Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I will try to finish in 5. I have not gotten to Marsha Berzon yet. We are setting a record of which we should not be proud. This man has been strung out for 3\1/2\ years. He is a good man. He has a solid record, and we have an obligation to him and his family, the members of the legal and law enforcement communities, to the judicial system itself, and to the Latino community that is so very proud of him. Again, the Senate approved him to the district court. He has served with distinction there. Judge Paez not only served in the district court, but he also served 13 years as a judge on the L.A. Municipal Court, one of the largest municipal courts in the country. He is such a leader that his colleagues elected him to serve as both supervising judge and presiding judge. His support in the law enforcement community is pretty overwhelming. The late Sheriff Sherman Block of Los Angeles, a Republican, supported him. He is supported by Sheldon Sloan, the former chairman of the judicial selection committees for both Senators Pete Wilson and John Seymour. He is supported by Representative James Rogan, who was his colleague on the municipal court. Those who know me and James Rogan know we do not agree on a lot of things. We agree on Judge Paez. He is supported by Gil Garcetti, district attorney for Los Angeles. All these people have written wonderful things about him. James Hahn, the Los Angeles city attorney, says ``his ethical standards are of the highest caliber. . . .'' Peter Brodie, president of the Association of L.A. Deputy Sheriffs, a 6,000-member organization, wrote to Chairman Hatch in support of Judge Paez's nomination. The commissioner of the Department of California Highway Patrol says that ``Judge Paez . . . [is very] well qualified,'' and ``his character and integrity are impeccable.'' We have a good man here. Let's vote him up or down. I know the Senate will vote him in. I know that. I have not only spoken, I say to my friend from Vermont, to Democrats, but I have spoken to Republicans who intend to support him. So he will win that vote. The second nominee, Marsha Berzon, is another example of a longstanding nominee who is being denied a vote by the full Senate. In 1998--Senator Leahy laid it out--she received an extensive two- part confirmation hearing, written questions, written answers, and she extensively answered every question of the committee. In 1999, she was favorably reported out of the committee. Again, she is so well qualified. Marsha Berzon graduated cum laude from Radcliffe College in 1966, and in 1973, she received her Juris Doctor from UC Berkeley, Boalt Hall Law School, one of the greatest law schools in the country. She has written dozens of U.S. Supreme Court briefs and has argued four court cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. She has had extensive experience appearing in Federal appeals courts, and it goes on and on. She has received significant Republican support. Former Republican Senator James McClure of Idaho says: What becomes clear is that Ms. Berzon's intellect, experience and unquestioned integrity have led to strong and bipartisan support for her appointment. J. Dennis McQuaid, an attorney from Marin County, my opponent when I first ran for the House of Representatives in 1982, says of Marsha: Unlike some advocates, she enjoys a reputation that is devoid of any remotely partisan agenda. W.I. Usery, a former Republican Secretary of Labor under President Ford, has said that Marsha Berzon has all the qualifications needed, and he goes on. Senator Specter has said very flattering things about Marsha Berzon. She has strong support from both sides of the aisle. We have lots of vacancies on this court, and we have two fine people who are just waiting for the chance to serve. These people do not come along every day. I want to address myself to the question raised by my friend from Vermont who has shared with me that there have been some independent studies that show, sadly, that if you are a minority, or if you are a woman, you do not seem to get looked at by the Senate; you do not seem to get acted on. You hang around; you wait around for a vote. This is not a reputation the Senate wants. We want to give everyone a chance, and these are two candidates, a woman and a minority, who are so qualified that they were voted out in a bipartisan vote of the committee. I call on my friends on the other side of the aisle who may be holding up these nominees--I do not know who they are. I thought we said you have to come out and identify yourself, but so far I do not know who is holding these up. I beg of you, in the name of fairness and justice and all things that are good in our country, give people a chance. If you do not think they are good, if you have a problem with something they said or did, bring it down to the floor. We can debate it. But please do not hold up these nominees. It is wrong. You would not do it to a friend. You would not do it to someone of whom you thought highly, so do not do it to these good people. They have families. They have jobs. They have careers. They are good people. All we are asking for is a vote. I do not want to see people throughout the country coming to see us in our offices and claiming that women and minorities are not getting fair treatment. That is not what we should be about, and I do not think that is what we are about. But that is the kind of reputation this Senate is getting across this land. We can fix it. We should follow the leadership of Senator Leahy from Vermont because he has said very clearly for many months now: Bring these good people forward. I want to say a kind word about Senator Hatch. Senator Hatch has said to me from day 1: Senator Boxer, when you bring me a nominee, I want you to make sure that not only are they well qualified, but that they have bipartisan support. He looked me in the eye, even though he is a foot taller, and said: You promise me that. I said: Senator Hatch, I will do that. I have done that in these cases. These are two Ninth Circuit nominees who were nominated by the President, but I have supported them and Senator Feinstein has supported them. They got the vote of Senator Hatch because he knows we have been very careful to nominate people who have mainstream support in the community. I promised him that. I have done that. He has been fair to me. I hope all of the Senate will be fair to these two nominees. Mr. President, I thank Senator Bennett for his kindness in giving me the additional time. I look forward to moving forward with these nominees we have before us and certainly, at a minimum, on Marsha Berzon, Richard Paez, and the others who are waiting in the wings for their day. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Well, don't. I don't mean it as a concession.

Mrs. BOXER. I agree that two Republicans out of 55 voted against it in the Senate. I don't know what the point is. I am glad you did, Senator.

Mrs. BOXER. Fine. Then we could say two voted against it the first time in the Senate and when it came back from the conference, four. The point I made is very obvious.

Mrs. BOXER. I congratulate the Senator for that.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER. I stand corrected. I apologize. I know my friend did vote against it.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think my friend makes a very important point about the priorities when he talks about the overall size of this budget of the United States of America. Comparing that with the $200 million we are asking for in this program would add 370,000 children who are awaiting in line. I ask my friend another question. Our friend from Pennsylvania is not supporting our amendment and alludes to the fact that, well, we just can't keep spending more. But yet every Republican, as I remember, voted for an enormous tax cut of billions and billions of dollars. Now that is off the table. I say to my friend, it seems ironic there would be complaints about spending more on education than the bill already provides, when every single one of my Republican friends voted for this huge tax cut to benefit the wealthiest. All we want is to take a relatively small amount of that and put it into afterschool.

Mrs. BOXER. No, it is only two, that is what we were told.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask that the Senator have an additional 2 minutes. I will ask him to yield for a question.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. I am going to make some very brief remarks and then yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts, who is such a leader on education. I will begin just by setting the stage for his remarks. The amendment we have at the desk--and it is cosponsored by many on my side of the aisle--would allow 370,000 children the opportunity to get into afterschool programs. This is a program that works. I understand both sides agree that it works. The difference is that we on this side want to be a little more bold. We want to really say that if education is a priority, and if our children are a priority, we ought to go up to the President's requested level of $600 million for this program. The bill goes up to $400 million. That leaves out 370,000 children. Think of the impact for those children. It doesn't only impact them where they are safe after school. It impacts their parents, their grandparents, their communities, and their neighborhoods. It is a very simple amendment. We use a technique used all through the bill, which is forward funding. We don't touch Social Security or anything else. We simply forward fund it because the school year starts later, and that kind of funding would work. I want to share with my colleagues before you hear from Senator Kennedy that last night the National Association of Police Athletic Leagues was so delighted to hear we had this amendment pending that they got on the phone and called everyone they could in the Senate. I am going to read a little bit from their letter: Dear Senator: The National Association of Police Athletic Leagues is endorsing and supporting Senator Boxer's afterschool legislation, and anticrime amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. It would add $200 million to the 21st century learning center funding. This would total $600 million. This is what the National Association of Police Athletic Leagues says. Our kids need it. They need to be in safe places during nonschool hours. There is no safer place in any community than the school, especially when law enforcement personnel are involved in their activities. This is where PAL plays a part in the afterschool and anticrime amendment. The amendment directly addresses the issue of the juvenile crime rate during nonschool hours by providing productive activities, and improves the academic and social outcome for students. He goes on to explain how the Police Athletic Leagues is involved in afterschool programs. We are very delighted to be here this morning. We are pleased Senator Gregg withdrew his amendment because I think it flattened the issue. We are all for IDEA, and that has been taken care of in the bill before us. But afterschool has been shorted. At this time, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes of time to Senator Kennedy, who is our leader in the Senate on education issues.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. The amendment I have at the desk is No. 1809? I just want to make sure that is what the clerk has.

Mrs. BOXER. We have the vote. It shows two voted against.

Mrs. BOXER. I thought that was correct. How many did vote against it?

Mrs. BOXER. I don't think it was ``quite a few.'' It might have been three. I stand corrected.

Mrs. BOXER. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. BOXER. I want to give my friend some information. I know he fought this tax battle and a lot of the numbers have perhaps slipped away. The number of dollars that would have been lost in the school year 1999-2000 as a result of the Republican tax cut was $5.273 billion in the first year, this year that we are talking about. They were willing to give to the wealthiest people in this country $5.273 billion in the school year 1999-2000. All we are asking is to take the latter part of that figure--the $5 billion we are not touching--the $273 million. When it comes to priorities, I think this vote is very important.

Mrs. BOXER. I was speaking about the vote in the Senate, when the Senate bill came before us. There were two and you were one of the two. I want to make sure the Record shows that.

Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a clarification on a conversation we had a moment ago?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1813

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1885

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. A Boxer second degree. So we can have a straight up-or- down vote.

Mrs. BOXER. It is my understanding that happened an hour ago. We have been waiting to offer it.

Mrs. BOXER. Correct, because I have not seen the actual time agreement. I am waiting to see it.

Mrs. BOXER. I was trying to get a full and complete answer for you, I say to my friend. We are hopeful we will have an agreement. We are waiting to see the final form of that agreement. I would recommend that perhaps the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, could make some comments. And then I have a feeling we will then have reached an agreement. I am sure he would pause in his remarks to accommodate our making such an announcement. I do not think we have a problem. I think we are going to resolve this very well.