[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 56 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1984-S1985]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT
Mr. REID. Mr. President, throughout his career in the Senate, the
senior Senator from Iowa has styled himself as an advocate for
transparency in government. A number of years ago he said:
I believe in the principle of open government. Lack of
transparency in the public policy process leads to cynicism
and distrust of public officials. . . . As a matter of
principle, the American people need to be made aware of any
action that prevents a matter from being considered by their
elected Senators.
He reiterated his beliefs just a few days ago here in this Chamber,
and here is what he said last week:
The principle of government transparency is one that does
not expire. . . . Open government is good government. And
Americans have a right to a government that is accountable to
its people.
So Senator Grassley's commitment to transparency is as shallow as the
shallowest puddle you could find.
All it took was one phone call, obviously, from the Republican leader
for Senator Grassley to abandon any pretense of transparency and shut
the American people out of the Supreme Court nomination process--shut
them out.
This is the same Senator who once said, ``As a matter of principle,
the American people need to be made aware of any action that prevents a
matter from being considered by their elected Senators.''
Nothing that Senator Grassley has done with respect to the Supreme
Court vacancy meets his own standard for transparency.
There was no transparency when the Judiciary Committee chairman and
his Republican committee members shut Democrats out and met with the
Republican leader behind closed doors. There was no transparency when
he twisted the arms of his own committee members to sign a loyalty
oath, again behind closed doors. There was no transparency when he
sought to move a public committee meeting behind closed doors just to
avoid talking about the Supreme Court nomination. And there was
certainly no transparency on Tuesday--yesterday--when at 8 o'clock in
the morning he met downstairs with Judge Merrick Garland in the private
Senate Dining Room moments before slipping out the back door to avoid
reporters. This is how CNN reported it: ``The Iowa Senator left the
high-profile but out-of-sight meeting via a backdoor that leads to his
private `hideaway.' ''
One television station in Iowa put it this way: ``Grassley evaded
reporters.''
This is the same Senator who once supported cameras in Federal
courtrooms, including the Supreme Court. Why? To increase transparency,
so he said. But Senator Grassley only wants transparency to apply to
others, I guess not to himself. When it comes to transparency, his
attitude is strictly: ``Do as I say, not as I do.''
He won't even apply a degree of that same openness as he blocks a
nominee to the highest Court in the land. There will be no transparency
if Senator Grassley fails to call an open hearing where Chief Justice
Garland can present himself to the American people.
I have had people ask me: Why wouldn't there be a hearing? Well, it
is obvious. They are all afraid. The chairman of the Judiciary
Committee is afraid that this good man, if the American people see him,
will understand why he is a nomination that couldn't be better. They
are afraid to allow this man to be seen by the American public. Talking
about transparency, there won't be any if the Republican Senators
aren't going to be able to even have a vote on the nomination.
All of this that has been going on is not like the Senator Grassley
who I have served with for more than three decades. By carrying out the
present leader's failed strategy to undermine
[[Page S1985]]
this Court, the Senator from Iowa is undermining years of his own hard
work in pushing for more open government. All that he has done talking
about transparency is gone.
Senator Grassley should take his own medicine and stop retreating
behind closed doors with private conversations that shut the American
people out of the important confirmation process. If the senior Senator
from Iowa truly believes in transparency, he should simply do his job
and give Merrick Garland a hearing and a vote.
Mr. President, there appears to be no one seeking the floor. Will the
Presiding Officer announce the business of the day.
____________________