Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we just heard some very legitimate questions from the previous speaker that ought to be answered, and I am going to go back to the familiar to answer that--to the so-called Biden rules. By now everyone is pretty familiar with the Biden rules, so I am not going to take time to go over all of them again, but they boil down to a couple basic points. First, the President should exercise restraint and ``not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,'' or, stated differently, the President should let the people decide. But if the President chooses not to follow this model, but instead, as Chairman Biden said, ``goes the way of Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination,'' then the Senate shouldn't consider the nomination and shouldn't hold hearings. It doesn't matter, he said, ``how good a person is nominated by the President.'' So the historical record is pretty clear. But we haven't talked as much about one of the main reasons Chairman Biden was so adamant that the Senate shouldn't consider a Supreme Court nominee during a heated Presidential election. It is because of the tremendous damage such a hyperpolitical environment would cause the Court, the nominee, and the Nation. In short, if the Senate considered a Supreme Court nominee during a heated Presidential election campaign, the Court would become even more political than it already is. That is a big part of what was driving Chairman Biden in 1992 when he spoke these strong words. Here is how Chairman Biden described the problem in an interview--not the speech on the floor that I have quoted in the past--about a week before his famous speech of 1992: Can you imagine dropping a nominee . . . into that fight, into that cauldron in the middle of a Presidential year? He continued: I believe there would be no bounds of propriety that would be honored by either side. . . . The environment within which such a hearing would be held would be so supercharged and so prone to be able to be distorted. As a result, Chairman Biden concluded: Whomever the nominee was, good, bad or indifferent . . . would become a victim. My friend the Vice President--but a friend when he was in the Senate--then considered the tremendous damage that thrusting a Supreme Court nominee into a frenzied political environment would cause and weighed it against the potential impact of an eight-member Court for a short time. He concluded that the ``minor'' cost of the ``three or four cases'' that would be reargued were nothing compared to the damage a hyperpoliticized fight would have on ``the nominee, the President, the Senate, and the Nation, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President.'' The former chairman concluded that because of how badly such a situation would politicize the process, and based on the historical record, the only reasonable and fair approach--or as he said, the ``pragmatic'' approach--is to not consider a nominee during a Presidential election. He said. Once the political season is underway . . . action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution. He concluded: Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself. This, in part, is why Chairman Biden went to such lengths to explain the history of the bitter fights that occurred in Presidential years. He said: ``Some of our Nation's most bitter and heated confirmation fights have come in Presidential election years.'' I will state this about the discussion we are having today and will probably have every day for the next several months: Everyone knows that this nominee isn't going to get confirmed. Republicans know it, Democrats know it, the President knows it, and, can you believe it, even the press knows it. That is why the Washington Post called the President's future nominee a ``judicial kamikaze pilot,'' and the New York Times noted that the nominee would need an ``almost suicidal willingness to become the central player in a political fight that seems likely to end in failure.'' So the only question is, Why would the other side come to the floor to express outrage about not having a hearing? It is because they want to make this as political as possible. The press has already picked up on it. For instance, CNN reported that the other side hopes to use the fight over a Supreme Court nominee to ``energize the Democratic base.'' They are already using the Supreme Court and the eventual nominee as a political weapon. They want nothing more than to make the process as political as possible. That is why the President wants to push forward with a nominee who won't get confirmed. That is why the other side is clamoring for a hearing on a nominee everyone knows won't get confirmed. Making the Court even more political is absolutely the last thing the Supreme Court needs. The Court has been politicized enough already. A recent Gallup poll documents the frustration I hear expressed even at the grassroots of my State of Iowa. In the 6 years since President Obama has appointed two Justices, the American people's disapproval of the Supreme Court jumped from 28 percent disapproval in 2009 to 50 percent disapproval in 2015. That is what happens when Justices legislate from the bench. This Senator might say there is even a Republican nominee sitting on that bench that has legislated from the bench as well. That is what happens when Justices make decisions based on their personal political preferences or what is in their heart rather than what is in the Constitution and the law. The last thing we need is to further politicize that process and the Court. I just want to make sure that everyone understands what all of this outrage is really about. It is about making this process as political as possible. We aren't going to let that happen to the Court, the nominee or the Nation, to follow the suggestion of then-Senator Biden. We are going to have a debate--a national debate--between the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee about what kind of Justice the American people want on the Supreme Court. That is what the American people deserve, and that is why we are going to let the people decide. But beyond one Justice, there is an even more basic debate occurring. At my town meetings, often somebody will come in very outraged about why I won't impeach Supreme Court justices. They say: ``They're making law, instead of interpreting law. How come you put up with that?'' So we can have a debate between the Republican nominee and the Democrat nominee on what the constitutional role of the Court is. And we can have a debate about whether we want a Justice who expresses empathy and understanding of people's problems--the President's standard. As we all know, that is not the purpose of the judicial branch of government. That branch of government isn't supposed to let their personal feelings be involved whatsoever. And the President should not encourage the Justices he appoints to let their feelings decide cases. Their job is to look at what the law says, what the Constitution says, what the facts of the case are, and to make an impartial judgment. Consider a Justice appointed to the Supreme Court by a Republican president, who wrote that the Affordable Care Act didn't fit into what Congress could do in regards to regulating interstate commerce--because that reasoning could not be upheld under the Constitution. Instead, that Justice decided the Court could uphold the Act under the Congressional taxing power and found a way to sustain this President's legacy. It was also a Republican Justice who said: Find all kinds of ways to do what you want to do as opposed to what the Constitution requires or what Congress intends in legislation. It would be nice to have a debate between a Democratic nominee and a Republican nominee, whether we have two, three, or four national debates or whether they have hundreds of appearances around the country, to have these basic constitutional issues discussed. And then we should let the people decide not only who appoints the next Justice but who will decide the direction of the Supreme Court for generations to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I call up the Toomey amendment No. 3367.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased we are considering the bill before us entitled the ``Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act''-- acronym CARA--and that we are on the floor discussing this very important issue. Since I spoke about the bill earlier this week, I will not have any more opening remarks at this point. I look forward to a bipartisan process where we are able to consider many amendments and move this bill forward. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak in strong support of amendment No. 3362, offered by Senator Feinstein and me, the Transnational Drug Trafficking Act. This is a bill that she and I have worked on for many years. One of the many reasons for the ongoing heroin epidemic in this country is the increase in heroin supply on the streets of the United States. Mexican cartels are aggressively expanding into new territory here. And they are flooding our communities with cheap, pure heroin. Indeed, heroin seizures at the border have more than doubled since 2010. The U.S. Government estimates that Mexican heroin production jumped an incredible 62 percent from 2013 to 2014 alone. And the reality is that it isn't just heroin coming over the border. Between 2009 and 2014, U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported a 300 percent increase in methamphetamine seizures on the southwest border as well. This bill is a natural complement to CARA. We can't arrest our way out of this heroin epidemic. We can try to reduce the heroin supply on our streets by making it easier to target these cartels for prosecution. This is in part why Senator Feinstein and I introduced this legislation. Our bill would make it easier for the Department of Justice to prosecute cartels who harm our communities from abroad by trafficking heroin, other drugs, and precursor chemicals for ultimate delivery here. If this amendment is adopted, prosecutors would need to prove only that an international drug trafficker had reasonable cause to believe that the illegal drugs or chemicals he manufactured or distributed would be unlawfully imported into the United States, as opposed to knowing or specifically intending that result. This amendment passed the Senate by unanimous consent in October. It also passed the Senate unanimously the past two Congresses. But the House still hasn't taken it up. So I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment so we can send it to the House again, this time along with CARA. We need to attack the problem of opioid addiction from every angle, and this amendment should be part of a comprehensive approach.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes following this first vote in the series be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak in opposition to the Shaheen amendment No. 3345. Of course, the opioid crisis demands resources, and significant resources are being directed to it. But this amendment is political gamesmanship by some of my Democratic colleagues for whom the Senate's advancement of CARA doesn't fit their preferred political narrative. CARA is a bipartisan bill that addresses the clear and present public health crisis of heroin and prescription opioid abuse. Through the hard work of many on both sides of the aisle, it passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously. And just a few weeks later, we are considering it on the Senate floor. This is the Senate working in a constructive, bipartisan way on behalf of the American people, unlike the way it worked under Democrat control. But that is not a narrative some Democrats want the American people to hear. So a controversy must be manufactured to create a distraction. And the controversy that has been manufactured today is that CARA doesn't appropriate any funds for this crisis. CARA, of course, is an authorizing bill. It does many significant things that I talked about here on the floor earlier in the week. But it was never intended to appropriate funds. That is what we have the Appropriations Committee for. That is why we have an appropriations process. We should follow that process. In fact, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the fiscal year 2016 appropriations act passed in December provides more than $400 million in funding specifically to address the opioid epidemic. This is an increase of more than $100 million over the previous year. None of that money has even been spent yet--it is available today. So there is simply no reason to leap ahead of the fiscal year 2017 appropriations process. The reality is that this public health crisis festered while the Senate was in Democratic control for years. For example, heroin overdose deaths more than tripled from 2010 to 2014. And all the while, no emergency supplemental spending bill was brought to the floor specifically to address it. In fact, no authorization bill like CARA was brought to the floor either during those years. So I ask my colleagues to ignore this manufactured controversy. $400 million is available today to combat this crisis, an increase of $100 million. We should follow the appropriations process, which is just around the corner, where competing priorities and tradeoffs can be evaluated. That is the best way to ensure both that adequate resources are directed to this epidemic while at the same time maintaining fiscal discipline. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I call up Donnelly amendment No. 3374, as modified.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today Senators Schumer, Tillis and I will introduce legislation to help America's families locate missing loved ones who have Alzheimer's disease, autism or related conditions that may cause them to wander. Our bill would extend existing programs designed to assist in locating Alzheimer's disease and dementia patients. It also adds new support for people with autism. We have named the legislation in honor of two boys with autism who perished because their condition caused them to wander. One of these children, nine-year-old Kevin Curtis Wills, slipped into Iowa's Raccoon River near a park and tragically drowned in 2008. The other, 14-year- old Avonte Oquendo, wandered away from his school and drowned in New York City's East River several years ago. Theirs are not isolated cases. We have all read or heard the heartbreaking stories of families frantically trying to locate a missing loved one whose condition caused him or her to wander off. We have also seen benefits of notification systems to locate missing children and bring relief to families through community assistance. Our bill will use similar concepts and other technology to help locate people with Alzheimer's disease or other forms of dementia as well as children with autism spectrum disorders who may be prone to wander away from their families or caregivers. My home State of Iowa has the fifth highest Alzheimer's death rate in America, according to the Alzheimer's Association. As further noted by the Alzheimer's Association, which we consulted on this bill's development, as many as one in three seniors will die with a form of dementia. About 63,000 Iowans are living with Alzheimer's disease. In 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released information on the incidence of autism in this country. The CDC identified 1 in 68 children as having autism spectrum disorders. Experts tell us that, in Iowa alone, about 8,000 individuals have been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders, and we worked closely with the Autism Society of Iowa on the development of this bill. Because police often are the first people to respond when a child goes missing, the bill also will make resources available to equip first responders and other community officials with the training necessary to better prevent and respond to these cases. With better information sharing, communities can play a central role in reuniting these children with their families. Finally, the bill will ensure that grants from the U.S. Department of Justice also can be used by state and local law enforcement agencies and nonprofits for education and training programs to proactively prevent and locate missing individuals with these conditions. The grants will facilitate the development of training and emergency protocols for school personnel, supply first responders with additional information and resources, and make local tracking technology programs available for individuals who may wander from safety because of their condition. Grant funding may also be used to establish or enhance notification and communications systems for the recovery of missing children with autism. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have all heard accounts of innocent children being victimized and abused by predators. Today I will introduce legislation to extend two of the key programs that Congress established under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. With today's legislation, I hope to send a strong message to all Americans about Congress' continued commitment to keeping our Nation's children safe. Many of us here in the Senate worked very hard on the original version of the Adam Walsh Act, which is named for a six year-old who was tragically murdered in 1981. President George W. Bush signed that legislation on the 25th anniversary of Adam Walsh's abduction from a Florida shopping mall. I am pleased that Senators Hatch, Schumer, and Feinstein--who cosponsored the Senate version of that legislation when it was first introduced in the 109th Congress--have joined me as original cosponsors of today's legislation. John Walsh, the father of Adam Walsh, worked closely with us on the development of the 2006 Adam Walsh Act, and we worked with him on the development of today's legislation as well. Reauthorization of the Adam Walsh Act is a priority for him and has the support of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The Adam Walsh Act was enacted in response to multiple, notorious cases involving children who had been targeted by adult criminals, many of them repeat sex offenders. Its passage became a national priority after Congress discovered that criminals were taking advantage of gaps and loopholes in some States' laws to circumvent sex offender registration requirements--with tragic results for some of the nation's children. Who can forget Jetseta Gage--a beautiful 10-year-old girl from Cedar Rapids, Iowa who was sexually assaulted and murdered by a registered sex offender in 2005? As a cosponsor of the Senate version of the Adam Walsh Act, I championed the inclusion in the 2006 law of language imposing mandatory minimum penalties for those who murder, kidnap, or inflict serious bodily harm to children like Jetseta. Of course, the centerpiece of the Adam Walsh Act is the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, or SORNA. SORNA divides sex offenders into three categories, or tiers, depending on the seriousness of their crimes. It encourages States to set minimum criteria for the registration of sex offenders in each tier, with the aim of discouraging ``forum shopping'' by offenders who prey on children. The Adam Walsh Act also established several programs that are key to its successful implementation. One such program, known as SOMA, or the Sex Offender Management Assistance Program, makes federal grant resources available to states to offset the costs of Walsh Act implementation. Today's legislation would extend the authorization for that program, which expired 8 years ago. The federal government, through the U.S. Marshals Service, also supports States and localities in tracking down sex offenders who fail to register or re-register. Those fugitive apprehension activities were authorized under the 2006 Adam Walsh Act, and today's legislation would extend the authorization for those U.S. Marshals Service activities at $60 million annually for each of the next 2 years. Nothing can bring back Adam Walsh, Jetseta Gage, Dru Sjodin, Megan Kanka, or the other innocents for whom the Adam Walsh Act was passed. But it is important that we continue to not only honor their memories but also protect America's future children from harm by extending the key programs that were authorized under the original Adam Walsh Act. The authorization for these programs expired at least 7 years ago. According to the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are about a hundred thousand people convicted of sexual violence offenses in state prisons, and hundreds of thousands more who currently reside in neighborhoods across the United States. As a father of five and the grandfather of 9, I believe we should continue to make sex offender registration and notification a priority. Mr. President, July 27 of this year will mark the 35th anniversary of Adam Walsh's abduction. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of this important legislation before that date elapses.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have all heard accounts of innocent children being victimized and abused by predators. Today I will introduce legislation to extend two of the key programs that Congress established under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. With today's legislation, I hope to send a strong message to all Americans about Congress' continued commitment to keeping our Nation's children safe. Many of us here in the Senate worked very hard on the original version of the Adam Walsh Act, which is named for a six year-old who was tragically murdered in 1981. President George W. Bush signed that legislation on the 25th anniversary of Adam Walsh's abduction from a Florida shopping mall. I am pleased that Senators Hatch, Schumer, and Feinstein--who cosponsored the Senate version of that legislation when it was first introduced in the 109th Congress--have joined me as original cosponsors of today's legislation. John Walsh, the father of Adam Walsh, worked closely with us on the development of the 2006 Adam Walsh Act, and we worked with him on the development of today's legislation as well. Reauthorization of the Adam Walsh Act is a priority for him and has the support of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The Adam Walsh Act was enacted in response to multiple, notorious cases involving children who had been targeted by adult criminals, many of them repeat sex offenders. Its passage became a national priority after Congress discovered that criminals were taking advantage of gaps and loopholes in some States' laws to circumvent sex offender registration requirements--with tragic results for some of the nation's children. Who can forget Jetseta Gage--a beautiful 10-year-old girl from Cedar Rapids, Iowa who was sexually assaulted and murdered by a registered sex offender in 2005? As a cosponsor of the Senate version of the Adam Walsh Act, I championed the inclusion in the 2006 law of language imposing mandatory minimum penalties for those who murder, kidnap, or inflict serious bodily harm to children like Jetseta. Of course, the centerpiece of the Adam Walsh Act is the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, or SORNA. SORNA divides sex offenders into three categories, or tiers, depending on the seriousness of their crimes. It encourages States to set minimum criteria for the registration of sex offenders in each tier, with the aim of discouraging ``forum shopping'' by offenders who prey on children. The Adam Walsh Act also established several programs that are key to its successful implementation. One such program, known as SOMA, or the Sex Offender Management Assistance Program, makes federal grant resources available to states to offset the costs of Walsh Act implementation. Today's legislation would extend the authorization for that program, which expired 8 years ago. The federal government, through the U.S. Marshals Service, also supports States and localities in tracking down sex offenders who fail to register or re-register. Those fugitive apprehension activities were authorized under the 2006 Adam Walsh Act, and today's legislation would extend the authorization for those U.S. Marshals Service activities at $60 million annually for each of the next 2 years. Nothing can bring back Adam Walsh, Jetseta Gage, Dru Sjodin, Megan Kanka, or the other innocents for whom the Adam Walsh Act was passed. But it is important that we continue to not only honor their memories but also protect America's future children from harm by extending the key programs that were authorized under the original Adam Walsh Act. The authorization for these programs expired at least 7 years ago. According to the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are about a hundred thousand people convicted of sexual violence offenses in state prisons, and hundreds of thousands more who currently reside in neighborhoods across the United States. As a father of five and the grandfather of 9, I believe we should continue to make sex offender registration and notification a priority. Mr. President, July 27 of this year will mark the 35th anniversary of Adam Walsh's abduction. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of this important legislation before that date elapses.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today Senators Schumer, Tillis and I will introduce legislation to help America's families locate missing loved ones who have Alzheimer's disease, autism or related conditions that may cause them to wander. Our bill would extend existing programs designed to assist in locating Alzheimer's disease and dementia patients. It also adds new support for people with autism. We have named the legislation in honor of two boys with autism who perished because their condition caused them to wander. One of these children, nine-year-old Kevin Curtis Wills, slipped into Iowa's Raccoon River near a park and tragically drowned in 2008. The other, 14-year- old Avonte Oquendo, wandered away from his school and drowned in New York City's East River several years ago. Theirs are not isolated cases. We have all read or heard the heartbreaking stories of families frantically trying to locate a missing loved one whose condition caused him or her to wander off. We have also seen benefits of notification systems to locate missing children and bring relief to families through community assistance. Our bill will use similar concepts and other technology to help locate people with Alzheimer's disease or other forms of dementia as well as children with autism spectrum disorders who may be prone to wander away from their families or caregivers. My home State of Iowa has the fifth highest Alzheimer's death rate in America, according to the Alzheimer's Association. As further noted by the Alzheimer's Association, which we consulted on this bill's development, as many as one in three seniors will die with a form of dementia. About 63,000 Iowans are living with Alzheimer's disease. In 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released information on the incidence of autism in this country. The CDC identified 1 in 68 children as having autism spectrum disorders. Experts tell us that, in Iowa alone, about 8,000 individuals have been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders, and we worked closely with the Autism Society of Iowa on the development of this bill. Because police often are the first people to respond when a child goes missing, the bill also will make resources available to equip first responders and other community officials with the training necessary to better prevent and respond to these cases. With better information sharing, communities can play a central role in reuniting these children with their families. Finally, the bill will ensure that grants from the U.S. Department of Justice also can be used by state and local law enforcement agencies and nonprofits for education and training programs to proactively prevent and locate missing individuals with these conditions. The grants will facilitate the development of training and emergency protocols for school personnel, supply first responders with additional information and resources, and make local tracking technology programs available for individuals who may wander from safety because of their condition. Grant funding may also be used to establish or enhance notification and communications systems for the recovery of missing children with autism. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Well, Madam President, it is another day and another tantrum from the minority leader, but it doesn't matter how much the minority leader jumps up and down or how much the minority leader stomps his feet, we aren't going to let liberals get away with denying the American people an opportunity to be heard. Letting the American people decide this question is a reasonable approach, it is a fair approach, and it is the historical approach. It is the approach the other side advocated when the shoe was on the other foot, and it is what the American people deserve. They deserve an opportunity and responsibility that we do it right instead of rushing to judgment. Voters deserve the right to be heard. The American people want a reasonable justice, a person who will make the right decisions. As the American people continue voting during the Presidential election, they face a choice: Do they want just another Justice who will look to her heart and apply her own ethics and perspective when deciding important constitutional questions that impact every American or do they want a Justice who, like Justice Scalia, adheres to the Constitution and the rule of law and decides cases based on wherever the text takes him or her. We can't overstate how critical it is for the American people to understand what is at stake in this debate. Today take a little bit of time to discuss the impact that these two different visions would have on everyday Americans. Many leading Court observers believe that adding yet another liberal Justice to the Court whose decisions are unmoored from the constitutional text would lead to major changes in the Court's jurisprudence. As a recent New York Times article put it, adding another liberal to the Supreme Court ``would be the most consequential ideological shift on the Court . . . creating a liberal majority that would almost certainly reshape American law and American life.'' So it will impact all of us. According to the same article, a host of Supreme Court precedents on free speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the death penalty, and abortion would be overturned. The article speculates that ``abortion rights would become more secure, and gun rights less so. . . . First Amendment arguments in cases on campaign finance, public unions, and commercial speech would meet a more skeptical reception.'' In that same article, one law school dean noted that with another liberal on the Court, ``the judicial debate over the fundamental possibility of ObamaCare would likely draw to an end.'' So let's consider just a few of the Supreme Court precedents that would likely be overturned with another liberal Justice on the Court. First and foremost, it is our Second Amendment rights that would fall squarely within the liberals' sights. The Heller decision, authored by Justice Scalia, recognized, based on the intent of the Framers, that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual constitutional right to gun ownership. Again, as one law professor noted in the New York Times, with another liberal in the Court, ``The five would narrow Heller to the point of irrelevancy.'' Another said: ``If we got a fifth liberal on the court, the pendulum would swing pretty quickly on gun control. . . . I expect that we'd see a major shift in the kind of gun control laws that get approved by the court.'' In other words, Heller and the individual constitutional rights it guarantees would be turned into a relic. It would be an ornament without any practical limiting effect on the government's infringement upon the constitutional right of an individual to have gun ownership. Once this happens, all bets are off on the right to keep and bear arms. Next, the First Amendment right of the American people to make their voices heard would be drastically curtailed if the Court overturns Citizens United. In fact, as a University of Chicago Law School professor said in the New York Times, ``Citizens United is on every liberal's list of opinions that ought to go.'' Freedom of religion protections under the First Amendment wouldn't be far behind. Another liberal Justice could allow the government to force Americans to comply with laws that violate their deeply held religious views. For example, a new Justice could provide the fifth vote to overturn the Hobby Lobby decision, which recognized the right of the owners of a closely held corporation to resist laws on religious grounds, such as ObamaCare's contraception mandate. Of course, we all know free speech protections are being eroded and diluted in this country. On college campuses across the country, speech isn't being protected because of the speaker's viewpoint. Rather than debate openly with opponents as Justice Scalia did, too many people today want to shut down debate and muzzle anybody who disagrees with them. What other rights are at stake in this election? Incredibly important precedents under the First Amendment's establishment clause would be at risk. Of course, I am talking about Supreme Court cases allowing prayer at townhall meetings or permitting low-income parents to receive public school vouchers to defray the cost of the child's private school, including religious schools. Of course, while yet another liberal Justice could read narrowly the First and Second Amendments that are in the Constitution, he or she could read broadly those rights that are not in the Constitution at all. If yet another liberal is nominated to the Court, even reasonable restrictions on abortion enacted into law through the democratic process would be swept away. Just a few years ago the Court upheld the ban on partial birth abortion by a 5-to-4 vote in the case of Carhart. Partial birth abortion is a horrific practice that crushes an unborn baby's skull, killing it while its head is still in the womb. It is one very small step short of infanticide. If the American people elect a liberal during this Presidential election, and that President nominates another liberal to replace Justice Scalia, we can all expect a constitutional right to abortion on demand without limitation. In the words of one law professor, ``At-risk precedents run from campaign finance to commerce, from race to religion, and they include some signature Scalia projects, such as the Second Amendment. . . . Some would go quickly, like Citizens United, and some would go slower . . . but they'll go.''

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent for 4 more minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. That leads me to a broader point. There is more at stake than the results of any particular case as important as those cases are. The American people need to consider whether they want their next Justice to decide cases based on the text of the Constitution as it was understood at the time it was adopted or whether Justices are free to update the Constitution according to their own moral and political philosophies. Should Justices apply accepted legal principles through sound reasoning of new facts or should they do legal back flips to reach their desired public policy goals? Of course, this second approach is not law. Instead, it is what Justice Scalia called ``legalistic argle-bargle'' and ``jiggery- pokery.'' Justice Scalia knew the rule of law was a law of rules. The rule of law is not a law of whatever is in the Justice's heart. When a Justice believes, as President Obama does, that any time he views the Constitution as unclear, he can apply his own life experience and empathy for his or her favorite causes. The Justice has a clear incentive to think the Constitution is unclear, but a Justice isn't entitled to read those views into the Constitution and impose them on the American people. Our Constitution sets up a Republic, not a government by judiciary. Unless the Constitution specifically prohibits the democratic process from reflecting the will of the people, the decisions are made by elected individuals who are accountable to the voters. The Supreme Court plays a very important role in keeping the branches of the Federal Government within constitutional powers, keeping the Federal and State governments within their constitutional sphere, and it ensures the government complies with the Bill of Rights. That is the basis for its legitimacy. When the Court reads the Constitution in ways that reflect the Justice's personal policy views rather than the text, it does not act legitimately. Instead, it denies the people the legal right to govern themselves. Justice Scalia understood this better than anyone. The more the Court reaches out and grabs power it is not entitled to hold, the more it legislates from the bench, the more decisions it robs from the American people. As a direct result, step-by-step and inch-by-inch, liberty is lost. As John Adams observed, ``Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.'' Since the days of the Warren Court, this is what liberal Justices have done. Under the guise of constitutional interpretation, they have imposed liberalism on the American people. They have done it on issues and in ways they couldn't achieve through the ballot box. This is the decision facing the American people during this Presidential election. If the American people elect a liberal as their next President, and he or she nominates a like-minded judge to replace Justice Scalia, liberalism will be imposed on the American people to a degree this country has never before witnessed. I hope anyone who cares about these important issues will take very serious note. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, an historic epidemic of drug overdose deaths is gripping our country. Over 47,000 Americans died from overdoses in 2014, an alltime high. Incredibly, that is more deaths than resulted from either car crashes or gun violence. Addiction to opioids, primarily prescription pain killers and heroin, is driving this epidemic. It is destroying lives, families, and communities. It is a crisis. And it demands action. Thankfully, the Senate can act this week, when we consider S. 524, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA. CARA is a bipartisan bill authored by two Democrats and two Republicans--Senators Whitehouse, Portman, Klobuchar, and Ayotte. These Senators have shown extraordinary leadership on this issue. They deserve credit for crafting a bill that addresses many of the different aspects of this epidemic, through evidence-based solutions and best practices. This is a complex crisis that requires a multifaceted solution. Over the past few months, I have worked hard with the bill's authors to refine it and move it through the Judiciary Committee. I am proud to say that a few weeks ago it passed the committee on a voice vote, with no opposition. CARA is only the latest bipartisan legislative accomplishment by the Judiciary Committee this Congress. We have had 21 bills pass the Committee this Congress, all with bipartisan support. But there are a few major bills that stand out. Last April, the committee passed the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act unanimously, 19-0. The bill enhances penalties for human trafficking and equips law enforcement with new tools to target predators who traffic innocent young people. The bill passed the Senate 99-0 and was signed into law by the President. In October, the committee passed the landmark Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act with a strong 15-5 bipartisan vote. My bill would recalibrate prison sentences for certain drug offenders, target violent criminals, and grant judges greater discretion at sentencing for lower- level drug crimes. I am working hard to build additional support for the bill so that it can be taken up by the full Senate soon. Then in December, the committee passed my Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act, again without opposition. The bill will ensure that at-risk youth are fairly and effectively served by juvenile justice grant programs. Again, we are working hard to move this bill through the full Senate. The bipartisan reforms enacted by each of these bills address real problems that affect the lives of many people across the nation and in my home state of Iowa. I am proud of the work we have done so far--but there is a lot more to do. And that brings me back to the heroin and prescription drug epidemic. It isn't as bad in Iowa as it is in many areas of the country, but the eastern part of my State has been hit hard recently. The human cost of what is happening across so many of these communities is incalculable. Every life that is lost or changed forever by this epidemic is precious. Especially for many young people who fall victim to addiction early in their lives, there is so much human potential at stake. Many Iowans have heard the story of Kim Brown, a nurse from Davenport, and her son Andy. Andy was prescribed pain pills when he had surgery at age 14. Whether it was connected to abuse of those pain pills or not, he developed a drug problem as a teenager that he couldn't shake. He overdosed on heroin a few times but survived. And finally, at age 33, he died of an overdose, tragically leaving behind two young sons. Ms. Brown now speaks out around the State about the heroin epidemic. Her story reflects a larger pattern. Over the last 20 years or so, doctors have increasingly prescribed opioids to help their patients manage pain. For many, these medicines have been the answer to their prayers. But for others, they have led to a nightmare of addiction. According to numerous studies, prescription opioid addiction is a strong risk factor for heroin addiction. In some cases, those addicted to painkillers turn to heroin to get a similar high, because recently, it has become cheaper and more easily available. And as Ms. Brown's story reflects, this epidemic is a matter of life and death. In fact, nationally, heroin overdose deaths more than tripled from 2010 to 2014. But Iowans are fighting back. Last year, with the assistance of a new Federal grant, the U.S. Attorney's office and the Cedar Rapids Police Department formed the Eastern Iowa Heroin Initiative. This partnership is focused on stemming the tide of heroin abuse through enforcement, prevention and treatment. I have been invited to participate in a townhall with them to discuss the epidemic, and I plan to do so soon. When I do, I want to tell them that the Senate has acted on this crisis by passing CARA. CARA supports so many of the efforts to help stem the tide of addiction that are underway in Iowa and across the country. As its name reflects, the bill addresses the epidemic comprehensively, supporting prevention, education, treatment, recovery, and law enforcement. CARA starts with prevention and education. It authorizes awareness and education campaigns, so that the public understands the dangers of becoming addicted to prescription painkillers. It creates a national task force to develop best prescribing practices, so that doctors don't expose their patients to unnecessary risks of addiction. The bill encourages the use of prescription drug monitoring programs like Iowa's, which helps detect and deter ``doctor shopping'' behavior by addicts. And the bill authorizes an expansion of the Federal initiative that allows patients to safely dispose of old or unused medications, so that these drugs don't fall into the hands of young people, potentially leading to addiction. In fact, along with a few other committee members, I helped start this ``take back'' program in 2010 through the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act. It has been a highly successful effort. Since 2010, over 2,700 tons of drugs have been collected from medicine cabinets and disposed of safely. Iowa also has a similar ``take back'' program that's expanding rapidly. CARA also focuses on treatment and recovery. The bill authorizes programs to provide first responders with training to use Naloxone, a drug that can reverse the effects of an opioid overdose and directly save lives. Naloxone was used hundreds of times by first responders in Iowa in 2014. Importantly, the bill provides that a set portion of Naloxone funding go to rural areas, like much of Iowa that is being affected most acutely. This is critical when someone overdoses and isn't near a hospital. The bill also authorizes an expansion of Drug Free Communities Act grants to those areas that are most dramatically affected by the opioid epidemic. And it also authorizes funds for programs that encourage the use of medication assisted treatment, provide community-based support for those in recovery, and address the unique needs of pregnant and postpartum women who are addicted to opioids. Finally, the bill also bolsters law enforcement efforts as well. Amazingly, in 2007, only 8 percent of State and local law enforcement officials across the country identified heroin as the greatest drug threat in their area. But by 2015, that number rose to 38 percent, more than any other drug. So the bill reauthorizes Federal funding for State task forces that specifically address heroin trafficking. I am also pleased that I was able to include in the bill a reauthorization of the funding for the methamphetamine law enforcement task forces as well. I held a Judiciary Committee field hearing in Des Moines last fall about the ongoing meth problem across Iowa. And one thing the hearing made clear is that our friends in State law enforcement need all the help we can give them on that front, too. All in all, the bill authorizes about $78 million per year to address this crisis. It is no wonder that the bill is supported by a diverse range of stakeholders, including the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids, the National District Attorneys Association, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the National Association of Attorneys General, and so many organizations in the treatment and recovery communities. I urge my colleagues to support it this week, when the Senate has the opportunity to act to address this epidemic. We owe it to those, like Kim Brown, who have lost sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, coworkers and friends to act now. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of showing how one bureaucracy, the Corps of Engineers--and to some extent the EPA working with them--has already made farming very difficult and how, if the waters of the United States rule goes into effect, it can be much worse than even what I am going to be referring to. Now, I am going to quote word for word a farmer's problem from the Iowa Farm Bureau's Spokesman dated January 27, 2016, and then I am going to make some comments on it. For that reason, since I am told the next speaker is not going to come until 10:15, I ask unanimous consent to continue until that time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I start quoting, this is a story about a California farmer by the name of John Duarte, of Tehama County, CA. The title is ``One farmer's ordeal may signal agencies' actions under WOTUS.'' All John Duarte did was hire a guy to plow some grazing land so that he could raise wheat on 450 acres that his family had purchased in California's Tehama County, north of Sacramento. The land had been planted to wheat in the past. The wheat market was favorable and the farmer made sure to avoid some wet spots in the field, called vernal pools, which are considered wetlands. But that plowing, which disturbed only the top few inches of soil, unleashed a firestorm from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other regulators against the California Farm Bureau member. The regulators' actions stopped Duarte from raising wheat, tried to force him to pay millions of dollars to restore the wetlands in perpetuity--although there was no evidence of damage--and sparked lawsuits and counter-lawsuits. Duarte's experience could well turn out to be an example of how the agencies will treat farmers in Iowa and all over the country under the expansive Waters of the United States rule, according to Duarte, his attorneys and experts at the American Farm Bureau Federation. ``This really shows how these agency actions can play out on a specific family farm,'' Duarte said recently during a press conference at the American Farm Bureau Federation annual convention in Orlando. ``We aren't concerned about it because John Duarte is having a bad time with the feds. We are concerned because this is a very serious threat to farming as we know it in America.'' Although the EPA and other agencies continue to say to farmers that the WOTUS rule will not affect normal farming practices, such as plowing, Duarte's case shows that it will, said Tony Francois, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing Duarte. ``Anyone who is being told not to worry about the new WOTUS rule, they should be thinking about this case,'' Francois said. ``The very thing they are telling you not to worry about is what they are suing Duarte over--just plowing.'' Don Parish, [American Farm Bureau Federation] senior director of regulatory relations, said a big problem is the wide parameters that the agencies have placed in the WOTUS rule. He noted the rule is filled with vague language like adjacent waters and tributaries, which are difficult to clarify. As broad as possible. ``They want the Waters of the United States to be as broad as they can get it so it can be applied to every farm in the country,'' Parish said. Iowa Farm Bureau Federation and other organizations have worked hard to stop the WOTUS rule, which was imposed last year but has been temporarily suspended by court rulings. The rule was designed to revise the definition of what is considered a ``water of the United States'' and is subject to Federal regulations under the Clean Water Act. But instead of adding clarity, IFBF and others contend the rule has only added ambiguity, leaving farmers, like Duarte, facing the potential of delays, red tape and steep fines as they complete normal farm operations, such as fertilizing, applying crop protection chemicals or moving dirt to build conservation structures. Another problem, Duarte said, is that the agencies are piling the WOTUS law with other laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, to dictate how farmers use their own land or to keep them from farming it at all. ``They aren't just trying to micromanage farmers. They're trying to stop farmers,'' Duarte said. ``They're trying to turn our farmland into habitat preservation. They are simply trying to chase us off of our land.'' Duarte, who operates a successful nursery that raises grapevines and rootstock for nut trees, was first contacted by the Corps of Engineers in late 2012. In early 2013, the Corps sent a cease-and-desist letter to Duarte, ordering suspension of farming operations based on alleged violations of the CWA. The Corps did not notify the farmer of the allegations prior to issuing the letter or provide Duarte any opportunity to comment on the allegations. The agency, Duarte said, wrongly accused him of deep ripping the soil and destroying the wetlands in the field. However, he had only had the field chisel plowed and was careful to avoid the depressions or vernal pools. It's also important to note, Duarte said, that plowing is specifically allowed under the CWA. Congress specially added that provision to keep farmers from having to go through an onerous permitting process for doing fieldwork, he said. Deciding to Fight. That is a headline. Instead of capitulating to the Corps, Duarte decided to fight the case in court. His lawsuit was met by a countersuit from the U.S. Justice Department, seeking millions of dollars in penalties. The case is expected to go to trial in March. Meaning March right around the corner. The case, Duarte said, has raised some absurd charges by the agencies. At one point, the government experts claimed that the bottom of the plowed furrows were still wetlands, but the ridges of the furrow had been converted to upland, he said. In another, an agency official claimed that Duarte had no right to work the land because it had not been continuously planted to wheat. However, he said, the previous owner had stopped planting wheat because the prices were low. ``They said it was only exempt if it was part of an ongoing operation,'' Duarte said. ``There is no law that says farmers have to keep growing crop if there is a glut and prices are in the tank. But by the Corps thinking, if you don't plant wheat when it is unprofitable, you lose your right to ever grow it again.'' Duarte also noted that when federal inspectors came out to his farm, they used a backhoe to dig deep pits in the wetlands. ``If you do that, you can break through the impervious layer and damage the wetland, but it does not seem to be a problem if you are a government regulator.'' To date, his family has spent some $900,000 in legal fees. Let me say something parenthetically here. If we had to spend $900,000 in legal fees, the Grassleys might as well get out of farming. Now I want to go back to quoting, so I am going to start that paragraph over. To date, his family has spent some $900,000 in legal fees. That is separate from the work by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represents the clients it takes for free and is supported by foundations. It would have been easier, and cheaper, to comply with the wishes of federal agencies and given up use of the land. Many California farmers who found themselves in a similar situation have done just that, Duarte said. Another two-word headline: Banding together. However, it's important to stand and fight the agencies' attempt to bend the CWA, Endangered Species Act and other laws to take control of private lands. And it's important for farmers to band together with Farm Bureau and other groups that oppose the WOTUS rule. ``We are not against the Clean Water Act or the Endangered Species Act as they were intended,'' Duarte said. ``But this is not how those acts are supposed to be enforced. We are getting entangled in regulation, and the noose seems to be tighter every year.'' I said that I would comment after I read that. For people who may be just listening, I just read an article that ran on the front page of the Iowa Farm Bureau Spokesman. The problems illustrated by this article are all occurring under current law with regard to farmers wanting to make a living by planting wheat in their fields. In the case of Mr. Duarte, government regulations from the EPA and the Corps of Engineers are making his life miserable with the threats of millions of dollars of fines. As the article stated, regulators at one point tried to claim that ``the bottom of the plowed furious were still wetlands, but the ridges of the furrow had been converted to upland.'' That is ridiculous. The EPA is out of control. You might remember the fugitive dust rule of a few years ago. I don't think now they are trying to push it, but the EPA was going to rule that you had--when you are a farming operation, you have to keep the dust within your property lines. So I tried to explain to the EPA Director: Do you know that only God determines when the wind blows? When you are a farmer and your soybeans are at 13 percent moisture, you have about 2 or 3 days to save the whole crop and get it harvested. The farmer does not control the wind. The farmer does not control when the beans are dry, ready for harvest. When you combine soybeans, you have dust. There is no way you can keep that dust within your boundaries. But as Washington is an island surrounded by reality, you can see the fugitive dust rule does not meet a commonsense test, and you can see that what they are trying to do to Duarte does not reach a commonsense test. Again, referring to the newspaper article I just read, if the EPA and the Corps of Engineers are going around to farmers' fields making determinations about wetlands based on tillage practices under current law, imagine what they might do if this new waters of the United States rule goes into effect--now being held up by the courts. Just think how you would feel if your family farm had survived for decades, overcoming droughts, overcoming flooding, overcoming price declines--and you can name 10 other things that a farmer has no control over--and then you have to put up with this nonsense. However, one day a government regulator could show up at your farm and hit you with excessive fines, and the next thing you know, your family farm is being auctioned off. That may sound absurd, but that is the reality of threats posed by the EPA. Mr. Duarte's case is the proof. We have no shortage of assurances from the EPA Administrator that the plain language in the WOTUS rule will not be interpreted in a way that interferes with farmers. It is hard to take some assurances seriously when they are interpreting current law in such an aggressive way. We have to stop the WOTUS rule so the bureaucrats don't become even more powerful. The WOTUS rule is too vague and allows way too much room for regulators to make their own interpretations about jurisdiction. So we should all continue to fight against the WOTUS rule and all other actions the EPA is taking that are ridiculous actions against farmers. We have checks and balances in government. The Congress tried three times to stop the WOTUS rule. Senator Barrasso tried to pass legislation taking away the authority or modifying the authority. That got about 57 votes but not 60 votes, so that could not move forward. The junior Senator from Iowa, my friend Senator Ernst, got a congressional veto through, a resolution of disapproval, with 52 votes. It went to the President. He vetoed it. So we did not override it that way. Then, of course, we tried an amendment on the appropriations bill, but we could not get that into the appropriations bill before Christmas. So we have tried three things. But thank God the courts have held up WOTUS through the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. So temporarily, at least, waters of the United States can't move ahead. This brings back something that is very current right now: Why should we be concerned about who the next person on the Supreme Court is going to be? Because we have a President who said: I have a pen and a phone, and if Congress won't act, I will. This sort of executive action by the EPA and the Corps of Engineers is kind of an example of the WOTUS rules, kind of an example of what we get out of this President. The President packed the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which reviews these regulations, so they are going to have a friendly judge who says that whatever these bureaucrats do that may even be illegal or unconstitutional, they can get away with it. Then, if that goes to the Supreme Court--we had an example just recently, about 1 week or so before Scalia died--a 5-to-4 ruling holding up some other ridiculous EPA rules. Everybody wonders why everyone around here is saying they are concerned about who is going to be on the Supreme Court. It's because of these 5-to-4 decisions. We're concerned about the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system. The American people deserve to have their voices heard before the Court becomes drastically more liberal. I bet the Presiding Officer has people come to his town meetings, as I do, and say: Why don't you impeach those Justices, because they are making law, instead of interpreting law as the Constitution requires?'' Well, you can't impeach a Justice for that. But this does raise something very basic: What is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system? It hasn't been debated in Presidential elections for I don't know how long. There is a chance for this to be debated in the Presidential election and maybe lay out very clearly where Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders is coming from on one hand, or where our Republican nominee, whoever that is going to be, is coming from and what type of people they are going to put on the Court. I have about 30 seconds, and I will be done. We are presented with an opportunity, here. The American people have an opportunity to debate about the proper role for a Supreme Court Justice. The American people can decide whether they want another Justice who just decides cases based on what they feel in their ``heart,'' and who buys into this notion of a ``living Constitution,'' or whether they want a man or woman who believes the text means what it says on the Supreme Court. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, yesterday the minority leader came to the floor to disparage the work of the Senate Judiciary Committee and also disparage the work of the Senate as a whole. And, of course, as he does from time to time, he launched into a personal attack against me. Now, that is OK. I don't intend to return the favor. I love Senator Reid. I don't want to talk about the nuclear option and the tremendous damage that did to the Senate, not to mention the years and years that Democratic Senators had to endure his leadership without even being able to offer an amendment. There is at least one Democratic Senator, who was defeated in the last election, who never got a chance to get a vote on an amendment during the entire 6 years he was in the Senate. We all know that is how some people act when they don't get their own way, but childish tantrums are not appropriate for the Senate. I think if my friend Senator Biden had been in the Chamber yesterday, he would have said--as we have heard him say so many times--``that is a bunch of malarkey.'' I didn't come to the floor today to talk about the minority leader. However, I did want to follow up on my remarks from earlier this week on the Biden rules. Now, in fairness, Senator Biden didn't just make these rules up out of thin air. His speech, back in 1992, went into great historical detail on the history and practice of vacancies in Presidential election years. He discussed how the Senate handled these vacancies and how Presidents have handled and should handle them. Based on that history and a dose of good common sense, Senator Biden laid out the rules that govern Supreme Court vacancies arising during a Presidential election year, and of course, he delivered his remarks when we had a divided government, as we have today, in 1992. Now, the Biden rules are very clear. My friend from Delaware did a wonderful job of laying out the history and providing many of the sound reasons for these Biden rules, and they boil down to a couple fundamental points. First, the President should exercise restraint and ``not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.'' As I said on Monday, President Lincoln is a pretty good role model for this practice. Stated differently, the President should let the people decide. But if the President chooses not to follow President Lincoln's model but instead, as Chairman Biden has said, ``goes the way of Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination,'' then the Senate shouldn't consider the nomination and shouldn't hold hearings. It doesn't matter ``how good a person is nominated by the President.'' Stated plainly, it is the principle, not the person, that matters. Now, as I said on Monday, Vice President Biden is an honorable man and he is loyal. Those of us who know him well know this is very true, so I wasn't surprised on Monday evening when he released a short statement defending his remarks and of course, as you might expect, defending the President's decision to press forward with a nominee. Under the Constitution, the President can do that. Like I predicted on Monday, Vice President Biden is a loyal No. 2, but the Vice President had the difficult task of explaining today why all the arguments he made so cogently in 1992 aren't really his view. It was a tough sell, and Vice President Biden did his best Monday evening, but I must say that I think Chairman Biden would view Vice President Biden's comments the same way he viewed the minority leader's comments yesterday. He would call it like he sees it and as we have so often heard him say: It is just a bunch of malarkey. Here is part of what Vice President Biden said on Monday. It is a fairly long quote. ``Some critics say that one excerpt of a speech is evidence that I do not support filling a Supreme Court vacancy during an election year. This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject. In the same speech critics are pointing to today, I urge the Senate and the White House to overcome partisan differences and work together to ensure the Court function as the Founding Fathers intended.'' That doesn't sound consistent with all of those Biden rules I shared with my colleagues on Monday. So we ask: Is it really possible to square Chairman Biden's 1992 election-year statement with Vice President Biden's 2016 election-year statement? Was Chairman Biden's 1992 statement really just all about greater cooperation between the Senate and the White House? When Chairman Biden said in 1992 that if a vacancy suddenly arises, ``action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over,'' was he simply calling for more cooperation? When he called for withholding consent ``no matter how good a person is nominated by the President,'' was he merely suggesting the President and the Senate work together a little bit more? When he said we shouldn't hold hearings under these circumstances--was that all about cooperation between the branches? Since we are talking about filling Justice Scalia's seat, it seems appropriate to ask: How would he solve this puzzle? I suppose he would start with the text. So let us begin there. In 1992, did Chairman Biden discuss cooperation between the branches? Yes, in fact, he did. So far, so good for Vice President Biden, but that can't be the end of the matter because that doesn't explain the two vastly different interpretations of the same statement. Let us look a little more closely at the text. Here is what Chairman Biden said about cooperation between the branches: ``Let me start with the nomination process and how the process might be changed in the next administration, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican.'' Remember, again, I emphasize that was during the 1992 election year. We didn't have to search very long to unearth textual evidence regarding the meaning of Chairman Biden's words in 1992. Yes, he shared some thoughts about how he believed the President and Senate might work together, but that cooperation was to occur ``in the next administration''--in other words, after the Presidential election of 1992, after the Senate withheld consent on any nominee ``no matter how good a person is nominated by the President.'' So the text is clear. If you need more evidence that this is an accurate understanding of what the Biden rules mean, look no further than a lengthy Washington Post article 1 week prior. In that interview he made his views quite clear. He said: ``If someone steps down, I would highly recommend the president not name someone, not send a name up.'' And what if the President does send someone up?--``If [the President] did send someone up, I would ask the Senate to seriously consider not having a hearing on that nominee.'' Specifically, my friend Chairman Biden said: ``Can you imagine dropping a nominee after the three or four or five decisions that are about to be made by the Supreme Court into that fight, into that cauldron in the middle of a presidential [election] year?'' Chairman Biden went on: ``I believe there would be no bounds of propriety that would be honored by either side. . . . The environment within which such a hearing would be held would be so supercharged and so prone to be able to be distorted.'' At the end of the day, the text of Chairman Biden's 1992 statement is very clear. So, in 2016, when he is serving as a loyal No. 2 to this President, Vice President Biden is forced to argue that the Biden rules secretly mean the exact opposite of what they say. Ironically, that is a trick Justice Scalia taught us all to recognize and to reject on sight. We know we should look to the clear meaning of his text, as Justice Scalia taught us. This was not a one-off comment by Senator Biden. It was a 20,000-word floor speech forcefully laying out a difficult and principled decision. It relied on historical precedent. It relied upon respect for democracy. It relied on respect for the integrity of the nomination process. There is no doubt what Senator Biden meant. Of course there is a broader point, and I hope in the next several months we concentrate on his broader point. That is this. Words have meaning. Text matters. Justice Scalia devoted his adult life to these first principles. Do the American people want to elect a President who will nominate a Justice in the mold of Scalia to replace him? Or do they want to elect a President Clinton or Sanders who will nominate a Justice who will move the Court in a drastically more liberal decision? Do they want a Justice who will look to the constitutional text when drilling down on the most difficult constitutional questions or do they want yet another Justice who, on those really tough cases, bases decisions on ``what is in the Judge's heart,'' as then-Senator Obama famously said. It comes down to this. We have lost one of our great jurists. It is up to the American people to decide whether we will preserve his legacy. More importantly, do you want a Justice who follows the text of the Constitution? Do you want a Justice who follows the text of the law? Or, do you want a Justice who makes decisions based on his or her ``heart''? This is a debate we should have. This is a debate I hope we will have. This is a debate I hope will be part of the three or four national presidential debates between Nominee Clinton or Sanders on one side, and whomever the Republicans nominate on the other side. The American people should have this debate. And then we should let the American people decide. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to Associate Justice Scalia of the Supreme Court. His recent death is a tremendous loss to the Court and the Nation. He was a defender of the Constitution. Since his death, a wide range of commentators--even many who disagreed with him on judicial philosophy--have hailed him as one of the greatest Supreme Court Justices in our history. Justice Scalia was a tireless defender of constitutional freedom. In so many cases when the Court was divided, he sided with litigants who raised claims under the Bill of Rights. This was a manifestation of his view that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the text and as it was originally understood. The Framers believed that the Constitution was adopted to protect individual liberty, and, of course, so did Justice Scalia. He was a strong believer in free speech and freedom of religion. He upheld many claims of constitutional rights by criminal defendants, including search and seizure, jury trials, and the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against them. Justice Scalia's memorable opinions also recognize the importance the Framers placed on the Constitution's checks and balances to safeguard individual liberty. Their preferred protection of freedom was not through litigation and the Court's imperfect after-the-fact redress for liberty deprived. Justice Scalia zealously protected the prerogatives of each branch of government and the division of powers between Federal and State authorities so that none would be so strong as to pose a danger to freedom. We are all saddened by the recent death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. I extend my sympathies to his family. His death is a great loss to the Nation. This is true for so many reasons. Justice Scalia changed legal discourse in this country. He focused legal argument on text and original understanding, rather than a judge's own views of changing times. He was a clear thinker. His judicial opinions and other writings were insightful, witty, and unmistakably his own. Even those who disagreed with him have acknowledged he was one of the greatest Justices ever to serve on the Supreme Court. Today I would like to address a common misconception about Justice Scalia, one that couldn't be further from the truth. Some press stories have made the astounding claim that Justice Scalia interpreted individual liberties narrowly. This is absolutely untrue. It's important to show how many times Justice Scalia was part of a 5- to-4 majority that upheld or even expanded individual rights. If someone other than Justice Scalia had served on the Court, individual liberty would have paid the price. The first time Justice Scalia played, such a pivotal role for liberty was in a Takings clause case under the Fifth Amendment. He ruled that when a State imposes a condition on a land use permit, the government must show a close connection between the impact of the construction and the permit condition. Even though I disagreed, he ruled that the First Amendment's Free Speech clause prohibits the States or the Federal Government from criminalizing burning of the flag. Congress cannot, he concluded, claim power under the Commerce clause to criminalize an individual's ownership of a firearm in a gun-free school zone. Justice Scalia was part of a five-member majority that held that under the Free Speech clause, a public university cannot refuse to allocate a share of student activity funds to religious publications when it provides funds to secular publications. He found the Tenth Amendment prohibits Congress from commandeering State and local officials to enforce Federal laws. The Court, in a 5-to-4 ruling including Justice Scalia, concluded that it didn't violate the First Amendment's Establishment of Religion clause for public school teachers to teach secular subjects in parochial schools, as long as there is no excessive entanglement between the State and the religious institution. Justice Scalia believed that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial requires certain sentencing factors be charged in the indictment and submitted to a jury for it to decide, rather than a judge. He concluded with four other Justices that the First Amendment's freedom of association allowed the Boy Scouts to exclude from its membership individuals who'd affect the ability of the group to advocate public or private views. Showing that original intent can't be lampooned for failing to take technological changes into account, Justice Scalia wrote the Court's majority opinion holding that under the Fourth Amendment, police can't use thermal imaging technology or other technology not otherwise available to the general public for surveillance of a person's house, even without physical entry, without a warrant. He decided that notwithstanding the Establishment clause, a broad class of low-income parents may receive public school vouchers to defray the costs of their children's attendance at private schools of their choice, including religious schools. He voted to strike down as a violation of the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial Federal and State sentencing guidelines that permit judges rather than juries to determine the facts permitting a sentence to be lengthened beyond what is otherwise permissible. Justice Scalia found placing the Ten Commandments on the Texas State House grounds doesn't violate the First Amendment's Establishment clause when the monument was considered in context, and conveyed a historical and social message rather than a religious one. He was part of a 5-to-4 Court that concluded the denial of a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to his counsel of choice, not only denial of counsel generally, automatically requires reversal of his conviction. He wrote for a 5- to-4 majority that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, in Federal enclaves such as Washington, DC. A later 5-to-4 decision applies this individual Second Amendment right against State interference as well. According to Justice Scalia and four other Justices, a warrantless search of an automobile of a person who has been put under arrest is permissible under the Fourth Amendment only if there is a continuing threat to officer safety, or there is a need to preserve evidence. Justice Scalia also voted that it is a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him for the prosecution to use a drug test report without the live testimony of the particular person who performed the test. He was part of a 5-to-4 majority that found that the First Amendment requires that corporations, including nonprofit corporations such as the Sierra Club and the National Rifle Association, are free to make unlimited independent campaign expenditures. And under the Free Exercise of Religion clause, according to Justice Scalia and four other Justices, a closely held corporation is exempt from a law that its owners religiously object to, such as ObamaCare's contraception mandate, if there is a less restrictive way to advance the law's interests. Think about the liberty lost, had Justice Scalia not served our Nation. A different Justice might have ruled against individual liberty in each of these cases. It is a frightening prospect. But in each instance, that is what four of Justice Scalia's colleagues would have done. Of course, these are only the 5-to-4 opinions. There were many others where Justice Scalia ruled in favor of constitutional liberty, and more than four other Justices joined him. And then there were other decisions where Justice Scalia voted to accept the claim of individual liberty, but a majority of the Court didn't. Some of those cases unquestionably should've come out the other way. When considering Justice Scalia's contribution to individual liberty, it's vital to consider his great insight that the Bill of Rights are not the most important part of the Constitution in protecting freedom. For him, as for the Framers of the Constitution, it is the structural provisions of the Constitution, the checks and balances and the separation of powers that are most protective of liberty. These were made part of the Constitution not as ends unto themselves, or as the basis to bring lawsuits after rights were threatened, but as ways to prevent government from encroaching on individual freedom in the first place. For instance, Justice Scalia protected the vertical separation of powers that is federalism. Federalism keeps decisions closer to the people but also ensures we have a unified nation. And it prevents a Federal government from overstepping its bounds in ways that threaten freedom. He also maintained the horizontal separation of powers through strong support of the checks and balances in the Constitution. He defended the power of Congress against Executive encroachment, such as in the recess appointments case. Justice Scalia protected the judiciary against legislative infringement of its powers. He defended the Executive against legislative usurpation as well. The best example, and the one that most directly shows the connection between the separation of powers and individual freedom, was his solo dissent to the Court's upholding of the Independent Counsel Act. Contrary to the overwhelming views of the public, the media, and politicians at the time, Justice Scalia correctly viewed that statute not as a wolf in sheep's clothing, but as an actual wolf. Dismissively rejected in 1988 by nearly all observers, his dissent understood that the creation of a prosecutor for the sole purpose of investigating individuals rather than crimes not only was a threat to the Executive's power to prosecute, but was destined to produce unfair prosecutions. It's now viewed as one of the most insightful, well-reasoned, farsighted, and greatest dissents in the Court's history. But his powerful and true arguments didn't convince a single colleague to join him. As important as his 5-to-4 rulings were, in so many ways, the difference between having Justice Scalia on the Court and not having him there, was what that meant for rigorous analysis of the law. Justice Scalia's role as a textualist and an originalist was vital to his voting so frequently in favor of constitutional liberties. He reached conclusions supported by law whether they were popular or not, and often whether he agreed with them or not. He opposed flag burning. And he didn't want to prevent the police from arresting dangerous criminals or make trials even more complicated and cumbersome. He acted in the highest traditions of the Constitution and our judiciary. We all owe him a debt of gratitude. And we all should give serious thought to the kind of judging that, like his, is necessary to preserve our freedoms and our constitutional order.