[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3669-3677]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   AMERICA'S SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2015--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 636, which the 
clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 55, H.R. 636, a bill to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend 
     increased expensing limitations, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.


                     Nomination of Merrick Garland

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there is an old verse that reads, if I 
remember correctly, as follows: While I was going up the stair, I met a 
man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. I wish that man 
would go away.
  That man in the U.S. Senate is Merrick Garland, a person whom I am 
sure the Republican leadership wishes would just go away. But he is not 
going to go away.
  Merrick Garland is the nominee whom President Obama has sent forward 
to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court occasioned by the untimely 
death of Antonin Scalia. In sending that name forward, President Obama 
was meeting his constitutional responsibility. Article II, section 2 of 
the U.S. Constitution states clearly that the President shall--shall--
nominate a person to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. It goes 
on to say that the responsibility of the Senate is to provide advice 
and consent to Supreme Court nominations. It is very clear. The men who 
wrote the Constitution understood the importance of filling a vacancy 
on the U.S. Supreme Court, and they understood it to be so important 
that they mandated that the President send the nominee forward to fill 
that vacancy.
  You can read that Constitution from start to finish and never find 
the rationale being used by Senator McConnell, the majority leader of 
the Senate, to stop that nomination from

[[Page 3670]]

being considered in the Senate. There is no argument made in the 
Constitution--nor has there ever been an argument made--that because 
the President is in the last year of his 4-year term, he no longer has 
a constitutional responsibility to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. 
In fact, never--underline never--has the Senate refused a hearing to a 
nominee who has been sent forward by a President of the United States 
to fill this important vacancy. It speaks volumes that Senator 
McConnell, the Republican leader, has decided--has taken it on 
himself--to stop the Senate from considering the President's nominee.
  It is an embarrassing position to take for many of his colleagues. 
Look at what they are going through. Republican Senators who went home 
over this Easter break--many of them--went to town meetings where 
people asked this very basic question: Senator, why is it that you 
won't do your job? Why won't you even give a hearing to this man who 
was sent by the President for consideration by the Senate to fill this 
important vacancy?
  It is a hard question to answer if you take the position of Senator 
McConnell, the Republican leader, because the answer is that, 
basically, he is arguing that this President has no authority--no 
authority to fill this vacancy. Senator McConnell argues that we should 
hold this vacancy open for the rest of this calendar year into next 
year so that a new President--whoever that might be--would have the 
power to fill this vacancy. He argues that the American people will 
speak through this next election as to a new President and that person 
should have the authority.
  Well, what we discovered over the course of the last several weeks is 
this isn't about giving the American people a voice in choosing to fill 
that vacancy; it is about giving two individuals, the Koch brothers, 
the decision to fill that vacancy. These brothers have decided it is in 
their best interests--their political interests, their economic 
interests, whatever it may be--to keep this spot vacant on the U.S. 
Supreme Court in the hopes that a Republican Presidential candidate 
will win the election and fill the Court vacancy with the blessing of 
the Koch brothers. So Republican Senators are going back to their home 
districts and States, basically facing the electorate in their home 
States, and finding it impossible to justify avoiding any consideration 
of this nominee.
  It got more difficult this morning.
  I ask unanimous consent that this article from the Washington Post be 
printed in the Record in its entirety. The Washington Post has reported 
that U.S. Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland is getting a boost for 
his Supreme Court nomination from some of the lawyers who know him 
best--his former law clerks. It goes on to say that 68 former law 
clerks for this judge have written to Members of Congress recommending 
him based on their personal experience of working professionally with 
him.
  Let me read this passage from their letter:

       There are not many bosses who so uniformly inspire the 
     loyalty that we all feel toward Chief Judge Garland. Our 
     enthusiasm is both a testament to his character and a 
     reflection of his commitment to mentoring and encouraging us 
     long after we left his chambers. He has stood by our side 
     during the happiest moments of our lives--quite literally, 
     having officiated the weddings of seven of his former clerks. 
     He has welcomed us and our growing families into his home. He 
     is a constant source of career advice and guidance. And he 
     has offered love and support in the dark times, too, when we 
     have suffered setbacks, losses, and uncertainty.

  This article one might expect from his clerks saying what a good 
person he is, but they have gone out of their way to suggest to the 
Senate that a person of this quality and this integrity should be 
treated fairly--fairly.
  I listened to some of the comments that are being made on the 
Republican side about this man, and it is a long way from fairness. 
What they are saying to him is we don't care about where you came from. 
We don't care about your education. We don't care about your 
professional qualifications. We don't care about your career on the 
bench. We care that you have been nominated by President Barack Obama, 
and as far as Senator McConnell is concerned, enough said.
  If Barack Obama nominates this man, Senator McConnell has made it 
clear he will deny to him something that has never ever been denied to 
a Supreme Court nominee in the history of the United States of America: 
a fair hearing.
  That is why it is painful for a lot of Republican Senators to go back 
and face audiences. The partisans in the audience come in, in a 
predictable state, with Republicans saying: Hold the line. Don't let 
Obama act like a President of the United States. We want him to go 
away. Democrats come in and ask: Can't you at least give this man a 
hearing? I would say to my Republican colleagues: Listen to the people 
who view themselves as Independents in this country, folks who don't 
carry a party label. They are saying overwhelmingly that Merrick 
Garland is entitled to a hearing before the U.S. Senate. He is an 
extraordinarily well-qualified man. There is no credible justification 
to refuse to give him a hearing.
  Merrick Garland was born in Chicago. His father ran a small business. 
His mother volunteered in the Rogers Park neighborhood. He was the 
grandson of immigrants who fled anti-Semitism in the Pale of Settlement 
in Russia. They came to America in the early 1900s. Judge Garland grew 
up in Lincolnwood, IL. He graduated at the top of his class at Niles 
West High School in Skokie. He earned an undergraduate and law degree 
from Harvard. He was a law clerk to Judge Henry Friendly on the Second 
Circuit and to Supreme Court Justice William Brennan.
  He had a distinguished career at the Justice Department. They sent 
Merrick Garland down after the Oklahoma City tragedy, when there was a 
terrible incident--a domestic terrorist bombing--that killed and maimed 
so many people. The prosecution of that accused terrorist was the 
highest priority for the Department of Justice. They had to get it 
right, not just for the cause of justice but for the victims and their 
families. They had to get it right on this prosecution. So they sent 
their very best prosecutor, Merrick Garland. He was given that 
responsibility and took it very seriously. He used to carry around with 
him the names of those who died in that Oklahoma City terrorist 
incident as a reminder of the solemn responsibility which he carried in 
this undertaking. That is the kind of person he is.
  He successfully prosecuted those who were engaged in the terrorism 
that caused that terrible event. The Department of Justice thought that 
highly of him, and his performance in Oklahoma City was so stellar that 
he achieved his goal--a fair and effective prosecution.
  The Senate considered Merrick Garland for the second highest court of 
the land, the D.C. Circuit Court in 1997. He received a majority vote 
on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats. The total final 
vote was 76 to 23. Thirty-two Senate Republicans voted to confirm Judge 
Garland. He has been on that court--the D.C. Circuit--for 19 years and 
he has been the chief judge for the last 3 years.
  Throughout his lengthy judicial career, Chief Judge Garland has been 
praised for his intelligence, knowledge of the law, adherence to 
precedent, and his ability to forge a consensus. Listen to what Chief 
Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court said during his own 
confirmation hearing: ``Any time Judge Garland disagrees, you know 
you're in a difficult area.''
  I have my differences with Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme 
Court, but I will be the first to say his presentation to the Senate 
Judiciary Committee was one I will never forget. He sat there for 2 
days, without a note in front of him, and answered every question 
effectively and eloquently. I left there with the distinct impression 
he was one of the brightest individuals who had ever been nominated to 
the Supreme Court.
  So this man, Chief Justice Roberts, whether we agree with his 
politics or his decisions, should be listened to when he says of 
Merrick Garland,

[[Page 3671]]

President Obama's nominee, that if you disagreed with Judge Garland, 
you know you are in a difficult area. That is high praise from Chief 
Justice John Roberts. It is high praise for a man who has been denied a 
hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee for the first time in the 
history of the Senate.
  I commend Judge Garland for his many decades of public service and 
congratulate him and his wife Lynn and their daughters for the great 
honor they have been given to be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. I 
offer as well a word of apology to them for the way they are being 
treated by the U.S. Senate. This is not right.
  I hope that in the quiet and the solitude of their own Republican 
caucus lunch, they will close the door and turn to one another and say: 
This is not fair. It is not right. We owe this man a hearing. I am not 
saying he should be rubberstamped. I am not saying the Senate 
Republican majority should approve this man, although I think it is 
difficult not to. I am saying he should be given a hearing. He deserves 
that respect from the U.S. Senate.
  It would be terrible and beneath the dignity of the Senate 
Republicans to close the doors of the Senate to such an accomplished 
American and deny him a fair hearing and a vote. The President has met 
his responsibility. The Senate should do no less.
  I know Merrick Garland is in for a rough ride. The senior Senator 
from Texas said as much a few weeks ago. He said President Obama's 
Supreme Court nominee would ``bear some resemblance to a pinata.''
  Do we know what that means? Remember, if you will, that Mexican 
custom of filling a paper mache animal with candy, then blindfolding a 
child and giving him a stick or a bat to try to swing wildly and beat 
on that pinata until it is broken open and the candy hits the floor. 
That was the analogy used by the senior Senator from Texas as to how 
Merrick Garland should expect to be treated if his nomination comes 
before the Senate. It is a sad commentary, but it may reflect the 
reality of the bitter political environment we live in. It is troubling 
to hear our nomination process in the Senate characterized this way.
  There is a way to avoid pinata politics. Let's give Merrick Garland a 
fair hearing.
  Right now, conservative groups and some Senate Republicans are taking 
their swings blindly at Merrick Garland. They are flailing around, 
hoping to find some argument to justify the mistreatment which they are 
offering. For example, there is a rightwing advocacy group calling 
itself the Judicial Crisis Network, whatever that is, that recently 
announced a multi-State ad campaign against Judge Garland. How about 
that. They will not give him a hearing. They will not even let him sit 
down in a chair under oath and face questions and give answers, but 
they have started a multi-State ad campaign against him. The campaign 
said that with Garland on the bench, the Second Amendment would be 
``gutted'' because ``in two separate cases, Garland has demonstrated 
his strong hostility to gun owner rights.'' Several Senate Republicans 
have echoed this attack. They have heard this so-called Judicial Crisis 
Network ad and they have decided to amplify it.
  However, there is no argument that can be made seriously or fairly 
for the proposition that Judge Garland opposes the Second Amendment in 
his rulings.
  There are two cases mentioned by this rightwing organization on the 
subject. They date back many years to 2000 and 2007. The first was a 
case involving the auditing of background check records. When that case 
was appealed to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department of President 
George W. Bush, led by conservative Attorney General John Ashcroft, 
agreed with Judge Garland's position. There was no controversy as far 
as they were concerned. So a Republican President and a Republican 
Attorney General agreed with the ruling of Judge Garland.
  In the other case in which Judge Garland is accused of having 
overstepped the bounds on the Second Amendment, he never even addressed 
any substantive Second Amendment issue.
  If the Judicial Crisis Network was so outraged by these decisions in 
the year 2000 and the year 2007, why didn't they bring it up in 2010 
when Merrick Garland was in the running to fill a vacancy on the 
Supreme Court? In that year, Carrie Severino, the head of that 
organization--the Judicial Crisis Network--told the Washington Post:

       Of those the President could nominate, we can do a lot 
     worse than Merrick Garland. He's the best scenario we could 
     hope for to bring the tension and the politics in the city 
     down a notch for the summer.

  I just quoted the person who was in charge of the Judicial Crisis 
Network when Merrick Garland was under consideration for the Supreme 
Court six years ago. Now that same network has decided to spend 
millions of dollars to stop this nominee.
  If Judge Garland's views on the Second Amendment were so 
objectionable, why has he been praised by Charles Cooper, the gun 
lobby's top outside attorney? On March 28 of this year, Cooper told the 
Washington Post about his ``high opinion'' of Garland as a judge.
  So here is the reality. Rightwing advocacy groups like the Judicial 
Crisis Network are swinging wildly at Judge Garland. They 
mischaracterize his record and they attack his judgment in an effort to 
discredit him. If the Senate holds a public hearing for Garland, he 
would at least have his day to state his position clearly on the Second 
Amendment, but they are so afraid of what he is going to say, the 
Republican leadership in the Senate has denied Merrick Garland an 
opportunity for a hearing at this point in time.
  At a hearing, the American people could judge for themselves. How 
about that for a novel idea; that we would put Merrick Garland under 
oath, sit him at a table, ask whatever questions we consider to be 
important for his nomination, and then let the American people decide. 
The Republicans will have nothing to do with that. Senator McConnell 
has said from the start he is never going to allow that to occur.
  The Senate is doing Judge Garland and our Nation a grave disservice 
if we don't move forward with a public hearing on this nomination, as 
we have with every other Supreme Court nominee that has been sent by a 
President.
  Just for the record, go back to 1987, when a vacancy occurred on the 
Supreme Court, and in 1988, the last year of Ronald Reagan's Republican 
Presidency, he sent a nominee to the U.S. Senate to be considered. 
Anthony Kennedy was a Reagan nominee, and the Democratic-controlled 
U.S. Senate not only gave Anthony Kennedy a hearing, they gave him a 
unanimous vote, sending him to the Supreme Court. Despite the fact that 
Ronald Reagan was a ``lameduck''--the last year of his Presidency--the 
Senate at that time respected the Office of the Presidency and 
respected the Constitution enough to give Anthony Kennedy his day 
before the Senate Judiciary Committee, his day before the U.S. Senate. 
If it was fair enough for a Republican President in a Democratic 
Senate, why isn't the same standard to be used when it comes to 
President Obama's nominee being sent to the Senate on this day? It 
cannot be explained away.
  What does this vacancy on the Supreme Court mean? There are only 
eight members of a nine-member Court. Already the Supreme Court has 
deadlocked twice on 4-to-4 tie votes since Justice Scalia's passing. 
Almost 50 cases still need to be decided in this term. Major legal 
questions may go unresolved because the Senate is not doing its job and 
not filling this vacancy.
  Judge Garland does not deserve to be used as a pinata--a word used by 
a Senate Republican describing what he would face in the Senate. Let's 
give him an opportunity to rebut any attacks made against him. Let him 
explain himself on the record in full view of the American public. Let 
the American people decide if the ads and attacks against him are valid 
or baseless.
  I urge my Republican colleagues: Do not follow the lead of rightwing 
advocacy groups and attack Judge Garland's character or record when you 
refuse to give the man a chance to respond at a public hearing. That is 
fundamentally unfair.

[[Page 3672]]

  This is a real moment of truth for the Senate. No Supreme Court 
nominee has ever been denied a hearing before, and Merrick Garland 
should not be the first. The message of the American people to the 
Senate Republican majority is very simple, three words: Do your job. Do 
your job under the Constitution. Have a hearing. Be fair to this man. 
Don't dream up excuses. Don't argue with this President who won by 5 
million votes over Mitt Romney. Don't disrespect the Office of the 
Presidency or the Constitution, which in its clarity establishes our 
responsibility to give a hearing to this nominee. My Republican 
colleagues need to do their job and to schedule a hearing for Merrick 
Garland without delay.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          Garland's Ex-Clerks:
                          Confirm Our Old Boss

                           (By Mike DeBonis)

       U.S. Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland is getting a boost 
     for his Supreme Court nomination from some of the lawyers who 
     know him best: his former law clerks.
       Sixty-eight former Garland clerks signed a letter delivered 
     Monday to Senate leaders of both parties, urging them to 
     confirm his nomination. The signers comprise all but three of 
     the ex-clerks Garland has employed since he joined the U.S. 
     Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 
     1997. And the three holdouts have a good reason: They are 
     clerks for Supreme Court justices.
       The three-page tribute is both professional and personal.
       ``There are not many bosses who so uniformly inspire the 
     loyalty that we all feel toward Chief Judge Garland,'' the 
     ex-clerks write. ``Our enthusiasm is both a testament to his 
     character and a reflection of his commitment to mentoring and 
     encouraging us long after we left his chambers. He has stood 
     by our side during the happiest moments of our lives--quite 
     literally, having officiated the weddings of seven of his 
     former clerks. He has welcomed us and our growing families 
     into his home. He is a constant source of career advice and 
     guidance. And he has offered love and support in the dark 
     times, too, when we have suffered setbacks, losses, and 
     uncertainty.''
       Clerkships on the D.C. Circuit are among the nation's most 
     prestigious, second only to the Supreme Court itself. The 
     signers have gone on to high-level positions in federal and 
     state government, private practices and academia. Several 
     have spent time in the office of the White House counsel; one 
     of those lawyers, Danielle Gray, served as Cabinet secretary 
     to President Obama.
       The letter paints a familiar portrait of Garland as a 
     careful judge, a hard-working public servant and a devoted 
     family man. But it also offers a couple of glimpses behind 
     the curtain.
       In one notable passage, the clerks write that Garland 
     ``taught us the value of diversity, in all its forms.''
       ``We observed how Chief Judge Garland forged meaningful 
     connections with others from a wide array of backgrounds and 
     ideological perspectives--from the law clerks he hires to the 
     personal and professional relationships he maintains. He 
     finds camaraderie with his fellow judges without regard to 
     who nominated them to the bench. Chief Judge Garland deeply 
     believes that our system of justice works best when those who 
     see things differently are able to work together, in a 
     collegial manner, to arrive at a just result. And when he 
     must disagree with his colleagues, he always does so 
     respectfully.''
       And they describe how his private response to the Sept 11, 
     2001, attacks had a profound impression on the four clerks 
     who were working for him at the time: ``From his chambers, we 
     watched with horror the news about the attacks on the World 
     Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the days after, we remember 
     the explicit importance Chief Judge Garland placed on coming 
     to the office everyday and continuing to prepare for upcoming 
     cases. In the aftermath of that terrible tragedy, he believed 
     it was more important than ever for the American people to 
     see that their system of government was functioning without 
     interruption--that the rule of law endured!''

  Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I want to join in the remarks just 
made by the senior Senator from Illinois that we have an obligation to 
do our job and to provide a hearing and a vote for the President's 
nominee--not as a matter of discretion or convenience but as a 
mandatory obligation we have as Members of this body. It is an 
obligation that comes from the Constitution, which says that we shall 
exercise this duty of advising and consenting.
  For all the reasons my colleague has expressed so eloquently, the 
American people feel that it is our job, and they are right. Nothing so 
epitomizes the feeling of the American people that Washington is 
failing to work, that this body is failing to do its job, that the 
Congress and the Federal Government are failing the American people, 
than the failure to deal with this nominee. The refusal to even meet 
with him mocks the American system of justice. For all who care about 
the quality of our judicial nominee, this intransigence is both an 
insult and an injury, and it will do lasting damage to the Court if it 
drags this third branch of government into the mire of partisan 
bickering.
  The judicial branch depends, for the enforceability of its decisions, 
on the trust and credibility of the American people that it is above 
politics and that decisions made by the judicial branch are on the 
merits without regard to the special interests and the money that so 
infects this branch, and they are entitled to our support for the 
credibility and trust of the judicial branch, and nothing epitomizes 
the need for that credibility and trust more than the U.S. Supreme 
Court. It is the highest Court in the land, and it is the most 
powerful. It is an anomaly in a democratic government because it is 
unelected, appointed for life, at the top of the judicial pyramid, 
exercising vast powers, with only the trust and credibility of the 
American people as its means of enforcement. It has no army or police 
of its own. Its decisions and enforceability depend for their effect on 
it being above politics. The controversy and the intransigence and 
refusal to even consider this nominee is a great threat to that 
institution.


  Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education, and Research Act

  Mr. President, on the issue of getting the job done, I want to go to 
a separate topic very much on our minds at this time of year, very 
distinct and different, but I want to join it in these remarks because 
it is timely as we begin the next phase of our bipartisan efforts to 
combat Lyme and tick-borne diseases.
  We will be building support this week for a bill that has been 
introduced by Senator Ayotte and me, with the strong involvement and 
leadership of Senator Gillibrand, S. 1503, the Lyme and Tick-Borne 
Disease Prevention, Education, and Research Act, with 13 cosponsors. It 
is a bipartisan bill that is critically important to public health.
  Today we will be welcoming a number of my friends and constituents 
from Connecticut and around the country who are experts to provide 
briefings to our staffs in sessions that have been organized by Senator 
Ayotte, Senator Gillibrand, and me. We are very pleased to welcome some 
of the leaders of this effort: John Aucott, who is an assistant 
professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine; Dr. 
Brian Fallon, a good friend and leading expert in this area and a 
professor at the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons; Ally 
Hilfiger, who has been a survivor and strong supporter and advocate; 
Rebecca Tibball, a fourth grade teacher from my home State of 
Connecticut who has been battling Lyme disease since August of 2014; 
and David Roth, also a leader and a longstanding patient advocate from 
New York who in his day job is a managing director at the private 
sector group Blackstone. These individuals are here to call attention 
to and build support for curing a disease that is literally exploding 
exponentially in this country and now constitutes an epidemic that 
literally impinges and cripples the lives of millions of Americans.
  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that more 
than 36,000 Americans suffered from Lyme disease in 2013. It says that 
the number who actually contracted this disease is probably 10 times 
higher because it is undetected and undiagnosed in so many people and 
it is underreported

[[Page 3673]]

even when it is discovered in individuals. Most of the cases of Lyme 
disease occur in a limited number of States. Ninety-eight percent of 
them occur in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, 
Virginia, and Wisconsin. I name those States because the Senators in 
those States ought to be behind this bill, every single one of them. 
But those cases are only the ones reported. In many States there is no 
systematic reporting of Lyme disease, so the full extent, breadth, and 
depth of this epidemic is truly unknown.
  We know in this body how to respond and recognize a public health 
threat. It was done for Ebola. It is done for influenza. It hopefully 
will be done for Zika. What is needed is the same kind of bipartisan 
awareness and support for legislation to help people who suffer from 
Lyme and other tick-borne diseases.
  Sometimes this Senator is asked: Why has the Congress failed to 
recognize and respond to this severe public health threat?
  There is no good explanation except for the underreporting and the 
unawareness, and that is no excuse. In the meantime, the cases of Lyme 
disease are exploding in number, and the severity impacts our economy 
as well as the quality of life for Americans. It affects people's 
ability to perform their jobs, children's ability to go to school, and 
families' ability to function normally. The disease, if undetected and 
untreated, can cause the most severe kinds of pain and disability.
  Lyme disease is named after a town in my State. I have always felt it 
was tremendously unfair for the beautiful and wonderful town of Lyme to 
have its name bear the burden of this disease, but regardless of the 
name, the burden is on the entire country--not simply on Connecticut 
and not simply on the Northeast or any part of the country or 
profession--to take action. That action must include provisions in this 
bill to strengthen Lyme disease surveillance and reporting, an 
education program, establishing epidemiological research objectives for 
tick-borne diseases, and the preparation of a regular report to 
Congress on the progress of efforts to combat these devastating tick-
borne diseases. The effects are devastating, pernicious, and insidious, 
creeping into every aspect of a victim's life.
  Our bill has earned the support of 13 Senators from both parties, 
including five members of the HELP Committee. When it comes to fighting 
Lyme disease, there is no partisanship. The ticks that carry this 
disease don't know a red State from a blue one. They don't make any 
discrimination between the boundaries of different States. The 
devastating diseases that can spring from these ticks are common to our 
entire country and therefore demand a national response and a Federal 
program that we have outlined in this bill.
  I am proud to join with Senator Ayotte and Senator Gillibrand in this 
effort. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to send your staffs 
to the briefing we have today.
  I thank others from Connecticut--such as Alexandra Cohen--who are 
going to be coming today, and I look forward to continuing this fight, 
which has to be one of a nationwide commitment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The Senator from South Dakota.


                                  ISIS

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise to address last month's tragic 
terror attacks in Brussels and Istanbul by ISIS. It is critical for the 
Senate to consider these significant events as we get back to work on 
bills enhancing security and setting policies for air transportation.
  In Brussels, 35 innocent people, including four Americans, lost their 
lives in barbaric attacks by ISIS at a subway station and airport 
terminal. In Istanbul, an ISIS suicide bombing killed four on Central 
Street and left dozens more injured. My thoughts and prayers are with 
those injured, the families of the victims, and the citizens of Belgium 
and Turkey.
  In the past 2 years, ISIS has orchestrated 29 attacks on Western 
targets around the world, killing more than 650 innocent people. A 
decade ago, the group of violent jihadists behind ISIS fit a fairly 
conventional definition of a terrorist group. Operating in Iraq, they 
endeavored to kill Americans, Iraqis, and others working to build a 
free and democratic nation.
  Today, however, calling ISIS a mere terrorist group may not fully 
convey the seriousness of the problem. ISIS, or the so-called Islamic 
State, has taken control of a significant amount of territory in Iraq 
and Syria. Within this territory, ISIS has established a self-
proclaimed capital city and effective sovereignty over other populated 
urban centers. It collects taxes, operates and profits from oil well 
operations, controls banking, and rules over substantial agricultural 
acreage.
  These operations help fund and sustain not only ISIS armed fighters 
but also the group's attempt to build actual institutions that spread 
its message of hate. Unfortunately, ISIS has enjoyed considerable 
success communicating and spreading its distorted vision of a grand 
Islamic caliphate claiming authority over all Muslims.
  Branches of ISIS, trying to replicate what has happened in Syria and 
Iraq, have taken root elsewhere and carried out operations in 
destabilized areas, including Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, and 
Yemen.
  A recent report estimated that as many as 31,000 ISIS adherents have 
traveled from 86 countries to join the organization in Iraq and Syria. 
More than 5,000 of these recruits have come from Western Europe and 150 
from the United States. In addition to those Americans who have 
actually traveled abroad, researchers at George Washington University 
estimated in December that there are 900 active investigations of ISIS 
sympathizers here in the United States. Let me repeat that--900 
investigations of ISIS sympathizers here in the United States. This 
doesn't included those who have been radicalized without noticeable 
warning, such as a couple in San Bernardino who weren't known to 
authorities before they killed 14 in a shooting attack last December.
  Over the past few years, ISIS's reach has expanded dramatically, and 
claims that our current policies have contained the organizations and 
its dangerous message are both false and reckless. We have had some 
successes in targeting senior ISIS officials, but as we saw in 
Brussels, in San Bernardino, and elsewhere, those efforts have not 
lessened the threat posed by a terrorist state that is successfully 
propagating its ideology all over the world.
  So what can we do to protect against the threat posed by ISIS? Here 
are a few things:
  First, we need a President who is committed to forming a robust 
coalition to destroy ISIS abroad. Real American leadership against ISIS 
must be manifested in sustained engagement against the enemy. We need 
an administration intent on eliminating the group's sources of income 
and its control of territory which facilitates an illusion of 
legitimacy for its followers. Incremental progress is not enough. 
Indeed, the Washington Post reported last week that some terrorism 
experts believe pressure on the group's finances could make ISIS more 
dangerous and unpredictable until it is defeated.
  Second, we need to control our borders. We need to know who is coming 
in and out of our country and why. This includes screening travelers 
for ties to ISIS and to its sympathizers. One of the greatest threats 
facing Europe is citizens who leave their homes to fight for ISIS and 
then return to recruit or conduct operations in their communities. We 
also face this threat from European ISIS fighters, the return of 
American citizens who have fought for ISIS, and agents of ISIS posing 
as war refugees. Although we have passed bipartisan legislation to 
tighten some screening requirements, we need the administration to 
enforce the law rather than attempt to undermine and work around it.
  Third, as a final line of defense, we need to better secure the 
homeland. We must make sure the intelligence community, law 
enforcement, and Homeland Security officials have the tools

[[Page 3674]]

they need to deter attacks and to stop plots before they are launched. 
This includes the need for constant reassessment of our vulnerabilities 
so we stay ahead of threats.
  Tomorrow I will chair a hearing at the Commerce Committee with 
Transportation Security Administration Administrator Peter Neffenger, 
who happened to be in Brussels during the March 22 attacks. While we 
mainly see and know the Transportation Security Administration or TSA 
as the agency behind airport screening of passengers and baggage, the 
organization actually has a much broader charge. TSA is the designated 
Federal agency for all transportation security matters. As we know from 
independent covert testing that exposed TSA failures a year ago, TSA 
still has work to do to improve screening at airports, but TSA also 
needs to focus on securing transportation by train, bus, pipelines, and 
through our ports.
  The diversity of the targets ISIS selected in its most recent 
attacks--a subway station, an unsecured airport terminal, and a busy 
street, underscores the challenge of protecting our citizens from an 
enemy seeking the path of least resistance to maximize its carnage. To 
stay ahead of this danger, security officials at TSA and other agencies 
need to be looking at potential threats before ISIS does.
  Congress has a role in helping security officials stay ahead of ISIS. 
Aided by congressional oversight and congressional watchdogs, the 
Commerce Committee has already approved bipartisan legislation that 
Senator Bill Nelson and I have offered to address airport security 
vulnerabilities. Our bill is cosponsored by the Homeland Security 
Committee's chair and ranking member, Senator Johnson and Senator 
Carper. Among other provisions, our legislation improves the vetting 
process for airport workers seeking or holding a security credential 
that grants access to restricted sections of an airport.
  Over the past few weeks, a number of badged aviation industry workers 
have been caught in the act helping criminal organizations. On March 
18, a flight attendant abandoned a suitcase with 68 pounds of cocaine 
after she was confronted by airport security officials in California. 
In Florida, on March 26, an airline gate agent was arrested with a 
backpack containing $282,400 in cash that he intended to hand off to an 
associate. According to press reports, the agent told authorities the 
money was connected to illegal activity, but he knew few other details. 
Some of the perpetrators in the deadly attacks in Brussels were 
previously known to authorities as criminals--but not terrorists.
  As we work to address concerns about an insider threat scenario, 
where an aviation worker helps terrorists, criminals who have broken 
laws for their own financial gain and those with histories of violence 
are a good place to start. Ensuring that airport workers with security 
credentials are trustworthy is especially important, considering that 
ISIS in October killed 224 on a Russian flight leaving Egypt. Many 
experts believe this attack had help from an aviation employee.
  In S. 2361, the Airport Security Enhancement and Oversight Act, 
Senator Nelson and I propose not only tightening vetting procedures for 
workers who need a security credential, but we also expand the list of 
criminal convictions that disqualifies an applicant from holding one. 
At present, even applicants convicted for embezzlement, racketeering, 
perjury, robbery, sabotage, immigration law violations, and assault 
with a deadly weapon can still obtain an airport security badge 
granting access to restricted areas. Our bill closes this loophole 
while updating airport security rules, expanding random inspections of 
airport workers, and requiring the review of airport perimeter 
security.
  The Commerce Committee has also approved another TSA-related bill, 
H.R. 2843, the TSA PreCheck Expansion Act. This bill would expand 
participation in the TSA precheck application program by developing 
private sector partnerships and capabilities to vet and enroll more 
individuals. As a result, more passengers would be vetted before they 
even arrived at the airport and received expedited screening. This 
would get passengers through security checkpoints more quickly to 
ensure they don't pose the kind of easy target that ISIS suicide 
bombers found at the Brussels Airport.
  Historically, this body has passed aviation security enhancements 
separate from a reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. 
While I still prefer this separate approach and believe the Senate 
should pass our consensus security legislation without delay, I will 
pursue every option to enact these improvements and will vigorously 
oppose any effort to water down any security efforts that passed the 
Commerce Committee.
  As we look at ISIS and consider necessary steps to stop attacks, 
let's remember our recent history of fighting terrorism. In the 1990s, 
our Nation not only fell behind on intelligence and airport security, 
but we did not act with force against Al Qaeda's enclaves in 
Afghanistan. This was true even after we recognized a significant 
threat following attacks on our embassies in East Africa and on the USS 
Cole in Yemen.
  Only after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon did our 
Nation pursue a strong military response and adopt significant reforms 
to enhance our Homeland Security. Like Al Qaeda, ISIS is now a 
significant danger. While we are doing more to push our Homeland 
Security and intelligence agencies to meet current and future threats, 
we are unwise to allow this enemy time and multiple chances to inflict 
mass casualties.
  As a legislative body, we have already passed legislation closing a 
border security vulnerability in our Visa Waiver Program and have an 
opportunity in the bill that Senator Nelson and I have offered to guard 
against an insider threat at airports. As lawmakers, we are going in 
the right direction. However, our responsibility to the people we 
represent does not end there. Until this administration or its 
successor changes the facts on the ground, we also have an obligation 
to speak about the continued threat of ISIS, especially when the 
administration downplays the need for a more aggressive response. We 
have an obligation to continue discussing the genocide of Christians 
and other religious groups in areas under ISIS control, and we have an 
obligation to scrutinize Executive actions and conduct rigorous 
oversight of administration initiatives that pose risks to our 
homeland. If we can't do this, we have learned very little.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 Congratulating the Villanova Wildcats on winning the 2016 NCAA Men's 
                    College Basketball Championship

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few minutes on the 
floor to send congratulations on my own behalf and also on behalf of 
the people of Pennsylvania to the Villanova Wildcats for a great win 
last night in the NCAA final.
  It was a remarkable game for a lot of reasons. My wife and I watched 
every minute of it, as I know so many did. It was a remarkable game 
even before the last-second shot, but even more so after the shot made 
by Kris Jenkins.
  We are grateful, on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania, to commend 
and salute Villanova University and, of course, the team itself.
  In particular, I commend the players, not only Kris Jenkins but the 
entire team. At the same time, we commend the work done by Jay Wright. 
He is a great coach. He was awarded the Naismith Award as Coach of the 
Year this year, but we also commend him for leading Villanova this year 
and for the way he conducted himself, even in the aftermath of a win.
  We learn a lot about people in victory and defeat, whether that is in 
the athletic contest or even in politics or life itself. I thought Jay 
Wright showed a lot of class in the way he conducted

[[Page 3675]]

himself after winning, which is sometimes not the case in sports today.
  I want to commend them as well for their great teamwork that 
obviously has to play out not just on the court in one game but over 
the length of a season--the practice and the hard work and the working 
together and the way they built each other up. There are so many 
instances where this team really was a team in reality, not just in 
terms of people talking about them as a team.
  I am not sure they could have shot better. I am told--and I hope I 
have this right--they had a 58-percent shooting field goal percentage 
throughout the tournament. That is a remarkable achievement. Again, 
that doesn't just happen; it happens because of hard work and because 
of a great coach.
  I want to commend and salute the team and congratulate them on 
winning a very difficult tournament. This is a tournament that had a 
lot of upsets and a lot of twists and turns before the team came out 
No. 1. That is a great achievement.
  Finally, I commend and salute the university and Father Peter 
Donahue, the president. We know him as Father Peter. I want to thank 
him. He sent me a Villanova hat, which I wore during the semifinal game 
or part of the game. I made sure I wore it at least for a few minutes 
during the final game. I was grateful he sent me that reminder of team 
spirit.
  In addition to Father Peter in the larger Villanova community, we 
want to salute the students, who were so loyal, and the fans, who may 
not have been students but who were either graduates of Villanova or 
just supporters. And of course the alumni made it possible for the team 
to have the kind of support they have had over many years.


       Opioid Epidemic and Children's Exposure to Lead Poisoning

  Mr. President, in my recent travels across Pennsylvania, two issues 
arose that I know the Presiding Officer and others may have heard about 
in the time they were away from Washington, and I know there are many 
others, but I will just mention two that the people of our State are 
thinking a lot about and are worried about and expect us to take action 
concerning.
  No. 1 is the opioid epidemic across the country, which has caused the 
kind of death and devastation that none of us can even begin to 
imagine. In Pennsylvania alone, more than 2,700 people died in 2014 as 
a result of some kind of drug overdose. So this is a major challenge.
  We made tremendous progress when we passed our bipartisan bill here, 
the so-called CARA bill. That was a good move and an important step for 
the Senate. I hope we can follow up on that with the $600 million in 
funding that local law enforcement and treatment experts and others 
have asked us for. We need to finish the job in terms of making sure 
the Senate is taking the right steps on this challenge.
  The second issue--which I will mention just briefly because we don't 
have time today to develop it further--is lead poisoning in children. 
We know what happened in Flint, the horror and the tragedy of Flint, 
but in a State such as mine, the biggest challenge we have is not 
necessarily lead from water or in the water systems that would 
adversely affect children. In our case, because we have a lot of old 
homes, it is lead paint and the exposure to lead paint and the high 
lead levels that put children in a precarious situation in the short 
run but even long term because some of these impacts, if the levels are 
very high, can be irreversible.
  We have to make sure we are doing more to protect our children not 
only in Pennsylvania but across the country in terms of making sure 
that fewer and fewer children are exposed to high lead levels. I know 
we will talk more about that.
  Those are two major challenges that I know confront Pennsylvania and 
also confront our country.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


  Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy and Working Together in the Senate

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as you know, we have been back home in our 
States for the last couple of weeks or traveling, listening to our 
constituents. It was great to be back home and to spend some time 
talking to the people who I work for about the challenges facing our 
country and what we have been doing in the U.S. Senate to try to 
address those challenges. While it is always true that people wish 
there would be more consensus building and more solutions offered, I 
would say that, by and large, people feel we had a pretty productive 
2015 and are hoping we can continue that sort of productivity here in 
the Senate in 2016, even though this is a Presidential election year.
  Yesterday was a good example of that productivity. We passed a 
trademark enforcement piece of legislation basically without--it was 
unanimous, to the best of my knowledge. All the Senators here in the 
Chamber voted for it without going through the official procedural 
hoops that are required in order to process legislation here in the 
Senate.
  Previously we passed legislation--recently the Comprehensive 
Addiction and Recovery Act--to deal with the crisis involving opioid or 
prescription drug painkillers that are being abused around the country, 
and people are unfortunately falling into that trap, and then the cheap 
heroin that sometimes is used as a substitute if people can't find the 
opioid prescription drugs.
  So Congress actually has been doing the people's business here. Of 
course, we are in the type of profession where people will sometimes 
say: Well, we think you are doing a great job. And others will say: 
Well, we don't think you are doing quite so great a job. But that is 
the nature of the beast. Either way, it is always good to be back home.
  As I was talking to my constituents back home, I was glad to hear one 
thing. No matter what part of the State I was traveling in, there was 
appreciation for the decision we made to give the voters a voice on who 
makes the next lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Texans want 
to have a say in who replaces Justice Scalia on our Nation's highest 
Court, and I believe their voice should be heard.
  We are already engaged in the Presidential primaries process. Today 
is the Wisconsin primary. It will not be that long before we have a new 
President who will make that appointment. I simply believe it is 
important--particularly in something that could extend for the next 25 
or 30 years and really affect the balance of power on the Supreme 
Court--that this be left to the voters.
  We all know we did not end up in this position overnight. In fact, 
there is a lot of history. I remember that back when I came to the 
Senate, I was frustrated by the fact that there was so much politics at 
play in the judicial confirmation process. Having served as a State 
court judge for 13 years, I had some pretty strong views about that. 
But the problem is, there has been a lot that has transpired in the 
interim. Everything from the Biden rule to the Reid statement in 2005 
was really a threat saying that if President George W. Bush were to 
appoint a judge to the Supreme Court, it was within the authority of 
the U.S. Senate not to hold a vote on that appointment. That was in 
2005. That was the Democratic leader. And then in 2007 when George W. 
Bush was still President, 18 months before he left office, Senator 
Schumer, the next Democratic leader, said there should be a presumption 
against confirmation. This is something that is nearly unprecedented. 
Then we know that in the interim there has been this development of 
filibusters or the requirement of 60 votes in order to get judges 
confirmed brought to us by our Democratic friends, as well as something 
we didn't think would ever happen but, in fact, did happen under 
Democratic leadership: the so-called nuclear option--in other words, 
breaking the Senate rules in order to confirm judges mainly to the DC 
Circuit

[[Page 3676]]

Court of Appeals--what some call the second most powerful court in the 
Nation--in order to pack that court with judges who are more likely to 
affirm President Obama's constitutional overreach.
  So, as I said, much to my chagrin and I bet to a lot of people's 
chagrin, we have seen the playbook torn up by our Democratic colleagues 
and rewritten. The question is, Are we going to be operating under a 
different set of rules than they would if the roles were reversed? 
Frankly, my constituents back home think the rules ought to be the same 
no matter who happens to be in the majority and who happens to be in 
the White House.
  Even more significantly, the Supreme Court is the final authority for 
many of the most pressing issues that face our country. The Court often 
acts as a constitutional counterweight to the passions of both the 
legislative and executive branches. We have seen the Supreme Court 
operate time and time again as a check on the Obama administration's 
lawless actions. We saw this in the recess-appointment case. We have 
seen it in a number of different cases where the Court has said to the 
Obama administration: You have simply overextended your reach beyond 
legitimate boundaries.
  I am thankful for that important counterbalance in our government and 
the give-and-take that the Founding Fathers intended for us to have 
with three coequal branches of government. But, as I said, the next 
Supreme Court Justice could well change the ideological direction of 
the Court for a generation.
  Rightly or wrongly, the Supreme Court has the final word on issues as 
varied as the scope of the President's power, the ability of the States 
to make their own decisions about self-government, and questions of 
personal liberty and the like. The Court can and has made all the 
difference in the world, and one Justice can affect that for a long 
time.
  We recall Justice Scalia as somebody who believed that the words of 
the Constitution mattered greatly, and he served on the Court for 30 
years. Justice Scalia was what was sometimes called an originalist. In 
other words, he believed the Court had an obligation to apply the 
Constitution and the law as written, not based on some substituted 
value judgment for what perhaps the unelected, lifetime-tenured judges 
would have preferred in terms of policy. That is not their role. They 
don't stand for election. It is our role as the policymakers in the 
political branches who do stand for election--and thus give the 
American people a chance to voice their pleasure or displeasure, as the 
case may be, with the direction that we perhaps take the country when 
it comes to policy. But that is not a role the Supreme Court should 
play.
  We need to approach filling this seat with great care. The 
administration and their liberal allies are now trying to basically 
throw everything but the kitchen sink at stopping the American people 
from getting a voice in this matter. In other words, they are trying to 
force Congress's hand or the Senate's hand to confirm the Presidential 
nominee at this time. They are spending millions of dollars on TV 
advertising. They have hired consultants, and they found some 
sympathetic allies in the media to criticize us.
  I don't begrudge anybody who has a different point of view than I do 
about this, but I simply cannot in good conscience vote to confirm 
another Obama nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court in the waning days of 
this President's term in office. I happen to believe we should not 
process this nomination. We should exercise the power we have under the 
Constitution to grant or withhold consent, and in this case to withhold 
consent.
  But here we are, several weeks after the President announced his 
nominee, and nothing has really changed. All the money and the 
consultants in the world are not going to change the fact that the 
American people are going to have their say. We don't know exactly how 
that will turn out, but that is because this is based not on the 
personality of the nominee but on the principle that the American 
people should have their voice heard.
  As I said, the President has the authority to nominate anybody he 
chooses, but that doesn't change our responsibility or our authority 
under that same Constitution. We remain committed to the idea that this 
vacancy should be filled by the next President.
  I want to be clear that the American people do deserve a voice here, 
and we will make sure they are heard. In the meantime, as I started out 
saying, there are a lot of things we can do working together. Just 
because we disagree about this one item doesn't mean we have to 
disagree about everything or that Congress needs to lapse into 
dysfunction.
  We currently have a bill pending before us involving the Federal 
Aviation Administration and the very important topic of safe and secure 
air travel. We can disagree about how to proceed with the President's 
nominee to the Supreme Court and still work together to pass other good 
consensus legislation. So I hope all of us, our colleagues across the 
aisle and on this side of the aisle, will continue to work together to 
do things I think would help the country a lot, things such as criminal 
justice reform--a bill that has been voted out of the Judiciary 
Committee, that enjoys broad bipartisan support, and that the President 
of the United States has said he supports.
  There is also other important legislation that I am very concerned 
about and interested in involving the intersection of mental illness 
with our criminal justice system and the fact that our jails have 
become the de facto warehouses for people with mental illness who are 
going untreated and obviously the homeless who are living on our 
streets, many of whom are suffering from mental illness.
  I hope we can continue to work together on these other consensus 
matters even though we disagree about this one very important matter. I 
am confident that we can and we will.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Nomination of Merrick Garland

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, during the recess last week, I had the 
opportunity to meet with Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, President Obama's nominee 
to fill the existing vacancy of an Associate Justice of the U.S. 
Supreme Court. During our meeting, we discussed the role of the Supreme 
Court and protecting the civil rights of Americans. We discussed a 
number of national security challenges, including those relating to the 
detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We discussed the Citizens United 
case and campaign finance law. We talked about the respect for each 
branch of government and our constitutional system of checks and 
balances. We spoke about the important role of precedent in our 
judicial decisions and the need to build consensus on decisions. We 
discussed the value of promoting pro bono work in the legal profession 
and the need to address the growing access-to-justice gap. I was 
pleased to hear that as an attorney at the Justice Department, Chief 
Justice Garland worked to clarify ethics rules to allow government 
lawyers to engage in additional pro bono work.
  What I was doing is what I hope every Member in the Senate will do, 
and that is finding out more about Judge Garland, his judicial 
philosophy, the way he has conducted his life, his respect for the 
Constitution and the precedents of the judicial branch of government, 
looking at current issues and seeing how Judge Garland views those 
current issues. That is all part of a confirmation process.
  The President, under the Constitution, has done his job; that is, he 
has

[[Page 3677]]

made the nomination of who he believes should fill Justice Scalia's 
vacancy. It is now up to the Senate to do our job, and our job starts 
with Members of the Senate meeting with Judge Garland to be able to see 
one-on-one, without cameras glaring, how Judge Garland responds to our 
individual issues. We obviously have his record, his background, his 
public service, what he has done as a lawyer, what he has done as a 
prosecutor, and what he has done as a judge on the circuit court. We 
also should have a confirmation hearing in the Judiciary Committee, 
which will give us more information.
  Under the Constitution, the responsibility of the President is to 
make the nomination. It is now up to the Senate to do our job, and our 
job is to consider that nominee, for each Senator to learn as much as 
they possibly can--this is a critically important position, obviously, 
the Supreme Court of the United States--and for the institution to hold 
hearings and to vote. Each Senator will have to make his or her own 
judgment on whether we should vote for or against confirmation, but we 
have a responsibility to consider that nomination and a responsibility 
to vote.
  I must say that I was very impressed by the nominee during the course 
of our meeting. He has impeccable qualifications as a prosecutor, 
judge, and now chief judge of what many call the second highest court 
in the land. The Senate confirmed Judge Garland on a bipartisan basis 
for his current judgeship, which he has held for nearly two decades. 
Chief Judge Garland strikes me as a thoughtful and deliberate person 
who has dedicated his life to public service. And I am proud to say 
that the nominee is a Marylander and lives in Bethesda in Montgomery 
County, MD.
  Chief Judge Garland is the nominee for the Supreme Court and should 
be dealt with in this term of Congress. It is not a matter for the next 
President and the next Congress; it is a matter for this President and 
this Congress. There are 9 months left in this year, and to suggest 
that we don't have the time and the President doesn't have the 
authority to appoint a nominee is outrageous, and it is an affront to 
the Constitution.
  This nomination is not about popularity or politics; it is about 
finding the next Justice who will advance the rule of law in this 
country, who will recognize the responsibility of the Supreme Court to 
be the final arbiter on constitutional issues, and having a person who 
can bring about greater consensus among his colleagues. As more of my 
colleagues meet Judge Garland, they will see that this is one of his 
many strengths. We need to go through the process and give Chief Judge 
Garland a chance.
  I think it is hard to understand how you are excused from doing your 
job for 9 months by not having a confirmation hearing or vote. I don't 
think the American people understand that. Quite frankly, I don't 
understand that. I don't understand why we are not going through the 
regular order. Regular order would be for us individually to meet with 
Judge Garland and for the Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing and to 
schedule a timely vote on the floor of the Senate. I think more and 
more Senators will come to that conclusion. The President did his job, 
and it is now time for the Senate to do its job.
  The American people want to see nine Justices on the Supreme Court 
when it convenes its new term in October. We have a new term beginning 
in October of this year. We expect to see nine Justices on the Court to 
make decisions. You don't resolve issues on a 4-to-4 vote. We hopefully 
will have greater consensus. We shouldn't have a divided Court. We 
should be able to get more collegiality on the Supreme Court, but we 
also should be able to make a decision. The Supreme Court needs to be 
able to make a decision. With eight Justices, in too many cases they 
are not going to be able to make a decision.
  Article II, section 2, of the Constitution states that the President 
``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, 
shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court.'' The President has no 
alternative under the Constitution but to make a nomination when there 
is a vacancy. There is a vacancy on the Supreme Court due to Justice 
Scalia's untimely death. The President did his job. The Constitution 
says very clearly that we--the Senate--have to advise and consent. That 
is our requirement. That is not optional; we have that as a 
requirement. Never have we denied an opportunity to consider a Supreme 
Court nominee. It is now up to us to consider that nominee, and we 
should consider that nominee by doing our job--interviewing Judge 
Garland, scheduling a committee hearing, and voting on that nominee.
  The American people twice elected President Obama to a 4-year term in 
office. Their voice has been heard very clearly. Elections have 
consequences, and President Obama has carried out the constitutional 
responsibilities and duties of his office by nominating Judge Garland 
as the successor to Justice Scalia. The President is simply doing the 
job the American people elected him to do. The President doesn't stop 
working simply because it is an election year. He has more than 9 
months left in office, as do Senators who will face the voters in 
November. Congress should not stop working, either, in this election 
year.
  Of course, every Senator has the right to make his or her own 
judgment on whether they will vote for or against confirmation. 
Senators were elected for 6-year terms by the citizens of their States 
and have the right and obligation to vote as they see fit. President 
Obama was elected by the people of the United States for two 
4-year terms and has the right and obligation to nominate judges.
  History has shown that when the roles were reversed and Democrats 
held the majority in the Senate, Supreme Court and judicial nominees 
for Republican Presidents were given hearings and up-or-down votes 
regardless of when the vacancies occurred. While I might have picked 
different judges, as a Senator, I voted to confirm the vast majority of 
President Bush's judicial nominations in his final year in office. I 
will continue to carry out my constitutional responsibilities that I 
undertook when I became a Senator and swore to support the 
Constitution.
  Let me remind my colleagues that a democratically controlled Senate 
confirmed Justice Kennedy to the Supreme Court during the last year of 
President Ronald Reagan's final term in 1988. Senators also confirmed 
Justice Murphy in 1940, Justice Cardozo in 1932, and Justice Brandeis 
in 1916. The precedent of the Senate indicates that we need to take up 
this nominee.
  What the Republicans are effectively trying to do is temporarily 
shrink the Supreme Court from nine to eight Justices and shorten the 
term of the President from 4 years to 3 years. Why? Because the 
President is of a different party than the Senate. This is disgraceful 
and indefensible.
  Let me quote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was appointed by 
President Ronald Reagan in 1981 as the first female Justice of the 
Supreme Court. When asked about the vacancy on the Court created by the 
death of Justice Scalia, Justice O'Connor said, ``We need somebody 
there now to do the job, and let's get on with it.'' I agree with 
Justice O'Connor. Let's do our job and fulfill the Senate's 
constitutional responsibilities and vote up or down on Judge Garland's 
nomination.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________