[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.
____________________