Why does the U,S. Senate examine the backgrounds and qualifications of men and women nominated for cabinet positions? This question is being asked these days as the public spotlight falls on president-elect Ronald Reagan’s cabinet nominees. The answer is that the Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent to cabinet rank appointments, The seriousness of the assignment was stressed in the Senate by Majority leader Robert C, Byrd, DW. Va. just before the recent adjournment of Congress. “We have a responsibility,” he said, “to see that no cabinet appointee brings harmful baggage which would impede performance or embarrass the president, candidate, or nation.” Such was the case, Byrd conceded, with Bert Lance, nominated by President Carter and approved by the Senate for director of the Office of Management and Budget. After Lance had served for a time in the post, problems stemming from his earlier banking practices were disclosed. Questions became so intense as to virtually render further service useless, Lance stepped down after hearings. in the history of the nation. only eight cabinet nominees have been rejected on the tloor of the Senate. ”1 believe the last was Lewis Strauss, President Eisenhower’s nominee for Secretary of Commerce in 1958,” Byrd recalled, Reagan’s nomination of Gen. Alexander Haig for the key Secretary of State post has generated some controversy, Most questions raised concern Haig’s tenure with the administration of President Richard M. Nixon. Haig was Chief of Staff during the last months before Nixon resigned at the height if the Watergate probe. Defenders point to Haig’s experience as Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, his broad strategic view of America’s interests, and his familiarity with the Soviet military buildup and the problems it presents in relation to Western Europe and the Persian Gulf, ‘ As with all cabinet nominees, senators should inquire with thoroughness and objectivity into Haig’s qualifications, clarifying, of course, his Nixon administration role without turning the inquiry into another major Watergate inquistion. The unfortunate episode already had been played ther diminish national image with it at a time when we should be fashioning a rebirth of unity and spirit.