[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 157 (Sunday, November 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12219-S12222]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. LEAHY. Then lastly, Mr. President--I will probably speak on this 
again this afternoon. If we go out, it means there will not be a chance 
to confirm a number of judges who are pending, who have been pending 
for a considerable period of time; one in particular, who has been 
voted out of our committee twice, once last year and again this year, 
Margaret Morrow, one of the most qualified people, man or woman, ever 
to be nominated to be a district court judge.
  We also have what I think is the shocking situation of Bill Lann Lee, 
who has been subjected to some of the most scurrilous charges--charges, 
unfortunately, repeated even by Members of the Senate. The charges have 
been refuted, but need to be refuted in a hearing. We have asked for a 
further hearing on Bill Lann Lee just so those charges can be refuted. 
We have been told that we cannot have that hearing.
  I renew the request. We should have it.
  We talk about civil rights in this country. The civil rights of this 
country are determined by having strong laws and strong people to 
enforce those laws. I do not believe in the better natures of our souls 
as Americans that all of us would support the civil rights of all 
others simply in a vacuum. Many of us would; others do need the 
requirement of a law to do that.
  I would like to think that I am a person who would never break into 
an unlocked, unguarded warehouse in the middle of the night to steal 
things. But we have laws and locks to prevent others who may not feel 
as strongly motivated to obey the commandment: ``Thou shalt not 
steal.''
  By the same token, we set up laws that say: ``You shall not 
discriminate. You shall protect the civil rights of all Americans.'' 
Those laws need to be enforced. We do not have a chief enforcer now. 
The President has nominated Bill Lann Lee, a most qualified person for 
that position.
  Unfortunately, the debate on this fine nominee took a decidedly 
partisan turn when the Speaker of the House chose to intervene in this 
matter and urge the Senate Republican leader to kill this nomination. 
He waited until after the confirmation hearing to raise and 
mischaracterize a case about which no member of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, Republican or Democrat, had asked a single question. Indeed, 
apparently unaware of the decision of his

[[Page S12220]]

party leaders to defeat this nominee, Chairman Hatch predicted on the 
weekend news programs following the hearing that the nomination would 
be reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee but might face tough 
going on the Senate floor.
  In his unfortunate letter, Speaker Gingrich unfairly criticized Mr. 
Lee and accused him of unethical conduct. Since that letter Speaker 
Gingrich's charges have been repeated over and over again. Indeed, 
Senator Hatch devoted an entire section of his statement last Tuesday 
opposing Mr. Lee to the Tipton-Whittingham case. Because of the 
mischaracterizations of this case and the misstatements of Mr. Lee's 
record and because Republican opponents are now distorting and 
contorting Mr. Lee's views, testimony and work, I thought it 
appropriate to request an opportunity for Bill Lee to respond to the 
false charges and impression being espoused by his opposition. I 
thought it only fair.
  On behalf of and along with the other minority members of the 
Judiciary Committee, I sent Senator Hatch a letter yesterday formally 
requesting such a hearing. The chairman refused our request for a 
hearing. That is unfortunate. He explained on a Sunday talk show 
morning that all the questions that would be raised at an additional 
hearing had already been covered and implied that questions about the 
Tipton-Whittingham case had been asked in the extensive written 
questions to Mr. Lee that followed the hearing.
  In fact, no Senator asked a single question about the Tipton-
Whittingham case at the October 22 hearing and, although, Mr. Lee was 
sent page after page of written questions following the hearing, only 
Senator Hatch asked about the case. Unfortunately, Senator Hatch's 
question and its answer have been ignored by those opposing Mr. Lee. 
Speaker Gingrich and others are making false charges and the nominee 
has been given no fair opportunity to set the record straight.

  Let me explain what the Tipton-Whittingham case is about. I regret 
having to discuss this matter at all since it remains a pending matter 
in the District Court for the Central District of California. The case 
includes serious allegations of sexual harassment and gender and racial 
discrimination involving the Los Angeles Police Department arising in 
part from an association of officers, called ``Men Against Women,'' 
which was apparently organized by former Los Angeles Police detective 
Mark Fuhrman.
  The allegations of wrongdoing carelessly lodged against Mr. Lee are 
contradicted by the Republican mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan, 
as well as the vice-president of the Los Angeles Police Commission, T. 
Warren Jackson, the assistant city attorney, Robert Cramer, and the 
city attorney, James K. Hahn. I ask unanimous consent that their 
letters be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I recall when times were different. I 
recall when charges were raised against Clarence Thomas and the 
Judiciary Committee held several days of additional hearings after that 
nomination had already been reported by the Judiciary Committee to the 
full Senate. There was a tie vote in committee on the Thomas 
nomination, which would not have even been reported to the Senate had 
we not also voted virtually unanimously, with six Democrats joining 
seven Republicans, to report the Thomas nomination to the floor without 
recommendation. Of course, ultimately the nomination of Judge Thomas to 
become Justice Thomas was confirmed by the Senate.
  Over the last decade and one-half Republicans have pioneered and 
developed procedures whereby the Judiciary Committee has reported to 
the Senate for its consideration nominations on which the committee had 
come to a tie vote and even, in the case of Judge Bork's nomination to 
the Supreme Court, an overwhelmingly negative vote.
  I recall for example the nomination of Daniel Manion which was 
reported to the Senate after a tie vote and was ultimately approved by 
the Senate. I recall, as well, the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the 
Supreme Court which was reported after a tie vote and ultimately 
approved by the Senate.
  Time after time during the Reagan and Bush years the Republicans on 
the Judiciary Committee urged that the full Senate be permitted to 
decide these questions. Senator Thurmond argued in favor of reporting 
an executive branch nomination on which the committee had voted 
negatively, noting:

       As long as I am a member of this Committee, I will give an 
     opportunity, whether it is majority or minority, to send the 
     nominations to the Senate. I think the Senate is entitled to 
     the recommendation [of the Committee], and you made the 
     recommendation by the vote just taken. But I think the Senate 
     is entitled to a vote on this matter, I think the President 
     is entitled for the Senate to vote, and I think the country 
     is entitled for the Senate to vote. I would hope it would be 
     sent to the Senate and let the full Senate act.

  I have been one, frankly, who has not always supported such action. 
It took a while to bring me around. But I joined in voting to report 
the Thomas nomination after a tie vote.
  It remains my hope that we will find a way to show Bill Lee the same 
fairness that we showed Clarence Thomas and allow his nomination to be 
debated and voted upon by the U.S. Senate. It would be ironic if, after 
the Senate proceeded to debate and vote on the Thomas nomination--one 
that included charges that he engaged in sexual harassment, the 
Republican leadership prevented the Senate from considering a nominee 
because he has worked to remedy sexual harassment and gender 
discrimination.

  I feel confident that this nomination, the first Asian-American to 
head the Civil Rights Division, would be confirmed by the majority of 
the Senate. I believe that when the facts and record are reviewed 
fairly and dispassionately he will be confirmed. When the country has 
had an opportunity to focus on this important nomination and Senators 
have had a chance to consider how their constituents feel, I am 
confident that a positive outcome will be assured.
  From all that I have seen over the past week, it appears to me that 
the Republican leadership is intent upon seeking to kill this 
nomination and determined to kill it in this committee and never give 
the Senate an opportunity to consider it. I do not think that it is 
fair or right or right for the country. We need Bill Lee's proven 
problem-solving abilities in these difficult times.
  No one can argue that the President has sent to us a person not 
qualified by experience to lead the Civil Rights Division. Bill Lee's 
record of achievement is exemplary. He is a man of integrity and honor 
and when he said to this committee that quotas are illegal and wrong 
and that he would enforce the law, no one should have any doubt about 
his resolve to do what is right. The Senate should be given the 
opportunity to debate and vote on this outstanding nominee and then 
give Bill Lee the chance to serve the country and all Americans.
  I think the Senate has committed a great wrong to him in blocking his 
nomination, that is absolutely wrong.

                               Exhibit 1

                                              City of Los Angeles,


                                          Office of the Mayor,

                                  Los Angeles, CA, March 20, 1997.
     Erskine Bowles,
     Chief of Staff, Office of the President,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
     Re: Bill Lann Lee, Candidate for Assistant Attorney General, 
         Civil Rights Division, United States Department of 
         Justice.
       Dear Mr. Bowles: I am writing to support the appointment of 
     Bill Lann Lee to the United States Department of Justice 
     position of Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights 
     Division. Throughout his distinguished career as a civil 
     rights lawyer, Mr. Lee has worked to advance the civil rights 
     progress of the nation and of our richly diverse city of Los 
     Angeles.
       In my opinion, Bill Lee is an astute lawyer who is superbly 
     qualified to enforce our national civil rights laws. Mr. 
     Lee's candidacy offers the President an excellent opportunity 
     to reaffirm his strong support of women's rights and civil 
     rights laws.
       Mr. Lee first became known to me as opposing counsel in an 
     important civil rights case concerning poor bus riders in Los 
     Angeles. As Mayor, I took a leading role in settling that 
     case. The work of my opponents rarely evoke my praise, but 
     the negotiations could not have concluded successfully 
     without Mr. Lee's practical leadership and expertise.
       I know that his expertise is the result of working twenty-
     two years in the ``All Star'' leagues of civil rights 
     litigators. His track record is nationally renowned and 
     speaks for

[[Page S12221]]

     itself. Beyond the many victories, what makes his work 
     special is that he has represented clients from every 
     background, including poor whites, women and children 
     suffering from lead poisoning. His admirable ability to win 
     the trust of so many communities is evident in the broad 
     coalition of civil rights and women's rights experts who are 
     backing his candidacy for this position.
       Mr. Lee has practiced mainstream civil rights law. He does 
     not believe in quotas. He has pursued flexible and reasonable 
     remedies that in each case were approved by a court.
       Mr. Lee is an outstanding citizen of Los Angeles. He has my 
     enthusiastic support and strongest recommendation for the 
     position of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
           Sincerely,
                                               Richard J. Riordan,
     Mayor.
                                                                    ____



                                Los Angeles Police Commission,

                                Los Angeles, CA, November 5, 1997.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: As Vice-President of the Los Angeles 
     Police Commission, and a Governor Wilson appointee to the 
     California Fair Employment & Housing Commission (the state's 
     civil rights enforcement agency), please allow me to clarify 
     the record and give my unqualified support for Bill Lann Lee 
     to be Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. The 
     clarification involves a case entitled Tipton-Whittingham, et 
     al. v. City of Los Angeles, wherein allegations of sexual 
     harassment and sex discrimination in the Los Angeles Police 
     Department (``LAPD'') have been asserted. This case appears 
     to have become an issue in the nomination of Mr. Lee.
       The allegations in Tipton-Whittingham, while disputed in 
     some respects, are serious matters that the LAPD are 
     committed to addressing. Issues of gender bias and harassment 
     have been raised not only by these plaintiffs but also by 
     independent and respected voices such as the Christopher 
     Commission. The parties engaged in arms length negotiations 
     for more than a year before a proposed partial consent decree 
     was submitted for approval to the Los Angeles City Council 
     and then the Court.
       The proposed decree was presented to the federal magistrate 
     only after being vetted by the Police Commission, the Mayor's 
     office, the City Council and the City Attorney's office. 
     While members of the Police Commission, including this 
     Commissioner, and the Mayor's office initially objected to 
     specific provisions of the proposed consent decree, those 
     objections were fully heard and addressed before the decree 
     was presented.
       As you know, that proposed consent decree has not been 
     approved by the Federal Court. In the meantime, the parties 
     are engaged in mediation before Charles G. Bakely, Jr. in the 
     hopes of reaching a complete settlement of the lawsuit. 
     Hopefully, any settlement will ensure that the LAPD of the 
     future is free of racial and gender bias and sexual 
     harassment, and any consent decree will neither on its face 
     nor in operation require or induce unlawful preferences. I 
     hasten to add, however, that the proposed partial consent 
     decree previously submitted to the Federal Court had that 
     same objective.
       As a final matter, in my role as Assistant General Counsel 
     for Hughes Electronics responsible for labor and employment 
     law matters, I have opposed Mr. Lee in employment litigation. 
     I was then and continue to be impressed by his balance, 
     ethics, intelligence and commitment to reaching practical 
     solutions. In my view, he would be an outstanding addition to 
     the Department of Justice.
       Should you have any questions regarding the above, please 
     do not hesitate to call me.
           Sincerely,
                                                T. Warren Jackson,
     Vice-President.
                                                                    ____



                                  Office of the City Attorney,

                                Los Angeles, CA, October 29, 1997.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Senate Majority Leader, 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 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.'' Thus 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.
                                                                    ____



                                                City Attorney,

                                Los Angeles, CA, November 4, 1997.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: As City Attorney of the City of Los 
     Angeles I feel compelled to correct the inaccurate and 
     defamatory allegations in the October 27th letter from 
     Speaker Newt Gingrich about Bill Lann Lee.
       The Speaker's letter charges that Mr. Lee ``attempted to 
     force through a consent decree mandatory racial and gender 
     preferences in the Los Angeles Police Department.'' That 
     assertion is wrong. Mr. Lee participated in two lawsuits 
     against the Los Angeles Police Department several years ago 
     that were resolved by consent decrees, but neither decree 
     mandates the use of racial or gender preferences. In fact, 
     each of them contains provisions forbidding the use of 
     preferences.
       What is most outrageous about Mr. Gingrich's letter is his 
     reference to ``the allegation that Mr. Lee apparently 
     employed dubious means to try to circumscribe the will of the 
     judge in the case.'' There is simply no truth to this 
     allegation. The facts are these. This case, known as Tipton-
     Whittingham, is presently in litigation in district court. 
     There are serious allegations of discrimination and 
     harassment being made by the plaintiffs in this case who are 
     women police officers in LAPD. 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 has 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 been on opposite sides of the 
     negotiating table over the years and we have not always 
     agreed. Yet I respect him for his keen intellect, his 
     profound sense of ethics, and his ability to negotiate an 
     outcome that achieves justice and fairness.
       The United States Senate should not countenance the kind of 
     character assassination based on erroneous information that 
     has occurred in this confirmation process. I'm glad I can 
     help clear the record in this regard.
       Bill Lann Lee is an outstanding lawyer who embodies the 
     highest ethical traditions of that profession and will be 
     vigilant in his defense of the Constitution and the laws of 
     the United States. He should be confirmed as Assistant 
     Attorney General for Civil Rights.
           Very truly yours,
                                                    James K. Hahn,
                                                    City Attorney.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S12222]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________