[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 6, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4794-S4798]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Sanctuary Cities Legislation
I rise to address the legislation we are going to be voting on later
this afternoon, two procedural votes to take up legislation. Both bills
were inspired by a horrendous event that occurred almost exactly 1 year
ago. On July 1, 2015, a 32-year-old woman named Kate Steinle was
walking on a pier in San Francisco with her dad, and out of nowhere
comes a man who starts firing his weapon at her, shoots her, and within
moments Kate Steinle bled to death in her father's arms.
As appalling as that murder was, one of the particularly galling
things about it is that the shooter should never have been on the pier
that day. The shooter had been convicted of seven felonies and had been
deported from America five times because he was here illegally. Even
more maddening is that just a few months earlier, San Francisco law
enforcement officials had him in their custody. They had him, and the
Department of Homeland Security, discovering that fact, put out a
request that said: Hold on to this guy. Detain him until we can get one
of our guys there to take him into custody because we want to get him
out of this country. He is dangerous; we know he is.
What did the San Francisco law enforcement folks do? They said:
Sorry, we can't help you. They released him onto the streets of San
Francisco, from which he later shot and killed a perfectly innocent
young woman.
Why in the world would the San Francisco law enforcement folks
release a seven-time convicted felon, five-time deported person who was
known to be dangerous, in the face of a request from the Department of
Homeland Security? Why would they release such a person? Because San
Francisco is a sanctuary city, which means it is the legal policy of
the city of San Francisco to refuse to provide any information or to
cooperate with a request to detain anyone when the Department of
Homeland Security is requesting such cooperation with respect to
someone who is here illegally. This is madness. It is unbelievable that
we have municipalities that are willfully releasing dangerous people
into our communities.
Let me point out that the terribly tragic case of Kate Steinle is not
a unique case. According to the Department of Homeland Security in an
analysis looking at an 8-month period in 2014--the most recent period
for which we have data--sanctuary cities across America released 18,000
individuals and 1,800 of them were later arrested for criminal acts.
That is what is happening across America, including in the great city
of Philadelphia in my home State of Pennsylvania, which has become a
sanctuary city.
Today we are going to vote on two different bills. We are going to
take a procedural vote which will determine whether we can proceed to
two bills inspired by this terrible tragedy. First is my legislation
called the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, S. 3100. I am grateful
for my cosponsors, Senators Inhofe, Vitter, Cotton, Johnson, Cruz, and
Wicker. Let me explain how this is structured.
There is a court ruling that has caused a number of municipalities
that would rather not be sanctuary cities to believe they need to
become sanctuary cities. The ruling is from the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals, which has jurisdiction over my State of Pennsylvania, and also
a Federal district court in Oregon. They have held that if the
Department of Homeland Security makes a mistake--let's say it is the
wrong John Doe--and they ask a police department somewhere to hold that
person, if it turns out they are holding him wrongly, according to
these court decisions, the local police department can be held liable
even though they were just acting in good faith at the request of the
Department of Homeland Security.
Well, that doesn't make any sense, and it is easily corrected. My
bill will correct it. What my bill says is that if a person is wrongly
held in such a circumstance where the local police are complying in
good faith with a request from the Department of Homeland Security, if
that happens, the individual wrongly held can still sue, they can still
go to court, but they wouldn't go to court against the local police or
local municipality, they would take their case against the Department
of Homeland Security, where it belongs. After all, it was the error of
the Department of Homeland Security that caused the person to be
wrongly held. So that solves the problem of a municipality being
concerned about a liability that would attach to their doing the right
thing.
Given that solution, which is in our legislation, if we pass this and
make this law, then there is no excuse whatsoever for any municipality
willfully refusing to cooperate with Federal immigration and law
enforcement officials.
The second part of my legislation says that if a community
nevertheless--despite a lack of legal justification--chooses to be a
dangerous sanctuary city, well, then, they are going to lose some
Federal funds--specifically, community development block grant funds,
which cities get from the Federal Government. They love to spent it on
all kinds of things.
The fact is, sanctuary cities impose costs on the rest of us--
security costs, costs to the risks we take, the unspeakable costs the
Steinle family incurred--so I think it is entirely reasonable that we
withhold this funding as a way to hopefully induce these cities to do
the right thing.
I say there are two pieces of legislation we will be taking
procedural votes
[[Page S4795]]
on today. The other is Kate's Law. I commend Senator Cruz for
introducing this legislation. As I pointed out, Kate Steinle's killer
had been convicted of seven felonies and deported five times. How many
times is this going to happen? What Kate's Law simply says is that
there will be a mandatory 5-year prison sentence for someone who
illegally reenters the United States after having already been
convicted of an aggravated felony and after having been convicted of at
least two previous offenses of illegal reentry. If that gets confusing,
the bottom line is that they have come into the country four times
illegally and have been convicted of an aggravated felony. At some
point, they need to go to jail, and that is what Kate's Law does.
Let me get back to my legislation because there is a mistaken
impression and I want to set the record straight. Some have argued that
if my legislation were passed, if we passed legislation to correct the
legal problem and then withhold funding from cities that become
sanctuary cities, that might discourage victims of crime and witnesses
to crime from coming forward if they are here illegally because they
will have a fear of being deported.
Let's be very clear. Our legislation explicitly states that a
locality and municipality will not be labeled a ``sanctuary
jurisdiction''--so they would not be at risk for losing any Federal
funds--if their policy is that when a person comes forward as a victim
or a witness to a crime, local law enforcement does not share
information with DHS and does not comply with a Department of Homeland
Security request for a retainer. In other words, there is a big carve-
out. There is an exception. There is a carve-out for people who are
victims of crime or witnesses of crime, so we don't discourage people
from coming forward. I think it makes perfect sense.
Some have also argued erroneously that my bill creates a mandate for
local law enforcement to take on the Federal immigration duties--duties
that are a part of the Federal Government. The fact is, that is a
misreading of the legislation. Our legislation does not require local
law enforcement to do anything. It doesn't even require that local law
enforcement comply with any requests from the Department of Homeland
Security. What it says is that you will be defined as a sanctuary city
if you have local legislation that forbids cooperation. That is what it
says. So the police can make their best judgment and can cooperate with
the administration when they see fit without being in violation of
their own laws. Our legislation does not at all impede the enforcement
of criminal law, and it does not impose any burdens.
There are four law enforcement groups that have endorsed my bill: the
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Sheriffs'
Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the
International Union of Police Associations, which is an AFL-CIO entity.
The reality is that the vast majority of local law enforcement wants to
cooperate with the Federal Department of Homeland Security folks,
immigration officials, and law enforcement people because they are all
about keeping our communities safer and they don't want to release
someone onto the streets who is likely to be a criminal or even a
terrorist.
Let me stress that support for my legislation is bipartisan, and
opposition to the kind of sanctuary city policy that we have in
Philadelphia is bipartisan. Ed Rendell is the former mayor of
Philadelphia, the former Governor of Pennsylvania, and the former
chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and he has criticized
the policy Philadelphia has put in place. Mayor Nutter--the recently
outgoing mayor--reversed the sanctuary city policy that they used to
have in place because he realized it is a bad policy for keeping
Philadelphians and Pennsylvanians safe. The Obama administration asked
the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, to
travel to Philadelphia personally, and he pleaded with Mayor Kenney,
the mayor of Philadelphia, to at least make some narrow exceptions to
the sanctuary city policy precisely so that when we have suspected
terrorists in the custody of local police departments and the
Department of Homeland Security discovers this, they will get some
cooperation so we can take custody of these people.
This, to me, is just common sense. It is not principally about
immigration; it is almost entirely about security and keeping dangerous
people off our streets.
The vote today is not a final disposition of the legislation; it is a
vote on whether we can even take it up and begin a debate.
I don't know how anyone could defend the proposition that we
shouldn't even consider this legislation. If someone wants to oppose
it, by all means. But the vote we are going to have today is a
procedural vote on whether we proceed to this legislation and just
begin this discussion. For me, it shouldn't be a question at all. For
the safety of the American people, we ought to proceed with this
legislation. In my view, the life of Kate Steinle matters.
I hope my colleagues will vote to enable us to proceed, and let's
have a vigorous debate about the merits of this, about whether we ought
to tolerate sanctuary cities that knowingly and willfully refuse to
cooperate with Federal immigration and law enforcement officials. Let's
have the discussion, by all means, but let's start by getting on the
bill so we can attempt to find a consensus and resolution to this.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I rise today in support of the
confirmation of Judge Brian R. Martinotti to be a U.S. district court
judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. I am
very proud to support his nomination and grateful that my senior
Senator Robert Menendez is here as well.
Judge Martinotti is an outstanding public servant who has honorably
served the people of New Jersey in both private practice and public
service for decades. I am grateful that Judge Martinotti is finally
getting the confirmation vote he deserves more than a year after his
nomination. I thank Senator Menendez for his support of this nomination
throughout this long process.
During my first year within the Senate, I had the honor to recommend
Judge Martinotti to President Obama. He is a talented jurist, he has an
impressive legal background, and he is more than qualified to be a
Federal judge.
As a judge in the New Jersey Superior Court, Judge Martinotti is a
well-known and highly regarded leader in the New Jersey legal
community. As a State superior court judge, he served 14 years and has
judicial experience, having presided over 90 cases that have gone to
judgment. He previously served as a public defender, a prosecutor, a
tax attorney, and even city council member, the same position where I
began my political career. He served as a legal counsel for the Italian
American Police Society and has worked in private practice for 15
years.
Judge Martinotti has litigated both criminal and civil cases, which I
am confident will make him a well-balanced jurist. Judge Martinotti
possesses a sharp legal mind, a breadth of experience, solid judicial
temperament, and he is prepared to do the work of a Federal jurist.
The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary rated Judge Martinotti unanimously ``well qualified,'' giving
him their highest possible rating.
Last October, the Judiciary Committee voted unanimously in support of
Judge Martinotti's nomination. I am confident this well-qualified
nominee will serve honorably on the Federal bench.
While I am pleased Senate leadership has finally scheduled this vote,
this body still has work to do when it comes to confirming more well-
qualified judicial nominees. Currently, our Federal courts have 83
Federal vacancies nationwide, 30 of which have been deemed judicial
emergencies. Despite the number of vacancies, the pace of judicial
confirmations has been historically slow. Last year, the Senate
confirmed only 11 judicial nominees, matching the record for confirming
the fewest number of judicial nominees in more than half a century.
Now, more than 17 months into this Congress, there have only been 20
judges who have been confirmed. Yet, with a Democratic majority during
the last 2
[[Page S4796]]
years of the Bush administration, the Senate confirmed 68 judges.
I fear the Senate's slow pace of confirming judges will harm the
judicial branch and make it harder for Americans to achieve simple
justice in federal courts.
Even after today's vote, we still have 2 of the 17 judicial seats
vacant in the District of New Jersey and 24 judicial nominees pending
on the Senate floor. We have to do better.
We do not yet have an agreement to vote on the nomination of Judge
Julien Neals, whose nomination has now been pending before the Senate
for 18 months.
His nomination has the support of both myself and Senator Menendez
and was unanimously passed out of the Judiciary Committee last
November. It is time that Judge Neals' nomination receive a full Senate
vote. Our Federal justice system cannot function as intended when
critical posts are left vacant for months on end. It hurts our economy,
our civil rights, and the overall principles of justice in our country.
I urge our leadership to act to address the judicial vacancy crisis.
I also urge my fellow Senators to vote to confirm Judge Martinotti as
U.S. district judge for the Federal district court of New Jersey. Thank
you, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I am pleased to be joining my
colleague from New Jersey Senator Booker in his recommendation to the
President of Judge Martinotti and today on the floor in support of his
confirmation. It was one of Senator Booker's first opportunities to
recommend to the President an exemplary recommendation that again I was
very pleased to support.
I rise to express to all of my colleagues my wholehearted,
enthusiastic support of Brian Martinotti's nomination and his
confirmation by the Senate to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey. In his life and in his career, he has shown himself to
be a judge with the necessary wisdom, experience, and judicial
temperament the district court requires.
For well over a decade, he has been a superior court judge in Bergen
County, NJ, which--for my colleagues who may not be familiar with the
State--is a densely populated county, with all the inherent needs for
someone such as Judge Martinotti, who has repeatedly shown the
intellect, the judicial temperament, and the observance of precedent--
which I know is very important to many of my colleagues--that it takes
to make a fair judgment based on the law.
Beyond his glowing record in the family division and now in the civil
division, where he is handling a diverse caseload from complex mass
tort litigation to environmental lawsuits, housing issues, and
countless other areas, the fact is, he is exceptionally well regarded
by those who have appeared before him on both sides of the table, the
defense and the prosecution tables. That says more about the man than
any list of cases he has heard.
He has a wealth of knowledge from private practice, and that will
help him as he deals with the practitioners who will be before him. He
has a wealth of experience in mediation before the Bergen County
Superior Court, in the New Jersey State Board of Mediation, American
Arbitration Association, National Arbitration and Mediation, and as a
court-approved mediator.
His experience is impeccable, going back to his time as a judicial
law secretary for the Honorable Roger M. Kahn and when he was a student
at Fordham University and Seton Hall University School of Law in
Newark.
He has been a leader in New Jersey, the very definition of a pillar
of the community, serving as a member of the Bergen County Law and
Public Safety Institute, Palisades Medical Center, the March of Dimes,
the Bergen County Community College Foundation, the Italian American
Police Society of New Jersey, not to mention the many honors and awards
he has received from countless community organizations.
Given his experience, his temperament, his proven abilities, and
personally knowing the kind of man he is, it is no wonder his name is
before the U.S. Senate today. Indeed, the American Bar Association
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated him
``well qualified'' to serve on the bench. That is the bar association's
highest rating.
As I have traveled the globe as a senior member of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, I can tell you that when we talk about American
exceptionalism, one of the elements of American exceptionalism is the
rule of law. As part of that rule of law, it is the judicial functions
that take place--where any citizen can expect to walk into a courtroom
in the Nation, find themselves before a judge who is enormously well
qualified, and who can have a fair day as it relates to the issues they
are litigating before that court. That is an essential part of American
exceptionalism.
Judge Martinotti, upon confirmation, will only enhance that American
exceptionalism, far beyond even where it is today.
I urge my colleagues to join us and unanimously confirm this
eminently qualified nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this week we mark the signing of the
Declaration of Independence and celebrate the values upon which this
Nation was founded. Back in Vermont, we celebrated on July 4 with
parades and fireworks displays, as did millions of Americans around the
country. It is important, however, not only to celebrate our values on
July 4, but also to live by them year-round. This means that we should
embrace those public servants who, while working hard to build better
lives for themselves and their families, enrich our communities and
contribute so much to our Nation.
We see the true meaning of patriotism in those hard-working Americans
who ask what they can do for their country and pursue public service.
Chief Judge Merrick Garland, who has served for nearly two decades as a
Federal judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, is a perfect example.
Chief Judge Garland also served for several years in the Justice
Department, where he was charged with leading the Federal response to
the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in our history. This is a
person who makes us all proud to be Americans, but instead of honoring
Chief Judge Garland's service, Senate Republicans have undertaken an
unrelenting campaign of partisan obstruction against his nomination to
the Supreme Court.
Recently, Reid Hoffman, the Silicon Valley entrepreneur and founder
of LinkedIn, penned an op-ed criticizing the Senate Republican blockade
of Chief Judge Garland's nomination:
``Effectively, [Majority Leader McConnell] and his allies
are in the midst of a year-long strike.
``Imagine if entire departments at Fortune 500 companies
announced they were going to stop performing key functions of
their job for a year or more, with no possibility of moving
forward until a new CEO took over. Investors would start
dumping their stock. Customers would seek out alternatives.
Competitors would make these companies pay for such
dysfunctional gridlock. Eventually executives and employees
would be fired.
``In Silicon Valley, such behavior would be corporate
suicide.''
I could not agree more. We cannot allow Senate Republicans to
unilaterally decide to refuse to do its job, and essentially create
``dysfunctional gridlock.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the
article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
Instead of scheduling a hearing for an impeccably qualified nominee,
Republicans are holding Chief Judge Garland's nomination hostage in
their hopes that the Republican Party's presumptive Presidential
nominee will be elected and make a different nomination. This is the
same candidate who has displayed a stunning misunderstanding of the
role of the judiciary and who accused a sitting Federal judge of bias
simply because of his heritage. While some Senate Republicans have
rightly condemned those racist attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel, they
are still standing by the man who launched those racist attacks.
As former U.S. Attorney Steven Dettelbach in Ohio put it in a recent
op-ed, ``if country really does come before party, how can anyone who
calls himself an American leader still support this man who openly
berates public servants based on their race?'' I ask unanimous consent
that a copy of the
[[Page S4797]]
article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
Senate Republicans' partisan refusal to do their jobs extends to the
lower courts as well. In the 19 months that Senate Republicans have had
a majority, they have allowed just 21 votes on judicial nominations. As
a result, Federal judicial vacancies have skyrocketed. This is not how
the Senate should operate, and the American people deserve better. When
Democrats controlled the Senate during the last 2 years of President
George W. Bush's administration, we worked hard to confirm judicial
nominees with bipartisan support. During those 2 years, we confirmed 68
of President Bush's judicial nominees and reduced the number of
judicial vacancies to 34. We even held hearings and confirmation votes
into late September of the election year, because filling vacancies
with qualified nominees with bipartisan support is more important than
scoring partisan points. Senate Republicans have not shared that
priority, or else they would never have allowed judicial vacancies to
nearly double from 43 to 83 since they have controlled the Senate,
leaving two dozen judicial nominations pending on the Senate floor.
The nominee the Senate will finally vote on today, Brian Martinotti,
was nominated over a year ago to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey. Judge Martinotti has been
awaiting a floor vote for over 250 days, even though his nomination was
reported by voice vote by the Judiciary Committee last October. Since
2002, Judge Martinotti has served as a judge on the Superior Court of
New Jersey. Prior to that, he spent 15 years in private practice. Judge
Martinotti has also served as a public defender, as a prosecutor, and
as a municipal tax attorney. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary unanimously rated Martinotti ``Well Qualified'' to serve on
the district court, its highest rating. He has the support of his home
State Senators, Mr. Menendez and Mr. Booker. I support his nomination.
Even after today's vote, there will still be 24 judicial nominations
languishing on the Senate floor. One of them was reported at the same
time as Judge Martinotti and has also been awaiting a vote for over 8
months. We still do not have an agreement to vote on the nomination of
Edward Stanton to the Western District of Tennessee. In 2010, the
Senate voted unanimously to confirm Mr. Stanton as the U.S. attorney
for that district. His current nomination is supported by his two
Republican home State Senators, and he was unanimously voice voted out
of the Judiciary Committee. I hope the Republican Senators from
Tennessee will be able to persuade the majority leader to schedule a
vote for Mr. Stanton's nomination before we leave for the 7-week recess
he has scheduled.
It is the Senate's duty to ensure that our independent judiciary can
function. Senate Republicans must be responsible and act on Chief Judge
Garland's nomination, as well as the 24 judicial nominations that are
languishing on the Senate floor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Medium.com, June 29, 2016]
Obstructionism is Terrible Governance
(By Reid Hoffman)
As an entrepreneur and investor, I prioritize construction
and collaboration. Whether it's a five-person start-up or a
global giant, the companies that are most productive are the
ones whose employees operate with a shared sense of purpose
and a clear set of policies for responding to changing
conditions and new opportunities.
That's why I'm so appalled by what's happening in the
Senate this year, and how starkly it illustrates the
differences between Silicon Valley and Washington, DC.
Just hours after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
unexpectedly died in February, Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell told the American people not to expect a
replacement any time soon. The vacancy created by Justice
Scalia's passing, McConnell insisted, ``should not be filled
until we have a new president.''
Since then, Leader McConnell's position has remained
unchanged--he won't even meet with any nominee until January
2017. Effectively, he and his allies are in the midst of a
year-long strike.
Imagine if entire departments at Fortune 500 companies
announced they were going to stop performing key functions of
their job for a year or more, with no possibility of moving
forward until a new CEO took over. Investors would start
dumping their stock. Customers would seek out alternatives.
Competitors would make these companies pay for such
dysfunctional gridlock. Eventually executives and employees
would be fired.
In Silicon Valley, such behavior would be corporate
suicide. In Washington, DC, it's business as usual.
So Mitch McConnell's strike goes on and on--he refuses to
even meet with any nominee until a new president takes
office. Other senators like Richard Burr (R-NC), Sen. Chuck
Grassley (R-IA), and Rob Portman (R-OH) have followed
McConnell's lead, either refusing to even informally meet
with Judge Garland, or meeting but still reflexively
insisting that a formal Senate hearing is not an option.
But the Constitution does not give the job of nominating
and appointing Supreme Court Justices to the next President--
it gives it to the current one.
Respecting the Constitution's authority and the obligations
of his job, President Obama nominated a potential replacement
for Justice Scalia, Judge Merrick Garland, on March 16. To
date, only two Republican senators--Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL)
and Susan Collins (R-ME)--have resisted peer pressure and
publicly stated that Judge Garland should be given a formal
hearing. The rest are joining McConnell in his strike.
In a 2013 op-ed, New York Times columnist Thomas L.
Friedman explored the difference between Silicon Valley's
conception of collaboration and Washington, DC's. In the
nation's capital, Friedman observed, collaboration ``is an
act of treason--something you do when you cross over and vote
with the other party.'' In Silicon Valley, companies that are
``trying to kill each other in one market [are] working
together in another--to better serve customers.''
As Friedman went on to explain, Silicon Valley's version of
collaboration doesn't mean groupthink or lockstep consensus.
Vital organizations and industries cultivate diverse and
competitive viewpoints, because it's this very ``clash of
ideas'' that tends to produce innovation and adaptation.
But Silicon Valley situates its clash of ideas within a
larger framework of cooperation and compromise, under the
premise that what's good for the ecosystem as a whole will
also benefit individual players, even if they sometimes have
competing interests.
What's striking about McConnell's stance is how vividly it
illustrates DC's preference for reflexive obstruction over
the kind of collaboration and consensus-building that
characterizes healthy and productive organizations.
It's not as if the Constitution doesn't give senators like
McConnell broad room in which to operate in dissenting
fashion. Specifically, Article II, Section 2 of the
Constitution invests the President with the power to make
appointments ``by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate.''
This language clearly gives the Senate a confirming but
open-ended role. It doesn't instruct the Senate to hold
hearing within a specific number of days, for example. It
doesn't even explicitly mandate that the Senate must hold
formal hearings or meet with a nominee.
The Constitution simply directs the Senate to advise the
President in his effort to nominate and appoint nominees. But
how can the Senate credibly and effectively fulfill this
obligation without making any effort to gather information
about nominees and deliberate on their qualifications?
In keeping the language so broad in this instance, the
Constitution effectively places the Senate in far more than a
rubber-stamping role. As Barack Obama himself suggested in
2006, when he was still a senator, the Senate arguably has
the authority to examine a nominee's ``philosophy, ideology,
and record,'' not just his general character.
What Article II, Section 2 ultimately does, in other words,
is set the stage for clashes of ideas, albeit within a larger
framework of collaboration and consensus. Importantly, the
Constitution advises the Senate to work ``with'' the
President, not ``against'' him or in opposition to him.
And it presumes that the Senate will indeed be working.
Still, instead of holding hearings in which to assess Judge
Garland's suitability for the Court, McConnell and his
colleagues are doing nothing.
If their obstructionism goes unchecked, it will continue
harming American citizens in very tangible ways. Having only
eight Justices on the bench increases the possibility of a
deadlock.
When cases end in deadlock, nothing gets decided. Resources
are expended, and the American public is left hanging until
the Court can hear the case again or consider another case
with similar issues.
This has happened twice already--last week when the Court
deadlocked on an immigration reform case, and in March, in a
case regarding whether individuals should be required to
guarantee their spouses' loans. Traditionally, laws regarding
this practice have differed in various parts of the country,
creating confusion for small business owners and their
spouses about what their obligations are. Unfortunately, this
confusion and lack of clarity will persist indefinitely
because of the Court's deadlock.
What would happen if President Obama told Congress not to
bother passing any more bills this year, because he had
decided he would automatically veto any of them that made it
to his desk? How many private sector organizations would
tolerate personnel who refuse to perform key job
responsibilities until the current boss is replaced by
someone new?
[[Page S4798]]
According to Gallup, 84 percent of Americans disapprove of
the way Congress is doing its job. Or perhaps more
accurately, not doing its job.
Indeed, from 1900 through 1980, it took the Senate a median
of 17 days after nomination to confirm or reject a Supreme
Court nominee.
Like today's senators, those senators took an oath to
support the Constitution and ``faithfully discharge the
duties of [their] office.''
Now, however, scorched-earth partisanship has thoroughly
compromised Congress's ability to operate functionally. More
than 100 days have passed since President Obama nominated
Judge Garland--and there aren't even any plans to begin
hearings yet.
No wonder so many Americans believe our government is
severely broken.
If we truly want to make Congress a collaborative
enterprise that efficiently works in the interests of the
American people, the American people must apply pressure
directly to senators like McConnell, Burr, and Portman.
While some people might insist that these senators are
simply fighting partisanship with partisanship, blocking a
nominee that a Democrat president is trying to force upon
American voters without their say, that's a false
equivalency.
President Obama is a democratically elected official,
faithfully discharging the duties of his office. In
democracies, we aren't always governed by the people or the
parties that we voted for. But when officials are elected, we
must respect their authority, as long as they're exercising
that authority within the bounds of whatever regulatory
frameworks are in place to guide them. (In this case, it's
the Constitution.)
Every American citizen should understand this. And our
elected officials shouldn't just understand this--they should
be setting an example that all Americans can follow. Instead,
McConnell and his colleagues are doing the opposite.
Ultimately, they're not telling President Obama that they
don't think his nominee is a good one. They're saying that
they refuse to acknowledge President Obama's legitimacy as an
elected official.
This kind of partisanship is endemic in Washington, DC now.
But this latest behavior is such an egregious example of
Congressional dysfunction that Senator McConnell and his
colleagues must be held accountable.
That's why I have signed this Change.org petition urging
McConnell to give Judge Garland a hearing, and why I strongly
encourage others to join me.
Our elected officials must understand that we, the American
people, expect them to perform the duties of their office,
even when that means working with other elected officials
from different parties.
They must understand that we're fed up with business as
usual in Washington, DC. They must understand that we want
leaders who look for opportunities to collaborate and work
together productively, instead of pursuing obstructionism
that serves political parties rather than citizens.
So let Mitch McConnell know that it's time to quit
abdicating around. Tell him to do his job and schedule a
hearing for Judge Merrick Garland now.
____
Is Trump's Attack on Judge Racist? If It Quacks Like a Duck . . .
(By Steven Dettelbach)
Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the latest victim of Donald Trump's
racist attacks, is not allowed to defend himself under the
judicial rules. So I will defend him.
I will defend him as a fellow, former federal prosecutor. I
will defend him because I am the husband of an immigrant from
Mexico and the father of our two children. And I will defend
him as an American, because what Donald Trump is doing is
decidedly un-American.
Curiel is a respected jurist. Before becoming a judge, he
made a name for almost two decades as a federal prosecutor,
investigating and prosecuting Mexican drug cartels. As a
former U.S. attorney and career prosecutor myself, I know
firsthand that these cases are some of the most difficult and
dangerous in our criminal justice system. That work earned
Curiel death threats from those same Mexican cartels he
fought, threats that did not deter him from protecting this
nation for a moment.
Unlike Trump, Curiel comes from Midwestern working-class
roots. He was born just hours to the west of here--a place
Trump will visit to become the GOP nominee--in Indiana. His
parents came to this country and became citizens. His father
worked in the steel mills, just like those who built our
community, to help put his son through both Indiana
University and law school. He was first appointed to the
bench in California by another immigrant, Republican Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, and then elevated to the federal bench
by President Obama after unanimous U.S. Senate confirmation.
Curiel's life is a true American success story.
None of this matters to Trump, though. All that matters to
Trump are that: 1) Trump thinks he is losing in the Trump
University lawsuit before Curiel and 2) the judge's parents
came to this country from Mexico, which is of course the only
reason he can possibly be losing the lawsuit. Apparently,
when things don't go Trump's way, he plays the race card.
In truth, Trump can't hold a candle to Curiel. Unlike
Trump, Curiel has done more than talk about protecting our
borders. He spent two decades on the border, fighting
dangerous drug cartels. Unlike Trump, Curiel was not born as
heir to a real estate empire. He earned all he has achieved
through hard work and merit.
I am a lawyer. I know that it can be frustrating when a
case does not go your way. But Trump's response to losing in
that case is to play the race card. That temperament is not
only unpresidential, it is dangerous.
Those supporting Trump need to re-evaluate whether lending
their own credibility to his racist rants is still tenable.
If country really does come before party, how can anyone who
calls himself an American leader still support this man who
openly berates public servants based on their race?
As a U.S. attorney, I saw the way career law enforcement
like Gonzalo Curiel worked to protect us. As a parent, I tell
my children that all citizens in this nation must be judged
based on what they accomplish, not how they look or where
their parents were born. That is America.
Trump evidently understands neither of these basic points.
Trump and his supporters say they value plain talk. Well,
here is some: Ignoring a person's record and judging him
based on ethnic heritage is the definition of racism. Trump
did just that. What does that make him?
Quack.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, the question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the Martinotti nomination?
Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Lee).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 5, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 118 Ex.]
YEAS--92
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--5
Blunt
Crapo
Risch
Sasse
Sullivan
NOT VOTING--3
Brown
Graham
Lee
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the President
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________