[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 2886-2887]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   FILLING THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 3 years ago voters went to the ballot to 
elect a President of the United States, the most powerful Nation in the 
world. The American people spoke, and they overwhelmingly elected 
President Obama to a second term.
  We know that my friend the Republican leader stated that the 
Republicans had two goals: No. 1, to make sure that Obama was not 
reelected; and No. 2, that they would oppose everything Obama tried to 
do. On the first, they were a failure. Obama was reelected with more 
than 5 million votes. The other agreement the Republicans made was to 
oppose everything that Obama wanted to do or tried do, and they have 
stuck with that. That is why we have had 7 years of turmoil, 7 years of 
not doing nearly as much as we should, 7 years of endless filibusters.
  So my friend the Republican leader can talk all he wants about the 
progress made last year, but anyone studying what has gone on in the 
Senate recognizes that simply is without any basis. We have done so 
little that some political scientists say it is the most unproductive 
year that has ever been spent in Washington. But 3 years ago, voters 
went to the ballot box to elect a President. The American people spoke. 
They spoke loudly, as I have indicated, and they overwhelmingly elected 
Barack Obama for a second term. It was a 4-year term he was elected to, 
not a 3-year term--a 4-year term.
  During the Presidential term of office, our President has 
obligations--constitutional obligations. But Republicans continue to 
reject that election. They continue to reject Barack Obama's 
Presidency. They say he is illegitimate. They continue to reject the 
will of the people.
  When he was reelected overwhelmingly, obviously, they gave him the 
constitutional powers to do whatever is within the Constitution. One of 
those is to nominate Supreme Court Justices, just as he did in his 
first term. Yet the Republican leader and the senior Senator from Iowa 
remain committed to blocking the President's nominee. They are not 
following the Constitution. Republicans are not following the 
Constitution. The whole country is taking note. But the State of Iowa 
is taking special note.
  Earlier this week, a mother wrote an open letter to Senator Grassley 
that appeared in the Des Moines Register. Here is what she said:

       Refusal to abide by the tenants of our Constitution, and 
     confirm a qualified candidate to the Supreme Court, is a 
     violation of our common values. Your example to my children 
     is that it doesn't really matter what the rules say; if the 
     stakes are high enough and the chips don't fall your way, 
     it's OK to arbitrarily change the rules and deny the other 
     player his/her turn.

  That is the Senate Republicans' lesson to the people who elected 
them. It doesn't matter who you elected for President, we will refuse 
to do our duty just to follow Donald Trump's example. Remember what 
Donald Trump told all of my Republican friends and the country on the 
Supreme Court nomination. Here is his very, very detailed explanation 
of what he wants to do. Here is what he said: ``Delay, delay, delay.'' 
Then he went on to something else. The Republicans have followed that.
  Yesterday, Professor Jonathan Carlson of the University of Iowa--he 
is a professor of law there--published an op-ed in the Cedar Rapids 
Gazette, a newspaper in Iowa. In the editorial, Professor Carlson 
wrote:

       Grassley's decision [will] rob Americans of their voice.

  He went on to say:

       The voters elected President Obama to fill the next Supreme 
     Court vacancy, and that vacancy is now upon us. Obama should 
     be allowed to do the job he was elected to do.
       Grassley's problem isn't that he wants to give the American 
     people a chance to decide this issue. His problem is that he 
     doesn't like the decision they already made.

  Republicans should not ignore the voice of the people just because 
they don't like what the American people declared, but that is just 
what the senior Senator from Iowa continues to do--ignore the people of 
Iowa and the rest of America.
  Thirty years ago, Senator Grassley had it right. When the Judiciary 
Committee began its consideration of the elevation of Justice Rehnquist 
to be Chief Justice, he said: ``This committee has the obligation to 
build a record and to conduct the most in-depth inquiry that we can.'' 
Let me repeat that. ``This committee''--he is referring to the 
Judiciary Committee--``has the obligation to build a record and to 
conduct the most in-depth inquiry that we can.''
  Now Senator Grassley isn't interested in inquiries or building a 
record. He refuses to meet with the nominee, even if the nominee is 
from Iowa. He refuses to hold a hearing, and he refuses, of course, to 
have a vote.
  Senator Grassley isn't interested in inquiries or building a record. 
Through his obstruction, he is already choosing to close the door on a 
potential nominee. He has even said that he will not consider the 
nomination of his fellow Iowan Judge Jane Kelly, even though she was 
overwhelmingly elevated from the trial court to the appellate court in 
this body with, of course, Senator Grassley leading the charge on her 
behalf. So what he said about his fellow Iowan, Jane Kelly, is a little 
strange--a little odd--because it was Senator Grassley who strongly 
supported Judge Kelly and pushed her confirmation to the Eighth Circuit 
Court of Appeals. Senator Grassley says he will preemptively reject 
Judge Kelly, or any nominee, out of--listen to this one--principle, and 
that is because Republicans' only principle is obstruction.

[[Page 2887]]

  As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he has fallen in line with 
the Republican leader's obstruction and followed what Donald Trump has 
suggested: Delay, delay, delay. He is going to great lengths to shut 
down voices who simply want to do their jobs. For example, at the 
behest of the Republican leader, he met privately with Republicans on 
the Judiciary Committee and twisted his colleagues' arms to sign a 
loyalty oath, promising to block consideration of the President's 
nominees. That point has already been made here and is a part of the 
Record. Next, he tried to move a committee markup behind closed doors. 
When Democrats objected, he canceled the meeting. He also used the 
Presiding Officer's chair here on the floor to shut down debate on the 
Supreme Court vacancy, which is really unheard of, but he did it.
  Time and again, the senior Senator from Iowa has followed the orders 
of the Republican leader and Donald Trump and sought to silence his 
critics and shut the American people out of the Senate's business. Why? 
If the Senator's obstruction is truly supported by the Constitution and 
history, why wouldn't he want to have a debate in the open? Let's 
debate it on the Senate floor. President Obama's nominee deserves a 
meeting, a hearing, and a vote. The American people deserve a Senate 
that honors the Constitution and provides its advice and consent on 
Supreme Court nominees.
  As Professor Carlson said, by refusing to give President Obama's 
nominee consideration, Senator Grassley is robbing Iowans and Americans 
of their voice. Listening to the American people is our job, and Senate 
Republicans should do their job.
  Mr. President, what is the Senate business today?

                          ____________________