Harry Reid

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, in just a few minutes President Obama will officially announce his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. In considering a nomination to the highest Court in the Nation, the President has said he would adhere to three important principles: First, the nominee must possess impeccable credentials. That means an outstanding education, critical judicial experience, and an expert understanding of the law. Second, the nominee should have a keen awareness of the judiciary's role. That means understanding the Court's constitutional place in our government, and its limitations; third, and finally, life experience. A qualified Supreme Court Justice is someone with an understanding of the realities that Americans face each and every day. I have no doubt how hard this must have been for the President. I have no doubt President Obama's nominee will possess these important attributes just outlined. Once President Obama has done his constitutional duty and announced publicly this nominee, it will then fall upon the Senate to provide its advice and consent. For 100 years we have had these hearings in public, going back to during Justice Brandeis' hearing. The Republican leader has made it clear that he and his caucus have no intention of considering the nominee. It is hard to comprehend but that is what he said, and it appears at this stage, basically, all Republicans have fallen in line with this. I hope President Obama's nomination of an exceptionally qualified and consensus nominee will persuade Senate Republicans to change course. I do hope they will do their constitutional duty and give President Obama's nominee a meeting, a hearing, and a vote. He is doing his job this morning. Republicans should do theirs this morning too. Mr. President, will the Presiding Officer announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, 90 percent of Americans want to know what is in their food. All of Europe, China, Russia, they know what is in their food. We should know what is in our food. Senator Stabenow, the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, has been trying to work to come up with some reasonable approach, but what she has gotten is not much help from the chair of the committee. There are no discussions going on right now that are meaningful. The Republican leader has offered an amendment that is a purely voluntary scheme, which is a quasi-Roberts proposal and would leave consumers actually in the dark, and that is the truth. But this is just another case of where Republicans in the Senate are trying to create an appearance of doing something without really doing anything at all. It happens so often. This has happened so often during the past year. Things that my friend the Republican leader comes to the floor and boasts about are things we tried to do and we were blocked by Republican filibusters. We have been happy in the minority to be responsible and work with the Republicans to get things done, and we continue to do that. It is the right thing for the country. We are not trying to block everything, as they in fact did. We are trying to get things done. One of the things we need to get done that belies the fact of this great Senate Republican majority is the fact that we think there should be a Supreme Court Justice. There should be 9, not 8. One hundred years ago today, this very day, this Senate concluded the confirmation hearing of Justice Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice ever. Prior to his nomination, it was not a custom for the Senate to hold public confirmation hearings to set up Supreme Court nominations, but over the last century these hearings have become a vital part of the Senate's constitutional duty to provide its advice and consent. For 100 years, the Senate has had open hearings to deal with controversies--real or imagined--surrounding Supreme Court vacancies and nominees. It is disappointing that Republicans are now willing to throw away a century of transparency and deliberation just to block President Obama's Supreme Court nominee. Republicans will not even meet with this man or this woman. Republicans will not allow a hearing for this man or this woman. Republicans will not allow a vote on this man or this woman, and that is wrong. We want transparency on what is going on here with the Supreme Court. We want transparency on the food we eat. They are adamant that President Obama's nominee will have nothing--no opening hearing, no public hearing, no hearing at all. It is further evidence of how far Republicans will go to avoid their constitutional duties. Mr. President, I see no one on the floor to speak, so I ask the Chair to announce the schedule of the day.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Or call the 1-800 number.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to honor the 75th anniversary of the Nevada Parent Teacher Association. The Nevada PTA will formally celebrate 75 years of advocacy and work for and on behalf of the children of Nevada, at various events in the State during the last week of April. Since 1941, the Nevada PTA has been part of the Nation's largest volunteer child advocacy association. The organization promotes education, health, safety, and the arts to the children of Nevada and has been instrumental in fostering the growth of countless students. The Nevada PTA takes pride in ensuring that schools are a central part of the communities in which they reside. The organization has led efforts to curb childhood obesity, foster connections between children and the important men in their lives, and promote volunteering in innovative ways. Since its inception, they have also been a strong supporter of art programs that allow children to grow as students and people. Working with the national association, the Nevada PTA has participated in art programs that allow children to create original works of art in categories such as photography, film, and music composition. These programs not only encourage students to be creative, but also allow connections with fellow classmates that share common interests. Nevada PTA exemplifies the broader objective of the National PTA, advocacy for all children. Multiple schools in Nevada have been recognized by the National PTA for the School of Excellence Awards which are granted to institutions that promote diversity, demonstrate clarity in academic standards, and establish meaningful connections with their local parent teacher association. I applaud President David Flatt and his team for his strong leadership in one of the most important organizations for children in the State of Nevada. I am pleased that, through yours and other's selfless efforts, incalculable numbers of students, teachers, and parents have been positively affected by the Nevada PTA. This organization is an invaluable part of communities throughout the State, and I would like to extend my best wishes for continued success.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the extraordinary work of United States Capitol Police Chief Kim C. Dine, who served with distinction for more than 3 years with the department. Chief Dine, who has over 40 years of distinguished service in the field of law enforcement, was sworn in as the eighth chief of police of the United States Capitol Police in December 2012. As chief, he commanded a force of nearly 2,000 sworn and civilian personnel who provide comprehensive law enforcement, security, and protective operations services for the U.S. Congress, its staff, and more than 11 million annual visitors. Chief Dine also served as an ex-officio member of the Capitol Police Board. Chief Dine's outstanding dedication to duty shined during a tenure that included a Presidential inauguration, the historic visit of Pope Francis, hundreds of protests, and four State of the Union addresses, as well as overseeing the department's strategic plan update. Chief Dine also oversaw other important events such as the 2013 Ricin incident, Memorial Day and July Fourth concerts, the annual National Peace Officers Memorial Service, the implementation of a new radio system, and the tragic line-of-duty death of Sergeant Clinton Holtz. Chief Dine's outstanding policing career began in 1975 at the Metropolitan Police Department, MPD, in Washington, DC, where he spent 27 years, rising through the ranks to an appointment as an assistant chief of police. During his MPD career, Chief Dine worked in many diverse neighborhoods across Washington, DC, as well as serving in a broad range of organizational assignments throughout the agency, gaining expertise in critical aspects of policing and crime reduction strategies. His accomplishments included building community coalitions, honing community policing strategies, developing juvenile crime prevention programs, and initiating use of force training and internal investigations. During his tenure as MPD's First District commander--an area encompassing Capitol Hill and downtown Washington, DC--homicides declined by 60 percent and community policing flourished. His last assignment as assistant chief included command over internal affairs, force investigation teams, the disciplinary review division, the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, and management of the memorandum of agreement between MPD and the U.S. Department of Justice to institute agencywide reforms. In July 2002, Dine became the chief of police of the Frederick Police Department, FPD, in Maryland, where he served as chief of police for over 10 years. During his tenure, he and the women and men of the FPD focused on strengthening the relationship between the police and the community, building a new strategy of community policing and intelligence-led policing, improving training, producing the agency's first ever strategic plan, acquiring national law enforcement accreditation, achieving flagship status, and aggressively using technology. By outreach; marshaling and maximization of resources; acquisition and intelligent use of technology; extensive crime analysis; and aggressive acquisition of grants, FPD was able to combat crime more effectively, build bridges with Frederick's minority communities and deaf community, and make major strides in working with the mental health community through effective partnerships to improve services and minimize use of force issues. Through implementation of cohesive and multifaceted approaches, these efforts resulted in a 10-year record of crime reduction, value-added problem solving, enhanced trust, and communication with all constituents that made meaningful strides in maintaining the high quality of life and pride in Frederick--Maryland's second largest city. Chief Dine holds a bachelor of arts from Washington College in Chestertown, MD, and a master of science from American University in Washington, DC. Chief Dine's graduate study at American University included study abroad at the University of London Imperial College of Science and Technology Institute on Drugs, Crimes, and Justice in England. Chief Dine is a graduate of the FBI National Academy and a member of a number of organizations, including the Police Executive Research Forum, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Maryland Chiefs of Police Association. He is married to a former NASA scientist and is the proud father of two daughters. Congratulations on your retirement from public service, and we wish you the very best in your future.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, GMO, genetically modified food--that is basically what it is. What we want is to make sure consumers know what is in their food. They deserve clear standards. They require the disclosure of what is in their food, not a voluntary standard that Senator Roberts is talking about bringing out of the committee. All that does is leave consumers in the dark, and that is the wrong way to go.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, I understand the Republican leader's concern about coal not being the way it was. It is simply that the American people have made a decision that we are going to have to look for another way to produce energy. There is still a place for coal in our society, but everyone has to acknowledge that it is not as it was a few years ago. I wish the Republican leader cared more about moving to help the pensions of these coal miners. They are desperately looking for support. We support them on this side. All the coal miners support it. We can get no support from the Republicans. We tried during the work we did at the end of the year. We came close, but Republicans said no. I want all those coal miners from Kentucky and around the country to understand that we are trying to help them with their pensions, but unless we get some help from the Republicans, there will be no support. That is too bad. We are trying. We are trying. We are trying.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, Senate Republicans have finally admitted that their obstruction of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee has nothing to do with precedent, it has nothing to do with history, it has nothing to do with the Constitution, but it has everything to do with partisan politics. Last Thursday, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee forced Chairman Grassley and the committee Republicans to debate the Supreme Court vacancy during a markup. Remember, this is the same markup the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, canceled a week earlier because he and Republicans didn't want to make the meeting open to the public. He tried to have a secret meeting; Democrats wouldn't agree. On last Thursday when they finally had a meeting, the senior Senator from South Carolina, a Republican, said: We are setting a precedent here today, Republicans are, that in the last year at least of a lame duck eight-year term--I would say it's going to be a four-year term--that you're not going to fill a vacancy of the Supreme Court based on what we're doing here today. We're headed to changing the rules, probably in a permanent fashion. I applaud Senator Graham's forthrightness in admitting what his Republican colleagues refuse to admit: Their obstruction of a Supreme Court nominee is unprecedented. The senior Senator from South Carolina said that, and that is what I have been saying. So the question then remains, if denying President Obama's nominee a meeting, a hearing, and a vote has nothing to do with Senate precedent, then what is this all about? Fortunately, last Thursday also yielded an answer to that question. During an interview with a Wisconsin radio station, the Republican Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Ron Johnson, was asked if he would treat a Supreme Court nominee from a Republican President differently. He answered: Generally, and this is the way it works out politically . . . if a conservative president's replacing a conservative justice, there's a little more accommodation to it. The Senator from Wisconsin admitted that he and his colleagues would accommodate the Supreme Court nomination from a Republican President. So Senate Republicans are talking out of both sides of their mouths. Republicans claim they are simply adhering to precedent, even as they admit they are permanently changing the way the Senate treats Supreme Court nominees. Republicans claim they want to give the American people a voice. That is what elections are all about. President Obama's reelection was the American people's voice. Republicans claim--I repeat--they want to give the American people a voice and wait until after a new President is sworn in, even while admitting they would consider a Republican President's nominee right now. It doesn't make sense. It is illogical. It is unfair. The American people do not accept this duplicitous posturing. They don't accept it as a rationalization for why Republicans won't do their jobs. Over the weekend, the editorial board of Iowa City Press-Citizen--the Presiding Officer's home State--made clear what they want Senator Grassley and Senate Republicans to do: They want Republicans to follow the Constitution. Partisan posturing to score points at the expense of Constitutional process doesn't change character based on the letter next to a lawmaker's name. . . . Currently, a Democrat is in the White House as this pitched battle is fought, but were the roles reversed, we would not alter our position. If, down the line, a Supreme Court Justice retired or died in a presidential election year with a Republican in power, we would similarly urge a fair hearing for that president's nominee. The Senate's constitutional duty transcends partisan bickering. The people of Iowa and America don't want a Senate that treats its constitutional duties differently based on who is in the White House. They want a Senate that does its job. They want Republicans to do their jobs. So I say to my Republican colleagues, enough with the hollow excuses and groundless rationalizations. Do your jobs and give President Obama's Supreme Court nominee a meeting, a hearing, and a vote. Madam President, there is another aspect of this Supreme Court fight we must address. Already, as we know, Republicans are resorting to what they call pinata politics. That is what Senator Cornyn promised. Radical conservative groups are starting to run smear campaigns targeting President Obama's potential Supreme Court nominees. One of those potential nominees is from Iowa. One such ad from the Judicial Crisis Network, a dark money, rightwing political organization that operates in total secrecy--not knowing where its money comes from; probably the Koch brothers because they fund most everything else--is especially appalling. The ad takes aim at an Iowan serving on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Jane Kelly. The accusations leveled against Judge Kelly are despicable, and they deserve to be answered by her home State Senator--I should say Senators. Senator Grassley is on record as having strongly supported Judge Kelly's confirmation to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. It was he who came to the floor in 2013 and read from a letter stating that Judge Kelly is ``a forthright woman of high integrity and honest character . . . and exceptionally keen intellect.'' It was Senator Grassley who told his colleagues at about the same time: ``I am pleased to support her confirmation and urge my colleagues to join me.'' And Senator Grassley's Judicial Committee, of which he was a senior member, even helped vet Judge Kelly's record before endorsing her confirmation to the bench. If there was something wrong with her judicial nomination, he certainly didn't find it. Yet Senator Grassley has been silent in the wake of these recent smears against Judge Kelly. I know the senior Senator from Iowa has been busy listening to what the Republican leader's line is on the Supreme Court vacancy, but this disgusting rightwing attack from Republicans to a fellow Iowan--a judge he enthusiastically supported--demands a response. Senator Grassley needs to tell the people of Iowa whether he supports the smear campaign that his own Republicans are hurling at Judge Jane Kelly. Does he support the smear campaign? That is a question that needs to be answered, especially since the Judicial Crisis Network-- this rightwing, secretly funded by dark money--has been in lockstep with Senator Grassley's obstruction and even praising him while at the same time smearing Judge Kelly. If he doesn't go on record, he needs to do something. I can't imagine why he wouldn't go on record denouncing this type of disgusting rhetoric. I look forward to the senior Senator from Iowa setting the record straight on his fellow Iowan and a judge whom he personally endorsed. Madam President, there is no one on the floor. Will the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are certainly pleased we are going to pass this opioid bill shortly. Everyone should understand that the bill would have had some meat if, in fact, we had an opportunity to adopt the Shaheen amendment. It would have funded the authorization that we are now talking about. My friend always talks about the $470 million. That has already been obligated. That was last year's obligation to take care of this issue. This authorization bill has no money. For my friend to say we have $470 million is certainly not a factual statement.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, 3 years ago voters went to the ballot to elect a President of the United States, the most powerful Nation in the world. The American people spoke, and they overwhelmingly elected President Obama to a second term. We know that my friend the Republican leader stated that the Republicans had two goals: No. 1, to make sure that Obama was not reelected; and No. 2, that they would oppose everything Obama tried to do. On the first, they were a failure. Obama was reelected with more than 5 million votes. The other agreement the Republicans made was to oppose everything that Obama wanted to do or tried do, and they have stuck with that. That is why we have had 7 years of turmoil, 7 years of not doing nearly as much as we should, 7 years of endless filibusters. So my friend the Republican leader can talk all he wants about the progress made last year, but anyone studying what has gone on in the Senate recognizes that simply is without any basis. We have done so little that some political scientists say it is the most unproductive year that has ever been spent in Washington. But 3 years ago, voters went to the ballot box to elect a President. The American people spoke. They spoke loudly, as I have indicated, and they overwhelmingly elected Barack Obama for a second term. It was a 4-year term he was elected to, not a 3-year term--a 4-year term. During the Presidential term of office, our President has obligations--constitutional obligations. But Republicans continue to reject that election. They continue to reject Barack Obama's Presidency. They say he is illegitimate. They continue to reject the will of the people. When he was reelected overwhelmingly, obviously, they gave him the constitutional powers to do whatever is within the Constitution. One of those is to nominate Supreme Court Justices, just as he did in his first term. Yet the Republican leader and the senior Senator from Iowa remain committed to blocking the President's nominee. They are not following the Constitution. Republicans are not following the Constitution. The whole country is taking note. But the State of Iowa is taking special note. Earlier this week, a mother wrote an open letter to Senator Grassley that appeared in the Des Moines Register. Here is what she said: Refusal to abide by the tenants of our Constitution, and confirm a qualified candidate to the Supreme Court, is a violation of our common values. Your example to my children is that it doesn't really matter what the rules say; if the stakes are high enough and the chips don't fall your way, it's OK to arbitrarily change the rules and deny the other player his/her turn. That is the Senate Republicans' lesson to the people who elected them. It doesn't matter who you elected for President, we will refuse to do our duty just to follow Donald Trump's example. Remember what Donald Trump told all of my Republican friends and the country on the Supreme Court nomination. Here is his very, very detailed explanation of what he wants to do. Here is what he said: ``Delay, delay, delay.'' Then he went on to something else. The Republicans have followed that. Yesterday, Professor Jonathan Carlson of the University of Iowa--he is a professor of law there--published an op-ed in the Cedar Rapids Gazette, a newspaper in Iowa. In the editorial, Professor Carlson wrote: Grassley's decision [will] rob Americans of their voice. He went on to say: The voters elected President Obama to fill the next Supreme Court vacancy, and that vacancy is now upon us. Obama should be allowed to do the job he was elected to do. Grassley's problem isn't that he wants to give the American people a chance to decide this issue. His problem is that he doesn't like the decision they already made. Republicans should not ignore the voice of the people just because they don't like what the American people declared, but that is just what the senior Senator from Iowa continues to do--ignore the people of Iowa and the rest of America. Thirty years ago, Senator Grassley had it right. When the Judiciary Committee began its consideration of the elevation of Justice Rehnquist to be Chief Justice, he said: ``This committee has the obligation to build a record and to conduct the most in-depth inquiry that we can.'' Let me repeat that. ``This committee''--he is referring to the Judiciary Committee--``has the obligation to build a record and to conduct the most in-depth inquiry that we can.'' Now Senator Grassley isn't interested in inquiries or building a record. He refuses to meet with the nominee, even if the nominee is from Iowa. He refuses to hold a hearing, and he refuses, of course, to have a vote. Senator Grassley isn't interested in inquiries or building a record. Through his obstruction, he is already choosing to close the door on a potential nominee. He has even said that he will not consider the nomination of his fellow Iowan Judge Jane Kelly, even though she was overwhelmingly elevated from the trial court to the appellate court in this body with, of course, Senator Grassley leading the charge on her behalf. So what he said about his fellow Iowan, Jane Kelly, is a little strange--a little odd--because it was Senator Grassley who strongly supported Judge Kelly and pushed her confirmation to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Senator Grassley says he will preemptively reject Judge Kelly, or any nominee, out of--listen to this one--principle, and that is because Republicans' only principle is obstruction. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he has fallen in line with the Republican leader's obstruction and followed what Donald Trump has suggested: Delay, delay, delay. He is going to great lengths to shut down voices who simply want to do their jobs. For example, at the behest of the Republican leader, he met privately with Republicans on the Judiciary Committee and twisted his colleagues' arms to sign a loyalty oath, promising to block consideration of the President's nominees. That point has already been made here and is a part of the Record. Next, he tried to move a committee markup behind closed doors. When Democrats objected, he canceled the meeting. He also used the Presiding Officer's chair here on the floor to shut down debate on the Supreme Court vacancy, which is really unheard of, but he did it. Time and again, the senior Senator from Iowa has followed the orders of the Republican leader and Donald Trump and sought to silence his critics and shut the American people out of the Senate's business. Why? If the Senator's obstruction is truly supported by the Constitution and history, why wouldn't he want to have a debate in the open? Let's debate it on the Senate floor. President Obama's nominee deserves a meeting, a hearing, and a vote. The American people deserve a Senate that honors the Constitution and provides its advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. As Professor Carlson said, by refusing to give President Obama's nominee consideration, Senator Grassley is robbing Iowans and Americans of their voice. Listening to the American people is our job, and Senate Republicans should do their job. Mr. President, what is the Senate business today?

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Republican leader and I have worked together in leadership capacities in the Senate for almost 20 years. He has been the whip and I was the whip. I was majority leader, he was minority leader, and vice versa. My presentations the last few weeks do not take away from the fact that Mitch McConnell and I are friends. We have worked together for a long time, and we have done our best to move the Senate forward. But that does not take away from my need as a Senator to pronounce publicly when he and I disagree. So I want to make sure the record is reflective of that. As each day passes, the Republican leader continues to transform his caucus into the party of Donald Trump. That is not good. You can see it in the Republicans' rhetoric. The Senators are using increasingly extreme and disturbing language in defending their unprecedented obstruction of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, who yet is unnamed. The assistant Republican leader said the President's eventual nominee ``will bear some resemblance to a pinata.'' We talked about, in the past, what a pinata is. He is comparing a Supreme Court nominee to a children's party favor that gets smashed repeatedly with a baseball bat or something similar to a baseball bat. That is nothing more than a thinly veiled threat from Senator Cornyn, serving notice on the coming assault on the President's nominee. We should not forget that we don't know who this nominee will be. We know nothing about this person, whether it is a man or a woman, educated at Harvard or Stanford or the University of Utah or the University of New Mexico. We don't know. But the Republican leader doesn't care who the eventual nominee is. It appears that is the case. He doesn't want his Senators to care either. All he cares about is appeasing the Trump wing of the party--which is getting pretty big--and Trump's radical followers. After all, this is the same Republican leader who yesterday again refused to distance himself from Donald Trump. He refused to condemn his hateful campaign for President. Instead, he pledged to support the Republican nominee. It is really shocking to see this transformation. Republicans have not always been this irrational and vicious. Even Senator Cornyn used to know better. During Justice Alito's confirmation hearings, the then-junior Senator from Texas was also talking about pinatas as he decried personal attacks on Supreme Court nominees. Here is what he said: I'm happy Judge Alito survived these unwarranted attacks. I'm also sorry that his family had to be subjected to them, as well. At some point, however, we as a committee will need to come to terms with our confirmation process. The current regime treats Supreme Court nominees more like pinatas than human beings. And that's something none of us should be willing to tolerate. The Republican whip gave this pinata talk the day the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Alito nomination. Now that President Obama is the one putting forth a Supreme Court nominee, it seems the assistant Republican leader is willing to tolerate, even promote, these ``unwarranted attacks'' he once denounced. Why the change? The answer is very simple: The senior Senator from Texas, like every other member of his caucus, is simply obeying the Republican leader's orders as he leads them to become the party of Trump, the caucus of Trump, the conference of Trump. This is the path the Republican leader has chosen for his party--a path of demagoguery and lapsed constitutional duties, a path which he forged and which led to the rise of Donald Trump. I do not understand why so many of my Republican colleagues are blindly following this path down a very bumpy road. Where are the moderate Republicans--however few there may be--who see that they are being used by the Republican leader to appease the Trump wing of the party? Where are the voices of reason from within the Republican caucus who will take a stand against this unprecedented dereliction of duty? Keep in mind, a decade ago the Senator from Texas was decrying a Republican nominee being treated like a pinata. Now, fast-forward 10 years, and he is saying: I am going to make a pinata out of whoever it is, even though they don't know who it is. I know there have to be some moderate Republicans, or Republicans, because outside of this building, there are Republicans urging their colleagues to forgo this ludicrous obstruction. A person I enjoyed working with right here, a very conservative Senator from Mississippi, Trent Lott, was the majority leader, and I worked with him very closely. He was a conservative, I repeat, but he was very pragmatic. Yesterday or the day before, he lamented his party's handling of the Supreme Court vacancy. Here is what he said: I probably would've handled it differently. My attitude, particularly on the Supreme Court, was that elections do have consequences, sometimes bad, and I tried to lean toward being supportive of the president's nominees, Democrat or Republican. That is how we should do things around here. It was the standard that if a President put forward a nominee and that person did not have some ethical problems and was basically qualified, we would take care of that. There is no better example of that than Clarence Thomas. I didn't vote for Clarence Thomas. I wish he hadn't gotten enough votes. But we did not stop that matter from going forward. He just barely made it. He got 52 votes. But there was no filibuster. He was nominated by a Republican President. The President liked him. On paper, he was qualified. He was a graduate of Yale Law School. But that isn't how they are doing things around here anymore. What Trent Lott said--he is not alone. Former Republican Senator from Indiana--someone we all liked a lot--Dick Lugar is urging Senate Republicans to do the right thing and honor their constitutional duty. Here is what he said: I can 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. What Richard Lugar is saying is: Do your jobs. You have a constitutional obligation to do that. Those are two quotes I just gave from strong Republican leaders telling Senate Republicans to do their jobs. So why won't they? Of the six nominations made to vacancies that have existed during Presidential election years since 1900--more than 100 years ago--each of the six has been confirmed by the Senate. That is what the Senate has done in the past and should do now. I say to my friends across the aisle: Listen to reason. Heed your constitutional duties. Listen to what the American people are saying. They are not taking a popular stand. It is wrong. Don't fall on your sword for Donald Trump and his kind. Don't sacrifice your integrity as a Senator. Stand up and do the right thing. Promise to give President Obama's nominee a meeting, a hearing, and a vote. That is your job, so do it. Mr. President, I see no one on the floor. I ask that the business of the day be announced.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, under the Republican leader's direction, this Senate continues to make history for all the wrong reasons. Despite proclaiming that the Senate is back to work, the Republican majority is on pace to become one of the least productive Senates ever. By now, most Americans are aware of the Republican leader's decision to block consideration of the Supreme Court nomination that President Obama will soon make. But the historic obstruction of a Supreme Court nominee is the most recent and prolific example of the Republican leader's abdication of his constitutional duties and that of the whole Republican caucus. What is that? To provide advice and consent to Presidential nominations. Since his party assumed the majority in the Senate last January, the Republican leader and his colleagues have ground the nominations to a halt. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the pace of judicial nominations being confirmed this Congress is the worst. To date, this Republican-controlled Senate has confirmed a total of 16 judicial nominations. That is about one a month. Since the beginning of the year, we have confirmed just five judges. We have 11 judges pending on the Senate calendar, and there would be a lot more, but the chairman of the committee simply is not holding any hearings. He canceled the meeting last week. Maybe they will have one the day after tomorrow. They are not even holding hearings for the people in the pipeline whom the President has nominated. The 11 judges pending on the Senate calendar is not definitive of the real problem we have in this country. But even on the 11, the Republicans refuse to schedule votes--even on judges such as Waverly Crenshaw from Tennessee, who is supported by the two Republican Senators from Tennessee. If the Republican leader will not even schedule votes on consensus judges recommended by Republican Senators, how can Democrats expect a vote on their recommendations? While the Republican leader and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee seem content not to do their jobs, the American people are being robbed of justice. There has been a spike in judicial emergencies. If there aren't enough judges to hear the cases that arise, it is deemed to be an emergency because the judges there are unable to do the work because there are too few judges. When the Republicans assumed control of the Senate last year, there were 12 judicial emergencies nationwide. Now there are 31--1 year later, 31. They are going up almost by the week. As I have indicated, that number will only grow as Republicans continue to refuse to process important judicial nominations. But the obstruction isn't limited to Supreme Court nominees or judges to fill these judicial emergencies. There are other matters that we should be concerned about. Take, for example, the Banking Committee. It is setting records for doing nothing. The committee has been operating under the leadership of the senior Senator from Alabama. In that time, the committee has not yet reported a single nomination. This is unprecedented. According to the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan group, the Banking Committee has reported out at least one nomination every year for the past 50 years--not now. It is the only Senate committee not to consider a single nomination last year. When asked why, he said he had other things to do. What are those nominations that the Senator has put a hold on? What positions have gone unfilled as the chairman pursued his political career with the primary election just having been completed? The Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence is really important and two seats on the Securities and Exchange Commission. We know that Wall Street needs to be monitored very closely. We have two seats that need to be filled. There are two seats on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and we know how important that is. There are the Director of the U.S. Mint and the Export-Import Bank Board of Directors. They can't do their work now because we need to fill those spots. There are the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, the inspector general, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and others. From the Republican leader to his committee chairs and the rank and file, we continue to hear that the Senate is working again. This is a figment of the Republicans' imagination. It is not working again. It appears the Republican Senate isn't interested in doing its job. There no longer seems to be a voice of reason coming from the Republican side. Isn't there a single Republican who will stand against the Republican leader's nominations blockade? Isn't there a single Republican willing to put an end to this historic obstruction? Providing advice and consent on the President's nominees is a constitutional duty. I say: Do your job.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an article here from CNN. It is quite illuminating. When I was a boy growing up in the town of Searchlight, we didn't have people of color--no one, ever. When I went away to high school, we did have people of color. There were not many, but certainly we had African Americans, and we had Hispanics. It wasn't until then, when I went to high school, that I had a wonderful Spanish teacher, Marlan Walker. I was able to visit with him when I went home last time to see him. He had lost his wife Colleen. He made such a difference in my life. But he is a fine man and was a great Spanish teacher. It was the first time I had ever heard anything about pinatas. What is a pinata? Traditionally, they have them in Mexico, where they have a figure. It can be all kinds of things, but let's say it is a horse. You blindfold young people. They have a stick in their hand, and they can't see. They know it is hung there; they saw it before they were blindfolded. They try to find the pinata so they can hit it because presents come out of it. Things come out of the pinata. But, boy, the pinata gets beaten until it starts dumping little presents on everyone's head. This article, which came from what happened on CNN, would be illuminating for people to read. It is written by Ted Barrett, dated yesterday. When asked about Presidential nominees to the Supreme Court, the assistant Republican leader said: ``I think they will bear some resemblance to a pinata.'' Think about that. They don't know who the nominee is. They don't know anything about the person, but they already have in their mind that they are going to beat this person like a pinata. These are his words, not mine. Direct quote: ``I think they will bear some resemblance to a pinata.'' Think about that. He is saying Republicans are going to do all they can to hurt this person's reputation, to beat on them, like a pinata. He went on to say: ``Because there is no guarantee, certainly, after that time they're going to look as good as they did going in.'' Think about that: to say to the American people that they refuse to meet with somebody they don't know, refuse to have a committee hearing on someone they don't know, refuse to have a vote in the committee, and refuse to have a vote on this floor. Now the assistant Republican leader has told us that it doesn't matter who it is. It doesn't matter if the nominee is a man, woman, old, or young. It doesn't matter what their education is or what their experience is, they are going to beat that person like a pinata. I think they have been listening to Donald Trump too much. The Republicans need to stop and listen to the disgusting rhetoric they are spewing. They are going to treat someone they don't even know like a pinata? Now the Republicans are reduced to acting like big, tough people and threatening to destroy the reputation of someone they don't even know. They haven't even seen them yet. This is vile behavior that is beneath the dignity of this institution. If Republicans continue down this path of destruction while working on this process, it is going to reverberate in the wrong direction for decades to come. They have to get their senses back. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the CNN article written by Ted Barrett, to which I referred, be printed in the Record.

Mr. REID. I yield the floor and ask the Chair to announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, I join the Republican leader in extending my sympathies to the entire Reagan family. Nancy Reagan was a wonderful First Lady. She was also an incredible individual in her own right. She was always gracious and charming. The last time I saw Nancy Reagan, she was here in the Rotunda of the Capitol dedicating a statue of her husband, President Ronald Reagan. At that time, she was already well into her late eighties, but there she was, standing next to his statue with a big smile on her face. Her very presence brightened the entire Hall--she and Ronald Reagan standing together, he in the form of a statue, she standing next to him, together. It really was a fantastic picture. Nancy, of course, will be missed. I say, though, my mind returns to a different time. It reminds me of the years Ronald Reagan was in the White House--a card-carrying conservative, yet a very pragmatic Republican. The Nation will miss First Lady Nancy Reagan and miss her partner, the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, from the Des Moines Register. Two former Lieutenant Governors of the State of Iowa--and I am sure the Acting President pro tempore knows both of them, one a Democrat and one a Republican--here is what they said, among other things: ``This isn't the Chuck Grassley we thought we knew.'' Again, I repeat, this is two Iowans, former Lieutenant Governors Joy Corning, a Republican, and Sally Pederson, a Democrat. Last week former Lieutenant Governors Corning and Pederson coauthored an op-ed in the Des Moines Register criticizing the senior Senator from Iowa for abdicating his constitutional duties by blocking consideration of President Obama's Supreme Court nomination. The op-ed reads, among other things: Iowans are known for being hard workers, and we appreciate that quality in our elected officials. We wake up every day, ready to do our part, and get the job done. We are also politically astute, understand the U.S. Constitution, and know when an elected official is more eager to find excuses than create solutions. Unfortunately, Sen. Chuck Grassley is refusing to do his job as described in Article 2 of our Constitution, giving ``advice and consent'' on the president's upcoming nomination to the Supreme Court. Grassley is threatening to use his powerful post as chairman of the Judiciary Committee to block a hearing on any nominee, regardless of how well qualified he or she is. His recent column and public statements regarding the vacancy on the Supreme Court are troubling and harmful to our courts. Moreover, this isn't the Chuck Grassley we thought we knew. ``This isn't the Chuck Grassley we thought we knew.'' I agree with these Iowans. This isn't the Senator I have come to know over the last three decades. The Senator I knew would not cede the independence of the powerful Judiciary Committee he has served on for many decades to the Republican leader. The Senator I knew would not ignore his constitutional duties for the sake of election-year politics, but for whatever reason the Senator from Iowa made a fateful decision in the hours after Justice Antonin Scalia's death. He is allowing himself and his committee to be manipulated by the Republican leader for narrow, partisan warfare. He is taking his orders from the Republican leader and, sadly, Donald Trump. When asked about this issue, Donald Trump's words were three: delay, delay, delay. Senator Grassley must have been listening. The people of Iowa, without question, are displeased with their Senator. The Des Moines Register quoted one of Senator Grassley's disappointed supporters as follows: He seems to be doing what other people are saying, not what he thinks is best. That has really colored my opinion of him in the past week. Another Iowan who supports the Senator told the newspaper: I think he's making a bad mistake. . . . It's purely a political party play, and there isn't any space for that in this situation. Now, as each day passes, the senior Senator from Iowa is trying desperately to justify his blind loyalty to the Republican leader and to Donald Trump. Senator Grassley is grasping for a rationale--any rationale--that will excuse him for not doing his job. That desperation is now taking Senator Grassley down a very dark path. Last Thursday, the senior Senator from Iowa addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC, which took place here in Washington. In his speech to them, here is what Senator Grassley said: ``I feel it's about time that we have a national debate on the Supreme Court and how it fits in with our constitutional system of government.'' The chairman of the Judiciary Committee is suggesting that we reevaluate the Founding Fathers' work, reevaluate the Constitution of the United States, and change the Constitution of the United States. Why is Senator Grassley debating what the Constitution makes clear? The Senate must provide its advice and consent on nominees appointed by the President to the Supreme Court. Think of the irony. Justice Scalia was a strict constitutionalist. Yet now, in the weeks following his death, Senator Grassley wants to throw out the Constitution just because President Obama gets to pick Scalia's replacement. The former Senator from Iowa Tom Harkin said it best yesterday. This appeared in the Des Moines Register: ``The position taken now by the majority leader and majority members of the Senate Judiciary Committee is simply astounding, and not in keeping with a `strict,' or even `loose,' construction of the Constitution.'' The Constitution isn't some ball you pick up and take home just because you are still mad that Barack Obama is the President. If Senator Grassley and Republicans find themselves on the wrong side of the Constitution, it is their policies that should change, not our Nation's founding document, the Constitution of the United States. If Republicans are uncomfortable with not performing their duties, the answer isn't to take an eraser to the Constitution. No, we don't need to take an eraser to the Constitution. The answer is to do your job. If the Senator from Iowa wants to extricate himself from the situation he created, there is a way. All he needs to do is wrest back his chairmanship from the Republican leader and give President Obama's nominee a meeting, a hearing, and a vote. In short, he needs to do his job. It is that easy. No changes to the Constitution are required. If he does his job, the people in Iowa will not have reason to say: ``This isn't the Chuck Grassley we thought we knew.''

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, on another subject, last Thursday, the Department of Health and Human Services released updated statistics about the number of Americans who now have health insurance. This is ObamaCare. The numbers are incredible. Since enactment of the Affordable Care Act, 20 million Americans have gained health care coverage--20 million; 6.1 million adults, ages 19 to 25, now have health insurance. Remember, it wasn't long ago that everyone said they wouldn't sign up. Now, 6.1 million have. Before we passed ObamaCare, some 50 million people in this Nation were without health care. Now, because of the Affordable Care Act, 91 percent of Americans are now insured. That is stunning. It is only getting better. Every day, more and more people who were previously without health insurance are now covered. That is true across racial and ethnic lines. Listen to these stunning statistics. The uninsured rate for African Americans has dropped by more than 50 percent. That is the equivalent of 3 million newly insured people. The uninsured rate for Hispanics dropped by more than 25 percent, representing 4 million insured Americans. The evidence is clear: The Affordable Care Act is working. From Nevada to Kentucky, our constituents are getting the quality health care they were promised when Congress passed the Affordable Care Act. It is time for Republicans to stop following Donald Trump's lead by clamoring for repeal. It is really nervy for Republicans to come down here, as they do all the time in the Senate--they have been quiet lately--and as they do on the campaign trail. This large number of Republicans, which is narrow, still all say the same thing: The American people should listen to what we are saying; we have to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. We have to get rid of it. How disappointing. It is time for Republicans to face the facts. ObamaCare is helping tens of millions of Americans and will continue to do so. Madam President, I ask the Chair to announce the business of the day.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and honor the career of Jacquelyne ``Jackie'' Brady, as she retires from her position as town manager for Laughlin, NV. For more than 20 years, Jackie Brady has been dedicated to serving the residents of Clark County. As the Laughlin town manager, Jackie has managed municipal services that Laughlin residents depend on and enjoy. Throughout her tenure, Jackie has worked to build partnerships that spur economic progress and positively impact Laughlin and southern Nevada. Under her steadfast and innovative leadership, her office created the first economic development plan in the city, supported the improvement of Needles Highway, and helped develop the Colorado River Greenway Heritage Park and Trails, among other accomplishments. Jackie's success is hard-fought and well-earned. She was born and raised in east Texas in a segregated community where she was not even allowed to use the local library. Instead, Jackie and her peers had to learn from textbooks that were outdated and out of circulation. Despite this, Jackie went on to receive her bachelor's degree from East Tennessee State University, and she later returned to Texas to attend the newly established Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, where she graduated with a master's degree. In addition to her role as Laughlin town manager, Jackie has served as the county liaison to the town of Searchlight, NV, for more than 17 years. In 2014, Jackie was named a Distinguished Woman in Nevada, and in 2015, she was awarded Woman of the Year by the Real Life Church in Las Vegas. Jackie also sits on the Laughlin Chamber of Commerce board and has been involved with the Rotary Club, United Way Allocations Committee, Family Resource Center Board, and the former Laughlin Kiwanis Club. I congratulate Jackie on her many successes and decades of public service. I appreciate and commend her dedication to the Silver State, and I wish Jackie the best in her retirement and future endeavors.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, as Senators, we pride ourselves in making sure that we vote when we are required to vote, and we are always very aware of when the votes occur and what happens with the votes. I missed a vote yesterday at 4 o'clock. My staff has told me the clerks here are concerned that they did something wrong. I missed the vote. It was my fault. It was no one's fault but my own. I had a doctor's appointment at 4:30, and I got here too late. So everyone should understand that I have missed other votes, and I have already announced how I would have voted had I voted, and it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the vote. So all the clerks, who serve us so well all the time, shouldn't worry at all about my not being recorded on that vote. So calm down, everybody. I don't care. You shouldn't care.