Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007

Floor Speech

SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - August 01, 2007)

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in 1992, a Mississippi lawyer named Leslie Southwick wanted to serve his country in the Armed Forces. At 42, he was too old to do so, but service to others is a duty that Leslie Southwick has always taken very seriously, whether in the Justice Department or on the State bench or with Habitat for Humanity or in doing charity work for inner-city communities. So in 1992, 42-year-old Leslie Southwick sought an age waiver to join the U.S. Army Reserves. The country had the good sense and the good fortune to grant his request.

Leslie Southwick continued to serve in the Armed Forces after he was elected to the State court of appeals in 1994. He conscientiously performed his military and judicial duties, even using his vacation time from the court to satisfy the required service period in the Mississippi National Guard.

In 2003, Lieutenant Colonel Southwick volunteered for a line combat unit--this is 2003--a line combat unit, the 155th Separate Armor Brigade. His commanding officer, MG Harold A. Cross, notes that his decision ``was a courageous move, as it was widely known at the time that the 155th was nearly certain to mobilize for overseas duty in the near future.''

Colleagues such as attorney Brian Montague were not surprised. This is what Brian Montague had to say: ``Despite love of wife and children,'' Leslie Southwick volunteered for a line combat unit over a safer one ``because of a commitment to service to country above self-interest.''

In August of 2004, Leslie Southwick's unit mobilized in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His commanding officer states that he distinguished himself at forward operating bases near Najaf. Another officer, LTC Norman Gene Hortman, Jr., describes Southwick's service in Iraq as follows:

Service in a combat zone is stressful and challenging, oftentimes bringing out the best or the worst in a person. Leslie Southwick endured mortar and rocket attacks, travel through areas plagued with IEDs, extremes in temperature, harsh living conditions--the typical stuff of Iraq. He shouldered a heavy load of regular JAG officer duties, which he performed excellently. He also took on the task of handling the claims of the numerous Iraqi civilians who had been injured or who had property losses due to accidents involving the U.S. military. .....This involved long days of interviewing Iraqi civilian claimants, many of whom were children, widows, and elderly people, to determine whether the U.S. military could pay their claims. Leslie always listened to these Iraqi claimants patiently and treated them with the utmost respect and kindness. He did this not just out of a sense of duty, but because he is a genuinely good and caring person. His attitude left a very positive impression on all those that Leslie came in contact with, especially the Iraqi civilians he helped. This in turn helped ease tensions in our unit's area of operations ..... and ultimately saved American lives.

Lieutenant Colonel Hortman concludes that Leslie Southwick ``has the right stuff'' for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals--``profound intelligence, good judgment, broad experience, and an unblemished reputation.'' Lieutenant Colonel Hortman added:

I know him and can say these things without reservation. Anyone who says otherwise simply does not know him.

Stuart Taylor writes in the National Journal that Leslie Southwick ``wears a distinctive badge of courageous service to his country,'' and that he ``is a professionally well-qualified and personally admirable'' nominee for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Southwick does not seek thanks or notoriety or charity for his military and other civic service. He asks to be judged fairly--to be judged on the facts, to be judged on his record. It is the same standard he has applied to others as a judge, a military officer, a teacher, and a mentor.

It is a standard for which he is well known and admired. By that standard, he is superbly fit to continue to serve his country, this time on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

His colleagues know this, as do his home State Senators. His peers within the State bar know this. They honored him as one of the finest jurists, declaring him ``an example of judicial excellence; a leader in advancing the quality and integrity of justice; and a person of high ideals, character, and integrity.''

The American Bar Association knows this as well. It has twice given him its highest rating, ``well qualified,'' and in so doing found him to be exemplary in
the areas of compassion, open-mindedness, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under law.

Even Democrats on the Judiciary Committee know this because just last fall, all of them--again, all of them--looked at his record and approved him for a lifetime position on the Federal bench.

But it appears that Democrats on the committee may now apply a different standard to Judge Southwick. A member of the Democratic leadership who serves on that committee states that what is ``determinative'' is whether a judicial nominee is perceived to be fair.

The notion that perception, rather than reality, will be dispositive in evaluating a nominee is at odds with the principle of the rule of law. And it is not fair to manufacture a false impression of someone through insinuation and innuendo, and then use that falsehood to defeat him.

In the case of Judge Southwick, the sudden ``perception'' about his fairness is driven by those who do not even know him, and it is disproved by his long record by those who know him very well.

All nominees deserve to be treated with dignity, but a selfless public servant and veteran such as Leslie Southwick deserves to be treated with respect as well. It is disrespectful for the same members of the Judiciary Committee who unanimously supported his nomination last fall to now turn around and unanimously oppose him. There is only one change in Judge Southwick's credentials between last year and now. The ABA, hardly a bastion of conservatism, has actually increased--increased--its rating for him from ``well qualified'' to ``unanimously well qualified.'' Now what that means is that every single member of the ABA committee evaluating Judge Southwick's credentials for the Fifth Circuit, every single one of them gave him the highest possible rating--a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating.

A party-line committee vote would not be a ``perceived'' flipflop or a ``perceived'' injustice but an actual one. This is not a question of perception; this is a question of actually ignoring the reality of this man's record. It would make clear that despite the promise of a new start on judicial nominations that the Senate majority leader and I have been hoping for all year, when push comes to shove, we will treat nominees unfairly based upon a manufactured perception.

This sad standard is not only unjust, but it is actually unwise. As we all know, once established, precedents in the Senate are extremely difficult to undo. Establishing a third-party perception standard on the Southwick nomination will be bad for this Congress and really, more importantly, I will say to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, bad for future Congresses regardless of who is in the White House and which home State Senators support a nomination. The standard we set now with a Republican in the White House and a Democratic Senate might well be the standard applied in a future Congress if, for example, it were a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic Senate.

Because such a decision will affect us all, and for the worst, it is appropriate for the Senate collectively to express its view on whether it wishes to go down this path, whether it wishes to undo the good work and good will that brought us back from the precipice just a few years ago. It is for that purpose that I have offered the sense of the Senate on the Southwick nomination. I encourage my colleagues to review it, to review the record, and to think long and hard about whether we want to deny this good man an opportunity for a vote here in the Senate.

Again, Mr. President, at the risk of being redundant, let me just say that the majority leader and I have been working hard all year to try to improve the confirmation process. I think that is a very wise thing for the majority to do because someday they may have the White House again, in spite of the best efforts of people like me. Once we establish an unrealistic standard for the treatment of qualified judicial nominees for the circuit court, there will be a great temptation on the part of the other side of the aisle to apply the same standard in the future.

There are plenty of grievances from the past. We have had Republican complaints about Democrats and Democratic complaints about Republicans. I guess the fundamental question is, When do we stop it? When do we stop it? For the sake of the institution, for the sake of the country, and for the sake of the party that may not currently occupy the White House, when do we stop?

It strikes many of us that the Leslie Southwick nomination is a good time to stop it because we all know he is extraordinarily well qualified. There is really no serious argument otherwise. And if we can't stop it now, Mr. President, when will we stop it?

So I think this will give us an opportunity to let all of the Senate express themselves, rather than just a few in one committee, on the appropriateness of this nominee.

With that, I yield the floor.

Source