truth. If she takes the fifth amendment, that's a more difficult thing. 
We won't hear from her. If she feels that what she has to tell us would 
subject her to criminal prosecution, well, that raises some serious 
questions. We hope that others will testify and that they will testify 
honestly. We'll continue to ask people. But it is very, very difficult 
to get the facts when you have key members of the Bush-Cheney 
administration taking the fifth.
  Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. LEAHY. If I have any further time, I yield it back and I request 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of George H. Wu, of California, to be a U.S. District Judge for the 
Central District of California. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), and 
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 115 Ex.]

                                YEAS--95

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Biden
     Brownback
     Enzi
     Johnson
     McCain
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. The President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________