Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I will come back to it.

Mrs. BOXER. I appreciate my friend yielding. I will wait.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as one of the two California Senators, this is a very big day for two Californians who have been nominated for the Ninth Circuit Court: In the case of Richard Paez, more than 4 years ago, the longest time anyone has had to wait for a vote in a 100-year history; and Marsha Berzon, nominated a couple of years ago. I am grateful we have gotten to this day. I am very hopeful. In fairness, our colleagues from both sides of the aisle will make a statement on this cloture vote, if we have to have a cloture vote, that they do deserve an up-or-down vote. I will attempt in the next few minutes to put a face on the nominations. I had about 5 minutes to speak yesterday and will take a little bit longer today. I will introduce Marsha Berzon, who is a stellar attorney. She is shown with her husband and her two children. This is a wonderful woman. The whole family has been so excited about her nomination, but every time we think we will have a vote, we don't seem to get there. I say to Marsha and her family: We will have a vote and I am optimistic you are going to be seated on this bench. Marsha Berzon is exquisitely qualified, as is Richard Paez. She is a native of Ohio. She was raised in New York. She now lives in California, is married to Stephen Berzon, shown here. She practices law with her husband and is a mom of two youngsters. She was first nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in January of 1998, and she testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in July of 1998. There was no action on her nomination in the 105th Congress, so her nomination was sent back and she testified on June 16, 1999. Then she was favorably reported out of the committee. We are very hopeful since the committee considered her to be very well qualified that the Senate will agree. Let me give a few of her qualifications. She is a nationally known and extremely well-regarded appellate litigator. She is a graduate of Harvard/Radcliffe College and Boalt Hall University of Law. She served as a law clerk for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge James Browning, and for U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan. She has argued four cases in the Supreme Court of the United States and filed dozens of briefs in the Court in a wide variety of cases. She is praised broadly not only by those whom she had as clients, but more telling, I think, she is praised by the people she opposed, people on the other side of the case. People of both political parties have praised Marsha. I could go on with the extensive quotations of the high regard she is held in, but they were printed in the Record yesterday. She is supported by Senator Hatch. He is also supporting Richard Paez. Arlen Specter is very strongly in favor of her. She is supported by former Republican Senator James McClure of Idaho. She has the support of Paul Haerle, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, First Appellate District in California, who is the former chair of the California Republican Party and a former point secretary to then- Governor and then-President Ronald Reagan. She has tremendous support from law enforcement: From the president of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association; from Arthur Reddy, International Union of Police Associations; Robert Scully, the National Association of Police Organizations; from William Sieber, president of the Los Angeles Professional Peace Officers Association. She has a huge amount of support in the business community which I think is important to those on both sides of the aisle. I ask unanimous consent to have a list of supporters printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. In there you will see deans of law schools. You will see many attorneys who have come to appreciate Marsha. Again, this is a woman who has tremendous support in the community, Republican and Democrat; a fine family member. She will be an asset to this court and I am very hopeful Marsha will receive the overwhelming vote of this body. Did my friend have a question? I would say to my friend, he is, I know, waiting to speak. I also had to wait quite a while. I am going to be about another 15 minutes. So today we have this wonderful opportunity, yes, on Marsha, and we have an opportunity to say yes to another wonderful nominee, Richard Paez. Again, to put a face on it, here is Richard's face. This is a wonderful human being. He is a wonderful judge with many years of experience on the bench. He is a wonderful family man, married to his wife Dianne for quite a while, with two terrific kids. He is very involved with his children's lives, involved in their sports and academic achievements. He is someone most deserving of this honor I hope we are about to bestow upon him. Yes, Richard has waited for 4 years. This has been very difficult for him. It has been very difficult for his family. But I can only say I am not going to look back. I want to look ahead. We are going to have a vote, and I am very hopeful we will see the tide turn in his favor. Everything I see now leads me to believe that. Richard has the support of Senators Hatch and Specter and he just got the public support of Senator Domenici. We have a statement from him, which will take me just a moment to find. I am very pleased about it. Yesterday, Senator Domenici has a statement in the Record. He says: I rise today to announce I intend to vote to confirm Judge Richard Paez to the Ninth Circuit. He has waited 4 years. I believe the time has come. He says: I have reviewed Judge Paez' record, including some of the issues which appear controversial. I am satisfied he has adequately responded to the concerns. I will paraphrase. He talks about those concerns. Then he goes on and says: Mr. President, Judge Paez has earned bipartisan support from a variety of sources. He goes through those. I called Senator Domenici this morning--I didn't have a chance to speak to him because he was at a hearing--to thank him profusely for his support. This is a deserving man. I am proud to see Senators from the other side stepping up to the plate and supporting him. I think it is so important. Richard Anthony Paez was born in Salt Lake City, UT, which happens to be the hometown of our distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He graduated in 1969 from Brigham Young University and received his law degree from Boalt Hall at the University of California at Berkeley in 1972. For 13 years, he served as municipal court judge. Then he was nominated to the district court. He has been in that capacity now for about 5\1/2\ years. As the first Mexican American on that district bench, he has proven himself to be a role model and a real leader. He has won the respect of law enforcement and attorneys who practice in his court. They have analyzed his rulings. We have an amazing article that I have already had printed in the Record. I wanted to refer my colleagues to it. It is from the Daily Journal, a very open, bipartisan review of Richard Paez. People from the most liberal to the most conservative who looked at Richard's record, Judge Paez's record, essentially said his decisions will stand the test of time. His opinions are praised as being well reasoned. So I think we know Judge Paez will be fair. He has received the endorsement of the National Association of Police Organizations, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs' Association, the current district attorney, Gil Garcetti, and the late Sheriff Sherman Block of Los Angeles, Republican sheriff in Los Angeles. Listen to what the LA Police Protective League said: . . . he has a reputation for integrity, fairness and objectivity, all qualities we believe essential for a member of the Appellate Court. The lawyers who appear before him have praised his skills. Yesterday, I read comments from some of them. I will repeat some of these comments: He is a wonderful judge. He's outstanding. He rates a 12 or 13 on a scale of 10. Another one: I don't know anyone here who has not been exceedingly impressed by him. Another: I think he has great temperament. He never says or does anything that's off. He has a very good demeanor. He's very professional. He doesn't have any quirks. So it goes on and on. It is a wonderful thing to be supporting Judge Paez because I feel I have so many objective people saying so many good things about him. A law professor who looked at one of the rulings said: The opinion is clear, concise, straightforward, logical-- I think this is important to my colleagues from the other side-- and provides no indication of the author's personal policy predilections on the issue. . . . [It is] implicitly respectful of the separation of powers among the branches of government. Again, we have so many Republicans supporting Richard outside of this Chamber and, hopefully, enough inside this Chamber so we can get him through. But let me tell you some of those outside the Chamber. Sheldon Sloan, a former California judge, former president of the LA County Bar, the former head of Governor Pete Wilson's Judicial Selection Committee--here is the man who picked the judges for Governor Pete Wilson--wrote a letter to Chairman Hatch, saying that Judge Paez: . . . has performed his duties with distinction and he is held in great esteem by all who worked with him, be the members of the bench or of the Bar. He goes on to say: Richard Paez is a hard-working, experienced, quality Judge. He can be strong without being overbearing and he can be compassionate without being soft. He has been, and he will continue to be, a credit to the judiciary as a whole. The American Bar Association gave Judge Paez the highest rating possible. When I hear colleagues come over here, and they had every right in the world to vote no on this nomination; absolutely. I do not want to overstate it, but I would lay down my life for their right to do what they think is right. But the one thing with which I take issue is when the record is distorted. I do not think it is purposely distorted, but Richard has some people who do not want him to be on the bench, and they distorted things. We have heard things on the floor; that there were games being played in the district court when he got certain cases; that Judge Paez is soft on criminals when, in fact, a review that was requested by Senator Sessions showed, on the contrary, that Judge Paez is tougher than most. This shows his downward departures in sentencing--in other words the times he has sentenced less than the guidelines--were far fewer than the average court. He granted downward departures only 6 percent of the time when U.S. district courts granted downward departures 13.6 percent of the time. So he has been tough. He has an excellent record on criminal appeals. He has not been reversed once on a criminal sentence. I feel he has a strong sentencing record. Then, again, when Senator Sessions says he gave too easy a sentence to certain people, as Senator Specter put in the Record yesterday, he was following what the prosecution asked him to do to the letter. He was following what the prosecution asked him to do. So if there is any gripe about it, it is with the prosecutor. He did what the prosecutor asked. So, I ask my colleagues--I would love to ask Senator Hutchinson how much time he needs on the floor, and Senator Specter, because I have another few minutes, but I would like to accommodate them.

Mrs. BOXER. And my colleague?

Mrs. BOXER. May I make a suggestion, and may I ask a question? I am about to wrap up on Judge Paez and put a number of things in the Record. I have a question. Mr. President, would it be in order to propound a unanimous consent request that Senator Hutchinson be allowed to speak for 10 minutes, Senator Specter for 7 minutes, and I will come back for another 10 minutes so I can give my friends time?

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, it is.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I revise the request to ask for 4 minutes for Senator Specter, 10 minutes for the good Senator from Arkansas who has been waiting, and 10 minutes for this Senator. This is after I finish my remarks, which will be in a moment.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friends. I will conclude about Judge Paez in this fashion. I will have printed in the Record the extensive list of his supporters--elected officials, both Republican and Democratic, national law enforcement associations, California State judges and justices, bar leaders, business leaders, community leaders, attorneys, and Hispanic groups. I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, believe me, this is going to be a very big day for this nominee, for my friend Richard Paez. He is a good man. Before Senator Specter begins, once more I thank him. He has been so fair to this nominee and also to Marsha Berzon. I thank him for his strong support of these two nominees. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I had the privilege to address the Senate for about 15 minutes on the quality of two wonderful Ninth Circuit court nominees who are coming up for cloture votes today at 5 o'clock. I am very hopeful we can, in fact, shut off debate on this and get to the votes themselves tomorrow. These are two excellent people, wonderful human beings, wonderful family members. Their families and they have gone through a difficult time because they have been kind of twisting in the wind--for 2 years, in Marsha's case; in Richard's case, for 4 years--while awaiting this moment. I hope if they are watching today, they feel as optimistic as do I that hopefully it is going to have a happy ending.

Mrs. BOXER

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.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a quick question? I will be very brief.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I say, first, to the majority leader that I appreciate very much his effort to bring the nominations forward, and voting for cloture, because without that we would not be where we are. I want that understood. I state on the Record today that this Senator believes if there is going to be a motion made--which there very well may be because that is the rumor that I hear--to indefinitely postpone a vote on one of these nominees, then I believe that kind of a motion is denying that nominee an up-or-down vote. You can argue that it is really like an up-or-down vote, but after we have gotten over 80 votes, with the help of the majority leader and Senator Hatch, in a bipartisan way--and Senator Leahy worked on that--you would think we could vote up or down. There is no precedent that I have gotten from the Parliamentarian up to this point where he has been able to show me this was done with a judicial nomination after cloture was invoked. I wish to make that point because I don't like to ever blindside my colleagues on anything. I think that if we go this route, it will be interpreted as a way to deny a vote on the nominee, and I hope this will not be the case. Surely, I hope, if it is offered, we will defeat it. But it seems to me a bad precedent. I hope we won't see this go in that fashion. I thank the Chair. I shall not object.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I want my friend to comment on it.

Mrs. BOXER. I hope my friend understands that in the Maria Hsia case there were two trials. The campaign trial he is talking about did not go to Judge Paez. The trial he had with her had to do with a tax evasion case where there was a jury that deadlocked. My friend keeps bringing up these cases injecting politics into this. My friend knows all these cases are taken on a random basis. My friend knows there are rated--

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who were able to work out time back and forth on various issues.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question on this very point?

Mrs. BOXER. The Senator from Massachusetts is correct. I quote from the headlines in this paper: ``Paez's Opinions Praised as Well- Reasoned.'' Another says, ``Experts Say His Rulings Will Stand the Test of Time.'' My friend is right; this is a positive story. I think if every Senator read this story, there would be no question he should be confirmed.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will you let me know when I have used seven minutes? The rest of the time will be yielded to Senator Kennedy. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be here. Finally, we are debating the nominations of Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon, two eminently qualified people for the Ninth Circuit. We have heard a lot of complaining about the Ninth Circuit. I think it is important to note that many of the opinions cited on the other side of the aisle as being overturned were written by Reagan appointees. This isn't about politics. This is about allowing a court to function for the justices, whether they are appointed by Ronald Reagan, or George Bush, or Bill Clinton, to give it their best judgment. We have nominated two people who would add a tremendous amount to the Ninth Circuit. Instead of the negativity we have heard today, I want to put a human face on these two nominees who have waited so long for this day. The first one I want to talk about is Marsha Berzon. I have a photo. Here is Marsha with her husband and children. There is a reason I have done this. I think it is important when we hear about the candidates; they have kind of become statistics. People talk about how many years it has taken. Here is Marsha. Here is her family. I want to talk a little bit about this eminently qualified woman. She is an outstanding woman. She has displayed in her career a strong sense of integrity, dedication, and compassion, the very characteristics we should expect any Federal judge to have. She has built a distinguished career as an attorney, and beyond that she has shown through her activities in the community a real caring and concern. She is an impassioned teacher and a published author. She is a wife and mom. She is an extraordinary person who deserves confirmation. I am not going to go through all of her incredible accolades through college and law school because I have a feeling we will be talking about these nominees at length at another time. I will talk a little bit about her experience with Federal court issues. She specializes in U.S. Supreme Court representation. She has argued four cases before the Supreme Court and has submitted over 100 briefs to the Court on behalf of a broad spectrum of cases. In the past 5 years, she has acted as chief counsel on five Supreme Court cases, as well as cocounsel before the Court on numerous other occasions. This is the kind of support that Marsha Berzon has. Let me read what Senator Hatch wrote in her favor. I am impressed by Miss Berzon's intellect, accomplishments and the respect she has earned from labor lawyers representing both management and the unions. I do appreciate Senator Hatch's kind words and his decisive action in behalf of Marsha Berzon. Former Republican Senator James McClure of Idaho, in support of Marsha, stated: What becomes clear is that Miss Berzon's intellect, experience, and unquestioned integrity have led to strong and bipartisan support for her appointment. Mr. President, the gentleman who ran against me the first time I ran for Congress in 1982, Dennis McQuaid, a Republican attorney, said: Unlike some advocates, Ms. Berzon enjoys a representation devoid of any remotely partisan agenda. He goes on to say: Frankly, her presence will enhance the reputation of the ninth circuit. We can go on and on with quotes from her opposing counsel. She has support from the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association. They wrote that she is analytical, fair and thorough. When it comes to Marsha Berzon, I hope we will have a tremendous vote for her. She deserves that vote. She has waited 2 years. I hope she will get it. Equally important and equally wonderful in terms of a nomination that stands on its own merit is Judge Richard Paez. Look at this man. He has been on the bench for many years. Behind him are photographs of his children. He has been married for many years, another wonderful family man and a wonderful jurist. This Senate has already confirmed Richard Paez to a seat on the district court, and he has shown himself to be an incredible jurist. I don't have time to go through all the accolades. He was the first Mexican American on that particular bench in Los Angeles. He has won the respect of law enforcement, attorneys practicing in his courtrooms, and local scholars. When Members poke holes in Richard's record, we will have time in the next 2 days to respond to every single example because there has been tremendous misstatement. In the remaining short time I have, I will quote lawyers who have appeared before him. These are anonymous quotations that appeared in a review. He is a wonderful judge. He is outstanding. He rates a 12 or 13 on a scale of 10. Another: He is highly competent, one of the smartest people on the bench; thoughtful and reflective. Another: I don't know anyone here who hasn't been exceedingly impressed by him. He does a great job. Another: He is very well represented. He knows more about a case than the lawyers will. And another: He has a great temperament. He never says or does anything that is off. He has a very good demeanor. He is professional. He doesn't have any quirks. He is very fair. He has a sense of justice. It goes on. Mr. President, we have some terrific editorials in behalf of Judge Paez that at another time I will have printed in the Record. In closing this particular brief presentation, I thank my colleagues for listening. We have two incredible nominees deserving a yes vote. I hope we can all celebrate when this is behind us and as a Senate confirm these two excellent people.

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, and, of course, I shall not object, we would like one minute on our side as well. Senator Kennedy and I will divide the time. Thank you.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. Is the Senator aware that Judge Paez has been endorsed by the National Association of Police Organizations, Executive Director Robert Skully, the Los Angeles Police Protective League Board president, the Los Angeles County Police Chief Association, the Los Angeles Association of Deputy Sheriffs, the commissioner of the California Department of Highway Patrol, and a whole host of Republicans and Democrats alike in law enforcement and on the bench? I am surprised that my friend would make the statement that the judge is hostile to law enforcement when, in fact, he has tremendous support from law enforcement.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, I say to my friends.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be read.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.