[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2878-2880]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   FILLING THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am rising now to respond to a statement 
that was made by our good friend from Illinois a few minutes ago, to 
clarify. It is kind of interesting that we look back and we find that 
when the Republicans had someone in the White House and the Democrats 
were trying to block a nomination, it was just the opposite as it is 
today. In fact, at that time, the Senators in the leadership of the 
Democrats--Obama, Biden, Clinton, Schumer, and Reid--all made the 
statement, a joint statement that the Senate does not have to confirm 
Presidential nominations and urged that the Senate refuse to do so, 
especially in an election year.
  Now, it is just the opposite of what the Senator said, but I don't 
blame them. I don't blame any Democrat for trying their best to get a 
nominee from this President because, as a Democrat, they are more 
liberal than Republicans are, and they would like very much to have a 
chance to change the balance of the U.S. Supreme Court, which has been 
consistent in recent years in objecting to some of the extremist left 
programs. So I can't blame them for trying, but nonetheless that is not 
going to work.
  I applaud the leader. At the time the death--the sad death--of Scalia 
took place, he was in a position where we were in recess and so he had 
to make a decision and the decision was the right decision.
  Anyway, I wish to share a couple of letters with you that came from 
my State of Oklahoma.
  I will give the names and addresses, if anyone wants to check. This 
is what real people--you get outside the beltway, get out of 
Washington, DC, and get back to States such as Oklahoma, these are the 
concerns they have.
  I want to read the first one. This is from a guy named Robert from 
Tulsa, OK. It came right after the sad death of Justice Scalia. He 
said:

       Dear Senator Inhofe,
       I have just learned of the death of Justice Scalia. I 
     should only be feeling sadness at the death of this great 
     patriot and man of the law. I am terrified of what I am sure 
     is now already in the works, his replacement by President 
     Barack Obama.
       The person who replaces Justice Scalia will have the 
     potential to change the balance of power on the bench for 
     decades and may have the possibility to reshape the political 
     landscape immediately and unalterably.
       I, therefore, beg you and all of your fellow Senators to 
     not vote to affirm any candidate put forward by President 
     Obama. This is an election year and the people should be 
     given a chance to choose which direction this country will go 
     and not have it decided by President Obama as he leaves the 
     White House.
       Please, do not vote for any candidate offered by this 
     administration.

  Another letter just came from Chickasha, OK, from Donald. He says:

       Dear Senator Inhofe,
       I have just received word of the death of Supreme Court 
     Justice Scalia. His death is a loss for the conservative 
     movement, but I fear it also puts our country in peril.
       With Scalia gone, President Obama will certainly present a 
     nominee for his seat. If it is a justice that holds to 
     Obama's progressive ideals and agenda, it could mean grave 
     danger for our Constitution.
       I urge you to hold fast and refuse to confirm ANY Obama 
     appointee to the Court. Hold out until he is out of office. I 
     feel the future of our nation depends on it.

  That is from Donald of Chickasha, OK.
  Next is a letter from Matthew of Claremore, OK. Claremore is one of 
the towns where our famous Will Rogers spent his childhood. Everyone 
has heard of Will Rogers--a great guy. Matthew said:

       Senator Inhofe,
       I am contacting you in regards to the loss of Justice 
     Scalia and his replacement. Justice Scalia was a brilliant 
     man and a true patriot. Unfortunately, I do not feel any 
     appointee by the President would follow the

[[Page 2879]]

     Constitution and serve with the same virtue as Justice 
     Scalia. I am asking that you and the other members of the 
     Senate do not confirm a new Justice until after the election, 
     when the newly elected President can make the appointment. We 
     have sent you to Washington to stop the agenda of the 
     President that runs contrary to the wishes of the country. 
     Please stand on your principles and do not allow the 
     President to appoint another Justice that may be detrimental 
     to our freedoms for decades to come. Thank you.

  That is Matthew from Claremore, OK. Let me assure you, of the 
hundreds of letters we have received, I have read them. I have no 
intention of changing the pattern that has been in existence since 1888 
and allow a President, during an election year, to make such a 
nomination.
  So I think we did the right thing. I think it would have been 
inappropriate to say we are going to have hearings, knowing that we 
were not going to confirm a nominee. I don't think that would be fair 
to the nominee.
  So these are just a few examples of the hundreds of letters and calls 
from constituents that I have received, asking that the Senate wait to 
confirm the next Supreme Court nominee until we have a new President.
  We have heard from our colleagues and pundits on the other side--the 
Democrats, the other side of the aisle--that it is our constitutional 
duty to confirm President Obama's nominations.
  The Constitution says, and it says very clearly, that the President 
``. . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the 
Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court.''
  The Senate clearly has a role in this process, and the Senate can 
either give its consent or it can withhold its consent and completely 
fulfill its constitutional duties. So it doesn't make any difference. 
We have the latitude of making a determination, and we are going to do 
it. It wasn't long ago when the Democrats were singing a different tune 
when the Republican was in the White House, and that would have been 
President Bush at that time. Some of the Democrats on the floor said 
that the Senate does not have to confirm Presidential nominations and 
urged that the Senate refuse to do so, especially in an election year.
  The Democrats were saying that, so it is just the opposite of what 
they are saying today. In fact, the leadership who was saying that at 
the time was none other than Senators Obama, he was a Senator at that 
time; Biden, he was a Senator at that time; Clinton, she was a Senator 
at that time; and Senators Schumer and Reid. They all made the same 
statement. They said the Senate does not have to confirm Presidential 
nominations and urged that the Senate refuse to do so, especially in an 
election year.
  Now, that is where there is a difference of opinion because actually 
the last time it was done in an election year was 1888. You have to go 
all the way back to 1888--128 years before you find a similar situation 
to the one we are in today. That is the last time a vacancy arose 
during an election year and was filled by the Senate from a party on 
the opposite side of the President. That is the last time that 
happened, 1888, and we are not about to change that now.
  Furthermore, even if this were not true, this President hasn't worked 
with Congress on much of anything. So why should we work with him on 
this?
  That is not the point. The point is, we don't have to do that, and 
when the Democrats were in control of the Senate and the Republicans 
had the White House, they made it very clear the leadership said the 
Senate does not have to confirm a Presidential nomination, and they 
urged us not to do it. And so the tables are turned now.
  Now why is this important? We have seen time and again when President 
Obama is not able to get his liberal agenda through Congress, he has 
turned to Executive action and to agency rulemaking to implement 
priorities. These regulations are actually making their way through our 
courts and are either going to be heard by the Supreme Court or have 
already been heard by the Supreme Court.
  President Obama's Executive amnesty was stayed by the lower courts, 
and the Supreme Court will decide this term if that injunction will 
stand or not.
  What we are saying is this: The President has a very liberal agenda 
on almost every social issue, every fiscal issue, every military issue. 
It is a very liberal agenda. So when the President can't get things 
done through legislation, he then turns around and tries to do it 
through regulation.
  I will give an example. If you talk to the American Farm Bureau right 
now, they will tell you the greatest problem farmers and ranchers 
have--I know this because I am from the farm State of Oklahoma--is not 
anything in the Agriculture bill. It is the overregulation of the EPA. 
Of all the regulations that are damaging to farmers and ranchers in 
America, the one they single out as being the worst is the WOTUS rule; 
that is, the waters of the United States.
  Historically, it has always been in the jurisdiction of the States as 
to how to control and manage the waters of the United States, except in 
cases where it is navigable waters. Well, we understand that. We 
understand that is where the Federal Government should be involved. But 
6 years ago there was a lot of legislation and one bill in particular 
that was offered in the House and the Senate that would take the word 
``navigable'' out. That being the case, that would mean all the waters 
in a jurisdiction would go from the States to the Federal Government, 
and we weren't going to let that happen. But this is what is going on 
right now. Things they have tried to get passed through legislation and 
haven't been able to do, they are trying to do through regulation.
  If the Supreme Court is split 4 to 4 in these two cases I just 
mentioned, the injunctions of the lower courts will stand until the 
underlying issues are fully litigated. That is what they are waiting 
for right now. The Court has said that until the litigation is cleared 
up, we are not going to act on this rule. Well, as you know, that is 
going to take a long time for that to happen.
  The Clean Power Plan is the other one. You might remember--to give a 
little background--that going back to the year 2000, which is when all 
this global warming started and the end of the world was coming, they 
were introducing legislation at that time to have cap and trade and 
regulate the emissions of CO2 throughout America.
  When people realized how much that would cost and the fact that the 
science was not yet settled, it was defeated. Every time they brought 
it to the Senate, it was defeated. I am talking about through 
legislation trying to do a cap and trade in America.
  One of the interesting things was that the first Director of the EPA 
that was appointed by this President was Lisa Jackson. I asked her a 
question in a hearing that was on the record and live on TV. I said: If 
we were to pass either this legislation or cap and trade or do it by 
regulation in the United States, would that have the effect of lowering 
the emissions of CO2 worldwide? She said: No, because this 
isn't where the problem is. The problem is in China. The problem is in 
India. The problem is in Mexico.
  So we went through that whole thing, and the President, when he came 
into office, decided: Well, they are never going to pass this by the 
elected representatives of the people, so we will do it by regulation. 
So he came out with the Clean Power Plan.
  The Clean Power Plan is what President Obama came up with, and it 
essentially does the same thing as legislation would do when it would 
perform cap and trade for the States. We remember the trip to Paris. 
When he got to Paris, he was unable to get anyone to do anything.
  The deal they came up with was kind of humorous because China said: 
No, we are going to continue our emissions until 2025; at that time, we 
will start lowering our emissions. They were not going to do it, and 
they are not going to do it. But nonetheless, that was the Clean Power 
Plan that came up, and it was essentially the same thing that was 
killed by legislation.
  The Clean Power Plan would cost about $292 billion, and it mandates 
carbon dioxide cuts from the power sector

[[Page 2880]]

to meet the President's standards. President Obama said in Paris that 
we are going to lower our CO2 emissions between 26 and 28 
percent by 2025. Now, he never said how we would do that--never. He 
never did say how we were going to comply with that. But nonetheless, 
he was going to try to do that and, obviously, that was something that 
would not have worked.
  These and other Executive actions and regulations will have a big 
impact on our people and our economy and will all likely be decided by 
the Supreme Court. That is where I get back to the Supreme Court. The 
Clean Power Plan would then be decided. Right now on the Clean Power 
Plan there is a stay in the U.S. Supreme Court on the Clean Power Plan 
until all of the litigation that is pending right now can be settled. 
That could be a long time--certainly way past this particular 
Presidency.
  It is not just the Executive actions he has taken but the moral 
direction of our country too. Just last week, the Supreme Court heard a 
case challenging the State of Texas on its new abortion regulations 
that require that clinics meet the standard of other outpatient 
surgical clinics and mandate that abortion doctors have admitting 
privileges at nearby hospitals. That is the Supreme Court. That is the 
type of thing you would see if the liberals would have their way and if 
the Supreme Court would change its direction.
  Many of these decisions are 5-to-4 decisions, and that is why I say 
this is an important decision. It is the American people who will bear 
the burden of these decisions and, therefore, they should have a say in 
who would fill Justice Scalia's vacancy. So this decision should be 
made by the next President. Let a new President decide who should 
replace Justice Scalia. That is exactly what is going to happen.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  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. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________