[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 35 (Thursday, March 3, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1245-S1273]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            COMPREHENSIVE ADDICTION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 524, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 524) to authorize the Attorney General to award 
     grants to address the national epidemics of prescription 
     opioid abuse and heroin use.

  Pending:

       Grassley amendment No. 3378, in the nature of a substitute.
       Grassley (for Donnelly/Capito) modified amendment No. 3374 
     (to amendment No. 3378), to provide follow-up services to 
     individuals who have received opioid overdose reversal drugs.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the year was 1936. President Franklin 
Roosevelt had just been reelected with an overwhelming majority, and he 
decided he had had enough of the U.S. Supreme Court. They had been 
striking down some key pieces of legislation in his New Deal package. 
So he came up with a bold plan in February of 1937. That bold plan was 
to add enough new Justices to the Supreme Court to tip the balance his 
way.
  He presented this plan to change the Supreme Court for his political 
purposes to a Democratic Congress and a Democratic U.S. Senate, 
believing, with his big reelection majority and the fact that most of 
the Members of Congress had supported his New Deal agenda, that they 
would stand by him when it came to changing the Supreme Court so that 
it would start ruling his way. He was wrong. What happened then was 
that Members of the Senate decided to stand up to their President and 
to stand up for the Constitution.
  A little-known Senator from Arizona, Henry Ashurst, was the chairman 
of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He deliberately delayed the FDR 
Court-packing proposal to a point where, when it was finally called, it 
was overwhelmingly defeated.
  Think about that in the context of our current debate about filling 
this Supreme Court vacancy created by the untimely death of Justice 
Scalia. In that case, in 1937, the Senate Judiciary Committee and its 
chairman stood up for the Constitution first, over and above even the 
President of their own political party. This was a popular President; 
yet they believed the Constitution was more important than any 
political issue when it came to the New Deal.
  So where are we today? We are in a situation where we have a vacancy 
on the Supreme Court. The Court still continues to hear cases of great 
historic moment--yesterday, the case involving abortion and I am sure, 
in weeks ahead, even more controversial issues. It is a Court that is 
at least limited by the fact that there are only eight Justices. In 
many instances, this Court is likely to end up with a tie--a decision 
which doesn't decide the law but leaves it still unresolved.
  So what is our responsibility as this Senate at this time as we 
reflect on the Senate of 1937? Well, we only have to

[[Page S1246]]

turn to the U.S. Constitution--the Constitution which each of us, each 
and every one of us as Senators, Democratic and Republican, stood in 
the well and swore to uphold.
  The second article in this Constitution relates to the powers of the 
Presidency. In this book, it is only three pages, but the people who 
wrote the Constitution, our Founding Fathers, tried to put in those 
three pages the critically important elements to make sure that our 
democracy would continue. They tried to envision the possibilities and 
to authorize branches of government to do certain things.
  In article II, section 2, when it comes to the powers of the 
President, it says:

     he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of 
     the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court.

  Did it say he may appoint? No. The language is explicit. He shall 
appoint, and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall fill the 
vacancies on the Supreme Court.
  So what faces us today? An announcement by the Republican leadership, 
Senator McConnell, within hours of the announcement of the death of 
Justice Scalia, that for the first time in the history of the United 
States Senate, for the first time in our Nation's history, the 
Republicans have announced that they will not only refuse to fill this 
vacancy, they will not even allow a hearing on a Presidential nominee. 
And Senator McConnell went a step further and said he will not even 
meet with a nominee offered by the President to fill this vacancy. That 
is a clear violation of the constitutional responsibility which this 
Senate has. The Constitution doesn't require us to approve any nominee, 
no; it is advise and consent, not consent only. We can certainly vote 
no if we feel that vote is warranted. But the Constitution is very 
clear that we can't walk away from our constitutional responsibility 
when it comes to a vacancy on the Supreme Court.
  If the Senate Republicans have their way, this vacancy on the Supreme 
Court will continue on until the next calendar year. It will be the 
longest vacancy on the Supreme Court since the Civil War, when this 
Nation was torn apart. If there was any excuse in those days for not 
filling the vacancy, there is no excuse today.
  There is the argument made: Let the people decide. Let the people 
decide in the next election who the next Supreme Court Justice will be. 
But that ignores the obvious: There is a sitting President, elected for 
4 years, with the constitutional authority every President has, and one 
of those authorities is to fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court.
  They argue: Well, the people will decide in November what will happen 
next year. I might remind them that the people decided in the year 2012 
by a margin of 5 million votes that Barack Obama would be President of 
the United States--not for 3 years, not for 3 years and 2 months, but 
for 4 years. And to argue that he is somehow now unable, unwilling, or 
cannot be called on to exercise his Presidential authority flies in the 
face of reality--a reality which most Republicans will readily concede, 
at least in private.
  The Republicans think they are winning this debate. I think they are 
losing. They think their ``let the people decide'' approach to this is 
really carrying the day. I think our approach to this--saying to our 
Republican colleagues: Do your job--is carrying the day.
  How is this playing in Peoria, IL? I want to read from an editorial 
of the February 28 edition of the Peoria Journal-Star:
  The most worthless Congress in memory became more so last week, with 
Senate Republicans doubling down on their decision not to even hold 
hearings for any Obama nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the 
Scalia vacancy.
  They went on to say:

       Even as awful as Congress is, it's not often that its 
     members combine dereliction of constitutional duty--(see 
     Article II, Section 2)--with political cravenness (the 
     aversion to tough decisions in an election year) in one fell 
     swoop, but so Senate Republicans have here. Not only have 
     they unconstitutionally changed a president's term from four 
     to three years, not only are they renouncing their ``advice 
     and consent'' role, not only are they effectively suggesting 
     the Constitution be amended to popularly elect Supreme Court 
     justices, but even more lame are the lengths Republicans went 
     to in order to rationalize their decision.

  No more excuses. The Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate should 
do their job. When the President submits a nominee, we should give that 
nominee a fair and thorough hearing--a fair, respectful, and thorough 
hearing, as one Republican said over and over again--in full view of 
the American people and then vote.
  A fair warning to my Senate Republicans. They said the American 
people should decide. They will decide--they will decide in November 
that the Republicans in the Senate should do their job.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator may well recall--he was here 
when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2001 during President 
Bush's administration, the ranking member was then Senator Hatch--we 
put together an agreement about how the committee would consider 
Supreme Court nominees. We wrote: The Judiciary Committee's traditional 
practice has been to report Supreme Court nominees to the Senate once 
the committee has completed its consideration. This has been true even 
in cases where Supreme Court nominees were opposed by a majority of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Does the Senator recall that at that time the Republican leader of 
the Senate, Senator Lott, even read that letter into the Record to say 
that this is the way the Senate should operate?
  Mr. DURBIN. I do remember that.
  Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning because 
of the important subject that is before us, the bill that deals with 
the opioid epidemic, the follow-on heroin problem, a bill that was 
reported out of committee unanimously, a very important piece of 
legislation. Right now we have unfortunate political gamesmanship that 
has overtaken some of my Democratic colleagues at the very same time 
that everybody on the Judiciary Committee knows we need to pass the 
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act that goes by the acronym CARA 
for short.
  It happens, though, that the opioid epidemic is not a political game. 
It is a real problem out there. A massive hearing we had in committee 
demonstrates that. I am very proud the Senate has taken up the CARA 
bill, after this public health crisis festered for so long while the 
Senate was controlled by the Democrats.
  For example, tragically heroin overdose deaths more than tripled from 
2010 to 2014. All the while, the Democratic leadership simply did not 
make it a priority to move a bill like CARA. It is a bipartisan bill 
that addresses the public health crisis of heroin and prescription 
opioid abuse.
  Through the hard work of many on both sides of the aisle because it 
is a bipartisan bill, as I said, it passed out of our committee--and 
you can't say so often--unanimously. Everybody at the grassroots level 
of America thinks everything here is always partisan between 
Republicans and Democrats--not when it comes to the opioid issue or a 
lot of other issues. This bill came out of committee unanimously, and 
we ought to get it to the House of Representatives as fast as we can 
and to the President. Just a few weeks after it came out of committee, 
here we are working on it with an opportunity to pass it.
  This reflects the Senate working in a very constructive, bipartisan 
way on behalf of the American people and the people who are addicted to 
heroin and opioids. This is very much unlike the way the Senate acted 
when the Democrats controlled it. This issue was not brought up. For 
political reasons, that is not a narrative some Democrats want the 
American people to hear, and so we are having this game today.
  Yesterday, there was a manufactured controversy over the amount of 
funding. Of course, the opioid crisis demands resources, and 
significant resources are being directed to it, both by the 
Appropriations Committee and the programs laid out in this bill before 
us right now. In fact, according to the

[[Page S1247]]

Office of National Drug Control Policy, the 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 been spent yet. 
All of that money is still available today.
  This bill authorizes so many activities to combat the crisis, but it 
was never intended to appropriate funding. That is what we have 
Appropriations Committees for. That is why we have an appropriations 
process. Through the appropriations process, we can evaluate competing 
priories, evaluate tradeoffs, and in the end ensure that adequate 
resources are directed to this epidemic while at the same time 
maintaining fiscal discipline.
  I am glad the Senate rejected that attempt to inject gamesmanship 
into the debate over ways to improve this bill. That vote happened 
yesterday. Now the minority in the Senate, the Democrats, are setting 
up additional procedural roadblocks. We tried to set up additional 
votes this morning to move this very important bill along so we can 
help the people of the various States, and particularly New England, 
solve this opioid addition and heroin problem--also a problem in the 
eastern part of my State--but somehow the Democrats would not agree.
  Because we have this bill on the floor, I also asked the Democrats on 
the committee to hold our weekly Judiciary Committee business meeting 
over here in the Capitol Building instead of in the committee room, 
right off the floor of this Senate, as we do quite regularly, 
particularly when we have so much business here.
  That was a routine accommodation I asked them to make, similar to the 
accommodation I gave to them when we had a hearing scheduled earlier 
this week on the EB-5 immigration bill, when they asked to cancel that 
because this bill was on the floor of the Senate. So I accommodated 
them. Would they give me the accommodation of holding this meeting off 
the floor of the Senate so we could take up the business of voting out 
some judges? There was not any legislation on our agenda, but we could 
have voted out some judges. How often do we hear that the Judiciary 
Committee is not moving judges? We had a chance to do that probably in 
a 10-minute meeting right in the President's Room, just a few feet from 
where I am standing right now.
  I gave them an accommodation, but now I am running into trouble 
because I canceled a meeting because we have this important bill on the 
floor of the Senate. I understand they are protesting the Judiciary 
Committee's lack of action on a Supreme Court nomination, which 
nomination we could not even possibly consider if the President does 
not send it up.
  I imagine this is just the first of several problems we are going to 
have in the next few weeks. While they do that this morning, I want you 
to know I am going to be on the Senate floor trying to get this very 
important opioid addiction bill--heroin addiction bill--passed, and I 
will be thinking about so many people CARA will help once this bill is 
signed by the President.
  At our Judiciary Committee hearing we had on this very important 
problem, we heard from Nick Willard, chief of the Manchester New 
Hampshire Police Department. His officers will benefit from the 
training the bill authorizes to use naloxone, a drug that can save 
lives after an overdose.
  At that hearing, we also heard from Tonda DaRae, a courageous Ohio 
woman who lost a daughter to an overdose and who founded a support 
group for those in recovery called Holly's Song of Hope. Her group may 
profit from this legislation's grants aimed at building communities of 
recovery.
  I will be thinking about the many Iowans I have heard about who have 
been impacted by this crisis. I spoke earlier this week about Kim Brown 
of Davenport, who lost her son Andy to an overdose. She now speaks out 
across the State about the epidemic.
  There is Carla Richards, of Waukee, IA, who lost her daughter Anna to 
an overdose as well. She founded an organization to promote awareness 
called Anna's Warriors. There are all kinds of tragic stories that 
every Senator in this body could talk about that highlight the 
rationale behind this legislation and the $400 million that is waiting 
to be spent to overcome the opioid addiction.
  There is a seed of hope in many of them, hope that we can act to 
address this epidemic, each in our own way. I will be thinking of these 
stories today as we try to move CARA one step closer to becoming law. 
So why would a bill that got out of committee unanimously have this 
sort of shenanigans going on, on the floor of the Senate, at a time 
when people are dying--44,000 people in the most recent statistical 
year, more than automobile accidents and gun crimes together. This is a 
real problem. We need to get this bill passed, and we are working on 
accommodating amendments and moving it forward. It is not the time for 
the go-slow approach we are seeing already on the floor of the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with other Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee for 
30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one, so we fully understand, we are 
perfectly willing to have--even though we don't hold Judiciary 
Committee meetings every week as we used to--we would be perfectly 
willing to have a meeting that was not in a backroom but open so the 
press would see it.
  It is important to have such meetings open, for the press and anybody 
who wants to come in. It is unfortunate that we have had--with the 
Supreme Court vacancy--there has been a closed-door, back-room meeting. 
That is when a small handful of Republican Senators decided, with the 
Republican leader, to say the President should not follow his 
constitutional duty and nominate a Supreme Court nominee, and, in an 
unprecedented fashion, the Senate Judiciary Committee would not follow 
its constitutional obligation of advice and consent.
  In that small closed-door meeting, it was decided that Senators 
should not follow the solemn oath they have taken on this floor when 
they say they will uphold the Constitution ``so help me God.'' We have 
had enough closed-door meetings, especially closed-door meetings that 
tell us to violate an oath where they said ``so help me God'' and to 
not follow the Constitution.
  I think it is important that we have these meetings since the 
untimely passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. There is certainly a 
disagreement over how to move forward in filling the Supreme Court 
vacancy, but I think the American people want us to do our job. This is 
a time we should have an open conversation about it, not closed-door 
meetings, where afterward self-serving press releases are issued, which 
may or may not accurately represent what went on in those meetings.
  The American people deserve to have us do our job, hear us discuss 
and debate the committee's next steps in fulfilling our constitutional 
duty.
  Last night, my friend, the senior Senator from Iowa, decided to 
postpone this meeting rather than have it in public. Now we have to 
wait another week before the committee can sit down in public so the 
American people can discuss an issue that is so important. The move to 
postpone today's meeting is troubling, given that last week's meeting--
a meeting that should have happened with the participation of all the 
committee members in a room open to the public, showing us doing our 
jobs--was also postponed. So we didn't have a meeting in public. We 
weren't doing our job.
  Instead, last week the committee's Republicans decided to meet behind 
closed doors--the public couldn't follow what they were doing--without 
any Democrats so they could hatch a partisan plan to obstruct any 
effort to consider the next nominee to the Supreme Court and do that no 
matter what the Constitution says. There was no consultation with any 
Democrats serving on the committee. There was no public discussion of 
any kind.
  Certainly, in my 40 years here, whether Republicans have been in 
control of the Senate or Democrats, I cannot think of any precedent for 
this kind of closed-door discussion of how we avoid doing our job. 
Instead, 11 Republican Senators unilaterally decided the Senate would 
abdicate its responsibility and block all of us from fulfilling

[[Page S1248]]

our constitutional obligation of advice and consent. They block all of 
us from doing our job.
  Supreme Court nominations are a unique priority for the Judiciary 
Committee. Since I have served in the Senate--I voted on every member 
currently on the Supreme Court and on several who have since retired--
the Judiciary Committee has always held hearings on Supreme Court 
nominees, and they have always reported them to the full Senate for 
consideration.
  When I took over as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2001, 
George W. Bush was President. I did not agree with much of what his 
administration was already doing--I was very frank in discussions with 
President Bush to tell him that--and I was not sure if I would approve 
of any Supreme Court nominations he might have the opportunity to make, 
but even with those reservations, I wrote a letter with then-ranking 
member Senator Hatch memorializing an agreement we reached--which 
Republicans gave their word to follow--about how the Judiciary 
Committee would consider Supreme Court nominees.
  In that letter that Senator Hatch and I wrote, he gave his word and I 
gave mine:

       The Judiciary Committee's traditional practice has been to 
     report Supreme Court nominees to the Senate once the 
     Committee has completed its considerations. This has been 
     true even in cases where Supreme Court nominees were opposed 
     by a majority of the Judiciary Committee.

  Senator Hatch and I gave our word on that. The Republican leader at 
the time, Senator Lott, then read our letter into the Congressional 
Record to ensure that it was available to all Americans to see, and I 
took the word of Republicans in this body that they believed what they 
were saying. It showed the long understanding of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee's commitment to an open, fair process, even when the majority 
does not agree with the opposing party's President.
  The priority of the Judiciary Committee has afforded Supreme Court 
nominees is exemplified by its consideration of two of the most 
contentious nominations to the Court: Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.
  In both instances, then-Chairman Biden moved the nominations to the 
full Senate, even though a majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee 
did not support the nominations. In other words, the majority did not 
support the nomination, but we still moved them forward.
  In Robert Bork's case, a committee vote to report out his nomination 
favorably failed by a vote of 5 to 9, with both Republicans and 
Democrats voting against it. At the time, the Reagan administration was 
quietly asking him to withdraw his name, but he still wanted to have a 
vote, and the committee then voted to report his nomination with an 
unfavorable recommendation. He was reported out unfavorably by a vote 
of 9 to 5 so the full Senate could consider him. Some Democrats voted 
for him. Many Democrats voted against him. Some Republicans voted for 
him. Many Republicans voted against him, but he had his vote.
  In Clarence Thomas's case, the committee voted to report out his 
nomination favorably. That failed by a vote of 7 to 7. The committee 
then voted to report his nomination without recommendation, and by 13 
to 1 we voted to give him a chance to be heard on the floor.
  Even when a majority of committee members have not supported a 
nominee, as was the case with Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas, we have 
not denied the full Senate--or the American people--the opportunity to 
debate and consider a Supreme Court nominee. We were not going to say 
this Senate shouldn't do its job.
  The Judiciary Committee has a strong tradition of transparency. I 
remember when I first came on, there was one of the most conservative 
Senators as chairman, Jim Eastland. We have done it with all who have 
been chairs. I believe the American people have a right to see and hear 
what we are doing. They have a right to know whether we are doing our 
job. They have a right to weigh in on the decisions we make. Nowhere 
does transparency matter more than a lifetime appointment to the 
highest Court in our land. You can't decide a question of somebody 
going on the highest Court of our land, with a lifetime appointment, 
and do it with a small group behind closed doors. That is not doing our 
job. There is no place for backroom deals for something so important. 
Public confirmation hearings are a vital part of our democracy. That is 
not just about us.
  Public hearings are how Americans meet the nominee. Public hearings 
allow every American the opportunity to watch and listen to this person 
whose decisions may have a lasting impact on their lives. Ultimately, 
what this small group of Republican members of the committee meeting 
behind closed doors unilaterally decided last week was to reject the 
longstanding tradition of public hearings. In doing so, they are 
denying Americans--all Americans, Republicans and Democrats alike--the 
chance to participate in the consideration of a nominee. They deny 
Americans a chance to have us do our job.
  The Judiciary Committee is one of the busiest in the Senate. It 
considers some of the most consequential issues affecting millions of 
Americans. When we commit ourselves to what brought us here, to do our 
job and work together for our constituents, we can achieve great 
things. This is what happened 3 years ago when the Senate passed 
comprehensive immigration reform. After six hearings and 3 weeks of 
markups--many lasting until very late at night--each of the 18 Senators 
serving on the committee participated in the process to draft that 
legislation. I allowed everybody who had an amendment to bring it up. 
We would go back and forth--one Democrat, one Republican, back and 
forth. We did this day after day, late at night sometimes, but all in 
public. It was all covered by television. Not all of us supported the 
bill, but all of us had a chance to debate and amend it. Even the 
staunchest opponents of the legislation, including some in the Chamber 
right now, praised the Judiciary Committee's transparent and fair 
process for consideration of that bill. A Vermont editorial at the time 
called our committee proceedings--because they were open, because 
everybody had a chance to participate, because the American people 
could see what we were doing, because we were doing our job--``a lesson 
in democracy.'' I think it is time for a refresher course.
  The legal issues before the Supreme Court are significant, and its 
importance in our constitutional democracy cannot be overstated, nor 
can the responsibility of both the President to follow his 
constitutional duty to nominate and the Judiciary Committee's 
responsibility to fairly consider a nominee to serve in the highest 
Court in the land.
  It is with deep concern I come to the floor. I urge my friend, the 
chairman, and all members of the Judiciary Committee to renew their 
commitment to transparency and regular order. I ask that you withhold 
judgment. I ask those who met behind closed doors to withhold your 
judgment until you can review the record of whomever the President 
nominates. I ask you to give the next nominee to the Supreme Court a 
fair hearing, as we have done in this body--the body should be the 
conscience of the Nation--for the last 100 years. The American people 
expect us to do our job.
  Senator Coons is on the floor. The distinguished Senator from 
Delaware is the ranking member of the Court Subcommittee. I wish to ask 
Senator Coons, through the Chair, what his understanding of the role of 
the Senate Judiciary Committee with regard to the next Supreme Court 
nominee is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I emphasize how important I think the role 
is of the Senate Judiciary Committee. As many present know, my 
predecessor, now Vice President Biden, is a former chairman of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee.
  As my good friend and colleague from the State of Vermont just 
reminded us, there is a long and important history on the Senate 
Judiciary Committee that I think bears repeating; that since its 
formation a century ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee has provided a 
hearing, a vote or both for every single Supreme Court nominee. The 
only exceptions being those that went straight to the floor because 
their confirmations were supported so broadly.

[[Page S1249]]

  I also think there is a second important point, if I could briefly 
touch on it; that even in those instances where a nominee did not enjoy 
majority support on the committee, even in those instances just cited 
by the Senator from Vermont, where a majority of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee voted against a nomination, that nomination proceeded to the 
floor of the Senate to ensure that advice and consent--our 
constitutional duty--could be carried forward.
  If I might ask for the forbearance of the Senator from Vermont for 
one moment, I also want to set the record straight about what my friend 
and predecessor then-Senator, now-Vice President Biden actually said in 
a floor speech back in 1992, a floor speech that has been widely cited 
as evidence of some new set of so-called Biden rules that are somehow a 
basis for the obstructionism we now see--a refusal to even meet with a 
Supreme Court nominee, let alone give them a fair hearing.
  I want to take this moment because then-Senator Biden has been quoted 
out of context. He gave--I am sure this will not surprise some in the 
Chamber--a somewhat long and winding speech. There was no Supreme Court 
vacancy at the time. He was simply observing what might happen if there 
were to be a vacancy. While he did, early in the speech, give some 
comments that have been now used, he also gave at the end of his speech 
a section I want to read. To quote directly:

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

  In conclusion, let me remark that what then-Chairman Biden did speaks 
more loudly even than what he said. I believe his record as chairman of 
the Senate Judiciary Committee is unmistakable. In case after case, he 
convened and held timely hearings, even in the election year of 1988. 
It means he considered and confirmed 64 judicial nominees, as late as 
September in a Presidential election year. It means he voted in favor 
of Justice Kennedy and Justice Souter, nominated by Republican 
Presidents, and it means that in his speech, in the section I quoted, I 
think he sent a clear request to then-President George H.W. Bush to 
work with the Senate, send us a moderate nominee, and I will consider 
supporting them.
  I urge the chairman and ranking member, all of us who are members of 
this important and august committee, to follow the actual Biden 
rules by working across the aisle, by consulting, and by offering a 
fair, open, and timely hearing for any nominee who should be proffered 
by our President.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for 
clearing that up. I don't normally discuss what is said in meetings 
with the President, but so much has been reported by the two 
Republicans who were there, the distinguished Senator from Iowa and the 
distinguished Republican leader. Vice President Biden was also there, 
and he was very clear as to what he meant so that there would be no 
question. He also pointed out that right through September, 64 of the 
Republican President's nominees went through. I think during President 
Bush's last 2 years, I was chairman, and I moved 68 judges.
  We see a double standard by our friends from the Republican Party 
when it comes to the courts of appeals judges as well as district 
judges. In the majority, they have allowed only 16 of President Obama's 
judges. Facts do speak louder than words.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware for clearing up that 
matter.
  I know the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island also has something 
he wishes to say, and I will yield to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member for that 
courtesy. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states quite 
clearly that the President shall nominate a candidate when there is a 
vacancy in the United States Supreme Court. I would like the record of 
this discussion to reflect that the term ``shall,'' as defined in the 
Merriam-Webster dictionary--the relevant definition--is A, used to 
express a command or exhortation, and, B, used in laws, regulations, or 
directives to express what is mandatory.
  Under the Constitution that we are all sworn to uphold, the President 
of the United States has a mandatory duty. I think it is important that 
he accomplish it and nominate a candidate.
  I ask my colleagues to imagine if there were another mandatory duty 
of the President of the United States that this President refused to 
perform--imagine the cavalcade of Republican Senators to the studios of 
Fox News to decry and condemn this President for that omission. This 
should be no different.
  The President must and will do his constitutional duty. If and when 
he does that, then the constitutional burden of duty moves from the 
President to the U.S. Senate, and we will then have to decide whether 
we will abide by our constitutional duty, whether to follow the regular 
order that so many of us have articulated as an important goal, whether 
to follow the precedents of previous nominees, whether to act fairly, 
whether we are going to be an organization here, an institution, that 
will prejudge a nominee before we even know who he or she is. Prejudge 
is at the heart of prejudice; it is not a good thing for the Senate to 
be doing. Finally, we will have to decide what kind of example we want 
to set to the rest of the world--of a country that follows the regular 
order as established in its constitution and has its institutions of 
government do their duty or as a country that will bend, twist, and 
dodge those responsibilities because of the demands of immediate 
politics.
  Those are choices I will address when they come to us. For now I wish 
only to say that the President's mandatory duty is clear, and no one 
should be surprised that he performs it.
  I thank the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. He 
is a former attorney general of his State as well as a former U.S. 
attorney and is well familiar with what the Constitution requires, and 
I appreciate his urging the U.S. Senate to do its job and follow the 
Constitution.
  Mr. President, at this point I will yield to the distinguished senior 
Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and our ranking 
member on the Judiciary Committee not only for his friendship and his 
articulateness but his great work on this issue.
  Just as the President has a constitutional responsibility to name a 
nominee to the Court, the Senate has its constitutional duty to provide 
advice and consent on the nominee. It is our job. It is the job of this 
body and specifically the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on that 
nominee.
  This chart says, ``America to Senate Republicans: Do your job.'' 
Today we might be saying, ``America to the Judiciary Committee: Do your 
job.'' The American people expect us to do our job in the Senate and in 
the committees and do what we are supposed to be doing.
  As my colleague from Vermont has noted, the Judiciary Committee 
should be meeting right now at this moment, as we do every Thursday. 
This would have been the first opportunity for all members of this 
committee to debate in public the Republican chairman's unilateral 
decision to issue a blanket hold on an unnamed Supreme Court nominee. 
We hold Judiciary meetings on Thursday all the time while legislation 
is being debated on the floor. There were no votes scheduled. We meet 
every Thursday. We know why they are not meeting today. They are afraid 
to discuss the issue. They cannot win the argument that we shouldn't be 
doing our job in a public debate. They can't win the argument that the 
Judiciary Committee shouldn't be holding hearings. We had the meeting 
abruptly canceled at the last minute not because CARA is being debated 
on the floor--CARA is important--but because people didn't want to 
debate the issue of the Supreme Court. Let's face it; that is the 
truth.

[[Page S1250]]

  We are not asking the Senate or the Judiciary Committee to be a 
rubber stamp.
  I have one more point on the Judiciary Committee. We are asking our 
Republican colleagues to simply do their job. Hold this body and the 
Judiciary Committee in some regard. We can disagree on the politics, we 
can disagree on a nominee, but hold a hearing and hold a vote. That is 
what our constituents sent us here to do.
  I will remind my dear friend from Iowa, and he is a dear friend, what 
his own Web site--the Judiciary Committee's Web site--says is its job. 
This was pointed out by Senator Durbin a few days ago, but I think it 
is worth repeating. This is a copy of the Web site of the Judiciary 
Committee. Here is part of what it says when it comes to nominations.

       When a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court, the President 
     of the United States is given the authority, under Article II 
     of the United States Constitution, to nominate a person to 
     fill the vacancy. The nomination is referred to the United 
     States Senate, where the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a 
     hearing where the nominee provides testimony and responds to 
     questions from members of the panel. Traditionally, the 
     committee refers the nomination to the full Senate for a 
     vote.

  This is the Web page of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It does not 
say you hold a hearing when you want to. It does not say you hold a 
hearing when you like the nominee or only when your party has the 
Presidency. It says: ``The nomination is''--not may be; is--``referred 
to the United States Senate, where the Senate Judiciary Committee holds 
a hearing where the nominee provides testimony and responds to 
questions from members of the panel.'' It doesn't say the Senate 
Judiciary Committee might hold a hearing or could at its whim hold a 
hearing. It says hold a hearing, no qualifiers.
  We ought to be holding a hearing and we ought to be debating on 
whether to hold a hearing now in the Chamber of the Judiciary Committee 
on Thursday at 10 a.m., as we have done week after week after week when 
other important issues are being debated on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate. We can do both. We can move CARA--I admit it doesn't have the 
funding I would like to see there at this point--and we can meet in the 
Judiciary Committee.
  I don't understand the decision by the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, who I believe holds the same reverence that I do and the 
same reverence that the ranking member and former chairman, the Senator 
from Vermont, does for its profound and historic standing in the 
Senate. I would like to hear directly from the chairman about the 
thinking behind his decision to unilaterally decide that this committee 
will have no voice, no ability to examine a nominee's record and 
qualifications.
  Earlier this week, the chairman indicated that there are some members 
of his committee majority who might like to see us hold hearings. He 
said: As any chairman ought to do, I went to the members of my 
committee. They all agreed with me for different reasons, not just 
because I am chairman. Some had reluctance, but all signed.
  The chairman indicated he would consider breaking ranks with his 
party leader by meeting the potential nominee, Eighth Circuit Court 
Judge Jane Kelly from his home State of Iowa. He was reluctant to issue 
the same across-the-board denial. I understand his reluctance. He is a 
good man. Chuck Grassley is a good man. He comes from the heartland of 
America and represents its finest values. I regret to say it, but I 
think politics are pulling him off course here, and I hope he will 
return because he is a good man and I understand the reluctance of 
Senators to sign that letter. Senators did not come to Washington to do 
that. The Senators know the folks out there want them to do their job.
  Editorial boards across the country have castigated this policy of 
obstruction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Almost every poll shows the majority of Americans favor 
action.
  Mr. President, just one more point.
  It is not right to do what the committee is doing, and I sincerely 
hope the chairman will reconsider his position. If Republicans truly 
respect the Constitution, they should follow it and consider a 
nomination from the sitting President rather than play political games.
  I yield back to my dear friend, our outstanding leader on the 
Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I realize our time has expired, but I ask 
unanimous consent that I be able to yield the floor for my colloquy but 
that I be followed for 5 minutes by the distinguished senior Senator 
from Connecticut and that he be followed by the distinguished senior 
Senator from Minnesota for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grassley). I am in the Chair and probably 
can't participate, but I want to make it clear that I want the manager 
of the bill to speak so----
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, could we have regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am exercising my prerogative. If I don't 
have that prerogative, then I object.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, may I make a unanimous consent request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, I didn't have any intention to speak today, but one of 
the blessings of being a freshman Member is you get the opportunity to 
preside and hear the arguments that are going on in the Chamber and the 
discussion about the SCOTUS nomination. We are going to have to agree 
to disagree with our friends from across the aisle on the SCOTUS 
nomination.
  Let's take a look at what is going on here.
  In North Carolina, over the past 24 hours, some four people have died 
of a drug overdose. We had more deaths associated with drug overdoses 
than we had with car accidents last year.
  So what is going on here? Back in 2008, there was an opioid epidemic. 
There was a supermajority in the U.S. Senate. There was a Democrat in 
the White House and a majority in the House of Representatives. No 
action. In 2010, the epidemic was growing. In places in New England, in 
the Midwest, down in the South, people were dying. Yet there was no 
action.
  Now this Congress has taken action. I think it is time to move the 
CARA bill. To hold hostage the CARA bill and shift the discussion to a 
genuine disagreement we have with the minority on SCOTUS is literally 
costing lives.
  For those who sit here and want to hold up the CARA bill for the 
purposes of discussing the SCOTUS nomination, we don't even have a 
nominee yet. There is going to be plenty of time in committee and 
plenty of time on the floor to debate this difference of opinion 
between the minority and the majority. But in the meantime, for people 
who would hold up passing the CARA bill over the SCOTUS nomination, 
what are you going to tell the two people--last week, two friends of 
mine, when they heard my speech on the Senate floor, came to me and 
said: Thank you for moving this bill. I lost my son a year and a half 
ago.
  Two of my friends have told me: Thank you for helping us increase the 
visibility and get to a point to where we are saving these lives.
  Those who would hold up the CARA bill, what are you going the tell 
the first responders who, if they had naloxone, could have potentially 
saved the life of somebody who has fallen on the floor and died? What 
are you going to tell them? What are you going to tell the law 
enforcement officers who are trying to help people live who have 
succumbed to addiction and opioid abuse? What are you going to tell 
them by holding up this bill? What are you going to tell the parents 
who are struggling, who need help with education, who need help with 
their incarcerated children who may have succumbed to addiction, who 
did a wrong thing and are in prison and now need help? They need to be 
rehabilitated. They need to be saved.
  At some point, we need to recognize that we do need to do things 
separately. We need to recognize that it is disgraceful to hold up the 
CARA bill over a genuine disagreement we are going to have for months.

[[Page S1251]]

  I am one of the Senators in the Judiciary Committee who signed the 
letter. I do not believe that until we hear the vote of the people, we 
should hear a SCOTUS nomination. But I am not here to talk about SCOTUS 
today. I am here to talk about saving lives. I am here to talk about 
addressing the addiction problem that is growing. I am here to talk 
about the sad, heartbreaking stories of families across this Nation who 
are starving for help.
  This bill helps. This bill appropriates over $100 million that can be 
spent between now and the end of September to save lives. If I come to 
the floor tomorrow, I am going to be talking about four more lives that 
have been lost in North Carolina, some that could have been saved if we 
would just do our job. There is a lot of discussion about doing our 
job, right? Let's do our job and get CARA passed.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask my colleague from North Carolina to 
yield for a question.
  Mr. TILLIS. I yield.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you. I appreciate the courtesy. I so understand 
what you are saying. A week ago, I held in my arms a father whose son 
had committed suicide while waiting for treatment, so I understand the 
importance of the bill we have before us.
  I don't see why we can't do both things at once. The Senator from 
North Carolina has sat with me while we debated important bills on the 
floor and met in the Judiciary Committee, and all of a sudden, at the 
last minute, the rug is pulled out from under that meeting. It was 
scheduled. The CARA bill was scheduled to be debated, and we could meet 
in the Judiciary Committee.
  I am sure my colleague will admit that the issue with the Supreme 
Court is important, too, just as CARA is. So could he explain to me why 
we couldn't do both--have our meeting in the Judiciary Committee and 
let those who want to be in the Judiciary Committee speak there and let 
those who want to speak on CARA speak here? No votes were scheduled. I 
am right about that, correct? So just explain how one delays the other.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I actually was speaker of the house in 
North Carolina for 4 years. I like a good scrap. I don't have any 
problem with going to a committee hearing and explaining why I have 
taken the position I have on the judicial nomination. But that is not 
what I am talking about today. I am talking about over the next 24 
hours, four more people are going to die from overdoses in North 
Carolina. I am trying to figure out what I say to that mother and that 
father to say, well, gosh, you know, things got gummed up here because 
we decided to connect two unrelated issues. One has to do with the 
Supreme Court nomination, and that is very important. It is critically 
important. I get that. But what is more important than saving lives of 
people who we know are going to die? The data is compelling.
  Folks, we have to get to a point where we get Washington working 
again, and you don't do it by playing chess. I am not an attorney. I am 
not a constitutional scholar. But I am a father and somebody who spends 
a lot of time in my State. I think we have reached a point where we 
need to get serious with it. We are creating obstacles on CARA that 
don't exist. People are absolutely costing lives by failing to move on 
this bill.
  Let's have a fight. Let's have a committee hearing. I like a good 
scrap. I am looking forward to having that debate. I am looking forward 
to the history of other positions that have been taken by my friends 
across the aisle on how to dispose of nominations from the President. I 
am happy to do that. But I want this bill passed. I want to be able to 
go back to the people in North Carolina and say: We are doing 
everything we possibly can to save lives. That is what CARA does. That 
is why we need to act.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks the floor?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I seek to ask another question of my friend from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, we were supposed to be here moving the 
bill forward. We need to make it clear that we were going to vote on 
amendments on CARA today to draw down the backlog and move the bill. 
The Presiding Officer decided to have the meeting off the floor so that 
we could move judicial nominations. We weren't going to take up 
legislation there.
  I think what we need to do is get back to the work of disposing of 
amendments, making the bill better potentially, and getting it to the 
House and getting it to the President's desk. That is what I am talking 
about. This is the capacity. We have limited capacity in this Chamber. 
You all know the procedural games you can play around here. The 
limitations of time are numerous. We are just creating more of that. We 
are gumming up the works while people are dying. One person every 6 
hours in the State of North Carolina is dying from a drug overdose. If 
we delay by 6 hours, we are responsible for a life in North Carolina. 
These are lives we can save. We need to dispose of the amendments on 
this bill and move it to the House.
  Mr. President, I apologize if I am angry, but when lives are 
involved, when youth is involved, I think it is time for us to do our 
job. Our job is to dispose of amendments and move this bill to the 
House of Representatives.
  Thank you.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield?
  Mr. TILLIS. Yes, sir.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask my colleague, is it true that we have had debates 
in the committee in the committee room while important discussions have 
been carried on here in other instances? Is that true or false?
  Mr. TILLIS. I say to Senator Schumer, it is true.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you.
  Mr. TILLIS. But I don't see its relevance to the task at hand. That 
is the problem----
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. TILLIS. If I may completely answer the question, that is the 
problem with this process. I hear that. I see the Kabuki dances going 
on. What I want to do is dispose of the amendments on the CARA bill and 
do our job. Let's do our job. Our job is to pass legislation and in 
this case save lives. So I get that we need to do the other things, but 
let's get to the task at hand. Let's do our job. I am prepared to do 
the job. I will stay here all weekend long. I will work 24/7 until this 
bill gets passed. Why don't we focus on that and introduce a little 
humanity into the discussion? I get the procedural issues. We need to 
have the debates in Judiciary. I am perfectly happy to do that. I want 
this bill passed. I want Members to come down to this floor, pass 
amendments, draw down the queue, and send this bill to the President's 
desk.
  Let's do our job. I am prepared to do my job today, tomorrow, 
Saturday, Sunday, and through all of next week if that is what it takes 
to get this done. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
will be too.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has yielded the floor.
  Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as one who has held a lot of hearings on 
opioids, as one who has brought together law enforcement, the medical 
community, parents, the faith community, and physicians in my State on 
the opioid matter, I am perfectly happy that the Republicans control 
the schedule and perfectly happy that they want to stay here today, 
tomorrow, the next day, and go forth.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield for one more question?
  Mr. LEAHY. Certainly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I would just ask you, our ranking member, haven't we been able in the 
past to hold meetings in the Judiciary Committee and debate bills on 
the floor?
  Mr. LEAHY. We did hate crimes legislation on the floor at the same 
time we were doing a Supreme Court nomination. Those are pretty 
significant things. It can be done.
  Mr. SCHUMER. One more question to my colleague. Has the leader filed 
cloture, which would move this to a conclusion? As best to your 
knowledge, has the leader filed cloture? Because if

[[Page S1252]]

he hasn't, we are not holding up anything.
  Mr. President, I would suggest to my colleague from North Carolina 
that if he wants to move the bill quickly, he ought to go to the leader 
and say ``File cloture,'' not say ``Delay a meeting in the Judiciary 
Committee''; is that right?
  Have you heard of the leader filing cloture yet?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my understanding is that cloture has not 
been filed.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you.
  Mr. LEAHY. I would agree with the Presiding Officer. I will stay here 
Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and vote and pass this, I would hope with 
actually putting money in it so we are not just passing something 
symbolically without teeth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I would ask the Senator from Vermont a question, if he 
would take it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, without losing my right to the floor, I 
yield to answer the question, yes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I heard what they said about the meeting 
being canceled today, because we could have held the meeting off the 
floor and voted out three judges. So somehow that interfered with what 
they wanted to do in the Judiciary Committee meeting. I asked for an 
accommodation. I asked the ranking member for the same accommodation I 
gave his side when we canceled a hearing on the EB-5 Program earlier 
this week. And a hearing obviously doesn't take the same time away from 
the floor as a markup might. So consequently I am asking the ranking 
member if that accommodation isn't worth the accommodation that I asked 
today.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, addressing the distinguished Member through 
the Chair, he is well aware of my concern and the difference between 
EB-5, which we debate all the time, and a Supreme Court nomination. 
This goes beyond apples and oranges. There is absolutely no comparison.
  I think the Republicans having had a closed-door meeting where a 
small percentage of the Senate decided there should be no debate or 
discussion on a Supreme Court nomination--there is no way that having a 
closed-door meeting off the floor is something that--it wouldn't pass 
the giggle test. I think all of us, both Democrats and Republicans, 
would have been rightly criticized by the press if we had done that. 
This is anything but routine. We are talking about the Supreme Court.
  I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
senior Senator from Connecticut and then 5 minutes to the distinguished 
senior Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I am always honored to be in this Chamber, and I feel 
immensely privileged to participate in any debate. But I must say, Mr. 
President, that the average American listening to the colloquy that has 
been conducted just within the past few minutes would regard it 
somewhat in disbelief, maybe dismay, because the Presiding Officer is 
absolutely right that the people of our States are literally dying as a 
result of the heroin and opioid epidemic that has created a public 
health hurricane, a crisis of untold proportion.
  This body should and hopefully will pass a bill that will help to 
address that public health crisis. It is only a downpayment, only a 
first step, and only effective if accompanied by funding, an emergency 
supplemental necessary to provide the real resources to address this 
problem. But this body is capable of passing that bill and still 
debating whether there should be a hearing and vote on the President's 
Supreme Court nominee.
  The voting on the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, also 
known as CARA, is within the control of the majority. That is a simple 
fact. As Ronald Reagan said, facts are stubborn things. The fact is 
that control of the votes on that measure are within the prerogative of 
the majority.

  In the meantime, the majority also has the power and authority to say 
we will have a hearing and a vote on the President's Supreme Court 
nominee; we will do our job. That is what Senators are elected to do. 
That is why we have come to the floor of the Senate to say that the 
Senate must do its job. It has a constitutional duty. It has no 
discretion whether it should wait for a politically opportune time to 
do its job or whether it should hear from its base politically. It 
should do its job when the President submits his nominee.
  What may be most regrettable about this debate and about the majority 
leadership's refusal to have a hearing and a vote on the President's 
nominee is that it demonstrates political machination--game playing--
that threatens the Supreme Court as an institution. It endangers its 
credibility and trust. The Supreme Court has no armies or police force. 
It depends, for the enforceability of its decisions, on its credibility 
and trust. And when it is demeaned in the eyes of the public, when its 
stature is diminished, when it is dragged into the political morass of 
a partisan debate and partisan paralysis, its credibility and trust and 
its stature are vastly diminished, and its powers and institution are 
in danger.
  I am dismayed that these machinations tend to diminish and demean 
this institution where I worked for a year as a law clerk for Supreme 
Court Justice Harry Blackmun, where I argued cases when I was attorney 
general, and where I was yesterday on those steps with the same awe and 
admiration and, indeed, reverence that the American people should feel 
for an institution above politics, higher than the ordinary give-and-
take and contention that occurs on this floor and throughout the 
political institution. The refusal to even consider having a hearing, 
having a vote, having a meeting with the President's nominee endangers 
this institution.
  Elections have consequences. We all say so. Obstruction has 
consequences too. The failure to consider these nominees means that 
critical decisions will be left undecided.
  I urge my colleagues to enable us to have a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. May I have just 1 more minute?
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Blumenthal be granted three more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you.
  Madam President, I want to close with the words of Justice Scalia, 
who said, when he was asked to recuse himself, that leaving the Court 
potentially equally divided 4 to 4--that a 4-to-4 vote was to be 
avoided if possible. He said:

       With eight justices [it] rais[es] the possibility that, by 
     reason of a tie vote, [the Court] will find itself unable to 
     resolve the significant legal issue presented by the case. . 
     . . Even one unnecessary recusal impairs the functioning of 
     the Court.

  Even one unnecessary 4-to-4 vote impairs the stature and credibility 
and the effectiveness of the Court.
  I urge all of us to move forward with the President's nominee when it 
is made.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator 
from Connecticut, especially since he brings a wealth of knowledge 
here. He was one of the most noted attorneys general of his State. 
Also, he has that very unique knowledge of one of the most highly 
sought positions--a clerk to a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 
many ways, these are the people who have a closer view. So Senator 
Blumenthal's experience as a clerk of the Supreme Court is something 
none of us should ignore.
  Madam President, I ask to be able to yield to the distinguished 
senior Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I thank the senior Senator from Vermont 
for the opportunity to speak.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  ISIS

  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to discuss the United States and 
coalition strategy to bring about a lasting

[[Page S1253]]

defeat of the terrorist group ISIS, often known by different acronyms, 
such as ISIL, as well as Daesh. I will use the acronym ISIS.
  We know that ISIS proposes a direct threat to our partners in the 
Middle East and is exporting its distorted, hateful ideology to other 
nations, including here in the United States. Beginning in 2014, I have 
pressed the administration to take action against the financial and 
facilitation networks that support ISIS. The administration has done 
good work, but much more remains to be done.
  In mid-February, I traveled to a number of countries in the region, 
including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey to conduct oversight 
of our strategy to cut off the financial networks that support 
terrorist groups like ISIS. I found that the events of the last 2 years 
have brought the issue of terrorism financing into sharper focus, and 
certainly into sharper focus for the countries in the region. ISIS 
attacks in places like Saudi Arabia and Qatar should be a wakeup call 
for gulf countries. Terrorist financiers not only support ISIS, but 
they present a direct threat to their own internal security and 
stability--the security and stability of these gulf countries--as well 
as other countries the world over.
  While coalition partners are taking steps in the right direction, 
much more work remains to be done. We need to see more investigations 
turn into more arrests, more prosecutions, more sentencing, and more 
accountability in these countries that will take these criminals and 
terrorists off the streets. It also became clear to me on my visit to 
the region that we need to improve upon the international architecture 
that cuts off terrorist financiers and facilitators from the 
international financial system. As a first step, countries should seek 
to meet the requirements to be a member in good standing of the 
Financial Action Task Force, known by the acronym FATF. This is a 
multinational, intergovernmental organization tasked with addressing 
money laundering and financial crimes.
  Countries also need to take steps to address the ways terrorist 
financiers use the black market and the gray market to facilitate their 
work. For example, in Turkey, my last stop on my visit to the region, I 
came away with the impression that the Turkish Government is not 
adequately prioritizing efforts to stop foreign fighter movements and 
the illicit smuggling of cash, oil, antiquities, and IED precursor 
components across its southern border. As terrorist financiers' tactics 
evolve, our strategies must improve and respond. For example, more work 
needs to be done to regulate and to cut off the informal exchange 
houses in countries bordering ISIS-occupied territory, which may be the 
primary way that ISIS gains access to the international financial 
system.
  Much more work remains to be done, and the United States should 
continue leading the effort. At every stop, I was impressed by the good 
work of our U.S. military personnel and diplomats. One of the 
highlights of my trip was the afternoon I spent at the Al Udeid Air 
Base in Doha.
  I spent time at the Combined Air Operations Center, known as the 
CAOC, where elements from all U.S. services and representatives of many 
of our coalition partners worked together to coordinate and execute air 
operations against ISIS. I also received a classified briefing from the 
AFCENT commander, Lt. Gen. Brown, which, of course, I cannot detail 
here. But General Brown has said publicly: ``Successful strikes on oil 
facilities and on monetary centers have resulted in Daesh cutting pay 
to their fighters and increased the amount of money available to 
conduct and fund their operations.''
  This is an important development. It is important to note that U.S.-
led air strikes are having a profound impact on ISIS's financial 
operations.
  As lawmakers, we must continue to critically evaluate and develop 
constructive policies to bring about a lasting defeat of ISIS. We 
cannot abdicate our oversight responsibilities. To my colleagues who 
say we are doing ``nothing'' to fight ISIS, I encourage them to go to a 
place like the Al Udeid Air Base, meet directly with senior leaders who 
are bringing the fight to ISIS, and see firsthand the incredible work 
of our servicemembers, just as I did in the middle of February. We need 
to hear directly from military commanders and national security experts 
before offering prescriptions like increasing troop levels in Iraq or 
expanding the mission sets our military is currently executing.
  We owe it to these men and women to have a robust, bipartisan debate 
about this strategy and to vote on an authorization for the use of 
military force, vote on legislation to cut off financing, vote on bills 
to promote humanitarian aid--all of the elements of this strategy.
  Rather than conducting oversight by sound bite and oversight by 
categorical condemnation, let's have a serious debate on this critical 
national security issue.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we have had quite a discussion this 
morning on why the Judiciary Committee didn't meet.
  We were prepared to meet the same way we often meet when there is 
just maybe 5 minutes of business. We meet off the Senate floor so that 
we can do both the work of the entire Senate and the work of the 
Judiciary committee. That happens often. And that's the accommodation I 
asked for from the minority. But they objected. Of course, they asked 
me to accommodate them on a hearing that I had scheduled for earlier 
this week on the EB 5 immigration issue. I postponed that hearing 
because minority members of the Judiciary Committee didn't want to have 
that hearing when this very important opioid addiction bill was on the 
floor. The heroin addiction bill is before the United States Senate 
with 44,000 lives being lost in a year because of that addiction. And 
we're considering important legislation to solve that problem. I did 
not get that accommodation, so I canceled the meeting.
  So what we heard on the floor here, while my colleagues were holding 
up the opioid bill, all this talk about having a debate about the next 
nominee to the Supreme Court--a nominee that hasn't even been made yet.
  So I come to the floor now to respond to just a couple ridiculous 
arguments that my friends made this morning.
  First of all, we are going to have a debate about the Supreme Court 
and the proper role of a Supreme Court Justice in our constitutional 
system. We are going to debate whether or not the American people want 
yet another Justice who decides cases based on what is in his or her 
heart or whether they want a Justice who will decide cases based on the 
Constitution and the law. That is not my estimation of the debate; that 
is exactly what this President said regarding previous judges and 
Justices. He said he was looking for somebody who would have empathy 
for people who came before the Court. Having empathy for people that 
come before the Court means that you are supposed to do something 
different than what judges are supposed to do. Judges are supposed to 
look at the facts and the law and base their decisions on the law. They 
aren't supposed to base their decisions on personal feelings. We are a 
nation based on the rule of law. So this is what the American people 
have to think about and decide. They need to have a voice in this 
process. As Senator Biden said in 1992 or as Senator Schumer said in 
2007--we are not going to consider a Supreme Court nominee during a 
heated Presidential election. So we have an opportunity to have a 
national debate. This whole debate is about whether we are going to 
have Justices who decide cases based on empathy rather than the letter 
of the Constitution and the letter of the statute.
  On the second point, we have heard a lot of complaining around here--
and I suspect we are going to hear a lot more--because Senate judiciary 
Republicans met and then made public our decision not to hold hearings 
on the Supreme Court nomination during a heated Presidential election 
year. Give me a break.
  We made a decision based on history and our intention to protect the 
ability of the American people to make their voices heard. We didn't 
play games, just as Senator Biden wasn't playing games when he gave 
that 20,000-word speech in 1992 where he said that we shouldn't have a 
lameduck President make a nomination during a Presidential election 
campaign, just like

[[Page S1254]]

Senator Schumer said in 2007 before the American Constitution Society, 
18 months before George W. Bush was out of office. So that is the 
historical approach. Very plain and open, both Democrats and 
Republicans taking the same tone so the people could make their voices 
heard. The American people should be heard not only on who is going to 
fill Justice Scalia's seat, but also on the proper role of the Supreme 
Court and whether or not the Court ought to be a legislative body.
  Like I said, we made that decision and immediately made it public. I 
don't remember being invited to the secret meetings that the Democrats 
held before they walked onto the Senate floor in November of 2013 and 
invoked the nuclear option so they could pack the D.C. circuit. We 
wanted to save taxpayer money. The D.C. circuit is the least worked 
circuit court in the country. Everyone knew you didn't need three more 
judges. That court was fairly evenly divided between liberals and 
conservatives. But because that court reviews the President's Executive 
orders and regulations, this President wanted to make sure he had 
enough judges on that court, so that when the court reviews the actions 
he takes with his pen and phone, he would get favorable rulings. So 
they packed the D.C. circuit, so that is why we had the nuclear option, 
because the other side had to get around the 60-vote rule that we had 
here for the approval of judges.
  I also keep hearing this claim Senator Biden, when he was chairman of 
the committee, should be praised for how he handled the Bork-Kennedy 
episode. Now, I happened to be here in 1987. I saw what happened to 
Robert Bork. I saw how he was smeared. And because he was smeared, that 
seat remained open and was filled in early 1988. If that is the other 
side's argument, then I think we all know how weak their position is.
  Finally, let me say this. I said yesterday and I want to say it 
again, the other side knows that this nominee isn't going to get 
confirmed. Everyone knows it. The only reason that they are complaining 
about a hearing on the nominee is because they want to make the process 
as political as possible. And that goes to the heart of the matter.
  We are not going to politicize this process in the middle of a 
Presidential election year. We are going to let the people have a 
voice.
  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. KING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KING. Madam President, I listened with great attentiveness to the 
very distinguished chair of the Judiciary Committee, whom I have the 
utmost respect for, but I feel that I must respond, given this 
important question that is not before this body but should be.
  The first point this Senator would make is that the term ``lameduck'' 
is being used rather loosely. Lameduck, as I have always understood it, 
is the period between the election and a swearing-in of a successor. A 
lameduck Congress is the Congress before November and January. A 
lameduck President is the President's term between November and 
January. I think, as I have always understood the use of that term, to 
apply it to a President who is in the middle part or early part of the 
fourth year of his or her term is not an accurate characterization or 
usage of the term ``lameduck.''
  The distinguished chairman said we are going to have a debate. I am 
delighted to hear that. The question is, When? I wasn't here in 1992. I 
wasn't here in 1987. I wasn't here in 2007. So I am trying to figure 
out how to respond to this situation, how to understand this situation, 
with reference to the Constitution.
  There are lots of provisions in the Constitution that are subject to 
windy law review articles, to lengthy court decisions, to 
interpretation, to characterization of what they actually mean, what 
was the original intent of the Framers, and all of those complicated 
issues of discussion, dissection, and explication. But the word 
``four,'' as in one, two, three, four, and the word ``shall,'' as in 
``shall do something,'' are not among those confusing terms.
  I would submit that the President has a constitutional obligation to 
submit a nominee to this body and this body has a constitutional 
obligation to consider that nomination--not an obligation to confirm, 
not an obligation to say yes, but an obligation to consider it.
  The Presidential term is 4 years; it is not 3 years and 1 month. That 
is in the Constitution. Article II, section 2, says the President 
``shall nominate . . . Ministers . . . Judges of the supreme Court . . 
. with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.''
  I would not for a minute presuppose what the decision of the Senate 
should be, but to argue that the Senate will not even hear the 
nomination, will not discuss it, will not debate it--in fact, some of 
the Members have said they will not even meet the person, with no 
knowledge whatsoever of who this person is. The President may nominate 
a person who is a combination of Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson, and St. 
Thomas of Aquinas, but he or she is not even going to be met with. I 
don't understand that as a matter of interpretation of the 
Constitution.
  There is a lot of discussion about the people ``should have a role'' 
in this decision. The Constitution makes that clear. They do have that 
role when they elect the President of the United States for a 4-year 
term, not for a 3-year, 1-month term.
  I can see no wiggle room on the President's obligation to submit a 
nominee to this body. This decision to stall this nomination, to not 
meet with a nominee, to not hold hearings, to not hold a debate, to not 
hold a discussion, has profound implications for the Court because the 
reality is this means the Court will be without a Justice for 
essentially two terms.
  We lost Justice Scalia in February. The term of the Court doesn't end 
until later this spring. He will not be present for the final 
decisionmaking on the matters that have been before the Court this 
term. Then, if we wait until a new President is elected, the new 
President comes into office on January 20, 2017, and submits a new 
nomination almost immediately. Let's say it is within the first 2 weeks 
of his or her taking office. The average time for consideration of a 
Justice is between 60 and 90 days. We are into February, March, April, 
and that is into the next term of the U.S. Supreme Court. By delaying 
this decision, we are basically going to leave the Court without a 
Justice, in contravention to the explicit provision of the 
Constitution, for what amounts to two terms.
  This Senator wants to be very clear: I am not saying that there is 
any constitutional obligation on this body to approve the President's 
nominee, but I believe there is a constitutional obligation to consider 
that nominee. That is really what we are debating.
  I am delighted to hear the distinguished chairman say we are going to 
have this debate, but we ought to have it now, under the Constitution, 
which requires the President to submit a nominee and, I would argue, 
requires this body to at least consider that nominee, to hold hearings, 
to let the people hear who the nominee is, to hear what their views 
are, and to make the decision within this body whether this nominee 
should be approved for this incredibly important, august, and solemn 
obligation to undertake as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Again, ``four'' and ``shall'' are not debatable propositions. Whether 
or not the Senate should confirm is clearly within the discretion of 
every Senator in this body, but to say that we will not have the 
opportunity to make that decision I think is contrary to the 
Constitution. It is contrary to the best interests of the American 
people, and I am surprised, frankly, that my colleagues are taking this 
position. Nobody is saying how they have to vote. If they don't like 
the nominee, they can vote them down, but why not have a hearing, why 
not have a debate, why not have a discussion, why not find out who this 
person is? The President may nominate someone who is of great appeal to 
both sides of this body.
  I would hope that the distinguished chair of the committee would 
reconsider his decision--the committee's decision--to not even hold a 
hearing and to carry out what I believe is the obligation to at least 
hear the nomination--not approve it, but to at least

[[Page S1255]]

hear it--and therefore let the American people participate in this 
discussion. Therefore, let the American people participate in this 
discussion. But let's also follow the explicit provisions of the 
Constitution that require the President to submit a nominee and, I 
believe, require us to at least consider it, if not approve.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about the 
pending legislation, which is very important. It actually enjoys broad 
bipartisan support, and I am optimistic we can get it done.
  Before I talk about that, I wish to comment on some of the things 
that have been said on the floor with regard to the vacancy created by 
the death of Antonin Scalia.
  First, the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, clearly wants to apply a 
different set of rules when Republicans are in the majority than he did 
when Democrats were in the majority. That is very clear.
  People may get lost in some of the arcane and convoluted nature of 
the arguments we make on the floor, but the American people understand 
hypocrisy when they see it. Clearly, in 2005, when President George W. 
Bush was President, Senator Reid made this statement:

       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 Presidential appointees a vote.

  We actually agreed with Senator Reid then. But to have him come to 
the floor and lambaste the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and 
others in a very personal way is surely beneath the dignity of this 
body and of any Senator. Somehow the Democratic leader feels as if the 
rules that apply to the rest of us simply don't apply to him. He comes 
to the floor and tries to provoke fights.
  We actually have some important work to get done, and we will get it 
done on this Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, the so-called 
CARA Act.
  I wish to make another point clear. Republicans on the Senate 
Judiciary Committee agreed in a united way to the same principle that 
our Democratic colleagues have argued for decades. During an election 
year, a Supreme Court nominee should not be confirmed. I previously had 
spoken about Senator Joe Biden making that point when he was chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee back in 1992. In 2005, Senator Reid made 
that point. In 2007, Senator Schumer, the heir apparent to the 
Democratic leadership, made the same point. But, again, they feel that 
now the rules should apply differently under a Democratic majority than 
they do under a Republican majority.
  We are not a rubberstamp for the President of the United States. The 
Constitution says as much. We can grant consent or we can withhold 
consent. I, for one, am for withholding consent to the confirmation of 
another liberal on the U.S. Supreme Court. We have seen the types of 
Justices that President Obama has nominated: Justice Kagan, Justice 
Sotomayor--clearly on the left in terms of the balance of power on the 
U.S. Supreme Court. To simply give President Obama the ability to 
appoint somebody who is going to change the balance of the Supreme 
Court to tilt left for the next 25 or 30 years is simply unacceptable.
  So it really doesn't make any difference who the President nominates. 
I am sure they will be very much in the same mold as the two Justices 
that he has already nominated: Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor. I 
say that with respect to them as people. They are entitled to their 
opinions just as we are, but their decisions make fundamental changes 
in the United States. And it is not just for a term of office; it is 
literally for a generation. We are not going to stand by and allow 
President Obama--on his way out the door as a lameduck President--to 
change the balance of power on the Supreme Court for the next 25 to 30 
years.
  Madam President, now to a more pleasant topic. I actually have been 
encouraged, despite the disagreement we have with our friends across 
the aisle on the Supreme Court, to see that there is interest in 
actually getting some work done. I hope that does not cause us to fail 
to do our duty when it comes to places we agree on, such as the 
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act.
  This bill has been the result of a lot of hard work and bipartisan 
discussions. I thank the leadership and chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, Senator Grassley, as he made this a priority. This wasn't 
just for Republicans who were proposing we move on this legislation. 
Senator Klobuchar and Senator Whitehouse on the Democratic side, and 
Senator Portman, Senator Toomey and Senator Ayotte on the Republican 
side brought this to everyone's attention, primarily because of the 
devastating impact of the opioid prescription drug abuse problem and 
the heroin problem in their parts of the country, but it affects the 
whole country.
  I am thankful that the Democratic leadership understands that this 
legislation should not be taken as a partisan hostage because it is 
about helping to restore communities and families from the effects of 
drug addiction and it is about stemming the tide of a massive epidemic 
of opioid drug use and addiction that continues to claim lives across 
the country. It is an example of how in the 114th Congress, since the 
beginning of last year, we have actually been able to work together 
with our colleagues across the aisle.
  Before that, under the leadership of the Senator from Nevada, this 
institution was deadlocked. It wasn't just when Republicans were in the 
majority. When Democrats were in the majority, even they could not get 
votes on amendments. It is pretty hard to explain that back home: Yes I 
am in the majority, but it doesn't make any difference in terms of my 
ability to get things done for the people I represent.
  I actually am very pleased that we have been working our way through 
this legislation and other legislation that could help advance good 
policies that positively impact the lives of the American people on a 
daily basis.
  Madam President, another effort we have worked on in the Judiciary 
Committee has to do with the intersection of mental illness and the 
criminal justice system. I recently met with a number of major county 
sheriffs, and I was introduced to the sheriff of Los Angeles County. He 
said: I am the largest mental health provider in the country--the 
sheriff of Los Angeles. The fact is, after we deinstitutionalized 
people with mental illness, basically there was no safety net for them, 
no continuing treatment for their needs, so they either end up in jails 
or living homeless on our streets.
  I have introduced legislation, and Chairman Grassley allowed us to 
have a hearing on it. I think it was very instructive. It was also very 
interesting. I say this to my friend from Maine: It is one of the few 
times we have actually had a consensus panel of witnesses. I think on 
some committees in the Senate that is a common practice, but usually in 
the Judiciary Committee things are so polarized that we rarely have a 
consensus panel. But we did on the issue of mental illness.
  Reforming our country's mental health system has become an area of 
real bipartisan consensus as well, along with criminal justice reform. 
In order to protect our communities and to get help to the people with 
mental illness, we actually need to act.
  What has also become clear is that many people who struggle with 
mental illness suffer from addiction and substance abuse. In many 
instances they self-medicate. They have a mental illness, they cannot 
deal with it, they are not getting the prescriptions they need from 
their doctors, so they end up drinking or taking drugs. These are so-
called co-occurring disorders. It is estimated that more than 10 
million Americans suffer from both addiction and mental health 
disorders--co-occurring disorders. Unfortunately, many mental health 
services such as specialty courts--drug courts, veterans courts, and 
the like--have operated on separate tracks and treat only one aspect of 
the problem. Someone with a history of drug abuse and mental illness 
may be sent to a drug court where their mental health needs are not 
taken into account. By definition, a drug court deals with people with 
drug problems, not necessarily mental health issues. When that happens, 
the underlying problem isn't addressed at all.
  I have submitted an amendment to this legislation that will address 
this

[[Page S1256]]

common link between mental illness and substance abuse in the criminal 
justice system. It would direct existing programs to apply to co-
occurring disorders as well, so that people suffering from both 
addiction and mental health problems are not seen and treated for just 
one of those problems. It seems as if it makes sense.
  It would also expand substance abuse and transitional services to 
help people suffering from co-occurring disorders to receive the 
appropriate treatment they need in order to get back on their feet.
  This amendment has been cosponsored by the chairman of the Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, the senior Senator from 
Tennessee, whom I thank for his important contribution to this effort. 
It also has the support of many stakeholders around the country, 
including the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the National 
Association of Police Organizations.
  I hope, when the time comes, our colleagues will support this 
amendment as a commonsense measure that will help those suffering from 
both mental health and addiction problems, and I believe it will make 
the underlying bill that much stronger.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Mr. DONNELLY. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the vacancy 
on the U.S. Supreme Court. Following the passing of Supreme Court 
Justice Antonin Scalia--and our condolences to his family and our 
gratitude for all his hard work on behalf of his country--the time has 
now come for the President to nominate a new Justice and for the Senate 
to do its job and to review, consider, and either confirm or reject the 
President's nominee. That is our job.
  Hoosiers don't ask much, but they do expect common sense. Do your 
job; treat people fairly. That is what we expect from neighbors, 
friends, and family, and it is certainly what we expect from those 
elected to serve us in Washington.
  Back home in Indiana, we have a proud tradition of Senators who have 
embodied that approach by looking beyond partisanship and giving full 
and fair consideration to a President's nominee. They don't have to 
vote yes, they don't have to vote no, but we should at least listen and 
do our job. That is what the people of Indiana elected me to do. That 
is what people across the country elect my colleagues in the Senate to 
do, even when the timing is inconvenient for one side or the other.
  The confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice should not be taken 
lightly, and it deserves careful consideration and open debate.
  Senators, using their best judgment, are free to ultimately reject 
whomever the President nominates. But to refuse to hold a hearing? To 
refuse to consider any candidate? I know my colleague from Maine talk 
about Aristotle or Aquinas. They might be two good candidates for the 
Supreme Court. But to not consider any candidate before the President 
has even chosen a nominee is a dereliction of our most basic duty to 
faithfully serve our country.
  Some of my colleagues have been steadfast in promising they would not 
meet with a nominee, let alone hold a hearing or allow a vote--would 
not even meet. Common sense tells you that is not right. I hope they 
will reconsider their position.
  U.S. Senators, myself included, were elected to do a job, to do a job 
for our Nation--not only when it is convenient, but every day, every 
day we have been hired by the people back home to work here to stand 
for our country. That job includes considering and voting on nominees 
to the Supreme Court. Let's do the job we were elected to do.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KING. Madam 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.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, there has been a great deal of 
discussion on the floor of the Senate about the current vacancy on the 
Supreme Court. Democrats want to fill it immediately. Republicans are 
much more interested in making sure the American people have an 
opportunity to weigh in on this very important decision.
  This is a lifetime appointment--a lifetime appointment--and the 
stakes could not be higher for our country. So it is perfectly 
reasonable to wait for the next President to make this critical 
nomination. It is also exactly the precedent that Democrats in this 
body, in the Senate, created for situations just like this one.
  First of all, let's remember it is not uncommon for there to be a 
vacancy on the Court. Sometimes the seat can be empty for even more 
than a year. There are eight Justices now. Two of them have already 
said they can handle the work that is available in front of them now 
with the seat vacant.
  Justice Alito said so, as did Justice Breyer. Now Justice Breyer, of 
course, was appointed by President Clinton. When Justice Breyer was 
asked the other day about the death of Justice Scalia, he said: ``We'll 
miss him, but we'll do our work.'' He has said: ``For the most part, it 
will not change.'' So there is no urgency to fill this vacancy on the 
Supreme Court right now.
  Second, we should acknowledge that the process of nominating and 
confirming a Supreme Court Justice has become very partisan. It has 
also become very political. Some Democrats in this Senate have spent 
the last three decades undermining the way these appointments used to 
be made. It started in 1987, when Senate Democrats launched an all-out 
assault against the nomination of Judge Robert Bork. It got so bad that 
the dictionary even created a new word. The word was to ``bork'' 
someone. It means to obstruct someone by ``systematically defaming or 
vilifying'' them.
  Then, in 1992, Senate Joe Biden came down to floor of the Senate to 
explain his rule, the Biden rule, for Supreme Court nominations. He 
said that once the Presidential election is underway, ``action on a 
Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election 
campaign is over.'' That is the Biden rule.
  You can't get any clearer than that. Joe Biden was the chairman of 
the Senate Judiciary Committee at that time when he announced the Biden 
rule. You know, he was not all that worried about having only eight 
Justices for a while. Senator Biden said that a temporary vacancy on 
the Court ``was quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the 
President, the Senate, and our nation would have to pay for what would 
assuredly be a bitter fight.''
  Well, if the fight would have been bitter in 1992, it would be even 
worse today. Today, we have had another 24 years of Democrats 
continuing to politicize the process. Just days after George W. Bush 
became President, Senate Democrats vowed that they would use--in their 
words--``whatever means necessary'' to block the President's judicial 
nominations.
  Democrats went so far as to try to filibuster a Supreme Court 
nominee. That was the first time in the history of the Senate that they 
ever tried to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. It was the nomination 
of Justice Alito in 2006. The Democrats failed. Even though they 
failed, it set a new precedent.
  Some of the leaders of that filibuster were Senator Barack Obama, now 
President; Senator Hillary Clinton, then-Secretary of State, now-
Presidential candidate; and Senator Joe Biden, now-Vice President of 
the United States. Senator Reid voted to filibuster as did current 
Senators Durbin, Leahy, and Schumer, all part of the filibuster of the 
Supreme Court nomination of Justice Alito by George W. Bush.
  That is the history of how our confirmation process became so 
political; that is, three decades of Democrats politicizing the 
process. That is the precedent for where we are today. Those are the 
rules we will follow today.
  On top of all of that, President Obama has spent 7 years ignoring 
Congress. He has made the confirmation process more confrontational and 
more contentious every step along the way. The President illegally made 
what he called recess appointments to the National Labor Relations 
Board. He even

[[Page S1257]]

did it though Congress was not in recess.
  I use the word ``illegal'' because the Supreme Court struck down this 
action by President Obama. The vote was 9 to 0 that the President acted 
illegally. Even Democrats in Congress have said they think the 
President has gone too far with some of his Executive actions. So it is 
clear that Senate Democrats and President Obama have been injecting 
politics into the confirmation process for many years.
  Today they seem to wish that they hadn't done it. Well, these are the 
rules they wrote and these are the standards they set. The Senate will 
follow these rules. We should wait until next year to take up this 
important decision. Let the American people consider it as part of 
deciding who to support in November. Let the new President make this 
lasting decision without the political influence of the election 
hanging over it. It is not the job of the U.S. Senate to rubberstamp 
the President's nomination. The job of the Senate is to protect the 
Constitution and to serve the American people. That is the oath every 
one of us has taken in this body. We have a process for nominating and 
confirming Justices to the Supreme Court. It is a system the Democrats 
created and now they should be willing to follow the rules they wrote 
themselves.
  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.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam 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. Madam President, I rise to speak for the second time 
about the Supreme Court vacancy, and I do so not callously, not 
spontaneously but after 23 years of service on the committee. I like to 
believe I have some experience and some knowledge about how these 
matters have been handled in the past.
  I truly believe we have an obligation to consider a President's 
judicial nominees no matter when, and I wish to speak about why that 
duty is so important--particularly for the Supreme Court--and the 
consequences of not fulfilling it. To be very candid, I am shocked at 
the supreme nature of what is happening because of what I believe its 
impact is going to be in the next year.
  Since the Judiciary Committee started holding hearings on Supreme 
Court nominations in 1916, not a single nominee for a vacancy has been 
denied a hearing--ever. Even during Presidential election years, the 
Senate has done its job.
  In 1988, President Reagan's final year in office, Senate Democrats 
confirmed Justice Kennedy. Three years later, 1991, Justice Thomas was 
confirmed after the Presidential campaign had begun. Democrats could 
have said no hearing, no committee work, no vote, no consideration by 
the full Senate, but that didn't happen. The nominations were processed 
and they were confirmed.
  So why is it so important that we do our job? Why is an eight-member 
Court unable to function to the highest and best use of the U.S. 
Supreme Court? Ties in the Supreme Court create uncertainty in the law. 
Important legal questions go unanswered. The law varies then, 
throughout the country, and people and businesses often fail to receive 
justice. I wish to review just some of the examples where an incomplete 
Court was unable to levy justice. There are several examples of the 
importance of nine Justices, if one looks at recusals over the past few 
years.
  No. 1, in 2010, Justice Kagan recused herself from Flores-Villar v. 
United States. This case was going to decide whether a United States 
citizen father must reside in the United States longer than a United 
States citizen mother in order to confer citizenship to his child born 
abroad. The court deadlocked 4 to 4. The result is a child in one part 
of the United States may be considered a citizen while another in the 
exact same situation in a different judicial circuit may not be a 
citizen. This issue remains unresolved today.
  No. 2, in 2000, Justice O'Connor recused herself from Free v. Abbott 
Labs. The court should have determined how many plaintiffs in a Federal 
class action suit must meet a certain damage threshold for the case to 
proceed in Federal court. Again, the Court deadlocked 4 to 4. Because 
the case was left undecided, a later Eighth Circuit case--the circuit 
covering Iowa and other Midwest States--was thrown out. That meant 
30,000 individuals claiming damages from a nearby refinery were denied 
justice in the Federal court; this, even though the company admitted 
releasing lead and other pollutants into the air. The issue was 
resolved by another Supreme Court case, but it was 5 years later and 
that was little consolation to families who didn't receive justice in 
Federal court in the interim period.
  No. 3, in 2007, Chief Justice Roberts recused himself from Warner-
Lambert v. Kent. This case was meant to decide whether individuals can 
sue for injuries caused by defective pharmaceuticals when the drugmaker 
allegedly hid information from Federal regulators. The 4-to-4 tie in 
that case failed to clarify the law, which still varies across the 
country today.
  Let me give an example. Plaintiffs in the Sixth Circuit are now 
unable to sue for personal injury in this situation, while individuals 
harmed in the same way by the same drug in States covered by the Second 
Circuit are allowed to do so.
  No. 4, in another case in 2007, New York City Board of Education 
versus Tom F., Justice Kennedy recused himself. The deadlocked Court 
failed to rule on whether special needs children must first attend 
public school before they receive tuition reimbursements to attend a 
private school better equipped to help them learn. This meant courts in 
different States treated these children differently. The issue was 
eventually resolved, 2 years later--2 vital years of schooling that 
children may have missed out on.
  No. 5, in 1987, before Justice Kennedy took his seat, the Court heard 
U.S. v. Carpenter and Winans. The case, which came in advance of that 
year's stock market crash, involved defendants convicted of securities 
fraud based on allegations they misused information from a Wall Street 
Journal investment advice column. The Supreme Court failed to determine 
whether the action could be a basis for prosecution. The law was left 
unclear for 10 years, during which time some lower courts overturned 
criminal convictions for this sort of fraud.
  These are just a handful of cases that illustrate how an incomplete 
Court can't fulfill its duty and why the Senate must do its job and 
fairly consider this President's nominee. To leave the Supreme Court in 
this situation for a year and some months is, in my view, 
unconscionable.
  So why is it happening? I actually can't come up with any reason to 
refuse to review Obama's nominee other than politics. The only 
explanation is that Senate Republicans want to deny this President the 
ability to fulfill his constitutional obligations, and this isn't the 
only evidence of such targeted obstruction. It has been a sustained 
course of action for more than a decade now.
  During the Clinton administration, more than 60 nominees to the 
Federal courts were blocked by a Republican Senate. Many weren't even 
given a hearing. A comparison with the final years of President Bush's 
term is particularly telling. In the 2 final years of the Bush 
Presidency, the Democratically controlled Senate confirmed 68 judicial 
nominees. That included 10 confirmations in September of his final year 
in office. So 8 months from now, back in the Bush years, the Democrats 
in control were confirming Bush appointments. So far, over President 
Obama's final 2 years, Republicans have allowed confirmation votes on 
only 16 judicial nominees. Think about that--11 confirmations in 
President Obama's second-to-last year versus 10 confirmations just 4 
months before President Bush left the White House. I think the 
inequality here must sink in. People must begin to understand that.
  The length of the process has also ballooned. Under President Bush, 
the median number of days between committee and floor votes was 14 
days--2 weeks--for circuit court nominees and 19 days--3 weeks--for 
district court nominees.
  For President Obama, the corresponding length between committee

[[Page S1258]]

and floor votes for circuit court nominees was 84 days--2\1/2\ months--
and for district court nominees, 98 days. So we see immediately the 
difference between how the sides are handling judicial appointments of 
a President that may have been in the other party.
  Most of these nominees were eventually confirmed by unanimous or 
near-unanimous votes. So that shows no need for extended delays. There 
were no problems with the nominees to deserve extended delays. When 
President Bush left office, there were 34 vacancies. That is a vacancy 
rate of 3.9 percent. Today there are more than 81 judicial vacancies, 
nearly 10 percent of all article III judges.
  Republicans have clearly decided not to do their job, and the 
American justice system is going to suffer for it.
  One thing I don't like to do or make is anything that can be 
described as a threat, but I will be candid with you because I don't 
think I am a firebrand. I don't think I am that partisan, but when this 
is done with the Supreme Court, it signals a whole other level of 
malevolent obstruction. One thing I have learned in my 20 years is what 
goes around comes around.
  To do this, to keep this seat vacant for over a year because it is 
the fourth year of President Obama's term makes no sense at all. As I 
said, it is unconscionable. If you don't think an eight-member Court is 
a problem, you really don't need to take my word for it. Let's listen 
to the Justices themselves. Justice Scalia, in deciding not to recuse 
himself from a case in 2004, said the Court would be ``unable to 
resolve the significant legal issue presented by the case.'' He pointed 
to the Court's own recusal policy, which remains in effect today. It 
says that ``even one unnecessary recusal'' limits the Court's ability 
to function.
  One can interpret from that that by not doing their job, the 
Republican side of this aisle is certainly limiting the Court's ability 
to function. I am not sure the other side should want that on their 
shoulders. I am not sure what may come up this next year--the degree to 
which justice would be denied in a 4-to-4 Court, but justice would 
certainly be denied, and it is probably going to happen.
  Judge Rehnquist said it in 1972--when he warned that a divided Court 
``would lay down one rule in Athens, and another rule in Rome.''
  So here is the conclusion. A President is elected to a 4-year term--
both sides of this aisle know that--but today Republicans are in effect 
saying that a Democratic President only gets 3 years of judicial 
confirmations if a Supreme Court vacancy comes before it. That is not 
what the Constitution says. All of us swore an oath to fulfill the 
Constitution, and I truly hope my Republican colleagues will stop, will 
think about this, will think about what will happen next year if this 
President is denied this appointment for the remainder of this year and 
a judgeship is certainly delayed way past that point. I think to deny 
this goes against both the spirit and the letter of our duties as 
spelled out in the Constitution of the United States.
  Once again, I would say, please, Republicans in this House, do your 
job.
  Madam President, 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. PORTMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I am pleased to see that on the floor 
we continue to make progress on the Comprehensive Addiction and 
Recovery Act. The legislation before us today, yesterday, and this week 
has been about how to deal with this growing problem we have around the 
country. It is at epidemic levels of heroin and prescription drug 
abuse, addiction, and overdoses.
  Today, while we are talking about this legislation on the floor of 
the Senate, we expect over 100 Americans will die--die from overdoses 
of addiction, overdoses of heroin or prescription drugs. This is a 
problem that doesn't just affect my State of Ohio, although we are one 
of those States that is most severely impacted. It affects every single 
State represented by everyone in this Chamber. That is why, over the 
past few years, you have seen this body together, Republicans and 
Democrats alike, to address the problem.
  Senator Whitehouse and I have been the coauthors of this effort, but 
so many others have been involved. Senator Ayotte, Senator Klobuchar, 
Senator Feinstein--who is on the floor right now--have been supportive 
of the legislation but also improved the legislation with an amendment 
which was accepted earlier this week dealing with the international 
drug cartels. There is an effort in this body to take on this issue, 
not in a partisan way but in a totally nonpartisan way.
  Last week I was in Ohio meeting with groups, talking about various 
issues. Every single place I went this issue came up. I was on a plant 
tour, and people talked to me about it. We had a townhall meeting at 
that factory. At the end of the townhall meeting--after talking about 
taxes, energy, health care policy, and other issues--I asked for a 
simple show of hands of how many people have been affected where their 
families or friends have been affected by this new opiate addiction 
issue, heroin and prescription drugs. Half the hands in the room went 
up. They went up because this is something that is tearing at our 
families and our communities. It is devastating so many of our 
communities. The cost to the taxpayers is also tremendous.
  I went to a hospital and what they wanted to talk about was how the 
emergency rooms are being filled with people who are overdosing or 
abusing drugs. I have been to three different hospitals in our State 
that are doing amazing things to care for those babies who are being 
born with addictions. There has been a huge increase in my State of 
babies who were born with an addiction to opiates because of their 
mothers being addicted during the pregnancy. They have to take these 
babies--some of whom are so small they can fit into the palm of your 
hand--through the withdrawal process. We don't know what the long-term 
consequences are for many of these babies because this is such a new 
issue, but we know this is something that is tearing at our 
communities. It is time to address this issue. There has been a 
recognition of that, and I am very encouraged by the progress we have 
made this week on this legislation. I hope we can find a way to get to 
the final amendments and get the legislation passed because it is 
urgent we deal with this.
  The House of Representatives has their own legislation. It is also 
called CARA--Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. It is bipartisan 
also. We believe if we can pass this bill with a strong vote--and we 
had an 89-to-0 vote to get on the bill itself to move to the 
legislation, which was very encouraging--Senator Whitehouse and I 
believe we will get a strong vote in the House as well, and we can get 
it to the President's desk for his signature and begin to reverse this 
trend.
  The legislation is something that went through a unique process 
around here, which is bipartisan or even nonpartisan from the start and 
a process of bringing in experts from all around the country. Rather 
than us saying we know all the answers, we are going to write this 
legislation, we said let's hear from others. Senator Whitehouse and I, 
Senator Ayotte, Senator Klobuchar and others held a series of summits 
here in Washington. We brought in people. Many of us have done this in 
our States as well, but here in Washington alone we had five of these 
conferences in 2014 and 2015. We brought experts in from around the 
country, but we also relied on expertise from the administration.
  In April of 2014, we held a forum on criminal justice and how it is 
affected by this issue and treatment and alternatives to incarceration. 
One of the things this legislation does is it encourages diversion out 
of the criminal justice system for those who are addicts and gets them 
into treatment. It was an excellent forum. It featured Michael 
Botticelli. In my view, he has been a very effective Director of the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy. He is called the drug czar. 
This is within the White House.
  Michael Botticelli came as a representative of the White House but so 
did a representative from the Drug Enforcement Agency and gave his 
great input.

[[Page S1259]]

  In July of 2014, we held another forum. This was on how women are 
impacted by this drug epidemic, looking at addiction and treatment 
responses. We talked about pregnant women being addicted and their 
babies. Again, this forum featured Michael Botticelli, who is Director 
of the White House Office of Drug Control Policy.
  In December 2014, at the end of the year, we held another forum. This 
was on the science of addiction and how we can potentially address the 
collateral consequences of addiction. This forum featured Dr. Nora 
Volkow, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse in the Obama 
administration. It also included the Department of Justice and 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration officials. 
SAMHSA was there. DOJ was there. By the way, again, Director Botticelli 
was there as well. I appreciate him coming to that forum, which was 
very helpful to us.
  Last year, in April of 2015, we held a forum on our youth and how we 
can better promote drug prevention as well as to develop communities of 
recovery for those who are suffering from addiction. Prevention and 
education is a big part of our legislation. Clearly, we need to do a 
better job to get people to make the right decisions to avoid getting 
into the funnel of addiction in the first place. This forum featured 
officials from the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the Obama 
administration. It also had officials from the National Institute on 
Drug Abuse.
  Lastly, in July of 2015, we held a forum on the impact of substance 
abuse and PTSD on our veterans. It focused a lot on the issue of 
addiction and the high rates we see sometimes of mental health and 
addiction coming from some of our returning veterans. This forum 
featured one of the giants in this field, GEN Barry McCaffrey. General 
McCaffrey and I have worked together since his days as Director of the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy in the Clinton administration. 
He is not just a giant in this field, but he gave us great input as to 
how to write good legislation to help us with regard to veterans 
courts, which we have as part of this legislation where veterans can 
get the help they need to get their lives back on track. That forum 
also featured officials from the Department of Defense, Department of 
Veterans Affairs, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
  From all these participants in this process, we received a lot of 
great feedback. It helped guide us as we wrote this legislation. In 
fact, we went back and forth with legislative language with all these 
experts in the Obama administration, as well as experts from around the 
country. This legislation is supported by over 130 groups--including 
those representing people who were in the trenches--providing 
treatment, providing services on prevention, law enforcement, and 
doctors. Those who are involved directly in this issue have given us a 
lot of guidance, but that included the expertise of these experts in 
the Obama administration. I am appreciative for that expertise and for 
their support of our efforts.
  Because it was such an inclusive process, because it was a bipartisan 
process, because of the encouragement and the assistance we received 
from the drug experts in the Obama administration, when we introduced 
this bill, we actually said: OK. Here is our final product. After the 
back-and-forth on all the legislative language and with all the 
experts, this bill received a lot of support immediately on a 
bipartisan basis.
  As I said earlier, indeed, 130 national anti-drug groups now support 
it in part because they helped write it, in part because some of those 
who might not have been intimately involved in the process are looking 
at this problem and realizing this is a solution that will really help.
  We also have dozens of groups from my home State of Ohio that support 
it, in addition to the 130 national groups, from the Fraternal Order of 
Police to the National Attorneys General Association, to the folks who 
are involved day-to-day in helping to deal with this issue at their 
local level.
  I believe it was the day before yesterday that we received a 
Statement of Administration Policy from the political officials at the 
White House on the CARA bill, and I have talked about how the 
administration and their experts have been so helpful, but despite all 
the work they have done to support this bill, the White House did not 
issue a Statement of Administration Policy that supported the 
legislation. It didn't oppose the legislation, but instead it said that 
the drug epidemic would not be greatly affected by this legislation 
unless there was substantial new funding provided. This is kind of 
incredible given that this is the legislation we all worked on 
together. I know there is a difference between the political folks at 
the White House and the people who actually know the issue and are 
experts on the issue, but I hope we can get a strong statement of 
administration support for a bill that was drafted with them on a 
bipartisan basis with myself, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Klobuchar, 
and others, but we will see.
  I support additional funding over and above the $80 million of new 
funding that CARA provides for, and not just for this year but for next 
year and the year after that and the year after that. It is an 
authorization bill that is extremely important. I supported the Shaheen 
amendment yesterday, but it is factually wrong to say, as some of my 
colleagues have claimed and the White House seems to be saying, that 
there is not funding for these CARA programs. In fact, we have already 
appropriated, as my colleagues know, significantly more spending for 
this opioid problem for this fiscal year that we are in. Not a penny of 
that has been spent yet, by the way--over $120 million of additional 
spending. That $120 million of additional spending is targeted on ways 
to spend the money more wisely through CARA because we worked with the 
appropriators and the Judiciary Committee to ensure that was the case.
  Again, having said that, I would have loved to have seen more funding 
over and beyond that provided by an amendment that was offered by my 
colleague Senator Shaheen yesterday because I think that would have 
helped even more, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strongly support 
the underlying CARA bill. In fact, my colleagues who endorsed it and 
voted with us, as well as my coauthor Senator Whitehouse and others, 
agree with that because this bipartisan bill ensures that more Federal 
resources will be devoted to evidence-based education, treatment, and 
recovery programs that we know actually work. It is not just throwing 
money at the problem. This is actually legislation that we know works 
to address the problem based on all the background I just mentioned 
about getting all the expertise.
  Again, these groups out there that are in the trenches every day 
working on this issue are the ones who will tell you why it is going to 
work, but what they will say is it is going to help these young mothers 
battling addiction. It will help those veterans who return home from 
duty and desperately need our help. It will help young people make the 
right decision. It will help that teenager struggling with drug abuse. 
It will help in terms of dealing with this problem we have right now 
where people can't get treatment because there is not enough access to 
treatment. It will help in terms of ensuring that we get prescription 
drugs off the bathroom shelves so they are not being used to get people 
addicted to opioids and then move on to heroin. It will be helpful to 
ensure that we have a drug monitoring program nationally so we know who 
is being overprescribed and who is not. These are changes in law that 
are part of this legislation.
  Again, I thank the experts in the Obama administration who deal with 
this issue every day and strongly support CARA. On January 27, 2016--so 
at the end of January this year--the Judiciary Committee held a hearing 
on our bill. I was able to testify, as well as others, including 
experts. Here is what some of the leading administration experts said. 
First, Michael Botticelli--again, a guy who I think has been a very 
effective Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy at the 
White House--said:

       There is clear evidence that a comprehensive response 
     looking at multidimensional aspects of this that are embedded 
     in the CARA Act are tremendously important. We know we need 
     to do more, and I think that all of those components put 
     forward in the bill are critically important to make headway 
     in terms of this epidemic.

  Again, that was the Director of ONDCP.

[[Page S1260]]

  Dr. Nora Volkow, the Director of the administration's National 
Institute on Drug Abuse, and a real expert, said:

       We support the comprehensive program delineated, and it is 
     one of the strategies to address the problem.

  Here is Ms. Kana Enomoto. She is the Acting Administrator of SAMSHA, 
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. She 
said:

       At SAMSHA we are so excited to be able to implement 
     programs like medication-assisted treatment, prescription 
     drug and opioid addiction, which Congress appropriated in 
     2015 and then another increase in 2016, which is very similar 
     to some of the programs that were described in the CARA Act. 
     Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, for your leadership on this 
     issue and continued support of our mission. We believe that 
     the public health approach of the CARA Act is vitally 
     important to moving forward on this issue.

  The next statement I have is by Mr. Milione. He is the Deputy 
Assistant Administrator for the Drug Enforcement Administration Office 
of Diversion Control. He said:

       I am happy to work with you or anyone on any legislation 
     that will help with this epidemic.

  Again, I am thankful for these experts in the Obama administration 
who have put politics aside to work to support CARA. They helped us to 
come up with better legislation, and they support it because they know 
it will help support education and prevention so we can stop drug abuse 
before it begins. They support CARA because they know it will help with 
treatment and recovery and will help to reduce overdoses which will 
help to save lives. They support CARA because they know it will help 
our veterans as well as women and babies who are suffering from 
addiction. They also support CARA because they know there are more than 
130 national groups out there that understand the importance of this 
bill and support it, including the National Association of Addiction 
Treatment Providers, Faces and Voices of Recovery, Children's Health, 
Children's Hospital Association, the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids, 
Fraternal Order of Police--again, I thank our law enforcement for 
stepping up on this--the National District Attorneys Association, and 
the Major Counties Sheriff's Association.
  I understand that some folks in Washington like to play politics with 
everything around here, but politics has never been a part of this 
bill. It has been inclusive from the start and it has been bipartisan 
from the start. We are here to help those suffering from addiction and 
to save lives, and that is exactly what this measure will do. Let's get 
on with it and pass this legislation so we can get it to the 
President's desk for signature and it can begin to help.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to call up Manchin amendment No. 3420; that at 1:45 p.m. today 
the Senate vote in relation to the Manchin amendment No. 3420; and that 
there be no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment prior to 
the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut.


                              Gun Violence

  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, last Thursday I was on the floor 
honoring the victims of the mass shooting in Kalamazoo, MI, another 
shooting spree that left six people dead and two others injured, and on 
that very same day another shooting spree broke out in Kansas that 
forever changed another town--another community in this country like 
the change that has overcome Sandy Hook, CT, since that fateful day in 
December of 2012.
  This was a shooting spree in Kansas that spanned several miles in 
nearly 30 minutes. Three people were killed. It could have been a lot 
more. Fourteen were wounded. The shooting spree took place in two 
locations as well as the Kansas workplace.
  The gunman had multiple felony convictions which prohibited him from 
buying a firearm, but he used his former girlfriend as a straw 
purchaser to buy yet another military-style semiautomatic weapon that 
he used in the shootings. It sounds a lot like many of the other 
shootings I talked about on the floor.
  As has been the case, I try to come down to the floor, seemingly 
every week, to tell the stories of who these victims are because the 
numbers don't seem to be moving my colleagues--31,000 a year, 2,600 a 
month, and 86 a day are being killed by guns in this country. My hope 
is that by learning who these people are and learning the ripples of 
tragedy that unfold after a family member is killed by guns, that maybe 
that psychology and connection to the emotion of these shootings will 
move my colleagues to do something--anything at this point--to address 
this epidemic.
  Brian Sadowsky was 44 years old when he was killed in the shooting. 
He was one of three people who were killed at their workplace, Excel 
Industries, in Hesston, KS. Brian was remembered by his coworkers as a 
very outgoing guy who was always telling jokes, always fun to be 
around, and had a biting sense of humor. He rabidly rooted for the 
Pittsburgh Steelers. He wore Pittsburgh Steelers paraphernalia and gear 
to work almost every day. He would drop whatever he was doing in order 
to help his friends who were in need.
  A friend of Brian's remembered him as being ``a little rough around 
the edges'' at times, but he was the kind soul who was ``always there 
to help. He was a big teddy bear once you got to know him.''
  His friends said he was a recovering addict who was clean and sober 
for many years and was instrumental in helping a lot of others overcome 
addiction.
  Renee Benjamin was 30 years old when she was killed. Her friend 
remembered her by saying that ``she's smart, she's beautiful. She was 
dedicated to Excel. She loved that job. She loved the people. I 
remember the way she loved people.''
  ``If you ever saw someone smile from the inside out, she was an 
inside out person,'' one of her friends remembered.
  Another friend said:

       She is a person who always gave her all into whatever she 
     did and whoever she loved. She was so smart, but shy about 
     it. She was so funny, so beautiful, inside and out. She was 
     my best friend. We shared everything. We shared a life. . . . 
     All she wanted was to love and be loved.

  Josh Higbee was just a year older. He was 31. People who knew Josh 
said he was a loving, hard-working man. He loved to fish and spend time 
with his fiance and his 4-year-old son. His older brother said that 
Josh was `` `Mr. Fix-It.' He loved tractors and toy cars, anything 
automotive. He was a car guy. He liked to work with his hands.''
  His sister-in-law said that Josh was ``taught to be a very loving, 
kind man. He has a son that he adores, takes care of. . . . Josh would 
give you the shirt off his back and worked long, hard hours to take 
care of his family.''
  We pay a lot of attention to these victims of mass shootings because 
they tend to make the news. We see them on TV, but every single day 
there are 86 people who are being killed by guns. A lot of them are 
suicides, but many of them are homicides. It is happening all across 
this country, and not all of them make the national news.
  Andre Lamont O'Neal, Jr., died earlier this year in Louisville, KY. 
Andre was 8 years old and his babysitter was grilling and also had a 
gun in his pocket. He had slippery fingers, and when he attempted to 
remove the gun from his pocket, it accidentally fired. It struck 
Andre's arm and chest. His babysitter panicked and apparently put Andre 
in a car and took him to a nearby hospital, but it was too late.
  Andre's father, as you can imagine, was overwhelmed. He was ``a good 
little boy,'' he told reporters.
  A few weeks later, Nicholas Hawkins, 19 years old and from Winfield, 
AL, told his mother that someone was trying to kill him. That was the 
last time anybody heard from Nicholas. Four days later his body was 
found shot to death.
  He left high school because of bullying and was only 2 weeks away 
from completing his GED. He intended to go into cosmetology or a 
related field. He loved to dance, sing, write music, and play guitar. 
He was good with hair and makeup and described as very funny, quirky, 
and had a bubbly personality. His friends said he often stole the show.
  Every day 86 people die in this country. You don't hear about all of 
them because this has just kind of become the wallpaper of American 
news.

[[Page S1261]]

Shootings have become routine. This doesn't happen anywhere else in the 
world, and I just want to finish by talking a little bit about this 
unfortunate, tragic American exceptionalism.
  America has 4.4 percent of the world's population, but we have 42 
percent of the civilian-owned guns in the world. We have 4 percent of 
the population, but nearly half of all of the guns are in this country. 
It used to be that about half of Americans own guns. Today only about 
one-third of Americans own guns, but a small number of Americans own a 
lot of weapons. There are more high-powered guns, like the one that was 
used in Kansas, than ever before.
  Why does this matter? Well, it is because the United States also has 
more gun deaths than any other nation in the developed world, and it is 
not even close. This chart shows the figures of homicides by firearm 
per 1 million people. Australia, New Zealand, and Germany have less 
than two. Switzerland gets all the way up to 7.7. In the United States 
it is 29.7. There is no other country in the world that comes close to 
the United States when it comes to the number of homicides in this 
country. This isn't aggregate numbers. This is per 1 million people.

  The reason I show you these two charts is that when you put it 
together, it tells a pretty interesting and simple story. Here is the 
chart correlating guns per 100,000 people and gun-related deaths per 
100,000 people. Here is the line of correlation. It is a pretty simple 
story.
  With a handful of outliers such as Argentina and Cyprus, the story is 
that the more guns you have in a country, the more gun homicides are 
going to occur. Here is the United States on the line, but it is an 
outlier in terms of the number of guns and the number of deaths--simply 
an extrapolation of a story that all of our other first world 
competitors could tell by themselves. This rebuts this ridiculous 
mythology by the gun industry, which tells us that if you have more 
guns, you are going to be safer. The solution in Sandy Hook was just 
that the Sandy Hook Elementary School didn't have enough firearms. If 
all the teachers had had weapons, that shooter would have been killed, 
and the best way to stop a shooter from attacking you is to arm 
yourself. That is not what the evidence tells us. The evidence tells 
us: The more guns there are in a community, the more people get killed.
  I will show at another time this same chart on a State-by-State 
basis, and it will tell you the exact same story. A State that has more 
firearms has more gun homicides. You are more likely to be the victim 
of gun violence if you have a gun in your house than if you don't have 
a gun in your house.
  Now, the Second Amendment is an incredibly important, vital, integral 
piece of the fabric of the U.S. Constitution, and I honor people's 
decisions to buy a weapon in order to protect themselves. Some people 
live in violent places. Some people live in very isolated places, and 
they have made that choice, and that is theirs to make. Of course, 
there are millions of Americans who own weapons in order to hunt, in 
order to shoot for sport, a pastime they enjoy and have the right to. 
But they should purchase those weapons with the understanding that 
there is no data that tells them they are safer with a weapon in their 
arm, no data that suggests that the more guns you have in a particular 
place, the less likely there are to be homicides and gun deaths. It is 
exactly the opposite.
  Every single day there are 86 people who are killed in this country 
from guns, 2,600 a month, 31,000 a year--another mass shooting in 
Kansas, another one in Kalamazoo. My entire point is just to say that 
at some point we have to recognize that our silence has become 
complicity in these murders. If we are not willing to forge political 
consensus in this session on legislation that changes gun laws, then at 
least let's make a commitment to fix our mental health system to make 
sure law enforcement has the resources they need, to make sure we make 
straw purchasing illegal so the method by which the shooter in Kansas 
got the gun has consequences at the Federal level, potentially, as well 
as at the State level. Let us do something to honor the thousands of 
voices of victims that mount by the day.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Connecticut.


                               Mahan Air

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I begin by calling attention to a 
private Iranian airline, designated by the U.S. Department of Treasury 
for its support for terrorism and funneling of weapons to Hezbollah and 
to the Assad regime in Syria. This airline continues to operate and 
even expand its international business network, despite tough words 
from the administration. But this kind of tough language is 
insufficient.
  The time to impose sanctions on Mahan Air is now. The time to impose 
sanctions on Mahan Air is clearly now. I have called on the 
administration in a letter, which I helped to lead and on which I am 
joined by a number of my colleagues, in late February--February 29--to 
the Secretary of the Treasury. Sanctions might be forthcoming against 
this airline if this body were to approve Adam Szubin to be Under 
Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, but so far we have 
failed to do so. His confirmation has been blocked. I regret it. 
Whether or not he is confirmed, sanctions should be imposed on this 
airline. Mahan Air relies on a host of local partners who provide 
financial and other services for it to maintain this robust 
international flight network.
  So taking this action against Mahan Air will not only send a signal, 
it will end actions by Mahan Air that are against international law and 
support terrorism and the funneling of weapons to some terrorist groups 
that can do harm to the United States as well as to our allies and 
partners abroad.
  Mr. President, I also want to talk about the Comprehensive Addiction 
and Recovery Act. Hopefully, we will vote today in support of it. It is 
a great bipartisan bill. I am privileged to have worked on it as a 
member of the Judiciary Committee. I thank all of the members of that 
committee and others, most especially Senator Whitehouse and Senator 
Leahy, for incorporating provisions that I have helped to offer in this 
bill.
  We heard from our colleagues around the country about the public 
health crisis that we face today. It is more than a crisis. It is a 
hurricane--almost like a public health hurricane--a natural disaster 
that requires us to act now. Abuse and addiction are crippling our 
communities, shattering our families, carrying enormous financial and 
human costs. The overdose deaths have steadily increased. They now 
surpass automobile accidents as the leading cause of injury-related 
deaths for Americans between the age of 25 and 64.
  The United States consumes over 80 percent of prescription opioids, 
even though we make up only 4.6 percent of the world's population. In 
Connecticut, I have held roundtables across our State, and I hear again 
and again the tragic stories of young people who begin taking powerful 
painkillers when they break a leg or a wrist in a sports injury or when 
they have wisdom teeth removed and they receive a prescription for 30 
days. They only need 3 days' worth of painkillers, if they need them at 
all. But the overprescription and the abuse that results from it often 
leads to addiction.
  The gateway to addiction is these powerful painkillers that provide 
the beginnings of the problem. One university counselor wrote to me 
recently:

       When I first began this position 14 years ago, it was 
     extremely uncommon to be working with a student who abused a 
     substance besides alcohol. Today, I have a recovery house and 
     a program full of students battling addiction from 
     [prescription opioids].

  I have heard from mothers and families, from teachers and counselors 
who have struggled to find quality substance abuse treatment programs 
and behavioral health services for their loved ones. One mother wrote 
to me about her two sons. Some 8 years ago, her oldest son died from a 
heroin overdose after a prescription program released him early. Her 
younger son continues to struggle with addiction but was recently told 
by his insurance company that he lacked a long enough history of 
substance abuse to qualify for inpatient treatment.
  We must address these problems, and the solution is multifaceted. 
Supporting law enforcement is part of the solution, with resources and 
with other measures that will enable interdiction

[[Page S1262]]

of the supplies of heroin and cracking down on the illicit supplies of 
painkillers. But law enforcement has told me, as a former colleague, 
that we are not going to arrest our way out of this problem. The jails 
and prisons alone do not provide a solution.
  There is a need for more treatment and services. I hear that point 
again and again and again, but that source of solution alone will not 
be the panacea. There is no one solution. Education for our doctors and 
providers and prescribers is part of what is needed. Again, alone, no 
single solution is sufficient.
  I want to thank the bill sponsors for incorporating the provision 
that I wrote with Senator Coats, the Expanding Access to Prescription 
Drug Monitoring Programs Act. This provision would allow nurse 
practitioners and physician assistants to access the information they 
need. Specifically, they would be able to access State prescription 
drug monitoring programs to consult a patient's prescription opioid 
history and determine if that patient has a history of addiction or is 
receiving multiple prescriptions from multiple sources. It is critical 
that we recognize the key role that nurse practitioners and physician 
assistants play in curbing prescription drug abuse and diversion.
  I propose a number of amendments that attack other elements of this 
problem. I am going to continue to advocate for them, whether they are 
in the final package or not--and some of them may well be. I will 
continue the effort to make them real and adopt them as law, whether or 
not they are included in this measure.
  Over and again, we have heard that many struggling with addiction 
start by abusing those prescription drugs after receiving a legitimate 
prescription. That is why Senator Markey and I have submitted amendment 
No. 3382, which would cut down on overprescribing opioids by requiring 
providers, when they apply for a license from the DEA to prescribe 
these controlled substances, to first complete education programs so 
they are encouraged to adopt responsible prescribing practices. Those 
practices can be as simple as keeping track and scrutinizing the use of 
these painkillers. Every licensee, every provider, every nurse 
practitioner, everyone writing out a slip of paper that enables 
somebody to purchase these powerful prescription painkillers would have 
to take a course and complete this training.
  In Blumenthal amendment No. 3327, a separate measure that I am 
proposing as ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, there 
would be better access to naloxone, known as Narcan, by veterans. We 
have seen how naloxone or Narcan is a lifesaver. It can bring people 
back from the brink of death. There should be more of it. It should be 
more available to our police, firefighters, and first responders on the 
streets of Connecticut and in neighborhoods and communities across the 
country. It is insufficiently available. It has skyrocketed in price, 
and there have been shortages. But I have seen how the opioid epidemic 
has affected, particularly, our veterans, and often, again, with 
overprescriptions in certain parts of the country.
  We have moved to address that problem. In Wisconsin, for example, and 
with the great help of Senator Baldwin, my colleague on the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, we have worked to craft legislation that will help 
contain and cut that abusive prescription of opioids. I believe that 
this measure will give information to veterans and the tools they need 
also to prevent deaths in case of an overdose.

  Much of the work of the Veterans' Affairs Committee is focused on the 
opioid epidemic and the Jason Simcakoski Memorial Opioid Safety Act we 
are working to pass into law. But safe prescribing of opioids is vital 
because many veterans, even when legitimately prescribed, have serious 
pain issues that can lead to abuse once those issues are addressed.
  So I have filed this amendment that would eliminate the requirement 
that veterans pay a copay for naloxone kits and for education for 
providers as to how to use them. In other words, the providers will 
provide education, along with providing the prescriptions, as to how to 
use the Narcan kits that veterans could receive without any copay. 
Naloxone is necessary for those first responders, and the underlying 
bill includes provisions that would help to provide it, but this 
measure would focus particularly on veterans, where the need is great 
and growing greater.
  I wish to point out that the cost of this measure would be less than 
$100,000 per year. The savings in dollars long term would vastly exceed 
that amount, and the savings in lives more than justifies this, even 
without the savings in dollars. We are talking here about the ability 
to save veterans' lives. We have an obligation to leave no veteran 
behind, to keep faith with our veterans, and to make sure that a 
minimum amount of spending will enable the saving of lives.
  I appreciate again the work of my colleagues in crafting this bill. I 
hope we will move forward in passing it and that the amendments I have 
suggested will be adopted to strengthen it even further.
  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.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Nomination of Roberta Jacobson

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, it has now been 7 months since the United 
States has had an Ambassador to Mexico. As we all know, Mexico is our 
third largest trading partner. Bilateral trade totals more than half a 
trillion dollars. There is more than $1 billion in two-way trader 
exchanges between the United States and Mexico every day.
  The border States obviously enjoy a close relationship and robust 
trade with Mexico. My home State of Arizona exports about $9.2 billion 
in goods every year. Arizona has expanded its trade relationship with 
Mexico by reopening a trade office in Mexico City. Mexico has 
reciprocated by opening an office in Arizona. Yet, for more than half 
of the year, we have not had a representative in place with the Mexican 
Government to deal with issues of mutual cooperation, issues of 
importance and concern.
  The bilateral relationship between the United States and Mexico is 
not the only issue of importance, obviously, between our two countries. 
Transportation issues, security threats, national resource management, 
and environmental issues are just a few of the fronts on which we can 
cooperate with Mexico, and such cooperation requires a close 
partnership between our countries. The longer we go without an 
Ambassador there, the more this partnership will suffer.
  The relationship between the United States and Mexico has 
historically been important, and previous administrations have 
acknowledged this by appointing top-notch candidates to serve as our 
envoy to Mexico. The current nominee to serve in Mexico is no exception 
to this historical trend. As a career member of the Senior Executive 
Service, Roberta Jacobson has spent more than three decades working on 
Latin American policy for Presidents on both sides of the aisle. She is 
obviously fluent in Spanish. She has earned the respect of her 
colleagues. I can attest to her professionalism and her experience. She 
was reported out of the Foreign Relations Committee by a vote of 12 to 
7 in November; yet the post with Mexico City remains open 3 months 
later.
  Our relationship with Mexico is far too important to let this post go 
vacant any longer, particularly when we have a qualified candidate who 
has been vetted by the Foreign Relations Committee and reported to the 
Senate with a majority of its members. I urge the Senate to take up 
this matter expeditiously.
  I yield back.
  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. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3420 to Amendment No. 3378

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3420.

[[Page S1263]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Manchin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3420 to amendment No. 3378.

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To strengthen consumer education about the risks of opioid 
                          abuse and addiction)

       On page 14, line 10, insert ``consumers,'' after 
     ``patients,''.
       On page 14, line 12, strike ``prescribed.'' and insert 
     ``prescribed, including opioid and methadone abuse. Such 
     education and awareness campaigns shall include information 
     on the dangers of opioid abuse, how to prevent opioid abuse 
     including through safe disposal of prescription medications 
     and other safety precautions, and detection of early warning 
     signs of addiction.''.
       On page 16, line 22, strike ``or''.
       On page 17, line 2, insert ``or'' at the end.
       On page 17, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       ``(C) a sudden increase in opioid-related deaths, as 
     documented by local data;
       On page 18, line 23, strike ``1997.'' and insert ``1997, 
     and may also include an evaluation of the effectiveness at 
     reducing abuse of opioids, methadone, or methamphetamines.''.

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of my amendment No. 3420 to the Comprehensive Addiction 
and Recovery Act of 2015.
  As my colleagues know, our country is facing a prescription drug 
epidemic. Every one of our States--all 50--is having a horrific 
problem. The CARA Act that we are working on and are about to pass is a 
good start to addressing this crisis, which is why I am a proud 
cosponsor.
  My amendment simply does what you would think common sense would 
already entail. My amendment improves the bill by helping those on the 
frontlines of this terrible epidemic provide their communities with the 
information they need to help stop the spread of opioid addiction and 
help seek treatment.
  It will better enable us to educate individuals about the dangers of 
opioid abuse, practices to help prevent opioid abuse, including the 
safe disposal of unused medication, and how to detect the early warning 
signs of addiction.
  This amendment will help to save lives by raising awareness about the 
dangers of prescription opioid medications to prevent opiate addiction 
in the first place and ensuring that loved ones will know how to help 
when a friend or family member becomes addicted.
  We have over 2 million Americans who are addicted to opioids. Many of 
these individuals began the road to addiction with a seemingly innocent 
prescription and little or no warning about the dangers from their 
physicians. Or it began when a friend offered a pill that they thought 
couldn't be that dangerous because it was prescribed by their doctor.

  There is simply too little understanding about the dangers of these 
drugs. Too many people get sucked into opioid addiction because they 
don't understand the risks. Likewise, the people close to them don't 
recognize the signs of addiction or know how to access the resources to 
help their loved ones.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time for debate has expired.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MANCHIN. I thank Senator Murray, Senator Alexander, Senator 
Grassley, and all the people who have helped me in considering this 
bipartisan amendment with a bipartisan piece of legislation.
  If we want to stop opioid addiction, we ought to start by preventing 
it. Preventing it starts with information and education that people do 
not have today. This helps every one of us in all parts of this great 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator 
from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the 
Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Toomey).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Nelson), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 31 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Boxer
     Cornyn
     Cruz
     Gardner
     McCaskill
     Nelson
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Toomey
  The amendment (No. 3420) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: 
Calendar No. 365; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening 
action or debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Rubio, from 
the great State of Florida, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized in 
morning business for such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Nomination of Roberta Jacobson

  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, my good friend, Senator Jeff Flake from 
Arizona, appeared here just an hour or so before and also spoke on the 
issue that I am going to speak about today. That issue is the 
ambassadorship to Mexico and the woman who has been nominated by 
President Obama, Roberta Jacobson. Senator Flake made a very strong 
case. It has been a pleasure working with him in a bipartisan way. We 
believe this nomination has very strong bipartisan support, and we look 
forward to working together to get this to the floor and get an up-or-
down vote.
  So I rise again today to urge support for Roberta Jacobson. She is a 
dedicated public servant. She is more than ready to be our Ambassador 
to Mexico. The Los Angeles Times has called Roberta Jacobson ``among 
the most qualified people ever to be tapped to represent the U.S. in 
Mexico.''

[[Page S1264]]

  We have a distinguished candidate, a career member of the Senior 
Executive Service. She is ready to serve. We have strong support for 
her on both sides of the aisle. What we need now is an up-or-down vote. 
Once again, we failed to get one.
  It is hard to explain this dysfunction when I talk to my constituents 
in New Mexico. They just don't understand this kind of dysfunction. 
They don't understand it, and, frankly, neither do I. We are a border 
State. This is a critical position. It is critical to our security, and 
it is critical to our economy.
  Earlier today, Senators Flake, Klobuchar, Heinrich, and I met with 
the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce about the urgent need to confirm this 
nomination. Our business leaders in New Mexico, Arizona, and every 
other State in our country are telling us they need an ambassador in 
Mexico City. We have ongoing border-related business issues that need 
attention. From time to time, we will call on the Mexican government to 
take some action, to work with us on coordinating with ports of entry, 
infrastructure, and other important issues. We are at a disadvantage 
without an advocate for America in Mexico City. It is very frustrating.
  This is not the first time we have faced this kind of dysfunction. I 
pushed for reform of the Senate rules in the last two Congresses, and 
we did change the rules to allow majority votes for executive and 
judicial nominees to the 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 an opportunity to be heard.
  Roberta Jacobson was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee months ago with bipartisan support. Yet the weeks go by, and 
still we wait. What is holding up her nomination? It isn't her 
qualifications; those aren't the problem. A big part of the problem is 
Presidential politics and the policy differences with the 
administration over her work with Cuba.
  This year, we reopened diplomatic relations between the United States 
and Cuba. As the Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, 
Roberta helped negotiate on behalf of the administration. After 50 
years of failed policy toward Cuba, we have opened a 21st-century 
relationship with the people of Cuba, one that is already seeing change 
as more Cubans enter the private sector. And more Americans, who are 
our best diplomats, continue to increase their engagement with the 
Cuban people. I congratulate the President for leading this historic 
change. Some disagree. I understand that. But their objection is with 
the President's Cuba policy. We are talking here about Mexico and an 
important position that has been unfilled since last summer because a 
few Senators would rather return to the failed policies of yesterday 
and are using Roberta to make a political point.


                             Fair Elections

  Mr. President, just when we think things can't get any worse, they 
do. Now a seat on the Supreme Court is empty, and the majority leader 
is actually arguing that it should stay empty for over a year, no 
matter who is nominated by the President. This isn't governing; this is 
a failure to do one's job.
  Is it any wonder that the American people are frustrated, fed up with 
political games, with obstruction in the Senate, with special deals for 
insiders, and with 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 from the people.
  Each year we have a Student Leadership Institute in my State. High 
school juniors and seniors attend to learn about and discuss the 
challenges affecting our State and the Nation. I always look forward to 
meeting with these bright, young people. They are smart and committed, 
and they raise thoughtful points about how government works and how 
sometimes it doesn't work. One thing we talked about this year was how 
important it is to listen. This is one of the most underrated virtues, 
especially in politics--stating your views but also listening to the 
views of others. I am always optimistic when I see students engaged in 
that process. I only wish we could see more of it in Washington.
  The art of politics is standing your ground, but also finding common 
ground and listening to the American people. Our democracy depends on 
every voice being heard and on every vote being counted. We are losing 
that. We have to get it back or we will continue to pay a heavy price. 
We can be sure of one thing: Beyond all the money, beyond all the 
special interests, these students and all Americans deserve to be 
heard, and they deserve a democracy that works.
  Campaigns should be about the best ideas, not the biggest checkbooks 
or rigged districts. The U.S. Supreme Court created a Wild West of 
campaign finance regulations with their decision in Citizens United and 
their 2014 McCutcheon decision. It opened a fire sale of super PACs 
trying to buy elections nationwide. We are seeing the results--from the 
Iowa caucuses to local elections in Las Cruces, NM.
  We need to overturn those bad decisions. That is why I have led 
efforts to amend the Constitution to restore power to Congress and to 
the States to pass commonsense campaign finance laws. We need to listen 
to the voters, not to the billionaires hiding in dark corners. That is 
why earlier this week I introduced legislation to abolish the broken 
Federal Election Commission.
  Congress created the Federal Election Commission to fight political 
corruption when they created it after Watergate. But today, partisan 
gridlock leaves the agency powerless and dysfunctional. It even fails 
to enforce the few campaign finance laws remaining on the books. The 
Federal Election Administration Act would create a new agency, with 
five members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. A 
chair would lead the agency, and the remaining members would equally 
represent both political parties. It is modeled after a bipartisan 
proposal previously introduced by Senator John McCain and former 
Senator Russ Feingold.
  Super Tuesday was just 2 days ago. Once again, we are seeing record 
spending, including millions of dollars in undisclosed dark money. 
Without a strong watchdog looking over their shoulders, super PACs and 
billionaire donors have free rein to push the limits.
  It is clear that the FEC has outlived its usefulness. We need a new 
agency, one with the power and the will to crack down on campaign 
finance violations.
  The Supreme Court has put billionaires and other special interests on 
a galloping horse. They are running away with our democracy--running 
away with our elections. We have created a dark money, special 
interest, gerrymandered train wreck, and the losers are the American 
people. That is why I have also introduced the Fairness and 
Independence in Redistricting Act, because part of that train wreck is 
the secretive and highly partisan congressional redistricting process, 
and we need to end it.
  The President highlighted this issue in his State of the Union 
address, saying, ``We've got to end the practice of drawing our 
congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters and 
not the other way around.'' In most States today, congressional maps 
are drawn behind closed doors by partisan lawmakers. Their aim is to 
keep incumbents in office, and they do that. Pick almost any district 
in the country, and we will see that almost every one is skewed to 
favor one party or another.
  We can end the gerrymandering status quo. Redistricting commissions 
should be independent. They should be led by citizens, not politicians. 
Arizona and California voted for reform, and they are already bringing 
new faces to Congress. The American people deserve fair elections--
elections that are free of unlimited and hidden special interest money 
and free of rigged district lines.
  Next year, I will meet again with students in my State. We will talk 
about leadership, about challenges, and about how government works. I 
hope I will be able to say to them that we have moved forward; we have 
reformed a broken system. I hope I can say to them that we have done 
our job and made sure that voters, not powerful elites, have their say.
  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.

[[Page S1265]]

  

  Mr. PETERS. 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. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of amendment 
No. 3391 to the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2015. I am 
proud to join Senator Daines in filing this important amendment.
  The Daines-Peters amendment would make it possible for certain 
dishonorably discharged veterans to be eligible for veterans treatment 
courts. Specifically, the amendment would allow the Attorney General to 
determine veterans treatment court eligibility on a case-by-case basis 
for dishonorably discharged veterans who have been diagnosed with 
service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder, military sexual 
trauma, or traumatic brain injuries.
  Currently, veterans treatment courts are open to any veteran with a 
discharge other than dishonorable or a dishonorable discharge that can 
be attributed to substance abuse. However, studies have shown a direct 
connection to PTSD, TBI, and MST are a leading cause of substance abuse 
disorder. In general, drug courts reduce correctional costs, protect 
community safety, and improve public welfare. Veterans treatment courts 
take the work of drug courts one step further.

  According to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 
veterans treatment courts bring the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 
health care networks, the Veterans Benefits Administration, the State 
departments of veterans affairs, volunteer veteran mentors and veterans 
family support organizations together in one place in order to provide 
support for veterans. These are resources that speak to the unique 
needs of this Nation's veterans.
  In my home State of Michigan, Judge Michelle Friedman Appel's 
veterans treatment court in Oak Park is the site of weekly 
accountability, encouragement, and rehabilitation, and I commend her 
work.
  Our veterans treatment court judges are committed to the well-being 
of this Nation's veterans, connecting them to services they need to 
reach their full potential. Servicemembers suffering from the invisible 
wounds of war who are discharged, regardless of the characterization of 
that discharge, truly need the assistance provided by veterans 
treatment courts. That is why the Daines-Peters amendment is so 
important. Former servicemembers, particularly those suffering from 
PTSD, TBI, and MST should have access to veterans treatment centers and 
courts.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Daines-Peters amendment No. 3391.


                       Fairness For Veterans Act

  Mr. President, I wish to stay on the subject of veterans for a moment 
longer. Behavioral changes are often seen in individuals suffering from 
mental traumas, such as PTSD and traumatic brain injury, or TBI. 
Unfortunately, those individuals will often receive a less-than-
honorable discharge, also known as a bad paper discharge rather than an 
honorable discharge. This discharge status makes veterans ineligible 
for certain benefits, including GI benefits and VA home loans. This is 
simply unacceptable, and we need to make a change. Our Nation's heroes 
who honorably serve their country deserve access to the care and 
benefits they have earned, and that is why I introduced the Fairness 
for Veterans Act, which will help these veterans.
  The Fairness for Veterans Act will create a presumption in favor of 
the veteran with a bad paper discharge when petitioning the Secretary 
of Defense for an upgrade in discharge status based on hard medical 
evidence that is certified by the VA or appropriate medical 
professional. This bill has the support of both parties in both 
Chambers.
  I introduced the Fairness for Veterans Act with my Republican 
colleagues, Steve Daines from Montana and Thom Tillis from North 
Carolina. I appreciate the many Senators who have cosponsored the bill 
since its introduction, particularly Senator Gillibrand, who has been a 
champion for the bill on the Armed Services Committee.
  Today, in the House of Representatives, Mike Coffman, a Republican 
from Colorado; Tim Walz, a Democrat from Minnesota; Lee Zeldin, a 
Republican from New York; and Kathleen Rice, a Democrat from New York, 
led a number of Members introducing the bipartisan bill.
  This legislation is also supported by a number of veterans groups, 
including Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign 
Wars, Disabled Veterans of America, Military Officers Association of 
America, the American Legion, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Vietnam 
Veterans of America, the Veterans Health Council, United Soldiers and 
Sailors of America, and the Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc.
  Improperly discharged servicemembers should not lose access to the 
benefits they have earned through their service. That is why we must 
ensure they are getting the fairness they deserve when petitioning for 
an upgraded discharge status. This is a nonpartisan issue, and I am 
committed to fighting on behalf of our Nation's veterans.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, the bill we are debating today is an 
important step forward in helping to combat addiction and opioid abuse.
  According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, 20 percent of 
veterans with PTSD also have a substance abuse disorder. Let me repeat 
that statistic. In our country, 20 percent of veterans, or one in five, 
with PTSD have a substance abuse disorder, and that is why we need to 
ensure that they have all the avenues to care and treatments available 
to them. We cannot allow them to suffer in silence. That is why I have 
offered two amendments to the bill that will help our veterans 
struggling with the invisible wounds of war.
  My first amendment, No. 3390, makes sure that these veterans are not 
forgotten, including their struggles in the findings. My second 
amendment, No. 3391, allows veterans with post-traumatic stress 
disorder, military sexual trauma, and service-related traumatic brain 
injuries that received a dishonorable discharge to have access to 
veterans treatment courts.
  I am proud to be joined by Senator Peters in ensuring that veterans 
at risk of substance abuse have access to the veterans treatment 
courts, particularly those most at risk. We cannot turn our backs on 
those who answer the call to protect our country and are now 
struggling, many of whom are struggling in silence. We must do 
everything we can to uphold the promises our government made to our 
veterans, and I am honored to be doing just that.
  I thank Senator Peters for this bipartisan effort we are moving 
forward here to fight on behalf of our veterans.
  I yield back my time.
  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. HOEVEN. 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.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss two amendments I 
am submitting to S. 524, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act.
  Across the country, including in my home State of North Dakota, 
families are experiencing the devastating effects of opioid and heroin 
addiction. In fact, in 2014, 61 percent of all overdose deaths in the 
United States were related to opioids. In North Dakota alone, overdose 
deaths have tripled in the past decade. It is no mystery why. In 2014, 
the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation seized 1,549 dosage 
units of opioids. In 2015, they seized 5,593. That is a 3\1/2\-fold 
increase in just 1 year, so an increase of more than three times in 
just 1 year.
  Similarly, law enforcement seizures of heroin from Canada have grown 
exponentially. But our data about cross-border drug smuggling is 
limited. To battle drug abuse effectively, we need to know not just how 
much but how those drugs are getting into our country. The amendments I 
am proposing today will strengthen the overall bill by providing law 
enforcement with additional resources to address security 
vulnerabilities at the northern border that could be exploited by drug 
traffickers.

[[Page S1266]]

  My first amendment allows State law enforcement to use grant funds to 
partner with local and Federal law enforcement agencies. In the 
underlying bill, the Attorney General may make grants to State law 
enforcement agencies to investigate the distribution of heroin and 
prescription opioids. My amendment allows States to use those grants to 
partner with local agencies, as well as the Drug Enforcement 
Administration--the DEA--and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
  In North Dakota, our law enforcement has faced increased challenges 
in combatting the flow of illegal drugs, including prescription opioids 
and heroin; however, our State has had a successful track record of 
partnering with local, State and Federal law enforcement to investigate 
and prevent criminal activities, specifically drug-related offenses. 
One successful example of these partnerships is the Bakken Organized 
Crime Strike Force. This task force was created in part by North 
Dakota's attorney general, Wayne Stenehjem, along with the Organized 
Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force, to address the increased drug 
activity in the Bakken oil-producing region in western North Dakota.
  My amendment will give States greater opportunities to partner with 
local and Federal agencies to investigate the trafficking of heroin, 
opioids, and other illicit drugs, as we have done successfully by 
creating these task forces in North Dakota.
  My next amendment also addresses drug smuggling. It requires a study 
of drug trafficking in States along the northern border. While there is 
much attention and energy focused on the trafficking of drugs through 
our southern border, there are vulnerabilities that exist on our 
northern border as well.
  My amendment directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
coordination with the Attorney General, to conduct a study on the 
trafficking of narcotics, specifically opioids and heroin, in States 
along the northern border. The Secretary of DHS and the Attorney 
General must submit a report on those findings to Congress. Those 
findings will give Congress greater insight into the security needs at 
our northern border to prevent the trafficking of illegal drugs into 
the United States.
  Opioid and heroin addiction is a scourge that ruins lives and crushes 
the spirit. S. 524 is a potent weapon in the fight against them. I urge 
my colleagues to support the underlying bill, as well as my amendments, 
which seek to make the legislation even stronger by increasing 
collaboration among law enforcement and addressing the security needs 
of our northern border.
  With that, Mr. President, 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. 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.


                           Mahan Air and Iran

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, earlier this week, I joined a bipartisan 
group of Senate colleagues, including Senator Graham, Senator Ayotte, 
and Senator Blumenthal--Republicans and Democrats alike--to send a 
letter to the United States Department of the Treasury. In our letter, 
we urged Secretary Jack Lew to continue the Obama administration's 
necessary and vital efforts to crack down on Mahan Air, a private 
Iranian airline that provides support for Iran's terrorist proxies and 
funnels weapons to Hezbollah and the murderous Assad regime in Syria.
  Mahan Air is only the latest example of a pattern of behavior we have 
come to expect from Iran: Supporting terrorism and conducting 
destabilizing activities in the Middle East, conducting illegal 
ballistic missile tests in violation of U.N. Security Council 
resolution 1929, and committing ongoing, major human rights violations.
  Indeed, as we wrote in the letter to the Secretary of the Treasury: 
``Strong and swift sanctions enforcement is vital to hold Iran to 
account for its ongoing support of terrorism, ballistic missile 
development, and human rights violations.''
  Today I would like to dive further into Mahan Air activities and 
explain why it is important that America work with our allies to 
continue to push back on Iran's bad behavior and to hold Tehran to the 
terms of the agreement reached last summer with regard to Iran's 
nuclear agreement.
  I will also explain why it is critical that the Senate confirm Adam 
Szubin, Treasury's now-Acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and 
Financial Intelligence, who plays a key role in pressuring our allies 
to push back on Iran and who, in the absence of confirmation, is 
weakened in that vital role. If we are serious about our shared 
intentions to hold Iran accountable, then this Senate must confirm Adam 
Szubin, and our European allies must work with us to sanction Mahan 
Air.
  Although Mahan Air is technically a private Iranian airline, it 
supports the operations of the IRGC--the Iranian Revolutionary Guard 
Corps--the hard-line military force committed to the preservation of 
the revolutionary and extremist Iranian regime. Mahan Air also provides 
services to the Quds Force, an elite IRGC military force that is 
designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. Treasury Department under 
Executive Order 13224.
  Through its ties to the IRGC and the Quds Force, Mahan Air directly 
and indirectly provides men and materiel to Hezbollah, a terrorist 
organization based in Lebanon, and to the murderous regime of Bashar 
al-Assad in Syria. Yet, despite these known ties, Mahan Air is still 
flying into 24 airports in countries around the region and world, 
including the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Italy, and it is 
successfully procuring aircraft and equipment using front companies--an 
evasive approach that mirrors Iran's strategy in a number of 
industries, not just in airlines.
  Since October of 2011, the Treasury Department has taken key steps to 
sanction Mahan Air. In that month--October of 2011--Mahan Air provided 
travel for members of the Quds Force, who flew to and from Iran and 
Syria for military training, and other suspected officers who flew 
covertly in and out of Iran.
  Less than a year later, in September of 2012, Treasury further 
cracked down on Mahan Air and two other airlines for a series of bad 
actions, including sending military and crowd control equipment to the 
Assad regime in Syria in coordination with Hezbollah, often under the 
cover of being humanitarian aid. Later, in both February of 2014 and 
May of 2015, our Department of the Treasury took further action against 
two front companies that helped Mahan Air procure equipment and parts. 
The 2014 action penalized personnel and companies in the United Arab 
Emirates who helped Mahan Air transfer money and procure aircraft and 
other parts.
  This ongoing, long-term pattern of behavior by Iran and its IRGC 
makes clear why the United States and our other vital allies must work 
together to cut off Mahan Air's access to international markets and 
airports, and I commend our Department of Treasury for taking these 
important steps to designate Mahan and its employees.
  These actions alone are important--but not sufficient. Both the 
United States and our European allies must do more. To start, I urge 
governments across the European Union to also designate Mahan Air and 
its many front companies for their support for terrorism.
  By continuing to support Syria's violent and discredited President, 
Bashar al-Assad, Iran has directly contributed to the slow and grinding 
collapse of Syria, to the enormous humanitarian crisis that has 
resulted, and to the destabilization of the region. There is a direct 
correlation between Iran's destabilizing actions in Syria, but also in 
Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq, and the migrant crisis now facing all of 
Western Europe. The more that Iran uses Mahan Airlines to transport the 
very goods that supply Hezbollah, the longer the instability inside 
Syria will persist and the more refugees and migrants will flee Syria 
toward our allies in Western Europe.
  Without the support of companies such as Mahan Air and the many front 
companies that it depends on, Iran and the IRGC would find supporting 
the Assad regime substantially more difficult and expensive. We must 
work together to keep Mahan Air from purchasing engines, aircraft, and 
other

[[Page S1267]]

equipment for these maligning purposes.
  The second step our allies can and should take is simple: to stop 
allowing Mahan Air to land at their airports. A company like Mahan Air, 
which supports terrorism in defiance of international norms, should not 
have easy access to international airports.
  More broadly, combating Iran's destabilizing actions in the Middle 
East and successfully and rigorously enforcing the terms of the nuclear 
deal with Iran will require meaningful international coordination.
  As I recently wrote in an editorial that ran in the Guardian, while I 
understand that many European companies will seek to do business with 
Iran, now that certain economic sanctions have been lifted in 
compliance with the terms of the nuclear agreement, I urge our allies 
to remember three simple things.
  First, the United States and the U.N. continue to maintain and 
enforce economic sanctions against Iran. The United States' designation 
of Mahan Air is one of many unilateral sanctions examples, and many 
that we continue to keep in place.
  Second, stopping Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon must always remain 
a top priority. We are counting on our European allies to continue to 
share this view and to act in accordance with it--a view that they 
stated they shared during our negotiations that led up to the nuclear 
deal.
  Third, as Iran's relationship with Mahan Air shows, the Iranian 
Government remains a revolutionary regime with a long history of 
pursuing nuclear weapons and a long track record of supporting 
terrorism and destabilization in the Middle East.
  Iran's use of Mahan Air to evade international scrutiny is yet 
another reminder that we must remain vigilant in our oversight of Iran. 
Here in the United States, we appreciate the partnership of our 
European allies. In fact, the strength of this allegiance and our 
ability to act as one were key factors that led Iran to agree to the 
strict terms of the nuclear agreement. We must continue to advocate for 
and keep front of mind the idea that the most important contract with 
Iran is the one we have already signed in the nuclear agreement. We 
must pursue every possible means of enforcing it, and that means 
cracking down on front companies that facilitate Mahan Air, and 
companies that are playing a direct role in fomenting instability in 
the Middle East.
  Just as importantly, I urge my colleagues today to put politics aside 
and confirm Adam Szubin, who oversees the implementation of sanctions 
in the Treasury Department. With experience in both the Bush and Obama 
administrations, Adam Szubin is the definition of an outstanding career 
public servant: nonpartisan, dedicated to his job, and committed to his 
country. He has been widely praised by Senators of both parties, but 
his confirmation has been blocked for nearly a year for reasons utterly 
unrelated to his capabilities or his performance of the job.
  The cause of this hold is and has been raw politics, but the 
consequences of the hold go far beyond that.
  When Acting Under Secretary Szubin sits down at the negotiating 
table, the individuals on the other side, whether from the private 
sector or a foreign government, friend or foe, should know that he 
speaks for the American people and has the weight of the Senate and the 
whole Government of the United States behind him. When Adam Szubin 
travels around the world to ask senior officials from foreign 
governments to sanction Mahan Air and its front companies or to prevent 
Mahan from flying into their airports, he is trying to convince foreign 
governments to do something difficult, but necessary. Those foreign 
officials should know that he speaks not just for the Obama 
administration but for the executive and legislative branches of our 
whole government and that we as a people stand united against Iranian 
aggression.
  Let's demonstrate to our allies and to Iran that Congress takes these 
issues as seriously as we proclaim. Let's confirm Adam Szubin and other 
nominees who are vital to this effort and whose confirmations have been 
stalled for too long. Let's work together to crack down on Mahan Air 
and other Iranian avenues for sowing terror throughout the Middle East. 
And, in the same spirit of collaboration that led to the nuclear 
agreement, let's come together to rigorously enforce the terms of the 
deal.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware, Mr. 
Coons, for his leadership on this very important topic. I could not 
agree with him more that we need to fund the IAEA, that we need to 
confirm Adam Szubin for the position of Under Secretary for Terrorism 
and Financial Intelligence, and that our European allies must join us 
in sanctions against Mahan Air.
  The JCPOA is focused upon one clear goal: preventing Iran from 
acquiring a nuclear weapon. The fact that an agreement like this was 
able to be achieved at the negotiating table is a testament to the 
strong economic sanctions that were imposed on Iran in direct response 
to Iran's past illicit nuclear activities.
  The JCPOA required Iran to complete key nuclear-related steps, 
verified by the IAEA, before any sanctions were removed. Iran has 
shipped out 25,000 pounds of low-enriched uranium, thereby tripling its 
breakout time. Iran has removed the core of the Arak heavy water 
plutonium reactor and has rendered it unusable. Iran is also limited to 
300 kilograms of uranium enriched to only 3.67 percent, which is below 
weapons grade. These are positive steps toward preventing Iran from 
acquiring a nuclear weapon.
  But they came at a time when the world community possessed the most 
leverage, and Iran had the most to lose by not complying with the deal. 
Now, in the aftermath of implementation day and with certain sanctions 
relief provided to Iran, we must remain increasingly vigilant in our 
efforts to counter the Iranian regime's support for terrorism and 
violations of human rights of their own people.
  The Iranian regime must understand that there will be consequences 
for violations, however minor, of the JCPOA. If Iran seeks a nuclear 
weapon, the world community, led by the United States, is ready to 
implement the snapback of sanctions in response. And if Iran attempts 
to test our resolve through small but persistent violations of the 
JCPOA, they need to be punished swiftly.
  I recently traveled to Vienna, along with Senator Coons and several 
of my colleagues, to meet directly with the U.S. Mission to the 
International Organization in Vienna, including the International 
Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA. The IAEA is the world's ``nuclear 
watchdog'' and the organization that, under the terms of the JCPOA, is 
responsible for verifying Iran's compliance with the terms of the deal. 
We must ensure that the IAEA, which serves as our eyes and ears on the 
ground in Iran, with direct access and 24/7 online monitoring 
capabilities of nuclear sites, has the resources necessary to execute 
its critical mission.
  It is incredibly important that we continue to ensure strict 
compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The terms of 
the JCPOA do not change, regardless of progress or setbacks in Iran's 
politics, and our resolve to vigorously enforce the deal will not 
waver. We will judge Iran's leadership by its actions and not words.
  Last week, Iran conducted some elections. But let's be clear: Many of 
the Iranian candidates being touted as so-called moderates are labeled 
that way simply because of their support for, or connections to, 
Iranian President Rouhani. But it is important to remember that, 
according to the United Nations, Iran continues to ``execute more 
individuals per capita than any other country in the world.''
  Executions peaked at 753 in 2014, during President Rouhani's second 
year in office, including those conducted in public, along with 
executions of women and at least one juvenile. Amnesty International 
has reported on continued crackdowns against artists and activists who 
were tortured into confessions to crimes such as ``spreading propaganda 
against the system'' and ``insulting Islamic sanctities.'' And we know 
that Iran remains a leading state sponsor of terrorism.
  Unfortunately, I do not believe that the election results in Iran are 
in any way transformational. I agree with my colleague's assessment 
that Iran's elections are neither free nor fair. The

[[Page S1268]]

Guardian Council, a top clerical body of the Iranian regime, 
disqualified thousands of candidates from standing for election. We 
cannot reasonably expect a transformational shift in Iran's foreign 
policy, human rights record or support for terrorism when the hardline 
regime elements that promote these disturbing policies are allowed to 
prescreen and disqualify candidates for office.

  Iran's support for terrorism and the ability to foster instability in 
the region has serious consequences for our European allies and for our 
own homeland security. I served in the U.S. Navy Reserve, including 
time in the Persian Gulf, where I saw firsthand the Strait of Hormuz 
and the strategic chokepoint that exists there. Last year Iran seized a 
commercial vessel in the States, requiring the U.S. Navy to accompany 
vessels and provide security when moving in and out of the Persian 
Gulf. The Iranian regime is a threat not just to the Middle East but to 
the security and stability of the entire world.
  In closing, I want to reiterate the need to confirm highly qualified 
nominees like Alan Szubin, who will oversee Treasury Department 
sanctions against Iran and the front companies used to support illicit 
activities, and we need to urge our allies to join us in imposing these 
sanctions. We need to ensure that we provide the IAEA with the 
resources required to do its job and conduct rigorous daily oversight 
of the JCPOA.
  Most importantly, we must continue to provide strict oversight of the 
JCPOA and ensure compliance with its terms. We cannot let up or be 
distracted by perceived improvements or setbacks in Iran's politics. We 
made a commitment to the American people that Iran must never be 
allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. This is a commitment we must 
uphold and be focused on each and every day.
  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.
  Mr. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to explain four 
amendments that I have filed and would like to make pending on S. 524. 
I understand we are in a position now that we need consent in order to 
have these amendments pending. I am not going to ask for consent, but I 
will explain the four amendments in hopes I will have an opportunity to 
present these amendments and have them considered by the full Senate. I 
know Leader McConnell wants an open amendment process, and I think all 
four of these amendments are very much relevant to the underlying bill 
which is aimed at authorizing the Attorney General to address the 
national epidemic of prescription opioid abuse and heroin use.
  The first amendment I wish to talk about is an amendment on which I 
am joined by Senator Cornyn. It is amendment No. 3421, which would 
allow grants for 24/7 treatment centers.
  I am proud to join with my colleague Senator Cornyn on this 
amendment, which clarifies that grants under section 301 of CARA may be 
awarded for the establishment and support of treatment centers that 
operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to provide immediate access to 
behavioral health services.
  The epidemic of opioid abuse and addiction impacts every State in our 
country. Many of us know individuals and families who have been deeply 
affected by this tragic crisis. Heroin and opioid drug dependency has 
more than doubled in Maryland over the last decade. The number of 
deaths related to heroin and opioid drug dependency has increased by 
more than 100 percent in the last 5 years. In 2013, there were 464 
heroin-related overdose deaths in Maryland, greater than the number of 
homicides. Some parts of Maryland have had the highest per capita rate 
of heroin and opioid drug use in the United States. In some regions of 
the State an estimated 1 in 10 citizens are addicted to heroin.
  Improving access to behavioral health care--meaning both mental 
health and substance abuse treatment--is essential in combating this 
epidemic. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, more 
than half of the individuals with substance use disorders also have at 
least one serious mental health condition. There is often a small 
window of opportunity for getting an individual with substance abuse or 
mental health issues into treatment. If treatment cannot be provided on 
demand, often the opportunity is lost. Allowing grants for the 
establishment and support of 24/7 treatment centers providing 
behavioral health services on demand will help ensure those individuals 
in need have access to behavioral health services at the time they need 
it.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in helping to get this amendment 
pending and adopted. It is a bipartisan amendment, as I said. I am 
joined by Senator Cornyn in presenting it to our colleagues.
  The second amendment is pretty simple. It requests a GAO report on 
naloxone price increases. I am pleased this amendment I would offer 
would require a study of the most recent dramatic increase in the price 
of this medicine. Naloxone is a lifesaving drug that is used to reverse 
the effects of opioid overdose. However, according to the Baltimore 
City Health Department, the cost per dose in Baltimore has quadrupled 
over the past 2 years--quadrupled in 2 years. This GAO study would 
evaluate the impact of the ability of States and local health 
departments to reduce the number of deaths due to opioid overdose. It 
is a pretty simple amendment, and I would hope we could get it pending 
and included in this legislation because I think it would save lives.
  The next amendment I wish to talk about is again a bipartisan 
amendment that is being offered with Senator Heller. This amendment 
would repeal the therapy cap. I was in the House of Representatives 
when the therapy cap was imposed on therapeutic rehab services. It was 
included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and imposed annual 
financial limits on outpatient physical therapy and speech-language 
pathology services, as well as occupational therapy services. The 
decision to impose those caps was not based upon data, concerns about 
quality of care or clinical judgment. The sole purpose was to limit 
spending in order to balance the Federal budget.
  I was in the Ways and Means Committee room when Chairman Thomas 
brought this issue up to include in the Balanced Budget Act, and I 
asked the question: Why are we doing this? He said: Well, we need these 
dollar amounts to equal the numbers. I said: What is the policy reason? 
None could be given.
  These arbitrary caps create an unnecessary and burdensome financial 
barrier to Medicare beneficiaries who rely on essential rehab services 
such as physical and occupational therapy to live healthy and 
productive lives. Chronic pain, which is defined as pain that lasts for 
several months or in some cases years, affects at least 116 million 
Americans each year. Physical therapy plays an important role in 
managing chronic pain.
  Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published 
draft clinical guidelines on the use of opioids for chronic pain, 
making it clear nondrug approaches, such as physical therapy, are 
``preferred'' treatment paths for chronic pain. Approaches such as 
physical therapy ``have been underutilized and, therefore, can serve as 
a primary strategy to reduce prescription drug medication abuse and 
improving the lives of individuals with chronic pain.''
  I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Heller to permanently 
repeal the therapy cap and ensure that Medicare beneficiaries, 
including those suffering from chronic pain, continue to have access to 
medically necessary outpatient physical therapy services.
  The fourth amendment I would like to offer is in title IV of this 
legislation. It addresses the so-called collateral 
consequences. Section 402 directs the Attorney General to establish a 
``Task Force on Recovery and Collateral Consequences.'' Collateral 
consequences refer to a penalty, disability or disadvantage experienced 
by an individual because of a criminal conviction, but that is separate 
from the court's judgment or sentencing. The commission will study 
these consequences and

[[Page S1269]]

whether they affect the ability of individuals to resume their personal 
and professional lives. In other words, we are talking about reentry 
into society.

  But we do not have to wait for the results of a commission to take 
action to ameliorate one of the collateral consequences of a criminal 
conviction. Here, I am talking about the fundamental right to vote. An 
estimated 5.85 million citizens cannot vote as a result of criminal 
convictions, and nearly 4.4 million of those have already been released 
from prison. So 4.4 million people in our communities are denied the 
right to vote. Nationwide, 1 in 13 African Americans of voting age have 
lost the right to vote, a rate 4 times higher than the national 
average. Latino citizens are also impacted in an extreme way because 
they are disproportionately overrepresented in the criminal justice 
system. States have vastly different approaches to voting with a 
criminal conviction. This patchwork of State laws has caused confusion 
among election officials and the public, sometimes resulting in the 
disenfranchisement of even eligible voters. Some of these State laws 
are a holdover from the era of Jim Crow laws, where even misdemeanor 
convictions could take away an individual's right to vote. In some 
cases, the right to vote is lost permanently, with no ability for 
rehabilitation. This is just plain wrong.
  The amendment I wish to offer would provide much-needed information 
into the hands of citizens returning from incarceration. My amendment 
would direct the Justice Department to provide to individuals released 
from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons information regarding their 
right to vote following release. It would require notifications to 
individuals of the impact on their voting rights when they accept a 
plea agreement from the U.S. attorney and require the Department of 
Justice to report on the disproportionate impact of both Federal and 
State criminal disenfranchisement laws on minority populations, 
including data on voter disenfranchisement rates by race and ethnicity.
  My amendment does not change any existing Federal or State voting 
rights laws. It does not. It simply requires the Justice Department to 
provide additional information to ex-offenders upon their release from 
prison, and it makes sure that defendants are aware of the impact on 
their voting rights when accepting a plea agreement. The Department of 
Justice study can provide us additional information on the patchwork of 
State and Federal disenfranchisement laws, which Congress and the 
States can use to make further changes in the statute.
  So I urge my colleagues to have a process where this amendment, along 
with the other three I have discussed, can be made pending so that we 
can vote on these amendments. I think they all would improve the 
underlying bill, and it is certainly consistent with the majority 
leader's commitment to an open amendment process. I hope there will be 
a way that I will be able to offer these amendments and the full Senate 
will be able to vote on these amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                Filling the Vacancy on the Supreme Court

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, earlier this week and last week I joined a 
number of my colleagues on the floor and spoke at length about the need 
for our fellow Senators on the other side of the aisle to do something 
simple--to do their jobs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have on his microphone.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Earlier this week and last I spoke at length about the need for my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to do their job and to move 
forward with hearings and an up-or-down vote on whomever the President 
nominates to the Supreme Court. The outcry from the public continues 
from every corner of our justice system. Let's just recount quickly 
what happened after the tragic and untimely death of Justice Scalia.
  Within an hour or so, the Republican leader of the Senate said: Don't 
bother sending up a nominee. History suggests that we won't do this in 
the last year of the Presidency. We are not going to do hearings. Don't 
even bother.
  Other Republican Senators, sort of like one bird flying off the 
telephone wire--they all fly off a telephone wire--one Republican 
Senator after another, first said no hearings. Then, after the majority 
leader said that he would not even meet with prospective nominees, 
other Republican Senators said they wouldn't meet with nominees.
  Just imagine that. We work hard to run for these offices. It is hard 
to get to the Senate. When we win, within a month and a half or 2 
months later, we take an oath of office. We get paid to do our jobs. 
But they are just not doing their job.
  The Constitution says the President shall nominate to fill a vacancy 
on the Supreme Court, and the Constitution says the Senate shall advise 
and consent--not except in the last year of the President's term, not 
only if we feel like it. We are just saying to our Senate colleagues--
along with Americans saying to Senate Republicans: Do your job.
  It is pretty simple. We are not saying you have to vote for the 
President's nominee. Understandably, you may not want to, but at least 
meet the nominee, at least hold hearings on the nominee. Then let's 
bring him or her to the Senate floor and have a debate and vote up or 
down.
  Earlier this week I quoted from four former U.S. attorneys from my 
State of Ohio, from Washington State, California, and Virginia. They 
wrote: ``It is unfair and unsafe to expect good federal agents, police 
and prosecutors to spend more than a year guessing whether their 
actions will hold up in court.'' These are criminal prosecutors, U.S. 
attorneys, saying how important it is that, ultimately, when something 
goes to the Supreme Court, there will be a decision made because there 
is an odd number of justices.
  The last time there was a 1-year vacancy--which is what the 
Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, is calling for--on the Supreme 
Court was 150 years ago, and that was because we were at war. It was 
during the Civil War. It is unprecedented to do what they are doing.
  On Tuesday, former Ohio Court of Appeals Judge Mark Painter wrote an 
op-ed in the very conservative, very Republican Cincinnati Inquirer, 
sharing some of the same concerns. He wrote:

       It would be irresponsible and unprecedented to let a 
     vacancy on the court extend into 2017. If Congress fails to 
     act, the Supreme Court will go two terms--well over a year--
     with a vacancy. The court will hear significant cases in the 
     coming months and issue rulings that will impact our everyday 
     lives.
       As a judge for 30 years, I learned that it is important for 
     the law to be settled.

  Settled--not held in abeyance, not deadlocked, but settled--that is 
why we have an ultimate Supreme Court.

       Uncertainty is bad for businesses, individuals and for 
     commerce. Two court terms of possible 4-4 votes would be a 
     nightmare.

  There is no precedent for causing this damaging uncertainty. The only 
reason is politics.
  That is the same Republican leader who some years ago said: My No. 1 
political goal is to keep Barack Obama from being reelected, not, my 
No. 1 goal is to help improve the economy or to help wages go up or to 
preserve our freedom, our families or our economic security from 
attack. He said: My No. 1 goal is to make sure that Barack Obama isn't 
reelected.
  Then this same crowd shut down the government in 2013, after Barack 
Obama was reelected. They didn't like that--understandably. But they 
shut the government down--not understandable. Now they want to shut the 
Supreme Court down by locking it in with an even number where we will 
see 4-to-4 votes.
  Judge Painter points out that we elected Barack Obama to a 4-year 
term:

       The nomination to fill the seat of Supreme Court Justice 
     Scalia is bigger than party or politics. And there is no 
     doubt that Scalia himself would interpret the Constitution as 
     requiring a nomination and a vote by the Senate. It's that 
     simple.
       That's why President Obama will do the job that the 
     American people elected him to do. And that's why the Senate 
     should do its job also.
       Under our Constitution, we elect presidents for four-year 
     terms. Obama has almost a quarter of his term left. Should 
     the process of government stop for a year?

  Should the process of government stop for a year? It should not. My 
colleagues, pure and simple, ought to do

[[Page S1270]]

their jobs. They ought to meet the nominee. They ought to hold 
hearings. They ought to give an up-or-down vote to whomever the 
President nominates. Let's do our job.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I want to join my colleague from Ohio, 
Senator Brown, in his message about our responsibility to do our job. 
It is very simple: Do our job. Do what the people of our State elected 
us to do.
  Senator Brown is absolutely correct. Article II, section 2 of the 
Constitution states that the President ``shall nominate, and by and 
with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges 
of the supreme Court.'' The last time I checked, the President was 
elected for a term of 4 years, not 3 years and 2 months. We still have 
10 months left of President Obama's Presidency. There is plenty of time 
for the Senate to consider his nomination for the Supreme Court of the 
United States.
  I find it shocking that my colleagues would suggest, even before the 
President has submitted a nomination, that the Senate would not conduct 
hearings or consider the nomination of the President to the Supreme 
Court, even though that is our constitutional responsibility and even 
though we were elected for a 6-year term. The last time I checked, we 
are in session until the end of this year. We don't adjourn in March. 
The President has 10 months left in office, and Senators should do our 
work and do our job. I think the American people will ultimately demand 
that the Senate do its job and not threaten to stop working simply to 
coddle and pander to the most extreme and fringe elements of its base.
  Senators should look to the Constitution for the history and the 
precedents of the Senate on how to proceed. I say that because if we do 
not hold a hearing on President Obama's nomination for the Supreme 
Court, it will be the first time in the history of the United States 
that a nominee who requested a hearing is denied a hearing--the first 
time ever. This is a matter of what is the appropriate role in the 
Constitution of the United States. We all took an oath of office to 
uphold the Constitution of the United States, and it is our 
responsibility to respond with a serious effort.
  The majority leader said that when we get a nomination, we should act 
with dignity. Well, we are not acting with dignity if we don't hold a 
hearing. Let me remind us that the last time a President nominated in 
an election year of the opposite party, President Reagan's nomination 
of Justice Kennedy was considered by a Democratic-controlled Senate and 
approved by a Democrat-controlled Senate.
  Let me also remind us that there have been times where a nominee of 
the President has not been approved by the Judiciary Committee. They 
have still come to the floor of the Senate for action. Justice Thomas 
was approved by a majority vote of the Senate even though he was not 
recommended by the Judiciary Committee. It was short of the 60-vote 
threshold, which means that if the Democratic majority had wanted to 
filibuster, they could have. So we are on uncharted waters here with 
what the Republicans are doing.
  We have separation of branches of government. That is the history of 
our country. That is the democracy in which we live. It is our 
responsibility to preserve that. We, the legislative branch of the 
government, have the responsibility to advise and consent on the 
independent judiciary. The Supreme Court operates with nine justices, 
not with eight. It is an abuse of power of the majority in the Senate--
the Republicans--to say that we are going to reduce the Supreme Court 
of the United States to eight by inaction. What happens when we have 
conflicting decisions made by different circuits and the only court 
that can determine the law is the Supreme Court in its interpretation 
and they are 4-to-4 deadlocked? If we do not take up this appointment 
and we go the full year into next year, it will be two terms of the 
U.S. Supreme Court without the full complement of justices.
  Do your job, my colleagues. That is all we have to do. You don't have 
to vote yes. Vote. Have a hearing. Have the courage to vote yes or no 
on the President's nominee. They are saying we are not even going to 
have a chance for a hearing or vote, and we don't even know who the 
nominee is, and that is just plain wrong. I think the American people 
will speak with a clear voice and say that is not what the Senate 
should be doing.
  I hope the Republican leadership will provide the dignity of the 
Senate, hold hearings, and allow the full Senate to vote up-or-down on 
the President's nominee for the Supreme Court.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, addiction to prescription opioid pain 
relievers and heroin is a growing public health epidemic that is taking 
a heartbreaking toll on families and communities in every State of this 
country. In 2014, more than 47,000 Americans died because of 
prescription opioid and heroin overdoses.
  This crisis is very real in my home State of New Mexico. For years, 
without adequate treatment resources, communities in my State have 
suffered through some of the highest rates of heroin and opioid 
addiction in the country. Far too many New Mexico families have lost 
loved ones, and many more are struggling to find treatment and recovery 
resources for a father, a mother, a son, a daughter, or for themselves.
  Two weeks ago, I visited Espanola Valley in Rio Arriba County. Rio 
Arriba, which is largely rural and has predominantly Hispanic and 
tribal communities, is filled with beautiful mountain and desert 
landscapes, the kinds of places that attract artisan visitors from 
around the world. Families from Rio Arriba can trace their lineage to 
Spanish settlers who came to New Mexico in the 1600s and to Indian 
Pueblos and tribes who have lived in this region for millennia. 
Tragically, Rio Arriba County has also long been home to the highest 
rates of heroin addiction and overdose deaths in the Nation. In fact, 
between 2010 and 2014, the county's overdose death rate was more than 
five times the national average. This is not only tragic, it is simply 
unacceptable.
  Last month, I convened a roundtable discussion in the area with U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services Region 6 Director Marjorie 
Petty and a number of local stakeholders, including the Rio Arriba 
Community Health Council. We gathered at the Delancey Street Foundation 
in Ohkay Owingeh to discuss ongoing efforts and ways to better address 
the heroin and prescription drug crisis in my State. What I heard loud 
and clear from public health officials, from law enforcement and first 
responders, and, probably most importantly, from people who have coped 
directly with addiction, is that this crisis is hitting entire 
communities and hitting them hard. Everyone knows a family who has a 
child suffering through addiction or in recovery, and many have 
literally lost loved ones to drug-related deaths.
  For decades, drug addiction and substance abuse have been passed down 
generation to generation in too many families in Rio Arriba and in 
communities across New Mexico. The introduction of prescription opioid 
pain medications such as oxycodone and hydrocodone into the market over 
the last two decades has poured fuel on this fire, creating even more 
cases of opioid abuse and heroin addiction. These prescription opioid 
pain medications, which are so chemically similar to heroin, have 
produced whole new onramps onto the highway of addiction. In many 
instances, by the time someone has finished their first prescription 
drug treatment, they are literally already hooked, so they turn to 
purchase new pills, legally or illegally, either through a new 
prescription or through other means. When they can't afford the pills 
anymore, all too often they turn to heroin.
  Overprescription of opioid drugs and the widespread trafficking of 
lethal black tar heroin have both contributed enormously to the ongoing 
public health crisis in New Mexico and now across our Nation. The 
statistics alone should get our attention. From 2002 to 2013, opioid-
related deaths quadrupled nationally. Drug overdoses were the leading 
cause of injury death in 2013. Among Americans ages 25 to 64 years

[[Page S1271]]

old, drug overdoses caused more deaths than motor vehicle crashes. 
Think about that.
  Over this same period, New Mexico families and communities have borne 
the brunt of this epidemic. Between 2011 and 2013, New Mexico ranked 
second nationally for drug overdose deaths, and it is getting worse by 
the year. More New Mexicans died of drug overdoses in 2014 than in any 
other year on record. Some 547 people died in New Mexico due to drug 
poisoning, including deaths from prescription opioids and heroin 
overuse.
  Rather than focus solely on these statistics, I want to talk a little 
bit about some of the people I met in my visit to Rio Arriba County 
because I think it puts a much more human and real face on the very 
nature of this problem.
  Jesus toured me around Delancey Street.
  The Delancey Street Foundation is a national residential self-help 
rehab organization that helps former substance abusers, ex-convicts, 
and others who have literally hit rock bottom turn their lives around, 
get clean, and learn academic and vocational and life skills. Residents 
have to commit to a minimum stay of at least 2 years. During that 
period, a comprehensive treatment program often produces dramatic 
results.
  Delancey Street's facility in New Mexico is located on a 17-acre 
ranch in Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo. Residents there learn vocational skills 
to get jobs in livestock management, culinary arts, retail sales, 
construction, wastewater management, and landscaping.
  Jesus came to Delancey Street after getting caught up using and 
selling pills and heroin in the Espanola Valley. He had two DUIs and 
suffered through alcoholism and substance abuse. In 2011, when a judge 
gave him the option of going to Delancey Street instead of serving a 9-
year prison sentence, he took the chance. Through a long process, he 
received treatment and learned how to cope with his addiction. Jesus 
has stayed at Delancey Street well past his 2-year commitment and has 
taken on new responsibilities. He now serves as a mentor and a role 
model to new residents who are trying to overcome their addictions.
  I met another man named Josh. He is a peer-to-peer support worker at 
Inside Out Recovery Center in Espanola. Josh was born and raised in 
Espanola, where he saw drug and alcohol use as the way of life in his 
community. When he was 14 years old, a high school friend with a 
prescription for hydrocodone offered him some pills. Josh quickly 
became addicted. Over time, his opioid addiction led him to the point 
where he was shooting 7 grams of heroin every day, stealing from family 
and friends to pay for that addiction, and going in and out of the 
prison system at the same time. At one point, while going through 
withdrawal in a jail cell, Josh was unable to eat for weeks. He 
literally lost over a third of his body weight. He remembers later 
attempting suicide in an act of desperation to end his addiction and 
failing when his gun didn't go off.

  In his late twenties, after going through these intense struggles, 
Josh was introduced to the Inside Out Recovery Center. He met a peer-
to-peer support worker named Alex, who had done the same drugs and been 
through the same struggles. Josh realized there was a way to stop 
using, and he turned his life around. He got clean.
  When a judge sentenced Josh to probation instead of prison for an 
offense, he was released from jail and went straight to Inside Out and 
committed to treatment. He said it was the first time he had been 
released and hadn't immediately returned to drug and alcohol abuse. At 
Inside Out, Josh received peer support and learned conflict resolution 
and coping skills. He credits the program with actually saving his 
life. Now that Josh has his life back, he is working to help others in 
his community to get their lives back from addiction.
  Finally, I want to tell you about Rufus. Rufus is a 22-year-old 
Navajo Hopi man who lives in Pojoaque. When I met Rufus during my 
visit, he was getting ready to graduate from his treatment at New Moon 
Lodge treatment facility in Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo.
  New Moon Lodge is a residential addiction treatment center that 
serves clients from New Mexico's American Indian communities. Although 
the center treats different types of addiction and substance abuse, 
including alcoholism, recently they have seen many more cases of opioid 
and heroin addiction.
  Rufus's addiction to opioids began when he was prescribed hydrocodone 
to help with a hand injury he received when he was 16. He became 
addicted. Once his prescription ran out, he turned to buying pills 
illegally, moved up to higher dosages, and eventually moved on to 
heroin. He got expelled from high school his senior year and fell even 
deeper into this addiction.
  After years of use and going in and out of jail for various offenses, 
Rufus came before the Pojoaque Tribal Court last year and was given the 
option to go to New Moon for treatment. New Moon helped him see the 
person he could be without the drugs. Rufus just graduated from his 
treatment at New Moon last week. Now he is looking forward to building 
a stable home life for his girlfriend and his baby by going back to 
school to get his GED and working toward being a mechanic or an artist.
  I tell these stories to demonstrate that when we provide an 
opportunity to receive comprehensive treatment and receive 
rehabilitation, people who have suffered through the trials of opioid 
addiction can turn their lives around and help their communities heal 
in the process.
  Sadly, in addition to hearing these success stories, I have heard far 
too often that people who are looking to get help have absolutely 
nowhere to go. Particularly in New Mexico's rural, tribal, and 
impoverished communities, there is a severe lack of access to proven 
treatment and rehabilitation resources. We desperately need more 
detoxification centers, more transitional housing facilities, more 
outpatient services, and more behavioral health facilities.
  We as a nation are not doing even close to enough to provide adequate 
treatment facilities and resources to communities like those in the 
Espanola Valley that are struggling to meet the challenges of the 
growing heroin and opioid addiction crisis. That is why I am a 
cosponsor of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, championed 
by our colleagues Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Rob 
Portman of Ohio.
  This legislation provides a series of incentives and resources 
designed to encourage States and local communities to pursue a full 
array of proven strategies that combat addiction. To ensure that this 
effort meets the needs of rural and tribal communities such as those in 
New Mexico, I submitted a bipartisan amendment with my friend, the 
senior Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Mike Enzi, to require that rural 
health professionals are included in the Pain Management Best Practices 
Interagency Task Force that is created by this legislation.
  But, frankly, in order to truly provide local communities the tools 
they need to tackle this crisis head-on, we need funding, which is why 
I am also cosponsoring emergency funding legislation, championed by my 
colleague Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, to provide 
supplemental appropriations of $600 million for drug prevention and 
treatment programs. I understand that Senator Shaheen's efforts to 
include her funding legislation as an amendment failed to get enough 
votes this week, which frankly I find deeply disappointing, but I think 
the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act is still a good first step 
toward addressing this epidemic. You can be sure I will continue to 
fight to address it in the Senate and back in New Mexico.

  Addiction is a disease that can happen to anyone. It transcends 
region, race, gender, and socioeconomic status. It is a vicious cycle 
we have seen all too frequently in New Mexico. By taking a 
comprehensive approach to combat this epidemic, we can ensure that 
people have the opportunity to get back on the road to recovery.
  I yield the floor.


                           amendment no. 3345

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the American people sent all of us here to 
solve problems, to strengthen and support our Nation and its people, 
and to help make ours a more perfect union. They expect us to govern 
responsibly

[[Page S1272]]

and to work together to improve our communities. This week we are 
considering the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA. Few 
problems in our country have had as devastating an impact on American 
families as opioid addiction. From Vermont, to Kentucky, to Ohio, 
communities across the country are struggling, and they are reaching 
for answers and for help.
  It is clear there is a strong, bipartisan interest in Congress to 
address the problems associated with opioid addiction. The legislation 
before us is a good bill. It demonstrates that Congress now sees 
addiction for what it is--a public health crisis. But CARA will not by 
itself pull our communities out of addiction. CARA is an unfunded 
framework. Addiction is too knotted and massive a challenge to address 
with a mere change in philosophy. We cannot pretend that solving a 
problem as large as opioid addiction costs nothing. The emergency 
funding amendment by Senator Shaheen is an essential part of this 
effort. It puts real dollars behind the rhetoric to ensure that the 
carefully crafted programs authorized in CARA can actually be 
implemented and can succeed.
  Congress has approved much larger emergency funding bills in the 
past. Just last year we approved more than $5 billion to combat the 
Ebola outbreak in Africa, far from our shores. To be clear, I believe 
this funding was appropriate. But we must now turn our attention to the 
public health crisis here at home, in our own communities. More than 
40,000 Americans are dying each year from drug overdoses. In Vermont, 
State leaders like Governor Shumlin have tackled opioid addiction with 
an all-hands-on-deck approach. Other community leaders, like the Boys & 
Girls Club of Burlington, have done wonderful work expanding education 
efforts to prevent young people from becoming addicted in the first 
place. I am proud of their efforts, but they will be the first to 
acknowledge that many challenges remain. As in other States, addiction 
has spread across our State, and more Vermonters are dying from drug 
overdoses. Several have died while on waitlists for treatment.
  Addiction is nothing less than an epidemic, and to solve it, this 
crisis must be treated as an epidemic. More resources for targeted 
efforts will save lives and help stabilize families, neighborhoods, and 
communities. That is why we need Senator Shaheen's amendment. This 
amendment would have provided resources to strengthen both the law 
enforcement and public health components needed to tackle the crisis. 
Her legislation would have delivered support to State and local law 
enforcement agencies, anti-heroin task forces, and treatment 
alternatives to incarceration. It would have also delivered necessary 
resources to health care professionals who are overwhelmed by a need 
they cannot meet. No one should be turned away when seeking treatment 
for the terrible disease of addiction. If cancer patients were refused 
treatment, we would not hesitate to act, and this should be no 
different.
  We must make a real investment in combatting this ravaging epidemic, 
and the Shaheen amendment would have ensured that. Actions speak louder 
than words, action requires resources, and budgets are where we set 
priorities. The American people are watching and waiting. It is time 
for us to stop talking and start acting. It is time for us to start 
investing in our own country, our own communities' needs, and our own 
people.


                            Vote Explanation

 Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for 
today's vote on the Manchin amendment No. 3420 to S. 524, the 
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Bill. I would have voted 
yea.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for 
today's amendment vote in relation to S. 524, the Comprehensive 
Addiction and Recovery Act of 2015.
  On amendment No. 3420 by Senator Manchin, I would have voted 
yea.
  Mr. HEINRICH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the role.
  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.


                           World Wildlife Day

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, on a day that was sadly often marked by 
partisan differences, I thought I would take a moment near the end of 
this legislative day and simply remark on something where there has 
recently been some bipartisan progress, and I think it is worthy of 
some brief comment.
  Today is the third annual World Wildlife Day. This day was declared 
by the United Nations and will soon be celebrated in another place on 
this Capitol complex by a wide range of organizations from all over the 
United States and the world that are dedicated to preserving wildlife 
in places in the world where it is under distinct pressure.
  As I said, this is the third annual celebration of World Wildlife 
Day. It was first declared by the United Nations, and I want to briefly 
remark that a bipartisan delegation of this Senate recently went to 
Southern Africa. It was led by Senator Flake of Arizona, and he and 
Senator Cardin, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, 
Senator Cochran, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I had an 
opportunity to meet with leaders from four different countries. They 
are working tirelessly to try and contain an epidemic of poaching that 
has reached nearly catastrophic levels.
  Nearly 100 elephants are killed every day now so their ivory tusks 
can be sold on the black market at prices higher than heroin or gold. 
In 2014 alone, more than 1,000 rhinoceroses were illegally killed in 
South Africa, which is a 9,000-percent increase in the poaching of 
rhinos since 2007.
  I think this is of concern to all of us, not just because of the loss 
of these remarkable and iconic wildlife species but because it is also 
funding and fueling a multibillion-dollar industry of organized crime 
that also traffics in drugs, people, and weapons and destabilizes 
critical parts of the world.
  We have a chance to make real progress. There is a bipartisan bill, 
the END Wildlife Trafficking Act, that Senator Flake and I have 
introduced, and that I am hopeful Senator Corker and Senator Cardin, as 
the chair and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, will 
take up, consider, and markup in our next business meeting. I do think 
this legislation offers us a real opportunity to show that we can come 
together to support the President's plan for combating wildlife 
trafficking and can make a modest and responsible investment in helping 
countries on the other side of the world that are facing the same sort 
of scourge of lawlessness and violence that marks those places in 
America where drug trafficking is at its peak, but instead of 
trafficking illegal drugs, the actions they are carrying out is the 
slaughter and the export of the pieces of killed animals, whether 
elephant tusks or rhino horns.
  Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote, ``Adopt the pace of nature: Her 
secret is patience.'' It is my hope that with patience, persistence, 
and bipartisanship, we can celebrate this World Wildlife Day by doing 
something together to make progress in combating the scourge of illegal 
wildlife trafficking.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to call up the following amendments: No. 3336, Johnson, as 
modified; No. 3329, Durbin; further, that at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, March 
7, the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed 
and that there be no second-degree amendments in order to these 
amendments prior to the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Democratic leader.

[[Page S1273]]

  

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  Our respective cloakrooms have been working for the better part of 
this week to get a list of amendments that could get votes.
  As everyone knows, we have had, on our side, more than 60 amendments 
filed. So I want to hold my friend to an often-expressed promise that 
we would have a robust amendment process. Now, I know we aren't going 
to get 60 amendments--I got that--but there have been objections from 
Republicans to a number of amendments my Senators want to offer. They 
want to do a few votes on a number of their amendments.
  First of all, everyone should understand we are not holding up this 
bill. The leader has indicated he is going to file cloture today or 
tomorrow, so I got that. We are not going to oppose cloture, but we are 
not going to have the other side determine what amendments should be 
offered. We should be able to pick what amendments we want to offer. 
And I don't think it is appropriate--for example, one of the amendments 
he chose is from a Senator running for reelection. Is there some 
purpose to that? I think we should have a process where we have 
alternating amendments, and we pick our amendments.
  So I would ask my colleague to agree to changing his unanimous 
consent request so that it would be in order to call up the amendments 
I mention now. There would be an hour of debate on each amendment. We 
could certainly even shorten that time significantly prior to a vote in 
relation to the amendments in the order listed, and no second-degree 
amendments be in order prior to the votes: Durbin No. 3329, Gillibrand 
No. 3354, Markey No. 3384--who has been begging me for 4 days now to 
get a vote on his amendment--Blumenthal No. 3327, Cardin No. 3421, 
McCaskill No. 3375, Wyden No. 3402, Heinrich No. 3372, Schatz No. 3413, 
and Markey No. 3382--10 out of 60.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator so modify his request?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I object to the modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the modification.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object to the original request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the original request.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I might just point out that apparently 
the amendment that was in my consent request that was objectionable to 
the other side was a simple amendment from the Senator from Wisconsin 
to include a representative of the Indian Health Service in the Pain 
Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I understand, I am sure, the importance of 
this amendment, but the other amendments are important also.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to call up the following amendments: No. 3334, Kirk; No. 3336, 
Johnson, as modified; No. 3329, Durbin; No. 3337, Johnson, as modified; 
No. 3354, Gillibrand; No. 3366, Lankford; Markey-Paul related to the 
TREAT Act; No. 3407, McCain; and No. 3408, McCain; further, that at 
5:30 p.m., Monday, March 7, the Senate vote in relation to the Durbin 
amendment No. 3329 and the Johnson amendment No. 3336; and that there 
be no second-degree amendments in order to these amendments prior to 
the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object. I don't like to admit this 
publicly that I have learned anything from the Republican leader, but I 
have. One of the things I have learned is that it is not right to have 
the majority pick the votes of the minority, so I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for 
the Grassley substitute amendment No. 3378.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The 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 Senate amendment 
     No. 3378, the substitute amendment to 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, Chuck Grassley, Deb Fischer, John 
           Barrasso, Shelley Moore Capito, Roy Blunt, Johnny 
           Isakson, John Boozman, Mike Crapo, David Vitter, Mike 
           Rounds, Bill Cassidy, James E. Risch, Lindsey Graham, 
           John McCain, Thom Tillis, Orrin G. Hatch.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for 
the underlying bill, S. 524.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The 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 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, Chuck Grassley, Deb Fischer, John 
           Barrasso, Shelley Moore Capito, Roy Blunt, Johnny 
           Isakson, John Boozman, Mike Crapo, David Vitter, Mike 
           Rounds, Bill Cassidy, James E. Risch, Lindsey Graham, 
           John McCain, Thom Tillis, Orrin G. Hatch.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum calls with respect to the cloture motions be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the filing deadline for 
first-degree amendments to amendment No. 3378 and S. 524 be at 3:30 
p.m. on Monday, March 7.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the 
provisions of rule XXII, the cloture vote on the Grassley substitute 
amendment No. 3378 occur at 5:30 p.m., Monday, March 7.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________