[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 35 (Thursday, March 3, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1244-S1245]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   FILLING THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, listen to these words: fair, respectful, 
deliberative, and thorough. These are the words the senior Senator from 
Iowa, Mr. Grassley, once used to describe the way Supreme Court 
nominations should be considered by the Senate--fair, respectful, 
deliberative, and thorough.
  In June 2010, he said something more:

       I have always been of the opinion that the Senate needs to 
     conduct a comprehensive and careful review of Supreme Court 
     nominees. It is important that the nominee be given a fair, 
     respectful, and also deliberative hearing.

  That same month, in June 2010, he also said:

       I am committed to ensuring that this process is fair and 
     respectful but also thorough. The Constitution tasks our 
     Senate with conducting a comprehensive review of the 
     nominee's record and qualifications.

  Fair, respectful, deliberative, and thorough. I don't think refusing 
to meet with a nominee, refusing to hold a hearing of a nominee, 
refusing to vote on a nominee is fair, respectful, deliberative, and 
certainly not thorough.
  He was not yet chairman of the Judiciary Committee when the senior 
Senator from Iowa made those comments. As I have noted, he has said on 
more than one occasion that the Constitution tasks our Senate with 
conducting a ``comprehensive review of the nominee's record and 
qualifications.'' He made those statements when he wasn't chairman of 
the committee. He is now chairman of the committee--the committee he 
has served on for decades. Now his response for the Senate's 
consideration of Supreme Court nominations sets the standard. He runs 
that big and powerful committee, and he has chosen an approach that 
could not be further from the fair, respectful, deliberative, and 
thorough that he has urged on more than one occasion.
  Instead of exercising his once-respected independence, my friend the 
senior Senator from Iowa is taking his marching orders from the 
Republican leader and refusing to give President Obama's Supreme Court 
nominee a meeting, a hearing, or a vote.
  Within an hour after Justice Scalia's death was announced, the 
Republican leader hijacked the Supreme Court nomination process in the 
Senate by declaring that the Republicans would not consider the 
President's nominee.
  Then the Republican leader decided to seize control of the Judiciary 
Committee--I don't know if he twisted arms, but that certainly conveys 
the message I want to convey--twisting the arms of the senior Senator 
from Iowa and his committee members to get them to forfeit their 
independence and fall in line. Behind closed doors, the Republican 
leader compelled the 11 Republicans who make up the majority of the 
committee on the Judiciary to sign a loyalty oath. This loyalty oath, 
which abdicated the role of this once-dignified committee, took the 
form of a letter promising to follow the Republican leader's demands 
and block consideration of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee.

[[Page S1245]]

  Earlier this week, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, discussed the 
arm-twisting that took place. During an interview on Tuesday on an NBC 
affiliate in Iowa, he was asked whether undue influence had been 
exerted by Republican leadership. This is what he said: ``Some had 
reluctance, but all signed.'' Again, ``Some had reluctance, but all 
signed'' on when asked whether undue influence had been exerted by 
Republican leadership.
  I don't blame Senator Grassley's colleagues for their reluctance. The 
Judiciary Committee once had a proud history of independence. This 
committee is 200 years old and is one of 11 committees that were formed 
when this body came into being. So their reluctance is understandable. 
It is understandable that the Republican members don't want to abdicate 
their independence. I don't blame those Senators for being reluctant to 
follow the Republican leader's orders for refusal to do their jobs. I 
don't blame them for their reluctance to banish the independence of the 
Judiciary Committee's past, ensuring that this once powerful, 
independent, strong committee's reputation is now nothing but a memory.
  I wish the Judiciary Committee Republicans had been a bit more 
reluctant to sign on to the McConnell-Grassley letter, a pledge not to 
do their jobs. It appears most voters also think they should not have 
signed the letter. According to a new CNN poll that came out last 
night, two-thirds of Republicans want hearings on the President's 
Supreme Court nominee--almost 70 percent. Senate Republicans' pledge to 
obstruct doesn't make sense to the Republicans' own base.
  The senior Senator from Iowa's blind adherence to the dictates of 
leadership doesn't stop there. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
was too timid to even meet with President Obama without the Republican 
leader's consent. He refused to go to the White House without the 
Republican leader by his side. When we all finally did meet with 
President Obama on Tuesday--the Republican leader, Democratic leader, 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee--at that meeting, the chairman wouldn't commit to 
meeting the nominee or holding hearings. He wouldn't do that. He 
wouldn't give the nominee a vote. That is what he told the President.
  This is not what Senator Grassley advocated before his party assumed 
the majority. Back in January 2015, on the Senate floor, the Senator 
from Iowa said:

       We must get back to what we in the Senate call regular 
     order. I would say do things the way Madison intended.

  Everything the chairman has done since assuming the role runs counter 
to those words and what Madison intended and obviously what the senior 
Senator from Iowa had intended.
  Allowing 11 Republican members of the Judiciary Committee--and they 
are all men--to decide on behalf of 100 Senators and 300 million 
Americans that they will not even meet with or hold a hearing or vote 
on the Supreme Court nominee is certainly not regular order. This is 
about as irregular order as you can have. Given the opportunity to 
preside over a fair process, the chairman chose blind obedience to his 
party leaders instead. Nothing the Judiciary Committee chairman has 
done in the wake of this Supreme Court vacancy can be identified as 
regular order. It is about as irregular order as you can have.
  Working behind closed doors is becoming the theme for Senator 
Grassley and the Judiciary Committee. He sought to move a committee 
markup scheduled for today--a meeting that normally takes place in the 
full view of the public--behind closed doors. Everyone, think about 
that. This hearing has been scheduled for a long time, but the 
Republican leader wants to do it secretly. When Democrats objected, the 
chairman postponed the meeting altogether. No public hearing, a closed 
door hearing, Democrats objected, so he just canceled the meeting. This 
isn't transparency; this is obstruction and chaos.
  Even Republicans agree--or at least some of them. Last week, the 
junior Senator from West Virginia said:

       Do I worry that this would make the Senate look 
     dysfunctional? That's a slight worry for me.

  It may be a slight worry for the Senator from West Virginia, but it 
is a huge worry for the American people.
  Again:

       Do I worry that this would make the Senate look 
     dysfunctional? That's a slight worry for me.

  Well, it may be a slight worry for the Senator from West Virginia, 
but it is not a slight worry for the American people. It is a big, huge 
worry for the people of West Virginia.
  The good news is that this can all be remedied very quickly. All my 
friend from Iowa needs to do is use the authority he has as the 
Judiciary Committee chair and give the President's nominee a meeting 
and a hearing. This would be what Iowa deserves and what this country 
deserves. All he needs to do is live up to his own words and be 
``fair,'' ``respectful,'' ``deliberative,'' and ``thorough.'' Simply 
put, he needs to stop blindly following the Republican leader and just 
do his job.
  Would the Chair announce the business of the day.

                          ____________________