[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 31, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9319-S9320]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              A BROKEN AGREEMENT ON A JUDICIAL NOMINATION

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, earlier tonight, at the time of our 
last vote, I was notified that we had an agreement--and let us call it 
kind of a code of honor--that Ann Montgomery, a very fine judge, who 
will be a great judge on the Federal district court in Minnesota, would 
be confirmed here tonight in the Senate.
  Mr. President, for really many, many months now, picking up with 
intensity in the last several months and the last several weeks, I have 
been in intensive discussions with the majority leader, whom I think 
has been operating in very good faith. I felt as if I had received a 
very firm commitment from him--I believe his word is his bond--that 
while there had been some ``soft hold'' put on Judge Montgomery, 
actually at the beginning of this week or by the middle of this week--
it was to be tonight--we would move her nomination forward.
  Mr. President, much to my amazement, after we had an agreement with a 
clear understanding that this would happen, at the last second one of 
my colleagues, the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, objects. And 
when the minority leader, Senator Daschle, asks her why, there is no 
response at all.
  Mr. President, let me just say that it is my firm hope that tomorrow 
we will have this resolved, and if a Senator has a ``soft hold'' on 
Judge Montgomery, then we should--and I certainly hope the majority 
leader will do this. I feel as if he had made the commitment to move 
this nomination forward. Then let us move this forward for a vote.
  I did not ask for unanimous consent. If we need to have a vote, I 
would be pleased to debate with any Senator the merits of this 
nomination. Judge Montgomery has received just outstanding support and 
unbelievable recommendations from across the broadest possible spectrum 
of the legal community; support from myself and support from my 
colleague, Senator Grams from Minnesota.
  So, Mr. President, let me just be crystal clear about it. What is so 
unfortunate is that here you have a fine judge who has been waiting to 
be district judge, has been waiting and waiting and waiting and 
waiting. I was just, I say to my colleague from Iowa, picking up the 
phone to call her. I had just dialed it to say, ``I want you to know 
the long wait is over. Tonight will be the night. Tell your family. 
Tell your children.''
  This is outrageous. And I would appreciate it if my colleagues would 
have the courage to simply defend whatever positions they take, not 
just announce a hold at the last second and then have nothing to say.
  Mr. President, I am confident that we will resolve this. I believe 
the majority leader has given me his word. I think his word is good. I 
know it is good. But

[[Page S9320]]

I have to say to my colleagues, whomever they are--I know it is not the 
Senator from Iowa--if you have a soft hold and you want to keep it 
anonymous, that is one of the procedures that is so outrageous to 
people in the country. We will just move this forward, and we will have 
debate, and we will have a vote.
  Mr. President, I am really disappointed for Judge Montgomery tonight. 
I am absolutely determined that this will be resolved by the end of 
this week. I will do everything I can as a Senator from Minnesota, will 
use every bit of knowledge that I know about this process and this 
Senate, and every bit of leverage I have to make sure that this 
eminently qualified woman becomes a U.S. district court judge.
  I hope we can work in the spirit of collegiality. I certainly did not 
see that tonight.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________