Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COONS. Madam President, I rise today to join my Democratic colleagues on the floor in opposition to this Chamber's inability to do its job and fulfill our constitutional obligation by holding a public hearing and taking a vote on President Obama's nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As this body appears to apparently head home for the next month and a half, let me share yet another reason why it is so important that we put partisan politics aside and do our jobs. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have had the opportunity to travel to many other countries. Just this past June, I spent a week in South Africa to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Robert F. Kennedy's ``Ripples of Hope'' speech in Cape Town. Robert F. Kennedy, a former Senator himself, inspired the early, nascent anti-apartheid movement in South Africa with this uplifting and challenging speech.

Just earlier today, I had a chance to meet with a friend from South Africa with whom I connected on that trip. I had a reminder in our conversation--a reminder that what we do teaches, engages, and challenges much of the rest of the world. The United States and South Africa, although we are very different countries with different histories, are similar in important ways.

What struck me on this trip to South Africa back in June and in the months since has been some of our important similarities and our important current challenges. We share powerful foundational commitments to our original documents--to the Freedom Charter in South Africa and to our Declaration of Independence here--and to our respective constitutions. We have historically shared a strong respect for the rule of law. We share deep understanding of the importance of capable and independent judiciaries to preserving our multiparty democracy.

But, today in the United States, as in South Africa, divisiveness and dysfunction are beginning to genuinely challenge the institutions that protect our constitutional order. Here we need look no further than the matter that drives us to the floor today--the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court that is now approaching 200 days without any sign of promise or compromise from our Republican colleagues, without any expression of a willingness to do what has been done routinely for a century here.

On the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, we have not had a hearing, and we have not had a vote. I have heard no significant issues or questions raised about the qualifications of Chief Judge Garland.

Frankly, I don't think one could raise significant questions. This is one of the most seasoned, most experienced judges ever nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet no progress--no hope of progress--seems to be heard on our committee or here on the floor.

Even if we were to confirm Chief Judge Garland today, I think we need to realize that our inaction has already had a significant impact. All around the world, what the United States says and does sends a strong message. It matters what we say. It matters what we do. In this case, it matters deeply what we aren't doing.

This Chamber alone cannot heal a divided country with a single committee hearing. We cannot heal congressional dysfunction with just one vote, but these actions could serve as the first in a series of concrete steps to help repair the dysfunction and the division in our Senate. We should start by holding public hearings, by letting the people of the United States understand what, if any, questions or concerns there might be about this talented, capable, decent man, Judge Merrick Garland, who has been nominated to the Supreme Court, and then build on that momentum by giving timely, thorough consideration to the President's other nominees for judgeships across the country. With 89 judicial vacancies--with 89 current judicial vacancies--from district courts to courts of appeals, to the U.S. Supreme Court itself, our inaction doesn't just create uncertainty for those involved, it impairs our courts and actively harms our constitutional commitment to justice.

From Justice Marshall to Justice Warren, to Justice Scalia himself, the Supreme Court has been home to many icons of American jurisprudence, men and women whose work, writings, and reflections are known around the world, but as I suspect they might themselves have been the very first to remind us, nations don't endure because of unique or historic individuals, free nations endure because of institutions.

When it comes both to ensuring the proper functioning of our treasured American institutions and to ensuring its future independence and liberty, we are not doing our job. We are failing to fulfill our constitutional obligations and, in doing so, we are directly challenging the strength of our constitutional order.

We must not forget that everything we do here and everything we do not do here sends forth a message to the rest of the world, to those who we hope watch and imitate our democracy. This inaction is something I hope they do not imitate.

If we were to take action on Chief Judge Garland's nomination, we would have the opportunity not only to strengthen our own institutions but to return to setting a constructive and positive example for the rest of the free world. We must leave no doubt that our democratic institutions can handle all the challenges they face.
I urge all my colleagues to seriously consider the consequences of this tragic inaction, for nearly 200 days, to consider this able and qualified nominee.

With that, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source