[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 163 (Thursday, November 29, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12129-S12130]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about one of 
the problems we have had over the last few months, which is a failure 
of the majority party to address the issue of nominations sent up by 
the President. This failure has been most blatant, of course, in the 
area of judicial nominations where we now have well over 100 openings 
in the judiciary which have not been filled, which is an extraordinary 
number, especially when you put it in context of the prior 
administration. It is almost 100 percent larger than what the prior 
administration experienced under a Republican Senate.
  There are also, independent of the judiciary nominations, a number of 
other nominations critical to the operation of the Government which are 
being held up by the majority party.
  I rise to speak to one specifically. That is the nomination of Eugene 
Scalia to be the solicitor of the Department of Labor. Most people have 
never heard of the term or the individual solicitor of the Department 
of Labor. It is, however, a significant position within a significant 
department.
  It is the fair arbiter of the laws within the Labor Department. It is 
the place at which the Government represents its cases, the individual 
who carries forward a great deal of the policy of the Government, as it 
has been set forth by the Congress and the Executive.

  Why is Mr. Scalia not being brought to the floor? First off, you have 
to understand that it is not because the nomination hasn't been 
pending. The nomination has now been pending for 213 days. That is the 
longest period of time that any nomination has been pending around this 
body. Ironically, I think the reason it is not being brought forward is 
that it is tied to something that occurred 351 days ago, and that was 
the case of Gore v. Bush, or Bush v. Gore--the issue settled in the 
Supreme Court as to how the Florida law would be applied and the prior 
election, therefore, resolved. You see, Eugene Scalia, through family 
ties, appears to be tied to that case by the majority in the Senate.
  There is a lot of frustration about that case on the other side of 
the aisle. Many of my colleagues, with great energy, believe it was 
decided the wrong way. Many have taken it personally, I suspect. 
Obviously, they have taken it personally because they are applying it 
personally in the case of Eugene Scalia, a relative to one of the 
decisionmakers in that process --of course, Justice Anthony Scalia--and 
who was one of the majority in the decision of Bush v. Gore. Well, 
Eugene Scalia is his son.
  So we now have a scenario where the son has come up for a nomination 
to serve in the Government. I suppose you can argue, well, maybe he is 
not being approved because he was sent up quickly. I pointed out it was 
313 days ago. You may argue he is not qualified. Actually, he is 
extraordinarily well qualified. He is one of the finest attorneys in 
the area of labor law in the country. In fact, five former Solicitors 
General of the Department of Labor have said he is unquestionably an 
extraordinarily qualified individual. To quote them, they say:

       We are unaware of any prior solicitor nominee with his 
     combination of academic accomplishment, prolific writing on 
     labor and employment matters, and many years of practice as a 
     labor and employment lawyer.

  That is five prior Solicitors of the Department. They have said this 
is a great nomination. It is not because he holds views that are 
antithetical or inappropriate to the position. In fact, he strongly is 
supported by some of the leading civil rights attorneys in this 
country; for example, William Coleman, who is one of the leading civil 
rights attorneys in our Nation's history, said that Eugene Scalia would 
be among the best lawyers who have ever held the important position--
the position of Solicitor of the Department of Labor. He went on to 
say:

       Eugene Scalia is a bright, sophisticated lawyer whose 
     writings are well within the mainstream of ideas.

  So he is not being attacked because he doesn't have the ability. He 
has all the ability you could possibly want. In fact, it is great that 
we can attract people of his talent and capability to public service. 
No, Eugene Scalia--Scalia the younger--is being attacked because of 
Scalia the elder. You might say, well, maybe he came up too quickly. We 
pointed out that isn't right.
  Maybe he doesn't qualify. That is not true either.
  Maybe he holds outrageous opinions. Actually, during the hearing 
process, the only significant attack made on his writings was a 
disagreement over his position on ergonomics. Eugene Scalia committed 
the ``cardinal sin'' of opposing the ergonomics rule as put forward by 
OSHA, so he was aggressively attacked during the hearings--not 
personally but on that issue relative to policy.

  Well, that is OK. You can disagree with him on that policy point, but 
you have to acknowledge that on that policy point he agreed with the 
majority of the Congress. The Congress found the regulation that was 
promulgated by OSHA to be too officious, bureaucratic, 
counterproductive, and we--the Senate and the House of 
Representatives--threw the regulation out.
  In my experience in the Congress, that has only occurred once or 
twice. We as a Congress actually rejected the regulation of OSHA on the 
issue of ergonomics, confirming the arguments that the younger Mr. 
Scalia had made on that issue.
  So it is pretty hard to come to the floor with a straight face and 
say this man should not be confirmed as Solicitor of the Department of 
Labor because he took a position on ergonomics, when that position was 
consistent with the position taken by the Congress earlier this year.
  No, regrettably, the younger Scalia is being held hostage because of 
attitudes toward the elder Scalia. That isn't the way we should govern. 
We should not prejudice an individual because of their race, their 
ethnic background, their gender, and we certainly should not prejudice 
an individual because they happen to be the son of an

[[Page S12130]]

individual who some people do not agree with and who feel antipathy 
towards.
  Eugene Scalia's nomination should be brought to the floor of this 
Senate. If people want to vote against him, that is their right. Then 
if he is defeated on the floor of the Senate, so be it. But let's not 
shuttle him off and hold him hostage to try to make a point to his 
father. That is not right and that is what is being done by the 
leadership of this Senate at this time.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________