Harry Reid

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have heard my friend the Republican leader the last couple of days talking about what a good bill we have here. He is right. It is something that is important to do. We have this opioid problem sweeping the Nation. It is in Nevada, as well as in all other States. All the other 49 States have the problem. So I understand the importance of this legislation. I only wish the Republicans had joined with us yesterday in voting for the Shaheen amendment, which would have provided real money to meet the requirements of this legislation, if it passes. I also know my friend keeps talking about the money we have already appropriated. We did it because there was an emergency then, and there is one now. The programs we have appropriated money for are totally separate and apart from this legislation. That is why Senator Shaheen offered her amendment. It was emergency funding that we badly need. So it is too bad my friends on the other side of the aisle are talking about taking money from other programs and funding this program. That isn't how it should be. This is a scourge sweeping the country. We have programs in this new legislation that need to be funded, otherwise it won't have any meaning whatsoever to the problem we are facing in the country. A number of Democrats have also tried to offer amendments. To this point, they have been able to offer one amendment and vote on one amendment. We have had more than 60 amendments filed over here. I know we are not going to have the ability to debate and vote on 60 amendments, but my friend the Republican leader has been out here boasting time and again about this robust amendment process, and it is only talk. We haven't had a robust amendment process. I wouldn't think robust would mean having seven or eight amendments. We would accept a new definition of robust, I guess, if we got to offer a few amendments, but we should be able to offer amendments on this legislation. So I hope the Senate will be able to have a full and open amendment process on this legislation. If not, we may not be able to proceed to vote on this legislation, and it would be too bad. Even though the legislation is not funded properly, we should pass it. We are not going to pass it if we get jammed, and that is what is happening.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, listen to these words: fair, respectful, deliberative, and thorough. These are the words the senior Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, once used to describe the way Supreme Court nominations should be considered by the Senate--fair, respectful, deliberative, and thorough. In June 2010, he said something more: I have always been of the opinion that the Senate needs to conduct a comprehensive and careful review of Supreme Court nominees. It is important that the nominee be given a fair, respectful, and also deliberative hearing. That same month, in June 2010, he also said: I am committed to ensuring that this process is fair and respectful but also thorough. The Constitution tasks our Senate with conducting a comprehensive review of the nominee's record and qualifications. Fair, respectful, deliberative, and thorough. I don't think refusing to meet with a nominee, refusing to hold a hearing of a nominee, refusing to vote on a nominee is fair, respectful, deliberative, and certainly not thorough. He was not yet chairman of the Judiciary Committee when the senior Senator from Iowa made those comments. As I have noted, he has said on more than one occasion that the Constitution tasks our Senate with conducting a ``comprehensive review of the nominee's record and qualifications.'' He made those statements when he wasn't chairman of the committee. He is now chairman of the committee--the committee he has served on for decades. Now his response for the Senate's consideration of Supreme Court nominations sets the standard. He runs that big and powerful committee, and he has chosen an approach that could not be further from the fair, respectful, deliberative, and thorough that he has urged on more than one occasion. Instead of exercising his once-respected independence, my friend the senior Senator from Iowa is taking his marching orders from the Republican leader and refusing to give President Obama's Supreme Court nominee a meeting, a hearing, or a vote. Within an hour after Justice Scalia's death was announced, the Republican leader hijacked the Supreme Court nomination process in the Senate by declaring that the Republicans would not consider the President's nominee. Then the Republican leader decided to seize control of the Judiciary Committee--I don't know if he twisted arms, but that certainly conveys the message I want to convey--twisting the arms of the senior Senator from Iowa and his committee members to get them to forfeit their independence and fall in line. Behind closed doors, the Republican leader compelled the 11 Republicans who make up the majority of the committee on the Judiciary to sign a loyalty oath. This loyalty oath, which abdicated the role of this once-dignified committee, took the form of a letter promising to follow the Republican leader's demands and block consideration of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee. Earlier this week, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, discussed the arm-twisting that took place. During an interview on Tuesday on an NBC affiliate in Iowa, he was asked whether undue influence had been exerted by Republican leadership. This is what he said: ``Some had reluctance, but all signed.'' Again, ``Some had reluctance, but all signed'' on when asked whether undue influence had been exerted by Republican leadership. I don't blame Senator Grassley's colleagues for their reluctance. The Judiciary Committee once had a proud history of independence. This committee is 200 years old and is one of 11 committees that were formed when this body came into being. So their reluctance is understandable. It is understandable that the Republican members don't want to abdicate their independence. I don't blame those Senators for being reluctant to follow the Republican leader's orders for refusal to do their jobs. I don't blame them for their reluctance to banish the independence of the Judiciary Committee's past, ensuring that this once powerful, independent, strong committee's reputation is now nothing but a memory. I wish the Judiciary Committee Republicans had been a bit more reluctant to sign on to the McConnell-Grassley letter, a pledge not to do their jobs. It appears most voters also think they should not have signed the letter. According to a new CNN poll that came out last night, two-thirds of Republicans want hearings on the President's Supreme Court nominee--almost 70 percent. Senate Republicans' pledge to obstruct doesn't make sense to the Republicans' own base. The senior Senator from Iowa's blind adherence to the dictates of leadership doesn't stop there. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee was too timid to even meet with President Obama without the Republican leader's consent. He refused to go to the White House without the Republican leader by his side. When we all finally did meet with President Obama on Tuesday--the Republican leader, Democratic leader, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee--at that meeting, the chairman wouldn't commit to meeting the nominee or holding hearings. He wouldn't do that. He wouldn't give the nominee a vote. That is what he told the President. This is not what Senator Grassley advocated before his party assumed the majority. Back in January 2015, on the Senate floor, the Senator from Iowa said: We must get back to what we in the Senate call regular order. I would say do things the way Madison intended. Everything the chairman has done since assuming the role runs counter to those words and what Madison intended and obviously what the senior Senator from Iowa had intended. Allowing 11 Republican members of the Judiciary Committee--and they are all men--to decide on behalf of 100 Senators and 300 million Americans that they will not even meet with or hold a hearing or vote on the Supreme Court nominee is certainly not regular order. This is about as irregular order as you can have. Given the opportunity to preside over a fair process, the chairman chose blind obedience to his party leaders instead. Nothing the Judiciary Committee chairman has done in the wake of this Supreme Court vacancy can be identified as regular order. It is about as irregular order as you can have. Working behind closed doors is becoming the theme for Senator Grassley and the Judiciary Committee. He sought to move a committee markup scheduled for today--a meeting that normally takes place in the full view of the public--behind closed doors. Everyone, think about that. This hearing has been scheduled for a long time, but the Republican leader wants to do it secretly. When Democrats objected, the chairman postponed the meeting altogether. No public hearing, a closed door hearing, Democrats objected, so he just canceled the meeting. This isn't transparency; this is obstruction and chaos. Even Republicans agree--or at least some of them. Last week, the junior Senator from West Virginia said: Do I worry that this would make the Senate look dysfunctional? That's a slight worry for me. It may be a slight worry for the Senator from West Virginia, but it is a huge worry for the American people. Again: Do I worry that this would make the Senate look dysfunctional? That's a slight worry for me. Well, it may be a slight worry for the Senator from West Virginia, but it is not a slight worry for the American people. It is a big, huge worry for the people of West Virginia. The good news is that this can all be remedied very quickly. All my friend from Iowa needs to do is use the authority he has as the Judiciary Committee chair and give the President's nominee a meeting and a hearing. This would be what Iowa deserves and what this country deserves. All he needs to do is live up to his own words and be ``fair,'' ``respectful,'' ``deliberative,'' and ``thorough.'' Simply put, he needs to stop blindly following the Republican leader and just do his job. Would the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. Our respective cloakrooms have been working for the better part of this week to get a list of amendments that could get votes. As everyone knows, we have had, on our side, more than 60 amendments filed. So I want to hold my friend to an often-expressed promise that we would have a robust amendment process. Now, I know we aren't going to get 60 amendments--I got that--but there have been objections from Republicans to a number of amendments my Senators want to offer. They want to do a few votes on a number of their amendments. First of all, everyone should understand we are not holding up this bill. The leader has indicated he is going to file cloture today or tomorrow, so I got that. We are not going to oppose cloture, but we are not going to have the other side determine what amendments should be offered. We should be able to pick what amendments we want to offer. And I don't think it is appropriate--for example, one of the amendments he chose is from a Senator running for reelection. Is there some purpose to that? I think we should have a process where we have alternating amendments, and we pick our amendments. So I would ask my colleague to agree to changing his unanimous consent request so that it would be in order to call up the amendments I mention now. There would be an hour of debate on each amendment. We could certainly even shorten that time significantly prior to a vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed, and no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the votes: Durbin No. 3329, Gillibrand No. 3354, Markey No. 3384--who has been begging me for 4 days now to get a vote on his amendment--Blumenthal No. 3327, Cardin No. 3421, McCaskill No. 3375, Wyden No. 3402, Heinrich No. 3372, Schatz No. 3413, and Markey No. 3382--10 out of 60.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object to the original request.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I understand, I am sure, the importance of this amendment, but the other amendments are important also.

Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object. I don't like to admit this publicly that I have learned anything from the Republican leader, but I have. One of the things I have learned is that it is not right to have the majority pick the votes of the minority, so I object.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, earlier today, I missed the vote on the Shaheen amendment No. 3345. If I had voted, I would have voted yea. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, people who watch us on television should understand that everything we do is not dour and kind of frowny. There are times, when we are away from the cameras, that we get along well and have a good time. There is no better example of that than this morning. Every week at 8 o'clock in the morning on Wednesday we meet downstairs for the Senate Prayer Breakfast. I go there as often as I can. It is really very stimulating, and I am always glad I go every time I do go. But today was especially good because Al Franken, the junior Senator from Minnesota, was making the presentation. Even though there is an opening prayer and a closing prayer, there is some talk in between that, and his presentation was terrific. And of course we all know Al Franken, and so a lot of it was funny. But I just want everyone watching us this morning to know we are not always--I used the word--dour. There are times when we smile and have a good time. Everyone knows the Presiding Officer and I have total disagreement on policy, but I so admire the Presiding Officer. Without reservation, I can say we are friends--not just political friends, but we are friends. A year ago, when I was injured, because he is an ophthalmologist, he reached out to me and gave me his advice and mostly his concern, for which I am grateful. I think if we stopped and looked around at each other, we would find many such relationships such as the one with the Presiding Officer and the senior Senator from Nevada, and I appreciate that.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, we now have a new rule called the Biden rule, which I guess was invented this morning. What happens when my friend the Republican leader, as he did yesterday, talks about what Senator Biden has said is that he never completes the little presentation Senator Biden made. Senator Biden did not say there wouldn't be any nominations. Here is what he said in ending his presentation. At the end of his speech in 1992, Senator Biden said: Compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate. If the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter. That is what this is all about. Senator Biden never said there wouldn't be any nominations approved, and that was evident in the oval office yesterday. Vice President Biden told the story of a Republican President calling him down--he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee--and said: OK, we are having some problems here. I have 10 names on a piece of paper. I want you to look at it and give me your rough estimate. I will not bind you to this, but which of these do you think would work? These were people that a Republican President presented to the Democratic chair of the Judiciary Committee saying: Give me your impression of these people. So they went over them--yes, yes, yes, no. They had 10 names. That is the same thing that happened yesterday in the White House. President Obama said: Do you have any names for me? Give them to me. I will be happy to take a look at them. So there is no Biden rule, unless the Biden rule is that we will continue doing what we have always done here in the Senate. And what is that? We approve in any Presidential election year--in a Presidential election year we always take care of a nomination. We have never in the history of the country not done that, until now. Now, the other thing is we keep talking about a lot of political things, but we have an obligation based on the Constitution of the United States to do something about these nominations we get from the President. We have a constitutional duty to do our jobs, and that duty is to give advice and consent to the President when he sends a nomination up here, which we will have in a matter of a week or so. And we do it quickly. We don't spend months and months doing this. The Republicans' unprecedented call to block any nominee is more of the obstruction that we have had here too often. This has never ever been done before. As for my friend the Republican leader to talk about statements I made and the senior Senator from New York made, of course we made statements. It didn't affect what we did around here. I hoped people listened. I hoped it slowed down what President Bush was going to do. But the fact is President Bush did what he wanted, and he, in the process, was able to present nominations to us and we looked them over. Now we have a new standard. We are not going to meet with whomever this person is. We don't know who it is, but we are not going to meet with him. We are not going to hold hearings, and we are not going to vote. That is wrong.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, here is a headline of an article that appeared in the Washington Post: ``Trump is the GOP's Frankenstein monster.'' This was the headline in the Washington Post article authored by Robert Kagan, a former official in the Reagan State Department who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute. It is true, Donald Trump is the Republican Party's Frankenstein monster. Republicans have spent the last 8 years stoking the fires of resentment and hatred, building Trump piece by piece. Today the Republican establishment acts like it is surprised by Donald Trump's victories around the country. They feign outrage that a demagogue spewing vile xenophobia is somehow winning in a party which spent years telling immigrants they are not welcome in America. They act surprised that Republican voters are flocking to a birther candidate, even as Republican congressional leaders continue to support a man who refuses to distance himself from the Ku Klux Klan. They express shock and outrage that Republican voters cheer Trump's schoolyard taunts, even as they trounce the most common courtesies extended to every President, even as they deny a fair hearing to a President's Supreme Court nominee for the first time ever--the first time--in history. Republicans shouldn't be surprised. They spent 8 years laying the groundwork for the rise of Donald Trump. The reality is that Republican leaders are reaping what they have sown. As Mr. Kagan said in his Washington Post opinion piece yesterday, ``The party's own political crimes are being punished in a bit of cosmic justice fit for a Greek tragedy.'' Seven years ago the Republican leader and his party decided that President Obama was an illegitimate President. They decided his Presidency was unworthy of their basic respect and good-faith efforts. Congressional Republicans decided that whatever policies this President proposed, they would reflexively oppose them--regardless of the merits. Instead, congressional Republicans had only one objective--to keep President Obama from being reelected. In order to do that, the Republican leader and his party refused to engage the President or Democrats on policy. No matter how dire the crisis for the American people, Republican leaders decided it was more important to deny President Obama an achievement than help people in need. Think about that. No matter how dire the crisis for the American people, Republican leaders decided--I repeat--it was more important to deny President Obama an achievement than to help people in need. Think about the monumental legislation Republicans refused to even engage in, let alone work on: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, known as the stimulus, when our economy was in a nosedive--in a nosedive. Remember, when Obama was elected, that month he was elected the country lost 800,000 jobs in 1 month. We were in the throes of the great recession, and yet it took an effort to get a mere three Republicans to work with us on that legislation. Very important. They were strong, they were courageous-- Specter, Collins, and Snowe. Republican leadership made it clear they didn't want their Senators working with President Obama on the stimulus, but we got it done. Health care. Before ObamaCare, there were nearly 50 million Americans with no health insurance. Since then, almost 20 million more Americans have health coverage. Today, if you have a preexisting disability, you are covered with insurance. Today the rate of no insurance is below 10 percent. This is all in spite of congressional Republicans who would not work with Democrats despite our best efforts. They refused to do anything to engage in any way. When the debate over health care started, three Republicans--Senators Snowe, Grassley, and Enzi, very important Members of the Finance Committee--acted interested in fixing our Nation's health care system, but Republican leadership twisted their arms to convince them--whatever words we want to use--to get them in line with the Republican leader's wishes and abandoned any hope of bipartisanship on the issue. So there was none. Senator Snowe brought up a bill in the Finance Committee, but the Republican leadership turned it into a ``no'' vote on the Senator floor, and the senior Senator from Iowa went back to Iowa and started talking about death panels. Doesn't that sound like something Donald Trump would do? Wall Street and Dodd-Frank legislation, when Wall Street crashed. I can remember being in the White House with the Republican Secretary of the Treasury, a wonderful man. Secretary Paulson was on his knees begging Nancy Pelosi to work with him. The country was in deep trouble. Democrats controlled the body. We had a Republican President, and we worked with a Republican President. In the shadow of economic ruin created by Wall Street's unhinged greed, Republicans would not work with us to rein in the big banks and financial institutions. They had been warned by Republican leadership. In the end, only one Republican voted for that bill--only one. Time and time again, congressional Republicans went to the extreme to block any positive legislation to improve our Nation. The tactics Republicans used to obstruct this President were unprecedented. In effect, the Republican leader told the President that none of his policies would get a fair hearing from Republicans, and that is basically true. Republicans denied the Office of the President the respect it deserves, and their shoddy and disrespectful treatment became the norm. In 6 years, the Republican leader launched more than 500 filibusters. During the same 6-year period, Lyndon Johnson, in 6 years, had overcome 2 filibusters--500 to 2. This is far more than anyone ever imagined could happen in this great body. Actions speak louder than words. Automatically filibustering the President's policies for years on end sends a clear and simple message: Republicans think this President's proposals are illegitimate. Instead of working for the American people, Republicans decided that making the extreme rightwing happy was more important. Republicans blocked legislation to prevent criminals and suspected terrorists from buying guns, even background checks. Republicans blocked commonsense campaign finance reform. We had 59 votes to allow some disclosure of all these huge amounts of money; not a single Republican voted with us--not a single Republican. Republicans voted to deport DREAMers. Republicans blocked an increase in the minimum wage. Republicans blocked equal pay for women. Republicans blocked efforts to do something about student loan debt. Now Republicans are blocking the nominee of the Supreme Court before that person has even been nominated. This is just a short list of what they have blocked. From this rhetoric to their actions, the Republicans have set the Trump standards. The Republican Party has long used Islam to fearmonger. Now Donald Trump is doing the same thing. The Republican Party has spent years railing against Latinos and immigrants, trying to incite fear and panic. Congressman Steve King called immigrants drug dealers and described their bodies in a very negative, ugly way. Now Donald Trump is saying the same thing. Donald Trump is the ultimate fulfillment of the Republicans' legacy of obstruction and resentment, but to be frank, it is not only Trump. Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Ben Carson are saying basically the same thing--maybe a little more subtle, but they are saying the same thing. After all, this is the same party--the Republican Party--that just yesterday saw nine of its Members vote against naming a post office after world-famous poet and civil rights activist Maya Angelou. It is hard to believe. Even as the establishment condemns what Donald Trump says and does, the Republican leadership is still supporting him. The Speaker of the House yesterday affirmed that he will vote for Donald Trump if he is the Republican nominee for President. The Senate Republican leader has not said he will not vote for Donald Trump if he is the nominee. Publicly, at least, Republicans are supporting a man who refused to denounce the KKK--a man who continues to denigrate immigrants, Muslims, and the disabled. Donald Trump is the standard bearer for the Republican Party. Republicans created him by spending 7 years appealing to some of the darkest forces in America. It is up to Republicans to try and undo what they have done by denouncing Donald Trump. It is time for Republicans to stop the Frankenstein they created. Trump is the GOP's Frankenstein monster. If Republicans fail to stop Donald Trump, it will tear the party apart even more than it is now. Will the Chair announce the business of the day?

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, today the Supreme Court heard the oral arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. At issue in this case is a Texas law that puts restrictions on women's health clinics and providers. Contrary to what proponents claim, these restrictions do not enhance women's health in any way. They are medically unnecessary, according to groups like the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Instead, these restrictions serve just one purpose: to restrict women's access to clinics. If the Texas law stands, nearly three-quarters of the State's clinics will be forced to close. That would leave just 10 clinics statewide to serve 5.4 million Texan women of reproductive age. But unfortunately, this is the type of thing we have come to expect from the State of Texas. The Texas Legislature and Governor have already passed laws that infringe on its citizens' constitutional rights. For example, the State has passed laws that limit victims' ability to recover much-deserved damages after accidents. And they have passed one of the strictest voter ID laws in the Nation. We are seeing the results of the State's pattern of undermining their citizens' constitutional rights. Just yesterday it was reported that more than half a million registered voters in Texas can't even vote. This is the pattern of disenfranchisement Texas is engaged in. The State's women are, sadly, the latest example of Texas infringing on important constitutional rights. Though it is not entirely surprising that the radical Republicans in Texas have targeted women's health, it is nonetheless disappointing. I hope the Supreme Court will choose to protect women's health and strike down this disastrous Texas law.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Republicans, in an effort to try to cloud the issue regarding selection of the Supreme Court replacement, usually don't provide a full quote. For example, they keep talking about Senator Biden, but they should give the whole statement of Senator Biden, where he ended it by saying that ``compromise is the responsible course, both for the White House and for the Senate. . . . [and] if the President consults and cooperates with the Senate . . . [on] his selections . . . then his nominees may enjoy my support, as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.'' Yesterday the Washington Post published an editorial by Barbara Perry, a professor at the University of Virginia and an expert on the Supreme Court. It is among the finest law schools in all the world. That is the University of Virginia. In her opinion piece, Dr. Perry pushed back against Republican claims that Presidents have not historically nominated Supreme Court Justices during an election year. According to her, ``14 Presidents have appointed 21 justices during presidential election years.'' That is 14 out of 44 Presidents have appointed Supreme Court Justices in Presidential election years. That is about one-third of all U.S. Presidents who have appointed nominees during an election year. Amy Howe, an expert on the Supreme Court and editor at SCOTUSblog-- Supreme Court of the United States blog--agrees that past Presidents and Senates have considered election-year nominees. She writes: The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. Republicans are using one inappropriate statement or excuse after another to explain why they shouldn't have to do their jobs the taxpayers sent them here to Washington to do. Instead of making excuses, wouldn't it be easier just to do the right thing? The right thing would be to give President Obama's Supreme Court nominee a hearing--a meeting before that--and a vote. We are simply saying: They should be doing their jobs. Some Republicans are already starting to see the light. Last week, the Republican Senator from Maine ripped the Republican leader for politicizing the current Supreme Court vacancy in the aftermath of Justice Scalia's death. Again, among other things, here is what the Republican Senator from Maine said: I thought it was a shame . . . that instead of honoring his life and legacy and extending our condolences, already we are embroiled in a political fight. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie went a step further, urging the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold hearings. Governor Christie said: As I've always said, I believe that's absolutely the right thing to do. People can vote up or down however they choose, but hearings should be held. There is no reason for them to not take on this nomination. Governor Christie is absolutely right. There is no reason for a Supreme Court nominee not to have a full hearing and a vote. There is no reason for Senate Republicans not to give a nominee to the Supreme Court a meeting, a hearing, and a vote. All we are saying is: Do your job. Montana Republican Congressman Ryan Zinke published an editorial in the Missoulian, one of the largest newspapers in the entire State, urging the Republican leader to give President Obama's nominee all due consideration. Here is what he said: It is unfortunate that partisanship took over the conversation before the Justice even was laid to rest. The partisan bickering and demands to ignore the Constitution that unfolded after Scalia's death is an affront to his legacy. Scalia dedicated his life to serving the Constitution. It is time for the Senate to honor that service and carry out their constitutionally mandated duty to advise. The Constitution reigns supreme. . . . My colleagues in the Senate have an obligation to provide advice to the President on nominees. So I urge others to look at what the Congressman from Montana said, what the senior Senator from Maine said, and what Governor Christie said. I agree with them that the Constitution reigns supreme. It simply is saying to do your job, among other things. In this situation there is no question what the Constitution mandates in times of Supreme Court vacancies. Article II, section 2 of our Constitution clearly outlines the President's legal authority to nominate Justices to the Supreme Court. It also defines the Senate's role in the nomination, which is to provide advice and consent. By denying their constitutional mandate, Republicans are refusing to do their job. Senate Republicans should give President Obama's Supreme Court nominee a meeting, a hearing, and a vote, because, as Governor Christie said, there is really no reason not to do so.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday marked the end of Black History Month, which we honored here in the Senate by adopting a resolution sponsored by the junior Senator from New York, Mrs. Gillibrand. The father of Black History Month was Dr. Carter G. Woodson. Now, I really didn't know who Carter Woodson was, but there was a wonderful piece on public radio yesterday that outlined in detail this man, who had been a garbage man, who did menial labor, and I just didn't realize how smart he was. His personal story is remarkable. Carter Woodson was born in Virginia to former slaves. He attended the University of Chicago--not an easy school to get into, certainly in the early part of the last century, when you are an African American. He then went on to receive his Ph.D. from Harvard in 1912, making him the second African-American man to do so. As a professor at Howard University here in Washington, DC, Dr. Woodson decided there was a need for Americans--Black and White--to better understand African-American history. In 1926, Dr. Woodson organized the first week devoted entirely to African-American history. He coordinated lectures, panels, and hosted children's plays that celebrated the lives of important figures in Black history. He had a tough time. They couldn't find places to meet. They wouldn't allow Blacks in many meeting halls. But he found rooms at the YMCA, churches, and Black fraternity houses to meet and to celebrate African- American history. He was relentless. Over the years, the celebration of Black history grew and grew until President Ford decided to make it not a history week but a history month. He did that in 1976. So February is always recognized--since President Ford did that in 1976--as Black History Month. In addition to adopting this resolution to honor Black History Month, I hope my colleagues will take a moment to think about this great man, Dr. Woodson, who did so much to help Americans embrace Black history and the many contributions of African-American leaders, such as Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, W.E.B. Du Bois, and many others. But we must do more than just adopt a simple resolution honoring Black History Month. We should work together to address the issues faced by Black Americans and all Americans today and every month of the year. It is the right thing to do. Mr. President, I see my friends on the floor. Would the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, ``History won't forget this misstep by Grassley,'' this poster says. ``History won't forget this misstep by Grassley.'' That is from the Burlington Hawk Eye, Iowa's oldest newspaper. That is what they said. It is the headline from the oldest newspaper, as I indicated--the Burlington Hawk Eye. The misstep referenced here is the unprecedented statement by the senior Senator from Iowa and the Republican leader to deny the President the right to fill the current Supreme Court vacancy. The article ends with this declaration: A few weeks back, when the longest-tenured U.S. Senator from Iowa passed a vote that gave him the record of most consecutive votes in the Senate, we lauded his service to us. We noted in casting votes on matters before the Senate, he was doing what Iowans elected him to do. We gave Grassley an attaboy for that. We take it back. ``We take it back.'' That is a blistering statement, a revealing statement, a substantive statement. ``We take it back.'' There is a lesson that Senator Grassley and my Republican colleagues should learn from this editorial. By refusing to give President Obama's Supreme Court nominee a meeting, a hearing or a vote, they are abandoning the oath of office they swore when they became Senators. This abdication of their constitutional responsibilities will epitomize their work as Senators. Whatever they may have accomplished during their careers will be secondary to their decision to place electoral politics over their job. Remember that our job here is to vote. That is what we swore to do-- to follow the Constitution. And the Constitution couldn't be clearer on this issue. So the stakes should even be higher for Senator Grassley and the other Republican Senators. Why? Because as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley presides over one of the most important and prestigious committees in the entire Senate. This has been the case for 200 years--200 years. The Senate Judiciary Committee was established 200 years ago. In 1816, it was one of the original 11 standing committees. Twenty decades have passed. That is how long the committee has been in operation. Throughout history, Judiciary Committee chairs have traditionally wielded immense power--from President Martin Van Buren, when he was in the Senate, to Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Arlen Specter, and Senator Joe Biden. Judiciary Committee chairmen have historically prized their independence and guarded it at all costs from being manhandled for partisan purposes. It was so independent, in fact, that past chairmen have stood firm in the face of opposition from Presidents and Senate leadership. At crucial times in American history, the Senate and the Nation have looked to the Judiciary Committee to do the right thing. During the Civil War, Chairman Lyman Trumbull of Illinois and his committee authored the Thirteenth Amendment. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery during the Civil War. We know that during that period of time there was great consternation as to what should be done. Even the great President Lincoln had trouble deciding what should be done during the early days of the Civil War. In 1889, Chairman George Hoar of Massachusetts and his committee drafted the Sherman Antitrust Act, refusing to give in to the special interests of Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and the Rockefeller monopolies. That was big-time independence. In 1937, Chairman Henry Ashurst from Arizona, who was born in Winnemucca, NV, led his committee in standing firm against President Franklin D. Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court. Chairman Ashurst was a Democrat, just like President Roosevelt. Yet Ashurst and his committee maintained their independence, even against the wishes of Senate Majority Leader Alben Barkley, a longtime Senator who became Vice President later. Imagine that. He was the Senate majority leader. He was from Kentucky. Imagine that Judiciary Committee chair standing up to a majority leader from Kentucky. The accomplishments of these powerful chairmen and many others are the historic models against which the senior Senator from Iowa will be measured. If he keeps his current obstruction, history will not be kind to his tenure as chairman of the committee. As of today, the chairman has yielded his committee's long-held authority and independence to the Republican leader for the sole purpose of weakening President Obama, of weakening the Presidency of the United States, and obstructing the Senate's work. The chairman has turned the impartial reputation of the Judiciary Committee into an extension of the Trump campaign. Just last month Chairman Grassley spoke at a rally for Donald Trump in Iowa. At that rally, the chairman said: We've had this trend going this way, away from the basic principles that established our government. And so we have an opportunity, once again, to make America great again. Before I close, let's remember what he said: ``We've had this trend going this way, away from the basic principles that established our government.'' My friend from Iowa would do well to look at his own committee as it trends away from--again, the quote, ``away from the basic principles that established our government.'' That is what the Senator from Iowa said at the Trump rally. Even now, he and his committee are wasting millions in taxpayer dollars developing partisan opposition research on Secretary Clinton. It has been going on for many months, more than a year, including asking for maternity leave records for staffers and time sheets from her office--just basic staff people. For months, Senator Grassley blocked the confirmation of vital State Department officials, even career Foreign Service officers who are here, so we could give them a raise after their valiant service all around the world. He held that up, and people couldn't understand it. It had nothing to do with Secretary Clinton. He did it as a way to weaken the Presidency of President Obama. What he has done is damage U.S. diplomacy worldwide. Election day is more than 8 months away, but it is affecting nearly every action taken by the Grassley Judiciary Committee. There is much more at stake than Senator Grassley's reputation. When the committee's independence is threatened by partisan politics, the future of this institution hangs in the balance, and when the Senate is undermined, our democracy is undermined. Future generations will suffer irreparably if the Senator from Iowa continues to do the bidding of the Republican leader and the Donald Trumps of the new Republican Party. Senator Grassley and I have worked together for three decades. I served a couple terms in the House. Then I came here. My seat was way back there. When I gave my maiden speech, my first speech, I talked about the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, an idea I had in the House and I couldn't get past first base. Presiding in the Senate that day was Senator David Pryor from Arkansas, who was chairman of the subcommittee on the Internal Revenue Service. Senator Grassley was also listening. They both contacted me. In fact, I received a note from Senator Pryor and a call from Senator Grassley saying: I like that legislation. I will work to help you. And they did, and we got that passed. So I have nothing personal against Senator Grassley. I like him. He helped me pass something that was landmark legislation as a brandnew freshman Senator, but today, as a U.S. Senator, I have a duty to speak when the Republican Senate refuses to follow its constitutional obligations to provide advice and consent on the President's Supreme Court nomination. As a Senator, I have a duty to demand that the Judiciary Committee considers important judicial nominees, especially--especially--someone to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. As Senate Judiciary chair, the senior Senator from Iowa has a job to do. I repeat, my criticism is not personal. It is professional and it is substantive. The senior Senator from Iowa outlined that job himself when he assumed the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. When he took over as chairman, he promised Republicans would ``restore the Senate to the deliberative body that the founders intended.'' Listen to that. That is what he said, to ``restore the Senate to the deliberative body that the founders intended.'' That is a quote. Another quote. He said he took the responsibility of ``vetting of nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary very seriously.'' The senior Senator from Iowa is failing this commitment that he made to himself. He made it. He made the commitment to ``restore the Senate to the deliberative body that the founders intended.'' The Founders are the people who wrote the Constitution. He is the first chair of this important committee to take the unprecedented step of refusing to meet, conduct hearings or hold a vote on a Supreme Court nomination. He is following the Republican leader's call to refuse the President's nominee a meeting, a hearing or a vote. The senior Senator from Iowa, of all people, should know how important a vote is. My friend has a lot of rollcall votes, 7,545 consecutive votes as of today, but what good are 7,500 consecutive votes if you simply sweep the votes you don't like to take under the rug? It taints this achievement. If he doesn't like President Obama's nominee, then he doesn't have to vote for the nominee, but don't run from a hard vote. Don't hide. What good is a chairmanship if it is just a rubberstamp for partisan politics? What good is a chairmanship if it is used to weaken the Senate and disrupt our Constitution's system of checks and balances? And that is what it does. Last week the Des Moines Register published an open letter from one of Senator Grassley's former employees. It was stunning. He worked in the Senate. This man's words capture what is at stake: The institution of the Senate has managed to perform its constitutional obligations for well over 200 years. Every single nominee for the Supreme Court that has not withdrawn from consideration has received a vote within 125 days. Today, I feel nothing but shame for the fact that my senator, my former friend, will be bringing that unbroken history to an end. That was the headline last week in the Des Moines Register, Iowa's largest newspaper. I hope the chairman of the Judiciary Committee doesn't continue down this path. It will not benefit him, his committee, the Senate, the State of Iowa or this great country. Instead, he should follow the examples of his predecessors and give President Obama's Supreme Court nominee a meeting, a hearing, and a vote. He simply should do his job. If he doesn't, history will never forget this unprecedented misstep. History will never forget this misstep by Senator Grassley. I yield the floor. Madam President, I ask the Chair to announce the business for the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I start with a statement the Republican leader made on the Senate floor in 2007: ``I will never agree to retreat from our responsibility to confirm qualified judicial nominees.'' I wish to repeat: ``I will never agree to retreat from our responsibility to confirm qualified judicial nominees.'' My Republican counterpart said that. They are his own words. Fast forward 9 years to today, now. Not only is the senior Senator from Kentucky abandoning his responsibility to confirm a Supreme Court Justice, he is leading the entire Republican caucus to retreat from their constitutional obligation. This is unfortunate because the Republican leader was right 9 years ago. As Senators, we have a responsibility to uphold a number of things, but one certainly is the Constitution. That responsibility is clearly outlined in the oath we take before we are sworn into office--right there. Every one of them has done it. What are we asked to confirm, to swear to? We swear to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' We swear to ``bear true faith and allegiance to the same.'' We swear to ``faithfully discharge the duties of office.'' I wish to repeat that. We swear to ``faithfully discharge the duties of office.'' One cannot see how Republicans can claim to uphold this oath as they block the President from appointing a new Supreme Court Justice. Senate Republicans are making pledges of a different sort these days. They have vowed to not hold hearings--even though denying a hearings is unprecedented in history. They have sworn not to meet with the President--I am sorry, with his nominee and maybe even him. He has been waiting for word from the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the Republican leader to find out if they are willing to come and meet with him in the White House. That has been going on for several days now. They have sworn not to meet with the President's Supreme Court nominee, even though they don't know who that person might be. By refusing to hold confirmation hearings for President Obama's Supreme Court nominee or to hold a vote, they undermine the Presidency, the Constitution, and the Senate. Senate Republicans are known--and have been for some time now--as a set of human brake pads, obstructing, filibustering virtually everything President Obama has had on his agenda, but this raises obstruction to a new level never seen before in this country--the Supreme Court: no hearings, no vote, and yesterday even more. They even refuse to meet with this man or woman who is going to be nominated--no meetings, no meetings with the nominee to the Supreme Court, a person put forth by the President of the United States because the Constitution states he shall nominate. He has no discretion, he shall nominate. By refusing to even sit or talk with any nominee, they make a mockery of the office to which the American people elected them. Think about this. Republicans will not do their due diligence by speaking with a nominee to assess his or her qualifications. Meeting with the nominee is basic. Holding a hearing is routine. These things are common sense, so why won't Republican Senators make an effort to uphold their constitutional responsibilities? U.S. Senators have an obligation to evaluate the Presidential nominations, not only for the Supreme Court but for every nomination that comes forward--but especially the Supreme Court. That means sitting down with the nominee. That means holding hearings to learn about their record and qualifications for the position, and that means a vote. The senior Senator from Texas said the same about 7 years ago. After Justice Sonia Sotomayor was nominated, the assistant Republican leader told C-SPAN that ``my own view is that we ought to come with an open mind and do the research and do the reading . . . and then be able to ask the nominee about them.'' What he said, the senior Senator from Texas, is that his view is that we ought to come with an open mind, do the research, do the reading, and then be able to ask the nominee about them. I agree. The Senate should be able to research the background of the President's Supreme Court nominee and ask any questions they may have about them. Why-- why--for the first time in history, do we have this situation? Why do Republicans--the Republican Senator from Texas, whom I just quoted, and all Republicans--refuse to even meet with a nominee? I say to my Republican friends, you cannot offer advice and consent on a nominee you have never met, never considered. It is impossible. Maybe Republicans are hoping the Supreme Court vacancy will just go away, but it will not. Maybe Senate Republicans think they will only endure a few weeks of negative stories--and there have been negative stories, of course. There are no positive stories that I am aware of saying: That is great. For the first time in history you are not even willing to meet with a nominee. I guess they believe the American people will forget about this vacancy, but they will not. Democrats are going to fight every day to ensure that this important nominee gets a dignified confirmation process that past Senates have afforded all Supreme Court nominations. I, along with every other Member of the Democratic caucus, will be on the floor next week, the week after that, and the week after that, as long as it takes, to bring to the attention of America the failure of this Republican Senate to meet its constitutional mandate. Pretending the nominee doesn't exist will not make the Supreme Court vacancy go away. It will not make the President's nomination vanish. Rather, it leaves the American people with a Senate full of Republicans who, as the Republican leader said, are ``retreating from their responsibilities.'' That is what the Republican leader said. Their obstruction of the President's Supreme Court nominee is abdication of the oath my Republican colleagues took when they assumed the title of U.S. Senator. Once again I tell my Republican friends: Don't run away from your responsibilities, just do your job. Do your job. Mr. President, will the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I join the Republican leader on the need to address the scourge of opioid addiction. It is a scourge. That is why it is more important than ever that we back our words with real solutions, real resources. That is why the amendment by Senator Shaheen to the opioid bill will be important. I hope it gets every consideration, and I hope it passes.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday the senior Senator from Iowa, along with other Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced that they won't be holding a hearing on President Obama's eventual nominee to the Supreme Court. They won't give the eventual nominee the common courtesy of even a meeting--no hearings, no meeting--and this was all done even before the President sent a name to us. This is historically unbelievable and historically unprecedented. Republicans don't know who the nominee will be, and they have already mentioned that. Already they have decided they won't even start the confirmation process. Why? Because the person was nominated by President Obama. Remember, the Republican leader said many years ago that the No. 1 goal he had was to make sure President Obama was not reelected. That failed miserably. The President won by more than 5 million votes. Everything has been done by the Republicans in the Senate to embarrass, obstruct, filibuster--anything that could be done to focus attention on President Obama, none of which has helped the country. Senator Grassley has surrendered every pretense of independence and let the Republican leader annex the Judiciary Committee into a narrow, partisan mission of obstruction and gridlock--so partisan, in fact, that the senior Senator from Iowa won't respond to a personal invitation from the President inviting him to the White House to discuss the vacancy. Think about that. The President of the United States calls a very senior Senator, and he hasn't even responded to the President. This is a sad day for one of the proudest committees in the Senate. So I ask, is this the legacy he wants? Is this how he wants his committee work remembered--as a chairman who refused his duty and instead allowed the Republican leader to ride roughshod over the Judiciary Committee's storied history? The strength of committee chairmen in the U.S. Senate has been legendary. No majority leader or minority leader could tell a chair what to do with his committee. That was off bounds, but it doesn't appear so now. In abdicating this responsibility, which the Senate has always upheld--never in the history of the country has a Senate simply refused to do anything, even meet with the person who has been nominated. So Republicans are setting a dangerous precedent for future nominations, not only for the Supreme Court but for the Senate itself as an institution. Yesterday the Senate Historian's office reported that the denial of committee hearings for a Supreme Court nominee is unprecedented. If that is unprecedented, how about the fact that he won't even meet with the person who has been nominated? If that is unprecedented, how about the fact that a Member of the Senate won't even go to the White House to talk to the President about filling the Supreme Court seat? The senior Senator from Iowa will be the first Judiciary Committee chairman ever to refuse to hold a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee. That is quite an achievement, but not one of which he should be proud. That sort of wanton obstruction is not what the American people want. It is not what the people of Iowa want. Last week no fewer than six Iowa newspapers issued scathing editorials calling on Senator Grassley to change course and give the President's Supreme Court nominee the respect he or she deserves. For example, the Mason City Globe Gazette wrote: We were especially disappointed to see Iowa's own Chuck Grassley join the partisan crowd calling for a delay. . . . There is no constitutional or even historical precedent for such flagrant, outrageous, shameful, bald-faced partisanship. The Gazette in Cedar Rapids, IA, wrote of Senator Grassley's actions: It's hard to conclude this is anything but political maneuvering meant to meet partisan objectives at the expense of the Supreme Court, our constitutional process and the common good. The headline of the Des Moines Register editorial reads, ``Grassley's Supreme Court stance is all about politics.'' Is that the legacy the chairman wants for Iowa and our Nation? I certainly hope not. Does he want to be remembered as the least productive Judiciary Committee chairman in history? At his current pace, he will be remembered as the most obstructive chairman in history. Instead of studying what the Vice President said a quarter of a century ago, perhaps Senator Grassley should take note of what Senator Biden did 25 years ago or generally as a member and chairman of that committee. In 1992, under Senator Biden's leadership, the Judiciary Committee confirmed 64 circuit and district court nominations. All of the judicial nominations were made by a President of the opposite party-- President George H.W. Bush. In 2015, Senator Grassley's first year as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senate confirmed 11 judicial nominations. That was the fewest judicial nominations confirmed ever. We were a much smaller country, perhaps, so ``ever'' might be a little much, but certainly in the last 50 or 75 years. That is quite a comparison: Biden, 64; Grassley, 11. It gets even worse than that for my friend from Iowa. In the entire 102nd Congress, when Joe Biden was chair, the Senate confirmed 120 nominees--120 judicial nominations under Biden. Compare that to 16 under Chairman Grassley. The difference is stunning. I would encourage my friend from Iowa to focus on Vice President Biden's actions and results, rather than cherry picking remarks of 25 years ago. The Judiciary Committee of Joe Biden honored its constitutional obligations by considering and confirming--even visiting with nominees--in a timely fashion, even though they were a Republican President's nominees. I can't say the same for the committee today. No one can. As chairman, Joe Biden did his constitutional duty and processed four nominations from Republican Presidents to the Supreme Court, including Justice Kennedy--that vote occurred in the last year of President Reagan's Presidency--Souter and Thomas. Let us focus on Thomas just a little bit. Thomas got 52 votes. He squeaked through the Senate. Any one Senator could have forced a cloture vote. Any one Democrat could have done that. We didn't do that. It was never done until the Republicans showed up here in the last few years. Now, Bork was a very controversial person, but he received a long, long hearing before the committee and a long debate here in the Senate. He was voted down. That is how this place is supposed to work. Other nominees have been voted down. But we didn't say we are not going to hold a hearing on Bork. We didn't say we are not going to take the committee's actions and just leave it at that. Listen to this: Bork was turned down in the Judiciary Committee by an overwhelming margin. In spite of that, we brought it to the Senate floor and it was debated, and he won by two votes--no filibusters. He was defeated in the committee. We didn't look for an excuse. That is the way it used to be done. With the Republican leadership now they will not meet with the nominee, even though they do not know who it will be; they won't hold a hearing; and the chairman of the committee will not even go to the White House and visit with the President. As chairman, Senator Biden did his constitutional duty and processed nominations, even though they were Republican nominations. So we don't have to go back to 1988 or 1992 to prove the current Judiciary Committee chairman's ineptness. Look at the spike in judicial emergencies that have occurred on Chairman Grassley's watch just in the past year. What is an emergency? It means there are not enough judges--too many cases for a judge to do the work. A vacant judgeship is automatically declared an emergency, as it should be. When the Republicans assumed control of the Senate last year there were 12 emergencies nationwide. Today, a year later, that number has almost tripled to 31. By nearly every metric, the Judiciary Committee under Chairman Grassley is failing dramatically, setting all records of failure in this great body. The committee is failing the people of Iowa and the Nation. To the senior Senator from Iowa, I stress, I plead, don't continue down this path. Reject this record-setting obstruction and simply do your job as a powerful chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. President, I see no one on the floor. Will the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of the entire Senate, we acknowledge the prayer of the Chaplain today regarding Claire McCaskill. Claire McCaskill, as is known now, has breast cancer. She feels comfortable with the diagnosis. She is in a place where they are rendering great care in St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, so we are hopeful and very confident she is going to be just fine. But our thoughts are with her, recognizing the number of people in the Senate who have been stricken with cancer of one kind or another. Without belaboring the point, breast cancer is personally very devastating not only to the patient, of course, but to the family who is doing everything they can in a compassionate way to support their loved one. We know Joe, her husband, is terribly concerned, but I sent a message to him that the treatment of breast cancer is so much better than it was just a few years ago and that we believe Claire will be OK, and we certainly hope that is the case.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know the Republican leader is doing his best to try to make a good picture here as to why he has made the decision that the Senate is not going to confirm any Supreme Court nominee the President puts forward. I heard one statement by the former chair of the Judiciary Committee this morning saying it doesn't matter whom he puts up, we are not going to vote for him or her, whatever the case may be. But the facts my friend provides are absolutely distracting and they are wrong. He can read all the statements he wants from the senior Senator from New York and the Vice President, but never were any nominees held up. In fact, we don't have to go back to Grover, as he indicated, to find a similar situation. Let's talk about Ronald, a more recent President. In 1988, in the last year of his Presidency, President Reagan put forward the nomination of Anthony Kennedy to be a Supreme Court Justice. That was in the last year of his term. And what did we do? We took it up, and he was confirmed. There is a lot of time to do things. Vice President Biden's statement was made in the middle of the summer of the year he spoke, but there is so much time left. We have 333 days left in President Obama's term of office, so there is plenty of time to get the work done. The average number of days to confirm Justices is 67 days, so I think we should be able to squeeze 67 days out of 333 days. I don't want to burden everyone with facts, but sometimes they can get in the way of some of these ridiculous diversions from what our job should be. When Senator Biden was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 1991 and 1992 during George W. Bush's term, we confirmed 120 judges. Certainly that hasn't been the case in the last few years because Republicans basically have opposed all judges. And now this new direction toward making sure there is no confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice is obstruction on steroids. This is really a pivotal moment for the Republican Party and this Republican Senate. The Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt is transforming before our eyes, abandoning its last vestiges of decency and rationality and unconditionally surrendering its moral compass to Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Gone are the days of levelheadedness and compromise. The radicals in the Republican Party have turned ``bipartisanship'' into a dirty word. Behind closed doors, my Republican colleagues like to express disappointment at the direction the party is taking, but never, never will they say anything publicly because the extreme elements in their party who seem to be running the party will criticize them. Republicans should think long and hard about this simple fact: If they follow the course set by the Republican leader, every one of them will be as responsible as Trump and Cruz in the debasement of the Republican Party. He will join them in what they have done to the party. It will be a new and much worse Republican Party. Clearly, Senator McConnell is absolutely following the lead of extremists Trump and Cruz. There is no clearer example of this than the Republican leader's response to the Supreme Court vacancy. In the aftermath of Justice Scalia's passing, the senior Senator from Kentucky could have announced his intent to fulfill the Senate's constitutional responsibility and invited the President to send a well-qualified candidate to the Senate for confirmation. But that is not what he did because that is not the party of Trump. Instead, the Republican leader announced that he will deny President Obama his constitutional right to appoint nominees to the Supreme Court, defying all precedent that has been set, and by so doing, he will leave the Supreme Court in a state of uncertainty. Senator McConnell is leading a charge to obstruct and cheapen the Presidency at all costs, regardless of the damage it does to our democracy. Doesn't that sound familiar? Sounds like something Donald Trump would do. That is because it is exactly what Donald Trump urged Senator McConnell to do. At a Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina 10 days ago, Mr. Trump said of the Supreme Court vacancy: I think it's up to Mitch McConnell and everybody else to stop [the nomination]. It's called delay, delay, delay. That is from Donald Trump, and that is exactly what the Republican leader is doing--delay, delay, delay. I believe 333 days is enough to do the work we ordinarily do in 67 days. It is disappointing that the Senator from Kentucky takes his marching orders from extremists such as Donald Trump. It is a pretty stark change from what Senator McConnell used to believe. He used to loathe this radical tea party faction of the Republican Party. According to an account in the New York Times, the Republican leader once referred to the tea party Republicans as ``those idiots, those people come up here and have never been in office and know nothing about being in office.'' Yet, today, he is meeting with those same Republicans. He is meeting with the House Freedom Caucus--the same Republicans who worked with Ted Cruz to shut down the government. And they did shut it down. It seems as though the Republican leader now subscribes to this new, radical Republicanism. Even though this extremist brand of politics may sell in Republican Presidential primaries, mainstream Americans categorically reject it. Yesterday, Public Policy Polling released a survey of Independent voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio--not Democrats, not Republicans, but a large swath of Americans who are now Independents. These numbers should serve as a wake-up call to the Republican leader's party: 70 percent of Independent voters in Ohio believe a new Supreme Court Justice should be named this year. More than 60 percent of Independent voters in Pennsylvania believe a new Supreme Court Justice should be named this year. The American people are telling Republicans in the Senate that they reject this obstruction of a Supreme Court nominee. Unfortunately, the Republican leader is listening to Donald Trump and the junior Senator from Texas. He is not listening to mainstream America. He is not listening to the few voices of reason coming from his own party, even from his own Senators. Yesterday the senior Senator from Maine, a Republican, told CNN: For my part, it's clear the President can send up a nominee--regardless of where he is before he leaves office. It is the duty of the Senate, under the Constitution, to give our advice and consent or withhold our consent. I believe we should follow the regular order and give careful consideration to any nominee that the President may send to the Senate. There is precedent in this body. Even in the Judiciary Committee, if there is a hearing held and the person is not reported out with a majority vote, it comes to the floor anyway. Senator Leahy--longtime chair of the Judiciary Committee, the President pro tempore of the Senate, and now ranking member of the Judiciary Committee-- will come and talk about that this morning. I just read a quote from Senator Collins, but she is not alone in urging the Republican leader to follow regular order. Other sitting Senators are saying the same thing. I will not read what all of them say, but there is a small nucleus of Republican Senators who believe strongly that what Senator McConnell is doing is wrong. The Republican Senator from Indiana, Senator Coats, was quoted in one interview as saying: If the President nominates someone, which is his choice, I think that person would deserve a hearing if that person is not someone that is just obviously nominated for political purposes. Even the Republican leader's former colleagues agree that the President's nominee deserves a fair shake. The former Senator from Indiana, Dick Lugar, is urging Senate Republicans to do the right thing and honor their constitutional duty. He served here for more than three decades. Here is what he said yesterday: I can't understand their reluctance given the controversy that surrounds all of the debate that has already occurred. But that is not sufficient reason to forgo your duty. But perhaps the former Republican Senator from Maine, Olympia Snowe, said it best: I believe that the process should go forward and be given a good-faith effort. ``A good-faith effort''--it is a phrase we hear often, but it is absolutely crucial to American democracy. Our Constitution is constructed with the expectation that elected leaders would act in good faith. That is how our government operates. It should. Under the Republican obstruction, that has not been the case. I ask my Republican colleagues, whose side do you want to be on? Whose voice are you listening to? These voices of moderation and reason coming from within your own party or the shrill voices--the shrill, shrill voices--of Trump and Cruz? There isn't time to vacillate. Right now, before our eyes, the Republican leader is leading this conference straight to the side of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. It is not too late to change course. Reject the extremist approach being propagated by the likes of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. It will only hurt our country. Put aside this unprecedented obstruction and work with President Obama to fill this crucial vacancy on the Supreme Court. Do your job. All we are saying is: Do your job. Do your job. Do your job. Will the Chair announce the schedule for the rest of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Republican leader mentioned a number of things, and I am not going to talk about all of them, but there is one thing I want to focus on for just a minute. We have something that is devastating moving forward throughout this country, and that is poisoning by opioids. These products that come in the form of medicine prescribed by doctors have been devastating and sweeping the country. Of course, I am glad we are moving forward on Dr. Califf--he is a fine man, and he will do a good job as head of the Food and Drug Administration--but we are going to move to some legislation dealing with these poisons. I would hope that everyone would appreciate the fact that what we are going to do, as we do too often, is celebrate the passing of legislation that really doesn't have much to do with reality. The only way we are going to do a better job of fighting this scourge is to have some resources to help people who have the responsibility to do something about that. We need to take up the Judiciary Committee's opioid bill, maybe even as early as next week, but we also need to devote real resources, not just lipservice, to this important problem.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, we were all shocked by the sudden passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia and I had our differences. However, there was no doubting his intelligence or dedication to the country. I offer my condolences to the entire Scalia family, who laid to rest a devoted husband, father, and grandfather this weekend. I watched the funeral from Nevada, and I was deeply impressed with Justice Scalia's son, Reverend Paul Scalia, and the moving eulogy he gave his father. It was quite remarkable. But now President Obama must nominate a qualified individual to the Supreme Court. Once the President has sent a nominee to the Senate, it is our responsibility to act. Unfortunately, it appears that the Republican leader and his colleagues have no intension of filling this important vacancy. The Republican leader has repeatedly declared himself to be ``the proud guardian of gridlock.'' That is a quote. He has lived up to that moniker, and that is an understatement. In recent years, the Republican leader and the Republican Senators have done everything possible to grind the wheels of government to a halt. But now we are seeing something from the Republican leader that is far worse than his usual brand of obstruction. We are seeing an unprecedented attempt to hold hostage an entire branch of government. The damage already done to the legislative branch has been written about. The last 7 years, the Republicans have done everything they can to stop President Obama's legislative ability to move forward. As leader of this democracy, it is too bad that President Obama has had to put up with this obstruction of everything dealing with the legislature. The statement the Republican leader issued less than an hour after Justice Scalia's death announcement argued that starting now, any President should be denied the right to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in a Presidential election year. Think about that. This is a foolish gambit, one to deny President Obama his constitutional right to appoint nominees to the Supreme Court. This is a full-blown effort to delegitimize President Obama, the Presidency, and undermine our basic system of checks and balances, which is integral to our Constitution. I can find no limits on the President's legal authority to nominate Supreme Court Justices during an election year in our Constitution. I can find no mention of a 3-year Presidency in our Constitution. What I do find in the Constitution is article II, section 2, which clearly provides President Obama with the legal obligation to nominate Justices to the Supreme Court, contingent on the advice and consent of the Senate. This is how our system of government has operated for more than 200 years. This constitutional prerogative is essential to the basic functioning of our coequal branches of government. What the Republican leader is suggesting runs contrary to two centuries of precedent and is inconsistent with the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers constructed this American democracy while maintaining certain assumptions of us as elected officials in the future. They expected us to be rational. They expected us to operate in good faith. They expected this government to be effective. The Republican leader's proposal is none of those things. It is, instead, an attempt to nullify what James Madison and the other constitutional architects envisioned. The Founding Fathers never intended the Senate to simply run out the clock on its constitutional duties, subverting the President's authority and leaving the judiciary in limbo. The authors of the Constitution never envisioned the level of cynicism and bad-faith governance that we see exhibited by today's Republican Party--a Republican Party that so loathes this President that it is willing to render useless our government's system of checks and balances. Senate Republicans would have the American people believe that is a long-held practice to deny the President the right to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. That is simply not true. I have heard several of my Republican colleagues repeat this line in public statements. It grieves me to say it, but the fact is, when Republicans repeat this statement, they are clearly spreading a falsehood. It is not true. I have enormous respect for my Republican friends, but repeatedly skirting the truth is beneath the dignity of their office. According to Amy Howe, an expert on Supreme Court proceedings and editor at the popular SCOTUSblog--the Supreme Court of the United States blog--there is no such precedent. She writes: The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. There is not one shred of evidence in the last 116 years to back the Republicans' claims. Democrats never stopped a Republican Supreme Court nominee from receiving a hearing and ultimately getting a vote on confirmation--never, never, never. Republicans want to talk about precedent. Well, let's talk about precedent. As recently as 1988, which was both an election year and the last year of a Presidency, the Senate confirmed Supreme Court nominees. That year, a Democratic Senate confirmed President Ronald Reagan's nomination of Justice Anthony Kennedy in the final year of his administration. I voted to confirm Justice Kennedy's nomination, as did my friend, the current chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley. I think it is well that the Presiding Officer today is the junior Senator from Iowa. I hope she will listen to what Senator Grassley, the senior Senator from Iowa, has said time and time again. Senator Grassley had no trouble supporting Justice Kennedy's nomination then, notwithstanding the fact that it occurred during President Reagan's last year in office. Since that time, the senior Senator from Iowa has been on record defending the President's right to put forward nominees during a Presidential election year. In 2008, in fact, Senator Grassley said: ``The reality is that the Senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a president's term.'' I will repeat that quote. ``The reality is that the Senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a president's term.'' I agree with Senator Grassley--or at least I agreed with him. Frankly, now I am not sure where the senior Senator from Iowa stands. He issues a contradictory statement, it seems, every day on this one issue. Another person who voted to confirm Justice Kennedy in 1980 was a first-term Senator from Kentucky, Senator McConnell. In fact, for 40 years the Republican leader was remarkably consistent in asserting that the Senate has a duty to consider the Supreme Court's Presidential nominations. As a law student at the University of Kentucky, he wrote in 1970: Even though the Senate has at various times made purely political decisions in its consideration of Supreme Court nominees, certainly it could not be successfully argued that it is an acceptable practice. If political matters were relevant to senatorial consideration it might be suggested that a constitutional amendment be introduced giving to the Senate rather than the president the right to nominate Supreme Court justices. My friend the Republican leader carried that belief with him into public service. As a freshman Senator in 1986, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, he said: Under the Constitution, our duty is to provide advice and consent to judicial nominations, not to substitute our judgment for what are reasonable views for a judicial nominee to hold. Again, in 1990, the Senator from Kentucky said: It is clear under our form of government that the advice and consent role of the Senate in judicial nominations should not be politicized. In 2005, the Senator from Kentucky reaffirmed his stance, stating: Our job is to react to that nomination in a respectful and dignified way, and at the end of the process, to give that person an up-or-down vote as all nominees who have majority support have gotten throughout the history of the country. It's not our job to determine who ought to be picked. Finally, just 6 years ago, the Republican leader put it in the simplest terms possible: Americans expect politics to end at the courtroom door. These are just a few examples, but there are pages of similar quotes from the Republican leader spanning four decades on this subject. Unfortunately, he seems to no longer believe that politics end at the courtroom door. The reason for the Republican leader's about-face is clear: He and his party want to undermine this President, Barack Obama. Senate Republicans would upend our Nation's system of checks and balances rather than afford President Obama the same constitutional authority his 43 predecessors enjoyed. Throughout the news today, it is said by all the Republican think tanks--or a lot of them--that it is more important for the Republicans to make sure Obama does not get a Supreme Court nominee on the floor of the Senate than it is for them to maintain the majority in the Senate. Think about that. That is not what I am saying; that is what they are saying. A few minutes ago, the junior Senator from Delaware was here on the Senate floor reading George Washington's Farewell Address. He did a remarkable job. This man, who was the national debate champion twice, did a very good job. In his address, President Washington warned of the partisan party politics that Republicans are now employing. He warned of their negative influence on our government. He said: All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party. The American people are watching. They are watching the Republicans' obstruction on this issue and the direct contravention of the belief of President George Washington. The vast majority of Americans are wondering how Republicans can say the Senate is back to work--we hear that all the time from my friend the Republican leader--while at the same time denying a vote on a nominee who hasn't even been named yet. I say to my friends across the aisle: For the good of the country, don't do this. I hope my Republican colleagues will heed the counsel offered by the senior Senator from Iowa and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Charles Grassley, just a few short years ago when he said: A Supreme Court nomination isn't the forum to fight any election. It is the time to perform one of our most important Constitutional duties and decide if a nominee is qualified to serve on the nation's highest court. Elections come and go, but the centerpiece for our democracy, the U.S. Constitution, should forever remain our foundation. I say to my Senate Republican colleagues: Do not manipulate our nearly perfect form of government in an effort to appease a radical minority. Madam President, will the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Customs bill is another in a series of missed opportunities and half-measures that have characterized this Congress. The legislation we are going to vote on today, the conference report on Customs, misses the opportunity to take strong action against currency manipulation. The bill we sent out of here had strong currency manipulation language in it; it is not there anymore. It throws up unnecessary hurdles to agreements on climate change. It basically says that any agreements the United States makes cannot take climate into consideration--on any of those agreements. No one that I know of opposes the legislation that is stuck inside this Customs conference report dealing with taxation on the Internet. We all support that. But the sad part about this is the manipulation to get it in this bill. It did not start in either House; it was just airdropped into the conference report. The reason it was done that way is everyone knew that if this matter was brought up--the Internet Tax Fairness Act--as part of it, we always had marketplace fairness. That was part of the deal. They went together. But the manipulation took place. This most important piece of legislation dealing with helping States--States are struggling. It does not matter which States they are, they are struggling. What we have are the brick-and-mortar places that can't compete with online merchandising. Someone who has a brick- and-mortar store--someone will walk in, see something they like, and then they will walk out, go to the computer, and buy it online. They pay no taxes. That is unfair to the brick-and-mortar stores and small businesses across America. It would help States remarkably if people who buy on the Internet would have to pay the same taxes as someone who buys in a brick-and-mortar store. But in an effort to protect a number of Senators--one in particular-- this matter was stuck in this bill. We have just a few States that don't have a sales tax. One of those Senators is up for reelection. She has a very tough election, and anyone who understands politics a little bit understands that this was done as a result of trying to protect her. But as Senator Durbin, the person who has pushed this marketplace fairness more than anyone else--except perhaps for Senator Enzi and Lamar Alexander--knows, what has been done is unfair. But they have been told this matter will be brought up before the end of the year. So I don't know what solace that should give the Senator who is worried about the marketplace fairness passing because it would seem to me that the vote we had here earlier was 69 votes, and it will pass again. The Speaker has told me that he is going to bring up marketplace fairness on the House side. So we are going to vote on it before the end of the year. It is going to be the law anyway. It is too bad small businesses have to wait again for 6 months or 8 months to get this done. The Customs bill does not do enough to enforce our trade agreements or protect American workers, and I will oppose it.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to make a few comments on the statements of the Republican leader, my friend. It is obvious that he has been reading the press and perhaps talking to some people on the House side. These people have created so many problems. This right, right, rightwing in the House of Representatives is now saying that what we did, having a 2-year budget, they want to change. They want to take money away from the middle class and give it to defense. I supported the North Korea sanctions. It is a good piece of legislation. I supported what we did in December. It was good legislation. But we decided that the military, as strong as it is, should remain strong but that we should give some equal footing to the middle class, and we did that. Now my friend the Republican leader is obviously trying to pave the way to increase defense funding and go against the middle class. I am pleased he said some nice things about the Secretary of Defense, but it is very clear in his statement that he wants--obviously, he didn't say so, but it is pretty clear to anyone listening to him-- ground troops. The Special Forces are not enough. He wants more, and the American people don't want more ground troops. He also said it is too bad--I am paraphrasing what he said--that we are going to take away the ability to have enhanced interrogation. That is waterboarding and all that other stuff that doesn't work. John McCain was on the floor yesterday. Now if there is anyone in the world who should have some understanding about torture, he should. He was tortured not once but multiple times when he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. He came yesterday--I have heard him before--and said: Torture doesn't work. We do better without torture. But again, that is what the Republican leader is talking about. I would remind those listening that President Obama has done a great deal to keep America safe and secure. There is no better example of that--there was a lot of talk previously about Osama bin Laden--than that Osama bin Laden is dead. It was done on President Obama's watch, at his direction.