[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 32 (Monday, February 29, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1064-S1065]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   FILLING THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY

  Mr. REID. Madam President, ``History won't forget this misstep by 
Grassley,'' this poster says. ``History won't forget this misstep by 
Grassley.'' That is from the Burlington Hawk Eye, Iowa's oldest 
newspaper. That is what they said. It is the headline from the oldest 
newspaper, as I indicated--the Burlington Hawk Eye.
  The misstep referenced here is the unprecedented statement by the 
senior Senator from Iowa and the Republican leader to deny the 
President the right to fill the current Supreme Court vacancy. The 
article ends with this declaration:

       A few weeks back, when the longest-tenured U.S. Senator 
     from Iowa passed a vote that gave him the record of most 
     consecutive votes in the Senate, we lauded his service to us. 
     We noted in casting votes on matters before the Senate, he 
     was doing what Iowans elected him to do. We gave Grassley an 
     attaboy for that. We take it back.

  ``We take it back.'' That is a blistering statement, a revealing 
statement, a substantive statement. ``We take it back.''
  There is a lesson that Senator Grassley and my Republican colleagues 
should learn from this editorial. By refusing to give President Obama's 
Supreme Court nominee a meeting, a hearing or a vote, they are 
abandoning the oath of office they swore when they became Senators. 
This abdication of their constitutional responsibilities will epitomize 
their work as Senators. Whatever they may have accomplished during 
their careers will be secondary to their decision to place electoral 
politics over their job.
  Remember that our job here is to vote. That is what we swore to do--
to follow the Constitution. And the Constitution couldn't be clearer on 
this issue. So the stakes should even be higher for Senator Grassley 
and the other Republican Senators. Why? Because as chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley presides over one of the most 
important and prestigious committees in the entire Senate. This has 
been the case for 200 years--200 years.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee was established 200 years ago. In 
1816, it was one of the original 11 standing committees. Twenty decades 
have passed. That is how long the committee has been in operation. 
Throughout history, Judiciary Committee chairs have traditionally 
wielded immense power--from President Martin Van Buren, when he was in 
the Senate, to Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Arlen Specter, and Senator 
Joe Biden.
  Judiciary Committee chairmen have historically prized their 
independence and guarded it at all costs from being manhandled for 
partisan purposes. It was so independent, in fact, that past chairmen 
have stood firm in the face of opposition from Presidents and Senate 
leadership.
  At crucial times in American history, the Senate and the Nation have 
looked to the Judiciary Committee to do the right thing. During the 
Civil War, Chairman Lyman Trumbull of Illinois and his committee 
authored the Thirteenth Amendment. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished 
slavery during the Civil War. We know that during that period of time 
there was great consternation as to what should be done. Even the great 
President Lincoln had trouble deciding what should be done during the 
early days of the Civil War.
  In 1889, Chairman George Hoar of Massachusetts and his committee 
drafted the Sherman Antitrust Act, refusing to give in to the special 
interests of Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and the Rockefeller monopolies. That 
was big-time independence.
  In 1937, Chairman Henry Ashurst from Arizona, who was born in 
Winnemucca, NV, led his committee in standing firm against President 
Franklin D. Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court. Chairman 
Ashurst was a Democrat, just like President Roosevelt. Yet Ashurst and 
his committee maintained their independence, even against the wishes of 
Senate Majority Leader Alben Barkley, a longtime Senator who became 
Vice President later. Imagine that. He was the Senate majority leader. 
He was from Kentucky. Imagine that Judiciary Committee chair standing 
up to a majority leader from Kentucky.

  The accomplishments of these powerful chairmen and many others are 
the historic models against which the senior Senator from Iowa will be 
measured. If he keeps his current obstruction, history will not be kind 
to his tenure as chairman of the committee. As of today, the chairman 
has yielded his committee's long-held authority and independence to the 
Republican leader for the sole purpose of weakening President Obama, of 
weakening the Presidency of the United States, and obstructing the 
Senate's work.
  The chairman has turned the impartial reputation of the Judiciary 
Committee into an extension of the Trump campaign. Just last month 
Chairman Grassley spoke at a rally for Donald Trump in Iowa. At that 
rally, the chairman said:

       We've had this trend going this way, away from the basic 
     principles that established our government. And so we have an 
     opportunity, once again, to make America great again.


[[Page S1065]]


  Before I close, let's remember what he said: ``We've had this trend 
going this way, away from the basic principles that established our 
government.''
  My friend from Iowa would do well to look at his own committee as it 
trends away from--again, the quote, ``away from the basic principles 
that established our government.'' That is what the Senator from Iowa 
said at the Trump rally.
  Even now, he and his committee are wasting millions in taxpayer 
dollars developing partisan opposition research on Secretary Clinton. 
It has been going on for many months, more than a year, including 
asking for maternity leave records for staffers and time sheets from 
her office--just basic staff people. For months, Senator Grassley 
blocked the confirmation of vital State Department officials, even 
career Foreign Service officers who are here, so we could give them a 
raise after their valiant service all around the world. He held that 
up, and people couldn't understand it. It had nothing to do with 
Secretary Clinton. He did it as a way to weaken the Presidency of 
President Obama. What he has done is damage U.S. diplomacy worldwide.
  Election day is more than 8 months away, but it is affecting nearly 
every action taken by the Grassley Judiciary Committee. There is much 
more at stake than Senator Grassley's reputation. When the committee's 
independence is threatened by partisan politics, the future of this 
institution hangs in the balance, and when the Senate is undermined, 
our democracy is undermined. Future generations will suffer irreparably 
if the Senator from Iowa continues to do the bidding of the Republican 
leader and the Donald Trumps of the new Republican Party.
  Senator Grassley and I have worked together for three decades. I 
served a couple terms in the House. Then I came here. My seat was way 
back there. When I gave my maiden speech, my first speech, I talked 
about the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, an idea I had in the House and I 
couldn't get past first base.
  Presiding in the Senate that day was Senator David Pryor from 
Arkansas, who was chairman of the subcommittee on the Internal Revenue 
Service. Senator Grassley was also listening. They both contacted me. 
In fact, I received a note from Senator Pryor and a call from Senator 
Grassley saying: I like that legislation. I will work to help you. And 
they did, and we got that passed. So I have nothing personal against 
Senator Grassley. I like him. He helped me pass something that was 
landmark legislation as a brandnew freshman Senator, but today, as a 
U.S. Senator, I have a duty to speak when the Republican Senate refuses 
to follow its constitutional obligations to provide advice and consent 
on the President's Supreme Court nomination.
  As a Senator, I have a duty to demand that the Judiciary Committee 
considers important judicial nominees, especially--especially--someone 
to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. As Senate Judiciary chair, the 
senior Senator from Iowa has a job to do. I repeat, my criticism is not 
personal. It is professional and it is substantive.
  The senior Senator from Iowa outlined that job himself when he 
assumed the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. When he took over 
as chairman, he promised Republicans would ``restore the Senate to the 
deliberative body that the founders intended.'' Listen to that. That is 
what he said, to ``restore the Senate to the deliberative body that the 
founders intended.'' That is a quote.
  Another quote. He said he took the responsibility of ``vetting of 
nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary very 
seriously.''
  The senior Senator from Iowa is failing this commitment that he made 
to himself. He made it. He made the commitment to ``restore the Senate 
to the deliberative body that the founders intended.'' The Founders are 
the people who wrote the Constitution. He is the first chair of this 
important committee to take the unprecedented step of refusing to meet, 
conduct hearings or hold a vote on a Supreme Court nomination. He is 
following the Republican leader's call to refuse the President's 
nominee a meeting, a hearing or a vote. The senior Senator from Iowa, 
of all people, should know how important a vote is.
  My friend has a lot of rollcall votes, 7,545 consecutive votes as of 
today, but what good are 7,500 consecutive votes if you simply sweep 
the votes you don't like to take under the rug? It taints this 
achievement. If he doesn't like President Obama's nominee, then he 
doesn't have to vote for the nominee, but don't run from a hard vote. 
Don't hide. What good is a chairmanship if it is just a rubberstamp for 
partisan politics? What good is a chairmanship if it is used to weaken 
the Senate and disrupt our Constitution's system of checks and 
balances? And that is what it does.
  Last week the Des Moines Register published an open letter from one 
of Senator Grassley's former employees. It was stunning. He worked in 
the Senate. This man's words capture what is at stake:

       The institution of the Senate has managed to perform its 
     constitutional obligations for well over 200 years. Every 
     single nominee for the Supreme Court that has not withdrawn 
     from consideration has received a vote within 125 days. 
     Today, I feel nothing but shame for the fact that my senator, 
     my former friend, will be bringing that unbroken history to 
     an end.

  That was the headline last week in the Des Moines Register, Iowa's 
largest newspaper.
  I hope the chairman of the Judiciary Committee doesn't continue down 
this path. It will not benefit him, his committee, the Senate, the 
State of Iowa or this great country. Instead, he should follow the 
examples of his predecessors and give President Obama's Supreme Court 
nominee a meeting, a hearing, and a vote. He simply should do his job. 
If he doesn't, history will never forget this unprecedented misstep. 
History will never forget this misstep by Senator Grassley.
  I yield the floor.
  Madam President, I ask the Chair to announce the business for the 
day.

                          ____________________