[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 15, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1479-S1481]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       FILLING THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY AND WOMEN'S HEALTH CARE

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor once again with a 
simple message for Senate Republican leaders: Do your job and let me do 
mine.
  When President Obama sends us a nominee to fill this vacancy on the 
Supreme Court, Republican leaders need to stop playing politics, stop 
pandering to the tea party, and fulfill their responsibility to their 
constituents, their country, and the Constitution. That is what people 
across the country are demanding.
  But the hearing Republicans on the Judiciary Committee held this 
morning makes it clear they are not getting the message, because while 
the Republicans on that committee say they won't take up their time to 
do their most important actual job, they were happy to spend their time 
this morning on their favorite hobby--doing everything they can to turn 
back the clock on women's health care. While they say they won't even 
hold a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee to fulfill their 
constitutional responsibilities, they were eager to hold the hearing 
this morning to attack women's constitutional rights.
  Mr. President, I wish I were surprised by this, but, unfortunately, 
this is just the latest example of Republican leaders playing political 
games with the rights of women across the country and pandering to 
their extreme tea party base.
  Republicans love to say they want to keep government out of people's 
lives, unless of course we are talking about women's health care and 
their choices. They love to talk about the Constitution, unless we are 
talking about a woman's constitutional right to make decisions about 
her own body or the part that lays out the Senate's responsibility when 
it comes to filling Supreme Court vacancies.
  But people across the country are sick of the partisanship, sick of 
the gridlock, and sick of the games. They want Republicans to do their 
jobs, and they are not buying their excuses for inaction.
  For the last few weeks, Republican leaders have been desperately 
trying to convince people that there is a precedent for their extreme 
obstruction in this election year. Well, first of all, their arguments 
have run up against the facts. They simply are not true. The Democratic 
Senate confirmed President Reagan's Supreme Court nominee in his last 
year in office. And that is just one example of many.
  But in case the facts weren't enough, last week the Republicans' 
message facade began to crumble, and the truth began to come out. 
First, one Republican leader warned that any potential nominee should 
be aware that he or she

[[Page S1480]]

will be treated like a pinata. Republicans say they will refuse to even 
meet with the nominee. But they and their special interest groups are 
clearly getting ready to drag him or her through the mud.
  Also, speaking to his constituents back home, another Senator made it 
clear that Republicans' refusal to do their jobs right now is nothing 
more than partisan politics. He said: If this President were a 
Republican, it would be ``a different situation,'' and there would be 
``more accommodation.''
  We all knew this Republican obstruction had nothing to do with what 
is actually right and everything to do with the fact they do not like 
that President Obama is President right now, but it was nice to hear a 
Republican Senator actually admit that out loud.
  Another Republican, the senior Senator from South Carolina, admitted 
last week that this kind of blind obstruction, this refusal to even 
meet with a Supreme Court nominee or hold hearings, is absolutely 
unprecedented. He said Republicans wanted to create a new rule--right 
now--limiting President Obama's constitutional authority and 
responsibility. Well, I am glad he made clear that what Republican 
leaders have been saying about their obstruction being based on 
precedent isn't true, but creating this new partisan precedent for 
Supreme Court nominations would be absolutely wrong too.
  Republicans may not like to hear this, but the American people spoke. 
They elected President Obama twice, and they entrusted him with the 
powers and responsibilities laid out in the Constitution. Those 
responsibilities don't just last for 3 years. They last a full term, 
and people across the country are making it very clear they expect 
Republicans to work with the President, to meet with the nominee, to 
hold hearings, and to do their job.
  But if Republicans are open to new election-year precedents, I have 
one I would like to offer for their consideration that would actually 
be helpful. I propose that Republicans stop using attacks on women's 
health care to rally their tea party base, that they stop using women's 
rights as an election-year political football. That would be 
unprecedented for sure, but it sure would be a step in the right 
direction, and women across this country would really appreciate it.
  So when President Obama sends us a nominee, I hope Senate Republican 
leaders will move out of the partisan corner they are in now, will stop 
focusing on throwing red meat to the tea party, and will do their jobs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from 
Washington for her remarks and for her passion for women's health and 
also for doing our job--for doing our job.
  The Senator from Washington is right. The Republican members of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee have vowed not to hold a single hearing on a 
Supreme Court nominee when the President does his job and sends us down 
his nomination. They refuse to do their job. And I would say that if 
every American just got up in the morning one day and said: You know 
what, I don't feel like doing my job, they would be fired. They would 
be fired.
  But do our Republican colleagues have time to do other things with 
their time? Oh yes. What are they doing right now? My colleague pointed 
this out. They are holding a hearing today on legislation that, if 
passed, would threaten the health and the lives of women.
  This is about using women's health as a political football once 
again. It is about reopening debates we have already settled, including 
the debate over Roe vs. Wade itself. That case was decided in 1973. 
Before that, women died from back-alley abortions. Women received no 
respect for private personal decisions they made with their doctor, 
they made with their God. Oh no, they have to keep challenging Roe v. 
Wade.
  That is what Republicans are doing today in the Judiciary Committee, 
after they decided, well, they just don't have time enough or will 
enough to hold a hearing on the President's nominee for the Supreme 
Court.
  Now, the decision in Roe was very clear. It said that in the early 
stages of a pregnancy, a woman has the right to decide whether to 
continue her pregnancy. Later decisions confirmed that, yes, she still 
has that right. Roe also affirmed that later in the pregnancy, the 
health and the life of the mother must always be protected. Let me say 
that again. The health and the life of the mother must always be 
protected. That is the law of this land.
  Now, the major problems with the bills the Judiciary Committee is 
hearing today is they have no respect for the health and the life of 
the mother and they have no respect for doctors.
  The first bill, the 20-week abortion ban, is a direct violation of 
Roe v. Wade and a grave threat to women. And, by the way, the Senate 
has already rejected that bill. They are bringing it back again. No 
matter what Roe says--that you can't threaten the health and life of a 
woman--they have brought it back. That bill--that 20-week abortion 
ban--offers no health exception for a woman facing cancer, facing 
kidney failure, facing blood clots, or other tragic complications 
during the pregnancy. And it would throw doctors in jail for doing 
nothing more than helping a woman who is at risk for paralysis or 
infertility or who has cancer and whose life would be in danger if the 
pregnancy continued.
  That bill--that bill they say is going to help women--harms women. It 
also revictimizes survivors of rape and incest by assuming they are 
lying--lying--and creating unconscionable barriers to care.
  The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which 
represents thousands of physicians nationwide--physicians who help 
women with their first line of health care in many cases--said: These 
restrictions are ``dangerous to patients' safety and health.''
  So that is the first bill they are hearing today--a bill that has 
already been rejected, a bill that will hurt women and their families.
  The Judiciary Committee is also wasting precious time debating a 
second bill this morning because we already have a law that we voted 
for called the Born-Alive Infant Protections Act. That bill, which I 
supported, says that a fetus that is alive at birth has the same 
protections as every other human being. We voted on it, I say to my 
friend, in 2002.
  So what they are doing over in the Judiciary Committee is rehearing a 
bill we already voted on, and they are rehearing a bill that passed, 
and then they are rehearing a bill that we voted down. This is 
politics, pure and simple.
  Our job is to improve the health and lives of the people, not to 
undermine it. Our job is to act when there is a vacancy on the Supreme 
Court.
  You know, the Republicans always quote Ronald Reagan. Some of us do 
as well, but he is definitely a Republican hero. Let's see what 
President Ronald Reagan said when there was an opening in an election 
year during his Presidency and he nominated Justice Kennedy. What did 
he say? Ronald Reagan said: ``Every day that passes with a Supreme 
Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that 
crucially important body.''
  That is not Barbara Boxer. That is not Patty Murray. That is not 
President Obama. That is not Vice President Biden. That is not Harry 
Reid. That is not Chuck Schumer. And I could go on. That is Ronald 
Reagan. So let me say it again. ``Every day that passes with a Supreme 
Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that 
crucially important body.''
  You know what. We had a Democratic-controlled Senate, and we voted on 
Justice Kennedy in an election year, and we didn't give speeches and 
say: Well, let's wait for the American people to decide the next 
election. You know why we didn't say that? Because that would be 
laughable. Ronald Reagan got elected twice, just like Barack Obama got 
elected twice. He deserves respect. He needs to do his job, and we need 
to do our job.
  So when you say you are not even going to hold a hearing on the 
President's nomination, you are showing disrespect for the 
Constitution--and let's see what the Constitution says--and disrespect 
to Ronald Reagan, I would argue. Look at what the Constitution says: 
The President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent 
of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and 
Consuls, and Judges of the supreme Court.''
  My friends are saying that the Constitution should be obeyed, that 
they

[[Page S1481]]

are strict constructionists. Where are these people? They are hiding in 
the corner not doing their job. Look at what it says: The President 
``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, 
shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court.'' It doesn't say: 
P.S., unless you don't like who is President. It doesn't say that.
  So I say to everyone on the other side of the aisle who says they are 
strict constructionists--and most of them do--read the Constitution and 
read what Ronald Reagan said.
  The American people have three words for Republicans: Do your job. 
Stop disrespecting the Constitution. Stop disrespecting our President 
and stop threatening to create a manmade crisis at the Supreme Court.
  The Supreme Court has to do its job. This isn't some ideological 
discussion in a salon somewhere, because every day the Court considers 
cases with profound impacts for the American people--like whether 
States can have voter identification laws that put an unfair burden on 
voters or whether the American people have the right to organize and 
fight for fair pay. I could go on, because almost every issue that 
American families face eventually winds its way to the Court. So 
regardless of your political position or your personal position on any 
individual case, we have to fill the vacancy because Americans deserve 
a full functioning Supreme Court.
  In closing, I want to quote Sandra Day O'Connor. Now, here is a 
woman--the first woman on the Supreme Court, appointed by Ronald 
Reagan--who made history. She says this to us in the clearest of terms: 
``I think we need somebody there now to do the job, and let's get on 
with it.'' So if you don't want to listen to the Constitution, and you 
don't want to listen to Ronald Reagan, how about giving some respect to 
a woman who made history and understands how the Court functions. We 
have to get on with it.
  Every one of us has to do our job. The Judiciary Committee should 
stop holding hearings to hurt women, and they should instead go down to 
the White House and advise and consent with the President on this 
nomination. They should stop playing politics. We should all come 
together. We see such division in the country. It is making a lot of 
our people afraid because there is no respect. How about we start off 
with respecting the Constitution and working together to fill this 
vacancy and showing the public that we can come together to have a 
fully functioning Supreme Court. The American people deserve nothing 
else.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________