The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“FILLING THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Senate section on pages S1064-S1065 on Feb. 29, 2016.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
FILLING THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY
Mr. REID. Madam President, ``History won't forget this misstep by Grassley,'' this poster says. ``History won't forget this misstep by Grassley.'' That is from the Burlington Hawk Eye, Iowa's oldest newspaper. That is what they said. It is the headline from the oldest newspaper, as I indicated--the Burlington Hawk Eye.
The misstep referenced here is the unprecedented statement by the senior Senator from Iowa and the Republican leader to deny the President the right to fill the current Supreme Court vacancy. The article ends with this declaration:
A few weeks back, when the longest-tenured U.S. Senator from Iowa passed a vote that gave him the record of most consecutive votes in the Senate, we lauded his service to us. We noted in casting votes on matters before the Senate, he was doing what Iowans elected him to do. We gave Grassley an attaboy for that. We take it back.
``We take it back.'' That is a blistering statement, a revealing statement, a substantive statement. ``We take it back.''
There is a lesson that Senator Grassley and my Republican colleagues should learn from this editorial. By refusing to give President Obama's Supreme Court nominee a meeting, a hearing or a vote, they are abandoning the oath of office they swore when they became Senators. This abdication of their constitutional responsibilities will epitomize their work as Senators. Whatever they may have accomplished during their careers will be secondary to their decision to place electoral politics over their job.
Remember that our job here is to vote. That is what we swore to do--
to follow the Constitution. And the Constitution couldn't be clearer on this issue. So the stakes should even be higher for Senator Grassley and the other Republican Senators. Why? Because as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley presides over one of the most important and prestigious committees in the entire Senate. This has been the case for 200 years--200 years.
The Senate Judiciary Committee was established 200 years ago. In 1816, it was one of the original 11 standing committees. Twenty decades have passed. That is how long the committee has been in operation. Throughout history, Judiciary Committee chairs have traditionally wielded immense power--from President Martin Van Buren, when he was in the Senate, to Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Arlen Specter, and Senator Joe Biden.
Judiciary Committee chairmen have historically prized their independence and guarded it at all costs from being manhandled for partisan purposes. It was so independent, in fact, that past chairmen have stood firm in the face of opposition from Presidents and Senate leadership.
At crucial times in American history, the Senate and the Nation have looked to the Judiciary Committee to do the right thing. During the Civil War, Chairman Lyman Trumbull of Illinois and his committee authored the Thirteenth Amendment. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery during the Civil War. We know that during that period of time there was great consternation as to what should be done. Even the great President Lincoln had trouble deciding what should be done during the early days of the Civil War.
In 1889, Chairman George Hoar of Massachusetts and his committee drafted the Sherman Antitrust Act, refusing to give in to the special interests of Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and the Rockefeller monopolies. That was big-time independence.
In 1937, Chairman Henry Ashurst from Arizona, who was born in Winnemucca, NV, led his committee in standing firm against President Franklin D. Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court. Chairman Ashurst was a Democrat, just like President Roosevelt. Yet Ashurst and his committee maintained their independence, even against the wishes of Senate Majority Leader Alben Barkley, a longtime Senator who became Vice President later. Imagine that. He was the Senate majority leader. He was from Kentucky. Imagine that Judiciary Committee chair standing up to a majority leader from Kentucky.
The accomplishments of these powerful chairmen and many others are the historic models against which the senior Senator from Iowa will be measured. If he keeps his current obstruction, history will not be kind to his tenure as chairman of the committee. As of today, the chairman has yielded his committee's long-held authority and independence to the Republican leader for the sole purpose of weakening President Obama, of weakening the Presidency of the United States, and obstructing the Senate's work.
The chairman has turned the impartial reputation of the Judiciary Committee into an extension of the Trump campaign. Just last month Chairman Grassley spoke at a rally for Donald Trump in Iowa. At that rally, the chairman said:
We've had this trend going this way, away from the basic principles that established our government. And so we have an opportunity, once again, to make America great again.
Before I close, let's remember what he said: ``We've had this trend going this way, away from the basic principles that established our government.''
My friend from Iowa would do well to look at his own committee as it trends away from--again, the quote, ``away from the basic principles that established our government.'' That is what the Senator from Iowa said at the Trump rally.
Even now, he and his committee are wasting millions in taxpayer dollars developing partisan opposition research on Secretary Clinton. It has been going on for many months, more than a year, including asking for maternity leave records for staffers and time sheets from her office--just basic staff people. For months, Senator Grassley blocked the confirmation of vital State Department officials, even career Foreign Service officers who are here, so we could give them a raise after their valiant service all around the world. He held that up, and people couldn't understand it. It had nothing to do with Secretary Clinton. He did it as a way to weaken the Presidency of President Obama. What he has done is damage U.S. diplomacy worldwide.
Election day is more than 8 months away, but it is affecting nearly every action taken by the Grassley Judiciary Committee. There is much more at stake than Senator Grassley's reputation. When the committee's independence is threatened by partisan politics, the future of this institution hangs in the balance, and when the Senate is undermined, our democracy is undermined. Future generations will suffer irreparably if the Senator from Iowa continues to do the bidding of the Republican leader and the Donald Trumps of the new Republican Party.
Senator Grassley and I have worked together for three decades. I served a couple terms in the House. Then I came here. My seat was way back there. When I gave my maiden speech, my first speech, I talked about the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, an idea I had in the House and I couldn't get past first base.
Presiding in the Senate that day was Senator David Pryor from Arkansas, who was chairman of the subcommittee on the Internal Revenue Service. Senator Grassley was also listening. They both contacted me. In fact, I received a note from Senator Pryor and a call from Senator Grassley saying: I like that legislation. I will work to help you. And they did, and we got that passed. So I have nothing personal against Senator Grassley. I like him. He helped me pass something that was landmark legislation as a brandnew freshman Senator, but today, as a U.S. Senator, I have a duty to speak when the Republican Senate refuses to follow its constitutional obligations to provide advice and consent on the President's Supreme Court nomination.
As a Senator, I have a duty to demand that the Judiciary Committee considers important judicial nominees, especially--especially--someone to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. As Senate Judiciary chair, the senior Senator from Iowa has a job to do. I repeat, my criticism is not personal. It is professional and it is substantive.
The senior Senator from Iowa outlined that job himself when he assumed the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. When he took over as chairman, he promised Republicans would ``restore the Senate to the deliberative body that the founders intended.'' Listen to that. That is what he said, to ``restore the Senate to the deliberative body that the founders intended.'' That is a quote.
Another quote. He said he took the responsibility of ``vetting of nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary very seriously.''
The senior Senator from Iowa is failing this commitment that he made to himself. He made it. He made the commitment to ``restore the Senate to the deliberative body that the founders intended.'' The Founders are the people who wrote the Constitution. He is the first chair of this important committee to take the unprecedented step of refusing to meet, conduct hearings or hold a vote on a Supreme Court nomination. He is following the Republican leader's call to refuse the President's nominee a meeting, a hearing or a vote. The senior Senator from Iowa, of all people, should know how important a vote is.
My friend has a lot of rollcall votes, 7,545 consecutive votes as of today, but what good are 7,500 consecutive votes if you simply sweep the votes you don't like to take under the rug? It taints this achievement. If he doesn't like President Obama's nominee, then he doesn't have to vote for the nominee, but don't run from a hard vote. Don't hide. What good is a chairmanship if it is just a rubberstamp for partisan politics? What good is a chairmanship if it is used to weaken the Senate and disrupt our Constitution's system of checks and balances? And that is what it does.
Last week the Des Moines Register published an open letter from one of Senator Grassley's former employees. It was stunning. He worked in the Senate. This man's words capture what is at stake:
The institution of the Senate has managed to perform its constitutional obligations for well over 200 years. Every single nominee for the Supreme Court that has not withdrawn from consideration has received a vote within 125 days. Today, I feel nothing but shame for the fact that my senator, my former friend, will be bringing that unbroken history to an end.
That was the headline last week in the Des Moines Register, Iowa's largest newspaper.
I hope the chairman of the Judiciary Committee doesn't continue down this path. It will not benefit him, his committee, the Senate, the State of Iowa or this great country. Instead, he should follow the examples of his predecessors and give President Obama's Supreme Court nominee a meeting, a hearing, and a vote. He simply should do his job. If he doesn't, history will never forget this unprecedented misstep. History will never forget this misstep by Senator Grassley.
I yield the floor.
Madam President, I ask the Chair to announce the business for the day.
____________________
