[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3475-3476]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND NOMINATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, President Obama nominated Judge 
Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the 
Supreme Court of the United States.
  Judge Garland is an extraordinarily qualified candidate, highly 
esteemed within the legal community, and highly accomplished as a 
prosecutor and appellate judge. He was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit 
Court of Appeals in 1995, by a vote of 76-23, with a majority of 
Republicans voting in favor of his confirmation. Indeed, an even larger 
number of Republicans said he was well qualified, and I will speak to 
that.
  Under normal circumstances, Judge Garland would now be sitting down 
this week for one-on-one meetings with Senators on both sides of the 
aisle in preparation for his confirmation hearings, but Senate 
Republicans, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, have made it clear that they 
will not be operating under normal procedure. Instead, they are 
refusing even to meet with Judge Garland. Let me suggest they are 
refusing to do their duty.
  Their approach is inconsistent with the expectations of our Founding 
Fathers and a disservice to the American people, to the Court, to 
American justice, and to the American people, and their justification 
has no basis in fact.
  Justice Anthony Kennedy, who sits now on the Court, was confirmed 
during the final years of President Reagan's second term. In fact, he 
is one of the 14 Justices in our history who have been confirmed during 
a Presidential election year, including Louis Brandeis and Benjamin 
Cardozo.
  So, Mr. Speaker, there is hardly precedent that a lame duck President 
must allow a Supreme Court vacancy to sit unfilled for months. We do 
not allow that for the House of Representatives and, for the most part, 
we don't allow it for the United States Senate. There is a timeframe, 
indeed, in every State to fill seats in the House of Representatives so 
that the American people will be represented. To politicize this 
process is irresponsible and jeopardizes the proper functioning of our 
Supreme Court.
  In 1988, during the Kennedy confirmation process, President Reagan 
said, ``The Federal judiciary is too important to be made a political 
football.'' I agree, and I hope Senate Republicans would, too, because 
we all know that their decision has nothing to do with Judge Garland's 
qualifications.
  Senator Hatch, a Republican from Utah, in 1997, called Judge Garland 
``highly qualified'' and said, ``his intelligence and his scholarship 
cannot be questioned.'' When put forward for the D.C. Circuit Court, 
Judge Garland was

[[Page 3476]]

cited by Senator Hatch as ``a fine nominee.'' He ultimately voted to 
confirm Judge Garland to the D.C. Circuit Court.
  While Chairman Chuck Grassley, who chairs the Judiciary Committee on 
the Senate--also a Republican--opposed Judge Garland's nomination to 
the Circuit Court, it ought to be noted that it was only because he 
thought there were already too many judges on that bench, not because 
Judge Garland lacked qualifications. In fact, Senator Grassley made 
this clear by saying, ``I have nothing against the nominee. Mr. Garland 
seems to be well qualified and would probably make a good judge on some 
other court.''
  Senator Jeff Sessions, a conservative Republican from Alabama, agreed 
with Senator Grassley about too many judges on the Circuit Court, and 
said of Judge Garland: ``I would feel comfortable supporting him for 
another judgeship.'' Although he didn't say it, but another judgeship 
would be a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. Now, 
Senator Grassley and Senator Sessions have an opportunity to put Judge 
Garland on another court--one that has a vacancy needing to be filled.
  Our Founding Fathers set up a Court of nine Justices, cognizant of 
the problem that would occur if there were a 4-4 tie. That is the 
situation that exists today, and it can be remedied by the United 
States Senate now.
  Let's not play political games. If Republicans don't want Judge 
Garland on the Court, schedule a vote and cast their votes accordingly.
  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said just yesterday on ABC's 
This Week: ``Under the Constitution, we have a shared responsibility. 
This is not something he''--referring to the President--``does alone. 
He nominates; we confirm.''
  That, of course, is absolutely accurate. I would say to Senator 
McConnell that the President has met his responsibilities. Now it is 
time for the Senate to do so as well.
  Some Senate Republicans, Mr. Speaker, agree. Senator Mark Kirk of 
Illinois said on Friday: ``Cast a vote. The tough thing about these 
senatorial jobs is you get `yes' or `no' votes. Your whole job,'' 
Senator Kirk observed, ``is to either say `yes' or `no' and explain 
why.'' That is democracy. That is responsibility.
  Furthermore, in February, Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, 
said: ``I think the obligation of the Senate is to carefully consider 
any nominee whom the President submits. The best way to do that, in my 
judgment, is public hearings.'' Senator Collins was absolutely right.
  Under pressure from within their own ranks, Senate Republican leaders 
can only stall for so long before they must face up to their 
responsibility to give Judge Garland the fair hearing he deserves and 
that the American people expect.
  I believe Judge Garland will make a fine Supreme Court Justice, Mr. 
Speaker, and I thank President Obama for selecting someone so ``highly 
qualified,'' intelligent, and whose ``scholarship cannot be 
questioned,'' ``a fine nominee.'' All of those, of course, are Senator 
Hatch's words.
  I hope that Judge Garland will be swiftly confirmed. Leaving the 
Supreme Court with the possibility of gridlock, as we have seen the 
Congress at gridlock, is not good for our country, not good for the 
American people, and does not serve our democracy well.
  Senator McConnell, hold hearings. Reflect upon Judge Garland's 
competency, intellect, and suitability to serve on the Supreme Court. 
Do your duty.

                          ____________________