Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 30 (Thursday, February 25, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 30 (Thursday, February 25, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1037-S1045]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

COMPREHENSIVE ADDICTION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2015--MOTION TO PROCEED

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 369,
S. 524.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 369, S. 524, a bill to
authorize the Attorney General to award grants to address the
national epidemics of prescription opioid abuse and heroin
use.

Cloture Motion

Mr. McCONNELL. I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 369, S. 524, a bill to authorize the
Attorney General to award grants to address the national
epidemics of prescription opioid abuse and heroin use.
Mitch McConnell, Daniel Coats, Dan Sullivan, Orrin G.
Hatch, Shelley Moore Capito, John Cornyn, Lindsey
Graham, Roy Blunt, Ron Johnson, Chuck Grassley, Rob
Portman, Susan M. Collins, Jeff Flake, Cory Gardner,
Lamar Alexander, John Barrasso, John McCain.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
mandatory quorum call under rule XXII be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S1038]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to called the roll.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Wasteful Spending

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am on the Senate floor for my 34th
edition of ``Waste of the Week.'' As you know, I do these speeches each
week to highlight waste, fraud, and abuse and simple ways that we can
save the taxpayers' dollars from being misused.
Last year, in my 18th ``Waste of the Week'' speech, I detailed an
investigation by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office that
discovered that fraudulent applications were being accepted by
healthcare.gov, the government Web site for choosing ObamaCare plans. I
discussed the waste, fraud, and abuse of ObamaCare subsidies that were
being awarded to fraudulent applicants.
As part of that investigation, the Government Accountability Office
investigators purposefully submitted 12 fraudulent applications. They
wanted to test the system. They wanted to see how well the system
worked. So they drew up 12 deliberately fraudulent applications just to
see what the response would be. They submitted them to healthcare.gov.
Eleven of them came back as approved. Only one application was called
out, where someone said, ``Wait a minute, we don't have the appropriate
information'' or ``we didn't do the fact-checking.'' But 11 apparently
weren't even fact-checked.
The Government Accountability Office said, ``I think this might be
the canary in the coal mine.'' This ought to be a signal that this
program is being abused; when 11 out of 12 applications come back with
a stamp for approval and the subsidies are given, you would think the
government would take notice of that and simply say, ``We have to get
ahold of this.''
After the investigation, after this was made public it ought to have
been embarrassing to the agencies that are handling this, the Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid disbursement. You would think they would jump
on this. If I were heading up this agency, if I had anything to do with
this at all, I would either fire someone or I would put reforms in
place to make sure this never happened again. You would think this
report would have spurred some kind of action.
But this week, the Government Accountability Office released a new
report detailing how the Obama administration continues to take--and
this is in their words--``take passive approach to dealing with the
potential fraud'' in the ObamaCare program. The GAO report outlines how
healthcare.gov is still plagued by serious operational problems that
lead to fraud and abuse. They found that in 2014, over 4 million
ObamaCare applicants received a total of $1.7 billion in taxpayer
subsidies despite these unresolved documentation errors. What this
means is that the healthcare.gov site is allowing people to sign up for
and receive ObamaCare benefits without proper verification.
When you have had a previous investigation that said that 11 out of
12--more than 90 percent--of the applications were stamped ``approved''
and subsidies were paid without verification or with faulty
verification, you would think by now they would have cleaned this up.
Hundreds of thousands of people have been able to get their ObamaCare
applications approved without having their eligibility verified. That
has become clear. As GAO investigators bluntly stated in the report,
healthcare.gov ``is at risk of granting eligibility to, and making
subsidy payments on behalf of, individuals who are ineligible to
enroll.''
The GAO said that one of the biggest problems with healthcare.gov is
that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, which is
responsible for the oversight and management of ObamaCare, did not
resolve Social Security number inconsistencies for thousands of
applications. When you submit your identity, you give your Social
Security number. It goes to CMS. They are supposed to check it to see
if it is a legitimate Social Security number, and if it isn't, they
obviously cannot or should not issue the subsidy and approve the
application. But, instead, CMS approved subsidized coverage without
verifying those numbers from the applicants. It potentially allows
access to subsidies by illegal immigrants or other ineligible
individuals.
So word gets around: Hey, you don't even need to put your Social
Security number on there or you can put a false Social Security number
on there, and you are going to get the subsidy.
This is how your government is spending your tax dollars. It is an
outrageous way, to pump up ObamaCare. And we keep hearing the White
House touting the fact that millions are signing up for this. Of course
they are. Millions are signing up for this because whether they are
eligible or not, they are getting a subsidy. Who wouldn't want to get a
check from the government every month? But it is done through fraud. It
is done through waste, and it is done through something that hasn't
been documented.
People have to realize that under ObamaCare, you have to be a citizen
or a legal resident, fall within a certain income range. Healthcare.gov
is supposed to verify all of this when you sign up. But the GAO found
that the program does not check new applications against existing
approved applications. The resulting failure is that millions of people
have been approved for benefits while using the same Social Security
number.
Here is another situation. Not only are people using false Social
Security numbers on the application and they are still getting
subsidies, but a lot of people are using the same Social Security
number. This is not the era of having mountains of paperwork stored in
warehouses around Washington, DC, because the agencies have been
flooded with paper applications; this is an age of computerizing and
digitizing all of this information. So all you have to do is push a
button to find out whether that is a legitimate Social Security number.
I mean, how hard is it?
To make matters worse, we have learned that in thousands of ObamaCare
applications, it wasn't even clear if the beneficiary was serving a
prison sentence. The law basically says you are not eligible for
Obamacare subsidies if you are serving a prison sentence. The GAO found
that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ignored many
opportunities for reducing ObamaCare fraud. Basically, it appears that
CMS is willing to look the other way. Maybe they were ordered to, maybe
they are just doing it, or maybe they are just purely incompetent. But
they are looking the other way as the President continues to tout the
benefits of this law.
If that isn't bad enough, GAO also found that CMS actually knew that
millions of applications were potentially fraudulent and still approved
the applications. I am not making this up. We have information provided
by the Government Accountability Office that the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services knew about these fraudulent practices, so they
couldn't plead ``Well, we didn't know this was happening'' or ``This
was a computer glitch'' or ``We are just so overwhelmed with paperwork
or applications that we can't handle it.'' They knew about it. They
knew it was happening, and yet they still haven't cleared the situation
up.
It really drives you up the wall--and it is no wonder the American
people are so unbelievably frustrated with this government and have
deemed that this government is simply wasting their tax dollars. It is
the biggest bureaucratic mess they have ever seen and they are paying
for it. Doesn't it just practically make you want to scream?
CMS told GAO ``that they currently do not plan to take any actions on
individuals with unresolved incarceration or Social Security number
inconsistencies.'' Does anybody find that outrageous? We know there is
a problem. We have documented there is a problem. But they currently
are not willing to undertake any kind of reforms or action to deal with
this problem.

To address this mess, I will introduce legislation that will mandate
CMS to recoup all improperly paid subsidies. I am going to continue to
press the agency to take action to enforce the existing requirements.
What does it take to get the Congress to take the steps to insist
that these agencies--entrusted with taxpayer

[[Page S1039]]

money carry out their programs and then not act in such a cavalier,
dismissive way--deal with this situation? What does it take?
I guess what it takes is what is happening in our election process
right now, and that is the example of the reason American people
saying: We have had enough and we are blazing mad, and we ought to tear
the place down and start all over. And this is all because this
behemoth of a dysfunctional government continues to rob the taxpayer of
its hard-earned money. Yet it is not providing job opportunities for
people, despite all the best efforts of this administration.
It kind of reminds me of back when Obamacare was being debated in the
House of Representatives and the then-Speaker of the House, a Democrat,
said: Well, we have to pass this bill so we can find out what is in it.
Well, Madam Speaker of the House of Representatives, we are finding out
not only what is in this bill, but we are also finding out we need an
efficient, effective government enforcement of this to ensure that
waste, fraud, and abuse is not occurring.
So once again, I am down here adding to the ever-growing amount of
money is been documented as waste, fraud, and abuse of. Today we stand
at $157 billion of documented waste, fraud, and abuse, and we are just
scratching the surface. I probably could come down here every hour of
every day the Senate is in session and point out another waste of
taxpayer money.
When are we going to step up to the plate and stop this charade that
is happening here? When are we going to deal with this problem? I am
urging my colleagues to support my efforts and other efforts to at
least address known documented problems of waste, fraud, and abuse.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Iran

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, tomorrow the people of Iran will go to the
polls to elect 285 members of the Iranian Parliament, or the Majlis,
and 88 members of the so-called Assembly of Experts, which is the body
that will eventually choose the successor to the current Supreme
Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Last December, Secretary of State John Kerry cautioned that having an
election does not of itself make a democracy, and I think his words are
equally fitting this week. Iran's elections, in truth, are neither free
nor fair. Iran is not a democracy. Power brokers in Iran have already
rigged these elections and even the results of a potential runoff in
April will not tell us much we don't already know about the Iranian
regime or its foreign policy objectives in the Middle East.
Some observers do hope that moderate voices will make some progress
in Iran, and I agree that is good to hope for, but I remain deeply
skeptical. In many ways tomorrow's elections are nothing more than a
rubberstamp because an unelected Guardian Council, which vets all
candidates for office, has already prevented most moderates from even
running.
Let me explain. Aspiring candidates for Iran's national Parliament
and the Assembly of Experts must be approved by the unelected Guardian
Council before they appear on a ballot. Unless they make it through a
multiweek vetting process and unless they are deemed sufficiently loyal
and conservative, these aspiring candidates will not get a chance to be
candidates at all. That is why the candidate list for tomorrow's
election has already told us more about Iran's intentions than the
election results will.
A willingness to allow reform-minded or moderate Iranians to stand
for election would have suggested some real hope for genuine reform for
real change in the Iranian regime. Sadly, the disqualification of both
female and reformist candidates indicates that Iran is instead doubling
down on its decision to avoid long-awaited and much needed democratic
reforms and instead will continue to isolate itself from broader
membership in the international community. Sixteen women applied to run
to serve on the Assembly of Experts. They were all prohibited from
running. Three thousand reform-minded candidates sought to run for the
Iranian Parliament, but only 1 percent of those 3,000 were approved.
Even Hassan Khomeini, the grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini, who founded
the Islamic Republic of Iran, was rejected as a candidate for being too
modern. These disqualifications reflect the regime's rejection of basic
democratic norms and serve as reminder of the urgency with which we
have to continue to scrutinize Iran's behavior.
Tomorrow's elections will not change Iran's aggressive behavior in
the region or transform the political power structure within the
Islamic Republic of Iran, which is still dominated by Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Despite what some may hope, the Supreme Leader
seems unwilling to allow even a modicum of dissent inside Iran. These
elections are likely nothing more than a guise to give the
international community the impression that Iranians have a real voice
in choosing their elected officials.
While we should hope for future moderation, we should expect the
status quo because at its core Iran remains a revolutionary regime that
supports terrorism as a central tool of its national foreign policy.
U.S. policymakers have to remain clear-eyed about that reality as we
seek to effectively and aggressively enforce the nuclear deal and push
back against Iranian aggression in the region.
I urge my colleagues, the administration, and the American people to
pay close attention not just to tomorrow's Iranian elections but to
Iran's actions in the weeks, months, and years to come.
I commend the administration for one action it took this week. It
indicted four individuals who violated previously existing U.S.
sanctions against Iran. This decision sends another important signal
that despite the nuclear deal, sanctions that remain on the books and
companies that violate them remain a significant barrier and that
companies should not rush to do business with Iran. Only by continuing
to enforce existing sanctions, only by continuing to hold Iran to its
commitments in the nuclear agreement, and only by pushing back against
Iran's support for terrorist proxies, its human rights abuses, and its
illegal ballistic missile tests will we demonstrate that we are serious
about holding the regime accountable for its actions. Only by viewing
Iran through the right lens--a lens of weariness and suspicion, not
trust--can we continue to protect our national security and the safety
of our regional allies, especially Israel.
A nuclear deal with a nation like Iran does not make that regime our
ally or friend and having an election does not make a democracy, but it
does make a statement.

Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

Mr. President, on Monday I had the privilege of serving as the first
Senator from the State of Delaware--the first State--to ever read
George Washington's Farewell Address on the Senate floor on February
22, the appointed day every year when we recognize Washington's
contributions to our country and its history by repeating his Farewell
Address on this floor.
In the more than two centuries since President Washington wrote and
delivered those words, I am struck by how relevant they still remain in
warning Americans of the dangers of partisanship, factionalism, and
division. Today the constitutional order for which President Washington
and so many of our Founding Fathers and so many Americans risked and
dedicated their lives, and which has sustained our experiment in
democracy for generations, is now threatened not by one person or by
one political party but rather by the relentless division and
dysfunction that has come to define our current political discourse.

Just over 2 years ago, this discord led to an unprecedented shutdown
of our whole Federal Government for 17 days. At stake today is nothing
less than the capability of the Supreme Court of the United States to
continue to function meaningfully. If we fail to reverse this
increasingly divisive--and, I think, dangerous--trend, we won't just be
facing a series of undecided legal policy

[[Page S1040]]

issues. We will also be looking at a direct threat to our
constitutional quarter--a new normal in which Supreme Court vacancies
remain just that for months upon months or even years.
Sadly, the rhetorical warfare on filling the vacancy on the Court
began just an hour after the world first learned of Justice Scalia's
passing, when the majority leader issued a statement in which he ruled
out any hearing or vote or any consideration whatsoever of a Supreme
Court nominee. The back and forth between our parties has grown even
more heated in the days since. Much has been made of what Senators of
both parties have said and done in response to past Supreme Court
vacancies, but the precedent that I think matters most is what this
Chamber actually did the last time there was a Supreme Court vacancy
during an election year. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, the
last time that happened was in 1988, and that year Justice Kennedy was
confirmed unanimously and by a Democratic-controlled Senate.
Recently, some of my colleagues have also pointed to a speech that
Vice President Biden--then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee--
gave back in 1992, as evidence that there is some clear, strong
precedent for the level of obstructionism that we are seeing today. But
that reading of his remarks both misrepresent his remarks and obscures
the real facts. It is easy to take much of what we say and do here on
the floor of the Senate out of context. In fact, I am sure it has
happened to each Member of this Chamber more than once, but a full
reading of then-Chairman Biden's full remarks shows that at the end of
his speech, Senator Biden promised to consider not just holding
hearings, not just a vote but also supporting a consensus nominee. To
quote directly:

I believe that so long as the public continues to split its
confidence between the branches, compromise is the
responsible course for both the White House and for the
Senate. Therefore, I stand by my position. Mr. President, if
the President--

Then-President Bush--

consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his
selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy
my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.

So when it comes to setting Senate precedent, I think it is important
to get the Vice President's words right, but I also think it is
important to pay attention to his actions, which speak more loudly than
his words. His record as chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee is
unmistakable. In case after case, he convened and held appropriate and
timely hearings for judges of all backgrounds and experiences when
nominated by President Bush in an election year. Even in a deeply
contentious election year, he considered dozens of district and circuit
court nominees all the way up until September, just 2 months before the
Presidential election.
So today I echo then-Chairman Biden's 1992 request. I urge President
Obama to nominate a moderate and eminently qualified jurist by whose
record should clearly, under normal circumstances, be confirmed and who
can become a consensus nominee in this Chamber. You don't have to look
very far to find a number of candidates who would easily fit this
description.
I am not asking my Republican colleagues to commit to support such a
nominee, but I am asking for us to be able to fulfill the
constitutional obligations of advice and consent that we have sworn to
uphold. Here is just another important piece of factual record. Since
the formation of the Senate Judiciary Committee a century ago, every
single Supreme Court nominee has received a vote, a hearing or both.
The only exceptions were candidates whose nominations were withdrawn
before they could be considered or that proceeded directly to the floor
for a confirmation vote.
Even nominees whose confirmations were voted down by the Senate
Judiciary Committee ultimately received a vote by the full Senate. That
is the precedent that matters. The American people, I think, aren't
deeply interested in what this Senator said 2 years ago or that Senator
said two decades ago. This back-and-forth, he said/she said rhetoric is
exactly what they have sadly come to expect from this Congress, but it
is not why they sent us here.
It is not just our constituents who are watching. Around the world,
believers in a democratic system of government, in a system of
separation of powers in our constitutional framework, some of whom have
risked life and limb to bring democracy to their countries, are
watching. Those who believe democracy can't work and who advance that
argument around the world are watching too.
At stake in this debate is not just a key vote on the Supreme Court
but, more importantly, a key indicator of whether our American
experiment can still function. Over the past two-plus centuries, our
experiment in democracy has not just survived but even thrived. But in
recent years, Members of Congress have been playing a risky game,
employing increasingly obstructionist tactics that probe the very
boundaries of our system of government. How the Senate conducts itself
in the weeks and perhaps even months to come, I think, will set a
strong precedent for how future Supreme Court vacancies will be filled
and more importantly, about whether our constitutional order can still
function. We have an opportunity to show the world that even in the
midst of a strikingly divisive Presidential campaign, our democratic
system can still work.
President Washington's Farewell Address of 220 years ago warned of
the many threats to that full and fair experiment that is American
democracy. One of the threats he highlighted most pointedly was that of
partisanship and division. The issues facing our Senate today represent
nothing less than a direct and serious challenge to the vibrancy of
that very democratic experiment for which so many suffered, struggled,
and died.
It is my prayer that we will find a way forward through this
together.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

Anna Westin Act

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of National
Eating Disorders Awareness Week and bring attention to millions of
Americans struggling with eating disorders. It is not something we
often talk about on this floor, but eating disorders are more common in
our country than breast cancer and Alzheimer's and do not discriminate
by class, race, gender or ethnicity. The all-too-sad truth is that
eating disorders take the lives of 23 Americans every day and nearly 1
life every hour.
Our understanding of how eating disorders develop and progress is
constantly evolving. We know there are between--and, again, because we
don't have statistics except for when people die--15 and 30 million
people across the country struggling with an eating disorder. We know
that anorexia has the highest morality rate of any mental health
disorder. Listen to that. Of any mental health disorder that you can
think of, anorexia has the highest morality rate. We know that eating
disorders affect women 2\1/2\ times more than men, making this the
important women's mental health issue.
Unfortunately, far too few of these people are getting the help they
need. Only 1 in 10 people with an eating disorder will receive
treatment for that disease, and for those who don't receive any
treatment, the rate of recovery sharply declines, while the likelihood
they will be hospitalized rises. The numbers illustrate a grim reality.
Too many Americans are suffering in silence, unable to access a
treatment they need to conquer their eating disorder and to go on to
live healthy lives.
To help the millions of people suffering from eating disorders get
the treatment they need, I have introduced the Anna Westin Act with
Senator Ayotte, Senator Capito, and Senator Baldwin. We are very proud
that this is a bipartisan bill that is supported by both Democrats and
Republicans. As to the fact that it is led by all women Senators, it
may be that our time has come, given that women are 2\1/2\ times more
likely than men to suffer from this disorder.
We remember in the early days when it was the women Senators who
united to do something about breast cancer research or when it was
women Senators who said: Why are we just studying men when it comes to
various drugs and various diseases and cancer? Women have different
interactions. Women have different problems. In

[[Page S1041]]

fact, these eating disorders affect women 2\1/2\ times more than men,
yet, literally, hardly anything is going on with this in terms of help
and funding. The number one mental health disorder that leads to death
and has the highest morality rate is anorexia.
The bill is named in honor of Anna Westin of Chaska, MN, who was
diagnosed with anorexia when she was 16 years old. Her health started
deteriorating quickly after she completed her sophomore year at the
University of Oregon. She began suffering from liver malfunction and
dangerously low body temperatures and blood pressure. Even though her
condition was urgent, Anna was told she had to wait until the insurance
company certified her treatment. This ultimately delayed and severely
limited the treatment that she received. After struggling with the
disease for 5 years, she committed suicide at the age of 21.
My colleagues, we have a moral obligation to help people like Anna
and families like the Westins, and we cannot afford to wait any longer.
Last week marked 16 years since Anna's death, yet people with eating
disorders are still not guaranteed coverage for lifesaving residential
treatment by insurance companies. The bipartisan Anna Westin Act fixes
this problem by clarifying that the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici
Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act specifies that
residential treatment for eating disorders must be covered. We are
talking about when a doctor diagnoses an eating disorder and believes,
after trying different treatments, that there is an immediate emergency
situation, that there should be coverage for residential treatment,
which has been found to be really helpful with eating disorders because
it helps to change how someone is eating and what they are doing and
how they are interacting and how they are going on with their day-to-
day life.
My friend, the late Senator from Minnesota, Paul Wellstone, fought
hard for that Wellstone and Domenici mental health parity law. As Paul
always insisted, a mental health parity bill is about equality and
fairness. It is time patients struggling with an eating disorder
receive that equality and fairness. It is time that so many of these
women who suffer from this disease, which is much more particular to
women than to men, get to receive that treatment that you get for other
kinds of mental health disorders. This bill would ensure that patients
like Anna Westin aren't prevented from getting the treatment they need
simply because their insurance doesn't cover it. Eating disorders
become life-threatening when left untreated, making early detection
absolutely critical. That is why this bill would also use existing
funds to create grant programs to train school employees, primary
health professionals, and mental health and public health professionals
on how to identify eating disorders, as well as how to intervene when
behaviors associated with an eating disorder have been identified.
I think most young people today know someone who has an eating
disorder. I remember in college a number of young women who had eating
disorders, but they were hiding it. Nobody did anything about it. I
have no idea how they are doing now.
Making this investment is a no-brainer. By drawing on existing funds
for the training programs, this bipartisan bill is designed to have no
cost associated with it. These commonsense and long overdue actions
will help give those suffering from eating disorders the tools they
need to overcome these diseases and prevent more tragedies like Anna's.
We wish that Anna was still with us. We wish that she could have
graduated from college, started a career, and had children of her own.
Well, it may be too late for Anna. We know she would want us to do
everything we can to create a world where eating disorders are
acknowledged, are recognized, are treated, and are prevented.
I am so proud this bill has been out there for a few years. This is
the first time this last year where it has been a bipartisan bill led
by four women Senators, two Democrats and two Republicans. The time has
come. With affected families in every corner of our country, I invite
all of my colleagues to join us in support of this bipartisan bill. We
must act now to give the millions of Americans struggling with eating
disorders the help they need. Doing so will not just prevent suffering;
it will help save lives.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for approximately 15 minutes--probably less.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, at noon today a group of us on this
side of the aisle went to the Supreme Court and stood in front of it
and spoke about what was happening with the Republican decision to not
proceed with the advice and consent provisions of the U.S.
Constitution.
I have been a member of the Judiciary Committee for 23 years. I sat
through six Supreme Court nominations. In those 23 years, as a
nonlawyer, I really became infused with great respect for the American
system of justice, for the trial courts, for the appeal courts, and for
the supreme courts on the State level as well as on the national level.
I don't think there is a system of justice that affords an individual,
a company, or an organization a fairer way to proceed to litigate a
case than the American justice system.
So as I stood there and heard some of my colleagues speaking, I began
to think of the enormity of what is happening. We all know that the
Constitution is clear that the President's role is to nominate and the
Senate's role is to advise and consent on the nominee, nothing less,
nothing more. I strongly believe that we should proceed to render the
President's nominee to the highest Court of the land and proceed to
consider that advice and consent process with a hearing in the
Judiciary Committee. To do anything less, in my view, is to default on
our responsibility as U.S. Senators.
That has been the process, no matter how controversial a nomination.
That has been the process even when the President and the Senate are of
different parties. And, yes, that has been the process during
Presidential election years. That is what happened when Anthony Kennedy
was confirmed in the last year of President Reagan's term when
Democrats actually held the Senate majority. In fact, a total of 14
Justices have been confirmed in the final year of a President's term.
Now, why is this important? The Supreme Court is a coequal branch of
our Federal Government. It is a vital part of the separation of powers.
It is the final arbiter of the law of the land. And one of our
important jobs as Senators is to ensure that the Court has the Justices
it needs to decide cases.
It is impossible to overstate the importance of a functioning Supreme
Court. Brown v. Board of Education desegregated our schools. Loving v.
Virginia struck down laws that made interracial marriage illegal. Roe
v. Wade ruled on the constitutionality of State limits on women's
access to reproductive health care, which has been upheld as precedent
for over 40 years. Bush v. Gore even decided who would move into the
White House as President of the United States. More recently, the
Supreme Court struck down limits on campaign money, nullified a key
part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, upheld ObamaCare, and legalized
same-sex marriage.
Now, what does a 4-to-4 Court mean? The prospect of having more than
a year--as a matter of fact, some are saying it is up to 2 years--of
tie votes on the Court in major controversial issues would be terrible
for our system of justice.
Justice Scalia wrote about the prospect of the split Court in 2004.
In responding to a request to recuse himself, he declined. He said if
he were to recuse himself, ``the Court proceeds with eight Justices,
raising the possibility that, by reason of a tie vote, it will find
itself unable to resolve the significant legal issue presented by the
case.''

[[Page S1042]]

That is Justice Scalia.
He continued, quoting the Court's own recusal policy: ``Even one
unnecessary recusal impairs the functioning of the court.''
So that is what we are doing. We are impairing the functioning of the
Supreme Court of the United States.
What the Republicans are doing will affect cases for we think at
least 2 years--cases left from this year and those to be heard next
year. If Republicans are successful in blocking a hearing and a vote on
the President's nominee, the Court will find itself unable to resolve
important legal questions for a lengthy period of time.
Imagine that you are a plaintiff, someone who has been wrongly
terminated from a business, or a business in a legal dispute, or
imagine you are a person or a business held liable as a defendant for
millions of dollars in a civil case or someone who has been charged
with or convicted of a crime. You might spend years of your life in
prison or even be subjected to the death penalty even though there may
be a legal problem with your conviction or sentence. In all of these
instances, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the Court ``will find itself
unable to resolve the significant legal issue presented by the case.''
That will mean that individuals and businesses, as well as the
American people, will be denied the full system of justice guaranteed
by this Constitution. Our people should not stand for this.
There are major issues pending before the Supreme Court. There are
important measures to help stop climate change, immigration issues,
race in college admissions, the fundamental concept of ``one person,
one vote,'' and the ability of unions representing public employees to
function. The point is this: Important issues are before the Court, or
will be, and there should be a full Court to hear them.
There is absolutely no reason--none--that the Senate should refuse to
do its job and conduct full and fair hearings and hold a vote on the
nominee.
Just a bit of history: The Senate has not left a Supreme Court seat
vacant for a year or longer since the middle of the Civil War. That is
a fact. It has not happened since the middle of the Civil War. That
would be about 1862.
Even as the nominations process has become more contentious, the
Senate has still considered Supreme Court nominees in a timely manner.
This has happened regardless of who sat in the White House or which
party controlled the Congress.
Here are a few historic facts to consider: Since the Judiciary
Committee began holding hearings in 1916 for Supreme Court nominees, a
pending nominee to the Supreme Court vacancy has never been denied a
timely hearing--never denied a timely hearing--even in the final year
of a President's term.
Since 1975, the average time between a Supreme Court nomination and a
vote by the full Senate has been 67 days. That is about 2 months. I
would remind my Republican colleagues that this includes Justice
Anthony Kennedy's confirmation, which took place in February of 1988--a
California judge--in the final year of President Reagan's Presidency
and before a Democratic Senate. So in the final year, a Democratic
Senate took a Republican President's nominee, who was a Republican, and
made him a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
This has held true even for controversial nominees. Robert Bork and
Clarence Thomas both failed to win a majority vote by the Judiciary
Committee, but their nominations still advanced to a full Senate vote.
That was even the case for Justice Thomas, a very conservative jurist,
who replaced Justice Thurgood Marshall, a very liberal jurist. And,
again, this took place in a Democratic-controlled Senate.
Many of my Republican colleagues have voiced their own support for a
President's right to have his nominee considered. Someone I consider a
friend who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee during periods of my
tenure, Senator Orrin Hatch, who voted in favor of Justice Ginsburg,
said at the time--and I know this because I was sitting right there and
heard it--he believed a President deserves some deference on Supreme
Court appointments. He said he would not vote against a nominee simply
because he would have chosen someone else.
Senator Grassley, now chairman of the Judiciary Committee, made
similar comments, saying Congress must not forget its advice and
consent responsibilities.
Well, those responsibilities don't cease with the death of a jurist.
As a matter of fact, that is the clear intent of the Constitution, that
the advice and consent responsibility is mandated, no matter what. So
to refuse to hold hearings before a nominee is even announced, to me,
is shocking, and it makes me think: To what extent is the partisanship
in this body going when it is willing to deny the Supreme Court a vital
member? It will be like denying a baseball team a pitcher. They
couldn't conduct a game without a pitcher. And a case that has any
controversy cannot be fairly held without nine Justices.
That is not what we were sent to Washington for. It is not how to do
the people's business. To deny the American people full and fair Senate
consideration for a Supreme Court nominee would be unprecedented in our
history and further undermine faith in the Senate as an institution. I
really deeply believe this, and I don't know why we would let this
happen.
If Republicans follow through on this threat, the fairness of the
process for the Supreme Court will forever be tarnished. The
consequences could reverberate for generations, and it will be a
serious gesture against the functioning of this great democracy. So all
we ask is, do your job. It is why we were sent here after all.

Thank you very much.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. President, for the recognition, and I just
want to say to Senator Feinstein that this Senator has listened to many
of her remarks and very much agrees with what she said, which is that
we should be doing our job in terms of this Supreme Court nominee. It
is our job to advise and consent. The Constitution says we shall advise
and consent when we get nominations.
Ten years ago the Senate faced a critical task: to consider the
nomination by President Bush of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. It
was a fierce debate. Many opposed him, and some passionately so. I will
not argue that it was an easy road, but it was a road that was traveled
because that is our job and that is one of our most important duties.
At the time, the current majority leader was very clear on that duty
the Senate has. He said:

We stand today on the brink of a new and reckless effort by
a few to deny the rights of many to exercise our
constitutional duty to advise and consent, to give this man
the simple up-or-down vote he deserves. The Senate should
repudiate this tactic.

Justice Alito did get an up-or-down vote and was confirmed 58 to 42,
including four Democrats who voted in favor.
The majority leader was right. We do have a duty to advise and
consent, and the Constitution indeed uses the word ``shall'' advise and
consent.
A President's nominee does deserve an up-or-down vote. That was true
then, and it true now. I do not agree with many of Justice Alito's
views, but I do believe that it was critical for the Senate to do its
job.
Now, here we are with a new nomination to the Supreme Court by a
different President, but the majority leader seems to have changed his
mind. We are told that no nomination of anyone by this President will
be considered. The current Senate majority is refusing its
constitutional mandate that it ``shall'' advise and consent, refusing
to do its job for blatantly partisan and political purposes. This is
misguided, and it is without precedent.
The full Senate has always voted to fill a vacancy on every pending
Supreme Court nominee in election years and nonelection years, every
single one for the last 100 years. We can go back even further than
that. The Senate Judiciary Committee was created 200 years ago.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the committee's usual
practice has been to report every nominee to the full Senate, even
those nominees opposed by a majority of the committee. This is a
bipartisan tradition that makes sense and that we should follow.
When Senator Leahy was Judiciary Committee chairman, he and Ranking
Member Hatch did just that. Nominations--even those opposed by a
majority of the committee--went to the full Senate.

[[Page S1043]]

In 2001, the Republican leader, Senator Lott, said that ``no matter
what the vote in committee on a Supreme Court nominee, it is the
precedent of the Senate that the individual nominated is given a vote
by the whole Senate.''
Were those Senators any less principled? I don't think so. Were those
Senators any less passionate in their views? No, but they did their
job. They knew how important this was to our country. They honored
Senate tradition, and they made sure the highest Court in the land was
not running on empty. How did we get from there to here? If the
majority leader has his way, there will be no hearings, no debate, and
no vote.
The confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice is critical to a
functioning democracy. It has become contentious only in recent years.
It wasn't always so polarizing. Take, for example, Justice Scalia, whom
we just lost. Justice Scalia was confirmed 98 to 0. This Senator does
not argue that either side of the aisle is 100 percent pure, but we
know that a fully functioning Supreme Court is vital to ensure justice
in our system of government, and that depends on a fully functioning
Senate.
This obstruction is part of a bigger problem. We have seen before and
we are seeing now that the Senate is broken. The American people are
frustrated, fed up with political games, obstruction in the Senate,
special deals for insiders, and campaigns that are being sold to the
highest bidder. They see this obstruction as just another example of
how our democracy is being taken away. In this case, the hammer doing
the damage is the filibuster. Instead of debate, we have gridlock.
Instead of working together, we have obstruction. That is why I pushed
for rules reform in the 112th Congress and in the 113th Congress. That
is why I continue to push no matter which party is in the majority.
We changed the Senate rules to allow majority votes for executive and
judicial nominees to lower courts, but that does no good if they remain
blocked, and that is what is happening in this Congress. The line gets
longer and longer of perfectly qualified nominees who are denied a
vote--denied even to be heard. Meanwhile, the backlog grows to 17
judges, 3 Ambassadors, and even the top official at the Treasury
Department whose job is to go after the finances of terrorists. We are
on track for the lowest number of confirmations in three decades.
We now have 31 judicial districts with emergency levels of backlogs.
A year ago, we had 12. Thousands of people wait for their day in court
because there is no judge to hear the case. That is justice delayed and
justice denied.
Just when you think things can't get any worse--they do. A seat on
the Supreme Court is empty, and the majority leader is actually arguing
that it should stay empty for over a year.
I do not believe that the Constitution gives me the right to block a
qualified nominee, no matter who is in the White House. This Senator
says that today and has said it many times before. Amazingly, this
obstruction may reach all the way to the Supreme Court--not just for a
specific nominee, but for any nominee.
What we are seeing is bad going to worse, and what we are seeing is
election-year politics. The majority leader said that the voters should
have a say in who the next Supreme Court Justice is. They had their
say. They overwhelmingly reelected President Obama to a 4-year term--
not a 3-year term. There is no logical end point to the majority
leader's position. They say no Supreme Court nominee should be
considered in the President's last year. What if this were 2 months
ago? Would their views be different if it was December 2015 or October?
Additionally, Presidents aren't the only ones with limited terms in
office. A number of sitting Senators are retiring. Do their
constitutional duties and rights as Senators expire now as well? Of
course not, and neither should a President's.
Nominees should be judged on their merits. They are public servants
in the executive branch, in our courts. They serve the people in this
country. They should not be judged on feelings about a President you
may not like. That is not governing; that is a temper tantrum.
Let's be very clear. A Presidential election year is no excuse. For
example, Justice Kennedy was confirmed unanimously in the last year of
President Reagan's administration by a Democratic-controlled Senate.
Our democracy works with three branches of government, not just two.
This assault on the Supreme Court is without precedent, without cause,
and should be without support.
The President will do his duty and will nominate a Supreme Court
Justice. Any Senator has the right to say no, but the American people
have the right to hear why.
I began my speech with comments by the majority leader. But this
really isn't about what the majority leader said 10 years ago or what
other majority leaders have said and what both sides say back and
forth; it is about what the American people are saying now and what the
Constitution has always said: Do your job. Uphold your oath. Move our
country forward.
So I state to my colleagues: Let's get serious. Let's stop these
dangerous games. The President's nominee, whoever that is, deserves
consideration. The American people deserve a government that works.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, our Nation is in the midst of a
Presidential election in which the American people are currently
deciding who will be our next Commander in Chief. In my home State of
North Carolina, many voters have already submitted their absentee
ballots and early voting will begin soon.
This election year is especially important. In addition to electing
our next President, the American people will have an opportunity to
have their say in who should be our next Supreme Court Justice. This is
a rare opportunity to let people determine the composition of the
highest Court in the land, an institution that dramatically affects the
lives of all of us.
While the stakes weren't as high in 2014 as they are today, the voice
of the American people was still heard loud and clear nonetheless. In
2014, the American people sent a message about their displeasure for
the President's disregard for our Nation's system of checks and
balances. The American people sent a message about their opposition to
the President's misuse of Executive orders to bypass the will of the
Congress, and the American people sent a message by electing a new
Senate majority.
Perhaps the memo the Nation sent to the President in 2014 is the
reason the minority leadership is now attempting to deny the American
people's full voice from being heard in this election. The minority
doesn't want the people to decide the composition of the Supreme Court,
so they have claimed there is a constitutional requirement for the
Senate to give the President's Supreme Court nominee a vote.
That couldn't be further from the truth. Article II, section 2 of the
Constitution makes this clear. While the President may nominate
individuals to the Supreme Court, the Senate holds the power to grant
or withhold consent for those nominees. This is not difficult or unique
in a constitutional sense. In fact, in 2005, the senior Senator from
Nevada took to this very Senate floor and this is what he declared:

The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S.
Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate
has a duty to give the Presidential nominees a vote. It says
appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the
Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee
receives a vote.

The Senate is doing its job by withholding consent, and that is
exactly why the rules of the Senate provide further guidance on what
happens when the Senate exercises its authority not to advance a
judicial nominee.
Senate rule XXXI states: ``Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected
during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at
any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the
President.''
The Constitution states and the Senate rules anticipate that the
Senate

[[Page S1044]]

can exercise its clear authority to withhold consent on any nominee
offered by the President. It is not a novel concept that the Supreme
Court vacancy should not be filled during an election year.
We can look back to 1992, probably before these pages were even born,
when Senate Judiciary Committee then-Chairman Joe Biden eloquently
explained the need for the Supreme Court vacancy during a Presidential
election cycle and that it should be addressed after the American
people had their say in the election.
Chairman Biden, now Vice President Biden, said:

The senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would
respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the
full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the
president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and
presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary
Committee should seriously consider not scheduling
confirmation hearings on the nomination--until after the
political campaign season is over.

He went on to say:

And I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to
be one of the bitterest, dirtiest presidential campaigns we
will have seen in modern times.

The Vice President concludes by saying:

I'm sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words,
some will criticize such a decision and say that it was
nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in
hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it.
But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that
were the course we were to choose as a senate to not consider
holding the hearings until after the election. Instead it
would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political
season is underway, and it is, 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 essential to
the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we
will be in deep trouble as an institution.

Vice President Biden's remarks may have been voiced in 1992, but they
are entirely applicable in 2016. The campaign is already underway.
It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very
health of our Republic not to launch our Nation into a partisan,
divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American
people are casting their ballots to elect our next President.
Vice President Biden--and this is not something I have said very
often--was absolutely right. There should be no hearings. There should
be no confirmation. The most pragmatic conclusion to draw in 2016 is to
hold the Supreme Court vacancy until the American people's voices have
been heard.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Remembering Officer Jason David Moszer

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I join with my colleague and senior
Senator, Mr. Hoeven, to honor and to bear witness to a great North
Dakotan and a great officer of the Fargo Police Department, Jason
Moszer, who lost his life in the line of duty.
I begin by yielding the floor to my senior Senator, Mr. Hoeven.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I join my colleague from North Dakota to
honor a brave young man, Jason David Moszer, who made the ultimate
sacrifice for his community.
Jason Moszer was an officer since 2009 with the Fargo Police
Department. He died in the line of duty 2 weeks ago today while
responding to a domestic violence report in Fargo, ND. It is a tragedy
that he was torn from his family and friends and torn from his life
while protecting the lives of others. He dedicated himself to serving
our State, and we are all grateful for his commitment to devoting his
energy and talents to serve as a member of the Fargo Police Department.
While at his funeral earlier this week, I appreciated the opportunity
to learn more about the person Jason was and the life he lived. From
his youth, he led a life of continuous service--service with the
National Guard as a combat medic for 8 years, service in Bosnia,
service in Iraq, and, until his passing, service to the people of Fargo
as a policeman. In 2012 he and fellow officer Matthew Sliders were
awarded the Department's Silver Star Medal for pulling two children
from an apartment fire.
Even in death he served by donating his organs to others in need. In
dying, his organs and tissue helped save the lives of at least five
other people. Clearly, Officer Moszer was a man committed to doing
things for others and, consequently, he was respected and admired by
everyone who came into contact with him.
Hearing stories about the pranks he pulled, the friends he brought
together, his love of camping and cooking all round out the picture of
a man who touched the lives of so many, a man who was loved by so many.
We owe him and those who love him a tremendous debt for their sacrifice
because his family and friends paid a high price.
We in North Dakota pride ourselves on being a safe State, but
incidents like this remind us we are not immune to violent crime. They
also remind us of the enormous debt we owe to Officer Moszer and to all
the men and women in law enforcement who leave home every day and go to
work to protect us and help make ours the wonderful State North
Dakotans are so proud of.
Mikey and I extend our heartfelt condolences to Officer Moszer's wife
Rachel and their children, Dillan and Jolee. It is difficult to lose a
loved one, and, more so, to lose one so young and under such
circumstances. During this difficult time, we pray that the Moszers are
able to find comfort in the love of their family and friends, the
support of their community, and the warm memories they have of Jason,
which they will carry for the rest of their lives. Please know that you
will continue to be in our thoughts and prayers.
One final note. Senator Heitkamp and I were at the funeral. I think
there were about 6,000 people at the funeral, which is a testament to
Officer Moszer and his life. He truly epitomizes sacrifice and service
to others. May God bless him and his family.
Mr. President, I turn the floor back to my colleague, Senator
Heitkamp.
Ms. HEITKAMP. I thank my senior Senator from North Dakota, Mr.
Hoeven.
As we sat quietly in the hockey arena that Jason loved so much, we
felt the pain of so many, including the literally hundreds of thousands
of North Dakotans who watched the broadcast of the funeral but also
listened on the radio.
On the evening of Wednesday, February 10, Officer Jason Moszer did
what so many police officers do on a daily basis--he went toward the
danger to answer the call to serve and protect the citizens of Fargo,
ND. Jason and the other officers who responded to that initial call
knew they were encountering a dangerous situation. The domestic
violence call that brought them there that evening had mentioned there
might be a firearm involved. Yet those officers did not hesitate that
night.
A short time later, shots rang out, and then those words--those words
that will never be forgotten by his fellow officers--were heard:
``Officer down.''
Yet, even in the darkest of hours, the men and women of the Fargo
Police Department maintained their composure and continued the critical
work of securing the surrounding neighborhood and trying to bring this
dangerous situation to a resolution.
Later that night the city of Fargo, the State of North Dakota, our
neighboring community of Moorhead, ND, and certainly his home community
of Sabin, lost one of its finest when Officer Moszer succumbed to his
injuries. The loss of an officer in the line of duty is something that
devastates an entire community--and in a small State like North Dakota
it has taken a toll on every law enforcement officer and every resident
throughout our entire State.
I am here this evening to honor Officer Moszer, and I am here this
evening to honor the brave men and women of the Fargo Police
Department. These officers wake up every morning, and they put on a
uniform that requires that they frequently place themselves in
dangerous situations in order to protect and to serve the citizens of
their State, their community or their tribe. Few among us know what it
is like to make that choice.

[[Page S1045]]

We have a proud history in North Dakota of law enforcement officers
serving their State and local community with distinction. I have had
the privilege over the years to work with law enforcement officers in
my State who span the spectrum--from highway patrol to State and local
officers, to various Federal officers, and the tribal communities. Let
me tell you, without any hesitation, these are some of the finest men
and women I have ever met or worked with. The officers of the Fargo
Police Department have proven beyond a doubt that they are some of the
finest law enforcement officers in the Nation.
The men and women of the Fargo Police Department, led by Chief David
Todd, performed admirably and heroically that night 2 weeks ago. The
courage, strength, and leadership displayed by Chief Todd during this
incredibly difficult period has been nothing short of remarkable, and
those qualities have certainly spread throughout his department to each
and every officer under his charge. Remember, these officers chose this
path. They chose to selflessly put themselves in harm's way so they
could make the city of Fargo a safer place for each and every person
who lives there or who may by chance be passing through. They chose to
put the needs of others before their own. They chose a more difficult
path to tread than most of us would ever be willing to follow.
One of the stories we heard was from one of his best friends who
said: Jason, quite honestly, would have been embarrassed by the
outpouring. He suggested that maybe what Jason would have liked is just
for people to have a few beers and remember him quietly. Well, Jason's
loss was a loss not only for the people of our State, but it was a
tremendously devastating loss for the Fargo Police Department and the
community of Fargo. Those officers who put on that uniform each and
every day are a unique and very special group, a tight-knit group. Very
few people can understand what it takes to do the job they do.
Unfortunately, I have attended a number of funerals--two during my
time as attorney general--of officers who were killed violently in the
line of duty. One of the most moving tributes to a fallen officer is
when the radio dispatcher goes through an End of Watch Roll Call. This
moving and emotional moment shows that even in death, the men and women
of the Fargo Police Department stand shoulder to shoulder with their
colleagues, that they will support each other the way they support the
city of Fargo each and every day, and that even when a colleague has
fallen in the line of duty, they will always have his back.
Officer Moszer, Chief Todd, and the men and women of the Fargo Police
Department, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your service
and for your sacrifice to the people of Fargo and to the State of North
Dakota.
I wish to end with the End of Watch:

Edward 143 Status Check. . . . Edward 143 Status Check. . .
. Last Call Edward 143 Status Check.
Adam One Central--Edward 143 is 1042. End of Watch,
February 11th 2016 at 1245 hours.

Those were the final words that their comrades spoke to Officer
Moszer and his family.
Without brave men and women willing to step up and willing to stand
on the wall for every one of us, we would be a much lesser society.
My thanks to my colleague Senator Hoeven for joining me. It is in a
great North Dakota spirit that we join together as colleagues in a
bipartisan way to say thank you and to say goodbye to a wonderful
officer, Officer Moszer.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________