[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Page 2774]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   FILLING THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY

  Mr. REID. Madam President, from the Des Moines Register. Two former 
Lieutenant Governors of the State of Iowa--and I am sure the Acting 
President pro tempore knows both of them, one a Democrat and one a 
Republican--here is what they said, among other things: ``This isn't 
the Chuck Grassley we thought we knew.'' Again, I repeat, this is two 
Iowans, former Lieutenant Governors Joy Corning, a Republican, and 
Sally Pederson, a Democrat.
  Last week former Lieutenant Governors Corning and Pederson coauthored 
an op-ed in the Des Moines Register criticizing the senior Senator from 
Iowa for abdicating his constitutional duties by blocking consideration 
of President Obama's Supreme Court nomination. The op-ed reads, among 
other things:

       Iowans are known for being hard workers, and we appreciate 
     that quality in our elected officials. We wake up every day, 
     ready to do our part, and get the job done. We are also 
     politically astute, understand the U.S. Constitution, and 
     know when an elected official is more eager to find excuses 
     than create solutions. Unfortunately, Sen. Chuck Grassley is 
     refusing to do his job as described in Article 2 of our 
     Constitution, giving ``advice and consent'' on the 
     president's upcoming nomination to the Supreme Court.
       Grassley is threatening to use his powerful post as 
     chairman of the Judiciary Committee to block a hearing on any 
     nominee, regardless of how well qualified he or she is. His 
     recent column and public statements regarding the vacancy on 
     the Supreme Court are troubling and harmful to our courts. 
     Moreover, this isn't the Chuck Grassley we thought we knew.

  ``This isn't the Chuck Grassley we thought we knew.'' I agree with 
these Iowans. This isn't the Senator I have come to know over the last 
three decades. The Senator I knew would not cede the independence of 
the powerful Judiciary Committee he has served on for many decades to 
the Republican leader. The Senator I knew would not ignore his 
constitutional duties for the sake of election-year politics, but for 
whatever reason the Senator from Iowa made a fateful decision in the 
hours after Justice Antonin Scalia's death. He is allowing himself and 
his committee to be manipulated by the Republican leader for narrow, 
partisan warfare. He is taking his orders from the Republican leader 
and, sadly, Donald Trump. When asked about this issue, Donald Trump's 
words were three: delay, delay, delay. Senator Grassley must have been 
listening.
  The people of Iowa, without question, are displeased with their 
Senator. The Des Moines Register quoted one of Senator Grassley's 
disappointed supporters as follows:

       He seems to be doing what other people are saying, not what 
     he thinks is best. That has really colored my opinion of him 
     in the past week.

  Another Iowan who supports the Senator told the newspaper:

       I think he's making a bad mistake. . . . It's purely a 
     political party play, and there isn't any space for that in 
     this situation.

  Now, as each day passes, the senior Senator from Iowa is trying 
desperately to justify his blind loyalty to the Republican leader and 
to Donald Trump. Senator Grassley is grasping for a rationale--any 
rationale--that will excuse him for not doing his job. That desperation 
is now taking Senator Grassley down a very dark path.
  Last Thursday, the senior Senator from Iowa addressed the 
Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC, which took place here 
in Washington. In his speech to them, here is what Senator Grassley 
said: ``I feel it's about time that we have a national debate on the 
Supreme Court and how it fits in with our constitutional system of 
government.''
  The chairman of the Judiciary Committee is suggesting that we 
reevaluate the Founding Fathers' work, reevaluate the Constitution of 
the United States, and change the Constitution of the United States. 
Why is Senator Grassley debating what the Constitution makes clear? The 
Senate must provide its advice and consent on nominees appointed by the 
President to the Supreme Court. Think of the irony. Justice Scalia was 
a strict constitutionalist. Yet now, in the weeks following his death, 
Senator Grassley wants to throw out the Constitution just because 
President Obama gets to pick Scalia's replacement.
  The former Senator from Iowa Tom Harkin said it best yesterday. This 
appeared in the Des Moines Register: ``The position taken now by the 
majority leader and majority members of the Senate Judiciary Committee 
is simply astounding, and not in keeping with a `strict,' or even 
`loose,' construction of the Constitution.''
  The Constitution isn't some ball you pick up and take home just 
because you are still mad that Barack Obama is the President. If 
Senator Grassley and Republicans find themselves on the wrong side of 
the Constitution, it is their policies that should change, not our 
Nation's founding document, the Constitution of the United States. If 
Republicans are uncomfortable with not performing their duties, the 
answer isn't to take an eraser to the Constitution. No, we don't need 
to take an eraser to the Constitution. The answer is to do your job.
  If the Senator from Iowa wants to extricate himself from the 
situation he created, there is a way. All he needs to do is wrest back 
his chairmanship from the Republican leader and give President Obama's 
nominee a meeting, a hearing, and a vote. In short, he needs to do his 
job. It is that easy. No changes to the Constitution are required. If 
he does his job, the people in Iowa will not have reason to say: ``This 
isn't the Chuck Grassley we thought we knew.''

                          ____________________