Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and our ranking member on the Judiciary Committee not only for his friendship and his articulateness but his great work on this issue.
Just as the President has a constitutional responsibility to name a nominee to the Court, the Senate has its constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on the nominee. It is our job. It is the job of this body and specifically the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on that nominee.
This chart says, ``America to Senate Republicans: Do your job.'' Today we might be saying, ``America to the Judiciary Committee: Do your job.'' The American people expect us to do our job in the Senate and in the committees and do what we are supposed to be doing.
As my colleague from Vermont has noted, the Judiciary Committee should be meeting right now at this moment, as we do every Thursday. This would have been the first opportunity for all members of this committee to debate in public the Republican chairman's unilateral decision to issue a blanket hold on an unnamed Supreme Court nominee. We hold Judiciary meetings on Thursday all the time while legislation is being debated on the floor. There were no votes scheduled. We meet every Thursday. We know why they are not meeting today. They are afraid to discuss the issue. They cannot win the argument that we shouldn't be doing our job in a public debate. They can't win the argument that the Judiciary Committee shouldn't be holding hearings. We had the meeting abruptly canceled at the last minute not because CARA is being debated on the floor--CARA is important--but because people didn't want to debate the issue of the Supreme Court. Let's face it; that is the truth.
We are not asking the Senate or the Judiciary Committee to be a rubber stamp.
I have one more point on the Judiciary Committee. We are asking our Republican colleagues to simply do their job. Hold this body and the Judiciary Committee in some regard. We can disagree on the politics, we can disagree on a nominee, but hold a hearing and hold a vote. That is what our constituents sent us here to do.
I will remind my dear friend from Iowa, and he is a dear friend, what his own Web site--the Judiciary Committee's Web site--says is its job. This was pointed out by Senator Durbin a few days ago, but I think it is worth repeating. This is a copy of the Web site of the Judiciary Committee. Here is part of what it says when it comes to nominations.
When a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court, the President of the United States is given the authority, under Article II of the United States Constitution, to nominate a person to fill the vacancy. The nomination is referred to the United States Senate, where the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing where the nominee provides testimony and responds to questions from members of the panel. Traditionally, the committee refers the nomination to the full Senate for a vote.
This is the Web page of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It does not say you hold a hearing when you want to. It does not say you hold a hearing when you like the nominee or only when your party has the Presidency. It says: ``The nomination is''--not may be; is--``referred to the United States Senate, where the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing where the nominee provides testimony and responds to questions from members of the panel.'' It doesn't say the Senate Judiciary Committee might hold a hearing or could at its whim hold a hearing. It says hold a hearing, no qualifiers.
We ought to be holding a hearing and we ought to be debating on whether to hold a hearing now in the Chamber of the Judiciary Committee on Thursday at 10 a.m., as we have done week after week after week when other important issues are being debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We can do both. We can move CARA--I admit it doesn't have the funding I would like to see there at this point--and we can meet in the Judiciary Committee.
I don't understand the decision by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who I believe holds the same reverence that I do and the same reverence that the ranking member and former chairman, the Senator from Vermont, does for its profound and historic standing in the Senate. I would like to hear directly from the chairman about the thinking behind his decision to unilaterally decide that this committee will have no voice, no ability to examine a nominee's record and qualifications.
Earlier this week, the chairman indicated that there are some members of his committee majority who might like to see us hold hearings. He said: As any chairman ought to do, I went to the members of my committee. They all agreed with me for different reasons, not just because I am chairman. Some had reluctance, but all signed.
The chairman indicated he would consider breaking ranks with his party leader by meeting the potential nominee, Eighth Circuit Court Judge Jane Kelly from his home State of Iowa. He was reluctant to issue the same across-the-board denial. I understand his reluctance. He is a good man. Chuck Grassley is a good man. He comes from the heartland of America and represents its finest values. I regret to say it, but I think politics are pulling him off course here, and I hope he will return because he is a good man and I understand the reluctance of Senators to sign that letter. Senators did not come to Washington to do that. The Senators know the folks out there want them to do their job.
Editorial boards across the country have castigated this policy of obstruction.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Almost every poll shows the majority of Americans favor action.
Mr. President, just one more point.
It is not right to do what the committee is doing, and I sincerely hope the chairman will reconsider his position. If Republicans truly respect the Constitution, they should follow it and consider a nomination from the sitting President rather than play political games.
I yield back to my dear friend, our outstanding leader on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, may I make a unanimous consent request?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask my colleague from North Carolina to yield for a question.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you. I appreciate the courtesy. I so understand what you are saying. A week ago, I held in my arms a father whose son had committed suicide while waiting for treatment, so I understand the importance of the bill we have before us.
I don't see why we can't do both things at once. The Senator from North Carolina has sat with me while we debated important bills on the floor and met in the Judiciary Committee, and all of a sudden, at the last minute, the rug is pulled out from under that meeting. It was scheduled. The CARA bill was scheduled to be debated, and we could meet in the Judiciary Committee.
I am sure my colleague will admit that the issue with the Supreme Court is important, too, just as CARA is. So could he explain to me why we couldn't do both--have our meeting in the Judiciary Committee and let those who want to be in the Judiciary Committee speak there and let those who want to speak on CARA speak here? No votes were scheduled. I am right about that, correct? So just explain how one delays the other.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. I seek to ask another question of my friend from North Carolina.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a question?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask my colleague, is it true that we have had debates in the committee in the committee room while important discussions have been carried on here in other instances? Is that true or false?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield for one more question?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
I would just ask you, our ranking member, haven't we been able in the past to hold meetings in the Judiciary Committee and debate bills on the floor?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. One more question to my colleague. Has the leader filed cloture, which would move this to a conclusion? As best to your knowledge, has the leader filed cloture? Because if he hasn't, we are not holding up anything.
Mr. President, I would suggest to my colleague from North Carolina that if he wants to move the bill quickly, he ought to go to the leader and say ``File cloture,'' not say ``Delay a meeting in the Judiciary Committee''; is that right?
Have you heard of the leader filing cloture yet?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source