[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2254-2255]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to underscore what I have said, what 
the distinguished Senator from California has said, and what others 
have said in support of the Paez and Berzon nominations.
  Judge Paez has waited more than 4 years to have his nomination heard 
on this floor--4 years--notwithstanding the fact that he has the 
highest rating the American Bar Association can give a nominee. He has 
one of the most distinguished records of any nominee, Republican or 
Democrat, to come before this body since I have been here.
  Similarly, Ms. Berzon has waited for more than 2 years, an 
unconscionable period of time--again, a woman with an extraordinary 
background and the highest of ratings from the American Bar 
Association.
  They have for some reason been held to a higher standard than most 
judicial nominees. I do not recall a situation where a nominee has had 
to go through these kinds of hoops to get here and have an up or down 
vote.
  Again, I compliment the majority leader and the Democratic leader for 
helping us put together a successful cloture petition on each of these 
nominations. We have now 85 or 86 votes to move forward.
  I hope the Senate will not shame itself by taking the unprecedented 
step tomorrow of moving to postpone indefinitely either of these 
extraordinary nominees. It is a fact that one can make a motion to 
suspend or indefinitely--that is true--or to indefinitely postpone. One 
can make such a motion. But it would be unprecedented for a judicial 
nominee. We have asked informally and I have asked the presiding 
officer and through him the parliamentarian and no precedent for such a 
motion against a judicial nomination following cloture has been 
provided.
  I defy anybody to point out, certainly in my lifetime--as I said 
earlier, I am 59 years old--to point out in my lifetime where a 
judicial nominee has gone through the extraordinary hoops of multiple 
nominations hearings, being reported favorably twice, having a 
nomination have to be resubmitted by the President Congress after 
Congress, being forced to wait more than 4 years to be debated, getting 
past a filibuster, invoking cloture with 85 or 86 votes--an 
overwhelming majority of the Senate--and then having a motion to 
indefinitely postpone, in effect, to kill the nomination.
  It would shame the Senate, No. 1, to even bring up such a motion, but 
certainly to allow such a motion to be

[[Page 2255]]

successful with a nominee who has been waiting for 4 years, 
notwithstanding the fact that this is a person who is one of the most 
extraordinary Hispanic American jurists we have ever seen, who has the 
highest rating, who is backed by everybody from law enforcement to 
litigators. Judge Paez has been forced to go through these 
extraordinary hoops and his nomination is poised, finally, for debate 
and a fair up or down vote. To have somebody take this unprecedented 
and shameful step of asking us to indefinitely postpone Senate approval 
of this nomination is, in effect, a procedural device to deny that up 
or down vote and kill this nomination.
  The same with Marsha Berzon: This extraordinary woman, reaching the 
pinnacle of her legal career, having earned success every step along 
the way, having earned the highest possible rating from the American 
Bar Association, comes here, has to undergo an extraordinary ordeal and 
this long wait, has to go through the unusual step of a cloture motion 
and our prevailing with 85 votes. Then for the Senate to say to her: 
But now we are going to do something that has never been done before to 
a judicial nominee who has gotten past cloture: We are going to move to 
indefinitely postpone. That is not right.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a quick 
question? I will be very brief.
  Mr. LEAHY. Sure.
  Mrs. BOXER. First, I thank Senator Leahy for his extraordinary 
leadership. I was so taken aback by this. I made some comments to our 
Presiding Officer. It seems to me there is a letter of the law and a 
spirit of the law, there is a letter of cloture and there is a spirit 
of cloture.
  We go through a situation where we say it is unprecedented to even 
have these cloture motions. We don't do it often. It is not 
unprecedented--I think seven or eight times in decades. Now we have a 
new way to go where we essentially would deny that individual an up-or-
down vote.
  I want to say to my friend how articulate he is on this point. I hope 
Senators are listening in their offices. I hope they will view this as 
a violation of the spirit of cloture and certainly will not go down 
this road.
  That is all I can say. My colleague is right on this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the reason I get concerned about this is, 
now, having in excess of 80 votes to go forward with this, we ought to 
have the courage and the honesty to stand up and vote. Senators are 
paid to vote ``aye'' or ``nay.'' They are not paid to vote ``maybe.'' 
It would be a cowardly and disgraceful step to vote ``maybe'' because 
we want to avoid saying what the Senate is being asked to do--to close 
the door to two such extraordinary people. I always respect Senators 
who vote ``yes'' or vote ``no.'' I will not respect Senators who vote 
``maybe.'' That is beneath the dignity of the Senate.
  There are only 100 of us who are elected to represent a quarter of a 
billion Americans. Let us have the courage to stand up and vote either 
for or against these two extraordinary nominees. Let us not play silly 
parliamentary games and tell the American people we do not have the 
guts to vote, that we are going to vote ``maybe.'' I did not get 
elected to serve in the Senate to vote ``maybe.'' I did not serve for 
25 years in a body that I revere to vote ``maybe.''
  I am certainly not going to stand here and allow with no comment 
these two people to be held hostage one more time. Vote for them, or 
vote against them. I certainly urge my colleagues to vote for them.
  In all my years on the Judiciary Committee extending back over 
several decades, I do not know of two finer nominees who have come 
before the Senate, Republican or Democrat. And I voted for most 
nominees, Republican and Democrat, during that time.
  Vote for these two people. At least in that way, apologize for 
holding them hostage all of these years. But, for God's sake, don't 
shame us all by voting for some kind of parliamentary gimcrackery 
saying we will postpone it indefinitely. Vote ``yes'' or vote ``no.'' 
Don't vote ``maybe.''
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________