[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 119 (Tuesday, September 14, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10848-S10849]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       NOMINATION OF RICHARD PAEZ

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Hispanic whose actions and fate I would 
like the Senate to focus on for action is Richard Paez. Richard Paez 
has never been convicted of a crime and is not associated with the 
FALN. He is not a petitioner seeking presidential clemency. Rather, he 
is a judicial nominee who has been awaiting consideration and 
confirmation by the Senate since January 1996--for over 3\1/2\ years.
  The vacancy for which Judge Paez was nominated became a judicial 
emergency during the time his nomination has been pending without 
action by the Senate. His nomination was first received by the Senate 
almost 44 months ago.
  This nomination has now been held even longer than the unconscionable 
41 months this Senate forced Judge William Fletcher to wait before 
confirming his nomination last October.
  Judge Paez has twice been reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary 
Committee to the Senate for final action. He is again on the Senate 
calendar. He was initially delayed 25 months before finally being 
accorded a confirmation hearing in February 1998. After being reported 
by the Judiciary Committee in March 1998, his nomination was held on 
the Senate Executive Calendar without action for over 7 months, for the 
remainder of the last Congress.
  Judge Paez was renominated by the President again this year and his 
nomination was stalled without action before the Judiciary Committee 
until late July, when we were able to have his nomination reported 
again. The Senate refused to consider the nomination before the August 
recess. I have repeatedly urged the Republican leadership to call this 
nomination up for consideration and a vote. If they make time on the 
Senate floor for debate and consideration of a Senate resolution 
commenting on the clemency grant, which is a power the constitution 
invested in the President without a congressional role, the Senate 
should find time to consider the nomination of this fine Hispanic 
judge.
  Judge Paez has the strong support of both California Senators and a 
``well-qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association. He has 
served as a municipal judge for 13 years and as a Federal judge for 4 
years.
  In my view Judge Paez should be commended for the years he worked to 
provide legal services and access to our justice system for those 
without the financial resources otherwise to retain counsel. His work 
with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, the Western Center on Law 
and Poverty and California Rural Legal Assistance for nine years should 
be a source of praise and pride.
  Judge Paez has had the strong support of California judges familiar 
with his work, such as Justice H. Walter Crosky, and support from an 
impressive array of law enforcement officials, including Gil Garcetti, 
the Los Angeles District Attorney; the late Sherman Block, then Los 
Angeles County Sheriff; the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs' 
Association; and the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs.
  The Hispanic National Bar Association, the Mexican American Legal 
Defense and Educational Fund, the League of United Latin American 
Citizens, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed 
Officials, and many, many others have been seeking a vote on this 
nomination for what now amounts to years.
  I want to commend the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his 
steadfast support of this nominee and Senator Boxer and Senator 
Feinstein of California for their efforts on his behalf.
  Last year the words of the Chief Justice of the United States were 
ringing in our ears with respect to the delays in Senate consideration 
of judicial nomination. He had written: ``Some current nominees have 
been waiting a considerable time for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote 
or a final floor vote. . . . The Senate is surely under no obligation 
to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for 
inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.'' Those words resonate 
with respect to the nomination of Judge Paez.
  I trust the American people recognize who is playing politics with 
the issue of clemency. I disagreed with the President's decision, but 
it was his to make. He says that he granted clemency with conditions 
after study and based on a sense of proportion and justice. The calls 
for clemency in these cases came from Bishop Tutu, Coretta Scott King, 
other Nobel peace prize winters, a number of churches and religious 
groups. It has drawn praise in some circles and criticism in others.
  I do not agree with the President, but I caution that the 
overreaching by Republican critics in the Congress on this is 
worrisome, as well. To contend that this shows a weakness of resolve 
against international terrorism is both wrong and may itself be 
creating a dangerous atmosphere.
  We ought to be careful when anyone, let alone the Senate and Congress 
of the United States, start bandying about declarations that accuse the 
United States Government of making ``deplorable concessions to 
terrorists,'' ``undermining national security'' or

[[Page S10849]]

``emboldening domestic and international terrorists.''
  Playing politics with this matter and accusing the President of 
``undermining our national security'' or ``emboldening terrorists'' 
carries significant risks. Could a potential terrorist somewhere in the 
world believe this political rhetoric and be ```emboldened'' by it? 
This is risky business. I do not believe the short-term political gain 
to the other party is worth having the Senate endorse a resolution that 
might itself have precisely that effect.
  The Senate cannot find time to vote on the nomination of Judge 
Richard Paez or that of Bill Lann Lee to head the Civil Rights Division 
or that of Justice Ronnie White to be a Federal judge in Missouri or 
any of the scores of other nominees pending before it. The Senate has 
not completed work on 11 of the 13 appropriations bills that must be 
passed before October 1. The Republican Congress cannot find time to 
consider campaign finance reform or pass a real patients' bill of 
rights or consider raising the minimum wage or reforming Medicare or 
complete the juvenile crime bill conference, but there is plenty of 
time for floor debate and on the President's decision to exercise his 
clemency power. The Senate has had three hearings on judicial 
nominations all year and the Republican Congress will have that many 
hearings on the clemency decision this week.
  In closing, I ask: If the Senate has the time to debate and vote on 
this resolution, why does it not have time to vote on the nomination of 
Judge Richard Paez to the Ninth Circuit?

                          ____________________