[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 18 (Wednesday, February 12, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1270-S1271]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NOMINATION OF ALEXIS M. HERMAN, TO BE SECRETARY OF LABOR

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak 
briefly on the issue of the pending nomination of Ms. Alexis M. Herman 
to be Secretary of Labor, and I urge that Ms. Herman be given a hearing 
on the subject so that there may be a determination, one way or the 
other, about her qualifications to be Secretary of Labor.
  I talked at some length to Alexis M. Herman yesterday. A request had 
been made by the White House for me to meet with her, perhaps in my 
capacity as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that has 
jurisdiction over the Department of Labor. And I met with Ms. Herman in 
the context of a number of questions that have been raised about her 
qualifications to be Secretary of Labor.
  There has been an issue raised about her handling of her position as 
liaison for public matters in the Office of Public Liaison, as to 
whether there had been some activities that went over the line in 
political activities or fundraising. I questioned Ms. Herman about that 
at some length, although not in a dispositive form. But it seems to me 
that she is entitled to be heard on the subject and to have a decision 
made one way or the other about whether she is qualified or 
disqualified.
  I questioned her about the circumstances where there was a coffee, 
which had started out in her department, where she had issued an 
invitation to Mr. Gene Ludwig, who was Comptroller of the Currency, to 
a meeting with bankers, at a time when she thought it was going to be a 
substantive meeting and it would not involve fundraising. Later, she 
found out that there were individuals from the Democratic National 
Committee who were involved, and she then did not attend the meeting 
herself, but had not informed Mr. Ludwig about the nature of the 
meeting in order to withdraw the invitation to him.
  There have been other questions raised about the Anti-Deficiency Act, 
and perhaps other matters. But I think it is very important when 
someone is nominated for a position and there is public controversy and 
public comment, that that individual have his or her ``day in court'' 
to have a determination made as to whether she, or he, may be qualified 
to handle the position.
  I thought it was very unfortunate, when Prof. Lani Guinier was 
nominated for a key position, Assistant Attorney General in the 
Department of Justice, that her nomination was withdrawn without having 
an opportunity for her to be heard. At that time, I met with her and 
read her writings and I thought she was qualified. But I thought, 
surely, there should have been a determination by the committee. I 
recall the withdrawal of the nomination of Zoe Baird, who was up for 
Attorney General of the United States, and I recollect when Judge 
Ginsburg had been nominated for the Supreme Court; neither of them had 
finished their hearings. I think it is very important, in the context 
where we are trying to bring good people into Government and, 
inevitably, they are under a microscope, which is the way it is, and 
that is understandable. But they ought to have a chance to be heard and 
have their day in court and have a chance to defend themselves and have 
the public know what has gone on. If they pass, fine, and if they do 
not, so be it. But they ought to have that opportunity.
  I respected the decision made by Judge Bork back in 1987 when he 
wanted the matter to go forward and to come to a vote so that there 
would be a determination, because I think it is very unfortunate and 
unwise that when somebody allows their name to be put forward and you 
have these allegations in the newspapers about misconduct or 
impropriety, the impression is left with the public that that is, in 
fact, the conclusion, if the White House withdraws

[[Page S1271]]

the name--as the White House did with Prof. Lani Guinier--or if the 
person doesn't move forward to a hearing.
  I talked to my colleague, Senator Jeffords, who chairs the Labor 
Committee, and Senator Jeffords has advised me that he is reviewing the 
outstanding questions, and the prospects are that there will be a 
hearing. But after meeting with Ms. Herman and having some say over her 
Department's activities in my capacity as chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I did want to voice my sentiments on this 
subject to urge that her nomination go forward. I do not have a final 
view as to the merits, yes or no. But I think she is entitled to be 
heard.
  Aside from the allegations that have been made about her, she has a 
very distinguished record. She is a graduate of Xavier University and 
has worked in the public and private sectors. She has quite a 
distinguished record as a businesswoman, has served in the 
administration of President Carter, and has served in the current 
administration. She may well be qualified, or the contrary may be the 
case. But I think it ought to be heard so she can have a determination 
on the merits. I thank my colleagues, Senator Hatch and Senator Dodd, 
for allowing me this time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before turning to the subject of my 
amendment here, let me commend my colleague from Pennsylvania for his 
comments. I associate myself with his remarks regarding Alexis Herman 
and the hope expressed by him that a hearing will be held promptly for 
Alexis Herman. She deserves that hearing.
  I have known Alexis Herman for some time. She is eminently qualified, 
Mr. President, to fulfill the position of Secretary of Labor. There 
have been issues raised, and the purpose for which we have hearings is 
to allow those issues to be aired and to give a person an opportunity 
to respond. In the absence of that hearing, of course, the allegations 
remain. In many instances, as the Senator from Pennsylvania has pointed 
out, there is never the kind of opportunity to respond with the same 
voice and the same positioning with which the allegations are 
oftentimes made.
  Under our system it is absolutely essential in my view that she be 
given that opportunity. I am totally confident that she will respond to 
those issues when she is asked publicly to respond to them. It is part 
of the process here going back years that when people are nominated for 
high office in any administration they are always advised not to 
respond or comment but to save their comments for a hearing. Oftentimes 
it happens that the nominee is left in the position of having to face 
an assault of questions that are raised and never gets the opportunity 
to respond because you are advised to the contrary. Then for whatever 
reason, if you never get that hearing, they stay out there.
  So I applaud my colleague from Pennsylvania for coming to the floor 
this afternoon and raising this issue. I join with him in urging that 
our committee--and I sit on the Labor Committee--set up a hearing as 
soon as possible and move forward. Then, as the Senator from 
Pennsylvania has pointed out, the committee and/or this body will 
express its opinion one way or the other. But we will resolve the 
matter and not leave the individual out there to hang, if you will, in 
limbo. With all of the appropriate suggestions that the Senator from 
Pennsylvania has made, as we try to attract people to come serve in our 
Government and they watch examples like this, it is very difficult to 
convince people to step forward when they see what can happen to 
someone who is, in my view, entirely innocent of any of the allegations 
raised but never gets the opportunity to address them.
  So I applaud my colleague.

                          ____________________