[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 60 (Tuesday, April 19, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1838-H1843]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




OBSTRUCTION OF JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND'S APPOINTMENT TO THE UNITED STATES 
                             SUPREME COURT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for all Members 
to have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on the subject of this Special 
Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise to implore the Senate to fulfill 
its responsibility and give fair consideration to President Obama's 
nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.
  During my tenure in this honorable body, I have witnessed no 
comparable examples of partisan politics and complete obstructionism 
with respect to the consideration of a Supreme Court nominee.
  I introduced H. Res. 661, together with my Democratic colleagues on 
the House Judiciary Committee. This resolution calls on the Senate to 
hold hearings and an up-or-down vote on the President's nomination of 
Judge Garland. The Senate majority's flat-out refusal to consider 
President Obama's nominee, regardless of the nominee's qualifications, 
is historically unprecedented and is part of a longstanding pattern of 
disrespect shown to this administration in particular. Our Constitution 
relies on a system of checks and balances; yet the Senate majority's 
continued stonewalling of the President's nominee threatens to throw 
the system into an imbalance.
  The President, of course, has the constitutional authority and 
obligation to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court, pursuant to 
Article II, section 2, and he has fulfilled his duty with his 
nomination of Judge Garland. The Senate has both the authority and the 
duty to provide advice and consent on the President's nominee; yet the 
Senate has, thus far, refused to do its job, which is simply 
unacceptable.
  It is clear the Constitution requires that both the President and the 
Senate fulfill their respective roles in the Supreme Court nomination 
process in order for the Supreme Court to be able to fully perform its 
constitutional role. Otherwise, what is to stop the Senate from 
grinding the Court--a coequal branch of government, I remind you--to a 
halt by simply refusing to consider any nominees to fill any vacancies 
on the Court?
  There is no merit to their argument that we have to wait until we 
elect a new President. After all, the American people twice elected 
President Obama to fulfill the duties of President, including the duty 
to appoint Supreme Court Justices. A strong and independent judiciary 
is a prerequisite for a strong democracy. This remains as true in the 
last year of a Presidency as it does in the first. Moreover, there is 
ample precedent for Presidents nominating and the Senate confirming 
Supreme Court nominees in a Presidential election year. For example, in 
1988, during the last full year of Ronald Reagan's Presidency, the 
Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed the nomination of Justice 
Anthony Kennedy by President Reagan by a vote of 97-0.
  There are 9 months left in President Obama's term. The President has 
nominated an eminently qualified jurist in Judge Garland, and the 
Senate has more than enough time to consider and vote on his 
nomination. It is vital that the Supreme Court have a full complement 
of Justices so that the critical constitutional and legal questions 
before the Court can be given the full attention they need. Already, we 
have seen a number of 4-4 decisions that have left much uncertainty in 
place for the lower courts, for the litigants, and for Americans 
generally.
  The Senate should do its job: comply with regular order, hold 
hearings on Judge Garland's nomination, and then have an up-or-down 
vote on the nomination.
  Now it is with great pleasure that I yield to the gentleman from 
Maryland, Mr. Steny Hoyer, the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his 
distinguished service.
  Madam Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to the 
ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for leading today's Special 
Order on the important issue of the vacancy on the Supreme Court and 
the Senate Republicans' unprecedented obstruction of the President's 
nominee.
  That nominee, of course, is Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Circuit

[[Page H1839]]

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. He is one of the most 
highly qualified nominees ever. Let me repeat that. He is one of the 
most highly qualified nominees ever to be put forward for a seat on the 
Nation's highest court. He is a respected former prosecutor and is well 
regarded as an appellate judge. He was confirmed to his present 
position in 1997 by a vote of 76-23, with a majority of Republicans 
voting in favor.

  Madam Speaker, in fact, notwithstanding the opposition of some 
Republicans, they articulated--in particular, Mr. Grassley, who is now 
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee--that Judge Garland was 
eminently qualified and would be good for an appointment to another 
court but that he was not for expanding the Circuit Court of the 
District of Columbia, and it was for that reason alone that he voted 
against Mr. Garland.
  Madam Speaker, today is the 21st anniversary of the Oklahoma City 
bombing. Judge Garland, as Deputy Assistant Attorney General during the 
Clinton administration, oversaw the successful investigation into the 
bombing and the prosecution of its perpetrators. His insistence on 
traveling to see the remains of the Murrah Building in the days after 
the attack and his hands-on approach to the investigation and 
prosecution won him praise across the political spectrum.
  The Constitution is clear: the President has a responsibility to 
nominate Justices to the Court, and the Senate has the ability to 
advise and consent, but it also has the responsibility to provide its 
advice and consent with regard to these nominees. It can, of course, 
reject a nominee, and it can advise and consent to the appointment of a 
nominee; but the Senate has chosen to do neither. It has chosen to do 
nothing. It has chosen to perpetrate gridlock in the Supreme Court of 
the United States. President Obama met his responsibilities. Now the 
Senate must do the same. It needs to do its work. Senate Republicans 
can't just pick and choose when to do their jobs.
  Last month, we saw the real-life consequences of an eight-member 
Supreme Court as it split 4-4 in a key case concerning the right of the 
teachers to organize and collect union dues. Madam Speaker, I was 
pleased with that particular outcome because the lower court had ruled 
in a way that I thought was appropriate. It is an example, however, of 
a case too important to be the result of a default to the lower court 
because of a split bench. In cases like these, the Court cannot set 
precedent. The American people, however, deserve a Court that operates 
at full strength so that it can establish precedent.
  We cannot wait until after the election to vote on Judge Garland's 
nomination. Senate Republicans, Madam Speaker, continue to insist that, 
somehow, their obstruction is based in precedent--that a nomination 
ought not to be made in the final year of a President's term. Ranking 
Member Conyers, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, just 
spoke to that. Nowhere in our Constitution is the President's authority 
limited by the number of days or months into or remaining in his or her 
term. The President is the President from January 20 until January 20 4 
years later. This is yet another example of congressional Republicans 
holding this particular President to a different and unfair standard.
  The Senate confirmed Justice Anthony Kennedy, as has been said, 
during the final year of President Reagan's second term. Thirteen other 
Justices have been confirmed during Presidential election years, 
including Louis Brandeis and Benjamin Cardozo--two of the great members 
of the Supreme Court of the United States.
  During the Kennedy confirmation process in 1988, President Ronald 
Reagan said: ``The Federal judiciary is too important to be made a 
political football.''
  I would hope that Senate Republicans, who often cite President Reagan 
as a guide for the kind of leaders they want to be, would heed this 
admonition. Some have had the political courage to reject their 
colleagues' disrespectful approach of refusing to even meet with Judge 
Garland. I congratulate them. They are doing their jobs.

                              {time}  1615

  Not only should all Members of the Senate give him the courtesy of a 
meeting, they ought to do their jobs as well and not stand in the way 
of hearings and consideration.
  The Senate's duty to advise and consent certainly, Madam Speaker, was 
not envisioned by the Founders to be optional or that the Senate could 
effectively pocket veto a nomination to the Court. The Senate ought to 
do its job.
  I don't think a single Founder would have conceived of the 
possibility of the Court receiving a nomination pursuant to the 
President's constitutional responsibility and authority and simply say: 
Too bad, Mr. President. Too bad, Supreme Court. We are not going to 
consider that nomination.
  No Founding Father would have conceived that to be possible, and 
they, therefore, did not provide for a time limit in which the 
consideration could occur.
  I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that, if we meet our oath to the 
Constitution of the United States to uphold the laws of the United 
States, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the Supreme Court of the 
United States is fully manned so that it can, in fact, assure the 
faithful execution and adherence to the laws and Constitution of this 
country.
  I thank my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for leading this 
Special Order tonight on a subject of profound consequence to all 
Americans.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
his incredible analysis.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman from Michigan.
  I rise today to express my concern about the ongoing vacancy in the 
Supreme Court. The President has done his constitutional job, and that 
is to screen, to choose, to nominate, and to put forward a name.
  The Senate must do its constitutional duty, to take a look at the 
nominee and give a vote. I don't know how the Senate would vote, 
depending on the nominee.
  It is in their jurisdiction. It is in their individual right to take 
a look and to decide yea or nay. But it is their responsibility to take 
up that nominee. That is the constitutional requirement.
  It has dire consequences for us when this vacancy is left unfilled. 
It has dire consequences for many, in particular, for example, the 
Latino community. Just yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments 
in United States v. Texas, a challenge to the President's executive 
actions on immigration.
  Because of the vacancy, we only have three Justices. So there is the 
clear possibility that it could be a 4-4 vote. That would leave in 
place the freeze on DACA and DAPA, and millions of immigrants' lives 
are hanging in the balance.
  The Supreme Court must be able to make concrete decisions on the most 
pressing issues facing our country, but we are stuck in limbo.
  Actually, if you think of the division of powers, we are purposely in 
a way hampering the power of that judiciary. It doesn't have to be that 
way.
  President Obama has nominated Judge Garland, a worthy and a just 
successor to the late Justice Scalia's seat.
  Yes, Senate Republicans refuse to give Judge Garland their 
consideration even though a majority of Senate Republicans voted to 
confirm this exact same judge to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 
1997.
  They refuse to consider his nomination. Why? Because they are looking 
to block any Supreme Court nominee at any cost.
  There is too much at stake to leave the Supreme Court vacancy open. 
It is time for the Senate to fulfill their constitutional duty by 
filling the Supreme Court vacancy with undue delay.
  Wasting time, playing political games with the highest of the Court, 
is irresponsible and is unacceptable.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Cicilline), a distinguished member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding and for his leadership on this Special Order hour.
  Madam Speaker, 5 weeks ago President Obama fulfilled his 
constitutional responsibility and nominated Judge Merrick Garland to 
the Supreme Court.

[[Page H1840]]

  Judge Garland is eminently qualified for this position. In 1997, he 
was confirmed to the United States Court of Appeals in the District of 
Columbia with a majority of both parties supporting his nomination. He 
oversaw the prosecution of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols for the 
Oklahoma City bombing.
  Before Judge Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court, Republican 
Senator Orrin Hatch said he would be a consensus nominee and that there 
was no question he would be confirmed in the Senate.
  Now, one month after President Obama nominated Judge Garland to the 
Supreme Court, Senate Republicans are refusing to hold hearings on his 
nomination or give him an up-or-down vote.
  President Ronald Reagan said: The Federal judiciary is too important 
to be made a political football. But that is exactly what Senate 
Republicans are doing.
  They are denying the American people a fully functioning Supreme 
Court and choosing to turn the Federal judiciary into a political 
football.
  The Supreme Court was designated by the Founders of our country to 
make major decisions of law and to protect the rights of all Americans, 
but the Supreme Court can't function as it was designed without a full 
slate of nine Justices.
  The Constitution makes clear that the President's job is to nominate 
Justices to the Supreme Court, and the Senate's job is to advise and 
consent on those nominations.
  The President has done his job. It is outrageous and deeply offensive 
that Senate Republicans are saying they won't do their job for the 
remainder of the year.
  This is yet another example, maybe the most consequential example, of 
Republican obstruction. The American people deserve more from their 
elected officials.
  Leader McConnell and Members of the Senate Republican caucus, do your 
job and consider Judge Garland's nomination as swiftly as possible. The 
American people deserve nothing less.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Foster).
  Mr. FOSTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Maryland for coordinating this discussion, and I thank Ranking Member 
Conyers for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, a Supreme Court sitting with only eight Justices, 
including the Chief Justice, is not good for democracy.
  The failure by the Senate to consider our President's nominee because 
of the electoral cycle is an abdication of constitutional 
responsibility that is without precedent and without reason.
  Now, I am best known to my colleagues as the last Ph.D. scientist in 
Congress or perhaps as the businessman who founded a company with his 
brother that now manufactures most of the theater lighting equipment in 
the United States.

  What is less well known is that I am also the son of a civil rights 
lawyer who wrote much of the enforcement language behind the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964. Like me, my father was a scientist, and he stepped 
away from his career in science to become a civil rights lawyer.
  There was a decade between the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. 
Board of Education that held that racially segregated school systems 
were inherently unequal and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  My father spent most of that decade traveling around the South, 
advising school boards and Federal judges on the nuts and bolts of 
school desegregation.
  In August of 1969, President Richard Nixon nominated Judge Clement F. 
Haynsworth to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The 
nomination was to replace Justice Abe Fortas, a liberal from the New 
Deal era. The confirmation of Clement Haynsworth would have shifted the 
balance of the Court significantly to the right.
  Many liberal Democrats were strongly opposed to the nomination on 
ideological grounds, but my father knew Judge Haynsworth from his years 
working in civil rights. He knew him to be an intelligent and a fair-
minded man.
  So my father was called to testify before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee in support of the nomination of Clement Haynsworth.
  My father's testimony cited specific cases in which he, my father, as 
an avowedly liberal Democrat, would have decided otherwise. But he 
pointed out that the decisions could be sustained by a reasonable man 
and could be sustained under precedent.
  In the closing of my father's testimony, he said:

       The question for me is not whether I would have made 
     another nominee for the Supreme Court. It is rather the 
     question of whether Judge Haynsworth possesses the qualities 
     required to become a fine Justice of the Supreme Court.

  This is the standard that should be employed by the Senate today. The 
President alone has the authority and the obligation to nominate a 
person to serve on the Supreme Court.
  The Senate can defeat that nomination through a vote on the Senate 
floor after hearings and thoughtful considerations of a person's 
judicial temperament and intellect.
  I believe that considering those characteristics makes it clear that 
Judge Merrick Garland is eminently qualified to sit on the Supreme 
Court. But from the Framers, to my father, to today, we have 
established frameworks for making those decisions.
  The Supreme Court should not be, as a famous President once said, a 
political football, and filling the bench is vitally important.
  So I urge my colleagues in the Senate to give Merrick Garland what 
liberal Democrats gave Clement Haynsworth: hearings and a vote.
  In 1969, finally, the Senate voted to withhold its consent for the 
appointment of Clement Haynsworth 3 months after his nomination, with 
38 Democrats and 17 Republicans voting against him.
  I think that the process will make it clear how qualified Merrick 
Garland is and that he will be confirmed, but the Senate must follow 
the process established in the Constitution for reviewing a nominee.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Schiff), the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee and a 
former member of the House Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, last month President Obama nominated a 
fantastic jurist, Judge Merrick Garland, to the Supreme Court. Seconds 
later Republicans announced that he would not receive a vote, a 
hearing, or even a courtesy meeting in many cases.
  Judge Garland has a sterling reputation as a brilliant centrist and, 
above all, a fair jurist. He has been praised by Members of both 
parties in the past.
  He served in the criminal division of the Department of Justice 
before his nearly two-decades-long career as a U.S. circuit court 
judge.
  Garland is a Harvard University and Harvard Law School graduate. He 
clerked for a U.S. Court of Appeals judge and then for Justice William 
Brennan on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  During his stint with the Department of Justice, he was dispatched in 
the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing to help set up the 
prosecution team and help investigators build a case.
  When Garland was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, he received 
a broad and bipartisan vote. There is no doubt that Garland is superbly 
qualified.
  This Nation's Constitution expressly states that the President has 
the power to appoint Supreme Court Justices with two-thirds of the 
Senate approving.
  Nowhere is there some kind of an asterisk stating that, during their 
last year in office or even during the last few weeks of their term, 
the President must relinquish this power to a successor.
  President Obama was elected by the American public in 2012 to serve 
another 4 years in office. With 9 months left in his term, there is no 
excuse for the Senate to block him from filling this Supreme Court 
vacancy.
  Precedent demands action. In the past, six previous Supreme Court 
nominees were confirmed by the Senate in an election year, including 
current Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was nominated by then-President 
Reagan.
  A Republican President who was in the final year of his term and a 
Democratic Congress hoping that one of

[[Page H1841]]

their own would replace him in The Oval Office, if that sounds 
familiar, it is.
  But instead of the partisan gridlock in the midst of a heated 
presidential campaign, in 1988, Kennedy received a fair and lengthy 
hearing chaired by then-Senator Joe Biden and then received an 
overwhelming 97-0 bipartisan vote.

                              {time}  1630

  The Supreme Court is a coequal branch of government, not to be 
trifled with, not to be demeaned like some administrative backwater, 
and certainly not to be made the partisan and political plaything of a 
Senate GOP leadership desperate to hold on to its majority at all 
costs.
  Judge Garland deserves a full and fair hearing before the Senate to 
discuss his qualifications and judicial philosophy, and he deserves an 
up-or-down vote on his nomination as soon as possible.
  To do otherwise would set a dangerous new precedent that further 
politicizes the judicial nomination process and departs from our 
constitutional system.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. 
Conyers for his leadership and for organizing this Special Order to 
highlight the grave consequences of Senate Republican obstructionism by 
blocking a simple up-or-down vote on the nomination of Judge Merrick 
Garland to the Supreme Court.
  Republicans claim to love the Constitution, yet they refuse to 
acknowledge their constitutional duties. Senate Republicans have chosen 
to play politics instead of doing what is right for the American 
people. They simply don't want to do their job.
  President Obama faithfully fulfilled his constitutional duty by 
nominating Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, but Senate 
Republicans refuse to even hold a hearing to consider, to just 
consider, Chief Judge Garland's nomination.
  This refusal to fulfill a constitutional duty of theirs to vet and 
vote on this nominee is indicative of Republicans' 8-year strategy of 
obstructing President Obama at every opportunity.
  And who loses? The American people do.
  The worst excuse that I have heard as to why Senate Republicans are 
shirking their duty is that the American people should have a say in 
the process. I would like to remind my Senate Republican colleagues 
that the American people--including 11.2 million Latinos who voted in 
the 2012 election cycle--already had a voice in this nomination.
  The American people expressed their will when they overwhelmingly 
reelected President Obama to a second full term, with the understanding 
that if a vacancy occurred, it is part of the President's duty to 
nominate a Supreme Court Justice.
  I would like to remind my Republican colleagues, a full Presidential 
term is 4 years, not just 3. I know math can be hard and a little 
tricky, so I wanted to make sure that my Republican colleagues in the 
Senate were clear on that.
  The vacancy before us is one that is critically important for all 
Americans, but especially for Latinos living in the United States. The 
President has fulfilled his obligation. Now it is time for the 
Republican Senators to do their job.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. I now yield to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on the Senate 
Republicans to give a full and fair hearing and vote to confirm 
President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland.
  There is critical business before the Supreme Court this term. Our 
democracy relies on a full and functioning Supreme Court.
  It has been more than a month since President Obama announced his 
nominee, and Republican leadership has refused to move forward with the 
confirmation process.
  Judge Garland is an experienced and respected jurist with a long 
history of service to our Nation. He has more experience as a Federal 
judge than any nominee in history, but Republican leaders have decided 
they won't hold a hearing to consider Judge Garland's nomination. 
Instead of doing their jobs, Republicans are playing political games 
and leaving our Nation's highest court in limbo.
  This kind of obstructionism is unprecedented. Since the 1980s, every 
person appointed to the Supreme Court has been given a prompt hearing 
and a vote within 100 days. There are 276 days until the next President 
takes office--plenty of time to consider Judge Garland's nomination.
  The Constitution gives the President the responsibility to nominate 
Justices to the Supreme Court and gives the Senate the job of 
considering that nominee. There are no exceptions for election year. 
Never before in American history has a Senate majority said they refuse 
to consider or vote on anyone nominated by the current President. We 
have never stopped considering Supreme Court nominees during election 
years.
  This is just the latest example of unconscionable Republican 
obstructionism. From shutting down the government to threatening to 
cause a catastrophic default, Republicans have proven that they don't 
know how to govern and they don't have our Nation's best interests in 
mind. Republicans continue to put partisan politics ahead of the well-
being of the American people.
  Nearly 60 percent of Americans want the Senate to hold hearings and 
vote on the nominee. They want and expect Republican Senators to do 
their jobs.
  Justice Scalia dedicated his life to the Constitution. The Senate 
should honor his service by upholding their constitutional 
responsibility to give his replacement a fair hearing and a timely 
vote.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I now yield to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Madam Speaker, yesterday I had the honor and the 
privilege of sitting in the Supreme Court chamber while the case of 
United States v. Texas was argued. It is a case that many of us hope 
will affirm the President's executive actions known as DACA and DAPA 
and allow for children who were brought here through no fault of their 
own as young kids to stay in the country, and also for their parents, 
the parents of U.S. citizen children, to also remain here so that 
families are not separated because of our laws.
  I hope that the President prevails and the administration prevails 
and these families prevail in their arguments when we find out in June 
or so what the Supreme Court decides. As all of us sat there and 
watched the arguments, the elephant in the room was that there was one 
Justice who was not there. Instead of the Supreme Court being filled 
with nine Justices, there were only eight, which leaves open the 
possibility in this case, and many others, that the Court will be 
deadlocked 4-4.
  Not only on this issue where both sides, whether you are in favor of 
the administration's actions or against them, have a right to have the 
case decided and not be left in limbo.
  On the issue of immigration in this term, on the issue of abortion, 
criminal law issues, jury selection issues, these important 
constitutional questions, many of them could be left in limbo because 
the Senate Republicans refuse to even start to do their job.
  The President has nominated somebody for the Supreme Court. The 
Senate is supposed to take that nomination up, give the person a 
hearing, and then take a vote.
  Is it so much to ask that the Senate take a vote on the nomination?
  They can vote ``no'' if they disagree with it, but they should at 
least take a vote.
  Now, I say this in the context of the last few years in this 
Congress, putting aside this term that we are in right now, the last 
two terms of Congress before this were the least productive terms in 
American history, measured by the number of bills sent to the 
President's desk.
  What this represents is the fact that the cancer of gridlock is 
spreading from the Congress to the judiciary because Senate Republicans 
refuse not only to do their job in their Chamber, but also to allow the 
Supreme Court to properly do its job.

[[Page H1842]]

  Mr. Speaker, I urge the Senate and Senate Republicans to do their job 
and to take a vote on the nomination of Merrick Garland.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding to me.
  Please listen with me to the following timeless, universal, and wise 
words:
  ``Trust that justice will be done in our courts without prejudice or 
partisanship is what, in a large part, distinguishes this country from 
others. For a judge to be worthy of such trust, he or she must be 
faithful to the Constitution and to the statutes passed by the 
Congress. He or she must put aside personal views or preferences and 
follow the law, not make it.''
  Timeless and universally wise words. And, yes, those are the words of 
Chief Judge Merrick Garland.
  President Obama fulfilled his constitutional responsibility by 
nominating Chief Judge Garland, an eminently qualified American, to the 
Supreme Court. He does, indeed, deserve--and the American people 
deserve--a fair hearing and an up-or-down vote.
  Chief Judge Merrick Garland has more Federal judiciary experience 
than any other Supreme Court nominee in history. Let me repeat that. He 
has more Federal judicial experience than any other Supreme Court judge 
in history. This approach has earned him bipartisan praise throughout 
his career. As he was, as noted earlier, confirmed by a majority of 
both political parties, Senator Hatch's words were referenced.
  Here is what hasn't been referenced. None other than Chief Justice of 
the Supreme Court John Roberts said: ``Anytime Judge Garland disagrees, 
you know you're in a difficult area.''
  I am proud to be from and in this body representing a region of 
Washington State. Of course, I am not over in the Senate. We here on 
the House floor don't get a vote. The nomination doesn't come here. But 
I am also proud that I am represented by both Senators Patty Murray and 
Maria Cantwell, who are both committed to moving forward and prepared 
to do their job and vote. Washingtonians, frankly, should be proud of 
their leadership.
  If only the Senate majority would also do their job and allow the 
Senate to function, then we can ensure that the Court is able to reach 
decisions that will produce the necessary precedent we need to resolve 
many matters going forward.
  Someday I hope someone from the 10th Congressional District of 
Washington State is nominated to the highest court in our land. And I 
fear a kid from Tacoma known for resolving disputes on the playground 
or a teenager in Olympia showing a talent for judging policy debates or 
a law student from Shelton with their nose in administrative law 
textbooks, I fear they are seeing all of this play out and thinking, 
why would I want to devote my career and life to the judicial process 
only to be denied consideration from a stubborn Senate?
  But worst of all, with this inaction, the Senate is basically erasing 
the lines, and they are creating a new level of gridlock. As an 
American, I, frankly, genuinely fear what this will become. Every 
American should fear what this will mean in the future. This kind of 
obstructionism can become and will become a slippery slope, and it will 
not bode well for our democracy. This is arbitrary and capricious.
  Justice Scalia died February 12, so there was not enough time left 
because there was just a year left to go. Same is true in January.
  What about December and November? That is holiday season. Hardly 
enough time.
  What about October? Well, we are going into holiday season.
  What about September? Well, we have got to get the budget out.
  What about August? We are on recess.
  We are erasing the lines, and that is for the Supreme Court.
  Where does it go next? Does it go to all other judicial level 
appointments? Does it go to all administrative agencies?
  We are erasing the lines. It will not bode well for the rule of law. 
It will not bode well for justice.
  I am not in the business of giving advice to the eminent Members of 
the upper Chamber ever except today. Do your job. Hold a hearing. Give 
it an up-or-down vote. Were I there, yes, I would vote to confirm Chief 
Judge Garland. But, minimally, do your job. Hold a hearing and give it 
an up-or-down vote.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I now to yield to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member of our Committee 
on the Judiciary for yielding. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) for bringing us together tonight so as to speak to what I 
think is a necessary cry, an outspoken cry to please fill the post on 
the Supreme Court.

                              {time}  1645

  Madam Speaker, I am here this evening to join in spirit and voice 
with my colleagues who are urging, requesting our counterparts in the 
Senate, controlled by the Republican Party, to move forward on action 
taken by our President, as he nominated a gentleman by the name of 
Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Their 
recalcitrance seems to strike a common theme of obstructionism.
  The Republican-led Congress has embodied obstructionism over the last 
several years. We see in public opinion surveys where that has reduced 
the positive side of the image of Congress simply because we don't do 
our work when it is required of us.
  Where else in this country in any other job can you say no when asked 
to do your job? That is what is happening here.
  Our Republican-controlled Senate is suggesting and indicating by 
their action that they will not move in fairness to address this 
nomination. My colleagues and I are not asking for a rubber stamp 
process here. We are asking simply that a fair hearing be given to the 
individual nominated by our President.
  President Obama has looked at qualifications, he has checked 
performance, he has looked at integrity, and he has named an individual 
that has received great reviews on both sides of the aisle in both 
Houses; but for some reason our colleagues in the other House--the 
Republicans of the Senate--will not allow for a fair hearing. That is 
saying no to your job. They embrace the Constitution, but seem to walk 
from it when it doesn't fit their agenda.
  What we have here again is obstructionism, perhaps of an historic 
dimension. This show of recalcitrance is regrettable and it is 
unacceptable.
  For the sake of argument, let me just share two numbers: 67 and 125. 
Sixty-seven days is the average length of time from nomination to 
confirmation for a Supreme Court nominee since 1975. Sixty-seven days. 
In terms of 127 days, that expresses the longest wait ever for a 
nominee from nomination to confirmation before that vote came. So 67 
days and 125 days to make the case here.
  President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland on March 17, a full 
311 days before his term expires on January 20 of next year. So the 
math here is very plain. It is a sound, solid argument: 67 on average, 
125 at fullest length for the time span for doing business in the 
Senate when it comes to addressing the highest court in the land. They 
have had 311 days to do their work.
  People say: Well, the people need to decide. They want a President to 
be elected, come forth, and then address this vacancy.
  Well, the people did decide when they named President Obama by vote 
to a second term. America didn't elect President Obama for his second 
term to serve three-quarters of a term. They elected him for a full 4 
years. So the arguments are weak, if they are even arguments.
  ``Do your job'' is the message that we share today on this House 
floor to the other House and to the Republican-controlled Senate. Do 
your job. There is much unfinished business in the highest court of the 
land. The Supreme Court has great unfinished business. To render that 
an eight-member body, where there can be deadlock and virtual paralysis 
in the highest court in the land, is unacceptable.
  Let's do the people's business. Let's fill the vacancy on the Supreme 
Court,

[[Page H1843]]

let's respect the Constitution, and let's understand that much time was 
available--is available--to get the work done here to confirm or to 
reject a nominee. Simply do your job and offer the gentleman a fair 
hearing.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), 
whose father honored us by serving on the Judiciary Committee when he 
was here.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I 
appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important topic of filling 
the Supreme Court vacancy.
  Madam Speaker, many of our colleagues in this Chamber carry a pocket 
Constitution--I have got one here myself--to remind ourselves of our 
duty to the country.
  Article II, section 2, the so-called Appointments Clause, is very 
clear. It says that the President shall have the power to nominate and, 
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint 
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme 
Court.
  It says ``shall,'' Madam Speaker. It doesn't say ``may.'' It doesn't 
say ``might.'' It says ``shall.'' Yet, many of our Senate colleagues on 
the Republican side--the very same people who routinely will brandish 
the Constitution as they speak to justify their actions--are now 
ignoring the very plain text of the Constitution.
  Mitch McConnell suggested that the President should not even have put 
forward a nominee for this vacancy on the Supreme Court. In other 
words, he suggested the President shouldn't do the job that the 
Constitution clearly dictates he should do. Well, the President decided 
he was going to do his job. And all we are asking is that the Members 
of the Senate do their job.
  If you look at the nominee, Merrick Garland, it is hard to imagine a 
person better qualified to be on the Supreme Court. Nobody disputes the 
credentials of Judge Garland, an accomplished Federal prosecutor, a 
former senior official at the Department of Justice, the current chief 
judge of the ever-important D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and someone 
who throughout his career has been praised by both Democrats and 
Republicans alike.
  So what is the problem here? What is the holdup? Why isn't this 
vacancy being filled?
  Well, I think the Republicans in the Senate are just trying to run 
out the clock on President Obama's term. And it is not just that they 
are denying the President the process that he is entitled to. They are 
denying the country what the Constitution says the country deserves, 
which is a fully constituted Supreme Court with nine Justices serving 
and making important decisions.
  The Supreme Court of the United States cannot function as it is 
intended to unless it has nine members sitting on the court. It cannot 
find its way to new jurisprudence and new thinking unless it has got a 
fully constituted court.
  Many Americans look with expectation at this court and hope that 
certain kinds of decisions that we have seen over the last few years 
will maybe be revisited with some new thinking.
  For example, the Citizens United case has unleashed this torrent of 
outside money on our politics, which has left everyday people feeling 
locked out and left out of their own democracy. That wrong-headed 
ruling has further surrendered our political system to the wealthy and 
the well connected.
  The Shelby case gutted certain parts of the Voting Rights Act and 
enabled partisan operatives in State legislatures across the country to 
come up with new ways to limit access to the ballot box.
  These are decisions which eventually will be revisited. And we don't 
know how Merrick Garland would come down on those kinds of decisions. 
That is not the point. We are not prejudging where a rethinking of that 
kind of jurisprudence would land, but what we are saying is that it is 
important that you have a fully constituted court to examine these 
questions. And the American people have a right to expect that that 
will happen.

  When I came to this Chamber 10 years ago, I remember early on there 
was a very tough vote and I was going back and forth whether I should 
vote ``yes'' or I should vote ``no.'' And for a fleeting instant, I 
thought to myself: maybe I will just vote present.
  I talked to a couple of my colleagues and they said: The one reason 
you are here is to cast a vote. You can't just show up and be present. 
You have got to make a decision.
  And we are not asking Republican Members of the Senate to vote for 
Judge Garland. We are just asking them to take a vote. We are asking 
them to hold a hearing to meet the expectation of the Constitution. 
Have a hearing, put it to a vote, and let the chips fall where they 
may. You can't just show up and say: I am present.
  To do your job, you have got to show up and vote. That is what we do. 
We are legislators. We are not fixing potholes, we are not managing 
some brigade of soldiers. We are here to vote on legislation. We are 
here to vote on nominations. That is our job under the Constitution. So 
you can't not vote and pretend that you are showing up for work.
  So, Madam Speaker, I hope and encourage and beseech our colleagues on 
the Senate side to give Judge Garland a fair hearing, and then bring 
his nomination to a vote on the floor of the Senate. That is what the 
Constitution requires. That is what your job requires.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________