Harry Reid

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, last Thursday the senior Senator from Iowa came to the floor to declare that he is feeling no pressure in blocking President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. However, Senator Grassley's actions paint a far different picture. On Monday the chairman of the Judiciary Committee took to the Des Moines Register, the very newspaper that has pointedly and repeatedly criticized his unprecedented obstruction, but the case Senator Grassley made in his op-ed only left Iowans scratching their heads. In effect, the senior Senator from Iowa said it is no big deal that we only have eight Justices on the Supreme Court. It is no big deal that our Nation's highest Court is deadlocking on important cases. With all due respect, that is the type of argument one makes knowing that logic and reason is not on your side, when you know the Constitution is not on your side. The senior Senator from Iowa seemed to understand the Senate's responsibility to act when a Republican was in the White House. In 2006 he came to the floor and said: A Supreme Court nomination is not a forum to fight any election. It is the time to perform one of our most important constitutional duties and decide whether a nominee is qualified to serve on the Nation's highest court. Now he has reversed himself--and that is an understatement. From the time he allowed the Republican leader to seize control of the Judiciary Committee and dictate his actions as committee chair, Senator Grassley has done everything to deflect responsibility on himself personally. He forced his committee members to sign loyalty oaths. He tried to force the committee to do its work away from the public eye. When Democrats objected, he canceled the meeting altogether. He tried to shut down debate from the Presiding Officer's chair in the Senate, which is unprecedented. He blamed conservative Chief Justice John Roberts for politicizing the Supreme Court. These are just a few of the things. This morning Senator Grassley finally met with Judge Garland. He met in private, far away from the public eye. These are not the actions of a Senator and chairman who is confident in his decision to block the Supreme Court nominee. This is the behavior of a Senator who knows he is on the wrong side of the Constitution and wrong side of history. Wouldn't it be easier for the senior Senator from Iowa just to do his job?

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are 102 days into 2016, but because of wage discrimination, working American women are still stuck in 2015. Today is National Equal Pay Day, a date that symbolizes how far into the year women must work to earn what their male counterparts earned last year for doing the very same work. That is because, on average, women make only 79 cents for every $1 their male colleagues make doing the very same job. That means our wives, daughters, and granddaughters have to work an additional 3 months and 11 days to make the same salary their male counterparts make in a single year. This pay disparity between men and women for doing the same work is known as the wage gap and it is to our national shame. No woman should make less money than a man for doing the exact same work. Democrats have tried repeatedly to pass Senator Barbara Mikulski's Paycheck Fairness Act, which would provide women with the tools they need to close this wage gap. The Republicans have made it clear they have no intention of fighting wage discrimination. They have stonewalled Senator Mikulski's legislation five times in recent years-- five filibusters--and when Republicans finally got around to offering legislation they claim will address this important economic issue, it is anemic and devoid of actual reform. The bills offered by the junior Senators from New Hampshire and Nebraska are a case in point because the legislation does nothing to close loopholes employers use to justify paying discriminatory wages, it does nothing to help victims of wage discrimination recoup lost income, and it does nothing to incentivize employers to follow the law. This legislation is only designed to look good, to say they are trying to do something about this, when in fact it does nothing. Just about the only thing the Ayotte and Fischer bills actually do is make it harder for women to discuss wage discrimination at work. Their respective bills so narrowly define what a woman can and cannot say about wage discrimination that it completely ignores the reality of the situation. Factually, many women learn of wage disparities through casual conversation at work. In the famous Lilly Ledbetter case, that is how she learned about it. They shouldn't be punished for realizing they are being discriminated against by their own employer. In short, the Ayotte and Fischer bills will not close the wage gap. Where the Republican legislation fails, the Mikulski Paycheck Fairness Act succeeds. The Paycheck Fairness Act would help close the wage disparity by empowering women to negotiate for equal pay. This bill would give workers stronger tools to combat wage discrimination and bar retaliation against employees for discussing salary information. This legislation would help secure adequate compensation for victims of gender-based pay discrimination. These are commonsense proposals that are supported by the American people--not just women. Later today President Obama will announce the designation of the Belmont-Paul Women's Equality National Monument, which is located a few hundred yards from where I stand. Formally known as the Sewall-Belmont House and Museum, this national monument will honor the work of the National Women's Party founder Alice Paul, who rewrote the Equal Rights Amendment. I think it is important that is done. President Obama says this designation is a reminder of the many women who have fought for equality. As we recognize Equal Pay Day, I hope my Republican colleagues will come to their senses and address this injustice that hurts millions of American families. Working women deserve more than just a half measure from Republicans. They deserve our best efforts to right this egregious wrong, because American women deserve equal pay. I apologize to my distinguished friend from Vermont for having him wait while Senator McConnell and I were having conversations on the floor.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, later today the Senate will confirm Waverly Crenshaw to serve as a district judge for the Middle District of Tennessee. Mr. Crenshaw is a superb nominee with impeccable credentials and a sharp legal mind. He works at a prestigious law firm in Nashville, where he became the first ever African-American partner. Mr. Crenshaw is well liked by Democrats and well liked by Republicans. His nomination is supported by the Republican Senators from Tennessee, and the Judiciary Committee reported his nomination unanimously. Waverly Crenshaw's confirmation is desperately needed. The vacancy he will fill in the Middle District of Tennessee is a judicial emergency, meaning there are more cases than the judges in that district can administer. While I am pleased the Senate will confirm Mr. Crenshaw later today, I wonder why this eminently qualified nominee wasn't confirmed a long time ago. It has been more than a year since President Obama nominated him. The Judiciary Committee reported his nomination unanimously more than 9 months ago. That a consensus nominee like Waverly Crenshaw had to wait so long to be confirmed is another example--and not a good one--of Senate Republicans' concerted effort to undermine the American judiciary system. The Republican leader and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee are leading an all-out assault on our Nation's courts by depriving them of qualified judges. Americans know of Republicans' unprecedented obstruction of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. Republican gridlock is precluding Judge Garland from a hearing and a vote. But that same gridlock is extending to important lower court nominees also. Republicans' slow-walking and obstruction of circuit and district court nominees is so pronounced that it is actually making history, and I am not sure it is good history. To date, this Republican-controlled Senate has confirmed only 16 judicial nominations. Today will be the 17th. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, that is good enough to make this Republican Senate the worst at confirming circuit court and district court judges. Chairman Grassley is running the least productive Judiciary Committee since World War II, measured in both judges reported out of committee and judges confirmed. Because of the Republicans' sloth, judiciary emergencies have nearly tripled, leaving our courts overworked and Americans without prompt access to their judiciary system. Republicans are refusing to do their job, and the American people are suffering as a result. Republican efforts to cripple our judiciary will reverberate for decades, preventing Americans from obtaining justice. It is time for the Republican leader and the senior Senator from Iowa to put an end to this obstruction. It is time they discontinue using the Senate Judiciary Committee as a political arm of the Republican leader's office and start doing their job. This should begin by doing their constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on President Obama's Supreme Court nominee. The Republican leader and Senator Grassley should give Judge Garland a hearing and a vote. They should stop stalling, hoping that Donald Trump or Ted Cruz will nominate Justice Scalia's successor. This should give even Republicans pause. Then the Republican leader and the Judiciary Committee should move the backlog of qualified judicial nominations who are awaiting confirmation--and there are a lot of them--nominees like Paula Xinis, whom President Obama nominated to serve as a judge for the District Court of Maryland. Ms. Xinis, who is a partner in a renowned Baltimore law firm, has 13 years of experience as a Federal public defender. For 5 years she worked as the director of training for the Office of the Federal Public Defender in all of Maryland. The Judiciary Committee reported Ms. Xinis 7 months ago. Yet, for more than half a year, Senator Grassley has ignored her nomination. She is not alone. The Republican leader is delaying other qualified, consensus nominations. Edward Stanton was nominated to the Western District of Tennessee and is supported by Senator Alexander and, of course, Senator Corker. The committee reported his nomination in October. Robert Rossiter was nominated to the District of Nebraska and has the support of both of his home State Republican Senators. The committee reported his nomination in October. And there are two nominees to the Western District of Pennsylvania, Susan Paradise Baxter and Marilyn Jean Horan, who were recommended by Senators Casey and Toomey. But even though it was recommended by a Republican Senator, the committee reported the nominations in January but hasn't done anything since. There are many other nominees whom the Judiciary Committee is ignoring altogether--not even holding hearings. So why aren't Republican Senators pressing the Republican leader to do his job and schedule votes on these stalled nominations? Why isn't the Judiciary Committee doing their part to get these judges confirmed? Why isn't the chairman of the committee doing his part? This is the same Senator Grassley who in 2008 said this: We should get our job done and confirm these nominees because that is what it takes for the judicial branch to get their work done. The judiciary needs to have the personnel to get their job done. So let's do what Senator Grassley said a few years ago. Let's get the job done. From the Supreme Court down to the district courts, let's get the job done for our Nation's judiciary.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, last Thursday a Gallup and Healthways survey revealed more good news about the ever-shrinking rate of uninsured Americans. Because of the Affordable Care Act, 91 percent of American adults now have health insurance. ObamaCare has been especially helpful to working Americans. For adults making less than $36,000, the uninsured rate has been cut by one-third. Ninety-two percent of Americans making between $36,000 and $90,000 a year now have health insurance. Every day more and more people who were previously without health insurance are now covered. That is especially true across racial and ethnic lines, where the uninsured rate is plummeting. According to this survey, ``across key subgroups, blacks and Hispanics have experienced the largest declines in their uninsured rates since the fourth quarter of 2013.'' The numbers really bear that out. The uninsured rate for African- Americans has dropped by more than 50 percent, and the uninsured rate for Hispanics has dropped by more than 25 percent. These are the facts. All across the Nation, our constituents are getting the health care coverage they were promised when Congress passed the Affordable Care Act. So I think it is time for our Republican colleagues to stop denying the evidence. The evidence is that ObamaCare is working for the American people. Mr. President, I see no one on the floor. I ask the Chair to announce the business for the remainder of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am gratified that the Presiding Officer today is from the State of Nevada--my friend, the junior Senator from Nevada. When I think of home, I think of the desert, and you can't talk about Nevada as a desert only, even though the vast majority of the State of Nevada is a very arid place. Nevada also has beautiful Sierra Nevada--the Ruby Mountains. We are the most mountainous State in the Union except for Alaska. We have 314 separate mountain ranges. We have 32 mountains over 11,000 feet high. We have one mountain that we share with California that is almost 14,000 feet high. It is a beautiful State, but today I am going to focus on some of those arid places--the place where I was born and raised. Having been back here such a long time--37 years--I often think of the blue skies in Nevada. They hover over a beautiful canvas. No one can paint a picture as beautiful as these mountains, which are in the middle of the desert, Joshua trees, or sagebrush. It is that beauty that is drawing thousands of visitors to Nevada and Nevada's wilderness every year. Yesterday, the Reno Gazette-Journal had a tremendous article that reported just how important this quiet recreational industry is to our country. They said: The big time solitude found in the big empty spaces of the western U.S. generates big money for regional economies. That's according to a study that attempts to put a dollar value on ``quiet recreation'' on Bureau of Land Management property. That is an editorial comment by me: ``quiet recreation.'' People are now biking, packing, and camping. Quiet is what is referred to as when there are no motorized vehicles. To continue the quote: It found that sports like hiking and mountain biking on BLM land generated more than $1.8 billion in spending in 2014, that's roughly equivalent to two months of gambling revenue in Las Vegas casinos. Our public lands are jewels that we must protect. To its credit, the Bureau of Land Management--when I was first elected here, the BLM was the hiss and cry of government. They were on par with the Internal Revenue Service. No one liked them, but now they are admired. They have done a remarkably good job in taking care of public lands. As I said, to their credit, the BLM and their dedicated employees do a remarkable job in safeguarding these national treasures so that all Americans can enjoy them. John Sterling, the executive director of The Conservation Alliance, told the Reno Gazette-Journal: The BLM is the final frontier for a primitive experience on our public lands. They represent the future of outdoor recreation. Unfortunately, there is a growing threat to these public lands and to the Americans who protect and preserve those areas. Most Americans are familiar with what happened earlier this year in Oregon when the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in southeastern Oregon was taken over when a dangerous group of militants staged an armed takeover of the refuge. They came with their canvas shirts, camouflaged pants, guns, assault rifles, and pistols that were obvious. They had their all- terrain vehicles and set out to take over this Federal property, and they did. They damaged it to the tune of about--we don't know for sure--$20 million. They defecated on some of the ruins and different facilities. They stopped the Indians from being able to do their annual fishing. I am sorry to say this particular episode of domestic terrorism has roots in Nevada. Ammon and Ryan Bundy--who are now in jail, which is where they should be--are the sons of Cliven Bundy. They were two of the participants in the unlawful takeover. Cliven Bundy is, of course, a Nevadan and has been breaking Federal laws for decades. I have been disappointed that some of my colleagues have supported this outrageous lawbreaker. Teddy Roosevelt created the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. This radical President, Theodore Roosevelt--and I say that sarcastically because he was, in fact, a great President--created the refuge in 1908. Roosevelt used the tools at his disposal as President of this great country, including the Antiquities Act, in order to protect our national heritage so that generations of Americans could enjoy it, as they have for more than 100 years in Oregon. Congress created the Antiquities Act to empower the President to protect our cultural, historic, and natural resources when and where Congress cannot--or will not. These cultural resources are stunning. For more than 100 years Presidents have done just what Theodore Roosevelt did. Our current national parks were created using this authority--not all of them, but some of them. In fact, 16 Presidents--8 Democrats and 8 Republicans--have used this authority to protect lands for the benefit of the American people. The younger George Bush used the Antiquities Act. Republican Presidents have been doing this a lot, but unfortunately many Senate Republicans want to undermine this act. They refuse to defend our cultural and historic antiquities that are being systematically destroyed. That is why the Antiquities Act was created-- to safeguard against these threats in the absence of congressional action. Take, for example, a stunningly beautiful place called Gold Butte, the area where Cliven Bundy illegally grazed his cattle for decades. It is a stunning landscape. Is this worth protecting? This chart shows the beautiful landscape. Look at it. This picture is not doctored up; that is the way it is. The sky isn't as blue as I have seen it so many times. We don't get a lot of clouds in Nevada, especially in this part of Nevada. We don't get many storm clouds. It doesn't happen often, but this is part of the greatness of Nevada. Look at that. Is that worth preserving? Of course it is. This State has such magnificent areas. There are sandstone formations just like these petroglyphs, which date back thousands of years. Take a look at this. This is a picture of petroglyphs. These Indian writings and drawings are centuries old. They are in an area we want to protect--Gold Butte. Look at that. The picture shows panel after panel of this magnificent part of history. But because of the trouble caused by the Bundys and their pals, the Federal employees have been prevented from doing their job of safeguarding these antiquities. About 19 of the vandals have been indicted. Most of them are still in jail where they belong. These employees have been under constant physical and mental threat for doing what the American people have asked them to do--that is their job. Petroglyphs are being destroyed, drawn over, shot at, and stolen. This is an example of one panel they have destroyed. Look at what they have done. We can see that there are bullet holes. There is graffiti all over these beautiful Indian writings. These are not bricks that have been put in place. This is the way that nature has created this land, and they are destroying it. Look at what they have done. They have also cut pieces out of this and hauled them away. It is a crime, but they are criminals. They don't mind doing it, and that is what they do. What a shame. This is only one example, and it is right here in the middle of the picture. It was, frankly, a vulgar drawing. They knew what they were drawing. They were telling everybody how they felt about this antiquity. We can see the bullet holes here. They used it for target practice. The final picture I will show is the damage that was done to the Joshua trees. I know a lot about Joshua trees because where I lived and had my home for many years--and I still own quite a bit of property in Searchlight--has one of the thickest Joshua tree forests in the world. These trees are stunning. They grow about two inches a year. They last for up to 150 years. People don't understand that these trees are so terrific. These trees have been brutalized by these criminals. They chopped this one down. One of my staffers said: Well, maybe they used it for firewood. Well, folks, have you ever tried to start a fire with cantaloupe? You can't burn this. I guess you can burn anything, but you will not stay warm. They are soft inside. It is not something you can burn. We don't know how old the tree in this picture was, but it was probably 80 or 100 years old. Look at that beautiful tree behind it. It is really unfortunate, but that is what they are doing. They are just destroying these beautiful trees. One of them who was part of the Oregon crowd had a brand. He went out branding everything with his brand. He stamped his brand on different things that should be protected. This is sad. I have tried to protect Gold Butte for a long time, and the reason we haven't been able to do anything up to this point is that the Bundy boys and their pals kept everybody off of that property, and that is why I am grateful for the Antiquities Act. Because of this legislation, the Bundys are in jail. I will reach out to the White House--and there is no guarantee we will get it done, that's for sure--to see if President Obama will protect this area. He has the authority, as any President does, to stop this sort of destruction and stop it now. Threats to our public lands are threats to our economy, our environment, and our culture. When we preserve our lands, we preserve America, and that is what we are trying to do: Preserve this beautiful place. I say again: Is this worth protecting and preserving? Of course it is. Mr. President, please announce the Senate business of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.

Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I agree with the Republican leader that it is important that we get the FAA bill done as soon as possible, but I would just have everyone reflect--when we were in the majority, we tried to bring up the FAA bill, and that went on for weeks and weeks, with unnecessary filibusters. The FAA came to a screeching halt. As we have said, if you are a responsible minority, you work to get things done. That is what we have done. We have worked hard with the majority to come up with an FAA bill we can support. So I hope everyone understands that obstruction doesn't work. We understand that. That is why we have tried to be as collegial as we can be on legislation. I just finished my ``Welcome to Washington'' this morning. A little boy asked me: How do you get things done? I said: Well, you know, things in Congress are done just like in life. I have had the good fortune in my time in public service, my time in Congress, to be able to have things with my name on them, bills that have passed, but I have never ever gotten something that I wanted--it was always a compromise. We always have had to compromise to get something passed. Frankly, that is the way life is. Life is a time where we work with people to try to get along to work things out. That is the way things used to be done here, but with the untoward obstruction during the Obama years, it has been difficult to get things done. So I agree that the FAA bill is something we need to pass. As I have said, we are constructively working with the Republicans--those on the other side of the aisle--to get things done.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, we can play around all we want with the Supreme Court and what the Constitution says or doesn't say, but we know that the Constitution says that the President shall--not may, but shall--nominate Supreme Court Justices. He has an obligation. He has to do that. The Constitution is also very affirmative: There has to be advice and consent. That is what we are instructed in the Constitution. It is a little strange how we can have from the Republicans advice and consent when the vast majority of the Republicans won't even meet with the man. They refuse to hold hearings and certainly to have a vote. So I don't know how anyone is reading the Constitution, but we need to do our job. We are not doing our job when we don't hold hearings and have a vote. We shouldn't be here talking about Supreme Court nominees being far left or far right or moderate. To show how off track this has gotten, 2 days ago the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the senior Senator from Iowa, gave a speech here. Guess who he was attacking. Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He said to the Chief Justice: Heal yourself. The Chief Justice. Is there anyone in the world--anyone in the United States, anyone in the legal field, anyone in the political field--who thinks he is some kind of crazy liberal, John Roberts, who worked on the court with Merrick Garland? They wrote opinions together. They agreed almost 90 percent of the time on their opinions. So it is really too bad that now we are here with a Supreme Court Justice--for the first time in the history of the country, because we are in the final year of a Presidency, we are not going to do anything. We are going to wait. In the meantime, justice will be delayed. We have already had a significant number of tied, 4-to-4 decisions by the Court, and, using the logic of the Republicans, this is going to go on for another 18 months. So it is unfortunate that this has turned into something that has never happened before. They go back and keep repeating: The Biden rule. The Biden rule. The Biden rule. The year he gave that speech--and he gave a speech at Georgetown University just a week ago saying: Read my speech. Read the whole thing. And what was the result of his action as chairman of the committee that year? He brought nominations to the floor even though they didn't get enough votes in the committee to be reported. The nominees lost in the Judiciary Committee, but Biden brought them here anyway. There was an op-ed written by one of my predecessors, former Democratic leader George Mitchell, a stunningly good Senator from Maine. He wrote that 2 days ago. It appeared in a Boston newspaper. He said that when Clarence Thomas came before the Senate, he had lost in the committee. He didn't get enough votes to be reported out of the committee. Biden reported him out anyway: Bring him to the floor. Let's have a debate. That is what Senator Mitchell talked about. We had a debate. And he had pressure. It wasn't tremendous, but he had pressure. People asked: Why don't you filibuster him? He said: I am not going to filibuster. Let's have a vote, and that is the way it used to be done. He had 52 votes. Could that have been stopped? Of course. Would the Court have been better? Observers can make the determination themselves as to whether we would be better off without Clarence Thomas on that Court. But the fact is he could have been stopped easily, and it wasn't done.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am here to defend Chief Justice John Roberts. I am here because he has been attacked, without cause, by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Yesterday afternoon the senior Senator from Iowa hit a new low in trying to justify his unprecedented obstruction of President Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Judge Merrick Garland. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee accused Chief Justice John Roberts of being ``part of the problem'' when it comes to the politicization of the Supreme Court. That is without any foundation. I don't agree with the Chief Justice on every opinion he has rendered, nor, frankly, do I agree with any of the other seven on opinions they have rendered. We have had some disagreements on a number of opinions they have authored and participated in. Again, I don't agree with the Chief Justice on many of the opinions he has written, but his observations about the Supreme Court confirmation process have obviously struck a nerve in the Republican caucus. Here is what happened. Days before the unfortunate death of Justice Scalia, before anyone could have anticipated the Supreme Court vacancy, Chief Justice Roberts made the commonsense assertion in a speech he gave that partisan politics hurt our Nation's highest Court. This is what he said: When you have a sharply political, divisive hearing process, it increases the danger that whoever comes out of it will be viewed in these terms. . . . It's natural for some member of the public to think you must be identified in a particular way as a result of that process. And that's just not how--we don't work as Democrats or Republicans. I think it's a very unfortunate perception the public might get from the confirmation process. I was a Member of the Senate when we had the hearings regarding Justice Roberts. He came from the same court on which Merrick Garland served. They served together, and they are friends. In the past, Justice Roberts has said many glowing things about Merrick Garland. But yesterday afternoon on this floor, the senior Senator from Iowa had the audacity to accuse Roberts of being part of the problem, even going so far as to tell the Chief Justice--listen to this one--``Physician, heal thyself.'' I say to the senior Senator from Iowa, Justice Roberts isn't the one who needs healing. What needs mending is the Judiciary Committee under his chairmanship, which he has annexed as a political arm of the Republican leader's office. Senator Grassley has sacrificed the historical independence of the Judiciary Committee to do the bidding of the tea party and obviously the Koch brothers. I have news for Senator Grassley: The American people don't think the process of nominating a Supreme Court Justice is political because the Supreme Court's rulings don't match expectations of the political right or the political left. I have confidence that these men and women who serve on the Court do the very best they can to rule on the law as they see it. The American people don't think it is political because the senior Senator from Iowa is refusing to give a fair hearing to a highly qualified nominee purely because he was nominated by a Democratic President. The American people think it is political when the Judiciary Committee and the Republicans on his committee meet behind closed doors and make pacts to blockade our Nation's judiciary, from the Supreme Court, to the circuit courts, to the district courts. I know that my friend, with whom I have served for decades in this body, is grasping for something, anything to get himself off the hook. President Harry Truman said, ``The buck stops here.'' Senator Grassley wants the buck to stop with anyone but himself. He has done more to politicize the process than any chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the history of this country. If the senior Senator from Iowa really wants to understand why Americans think the process of nominating Supreme Court Justices is so partisan, he should consider his own actions. He has only himself to blame for not doing his job. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, in the last 12 hours or so, the Republican leader and I have had some very productive discussions on the FAA bill and the associated tax title. Those discussions have been productive, as the Republican leader said, and so I say to all my Members, we are going to go ahead and support invoking cloture on this part of the bill. We are going to proceed to this legislation. We should know in a few hours how much of the postcloture time will have to be used. I hope not very much. I hope we can get right to offering amendments. As the Republican leader said, Senators Nelson and Thune will manage this bill and the committee did a good job. There are airport security measures in the bill. I think we need to do more, but what they did is certainly a step in the right direction, so there will be amendments dealing with airport security coming from our side. There could be some other amendments, but we will see. I do hope we can yield back whatever time is left on the motion to proceed to the bill. I hope we can do that no later than this afternoon.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I commend the administration for the rule issued with fiduciary duties on investments. These advisers on investments will do a better job for consumers because of this rule. This issue is so important that it is estimated that it will save consumers at least $17 billion a year--not over 10 years, but a year. So that is something that is very important. I hope people understand that.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday the assistant Republican leader made an interesting statement as he spoke to reporters just off the Senate floor. This is what he said and I quote: ``Even though this is an election year, it is no excuse for not getting the people's work done.'' We all agree. On this side of the aisle, we all agree. Even though this is an election year, it is no excuse for not getting the people's work done. I didn't write that for the Republican whip, but I couldn't have done any better had I tried to write it. That is why Senate Republicans should put aside election year politics and do their job regarding President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Garland, hopefully to be Justice Garland soon. And what is that job? As the Republican leader said a decade ago, and I quote: Our job is to react to the 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 through the history of the country. It's not our job to determine who ought to be picked. So says the senior Senator from Kentucky. By the Republican leader's own admission, our job is to carry out a respectful nomination process. That means hearings, and at the end of the process we must give the nominee an up-or-down vote. That is our job, and we should do it. Will the Chair announce what the Senate is going to be doing for the remainder of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, this side of the aisle also hopes that we can move through the FAA bill, which is important to get done. We just have to make sure we do it right. There are lots of things we need to do. I think that the bill coming from the committee, led by Senators Thune and Nelson, is a good, basic outline for us to proceed on this matter.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to follow up on a couple of statements that were made by my friend the Republican leader. Senator McConnell mentioned immigration. In the last Congress we worked very hard together in a bipartisan fashion to form a good, comprehensive immigration reform bill. We passed it, but due to the power of the tea partiers--or, as Speaker Boehner referred to them, ``the crazies''-- they didn't have a vote in the House. If they had voted on that legislation, it would have passed. Democrats would have voted for it, and there were enough Republicans who would have voted for it. That would have been a big vote out of there, but it didn't happen, so the President had to do something on immigration, and he laid the groundwork. He spoke at the State of the Union Address and basically said: Since you are not passing any legislation, I will have to use my Executive power in order to get things done. He then proceeded to prioritize what he wanted to do. He issued the order that was so important to boys and girls, called a deferred action, which allowed DREAMers to stay in the country, and that was the right thing to do. He also prioritized deportations by going after criminals, not families, and enforcing the law. He has done a very good job. I think it is also very important to note that the administrative actions the President has taken are nothing unique. We can go back to the days of Theodore Roosevelt, a good Republican President who did a lot of stuff administratively. On his remarks about getting involved in the fight again--I am paraphrasing what he said--that we have to get back to the interrogation we did before, we know that torture was quickly eliminated. That effort was led by a lot of people, not the least of whom was someone who has been tortured, a Member of the U.S. Senate, John McCain. He has spoken out very admirably, and as only he can, about how bad torture is. And the facts indicate that torture doesn't get any new information anyway; there are other ways to get that information.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Iowa, who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, came to the floor yesterday afternoon in an attempt to divert attention away from that committee and his failure to do his job. He is not doing his job as chairman of that committee. He hoped to do that by focusing on me for objecting to a bill that would expand the subpoena powers of certain government appointees called inspectors general, but his efforts failed. People weren't looking at me; they were looking at the work not done by the Judiciary Committee. I objected to that bill because that legislation was really a legislative overreach, just as my friend the senior Senator from Iowa continues his overreach by turning the Senate Judiciary Committee into, for example, a Benghazi committee--a narrowly partisan committee masquerading as an independent party. It is the same theory that had Secretary Clinton spending 11 or 12 hours before the committee during the course of 1 day. That hearing was a flop because of her assertiveness, her direct answering of questions, and her physical and emotional strength, standing and sitting during that time. My friend's tenure as Judiciary Committee chair has been reduced to one stunt after another. One of his stunts included demanding maternity leave records of one of Secretary Clinton's staffers. Another political stunt was blocking the confirmation of State Department Legal Adviser Brian Egan, and yet another political stunt was blocking the promotions list of career Foreign Service officers. And his latest political stunt is preventing the Senate from doing its constitutional duty in considering President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. So even though the senior Senator from Iowa hopes to divert attention away from this disappointment, that is his Republican Judiciary Committee, the people aren't easily fooled. The people of Iowa and the rest of the country certainly aren't buying Senator Grassley's political charades. This morning the Des Moines Register, the largest newspaper in Iowa, published another scathing editorial regarding Senator Grassley's unprecedented obstruction of the Supreme Court nominee. The editorial highlights the fact that because of the Supreme Court vacancy, the highest Court in the land is now stuck in a rut of 4-to-4 decisions--a stalemate. This is what the Des Moines Register editorial said, and I quote: Americans might need to get used to deadlocks, thanks to Senator Chuck Grassley. The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee seems just fine with stalemate. Now the senior Senator from Iowa may be content with gridlock in the Supreme Court, but the American people simply aren't. They are not content with the way the chairman continues to use one of the most prestigious, independent, and powerful committees to carry out political warfare. So maybe he should spend less time complaining about me and more time simply doing his job. Every day, more and more Senators are meeting with President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Chief Judge Merrick Garland, as well they should. According to the senior Senator from Utah, ``fulfilling that role [of advice and consent] requires us to evaluate a nominee's qualifications for the particular position for which she has been nominated.'' We know that was when they were looking at Sotomayor and Kagan, who are on the Court. That is why every Senator, using the same logic as my friend from Utah--Republican, Democratic--should meet with Judge Garland. This week he has a full slate of meetings scheduled with Senate Democrats. By the end of the week, every Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee will have met with President Obama's nominee. To date, 16 Republicans have either met with Judge Garland or indicated they are willing to do so in the future. Some even have meetings scheduled: Senators Ayotte, Boozman, Cassidy, Cochran, Collins, Flake, Grassley, Inhofe, Johnson, Kirk, Lankford, Murkowski, Portman, Risch, Rounds, and Toomey. These are all Republican Senators who have said publically that they are going to meet with him. I think that is a step in the right direction, and I think it really speaks volumes. Take for example Senator Inhofe and Senator Lankford. I am sure they have in their mind the outstanding work that Garland did when he was U.S. assistant attorney. He led the charge. No one questions his terrific, outstanding prosecution of that man who killed who knows how many people in Oklahoma with that bomb, for which, of course, eventually, he was given the death penalty. This is a good man. Judge Garland is a good man. In every court he goes to, Democrats and Republicans speak highly of him--Chief Justice Roberts, among others. So I was disappointed last week when some Republican Senators, such as Murkowski and Moran, abandoned their previous support for agreeing to consider Judge Garland's nomination. Senator Moran's backtracking is especially alarming because it appears to be the result of a multimillion dollar campaign urging the Senator to reverse his support for a hearing for Judge Garland. As has been reported by the Topeka Capital-Journal, Senator Moran's about-face came in response to a backlash from the Koch brothers. I quote directly from the article: On March 21, Moran told a small crowd in Cimarron, ``I have my job to do,'' and ``I think the process ought to go forward.'' Though he made it clear that Garland likely wouldn't be worthy of his vote, the comments indicated hearings should be held for the judge. But they went on to say more. Within a few days, Moran's comments sparked backlash from conservative groups. The Judicial Crisis Network announced it was putting the finishing touches on an advertising campaign bashing Moran, and the Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund said it was considering backing a primary challenger. U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, a fellow Kansas Republican, publicly called on Moran to reconsider, a rare criticism of Moran from a fellow member of the Kansas congressional delegation. The criticisms eventually reached bizarre heights when the Traditional Values Coalition compared Moran to Judas Iscariot. [The] chief counsel of the Judicial Crisis Network said Friday she was pleased to see Moran changed his mind. Well, I guess you could say he changed his mind. Moran was meeting with Garland and holding confirmation hearings until the Judicial Crisis Network and the tea party and the Koch brothers threatened him. It will surprise no one to learn that the Koch brothers and their dark money helped fund these radical organizations more than anybody else in the world. The Kochs are notorious for bullying anyone who stands in their way. There is, without any question, oligarchs in the land, the first ones I have known in America. They are the Koch brothers. If they are successful in the splurging of their vast wealth and accomplishing what they set out doing in this campaign, I feel very, very bad for our country. They will be talking about us the way they talk about Russia-- the oligarchy that is there. We are going to have one and the same. Now, we must not forget how the Koch brothers' minions tried to intimidate investigative journalist Jane Mayer because she dared to expose the Kochs' attempt to buy our democracy. Her book, called ``Dark Money,'' is on the New York Times bestseller list, and all over the country people are buying that book. Why? Because it is an insight into two brothers who are trying to buy America. Charles and David Koch used their fortune and their tremendous clout to force Senator Moran to back down from his position. Publically, I can't imagine how one of us, a Senator, could be forced to do that in the manner that he was. All of this is because the junior Senator from Kansas dared to meet with the Supreme Court nominee. He dared to suggest that Garland deserved a hearing. He dared to do his job. So is this now what the Republican Party has become--a party dictated by menace and intimidation? All you have to do is look at what is going on with the Republican Presidential nomination. That answers the question itself. Some 30 years ago, though, Senator Grassley said the Judiciary Committee ``has the obligation to build a record and to conduct the most in-depth inquiry that we can'' on Supreme Court nominees. Now the Republican leader, Charles Grassley, have twisted the arms of the Republican Judiciary Committee members, compelling them to sign a loyalty pledge and forcing them to refuse to consider the President's Supreme Court nominee. Regrettably, Senator Moran is just the latest Republican Senator who has allowed himself to be pushed around, to be intimidated by money. Instead of caving to the Republican leader and the Koch brothers, it is time for the Republican Senators to take a stand and do their job. I hope the remaining Republican Senators who said they will meet with him will go ahead and do so and will stand firm. I hope they will meet with Judge Garland and take the next step in the process--to hold confirmation hearings. As it was reported by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the average wait for the Supreme Court nominees, from nomination to hearing, has been 42 days. According to that timeline, Chairman Grassley and his committee should begin confirmation hearings for Judge Garland April 27. Last week, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the Republican leader and Chairman Grassley calling on them to abide by this traditional timeline and hold a hearing by the 27th. I am very proud of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee for doing this. That is what the American people want. They want Republicans to stop counting on the most extreme forces within their party and just do their job. That is all we are asking--as simple as that. Mr. President, will the Chair announce what the Senate is scheduled to do the rest of the day.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I understand why my friend the Republican leader is doing everything he can to shine a bright light on the Judiciary Committee. It is kind of hard to do that considering everything that is going on today. The bill that we will vote on at 5:30 p.m. would have passed with unanimous consent, and everybody knows that. We don't need to take up the Senate's time on a bill that would pass just like that. We are doing it because it focuses less attention on the inadequacy of the Judiciary Committee. The Defend Trade Secrets Act was easily reported out of committee. There were no problems. It was a bill on which everybody agreed. There may be some reasons for it, but I don't see why the Judiciary Committee should be given a few pats on the back. The problem is that the committee does not deserve any pats on the back at this stage. Judicial Nominations

Mr. REID. Mr. President, as U.S. Senators we have a constitutional obligation to consider nominees to important positions. That is one of our constitutional responsibilities. Judges play an essential role in our society, and we should give qualified nominees the fair shot they deserve. Sadly, the Republican Senate has refused to do its job. They have a new standard: Unless the judge-to-be passes the test on the National Rifle Association, as stated by the Republican leader on national TV, they can't vote for him. The Judiciary Committee has been hammered--and that is an understatement--day after day in the State of Iowa, the home State of the chairman of the committee. This is a headline from the largest newspaper in the State, the Des Moines Register: ``Grassley leads slowdown of judicial confirmations.'' Here is what this headline is all about: The Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee and its Chairman, Senator Grassley, have fallen far behind any comparable Senate in confirming judicial nominations. Reading directly from the Des Moines Register article: Even before the current controversy over consideration of a Supreme Court justice, action on federal court nominations has slowed markedly since U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley took control of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Since Republicans won a Senate majority in 2014, the number of President Obama's nominees winning confirmation to the bench has fallen compared with previous years and long-term averages, as have the number advancing out of Grassley's Judiciary Committee, according to data from the Congressional Research Service and the federal judiciary. The article also quotes Professor Sheldon Goldman, an expert on judicial confirmations from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He said: ``With Republicans taking over the Senate, the strategy has been to obstruct, delay and slow-walk these nominees at every stage of the process.'' Statistics from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service confirmed Professor Goldman's assertion. Under Chairman Grassley's leadership, the Judiciary Committee is grinding the nomination process to a halt. The number of judicial nominations confirmed in this Congress is the worst. To date, this Republican-controlled Senate has confirmed only 16 judicial nominations. That is one judge a month. Contrast that with the last years of George W. Bush's Presidency. We had a Democratic Senate and we had a Republican President. Then- Democratic Chair Leahy and his Senate colleagues confirmed 40 judges-- 40 confirmations compared to 16 under Chairman Grassley. The numbers speak for themselves. But to better understand the dysfunction of Senator Grassley's committee, we have to consider the slow pace at which he and Republicans are reporting judicial nominations. We have to go back more than six decades to find a Senate Judiciary Committee that was less productive than Chairman Grassley's committee is today. Republicans will doubtless claim that their committee has stopped working because it is the last year of Obama's Presidency. That is simply nonsense. In 1988--President Reagan's last year--the Senate Judiciary Committee reported circuit and district court nominations as late as October. The Senate considered President Reagan's, President Clinton's, and President George W. Bush's judicial nominations in the eighth year of their terms, and many other Presidents were treated the same way. The Republican leader is on the record advocating for the confirmation of judicial nominees in a President's last year in office. This is what the Republican leader said in July of 2008: ``Even with lameduck Presidents, there is a historical standard of fairness as to confirming judicial nominees, especially circuit court nominees.'' Those are the Republican leader's own words. Yet now he refuses to extend that ``historical standard of fairness'' to President Obama's nominees. Why are Republicans changing the rules for President Obama's nominees? Given that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee refused to attend to the judiciary, how is the Republican Committee spending its time? We know Chairman Grassley's committee is refusing to consider President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Chief Judge Merrick Garland. We know Chairman Grassley's committee is refusing to adequately report district and circuit court nominees. This much is clear: The Republican Judiciary Committee is not doing its job. Instead, the senior Senator from Iowa is taking his marching orders from the Republican leader and has instituted a blockade of judicial nominations at every level. The once proud and powerful Judiciary Committee, established hundreds of years ago, has become a mere shadow of its former self. He has turned the once powerful and independent Judiciary Committee into an extension of the Republican leader's office. This is the same gridlock the Republican leader has imposed upon the Senate for the last 8 years. Since his party assumed the majority in the Senate last January, the Republican leader's carefully orchestrated obstruction of judicial nominations has accelerated to historical levels and judicial emergencies have tripled. My friend--we have served together in the Senate for decades--can come to the floor all the time to speak about the success of the Senate. No matter how many times you say a falsehood, it is still false. Senator McConnell once declared himself the ``proud guardian of gridlock.'' Senator Grassley has become his most willing disciple. It is disappointing that the senior Senator from Iowa has surrendered his committee to the Republican leader. The lack of progress on judges should alarm Members of the Senate-- even Republican Senators. Take, for example, the nomination of a man by the name of Waverly Crenshaw, who was recommended by Senators Alexander and Corker to be a district judge in the Middle District of Tennessee. Mr. Crenshaw is a superb nominee who has broken barriers all of his life. He is currently a partner at a well-renowned law firm in Nashville where he became the first African-American partner in 1990. The senior Senator from Tennessee said that Mr. Crenshaw would be ``an excellent federal district judge.'' I agree. He was reported out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously in July of 2015--almost 10 months ago. The vacancy in the Middle District of Tennessee is a judicial emergency, meaning there are more cases than the judges on the court can handle. The junior Senator from Tennessee said: ``I know there is a tremendous load of work in the Nashville office that needs to get done, and we've talked a great deal with the other judges there and know this position needs to be confirmed.'' Last month, the Senators from Maryland asked to bring the Crenshaw nomination to a vote, but the assistant Republican leader objected. Both Senators brought this forward. The objection was the same. The senior Senator from Texas said it will lead to ``chaos'' to schedule a vote on Mr. Crenshaw. Chaos is exactly what the Republicans are bringing to the judiciary. From the Supreme Court, to the circuit courts, to the district courts, our entire judicial branch of government is under siege by this Republican Senate. After they have crippled the judiciary, the Republican leader and Chairman Grassley want to hand it over to Donald Trump. That would be disastrous. That is not what the American people want. They want Republicans to do their constitutional duty and give these judges due consideration. That is not asking too much. So I say to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee: Stop blocking these nominees. Do what other Judiciary chairs have done for 200 years and move the process forward. These nominations are important. Or, put simply, do your job. This--a historic slowdown of judicial confirmations--isn't your job, and it is not what the people of Iowa sent you here to do, as indicated by the Des Moines Register: ``Grassley leads slowdown of judicial confirmations.'' Mr. President, I see no one here wanting to speak. Would the Chair announce the business for the rest of the day.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend the Republican leader will be here shortly. I have something to do downtown, so I will have to leave. I certainly do not want to get ahead of him. I know he is going to say something because we have talked about Chief of Police Kim Dine, who has retired. I want to join with the Republican leader in recognizing the work of the U.S. Capitol Police Chief, Kim Dine. He spent his life in law enforcement. He spent his entire professional life serving and protecting the people of Washington, DC, and the entire metro area. He started as a young officer here in Washington 41 years ago and over the course of three decades has moved up the ranks of the Metropolitan Police Department, becoming assistant chief of police. In 2002, he was selected to serve as chief of police of Frederick, MD. He served the people of Maryland with distinction for 10 years. In 2012, our Sergeant at Arms asked Chief Dine to come back to Washington, this time as Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police Department. We are very fortunate that took place. Chief Dine helped oversee President Obama's 2013 inauguration, and since then it has been event after big event: four State of the Union Addresses, Memorial Day and Fourth of July concerts, and, of course, Pope Francis's historic visit here last year. During all of those proceedings, it was his obligation to protect the people who are visiting and to protect the people who work within this beautiful Capitol Complex. At every one of those events, Chief Dine and his department did a superb job protecting 30,000 people--Senators, Congressmen, and staff--who are in the Capitol Complex virtually every day. And that doesn't include the visitors who come here. So now, as the Chief embarks upon a well-deserved retirement, we thank him for his service. We thank his wife Robin and their two daughters for sharing their husband and father with us the past few years. I am sure this man was as taken care of at home as he has taken care of all of us in the metropolitan area. I hope his family takes satisfaction in the outstanding work he has rendered to the American people. I thank you very much, Chief. We wish you nothing but the best. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the third annual Cesar Chavez Day-Las Vegas Festival. Since 2013, the Las Vegas City Council, the Cesar Chavez Committee, and Councilmember Bob Coffin have organized this community festival in Las Vegas to honor the lasting legacy of civil rights activist and labor leader, Cesar Chavez. Cesar Chavez led a courageous and humble life. He was born on March 31, 1927, in a small farm outside of Yuma, AZ. His experiences as a laborer and migrant worker in the fields of the southwest United States encouraged his pilgrimage from Delano to Sacramento, CA. He brought attention to the workplace inequities experienced by those who tilled America's soil and harvested America's crops. Alongside Dolores Huerta, Larry Itliong, and United Farm Workers, Cesar Chavez fought tirelessly to raise salaries and improve the working conditions of farm workers. He organized migrant workers to raise awareness for the humane and fair treatment of all workers. Today Mr. Chavez's legacy inspires hope, action, and prosperity for those who are often burdened by marginalization and discrimination. His contributions will forever be embedded in the fabric of our country, and we owe gratitude to the indelible mark that Cesar Chavez has left on our Nation. Cesar Chavez dedicated his time to a life of purpose in bringing social justice and dignity to the workplace. As we commemorate his meaningful work and contributions, it is vital that we continue his legacy by fighting for higher wages, worker rights, and the fair treatment of all workers. I commend the Las Vegas City Council, the Cesar Chavez Committee, and Councilmember Bob Coffin for commemorating Cesar Chavez, and I join in honoring Mr. Chavez's visionary leadership.