Water Resources Development Act of 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the work of the Judiciary Committee and to make a short speech on the issue of the Affordable Care Act.

Earlier this week, the minority leader came to the floor to speak about the Supreme Court vacancy. He made personal insults and threats, as he tends to do. But political stunts and childish tantrums aside, the minority leader knows the American people deserve to have their voices heard on the future of the Supreme Court. We have made the decision that the next President will select the next Justice of the Supreme Court. We have done that because the next Justice will have a profound impact on issues that matter to all of us for decades to come, and we think the people should have a voice in that matter.

I spent the past several weeks meeting with Iowans across my State and discussing issues that concern them and what is on their minds looking forward to the election this fall. The vacancy on the Supreme Court created by the death of Justice Scalia came up time and again. At meeting after meeting during this summer, Iowans told me they appreciate the Senate's decision that the next President should nominate Justice Scalia's replacement. They understood that this nomination will affect the Court for years to come. For that reason, they want to have a voice in the matter, and we will give them that voice. That is the position the Judiciary Committee took after Justice Scalia's death. We wrote to Leader McConnell on February 23 to advise him that the next President should select the next Justice. We explained it this way:

The Presidential election is well underway. . . . The American people are presented with an exceedingly rare opportunity to decide, in a very real and concrete way, the direction the Court will take over the next generation. We believe The People should have this opportunity.

Our explanation is all the more true as we find ourselves just 2 months away from the Presidential election this fall. I remain convinced that we owe the people a chance to speak their minds on the Supreme Court during this election.

I have not been surprised to hear from my fellow Iowans that they want their voices heard on the issue, and the Senate's decision to give the people this opportunity is no surprise either. We are acting in the Senate's long tradition as a check on the President's power to nominate.

I would like to take as one example, because I have given several examples in other speeches--but go back to 1968. On June 26 of that Presidential election year, President Johnson announced his nomination of Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when Chief Justice Warren declared his intentions to retire. Abe Fortas, of course, was already an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and had been unanimously confirmed by the Senate just a few years earlier. But that confirmation didn't take place in an election year like 1968.

Within 24 hours of Justice Fortas's nomination to be Chief Justice, 19 Republican Senators issued the following statement: ``[T]he next Chief Justice should be selected . . . after the people have expressed themselves in the November elections.''

At the time, Democrats held the Senate, so these 19 Republican Members did not control the Judiciary Committee's proceedings on the floor. But those 19 Senators promised that if the issue was forced to a vote, they would ``vote against confirming any Supreme Court nominees by the incumbent President.''

These 19 Senators made this commitment immediately following the President's announcement of his intended nomination for the same reasons the Judiciary Committee has elected not to move forward the President's nomination of a successor to Justice Scalia.

Here is what Senator Howard Baker said, as one among those 19 Senators:

I have no questions concerning the legal capability of Justice Fortas . . . [but] there are, in my opinion, more important considerations at this time.

Then, to continue to quote Senator Baker:

The appointment of the Chief Justice really ought to be the prerogative of the new administration. . . . In my opinion, the judicial branch is not an isolated branch of Government. . . . It is and must be responsive to the sentiment of the people of the Nation.

Those are my thoughts exactly, and they are not just shared by Republicans. Recall of course that then-Chairman Biden said in 1992 that processing a Supreme Court nomination in an election year harms the nominee, the country, and the Senate. And he only spoke of coming together on a nominee in the next Congress with a new President.

I would finally like to address one more argument I have heard recently from those who support the President's nomination this election year. As we have drawn closer and closer to this Presidential election, they have tried to use the length of this vacancy as reason to move forward with this President's nomination. I have even heard some say that this is the longest Supreme Court vacancy ever. That is just plain false. I will list just a few examples.

Two vacancies to fill the seats of Justices Baldwin and Daniel lasted longer than 2 years in the 1800s. Six Supreme Court vacancies have lasted longer than a year, and two more have lasted nearly that long.

As this election draws closer by the day, the Judiciary Committee's position remains consistent. The next President will choose Justice Scalia's replacement.

Senators have made this choice before--like the 19 who declared during the 1968 election year that the next President should choose Justice Warren's replacement. They did so, just as then-Chairman Biden said, because that course was best for the country during a politically charged election year. The same thing is true this election year. The next President will select the next Supreme Court Justice. ObamaCare

Mr. President, I would like to say just a few words on the Affordable Care Act. I would like to give a direct quote from President Obama about ObamaCare: ``Too many Americans still strain to pay for their physician visits and prescriptions, cover their deductibles or pay their monthly insurance bill.''

I am glad that the President has finally heard that message. When I was having meetings in some of the 99 counties in Iowa this year, I heard plenty from families who felt duped by the promises of ObamaCare. Two families told me that their ObamaCare insurance premium was more than their house payment. Many said they did not know how they would continue to pay the premiums.

But President Obama says, in effect, ``Pay no attention to rising premiums,'' and then promises to give people subsidies. But 97 percent of Americans do not receive ObamaCare subsidies.

ObamaCare seems to be collapsing. Insurers are leaving the exchanges. There has been a lot of news on that lately. Premiums are increasing by double digits. In Iowa, some of those premiums increased as much as 28 percent, and I have heard a lot of States are much higher. Americans have fewer health care choices every day, despite the many promises that ObamaCare would improve just about every aspect of our health care system. Twenty percent of ObamaCare customers will be forced to find a new insurance company this fall. So much for the promise that was made in 2008 that ``if you like your [insurance], you can keep it.''

And it is official: You can no longer keep your doctor. So much for the promise of 2008 that ``if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.'' The Obama administration has now even erased all references on its Web site to the words ``keeping your doctor.'' The link to the web page that used to say ``how to keep your doctor'' now says ``how to pick a health plan.''

So ObamaCare seems to be collapsing. This comes as no surprise. ObamaCare has worked as well as piling 2 tons of fertilizer on a 1-ton truck, and of course any farmer can tell you, that just doesn't work very well for a long haul.

We could enact alternative reforms aimed at solving America's biggest health care problems. Good places to start would be cracking down on frivolous lawsuits, letting people purchase insurance across State lines, improving transparency in the health care pricing, giving States more freedom to improve Medicaid, using consumer choice to drive competition, which in turn drives down costs, and changing the Tax Code so that small businesses can provide affordable health insurance to their employees. That financial help is something that ObamaCare took away, and this is exactly what my legislation, S. 1697, the Small Business Healthcare Relief Act, will do to give those employers an opportunity to provide that help to their employees.

I have given only a partial list of policy changes so the American people can know that the failing ObamaCare program is not the only answer.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source