[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 150 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11531-S11533]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 SUPPORT OF NOMINATION OF BILL LANN LEE

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have spoken many times on the floor about 
the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to be the Assistant Attorney General in 
charge of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
  Mr. Lee testified before the Judiciary Committee. It was really the 
culmination of the American dream. A son of Chinese immigrants who went 
from living at the family laundry upon his father returning from World 
War II and then on to achieving one of the highest academic records 
ever, and ends up dedicating his life to protecting the civil rights of 
all Americans. At a time when we are discussing what is happening 
regarding the lack of civil rights in the country of his forbears--what 
a marked contrast.
  I am concerned when I hear some Members trying to stall or defeat his 
nomination. They have done it by mischaracterizing Mr. Lee and his 
record of practical problem solving.
  Yesterday, my statement pointed out that the confirmation of this son 
of Chinese immigrants to be the principal Federal law enforcement 
official responsible for protecting the civil rights of all Americans 
would stand in sharp contrast to the human rights practices in China.
  Some are obviously trying to stall or defeat this nomination by 
mischaracterizing Mr. Lee and his record of practical problem solving. 
Bill Lee testified that he regards quotas as illegal and wrong, but 
some would ignore his real record of achievement and our hearing if 
allowed to do so. I am confident that the vast majority of the Senate 
and the American people will see through the partisan rhetoric and 
support Bill Lee.
  Bill Lee has dedicated his career to wide ranging work on civil 
rights issues. He has represented poor children who were being denied 
lead screening tests, women and people of color who were denied job 
opportunities and promotions, neighbors in a mixed income and mixed 
race community who strove to save their homes, and parents seeking a 
good education for their children. Mr. Lee has developed a broad array 
of supporters over the years, including the Republican mayor of Los 
Angeles, former opposing counsels, and numerous others who cross race, 
gender and political affiliation lines.
  Senator D'Amato spoke eloquently of Mr. Lee's qualifications and 
background while introducing him last week. Senator Warner wrote to the 
White House in support of Mr. Lee's candidacy. Senators Moynihan, 
Inouye, Akaka, Feinstein, and Boxer supported Mr. Lee at his 
confirmation hearing last week and Representatives Mink, Beccera, 
Matsui, and Jackson-Lee all took the time to come to the hearings to 
show their commitment to this outstanding nominee.
  To those who know him, Bill Lee is a person of integrity who is well 
known for resolving complex cases. He has been involved in 
approximately 200 cases in his 23 years of law practice, and he has 
settled all but 6 of them. Clearly, this is strong evidence that Mr. 
Lee is a problem solver and practical in his approach to the law. No 
one who has taken the time to thoroughly review his record could call 
him an idealogue.
  Further evidence that Mr. Lee is the man for the job is contained in 
the editorials from some of our country's leading newspapers, including 
the Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, and New York 
Times. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record copies of 
those editorials and articles at the conclusion of my statement, and I 
also ask to be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement, 
a letter from the assistant city attorney from Los Angeles that 
corrects a misimpression that may have been created by a letter 
recently sent by Newt Gingrich.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  As Robert Cramer's letter establishes, Mr. Lee neither sought to 
impose racial or gender quota nor employed dubious means in a case in 
which he, in fact, was not even active as counsel. Mr. Cramer, a 17-
year veteran attorney for the city of Los Angeles, concludes:

       Bill Lann Lee and I have sat on opposite sides of the 
     negotiating table over the course of several years. Although 
     we have disagreed profoundly on many issues, I have 
     throughout the time I have known him respected

[[Page S11532]]

     Bill's candor, his thorough preparation, his sense of ethical 
     behavior, and his ability to bring persons holding diverse 
     views into agreement. He would, in my view, be an outstanding 
     public servant and a worthy addition to the Department of 
     Justice.

  When confirmed, Bill Lee will be the first Asian-American to hold 
such a senior position at the Department of Justice. I am sure that any 
fairminded review will yield the inescapable conclusion that no finer 
nominee could be found for this important post and that Bill Lee ought 
to be confirmed without delay. I look forward to the Judiciary 
Committee voting on this nomination next week and am hopeful that Mr. 
Lee will be confirmed before the Senate adjourns.

                               Exhibit 1

              [From the Los Angeles Times, Oct. 20, 1997]

Fine Choice for U.S. Rights Post--L.A. Attorney Should be Confirmed by 
                        the Senate Without Delay

       Los Angeles civil rights attorney Bill Lann Lee is a smart, 
     pragmatic consensus builder who has proven himself in 
     fighting discrimination based on race, national origin, 
     gender, age or disability. He has the expertise, the 
     experience and the temperament to head the Justice 
     Department's civil rights division. This nomination should be 
     a slam dunk for the Senate. Instead it has become a partisan 
     referendum on President Clinton's continued support for some 
     form of affirmative action.
       If confirmed, Lee, the western regional counsel of the 
     NAACP Legal Defense Fund, would become the first Asian 
     American to manage the 250-lawyer division. He would be well 
     positioned to broaden civil rights enforcement to accommodate 
     the nation's multicultural dynamics.
       Some Republicans are seizing on Lee's opposition to 
     Proposition 209, the anti-affirmative action ballot measure 
     approved last November by California voters. But what else 
     might be expected from a veteran civil rights lawyer? And 
     during his confirmation hearing he promised to abide by the 
     law of the land, which awaits a Supreme Court ruling on the 
     constitutionality of Proposition 209.
       Nominees to the federal civil rights post do often run into 
     political trouble. During the Reagan administration, a 
     Democratic majority blocked the promotion of Bradford 
     Reynolds, who opposed busing and other traditional civil 
     rights remedies. A Bush nominee, William Lucas, was blocked 
     on similar grounds. Clinton's first choice, Lani Guinier, hit 
     a wall of GOP rejection. Later, Deval Patrick was confirmed; 
     he resigned in January.
       Conservatives should love Lee. The son of poor Chinese 
     immigrants who owned a hand laundry in Harlem, Lee made it on 
     merit. He graduated with high honors from Yale and Columbia 
     University Law School and could have enriched himself in 
     private practice. Instead, he has spent 23 years in civil 
     rights law.
       Even legal adversaries admire him. Mayor Richard Riordan, a 
     Republican, was on the other side when the NAACP Legal 
     Defense Fund accused the MTA of providing inferior service to 
     poor, inner-city bus riders. Lee built a strong case, then 
     negotiated a settlement that saved the city substantial legal 
     fees while still achieving more equitable transportation in 
     Southern California. Riordan praised Lee for ``practical 
     leadership and expertise'' that eschewed divisive politics.
       Bill Lee is well qualified to become assistant attorney 
     general for civil rights and his nomination should be 
     approved now.
                                                                    ____


                 [From the Boston Globe, Aug. 27, 1997]

                       Justice for Bill Lann Lee

       Bill Lann Lee is being unjustly booed. President Clinton 
     wants Lee to be the next assistant attorney general in charge 
     of the Justice Department's civil rights division, but 
     critics are branding Lee an extremist.
       Such name-calling is a waste. Lee, a 48-year-old Asian-
     American, isn't a subversive. He's western regional counsel 
     for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. But that 
     worries Clint Bolick. The director of litigation at the 
     Institute for Justice, a conservative Washington public 
     interest law firm, Bolick argues that Lee's organization 
     doesn't reflect mainstream thinking on civil rights. And 
     Senator Orrin Hatch has said he'll search to see whether Lee 
     favors quotas.
       The NAACP Legal Defense Fund isn't a fringe group. It's the 
     organization that brought America Brown v. Board of 
     Education, the 1954 Supreme Court ruling that outlawed 
     segregation in the public schools.
       As for Lee, even past legal opponents call him a pragmatic 
     problem-solver. One example is a 1994 federal civil rights 
     class-action suit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan 
     Transportation Authority. The suit charged that resources 
     were unfairly distributed: The suburbs were overserved; the 
     inner city was underserved. Lee focused on solving the 
     transportation problem instead of punishing the 
     transportation system. The resulting settlement will be worth 
     an estimated $1 billion over 10 years to Los Angeles bus 
     riders.
       Lee's career is a crucial reminder that the country can't 
     let the word ``quota'' scare it away from addressing racial 
     injustice. He is part of the Legal Defense Fund's tradition 
     of tackling important but unpopular issues, including 
     environmental racism, police brutality, and housing. And 
     ultimately, it isn't lawyers who create change, explains 
     Theodore Shaw, associate director and counsel for the Defense 
     Fund: they only create a window of opportunity in which 
     change can happen--if communities follow through. As the 
     Senate scrutinizes Lee, it ought to see the merits of his 
     record, one of asking everyone--plaintiffs and defendants 
     alike--to remedy injustice.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Washington Post, Oct. 24, 1997]

                           The Lee Nomination

       In July, the president nominated Bill Lann Lee, western 
     regional counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational 
     Fund, to be assistant attorney general for civil rights. The 
     post had then been vacant for half a year. On Wednesday, Mr. 
     Lee had his confirmation hearing. The nomination now should 
     be approved.
       The choice of Mr. Lee has drawn some limited opposition, as 
     civil rights nominations by either party almost always seem 
     to do these days. In this case, however, even opponents, some 
     of them, have acknowledged that, from a professional 
     standpoint, Mr. Lee is qualified. The issue is not his 
     professional competence. The objection is rather to the views 
     of civil rights that he shares with the president, and which, 
     in the view of the critics, should disqualify him.
       Mr. Lee's views appear to us to be well inside the bounds 
     of accepted jurisprudence. He is an advocate of affirmative 
     action, as you would expect of someone who has spent his 
     entire professional career--23 years--as a civil rights 
     litigator. The president has likewise generally been a 
     defender of such policies against strong political pressures 
     to the contrary. But Mr. Lee himself observed that the 
     assistant attorney general takes an oath to uphold the law as 
     set forth by the courts, and so he would. The range of 
     discretion in a job such as this is almost always less than 
     the surrounding rhetoric suggests.
       Mr. Lee over his career has brought a considerable number 
     of lawsuits in behalf of groups claiming they were 
     discriminated against, and has sought and won resolutions 
     aimed at making the groups whole, somehow defined. It is that 
     kind of group resolution of such disputes that some people 
     object to, on grounds that the whole object of the exercise 
     should be to avoid labeling and treating people as members of 
     racial and other such groups. There is surely some reason for 
     the discomfort this group categorizing generates. But the 
     courts themselves continue to uphold such actions in limited 
     circumstances. And Mr. Lee has won a reputation for resolving 
     such cases sensibly. Los Angeles's Republican Mayor Richard 
     Riordan is one who supports the nomination. ``Mr. Lee first 
     became known to me as opposing counsel in an important civil 
     rights case concerning poor bus riders in Los Angeles,'' he 
     has written. ``The work of my opponents rarely evokes my 
     praises, but the negotiations could not have concluded 
     successfully without Mr. Lee's practical leadership and 
     expertise. . . . Mr. Lee has practiced mainstream civil 
     rights law.''
       There are lots of legitimate issues to be argued about in 
     connection with civil rights law. Mr. Lee's nomination is not 
     the right vehicle for resolving them. Senators, including 
     some who no doubt disagree with some of his views, complain 
     with cause about the continuing vacancies in high places at 
     the Justice Department. This is one they should fill before 
     they go home.
                                                                    ____


                [From the New York Times, Oct. 29, 1997]

                        A Chief for Civil Rights

       The important post of Assistant Attorney General for Civil 
     Rights has been vacant for nearly a year, sending the wrong 
     message about the nation's commitment to enforce anti-
     discrimination laws. President Clinton deserves much of the 
     blame. After the last rights chief resigned, he waited seven 
     months before nominating Bill Lann Lee in July. But the 
     Senate, too, has been slow to move.
       Mr. Lee, currently the Western Regional Counsel for the 
     NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., is a respected 
     civil rights attorney whose efforts to reach practical 
     solutions and build coalitions across racial and ethnic lines 
     have earned praise even from his legal adversaries. He will 
     bring a constructive and conciliatory voice to the national 
     dialogue on race and affirmative action.
       The opposition to Mr. Lee arises largely from resentment 
     among various senators over the Administration's support for 
     some affirmative action programs. There have also been 
     attempts to portray Mr. Lee and the venerable civil rights 
     organization for which he works as out of the civil rights 
     ``mainstream.'' This is a gross misrepresentation.
       Mr. Lee was enthusiastically introduced to the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee last week by New York's Republican 
     Senator, Alfonse D'Amato. With the Senate poised to adjourn 
     in early November, the committee should move quickly to 
     approve Mr. Lee when it meets tomorrow. A delay is likely to 
     kill his confirmation chances until next year.
                                                                    ____



                                  Office of the City Attorney,

                                Los Angeles, CA, October 29, 1997.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Senate Majority Leader, S-230, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
     Re. Bill Lann Lee Confirmation.
       Dear Mr. Majority Leader: As an Assistant City Attorney for 
     the City of Los Angeles--and opposing counsel to Bill Lann 
     Lee

[[Page S11533]]

     in recent federal civil rights litigation--I read with 
     concern the October 27 letter to you from the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives. I believe the Speaker has been 
     misinformed about many of the facts set out in that letter, 
     and therefore the conclusions he reaches about Mr. Lee's 
     fitness for public office, and in particular for the position 
     of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, are 
     unwarranted.
       The Speaker's letter begins by asserting that Mr. Lee 
     ``attempted to force through a consent decree mandating 
     racial and gender preferences in the Los Angeles Police 
     Department.'' This assertion is erroneous. In the course of 
     representing the City of Los Angeles, I have for the past 
     seventeen years monitored the City's compliance with consent 
     decrees affecting the hiring, promotion, advancement, and 
     assignment of sworn police officers. I have negotiated on the 
     City's behalf two of those decrees. Of those two, Mr. Lee was 
     opposing counsel on the first, and was associated with 
     opposing counsel on the second. None of these decrees 
     mandates the use of racial or gender preferences. In fact, 
     each of them contains provisions forbidding the use of such 
     preferences.
       For the same reasons, the Speaker's statement that the use 
     of racial and gender preferences ``would have been a back-
     door thwarting of the will of the people of California with 
     regard to Proposition 209 (the California Civil Rights 
     Initiative)'' is inapposite. Because the decrees with which 
     Mr. Lee was associated do not call for racial or gender 
     preferences, and in fact forbid them, these decrees do not 
     violate the requirements or the intent of Proposition 209.
       Of particular concern to me is the Speaker's reference to 
     ``the allegation that Mr. Lee apparently employed dubious 
     means to try to circumscribe the will of the judge in the 
     case.'' This allegation is wholly untrue. The case being 
     referred to is presently in litigation in the district court. 
     Mr. Lee was not at any time a named counsel in the case, but 
     was associated with opposing counsel because of his 
     involvement in the negotiation of a related consent decree. 
     Neither Mr. Lee nor any opposing counsel attempted in any 
     fashion to thwart the will of the judge supervising the 
     litigation. The matter had been referred by the court to a 
     magistrate judge appointed by the court to assist in the 
     resolution of the case. Each counsel had advised the district 
     judge at all points about the progress of the matter. Upon 
     reconsideration, the district judge elected to assert direct 
     control over the litigation. Nothing in Mr. Lee's conduct 
     reflected any violation of the court's rules, either in fact 
     or by appearance.
       Bill Lann Lee and I have sat on opposite sides of the 
     negotiating table over the course of several years. Although 
     we have disagreed profoundly on many issues, I have 
     throughout the time I have known him respected Bill's candor, 
     his thorough preparation, his sense of ethical behavior, and 
     his ability to bring persons holding diverse views into 
     agreement. He would, in my view, be an outstanding public 
     servant and a worthy addition to the Department of Justice.
           Very truly yours,
                                                    Robert Cramer,
                                          Assistant City Attorney.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 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.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________