[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19879-19882]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I came to the floor a month or two ago and 
indicated at that time that I had had conversations with my 
counterpart, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell. I 
related to the Senate that Senator McConnell had said to me that 
judicial nominations were very important to him. I said if that is the 
case, then they are important to me, and that I would do everything I 
could to expedite judicial nominations in spite of what had gone on in 
recent years relative to how Republicans had treated Democratic 
nominees of President Clinton.
  As the majority leader, I take very seriously the Senate's 
constitutional duty to provide advice and consent with regard to all 
Presidential nominees, but especially judicial nominees. The judiciary 
is the third branch of our Federal Government and is entitled to great 
respect. The Senate shares a responsibility with the President to 
ensure that the judiciary is staffed with men and women who possess 
outstanding legal skills, suitable temperament, and the highest ethical 
standing.
  In a floor statement I have given on more than one occasion--I just 
recounted one I gave--I expressed regret that the process for 
confirming judicial nominees had become too partisan in recent years. 
From 1995 to 2000, the Republican-controlled Senate treated President 
Clinton and his judicial nominees with great disrespect, leaving almost 
70 nominees languishing in the Judiciary Committee without even a 
hearing. Some of them were there for 4 years with nothing happening. Of 
course, Republicans have had their complaints--most of which I feel are 
unjustified, but they are entitled to their opinion--about the way a 
handful of nominees were treated in the early years of the Bush 
administration.
  The partisan squabbling over judicial nominees reached a low point 
last Congress when Majority Leader Frist threatened to use the so-
called nuclear option, an illegitimate parliamentary maneuver that 
would have changed Senate rules in a way to limit debate on judicial 
nominations. It would have had long-term negative ramifications for 
this body. At the time I said that it was the most serious issue I had 
worked on in my entire time in Government, that the Republicans would 
even consider changing the rules so the Senate would become basically 
the House of Representatives. The Founding Fathers set up a bicameral 
legislature. The Senate has always been different from the House. That 
is what the Founding Fathers envisioned. That is the way it should 
continue. But the so-called nuclear option would have changed that 
forever.
  The effort was averted by a bipartisan group of Senators that was 
unwilling to compromise the traditions of the Senate for momentary 
political advantage. I was never prouder of the Senate than when it 
turned back this misguided attempt to diminish the constitutional role 
of the Senate just to confirm a few more judges. I believed that had a 
vote taken place, that never would have happened. There were people who 
stepped forward. I had a number of Republicans come to me and say: I 
will not say anything publicly, but what is being attempted here is 
wrong. But remember, we only had 45 Democrats at the time, so we had to 
be very careful what would happen. Rather than take the chance on a 
vote, I was so happy that we had 14 Senators, 7 Republicans and 7 
Democrats, who stepped in and said: That is not the way it should be. 
We were able to negotiate. As a result of that negotiation, we let some 
judges go that with up-or-down votes here, it wouldn't have happened. 
But it didn't work out that way.
  We averted the showdown as a result of the goodwill of 14 Democratic 
and Republican Senators. It went away. That is the way it should have 
gone away.
  But in the 2 years since the nuclear option fizzled, I have worked 
hard, first with Senator Frist and now with Senator McConnell, to keep 
the process for considering judicial nominees on track. I said then 
that if the nuclear option had been initiated, and I became leader, I 
would reverse it. I believed so strongly it was wrong, even though we 
would have had an advantage at the time.
  As Senate leaders, we have worked hand in hand with the very able 
leaders of the Judiciary Committee, Senators Leahy and Specter. In the 
last Congress the Senate considered two Supreme Court nominees--I 
opposed both--Roberts and Alito. In hindsight, I did the right thing 
with the decisions they have made. But I worked with Senators Leahy and 
Specter to make sure both nominees received prompt, fair, and thorough 
consideration in the committee and on the Senate floor.
  After Senate Democrats gained a majority in last November's 
elections, I publicly pledged that the Senate would continue to process 
judicial nominees in due course and in good faith. I explained that I 
could not commit to a specific number of confirmations because the 
right way to measure the success of this process is the quality of the 
nominees, rather than the quantity of nominees and, ultimately, judges. 
I said the Senate will work hard to confirm mainstream, capable, 
experienced nominees who are the product of bipartisan cooperation. 
President Bush made a wise decision at the beginning of this Congress 
by not resubmitting a number of controversial judicial nominations from 
previous years. I took that as a sign of good faith and have tried to 
reciprocate by working with Chairman Leahy to confirm noncontroversial 
nominees in an expeditious fashion.
  So far this year we have confirmed three court of appeals nominees. 
Again in hindsight, that is three more than were confirmed in a similar 
year in the last Clinton term. But we have confirmed three, including a 
nomination to the Ninth Circuit about which there was some dispute as 
to whether the seat should be filled by a Californian or someone from 
Idaho. We have also confirmed 22 district court nominees, and

[[Page 19880]]

we continue to vote on those at a steady pace.
  The judicial confirmation process is working well. We have confirmed 
25 judges. It is certainly working much better than it worked when 
there was a Republican Senate processing President Clinton's nominees. 
As a result, the judicial vacancy rate is at an all-time low. I have 
said on the floor and publicly, this is not payback time with judges. 
We are going to treat the Republican nominees differently than they 
treated our nominees.
  But all of this hard work cannot prevent good-faith disagreements 
about the merits of particular nominations. There is one nomination 
pending in the Judiciary Committee that has aroused significant 
controversy, the nomination of former Mississippi State Judge Leslie 
Southwick to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Senator Specter 
recently said that I told Senator McConnell that Judge Southwick would 
be confirmed by Memorial Day. Obviously, I can only commit to my own 
actions, not the actions of others. But I did urge strongly that the 
Judiciary Committee hold hearings on this, and they did. I urged 
strongly that this matter be moved as expeditiously as possible, and it 
has. I urged the Judiciary Committee to do everything it could to move 
this along, and they did. The problem was, the nomination proved to be 
controversial and, therefore, it has not moved forward.
  The Judiciary Committee has not yet voted on Judge Southwick. But as 
reported in the press, some Republicans are already threatening to 
retaliate against the rejection of the Southwick nomination by slowing 
down Senate business. How much more could they slow it down? What has 
gone on this year is untoward. Cloture has been filed about 45 times on 
things that, really, I don't understand why they are doing what they 
do. To threaten, because of the Southwick nomination, that they are 
going to slow things down is absurd because they have already slowed 
things down. They were gearing up to oppose judicial nominees of future 
Democratic Presidents. That is what they have said. This is so 
senseless. I think the reaction would be completely unjustified.
  My pledge that the Democratic majority would consider judicial 
nominees in due course and in good faith was hardly a guarantee that 
every Bush nominee would be confirmed. I was told early on that Judge 
Southwick was noncontroversial. He had a high rating from the ABA. He 
had participated in lots of cases. There was no problem. I accepted 
those representations and, after having accepted them, pushed very hard 
to move this nomination along. But the facts of his background and his 
decisionmaking are different than had been represented to me. The 
Judiciary Committee must still do its work with care, and it should 
only report those nominees who deserve a lifetime appointment to the 
Federal bench.
  The nomination of Judge Southwick has already been treated more 
kindly than dozens of Clinton nominees, including nominees to the Fifth 
Circuit. We have held a hearing. I repeat, during the Clinton 
administration, almost 70 languished with no hearings. If Southwick has 
been unable to convince Judiciary Committee members of suitability for 
the Federal bench, that is his misfortune. Remember, about 70 
nominations of President Clinton never even had a hearing. Southwick 
has had a hearing, and to this point, he has been unable to convince 
the Judiciary Committee he is the person for the job. Senator Leahy has 
stated that anytime Senators Lott and Cochran ask him to put him on the 
calendar for a vote, he will do so. They haven't asked him to do that 
yet. Why? Because at this stage it appears Democrats are going to 
oppose this nomination. But Senator Leahy said anytime they want to 
test the vote, they may do that.
  I know the administration has sent Judge Southwick around to meet 
individually with Democratic Judiciary Committee members. Anytime they 
want that vote, they can have it. Chairman Leahy and I can only 
establish a process. We can't promise that the outcome of that process 
will be to the liking of Republican Senators.
  The primary concern that has been raised by Judge Southwick is that 
he has joined decisions on the Mississippi Appellate Court which 
demonstrate insensitivity to the rights of racial minorities and 
others. For example, in the Richmond case, he voted to uphold the 
reinstatement, with back pay, of a White State employee who used a 
racial epithet about an African-American coworker.
  I ask unanimous consent that the dissent in that opinion by Judge 
King be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Bonnie Richmond, Appellant v. Mississippi Department of Human Services, 
                                Appellee


                          no. 96-cc-00667 coa

                    court of appeals of mississippi

           1998 miss. app. lexis 637, august 4, 1998, Decided

       I dissent from the majority opinion.
       The standard of review applied [*19] to administrative 
     decisions is that they must be affirmed if (1) not arbitrary 
     or capricious, (2) supported by substantial evidence and (3) 
     not contrary to law. Brinston v. Public Employees' Retirement 
     System, 706 So. 2d 258, 259 (Miss. 1998).
       In this case, the Mississippi Employee Appeals Board, 
     (hereinafter referred to as ``EAB'') made no specific 
     findings of fact. Instead, it merely entered an order which 
     affirmed ``the Order of November 29, 1994''\1\, entered by 
     the Hearing Officer Falton O. Mason, Jr. Because the EAB made 
     no findings of its own, we can only conclude that it 
     incorporated by reference and adopted the findings and order 
     of the hearing officer. It is therefore the findings and 
     opinion of the hearing officer which we subject to our 
     review.
       \1\The hearing officer's order read as follows:
       This came on to be heard on November 16, 1994, at 9:30 a.m. 
     in the Supervisors Board Room, in the Desoto County 
     Courthouse, Hernando, Mississippi, Falton O. Mason, Jr., 
     Hearing Officer;
       After receiving testimony and hearing argument of counsel, 
     the Court being fully advised in the premises finds:
       Bonnie Richmond appealed her termination by the Mississippi 
     Department of Human Services (hereafter MDHS), for an alleged 
     racial statement made in a private meeting, and later made to 
     the individual after she returned to the DeSoto County 
     Office. The proof shows that she made the alleged statement 
     in a private meeting where the atmosphere and setting were 
     for the free flow of comments and ideas and complaints, her 
     statement was in effect calling the individual a ``teachers 
     pet'' and that she did not repeat that statement, but did in 
     fact apologize to that individual and that individual did in 
     fact accept the apology.
       That based upon the allegations set out in the termination 
     letter, the Appealing Party did in fact sustain her burden of 
     proof, and the Appealing Party is reinstated as of July 8, 
     1994, with back pay and all benefits restored.
       SO ORDERED this the 29th day of November, 1994.
       [*20] To facilitate that review, I have included at this 
     juncture the full text of the Hearing Officer's opinion, 
     which reads,
       I think in my--it appears to me very simply that the 
     department overreacted on this because first I don't find if, 
     in fact, these employees, Bonnie Richmond and Renee Elmore, 
     were in a meeting with Ms. Johnson and Mr. Everett and Ms. 
     Johnson testified that she tried to make them comfortable and 
     relaxed, if it was an open meeting with a give and take 
     atmosphere and this comment was made in the context it was 
     made in, I don't think it was intended at that time for a 
     racial slur.
       If the department--if that's correct, if the department 
     takes that as a racial slur, then I see anytime somebody 
     refers to somebody as a honkie or a redneck or a mick or 
     chubby or a good old boy or anything else, it's an action to 
     file an appeal and try to get some response. I think it 
     overreacted.
       I do think it would be unprofessional and it is 
     unprofessional to make that remark. I wouldn't be comfortable 
     making it. At the same time, it depends on what company I'm 
     in and under what circumstances.
       The other part is as has been pointed out, the termination 
     letter very [*21] clearly states and the testimony in direct 
     opposition to this, further on May 24 you returned to the 
     DeSoto County office. You approached this black employee and 
     told her that you had been in a meeting with Ms. Johnson and 
     had told them that she was a ``good ole nigger.'' That 
     statement is--that's not true. I mean, the testimony 
     indicated that she didn't approach her, she didn't raise it, 
     that it was Renee Elmore that brought it up. She didn't seek 
     out this black employee to tell her anything about it.
       Further, I don't find anywhere where it is--the other 
     comments, your conduct in returning and repeating, which she 
     didn't do. To return to the DeSoto County office and

[[Page 19881]]

     repeat that phrase, had she repeated that phrase, it would 
     have been unacceptable totally as though it was acceptable to 
     the Mississippi Department of Human Services. I don't find it 
     having created a distraction within the DeSoto county office. 
     Nobody testified to that, or the surrounding areas. I don't 
     think it's caused employees to question whether the 
     department condones the use of racial slurs. You know, I 
     think the department overreacted.
       The part that bothers me is to allow you to continue in 
     this position [*22] would discredit the agency, impair the 
     agency's ability to provide services, violates the agency's 
     responsibility to the public to administer nondiscriminatory 
     services, violates the agency's duty to administer working 
     environment free of discriminatory practices and procedures 
     and subject the department to potential liability for 
     unlawful discrimination.
       If, in fact, she had returned to the DeSoto County office, 
     had brought this subject up again, and the only person--the 
     only testimony that we have about anybody else hearing about 
     this thing was somebody who Ms. Johnson and Mr. Everett had 
     to make the comment to somebody else. Ms.--what's her name?
       Mr. Lynchard: Varrie Richmond.
       The Hearing Officer: Ms. Varrie Richmond said she didn't 
     tell anybody else. She said she didn't call the state office 
     about the situation, and apparently, until she was contacted 
     by the state office, she had accepted Bonnie Richmond's 
     apology. I just think the agency overreacted, and if the 
     agency might find itself in a situation where every time 
     somebody in the agency is called a redneck by some other 
     employee, that they are going to be calling the state office 
     and wanting some relief or [*23] a honkie or a good old boy 
     or Uncle Tom or chubby or fat or slim.
       I mean, I understand that the term ``nigger'' is somewhat 
     derogatory, but the term has not been used in recent years in 
     the conversation that it was used in my youth, and at that 
     point--at that time it was a derogatory remark. I think that 
     in this context, I just don't find it was racial 
     discrimination. I just don't find--she possibly should have a 
     letter of reprimand, but I don't think she needs to be 
     terminated.
       I'm going to reinstate her with back pay. The agency can do 
     what they feel like they have got to do.
       The Department of Human Services (hereinafter referred to 
     as ``DHS'') gave written notice of its intent to terminate 
     Richmond on June 21, 1994. That notice identified two 
     separate Group III violations (numbers 11 and 16) and 
     provided separately the underlying facts upon which each 
     violation was based.
       The first offense was a violation of item number 11, which 
     is ``Acts of conduct occurring on or off the job which are 
     plainly related to job performance and are of such nature 
     that to continue the employee in the assigned position could 
     constitute negligence in regard to the agency's duties to the 
     [*24] public or to other state employees. (emphasis added)
       The factual basis given to support this allegation was:
       On May 23, 1994 while in conference with Joyce Johnson, 
     Division Director of Family and Children's and Jerald Everett 
     of the Division of Human Resources, you referred to one of 
     our black employees as ``a good ole nigger.'' Further on May 
     24, 1994 upon returning to DeSoto County you approached this 
     black employee and referred to her using exactly the same 
     words as you used when you were in conference with Joyce 
     Johnson and Jerald Everett the day before.
       The hearing officer resolved this issue by finding:
       (1) DHS overreacted;
       (2) the remark was made in an open meeting with an 
     atmosphere of give and take;
       (3) the term ``good ole nigger'' was not a racial slur; 
     (transcript 129)
       (4) calling Varrie Richmond a ``good ole nigger'' was 
     equivalent to calling her ``teacher's pet''
       (order by Hearing Officer Falton Mason, Jr., November 29, 
     1994,), and;
       (5) Renee Elmore, not Bonnie Richmond, initiated the 
     conversation of May 24, 1994 with Varrie Richmond.
       The meeting of May 23, 1994, while hastily scheduled, was a 
     formal meeting with two top tier DHS executives, intended to 
     [*25] allow Bonnie Richmond and Renee Elmore to address what 
     they perceived as problems in the DeSoto County office. While 
     the atmosphere was intended to allow for honest discussion, 
     there is no indication that this was intended as an informal 
     or unofficial meeting. Its purpose was to identify problems, 
     and if necessary to address them.
       The fact that a business meeting may be conducted in a 
     relaxed and open atmosphere, is not license to engage in 
     boorish, crude, loutish or offensive behavior. The actions of 
     Bonnie Richmond in referring to Varrie Richmond as a ``good 
     ole nigger'' was indeed boorish, crude, loutish and offensive 
     behavior. This behavior was not merely inappropriate, but 
     highly inappropriate.
       That a white employee would suggest the use of the term 
     ``good ole nigger,'' is less inappropriate in a relaxed 
     meeting, raises significant questions about that person's 
     judgment and whether the agency would be negligent in 
     retaining her. That judgment is demonstrated as especially 
     questionable, when one realizes that Bonnie Richmond worked 
     in a division which is approximately 60% black, in an agency 
     with in excess of 50% black employees. Such a demonstrated 
     gross lack of judgment would [*26] justify the dismissal of 
     Bonnie Richmond.
       The hearing officer's ruling that calling Varrie Richmond a 
     ``good ole nigger'' was equivalent to calling her ``teacher's 
     pet'' strains credulity, finds no basis in reason and would 
     appear to be both arbitrary and capricious. The word 
     ``nigger'' is, and has always been, offensive. Search high 
     and low, you will not find any non-offensive definition for 
     this term.\2\
       2 1. a. Used as a disparaging term for a Black person: 
     ``You can only be destroyed by believing that you really are 
     what the white world calls a nigger'' (James Baldwin) b. Used 
     as a disparaging term for any dark-skinned people. 2. Used as 
     a disparaging term for a member of any socially, 
     economically, or politically deprived group of people.
       There are some words, which by their nature and definition 
     are so inherently offensive, that their use establishes the 
     intent to offend. Words such as ``nigger'' when referring to 
     a black person, or the words, ``bitch'' or ``whore'' when 
     referring to a female person. The character [*27] of these 
     terms is so inherently offensive that it is not altered by 
     the use of modifiers, such as ``good ole.''
       Much is made of the fact that Renee Elmore indicated she 
     was not offended by the use of the term, ``good ole nigger.''
       The test is not whether Renee Elmore was offended by the 
     use of this term. Rather it is (1) whether this term is 
     universally offensive, Brown v. East Miss. Electric, 989 F.2d 
     858, 859 (5th Cir. 1993), and (2) whether the use of this 
     term is inappropriate and reprehensible. The answer to each 
     of these is a most definitive ``yes.''
       The majority quotes Elmore on page 7, as saying, ``Because 
     I felt as if she was describing the actions of a person, I at 
     that time didn't allow myself to feel anything other than 
     what I felt she was doing and I allowed her that leeway to 
     describe her.'' I suggest that effect must be given to all 
     portions of that quote. Particularly the phrase, ``I at that 
     time didn't allow myself to feel anything.'' (emphasis 
     added).
       It is clear that Renee Elmore made a determination to not 
     personalize or allow herself to become emotionally involved 
     in Bonnie Richmond's remark. It is not uncommon for people to 
     deal with offensive remarks [*28] by refusing to associate 
     the remarks with themselves on a personal basis. This makes 
     the remark no less inappropriate or offensive.
       However, the resolution of this matter does not hinge upon 
     that fact. The use of the term by Bonnie Richmond in a 
     meeting with two of the top executives of DHS, an agency with 
     about 5000 employees of whom in excess of 50% are black, and 
     where the Division of Family and Children Services has a 60-
     40 black-white employee ratio demonstrates such a lack of 
     judgment and discretion that to retain her ``could'' 
     constitute negligence in regard to the agency's duties to the 
     public or to other state employees.
       The hearing officer and majority opinion seem to suggest 
     that absent evidence of a near race riot, the remark is too 
     inconsequential to serve as a basis of dismissal. Such a view 
     requires a level of myopia inconsistent with the facts and 
     reason.
       It is (1) the remark, and (2) the lack of judgment in 
     making it in a professional meeting with top departmental 
     executives, which satisfy the requirement, ``that to continue 
     the employee in the assigned position could constitute 
     negligence in regard to the agency's duties . . . to other 
     state employees.''
       The majority [*29] opinion is a scholarly, but sanitized 
     version of the hearing officer's findings and is subject to 
     the same infirmities found in that opinion.
       The second reason given for termination of Bonnie Richmond 
     was ``Willful violation of State Personnel Board policies, 
     rules and regulations.''
       The factual basis for this second allegation was the same 
     as the first, except it raised the issue of DHS's 
     consideration of this behavior and its impact upon the 
     integrity of DHS. The record does not reflect that DHS 
     identified any specific Personnel Board policies, rules or 
     regulations.
       However, it must be presumed that an agency has the 
     authority to mandate civil conduct from its employees.
       The actions of Bonnie Richmond exceed (1) acceptable civil 
     conduct, (2) acceptable social conduct, and (3) acceptable 
     business conduct.
       This conduct was, by definition, offensive to the 
     individual referred to and the black employees of DHS in 
     general.
       The actions of the EAB were not supported by substantial 
     evidence, and I would therefore reverse.
       PAYNE, J., JOINS THIS OPINION.

  Mr. REID. Judge Southwick says the decision was about technical 
issues, but the dissent in the case by Judge King is eloquent. I mean 
eloquent. I hadn't read that opinion prior to my conversations with 
Senator McConnell, but I have read it. I understand

[[Page 19882]]

it. I have a totally different view than I had prior to reading that 
opinion.
  The judge's words are eloquent. Here is part of what he said:

       There are some words, which by their nature and definition 
     are so inherently offensive, that their use establishes the 
     intent to offend.

  Race is a highly sensitive issue throughout the entire United States, 
but especially in the States that comprise the Fifth Circuit. It took 
the courageous action of judges, mostly Federal judges, on the Fifth 
Circuit especially, to carry out the Supreme Court's desegregation 
decisions and destroy the vestiges of the Jim Crow era. Yet even today 
no African American from Mississippi sits on that court, despite the 
many qualified African-American lawyers in that State. Concerns about 
Judge Southwick need to be seen in that context.
  I say that Judge Southwick is not being looked at with lack of favor 
by the Judiciary Committee because of the color of his skin. It is 
because of his judicial participation in various opinions.
  The members of the Judiciary Committee will decide whether to report 
this nomination to the full Senate. If they choose to report the 
nomination, I will schedule action as quickly as I can. If they reject 
the nomination, that action will also be on the merits.
  After I had read the opinion and understood the case, I visited 
personally with Thad Cochran. I think the world of Thad Cochran. I have 
served with him now in the Congress for 25 years. I have served with 
Senator Lott for 25 years. I went to both of them and said: I know how 
strongly you feel about Judge Southwick, but here are the facts. I read 
to them the dissent of Judge King. I read to them the full dissent. 
Anyone who cares to hear what Judge King had to say only has to look at 
the Congressional Record.
  I also told them that the Magnolia Bar Association, the African 
American Bar Association in the State of Mississippi, opposes Judge 
Southwick. The NAACP opposes Judge Southwick.
  Republican Senators may disagree with the decision of the Judiciary 
Committee when and if it comes, but they should not treat it as an 
affront or an outrage. It is simply the way in which the Founders 
envisioned the Senate would work as a partner with the President in 
deciding who is entitled to lifetime appointments to the Federal bench.
  Again, the Judiciary Committee didn't stall Southwick. They scheduled 
a hearing at a time that was convenient to everyone. It was precise. It 
was to the point. Everyone was able to ask their questions. They had a 
full hearing. If he can't convince that committee that he is the man 
for the job, that is our process. Certainly, at a subsequent time, if 
and when we get a Democratic President, if they process these 
nominations in the manner that we have, that will be fine. It is the 
way we are supposed to work.
  Whatever happens with the Southwick nomination, the Senate will 
continue to process judicial nominations in due course and in good 
faith, as I have pledged. I repeat, I know how strongly the 
distinguished Republican leader feels about judges. I think there are a 
lot of things that are just as important. He feels strongly about this. 
I accept that. But I would like everyone to look at the record as to 
what has happened with this nomination. It has been moved 
expeditiously. They can have a vote anytime they wish in the committee. 
There are votes that take place almost every Thursday. They can 
schedule it anytime they want. But I think it would be asking quite a 
bit for someone to think that when the committee of jurisdiction on an 
issue turns something down, we should take it up on the floor. That is 
not how things work.
  I would only say, I would think, based on the decisions participated 
in by Judge Southwick, anyone who has any concern about the feelings of 
the members of the Judiciary Committee who are Democrats should read 
this record because it explains very clearly what the problem is in 
this case.
  Mr. President, we were hoping to clear a number of the President's 
nominations today--the Export-Import Bank of the United States, two 
nominees we were ready to clear; the Securities Investor Protection 
Corporation, one, two, three nominations; the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, we have someone there to clear; the 
Securities Investor Protection Corporation, we have an individual there 
who has been cleared on our side.
  All these nominations have been cleared on our side. The holdups are 
with the minority. So we are trying to clear the President's 
nominations. We cannot do it unless the Republicans agree to it. They 
are his nominations.

                          ____________________