[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12680-S12681]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      NOMINATION OF BILL LANN LEE

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at this moment I would like to make 
reference to what happened in the Senate Judiciary Committee today 
relative to the nomination of Bill Lann Lee.
  Bill Lann Lee is a Chinese-American who was designated by President 
Clinton to head the Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice. 
It is probably one of the more controversial jobs in the Federal 
Government.
  Civil rights, of course, throughout our history has evoked great 
emotion. Bill Lann Lee is a person, the son of Chinese immigrants, who 
came up the hard way, faced challenges which many of us have never 
faced, overcame them, and then devoted 23 years of his life serving 
with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. It is interesting; he filed some 200 
different civil rights lawsuits in his public career, settled all but 
six of them--settled all but six of them.
  As the mayor of Los Angeles, a Republican, Richard Riordan, said, 
Bill Lann Lee is the mainstream of civil rights law. He is a person who 
looks for practical and pragmatic solutions to civil rights challenges.
  Mr. President, in my estimation, he is exactly the right person for 
this job, and I am glad the President nominated him. What happened to 
Bill Lann Lee today in the Judiciary Committee was a very sad situation 
for Bill Lann Lee. Unfortunately, he did not have the votes and had his 
name been called, he would not have been approved by the Senate 
Judiciary Committee and sent to the floor of the Senate for 
confirmation. So as a result, there was a parliamentary tangle, and 
when all was said and done very little was done after 2 or 3 hours of 
speeches.
  It strikes me as sad that we have now reached a point in this debate 
over race and civil rights in this country where we are headed in the 
wrong direction. It is sad that the leaders of both political parties 
do not look for opportunities to bind the wounds of this country, 
wounds of several centuries over the issue of race, but instead 
continue to look for flash points, buzz words, bringing up issues like 
quotas and preferences and such.
  Bill Lann Lee was asked directly, what is his position on quotas. He 
said, unequivocally, decisively, ``I am against them.'' Bill Lann Lee 
said, ``I am against quotas.'' But if you would listen to his critics 
in the Judiciary Committee today, you would think his answer was 
exactly the opposite. They won't accept yes for an answer. Bill Lann 
Lee said, ``Yes, I am opposed to quotas,'' and yet they continue to 
badger him and say, oh, that isn't what he really means.
  It is ironic, too, when they quizzed him about the important Supreme 
Court decisions in the area of civil rights, he gave what I thought 
were very cogent, thoughtful answers and complete to the best of his 
ability. In fact, his answers, as the New York Times reported this 
morning, were virtually identical to the answers of Seth Waxman, a man 
who sought the position of Solicitor General, who was well qualified 
for the job, and was approved by the Judiciary Committee and by the 
Senate without much of any kind of resistance. But along comes Bill 
Lann Lee, and for some reason, giving the same answers to the same 
questions, he is being rejected.
  I said today in the Judiciary Committee that I wasn't certain that if 
Thurgood Marshall's name had been submitted today to head the Civil 
Rights Division, he could have made it through that committee. In fact, 
I will go beyond that; he could not have made it through that committee 
because, you see, Thurgood Marshall, who distinguished himself in the 
field of civil rights throughout his lifetime and went on to serve this 
country with distinction on the Supreme Court, was an activist, a man 
who actively pursued the cause of equal rights in America. And I have 
to tell you that the political sentiment in the Senate Judiciary 
Committee is not open to that sort of individual.

[[Page S12681]]

  So now President Clinton faces a dilemma, what to do. After the 
Senate Judiciary Committee action today, or failure to act, should the 
President walk away from Bill Lann Lee and try to find some other for 
the job? I hope he doesn't. I hope he doesn't. I hope the President 
will appoint Bill Lann Lee, as he has the right to do, as a recess 
appointment to this job that will at least give him 1 year to serve in 
this position. He deserves it. And in that service he will prove to a 
lot of his detractors that he is up to the job.
  In addition, I might add, if Bill Lann Lee won't make it in this 
position, if Republicans are opposed to him, I am afraid there isn't a 
person the President could send that they would approve because, you 
see, they are not looking for someone who represents the philosophy of 
the administration, the philosophy of the Department of Justice or the 
philosophy of the President. They are looking for someone who 
represents their Republican philosophy. But if I understand the 
Constitution in its basic form, the people of America spoke last 
November and said that Bill Clinton was to be the President. They 
endorsed his philosophy over Bob Dole and other candidates, and now 
when he tries to appoint people to positions to carry out that 
philosophy, they say, no, we are not going to let that happen.
  That is a sad situation, sadder still when you think about how this 
has developed to a point where what was a bipartisan consensus on the 
issue of civil rights is starting to deteriorate very dramatically. 
Today in the committee only one Republican Senator, Arlen Specter, of 
Pennsylvania, said he would vote for Bill Lann Lee. We needed one more 
out of the remaining nine, and we could not find them. So Bill Lann 
Lee's nomination languished.
  What is sadder still is that this fine man and his beautiful family 
are now left with uncertainty about their future. When he could have 
been preparing to serve this Nation in an important capacity and make 
life better for so many people, his future is in doubt.
  Those who argued that this is just a question of race looked beyond 
the issue of civil rights in its entirety.
  The issue of civil rights goes beyond racial questions into questions 
involving gender, questions involving people with personal physical 
disabilities, questions of ethnic background. The Civil Rights Division 
makes us feel uncomfortable as Americans because time and again it 
forces us to focus our view on things we don't want to talk about. We 
don't want to talk about discrimination at a major corporation against 
African Americans. We don't want to talk about discrimination at a 
major city's police department against women. We don't want to talk 
about meetings of Federal law enforcement officials, as happened 
several years ago, where there were outright racist comments being made 
time and again. Yet we must. Because if this Nation really stands for 
what we believe it does, if it is truly committed to equal rights, we 
have to face the reality that there are times when we have strayed from 
our goal.
  Bill Lann Lee, I hope, will ultimately be confirmed by this Senate, I 
hope not only because he would be the highest ranking Asian American in 
the history of this country but also because, with his life, he has set 
out to prove that having been the son of Chinese immigrants, having 
been someone who is a recipient of an affirmative action program at 
Yale University and also at Colombia Law School, that he could prove 
himself to be up to the task.
  I had a moment this evening, so I took out a card in my desk and 
wrote a personal note to him because I have been thinking about him a 
lot recently. I still remember his wife, his family. I especially 
remember his mother, his mother who is I am sure up in years but I 
won't even try to guess what her age might be. She was a woman who 
worked in a hand laundry in New York for years, and there she sat at a 
confirmation hearing seeing her son who used to run around this little 
hand laundry in New York now being nominated for one of the highest 
positions in the Federal Government. I am glad she got to see that 
nomination, but I am sorry that she had to witness what has happened 
since. She came to this country as an immigrant with hope. Her husband, 
who Bill Lee identified as his greatest inspiration in life, was a man 
who was totally committed to this country.
  During World War II, at the age of 36 when he could have escaped the 
draft, he volunteered, went into the Army Air Corps and served with 
real distinction. When he came out he said to his sons, ``It was the 
right thing to do. They treated me like I was an American--not a 
Chinaman living in America.''
  That lesson was not lost on Bill Lann Lee. It hasn't been lost on any 
of us. I sincerely hope that when we return, some of the rancor and 
some of the negative feelings have abated and that people will consider 
once again the need to look at this important nomination. If there 
needs to be a national debate on affirmative action, the debate should 
take place right here on the floor of this Chamber. Democrats and 
Republicans can argue the merits or demerits. They can talk about 
changes, as we should in any law. But to make this one man the focal 
point of this debate and to literally say that he cannot have an 
opportunity to serve because we as a nation are divided on the 
question, I think is fundamentally unfair.
  So, as we adjourn and go off for another 10 or 11 weeks back in our 
districts and other places, back in our home States, I hope we will not 
forget that we have a responsibility when we return, a responsibility 
not just to Bill Lann Lee but to many others who hope that in a 
bipartisan fashion we can continue to address the issue of civil rights 
in a civil manner.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________