[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 51 (Tuesday, April 5, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1648-S1655]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICA'S SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2015--MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 636, which the
clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 55, H.R. 636, to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend
increased expensing limitations, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Nomination of Merrick Garland
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there is an old verse that reads, if I
remember correctly, as follows: While I was going up the stair, I met a
man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. I wish that man
would go away.
That man in the U.S. Senate is Merrick Garland, a person whom I am
sure the Republican leadership wishes would just go away. But he is not
going to go away.
Merrick Garland is the nominee whom President Obama has sent forward
to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court occasioned by the untimely
death of Antonin Scalia. In sending that name forward, President Obama
was meeting his constitutional responsibility. Article II, section 2 of
the U.S. Constitution states clearly that the President shall--shall--
nominate a person to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. It goes
on to say that the responsibility of the Senate is to provide advice
and consent to Supreme Court nominations. It is very clear. The men who
wrote the Constitution understood the importance of filling a vacancy
on the U.S. Supreme Court, and they understood it to be so important
that they mandated that the President send the nominee forward to fill
that vacancy.
You can read that Constitution from start to finish and never find
the rationale being used by Senator McConnell, the majority leader of
the Senate, to stop that nomination from being considered in the
Senate. There is no argument made in the Constitution--nor has there
ever been an argument made--that because the President is in the last
year of his 4-year term, he no longer has a constitutional
responsibility to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. In fact, never--
underline never--has the Senate refused a hearing to a nominee who has
been sent forward by a President of the United States to fill this
important vacancy. It speaks volumes that Senator McConnell, the
Republican leader, has decided--has taken it on himself--to stop the
Senate from considering the President's nominee.
It is an embarrassing position to take for many of his colleagues.
Look at what they are going through. Republican Senators who went home
over this Easter break--many of them--went to town meetings where
people asked this very basic question: Senator, why is it that you
won't do your job? Why won't you even give a hearing to this man who
was sent by the President for consideration by the Senate to fill this
important vacancy?
It is a hard question to answer if you take the position of Senator
McConnell, the Republican leader, because the answer is that,
basically, he is arguing that this President has no authority--no
authority to fill this vacancy. Senator McConnell argues that we should
hold this vacancy open for the rest of this calendar year into next
year so that a new President--whoever that might be--would have the
power to fill this vacancy. He argues that the American people will
speak through this next election as to a new President and that person
should have the authority.
Well, what we discovered over the course of the last several weeks is
this isn't about giving the American people a voice in choosing to fill
that vacancy; it is about giving two individuals, the Koch brothers,
the decision to fill that vacancy. These brothers have decided it is in
their best interests--their political interests, their economic
interests, whatever it may be--to keep this spot vacant on the U.S.
Supreme Court in the hopes that a Republican Presidential candidate
will win the election and fill the Court vacancy with the blessing of
the Koch brothers. So Republican Senators are going back to their home
districts and States, basically facing the electorate in their home
States, and finding it impossible to justify avoiding any consideration
of this nominee.
It got more difficult this morning.
I ask unanimous consent that this article from the Washington Post be
printed in the Record in its entirety. The Washington Post has reported
that U.S. Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland is getting a boost for
his Supreme Court nomination from some of the lawyers who know him
best--his former law clerks. It goes on to say that 68 former law
clerks for this judge have written to Members of Congress recommending
him based on their personal experience of working professionally with
him.
Let me read this passage from their letter:
There are not many bosses who so uniformly inspire the
loyalty that we all feel toward Chief Judge Garland. Our
enthusiasm is both a testament to his character and a
reflection of his commitment to mentoring and encouraging us
long after we left his chambers. He has stood by our side
during the happiest moments of our lives--quite literally,
having officiated the weddings of seven of his former clerks.
He has welcomed us and our growing families into his home. He
is a constant source of career advice and guidance. And he
has offered love and support in the dark times, too, when we
have suffered setbacks, losses, and uncertainty.
This article one might expect from his clerks saying what a good
person he is, but they have gone out of their way to suggest to the
Senate that a person of this quality and this integrity should be
treated fairly--fairly.
I listened to some of the comments that are being made on the
Republican side about this man, and it is a long way from fairness.
What they are saying to him is we don't care about where you came from.
We don't care about your education. We don't care about your
professional qualifications. We don't care about your career on the
bench. We care that you have been nominated by President Barack Obama,
and as far as Senator McConnell is concerned, enough said.
If Barack Obama nominates this man, Senator McConnell has made it
clear he will deny to him something that has never ever been denied to
a Supreme Court nominee in the history of the United States of America:
a fair hearing.
That is why it is painful for a lot of Republican Senators to go back
and face audiences. The partisans in the audience come in, in a
predictable state, with Republicans saying: Hold the line. Don't let
Obama act like a President of the United States. We want him to go
away. Democrats come in and ask: Can't you at least give this man a
hearing? I would say to my Republican colleagues: Listen to the people
who view themselves as Independents in this country, folks who don't
carry a party label. They are saying overwhelmingly that Merrick
Garland is entitled to a hearing before the U.S. Senate. He is an
extraordinarily well-qualified man. There is no credible justification
to refuse to give him a hearing.
Merrick Garland was born in Chicago. His father ran a small business.
His mother volunteered in the Rogers Park neighborhood. He was the
grandson of immigrants who fled anti-Semitism in the Pale of Settlement
in Russia. They came to America in the early 1900s. Judge Garland grew
up in Lincolnwood, IL. He graduated at the top of his class at Niles
West High School in Skokie. He earned an undergraduate and law degree
from Harvard. He was a law clerk to Judge Henry Friendly on the Second
Circuit and to Supreme Court Justice William Brennan.
He had a distinguished career at the Justice Department. They sent
Merrick Garland down after the Oklahoma City tragedy, when there was a
terrible incident--a domestic terrorist bombing--that killed and maimed
so many people. The prosecution of that accused terrorist was the
highest priority for the Department of Justice. They had to get it
right, not just for the cause of justice but for the victims and their
families. They had to get it right on this prosecution. So they sent
their very best prosecutor, Merrick
[[Page S1649]]
Garland. He was given that responsibility and took it very seriously.
He used to carry around with him the names of those who died in that
Oklahoma City terrorist incident as a reminder of the solemn
responsibility which he carried in this undertaking. That is the kind
of person he is.
He successfully prosecuted those who were engaged in the terrorism
that caused that terrible event. The Department of Justice thought that
highly of him, and his performance in Oklahoma City was so stellar that
he achieved his goal--a fair and effective prosecution.
The Senate considered Merrick Garland for the second highest court of
the land, the D.C. Circuit Court in 1997. He received a majority vote
on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats. The total final
vote was 76 to 23. Thirty-two Senate Republicans voted to confirm Judge
Garland. He has been on that court--the D.C. Circuit--for 19 years and
he has been the chief judge for the last 3 years.
Throughout his lengthy judicial career, Chief Judge Garland has been
praised for his intelligence, knowledge of the law, adherence to
precedent, and his ability to forge a consensus. Listen to what Chief
Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court said during his own
confirmation hearing: ``Any time Judge Garland disagrees, you know
you're in a difficult area.''
I have my differences with Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme
Court, but I will be the first to say his presentation to the Senate
Judiciary Committee was one I will never forget. He sat there for 2
days, without a note in front of him, and answered every question
effectively and eloquently. I left there with the distinct impression
he was one of the brightest individuals who had ever been nominated to
the Supreme Court.
So this man, Chief Justice Roberts, whether we agree with his
politics or his decisions, should be listened to when he says of
Merrick Garland, President Obama's nominee, that if you disagreed with
Judge Garland, you know you are in a difficult area. That is high
praise from Chief Justice John Roberts. It is high praise for a man who
has been denied a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee for the
first time in the history of the Senate.
I commend Judge Garland for his many decades of public service and
congratulate him and his wife Lynn and their daughters for the great
honor they have been given to be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I offer as well a word of apology to them for the way they are being
treated by the U.S. Senate. This is not right.
I hope that in the quiet and the solitude of their own Republican
caucus lunch, they will close the door and turn to one another and say:
This is not fair. It is not right. We owe this man a hearing. I am not
saying he should be rubberstamped. I am not saying the Senate
Republican majority should approve this man, although I think it is
difficult not to. I am saying he should be given a hearing. He deserves
that respect from the U.S. Senate.
It would be terrible and beneath the dignity of the Senate
Republicans to close the doors of the Senate to such an accomplished
American and deny him a fair hearing and a vote. The President has met
his responsibility. The Senate should do no less.
I know Merrick Garland is in for a rough ride. The senior Senator
from Texas said as much a few weeks ago. He said President Obama's
Supreme Court nominee would ``bear some resemblance to a pinata.''
Do we know what that means? Remember, if you will, that Mexican
custom of filling a paper mache animal with candy, then blindfolding a
child and giving him a stick or a bat to try to swing wildly and beat
on that pinata until it is broken open and the candy hits the floor.
That was the analogy used by the senior Senator from Texas as to how
Merrick Garland should expect to be treated if his nomination comes
before the Senate. It is a sad commentary, but it may reflect the
reality of the bitter political environment we live in. It is troubling
to hear our nomination process in the Senate characterized this way.
There is a way to avoid pinata politics. Let's give Merrick Garland a
fair hearing.
Right now, conservative groups and some Senate Republicans are taking
their swings blindly at Merrick Garland. They are flailing around,
hoping to find some argument to justify the mistreatment which they are
offering. For example, there is a rightwing advocacy group calling
itself the Judicial Crisis Network, whatever that is, that recently
announced a multi-State ad campaign against Judge Garland. How about
that. They will not give him a hearing. They will not even let him sit
down in a chair under oath and face questions and give answers, but
they have started a multi-State ad campaign against him. The campaign
said that with Garland on the bench, the Second Amendment would be
``gutted'' because ``in two separate cases, Garland has demonstrated
his strong hostility to gun owner rights.'' Several Senate Republicans
have echoed this attack. They have heard this so-called Judicial Crisis
Network ad and they have decided to amplify it.
However, there is no argument that can be made seriously or fairly
for the proposition that Judge Garland opposes the Second Amendment in
his rulings.
There are two cases mentioned by this rightwing organization on the
subject. They date back many years to 2000 and 2007. The first was a
case involving the auditing of background check records. When that case
was appealed to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department of President
George W. Bush, led by conservative Attorney General John Ashcroft,
agreed with Judge Garland's position. There was no controversy as far
as they were concerned. So a Republican President and a Republican
Attorney General agreed with the ruling of Judge Garland.
In the other case in which Judge Garland is accused of having
overstepped the bounds on the Second Amendment, he never even addressed
any substantive Second Amendment issue.
If the Judicial Crisis Network was so outraged by these decisions in
the year 2000 and the year 2007, why didn't they bring it up in 2010
when Merrick Garland was in the running to fill a vacancy on the
Supreme Court? In that year, Carrie Severino, the head of that
organization--the Judicial Crisis Network--told the Washington Post:
Of those the President could nominate, we can do a lot
worse than Merrick Garland. He's the best scenario we could
hope for to bring the tension and the politics in the city
down a notch for the summer.
I just quoted the person who was in charge of the Judicial Crisis
Network when Merrick Garland was under consideration for the Supreme
Court six years ago. Now that same network has decided to spend
millions of dollars to stop this nominee.
If Judge Garland's views on the Second Amendment were so
objectionable, why has he been praised by Charles Cooper, the gun
lobby's top outside attorney? On March 28 of this year, Cooper told the
Washington Post about his ``high opinion'' of Garland as a judge.
So here is the reality. Rightwing advocacy groups like the Judicial
Crisis Network are swinging wildly at Judge Garland. They
mischaracterize his record and they attack his judgment in an effort to
discredit him. If the Senate holds a public hearing for Garland, he
would at least have his day to state his position clearly on the Second
Amendment, but they are so afraid of what he is going to say, the
Republican leadership in the Senate has denied Merrick Garland an
opportunity for a hearing at this point in time.
At a hearing, the American people could judge for themselves. How
about that for a novel idea; that we would put Merrick Garland under
oath, sit him at a table, ask whatever questions we consider to be
important for his nomination, and then let the American people decide.
The Republicans will have nothing to do with that. Senator McConnell
has said from the start he is never going to allow that to occur.
The Senate is doing Judge Garland and our Nation a grave disservice
if we don't move forward with a public hearing on this nomination, as
we have with every other Supreme Court nominee that has been sent by a
President.
Just for the record, go back to 1987, when a vacancy occurred on the
Supreme Court, and in 1988, the last year of Ronald Reagan's Republican
Presidency, he sent a nominee to the U.S. Senate to be considered.
Anthony Kennedy was a Reagan nominee, and the Democratic-controlled
U.S. Senate not only gave Anthony Kennedy a hearing,
[[Page S1650]]
they gave him a unanimous vote, sending him to the Supreme Court.
Despite the fact that Ronald Reagan was a ``lameduck''--the last year
of his Presidency--the Senate at that time respected the Office of the
Presidency and respected the Constitution enough to give Anthony
Kennedy his day before the Senate Judiciary Committee, his day before
the U.S. Senate. If it was fair enough for a Republican President in a
Democratic Senate, why isn't the same standard to be used when it comes
to President Obama's nominee being sent to the Senate on this day? It
cannot be explained away.
What does this vacancy on the Supreme Court mean? There are only
eight members of a nine-member Court. Already the Supreme Court has
deadlocked twice on 4-to-4 tie votes since Justice Scalia's passing.
Almost 50 cases still need to be decided in this term. Major legal
questions may go unresolved because the Senate is not doing its job and
not filling this vacancy.
Judge Garland does not deserve to be used as a pinata--a word used by
a Senate Republican describing what he would face in the Senate. Let's
give him an opportunity to rebut any attacks made against him. Let him
explain himself on the record in full view of the American public. Let
the American people decide if the ads and attacks against him are valid
or baseless.
I urge my Republican colleagues: Do not follow the lead of rightwing
advocacy groups and attack Judge Garland's character or record when you
refuse to give the man a chance to respond at a public hearing. That is
fundamentally unfair.
This is a real moment of truth for the Senate. No Supreme Court
nominee has ever been denied a hearing before, and Merrick Garland
should not be the first. The message of the American people to the
Senate Republican majority is very simple, three words: Do your job. Do
your job under the Constitution. Have a hearing. Be fair to this man.
Don't dream up excuses. Don't argue with this President who won by 5
million votes over Mitt Romney. Don't disrespect the Office of the
Presidency or the Constitution, which in its clarity establishes our
responsibility to give a hearing to this nominee. My Republican
colleagues need to do their job and to schedule a hearing for Merrick
Garland without delay.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Garland's Ex-Clerks: Confirm Our Old Boss
(By Mike DeBonis)
U.S. Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland is getting a boost
for his Supreme Court nomination from some of the lawyers who
know him best: his former law clerks.
Sixty-eight former Garland clerks signed a letter delivered
Monday to Senate leaders of both parties, urging them to
confirm his nomination. The signers comprise all but three of
the ex-clerks Garland has employed since he joined the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
1997. And the three holdouts have a good reason: They are
clerks for Supreme Court justices.
The three-page tribute is both professional and personal.
``There are not many bosses who so uniformly inspire the
loyalty that we all feel toward Chief Judge Garland,'' the
ex-clerks write. ``Our enthusiasm is both a testament to his
character and a reflection of his commitment to mentoring and
encouraging us long after we left his chambers. He has stood
by our side during the happiest moments of our lives--quite
literally, having officiated the weddings of seven of his
former clerks. He has welcomed us and our growing families
into his home. He is a constant source of career advice and
guidance. And he has offered love and support in the dark
times, too, when we have suffered setbacks, losses, and
uncertainty.''
Clerkships on the D.C. Circuit are among the nation's most
prestigious, second only to the Supreme Court itself. The
signers have gone on to high-level positions in federal and
state government, private practices and academia. Several
have spent time in the office of the White House counsel; one
of those lawyers, Danielle Gray, served as Cabinet secretary
to President Obama.
The letter paints a familiar portrait of Garland as a
careful judge, a hard-working public servant and a devoted
family man. But it also offers a couple of glimpses behind
the curtain.
In one notable passage, the clerks write that Garland
``taught us the value of diversity, in all its forms.''
``We observed how Chief Judge Garland forged meaningful
connections with others from a wide array of backgrounds and
ideological perspectives--from the law clerks he hires to the
personal and professional relationships he maintains. He
finds camaraderie with his fellow judges without regard to
who nominated them to the bench. Chief Judge Garland deeply
believes that our system of justice works best when those who
see things differently are able to work together, in a
collegial manner, to arrive at a just result. And when he
must disagree with his colleagues, he always does so
respectfully.''
And they describe how his private response to the Sept 11,
2001, attacks had a profound impression on the four clerks
who were working for him at the time: ``From his chambers, we
watched with horror the news about the attacks on the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the days after, we remember
the explicit importance Chief Judge Garland placed on coming
to the office everyday and continuing to prepare for upcoming
cases. In the aftermath of that terrible tragedy, he believed
it was more important than ever for the American people to
see that their system of government was functioning without
interruption--that the rule of law endured!''
Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I want to join in the remarks just
made by the senior Senator from Illinois that we have an obligation to
do our job and to provide a hearing and a vote for the President's
nominee--not as a matter of discretion or convenience but as a
mandatory obligation we have as Members of this body. It is an
obligation that comes from the Constitution, which says that we shall
exercise this duty of advising and consenting.
For all the reasons my colleague has expressed so eloquently, the
American people feel that it is our job, and they are right. Nothing so
epitomizes the feeling of the American people that Washington is
failing to work, that this body is failing to do its job, that the
Congress and the Federal Government are failing the American people,
than the failure to deal with this nominee. The refusal to even meet
with him mocks the American system of justice. For all who care about
the quality of our judicial nominee, this intransigence is both an
insult and an injury, and it will do lasting damage to the Court if it
drags this third branch of government into the mire of partisan
bickering.
The judicial branch depends, for the enforceability of its decisions,
on the trust and credibility of the American people that it is above
politics and that decisions made by the judicial branch are on the
merits without regard to the special interests and the money that so
infects this branch, and they are entitled to our support for the
credibility and trust of the judicial branch, and nothing epitomizes
the need for that credibility and trust more than the U.S. Supreme
Court. It is the highest Court in the land, and it is the most
powerful. It is an anomaly in a democratic government because it is
unelected, appointed for life, at the top of the judicial pyramid,
exercising vast powers, with only the trust and credibility of the
American people as its means of enforcement. It has no army or police
of its own. Its decisions and enforceability depend for their effect on
it being above politics. The controversy and the intransigence and
refusal to even consider this nominee is a great threat to that
institution.
Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education, and Research Act
Mr. President, on the issue of getting the job done, I want to go to
a separate topic very much on our minds at this time of year, very
distinct and different, but I want to join it in these remarks because
it is timely as we begin the next phase of our bipartisan efforts to
combat Lyme and tick-borne diseases.
We will be building support this week for a bill that has been
introduced by Senator Ayotte and me, with the strong involvement and
leadership of Senator Gillibrand, S. 1503, the Lyme and Tick-Borne
Disease Prevention, Education, and Research Act, with 13 cosponsors. It
is a bipartisan bill that is critically important to public health.
Today we will be welcoming a number of my friends and constituents
from Connecticut and around the country who are experts to provide
briefings
[[Page S1651]]
to our staffs in sessions that have been organized by Senator Ayotte,
Senator Gillibrand, and me. We are very pleased to welcome some of the
leaders of this effort: John Aucott, who is an assistant professor of
medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine; Dr. Brian Fallon, a
good friend and leading expert in this area and a professor at the
Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons; Ally Hilfiger, who has
been a survivor and strong supporter and advocate; Rebecca Tibball, a
fourth grade teacher from my home State of Connecticut who has been
battling Lyme disease since August of 2014; and David Roth, also a
leader and a longstanding patient advocate from New York who in his day
job is a managing director at the private sector group Blackstone.
These individuals are here to call attention to and build support for
curing a disease that is literally exploding exponentially in this
country and now constitutes an epidemic that literally impinges and
cripples the lives of millions of Americans.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that more
than 36,000 Americans suffered from Lyme disease in 2013. It says that
the number who actually contracted this disease is probably 10 times
higher because it is undetected and undiagnosed in so many people and
it is underreported even when it is discovered in individuals. Most of
the cases of Lyme disease occur in a limited number of States. Ninety-
eight percent of them occur in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. I name those States
because the Senators in those States ought to be behind this bill,
every single one of them. But those cases are only the ones reported.
In many States there is no systematic reporting of Lyme disease, so the
full extent, breadth, and depth of this epidemic is truly unknown.
We know in this body how to respond and recognize a public health
threat. It was done for Ebola. It is done for influenza. It hopefully
will be done for Zika. What is needed is the same kind of bipartisan
awareness and support for legislation to help people who suffer from
Lyme and other tick-borne diseases.
Sometimes this Senator is asked: Why has the Congress failed to
recognize and respond to this severe public health threat?
There is no good explanation except for the underreporting and the
unawareness, and that is no excuse. In the meantime, the cases of Lyme
disease are exploding in number, and the severity impacts our economy
as well as the quality of life for Americans. It affects people's
ability to perform their jobs, children's ability to go to school, and
families' ability to function normally. The disease, if undetected and
untreated, can cause the most severe kinds of pain and disability.
Lyme disease is named after a town in my State. I have always felt it
was tremendously unfair for the beautiful and wonderful town of Lyme to
have its name bear the burden of this disease, but regardless of the
name, the burden is on the entire country--not simply on Connecticut
and not simply on the Northeast or any part of the country or
profession--to take action. That action must include provisions in this
bill to strengthen Lyme disease surveillance and reporting, an
education program, establishing epidemiological research objectives for
tick-borne diseases, and the preparation of a regular report to
Congress on the progress of efforts to combat these devastating tick-
borne diseases. The effects are devastating, pernicious, and insidious,
creeping into every aspect of a victim's life.
Our bill has earned the support of 13 Senators from both parties,
including five members of the HELP Committee. When it comes to fighting
Lyme disease, there is no partisanship. The ticks that carry this
disease don't know a red State from a blue one. They don't make any
discrimination between the boundaries of different States. The
devastating diseases that can spring from these ticks are common to our
entire country and therefore demand a national response and a Federal
program that we have outlined in this bill.
I am proud to join with Senator Ayotte and Senator Gillibrand in this
effort. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to send your staffs
to the briefing we have today.
I thank others from Connecticut--such as Alexandra Cohen--who are
going to be coming today, and I look forward to continuing this fight,
which has to be one of a nationwide commitment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The Senator from South Dakota.
ISIS
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise to address last month's tragic
terror attacks in Brussels and Istanbul by ISIS. It is critical for the
Senate to consider these significant events as we get back to work on
bills enhancing security and setting policies for air transportation.
In Brussels, 35 innocent people, including four Americans, lost their
lives in barbaric attacks by ISIS at a subway station and airport
terminal. In Istanbul, an ISIS suicide bombing killed four on Central
Street and left dozens more injured. My thoughts and prayers are with
those injured, the families of the victims, and the citizens of Belgium
and Turkey.
In the past 2 years, ISIS has orchestrated 29 attacks on Western
targets around the world, killing more than 650 innocent people. A
decade ago, the group of violent jihadists behind ISIS fit a fairly
conventional definition of a terrorist group. Operating in Iraq, they
endeavored to kill Americans, Iraqis, and others working to build a
free and democratic nation.
Today, however, calling ISIS a mere terrorist group may not fully
convey the seriousness of the problem. ISIS, or the so-called Islamic
State, has taken control of a significant amount of territory in Iraq
and Syria. Within this territory, ISIS has established a self-
proclaimed capital city and effective sovereignty over other populated
urban centers. It collects taxes, operates and profits from oil well
operations, controls banking, and rules over substantial agricultural
acreage.
These operations help fund and sustain not only ISIS armed fighters
but also the group's attempt to build actual institutions that spread
its message of hate. Unfortunately, ISIS has enjoyed considerable
success communicating and spreading its distorted vision of a grand
Islamic caliphate claiming authority over all Muslims.
Branches of ISIS, trying to replicate what has happened in Syria and
Iraq, have taken root elsewhere and carried out operations in
destabilized areas, including Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, and
Yemen.
A recent report estimated that as many as 31,000 ISIS adherents have
traveled from 86 countries to join the organization in Iraq and Syria.
More than 5,000 of these recruits have come from Western Europe and 150
from the United States. In addition to those Americans who have
actually traveled abroad, researchers at George Washington University
estimated in December that there are 900 active investigations of ISIS
sympathizers here in the United States. Let me repeat that--900
investigations of ISIS sympathizers here in the United States. This
doesn't included those who have been radicalized without noticeable
warning, such as a couple in San Bernardino who weren't known to
authorities before they killed 14 in a shooting attack last December.
Over the past few years, ISIS's reach has expanded dramatically, and
claims that our current policies have contained the organizations and
its dangerous message are both false and reckless. We have had some
successes in targeting senior ISIS officials, but as we saw in
Brussels, in San Bernardino, and elsewhere, those efforts have not
lessened the threat posed by a terrorist state that is successfully
propagating its ideology all over the world.
So what can we do to protect against the threat posed by ISIS? Here
are a few things:
First, we need a President who is committed to forming a robust
coalition to destroy ISIS abroad. Real American leadership against ISIS
must be manifested in sustained engagement against the enemy. We need
an administration intent on eliminating the group's sources of income
and its control of territory which facilitates an illusion of
legitimacy for its followers. Incremental progress is not enough.
Indeed, the Washington Post reported last week that some terrorism
experts believe pressure on the group's finances
[[Page S1652]]
could make ISIS more dangerous and unpredictable until it is defeated.
Second, we need to control our borders. We need to know who is coming
in and out of our country and why. This includes screening travelers
for ties to ISIS and to its sympathizers. One of the greatest threats
facing Europe is citizens who leave their homes to fight for ISIS and
then return to recruit or conduct operations in their communities. We
also face this threat from European ISIS fighters, the return of
American citizens who have fought for ISIS, and agents of ISIS posing
as war refugees. Although we have passed bipartisan legislation to
tighten some screening requirements, we need the administration to
enforce the law rather than attempt to undermine and work around it.
Third, as a final line of defense, we need to better secure the
homeland. We must make sure the intelligence community, law
enforcement, and Homeland Security officials have the tools they need
to deter attacks and to stop plots before they are launched. This
includes the need for constant reassessment of our vulnerabilities so
we stay ahead of threats.
Tomorrow I will chair a hearing at the Commerce Committee with
Transportation Security Administration Administrator Peter Neffenger,
who happened to be in Brussels during the March 22 attacks. While we
mainly see and know the Transportation Security Administration or TSA
as the agency behind airport screening of passengers and baggage, the
organization actually has a much broader charge. TSA is the designated
Federal agency for all transportation security matters. As we know from
independent covert testing that exposed TSA failures a year ago, TSA
still has work to do to improve screening at airports, but TSA also
needs to focus on securing transportation by train, bus, pipelines, and
through our ports.
The diversity of the targets ISIS selected in its most recent
attacks--a subway station, an unsecured airport terminal, and a busy
street, underscores the challenge of protecting our citizens from an
enemy seeking the path of least resistance to maximize its carnage. To
stay ahead of this danger, security officials at TSA and other agencies
need to be looking at potential threats before ISIS does.
Congress has a role in helping security officials stay ahead of ISIS.
Aided by congressional oversight and congressional watchdogs, the
Commerce Committee has already approved bipartisan legislation that
Senator Bill Nelson and I have offered to address airport security
vulnerabilities. Our bill is cosponsored by the Homeland Security
Committee's chair and ranking member, Senator Johnson and Senator
Carper. Among other provisions, our legislation improves the vetting
process for airport workers seeking or holding a security credential
that grants access to restricted sections of an airport.
Over the past few weeks, a number of badged aviation industry workers
have been caught in the act helping criminal organizations. On March
18, a flight attendant abandoned a suitcase with 68 pounds of cocaine
after she was confronted by airport security officials in California.
In Florida, on March 26, an airline gate agent was arrested with a
backpack containing $282,400 in cash that he intended to hand off to an
associate. According to press reports, the agent told authorities the
money was connected to illegal activity, but he knew few other details.
Some of the perpetrators in the deadly attacks in Brussels were
previously known to authorities as criminals--but not terrorists.
As we work to address concerns about an insider threat scenario,
where an aviation worker helps terrorists, criminals who have broken
laws for their own financial gain and those with histories of violence
are a good place to start. Ensuring that airport workers with security
credentials are trustworthy is especially important, considering that
ISIS in October killed 224 on a Russian flight leaving Egypt. Many
experts believe this attack had help from an aviation employee.
In S. 2361, the Airport Security Enhancement and Oversight Act,
Senator Nelson and I propose not only tightening vetting procedures for
workers who need a security credential, but we also expand the list of
criminal convictions that disqualifies an applicant from holding one.
At present, even applicants convicted for embezzlement, racketeering,
perjury, robbery, sabotage, immigration law violations, and assault
with a deadly weapon can still obtain an airport security badge
granting access to restricted areas. Our bill closes this loophole
while updating airport security rules, expanding random inspections of
airport workers, and requiring the review of airport perimeter
security.
The Commerce Committee has also approved another TSA-related bill,
H.R. 2843, the TSA PreCheck Expansion Act. This bill would expand
participation in the TSA precheck application program by developing
private sector partnerships and capabilities to vet and enroll more
individuals. As a result, more passengers would be vetted before they
even arrived at the airport and received expedited screening. This
would get passengers through security checkpoints more quickly to
ensure they don't pose the kind of easy target that ISIS suicide
bombers found at the Brussels Airport.
Historically, this body has passed aviation security enhancements
separate from a reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.
While I still prefer this separate approach and believe the Senate
should pass our consensus security legislation without delay, I will
pursue every option to enact these improvements and will vigorously
oppose any effort to water down any security efforts that passed the
Commerce Committee.
As we look at ISIS and consider necessary steps to stop attacks,
let's remember our recent history of fighting terrorism. In the 1990s,
our Nation not only fell behind on intelligence and airport security,
but we did not act with force against Al Qaeda's enclaves in
Afghanistan. This was true even after we recognized a significant
threat following attacks on our embassies in East Africa and on the USS
Cole in Yemen.
Only after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon did our
Nation pursue a strong military response and adopt significant reforms
to enhance our Homeland Security. Like Al Qaeda, ISIS is now a
significant danger. While we are doing more to push our Homeland
Security and intelligence agencies to meet current and future threats,
we are unwise to allow this enemy time and multiple chances to inflict
mass casualties.
As a legislative body, we have already passed legislation closing a
border security vulnerability in our Visa Waiver Program and have an
opportunity in the bill that Senator Nelson and I have offered to guard
against an insider threat at airports. As lawmakers, we are going in
the right direction. However, our responsibility to the people we
represent does not end there. Until this administration or its
successor changes the facts on the ground, we also have an obligation
to speak about the continued threat of ISIS, especially when the
administration downplays the need for a more aggressive response. We
have an obligation to continue discussing the genocide of Christians
and other religious groups in areas under ISIS control, and we have an
obligation to scrutinize Executive actions and conduct rigorous
oversight of administration initiatives that pose risks to our
homeland. If we can't do this, we have learned very little.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Congratulating the Villanova Wildcats on winning the 2016 NCAA Men's
College Basketball Championship
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few minutes on the
floor to send congratulations on my own behalf and also on behalf of
the people of Pennsylvania to the Villanova Wildcats for a great win
last night in the NCAA final.
It was a remarkable game for a lot of reasons. My wife and I watched
every minute of it, as I know so many did. It was a remarkable game
even before the last-second shot, but even more so after the shot made
by Kris Jenkins.
We are grateful, on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania, to commend
and salute Villanova University and, of course, the team itself.
[[Page S1653]]
In particular, I commend the players, not only Kris Jenkins but the
entire team. At the same time, we commend the work done by Jay Wright.
He is a great coach. He was awarded the Naismith Award as Coach of the
Year this year, but we also commend him for leading Villanova this year
and for the way he conducted himself, even in the aftermath of a win.
We learn a lot about people in victory and defeat, whether that is in
the athletic contest or even in politics or life itself. I thought Jay
Wright showed a lot of class in the way he conducted himself after
winning, which is sometimes not the case in sports today.
I want to commend them as well for their great teamwork that
obviously has to play out not just on the court in one game but over
the length of a season--the practice and the hard work and the working
together and the way they built each other up. There are so many
instances where this team really was a team in reality, not just in
terms of people talking about them as a team.
I am not sure they could have shot better. I am told--and I hope I
have this right--they had a 58-percent shooting field goal percentage
throughout the tournament. That is a remarkable achievement. Again,
that doesn't just happen; it happens because of hard work and because
of a great coach.
I want to commend and salute the team and congratulate them on
winning a very difficult tournament. This is a tournament that had a
lot of upsets and a lot of twists and turns before the team came out
No. 1. That is a great achievement.
Finally, I commend and salute the university and Father Peter
Donahue, the president. We know him as Father Peter. I want to thank
him. He sent me a Villanova hat, which I wore during the semifinal game
or part of the game. I made sure I wore it at least for a few minutes
during the final game. I was grateful he sent me that reminder of team
spirit.
In addition to Father Peter in the larger Villanova community, we
want to salute the students, who were so loyal, and the fans, who may
not have been students but who were either graduates of Villanova or
just supporters. And of course the alumni made it possible for the team
to have the kind of support they have had over many years.
Opioid Epidemic and Children's Exposure to Lead Poisoning
Mr. President, in my recent travels across Pennsylvania, two issues
arose that I know the Presiding Officer and others may have heard about
in the time they were away from Washington, and I know there are many
others, but I will just mention two that the people of our State are
thinking a lot about and are worried about and expect us to take action
concerning.
No. 1 is the opioid epidemic across the country, which has caused the
kind of death and devastation that none of us can even begin to
imagine. In Pennsylvania alone, more than 2,700 people died in 2014 as
a result of some kind of drug overdose. So this is a major challenge.
We made tremendous progress when we passed our bipartisan bill here,
the so-called CARA bill. That was a good move and an important step for
the Senate. I hope we can follow up on that with the $600 million in
funding that local law enforcement and treatment experts and others
have asked us for. We need to finish the job in terms of making sure
the Senate is taking the right steps on this challenge.
The second issue--which I will mention just briefly because we don't
have time today to develop it further--is lead poisoning in children.
We know what happened in Flint, the horror and the tragedy of Flint,
but in a State such as mine, the biggest challenge we have is not
necessarily lead from water or in the water systems that would
adversely affect children. In our case, because we have a lot of old
homes, it is lead paint and the exposure to lead paint and the high
lead levels that put children in a precarious situation in the short
run but even long term because some of these impacts, if the levels are
very high, can be irreversible.
We have to make sure we are doing more to protect our children not
only in Pennsylvania but across the country in terms of making sure
that fewer and fewer children are exposed to high lead levels. I know
we will talk more about that.
Those are two major challenges that I know confront Pennsylvania and
also confront our country.
With that, 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.
Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy and Working Together in the Senate
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as you know, we have been back home in our
States for the last couple of weeks or traveling, listening to our
constituents. It was great to be back home and to spend some time
talking to the people who I work for about the challenges facing our
country and what we have been doing in the U.S. Senate to try to
address those challenges. While it is always true that people wish
there would be more consensus building and more solutions offered, I
would say that, by and large, people feel we had a pretty productive
2015 and are hoping we can continue that sort of productivity here in
the Senate in 2016, even though this is a Presidential election year.
Yesterday was a good example of that productivity. We passed a
trademark enforcement piece of legislation basically without--it was
unanimous, to the best of my knowledge. All the Senators here in the
Chamber voted for it without going through the official procedural
hoops that are required in order to process legislation here in the
Senate.
Previously we passed legislation--recently the Comprehensive
Addiction and Recovery Act--to deal with the crisis involving opioid or
prescription drug painkillers that are being abused around the country,
and people are unfortunately falling into that trap, and then the cheap
heroin that sometimes is used as a substitute if people can't find the
opioid prescription drugs.
So Congress actually has been doing the people's business here. Of
course, we are in the type of profession where people will sometimes
say: Well, we think you are doing a great job. And others will say:
Well, we don't think you are doing quite so great a job. But that is
the nature of the beast. Either way, it is always good to be back home.
As I was talking to my constituents back home, I was glad to hear one
thing. No matter what part of the State I was traveling in, there was
appreciation for the decision we made to give the voters a voice on who
makes the next lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Texans want
to have a say in who replaces Justice Scalia on our Nation's highest
Court, and I believe their voice should be heard.
We are already engaged in the Presidential primaries process. Today
is the Wisconsin primary. It will not be that long before we have a new
President who will make that appointment. I simply believe it is
important--particularly in something that could extend for the next 25
or 30 years and really affect the balance of power on the Supreme
Court--that this be left to the voters.
We all know we did not end up in this position overnight. In fact,
there is a lot of history. I remember that back when I came to the
Senate, I was frustrated by the fact that there was so much politics at
play in the judicial confirmation process. Having served as a State
court judge for 13 years, I had some pretty strong views about that.
But the problem is, there has been a lot that has transpired in the
interim. Everything from the Biden rule to the Reid statement in 2005
was really a threat saying that if President George W. Bush were to
appoint a judge to the Supreme Court, it was within the authority of
the U.S. Senate not to hold a vote on that appointment. That was in
2005. That was the Democratic leader. And then in 2007 when George W.
Bush was still President, 18 months before he left office, Senator
Schumer, the next Democratic leader, said there should be a presumption
against confirmation. This is something that is nearly unprecedented.
Then we know that in the interim there has been this development of
filibusters or the requirement of 60 votes in order to get judges
confirmed brought to us by our
[[Page S1654]]
Democratic friends, as well as something we didn't think would ever
happen but, in fact, did happen under Democratic leadership: the so-
called nuclear option--in other words, breaking the Senate rules in
order to confirm judges mainly to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals--what
some call the second most powerful court in the Nation--in order to
pack that court with judges who are more likely to affirm President
Obama's constitutional overreach.
So, as I said, much to my chagrin and I bet to a lot of people's
chagrin, we have seen the playbook torn up by our Democratic colleagues
and rewritten. The question is, Are we going to be operating under a
different set of rules than they would if the roles were reversed?
Frankly, my constituents back home think the rules ought to be the same
no matter who happens to be in the majority and who happens to be in
the White House.
Even more significantly, the Supreme Court is the final authority for
many of the most pressing issues that face our country. The Court often
acts as a constitutional counterweight to the passions of both
the legislative and executive branches. We have seen the Supreme Court
operate time and time again as a check on the Obama administration's
lawless actions. We saw this in the recess-appointment case. We have
seen it in a number of different cases where the Court has said to the
Obama administration: You have simply overextended your reach beyond
legitimate boundaries.
I am thankful for that important counterbalance in our government and
the give-and-take that the Founding Fathers intended for us to have
with three coequal branches of government. But, as I said, the next
Supreme Court Justice could well change the ideological direction of
the Court for a generation.
Rightly or wrongly, the Supreme Court has the final word on issues as
varied as the scope of the President's power, the ability of the States
to make their own decisions about self-government, and questions of
personal liberty and the like. The Court can and has made all the
difference in the world, and one Justice can affect that for a long
time.
We recall Justice Scalia as somebody who believed that the words of
the Constitution mattered greatly, and he served on the Court for 30
years. Justice Scalia was what was sometimes called an originalist. In
other words, he believed the Court had an obligation to apply the
Constitution and the law as written, not based on some substituted
value judgment for what perhaps the unelected, lifetime-tenured judges
would have preferred in terms of policy. That is not their role. They
don't stand for election. It is our role as the policymakers in the
political branches who do stand for election--and thus give the
American people a chance to voice their pleasure or displeasure, as the
case may be, with the direction that we perhaps take the country when
it comes to policy. But that is not a role the Supreme Court should
play.
We need to approach filling this seat with great care. The
administration and their liberal allies are now trying to basically
throw everything but the kitchen sink at stopping the American people
from getting a voice in this matter. In other words, they are trying to
force Congress's hand or the Senate's hand to confirm the Presidential
nominee at this time. They are spending millions of dollars on TV
advertising. They have hired consultants, and they found some
sympathetic allies in the media to criticize us.
I don't begrudge anybody who has a different point of view than I do
about this, but I simply cannot in good conscience vote to confirm
another Obama nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court in the waning days of
this President's term in office. I happen to believe we should not
process this nomination. We should exercise the power we have under the
Constitution to grant or withhold consent, and in this case to withhold
consent.
But here we are, several weeks after the President announced his
nominee, and nothing has really changed. All the money and the
consultants in the world are not going to change the fact that the
American people are going to have their say. We don't know exactly how
that will turn out, but that is because this is based not on the
personality of the nominee but on the principle that the American
people should have their voice heard.
As I said, the President has the authority to nominate anybody he
chooses, but that doesn't change our responsibility or our authority
under that same Constitution. We remain committed to the idea that this
vacancy should be filled by the next President.
I want to be clear that the American people do deserve a voice here,
and we will make sure they are heard. In the meantime, as I started out
saying, there are a lot of things we can do working together. Just
because we disagree about this one item doesn't mean we have to
disagree about everything or that Congress needs to lapse into
dysfunction.
We currently have a bill pending before us involving the Federal
Aviation Administration and the very important topic of safe and secure
air travel. We can disagree about how to proceed with the President's
nominee to the Supreme Court and still work together to pass other good
consensus legislation. So I hope all of us, our colleagues across the
aisle and on this side of the aisle, will continue to work together to
do things I think would help the country a lot, things such as criminal
justice reform--a bill that has been voted out of the Judiciary
Committee, that enjoys broad bipartisan support, and that the President
of the United States has said he supports.
There is also other important legislation that I am very concerned
about and interested in involving the intersection of mental illness
with our criminal justice system and the fact that our jails have
become the de facto warehouses for people with mental illness who are
going untreated and obviously the homeless who are living on our
streets, many of whom are suffering from mental illness.
I hope we can continue to work together on these other consensus
matters even though we disagree about this one very important matter. I
am confident that we can and we will.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Nomination of Merrick Garland
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, during the recess last week, I had the
opportunity to meet with Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, President Obama's nominee
to fill the existing vacancy of an Associate Justice of the U.S.
Supreme Court. During our meeting, we discussed the role of the Supreme
Court and protecting the civil rights of Americans. We discussed a
number of national security challenges, including those relating to the
detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We discussed the Citizens United
case and campaign finance law. We talked about the respect for each
branch of government and our constitutional system of checks and
balances. We spoke about the important role of precedent in our
judicial decisions and the need to build consensus on decisions. We
discussed the value of promoting pro bono work in the legal profession
and the need to address the growing access-to-justice gap. I was
pleased to hear that as an attorney at the Justice Department, Chief
Justice Garland worked to clarify ethics rules to allow government
lawyers to engage in additional pro bono work.
What I was doing is what I hope every Member in the Senate will do,
and that is finding out more about Judge Garland, his judicial
philosophy, the way he has conducted his life, his respect for the
Constitution and the precedents of the judicial branch of government,
looking at current issues and seeing how Judge Garland views those
current issues. That is all part of a confirmation process.
The President, under the Constitution, has done his job; that is, he
has made the nomination of who he believes should fill Justice Scalia's
vacancy. It is now up to the Senate to do
[[Page S1655]]
our job, and our job starts with Members of the Senate meeting with
Judge Garland to be able to see one-on-one, without cameras glaring,
how Judge Garland responds to our individual issues. We obviously have
his record, his background, his public service, what he has done as a
lawyer, what he has done as a prosecutor, and what he has done as a
judge on the circuit court. We also should have a confirmation hearing
in the Judiciary Committee, which will give us more information.
Under the Constitution, the responsibility of the President is to
make the nomination. It is now up to the Senate to do our job, and our
job is to consider that nominee, for each Senator to learn as much as
they possibly can--this is a critically important position, obviously,
the Supreme Court of the United States--and for the institution to hold
hearings and to vote. Each Senator will have to make his or her own
judgment on whether we should vote for or against confirmation, but we
have a responsibility to consider that nomination and a responsibility
to vote.
I must say that I was very impressed by the nominee during the course
of our meeting. He has impeccable qualifications as a prosecutor,
judge, and now chief judge of what many call the second highest court
in the land. The Senate confirmed Judge Garland on a bipartisan basis
for his current judgeship, which he has held for nearly two decades.
Chief Judge Garland strikes me as a thoughtful and deliberate person
who has dedicated his life to public service. And I am proud to say
that the nominee is a Marylander and lives in Bethesda in Montgomery
County, MD.
Chief Judge Garland is the nominee for the Supreme Court and should
be dealt with in this term of Congress. It is not a matter for the next
President and the next Congress; it is a matter for this President and
this Congress. There are 9 months left in this year, and to suggest
that we don't have the time and the President doesn't have the
authority to appoint a nominee is outrageous, and it is an affront to
the Constitution.
This nomination is not about popularity or politics; it is about
finding the next Justice who will advance the rule of law in this
country, who will recognize the responsibility of the Supreme Court to
be the final arbiter on constitutional issues, and having a person who
can bring about greater consensus among his colleagues. As more of my
colleagues meet Judge Garland, they will see that this is one of his
many strengths. We need to go through the process and give Chief Judge
Garland a chance.
I think it is hard to understand how you are excused from doing your
job for 9 months by not having a confirmation hearing or vote. I don't
think the American people understand that. Quite frankly, I don't
understand that. I don't understand why we are not going through the
regular order. Regular order would be for us individually to meet with
Judge Garland and for the Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing and to
schedule a timely vote on the floor of the Senate. I think more and
more Senators will come to that conclusion. The President did his job,
and it is now time for the Senate to do its job.
The American people want to see nine Justices on the Supreme Court
when it convenes its new term in October. We have a new term beginning
in October of this year. We expect to see nine Justices on the Court to
make decisions. You don't resolve issues on a 4-to-4 vote. We hopefully
will have greater consensus. We shouldn't have a divided Court. We
should be able to get more collegiality on the Supreme Court, but we
also should be able to make a decision. The Supreme Court needs to be
able to make a decision. With eight Justices, in too many cases they
are not going to be able to make a decision.
Article II, section 2, of the Constitution states that the President
``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,
shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court.'' The President has no
alternative under the Constitution but to make a nomination when there
is a vacancy. There is a vacancy on the Supreme Court due to Justice
Scalia's untimely death. The President did his job. The Constitution
says very clearly that we--the Senate--have to advise and consent. That
is our requirement. That is not optional; we have that as a
requirement. Never have we denied an opportunity to consider a Supreme
Court nominee. It is now up to us to consider that nominee, and we
should consider that nominee by doing our job--interviewing Judge
Garland, scheduling a committee hearing, and voting on that nominee.
The American people twice elected President Obama to a 4-year term in
office. Their voice has been heard very clearly. Elections have
consequences, and President Obama has carried out the constitutional
responsibilities and duties of his office by nominating Judge Garland
as the successor to Justice Scalia. The President is simply doing the
job the American people elected him to do. The President doesn't stop
working simply because it is an election year. He has more than 9
months left in office, as do Senators who will face the voters in
November. Congress should not stop working, either, in this election
year.
Of course, every Senator has the right to make his or her own
judgment on whether they will vote for or against confirmation.
Senators were elected for 6-year terms by the citizens of their States
and have the right and obligation to vote as they see fit. President
Obama was elected by the people of the United States for two
4-year terms and has the right and obligation to nominate judges.
History has shown that when the roles were reversed and Democrats
held the majority in the Senate, Supreme Court and judicial nominees
for Republican Presidents were given hearings and up-or-down votes
regardless of when the vacancies occurred. While I might have picked
different judges, as a Senator, I voted to confirm the vast majority of
President Bush's judicial nominations in his final year in office. I
will continue to carry out my constitutional responsibilities that I
undertook when I became a Senator and swore to support the
Constitution.
Let me remind my colleagues that a democratically controlled Senate
confirmed Justice Kennedy to the Supreme Court during the last year of
President Ronald Reagan's final term in 1988. Senators also confirmed
Justice Murphy in 1940, Justice Cardozo in 1932, and Justice Brandeis
in 1916. The precedent of the Senate indicates that we need to take up
this nominee.
What the Republicans are effectively trying to do is temporarily
shrink the Supreme Court from nine to eight Justices and shorten the
term of the President from 4 years to 3 years. Why? Because the
President is of a different party than the Senate. This is disgraceful
and indefensible.
Let me quote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was appointed by
President Ronald Reagan in 1981 as the first female Justice of the
Supreme Court. When asked about the vacancy on the Court created by the
death of Justice Scalia, Justice O'Connor said, ``We need somebody
there now to do the job, and let's get on with it.'' I agree with
Justice O'Connor. Let's do our job and fulfill the Senate's
constitutional responsibilities and vote up or down on Judge Garland's
nomination.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________