[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1966-1983]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, are we still in recess?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is now postcloture on the 
nomination.
  The Senator may proceed.


                   Remembering Justice Antonin Scalia

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to honor the memory of one of our 
Nation's greatest champions of limited government under the 
Constitution, Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia set the standard 
for the kind of judge upon which liberty depends. He was a dear friend, 
and I will miss him greatly.
  The purpose of government, according to the Declaration of 
Independence and the Constitution, is to secure inalienable rights and 
the blessings of liberty. Liberty exists by design and, as Andrew 
Jackson put it, by eternal vigilance. America's Founders were clear 
that liberty requires separated and limited government powers, 
including a particular role for unelected judges. Judges who seek to 
determine what the law is promote liberty; judges who say what they 
think the law should be undermine it.
  Put simply, judges must interpret and apply the law impartially; that 
is, by setting aside their own opinions, preferences, or prejudices. 
Interpreting and applying the law impartially particularly leaves the 
American people and their elected representatives in charge of the law. 
When they interpret written law impartially, they discern what the 
original public meaning of the law is. When judges apply the law 
impartially, they pay no regard to the identity of the parties or the 
political effects of their decision. Judges can neither make nor change 
the law they use to decide cases. That is the kind of judge liberty 
requires. That is the kind of judge Antonin Scalia was.
  When President Ronald Reagan first appointed Antonin Scalia to the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in 1982, the future Justice 
said to those of us on the Judiciary Committee that if confirmed the 
time for him to opine on the wisdom of laws would be ``bygone days.'' 
When he again came before the committee a few years later as a Supreme 
Court nominee, he repeated that setting aside personal views is ``one 
of the primary qualifications for a judge.'' He described a ``good 
judge'' as one who starts from the law itself and not ``where I would 
like to come out in [a] particular case.''
  Justice Scalia's brilliance and wit were certainly impressive, but 
they were powerfully connected to this deeply considered and 
deliberately framed judicial philosophy rooted in the principles of the 
Constitution. He stuck doggedly to this ideal of the good judge whose 
role in our system of government is limited to properly interpreting 
the law and impartially applying it to decide cases. His approach 
requires self-restraint by judges. Judges, he often said, must take the 
law as they find it and apply it even when they do not like the 
results. In his own words, ``If you're going to be a good and faithful 
judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always 
going to like the conclusions you reach.''
  Liberty requires such judicial self-restraint, whether it is en vogue 
or not. As President Reagan put it when he witnessed the oath of office 
administered to Justice Scalia in September 1986, America's Founders 
intended that the judiciary be independent and strong but also confined 
within the boundaries of a written Constitution and laws.
  No one believed that principle more deeply and insisted on 
implementing it more consistently than our Justice Scalia. His approach 
to the law was often called textualism or, in the constitutional 
context, originalism--an approach which is nothing more than 
determining the original public meaning of the legal text. It leaves 
the lawmaking to the lawmakers and the people they represent, rather 
than to the judge.
  The Senate unanimously confirmed Justice Scalia's nomination on 
September 17, 1986, the 199th anniversary of the Constitution's 
ratification. That was very appropriate because his approach gives the 
Constitution its real due, treating it as more than empty words on a 
page but as words that already have meaning and substance. Justice 
Scalia knew that the Constitution cannot limit government's power if 
government actors--including judges--define the Constitution.
  Justice Scalia rejected judicial activism--what he called power-
judging--that treats the law as shape-shifting. For activists, the laws 
and the Constitution have no fixed meaning but can rather be contorted 
and manipulated to fit the judge's own policy preference. Such an 
approach puts the unelected judge, not the American people in their 
elected representatives, in the position of supreme lawmaker.
  Thomas Jefferson warned that if judges controlled the Constitution's 
meaning, it would be ``a mere thing of wax in the hands of the 
judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.'' 
That is exactly what activist judges do, treating the law like clay 
that they can mold in their own image.
  Rather than reinterpreting the law in his own image, the good judge 
conforms his decisions to the fixed meaning of the law. By insisting 
that even judges must be the servants rather than the masters of the 
law, Justice Scalia was simply following the lead of America's Founders 
and empowering the American people.
  Justice Scalia's approach to judging not only requires self-restraint 
by judges, but it also demands rigor and accountability by legislators. 
The good judge takes seriously the language the legislators enact, so 
the people can hold accountable the legislators they elect.
  The famed Senator and Supreme Court advocate Daniel Webster once said 
that ``there are men in all ages

[[Page 1967]]

who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be 
good masters, but they mean to be masters.'' Those who object to 
Justice Scalia's approach embrace the notion that judges, rather than 
the people, should be the masters of the law.
  Justice Scalia's impact has been enormous. A liberal legal 
commentator may have put it best in his review of Justice Scalia's 
book, ``A Matter of Interpretation,'' with these words:

       We are all originalists now. That is to say, most judges 
     and legal scholars who want to remain within the boundaries 
     of respectable constitutional discourse agree that the 
     original meaning of the Constitution and its amendment has 
     some degree of pertinence to the question of what the 
     Constitution means today.

  Justice Scalia brought the boundaries of respectable constitutional 
discourse more in line with the principles of liberty than they had 
been in a generation. For that, our liberty is more secure, and we 
should be deeply grateful.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


   Remembering Justice Antonin Scalia and Filling the Supreme Court 
                                Vacancy

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this past Saturday I was honored to attend 
the funeral mass for Justice Scalia. I couldn't help but recall back 
when President Reagan nominated him for the Supreme Court of the United 
States. At that time Judge Scalia said that ``[his] only [agenda] was 
to be a good judge.''
  Today, 30 years later, it is clear that Justice Scalia, who until his 
death served longer than any of the current members of the Supreme 
Court of the United States, was more than a good judge. In fact, he was 
a great judge. He was a giant of American jurisprudence.
  As I got to know him even better during the course of the more recent 
years, thanks to a mutual acquaintance, I can tell you he was also a 
good man. My first encounter with Justice Scalia was back in 1991 when 
I won an election to be on the Texas Supreme Court and the court 
invited Justice Scalia to come to Austin, TX, and administer the oath 
of office. At that time I already admired his intellect and commitment 
to the Constitution and the rule of law, and believe me, he was an 
inspiration to young judges like me who were inspired to do the same. 
He has been an inspiration to so many judges, lawyers, and law students 
for decades.
  I admired and respected Justice Scalia. Like many Texans, I was proud 
of the fact that he also seemed to love Texas, believe it or not, even 
though he was a Virginian. He remarked once that if he didn't live in 
Virginia, he would ``probably want to be a Texan.''
  I wish to spend a couple of minutes remembering this great man and 
the contributions he made to our Nation. Beyond his incredible resume, 
Justice Scalia was a devoted husband to Maureen for more than 50 years. 
He was a dedicated father to 9 children and a grandfather to more than 
30 grandchildren. As I said earlier, he was not only a family man, 
which I am sure he would have considered his most important job, he was 
a role model for a generation of lawyers, judges, legal scholars, and 
those who loved the Constitution.
  One of the interesting things about Justice Scalia--and perhaps he 
could teach all of us a little something these days--was that he was 
quick to build relationships with people who had different views from 
his own and fostered an environment of collegiality and friendship on 
the Court.
  As we learned earlier, Justice Scalia had relationships with people 
with whom he couldn't have disagreed more on key issues that the Court 
confronted--people like Justice Ginsburg, for example. We all know he 
was a gifted writer and possessed an infectious wit, but Justice 
Scalia's most important legacy is his life's work and his call for a 
return to our constitutional first principles.
  Justice Scalia strongly believed that words mattered, and I think 
that is one of the reasons why he quickly became one of the most 
memorable writers on the Court and one of the best in the Court's 
entire history. He believed the words written in the Constitution 
mattered because that was the only thing the States voted on when they 
ratified the Constitution. Those were the words with which the American 
people chose to govern themselves. For decades he tried to give those 
words force and fought against an attempt to say that we really don't 
have a written Constitution; we have a living Constitution that should 
be reinterpreted based on the times when, indeed, the text had not 
changed one bit.
  His originalist interpretation of the Constitution meant that he 
viewed the Court as a place to vindicate the law and what it meant, not 
express the preferences of five Justices. Justice Scalia was one of the 
most fervent advocates for the rule of law and a written Constitution. 
On many instances, he made the important point that if the Supreme 
Court was viewed merely as a group of nine individuals making value 
judgments on how our country ought to be governed under our 
Constitution, then the people may well feel that their values were 
equally as valid as those of the ``high nine'' on the Potomac given 
life tenure and a seat on the Supreme Court. It was his strict 
adherence to the text of the Constitution, and not evolving value 
judgments over time, that gave protection to our democracy.
  Justice Scalia was strongly committed to the separation of powers. 
This is so fundamental to the Constitution that, until the first 
Congress, James Madison didn't even think that we needed a Bill of 
Rights because he felt that the separation of powers and the division 
of responsibilities would be protection enough because they viewed the 
concentration of powers, the opposite of separation of powers, as a 
threat to our very liberty. I think he said that the very definition of 
tyranny was the concentration of powers. So he saw the separation of 
powers as nothing less than the most important guarantor of our liberty 
and the most important shield against tyranny.
  In one dissent Justice Scalia wrote ``without a secure structure of 
separated powers, our Bill of Rights would be worthless.'' I guess you 
would have to say he is a Madisonian and not a Federalist by 
temperament and view. This recognition of the importance of separation 
of powers could not be any more important at this point in our history 
because scarcely a month goes by when this administration has chosen to 
undermine this basic constitutional precept by exerting itself and 
claiming authorities which the Constitution does not give the 
President.
  Justice Scalia understood what was at stake. He believed that every 
blow to the separation of powers would harm our Republic and liberty 
itself.
  As Justice Scalia wrote in a case in which the Court unanimously 
struck down the President's violations of the constitutional doctrine 
of separation of powers, he said: ``We should therefore take every 
opportunity to affirm the primacy of the Constitution's enduring 
principles over the politics of the moment.'' He continued, warning 
against ``aggrandizing the Presidency beyond its constitutional 
bounds.'' That is what Justice Scalia did time and again, and that is 
what he reminded all of us about--the importance of doctrines of 
separation of powers, adherence to the text of the Constitution, and 
not making it up as you are going along or expressing value judgments 
that can't be related to the actual text and original understanding of 
the Constitution.
  The question arises: When the President makes a nomination to fill 
the vacancy left by Justice Scalia's death, what is the constitutional 
responsibility of the U.S. Senate? It is true that under our 
Constitution, the President of the United States has a unique role and 
the authority to make a nomination to fill this vacancy, but it is also 
true that the Senate has an essential and unique role to play as well. 
The founding generation regarded the Senate's role in the appointment 
process as ``a critical protection against

[[Page 1968]]

`despotism.''' Nothing less. That means that the U.S. Senate has a 
unique and separate role to play, and certainly a coequal role with 
that of the President, in the process of filling vacancies on the 
Court. We are not, and the Constitution never intended us to be, a 
rubber stamp for the President of the United States.
  I know that President Obama would love to nominate somebody in the 
waning months of his last term of office as he is heading out the door 
and perhaps fill this vacancy, which in the case of Justice Scalia was 
filled for 30 years, far extending President Obama's term of office. 
That is not what the U.S. Senate is about. We are a coequal branch of 
government, and we have an independent and separate responsibility from 
that of the President. He can nominate anybody he wants, but it is up 
to the Senate, in its collective wisdom, on whether or not to grant 
advice and consent. When we say that, we mean that if the Senate did 
not play its unique role, liberty itself would be weakened and 
despotism strengthened.
  As I said before, the American people can and should have a voice in 
the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice. In the waning days of 
this Presidential election year after voters have already cast their 
ballots in primaries for Republican and Democratic candidates--even as 
I speak, there is a caucus convening today in Nevada--I believe giving 
the American people a choice in who selects the next Justice of the 
Supreme Court is very important. I think it elevates what is at stake 
in this next election this November, and that means simply that this 
vacancy should not be filled at this time by this President.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from California.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I came to the floor because I am stunned. 
I just learned that the Republicans have announced to the country they 
will not even call a hearing, if and when President Obama does his job 
and nominates a replacement for Justice Scalia.
  We send our heartfelt sympathy to his family.
  I don't know where the Republicans have come up with this notion that 
this is the right thing to do. If you look at the strict 
constitutionalists, you know they are reading the Constitution, unless 
they are phonies. This is what the Constitution says, the President 
shall ``nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, 
shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges 
of the supreme Court.'' Where in this does it say: except in election 
years. As a matter of fact, we have acted 14 times in election years.
  Whoever is a strict constructionist should read the Constitution, 
article II, section 2, clause 2. I am going to read it again: The 
President shall ``nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of 
the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and 
Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court.''
  It doesn't say as Senator Cornyn said: Oh, the President can 
nominate, but nobody else has a job to do. Oh no. It says: ``. . . and 
with the Advice and Consent of the Senate . . .''
  To have such a press conference, as I understand it--I didn't see it 
myself, but it has been reported to me--there has been an announcement 
that the Republicans will not even hold a hearing, which goes against 
this Constitution. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a lawsuit 
brought by the people of this country, 70 percent of whom believe we 
have an obligation. We have an obligation.
  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say it is too late for the 
President to nominate. Guess what. The Republicans keep saying we need 
an elected President. Well, I have good news for them. This President 
was elected twice and he has about a year left. Guess what. I am not 
going to run again, but I am here now. I want to work. I did not take 
this job to have a year off and not worry about working in my last 
year.
  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say: Oh, and by the way, don't 
advise and consent if it is a Democratic President in his second term. 
It does not say that. So if you consider yourself a strict 
constructionist, then pay attention to this. I am proud that several 
Republicans on the other side said: Baloney, we don't go along with it. 
Good for them and more should do it.
  It doesn't say in the Constitution, you only advise and consent if it 
is a Republican President with a Republican Senate.
  Again, the Senate over the years has repeatedly considered Supreme 
Court nominees in both election years and in the final year of a 
President's term.
  Justice Kennedy, who serves now, a fellow Californian, was nominated 
by President Reagan in 1987. I was over on the House side, and I didn't 
have anything to do with it, but I sure watched it. Kennedy was 
confirmed by a Democratic Senate during Reagan's last year in office.
  My Republican friends say: Oh, but this Senator said this about it 
and that Senator said that and Joe Biden said this. It doesn't matter 
what people say. It is what we do, and 14 times in history we have 
voted on judges in an election year.
  My Republican colleagues who suggest that this process cannot be done 
before President Obama leaves office are fooling themselves. History 
has disproven them and the Constitution is going to chastise whoever 
says: I want a dead Constitution. Read this. This is very clear. It 
absolutely is.
  So I have a message for my Republican friends. Pretty simple. Pretty 
simple. Do your job. Do your job. If you are afraid to do your job, 
then do something else with your life. If you don't want to do your job 
because you are worried that one moderate may get through, then make 
your argument. If you want to vote no, vote no, but to hold a press 
conference and say you will not even hold a hearing is outrageous.
  Every day in talented cities across this country, Americans show up 
for work and they do their jobs. They don't call their bosses and say: 
You know, I just don't feel like doing this today. I am healthy, I am 
fine, I am well, but you know what, I don't want to do my job. They 
would be fired and they should be. Do your job. You are elected to do 
your job. The American people show up for their jobs. They do their 
jobs. It is as simple as that. The Justices of the Supreme Court show 
up and they do their jobs every day. Justice Scalia did it. They all do 
it. They hear cases. They write opinions.
  The Supreme Court is the last stop on the justice train, but to be 
able to function as our Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution 
intended, they need a full bench with all nine Justices. A Supreme 
Court with eight Justices is not a functioning Court.
  Let us look at the Republicans' hero, Ronald Reagan. We always hear 
them say: Ronald Reagan. I was proud to serve in the House during 
Ronald Reagan's term. I didn't agree with him on a lot of things, but I 
agree with him on this. Do you know what he said?

       I look forward to prompt hearings conducted in the spirit 
     of cooperation and bipartisanship. I will do everything in my 
     power as President to assist in that process.

  President Ronald Reagan, November 12, 1987. What did he say? Did he 
get up and say: Oh, it is an election year--which it was. No. Kennedy 
was voted on in an election year and President Reagan made the case.
  This is what else Ronald Reagan said: ``Every day that passes with a 
Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that 
crucially important body.''
  Let me say that again. Ronald Reagan, who was pushing for a vote on a 
Supreme Court Justice in an election year, said the following: ``Every 
day that passes with a Supreme Court below full strength impairs the 
people's business in that crucially important body.''
  I don't understand where the Republicans are coming from. They are 
disregarding Ronald Reagan, their hero. They are disregarding the 
Constitution that they say is their shining star of their being, which 
it should be for all of us, and they stood there today and blatantly 
announced they are not even going to hold a hearing on a nominee before 
they even know who he or she is.

[[Page 1969]]

What is that about? I am truly stunned. I thought I had seen 
everything, but I have never seen this. You show up and you do your 
job.
  I am going to show you a few other quotes of people who are very 
important to this conversation and what they are saying about not 
moving forward. How about Sandra Day O'Connor, what an incredible 
woman. She was appointed by Ronald Reagan, the first female ever 
appointed to the Supreme Court, a magnificent person and a Republican.
  What did she say? ``I think we need somebody there, now, to do the 
job, and let's get on with it.'' She just said that 10 days ago or 
less. Is she a partisan? I don't think so. She is speaking from the 
heart. She is speaking from her soul. She is speaking from experience. 
She knows the Court has important cases before it and will be tied in 
knots if we don't have a Court at full strength.
  Again, here is what she said, Republican Sandra Day O'Connor, 
esteemed member of the Supreme Court, a Ronald Reagan nominee: ``I 
think we need somebody there, now, to do the job, and let's get on with 
it.''
  I am going to show you two more quotes. This is from the American 
Constitution Society:

       A vacancy on the Court for a year and a half, which is what 
     the Republicans want, at least a year and a half, would mean 
     many instances where the Court could not resolve a split 
     among the circuits. There would be the very undesirable 
     result that the same federal law would have differing 
     meanings in various parts of the country.

  That is the American Constitution Society.
  Then we have another quote I wish to share with you by the director 
of the Byron White Center at the University of Colorado:

       It would essentially shut the Supreme Court down for two 
     years. It would be a monumental crisis for the development of 
     the law and the need to resolve large legal questions.

  Let me say it again.

       It would essentially shut the Supreme Court down for two 
     years. It would be a monumental crisis for the development of 
     the law and the need to resolve large legal questions.

  It is not as if large legal questions aren't at stake. Right now the 
Supreme Court is set to look at some incredibly important cases that 
have real effects on our people. This isn't some argument in a salon. 
This is real stuff. The cases can't wait, and it doesn't matter what 
side you are on with these cases. They have to be resolved.
  What about voting rights? I don't think there would be a difference 
of opinion in this Chamber that this is what makes this country great 
and special, the right to vote, the responsibility to vote. We have 
many States that have put forward voter ID laws. They need to be told 
whether they are fair or unfair, whatever side you come down on. We 
need a Court to look at voting rights cases and see who the eligible 
voters are.
  Affirmative action. They are going to reexamine that case. Whatever 
side you are on, it has to be decided.
  Workers' rights. The Court will decide the impact of the ability of 
the union to represent millions of working Americans. Whatever side you 
are on, there needs to be a decision, otherwise you are going to have 
different States with different laws and it makes no sense.
  This is one Nation under God. That is why we have a U.S. Senate and a 
U.S. House and a U.S. President and a U.S. Supreme Court--because we 
are one Nation and these issues have to be decided. There is one on 
employee discrimination. How do people get their day in court if they 
are being discriminated against? It doesn't matter what side you are 
on. The fact is there needs to be a decision.
  Women's health. There is a big case on women's health as to whether 
workers can get birth control. Again, whatever side you are on, pro, 
con, there needs to be a decision.
  It is about women, health care, voting rights, students. These cases 
have real consequences. I am going to conclude with one more chart that 
deals with the length of Supreme Court Justices for the past 35 years. 
Here you see the list of the various nominees. Not all of these made 
it, a couple did not, but here is the deal with these. O'Connor waited 
95 days, Rehnquist 92, Scalia 82, Bork 109, Kennedy 113, Souter 74, 
Thomas 110, Ginsburg 137, Breyer 114, Roberts 90, Alito 95, Sotomayor 
97, Kagan 118.
  Under Mitch McConnell's plan, the Republican plan that they laid out, 
if you averaged all of this, you get 102 days. That is the average it 
takes. Under McConnell's plan, it would take 444 days, at best. That is 
assuming everything goes perfectly well. It could take a lot longer.
  What does this mean? Anyone within the sound of my voice has heard 
this: Justice delayed is justice denied. That is a fact. And it is used 
throughout the country when we talk about the importance of making 
these decisions. When our constituents go to jury duty, what are they 
asked? Can you make this decision? Can you come to this decision? 
Because everyone deserves to have an answer.
  So, in conclusion, take a look at this. This is an abomination. This 
is the number of days we have seen over the last 35 years that it took 
to confirm. Fourteen of our Justices have been confirmed in election 
years since the beginning of this country, and this takes us back to 
the Civil War days--imagine--when we really had a country divided.
  This is not what we need to do right now, with all of these decisions 
coming up. Regardless of your stand on them, people deserve justice.
  I will conclude with the ``Do Your Job'' chart because I have to say 
that is what it comes down to. I urge the people of this great country 
to call the Republicans, every one of them, with three words: Do your 
job. And if the person who answers says ``I don't know what you mean,'' 
say ``Do your job. Let the process move forward on the Supreme Court 
Justice.'' And if they say ``Well, we want an elected President,'' what 
will be told to them is ``We are fortunate. We have one, elected not 
once but twice.'' More than enough time remains for him to do his job, 
and more than enough time remains for us to do ours.
  Republicans, do your job.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the 
importance of filling the current vacancy on the Supreme Court of the 
United States. I appreciate the words of my colleague from California.
  I wish to begin by saying that my prayers and thoughts are with the 
family and friends and Supreme Court colleagues of Justice Scalia. He 
was a great scholar who had friends in many places. Just last week I 
was at the University of Chicago Law School, where I went to law 
school, and so many people have stories. He used to teach there. He 
taught there for a long period of time, and they miss him very much.
  The Supreme Court has the constitutional responsibility to weigh some 
of the most important issues facing the American people. From freedom 
of speech, to due process, to doing business in America, Supreme Court 
decisions have impacted and continue to impact the daily life of every 
citizen of this country. As one of the three pillars of our government, 
we value the Court's distinctive insulation from public opinion. 
Justices commit themselves to the law and to the Constitution and not 
to politics or partisanship.
  Americans need and deserve to have a functional and fully staffed 
Supreme Court. We cannot delay consideration of the next Supreme Court 
nominee. As my colleague just pointed out, we would have to go back to 
the Civil War, to a time where a position--an important key position on 
the Supreme Court of the United States--was left open. We would have to 
go back to a time when it was left open for more than a year. We would 
have to go back to a time before we had planes, before we had 
automobiles, before we had washing machines--you name it. We would have 
to go back to the Civil War.
  Delaying the confirmation of a new Justice will prevent the Court 
from issuing binding precedent and deny access to justice for 
Americans. Lower courts will be left with decisions, and

[[Page 1970]]

decisions will not be made in those cases. That is why the Constitution 
of the United States says that the President shall--shall--nominate 
someone to the Supreme Court. It doesn't say that he will wait for a 
year. It doesn't say that he can't do it in an election year. It says 
that he shall nominate someone.
  We have a lot of Members of this great body who are lawyers, a lot of 
whom I have heard quoting the Constitution. A lot of them believe in 
strict interpretation of the words of the Constitution. Well, the words 
of the Constitution say that the President ``shall nominate'' and that 
the Senate's job is to ``advise and consent.'' It says that it is the 
Senate's job. It doesn't say that it is the Senate's job to avoid 
things and to just go on TV and to run ads. No. It says that the Senate 
has a job to do. The Senate has a job to do.
  Both the President and the Senate have a constitutional duty to 
protect the Supreme Court's ability to function and dispense justice--
not to tell the Supreme Court what to do, not to dictate their 
decisions, but to make sure they are simply able to do justice. This 
means they must be fully staffed and have the Justices in place, and it 
also means they should be funded. Those are our jobs.
  According to our Constitution, the President replaces vacant seats on 
the Supreme Court. That duty does not end, as I noted, in a 
Presidential year, just as the responsibilities of all Senators in 
their States and in their Nation do not end in an election year.
  President Obama was elected to serve out his entire second term, not 
just the first 3 years. For 332 long days, the President will be the 
democratically elected President of the United States--democratically 
elected, as in a democracy, as in how our democracy functions. He has 
an obligation to all Americans to dutifully execute his oath of office.
  The President has not yet announced a nominee to fill the current 
vacancy on the Court. When he does, it will be the constitutional duty 
of each one of us to consider the nominee on his or her merits and then 
choose whether to vote yes or no. It is really not that hard. It is 
what the kids learn when they are taught social studies and civics when 
they are in elementary school. The American people who voted for us, as 
well as those who didn't vote for us, expect us to do the jobs we were 
elected to do, regardless of the timing.
  A complete refusal to engage in this constitutionally required 
process before the President has even announced a nominee is dangerous 
for our system of governance. It defies the words of the Constitution. 
This Chamber would be neglecting a key constitutional duty if it 
prevented a well-qualified nominee from serving on the Supreme Court. 
And guess what. How do we figure out if someone is well qualified? We 
have hearings. That is what we have been doing for decades now. We have 
hearings to figure out whether this person is qualified. That is how we 
advise. That is how we consent. That is how we do our duty under the 
Constitution.
  It is for that reason that I urge my colleagues to continue in the 
Senate's bipartisan tradition of giving full and fair consideration to 
Supreme Court nominees. We have precedent for the Senate performing 
this role in the final year of a Presidency. Most recently, the Senate 
confirmed Justice Kennedy, someone who is currently serving on the 
Supreme Court, a current member sitting on the Supreme Court, someone 
who makes decisions every day. When was he confirmed? He was confirmed 
in the last year of Ronald Reagan's Presidency. And guess what. The 
Senate was controlled by Democrats. So we had the exact opposite 
situation. Now we have a Democratic President and we have a Senate that 
is in the control of Republicans. Back then we had a Republican 
President and a Senate that was in the control of Democrats. People 
say: Well, what does history show us? What do we know? To me, that is 
the best example of history. And we know what happened: Justice Kennedy 
was confirmed, on Ronald Reagan's nomination, by a Democratic Senate in 
an election year unanimously--unanimously.
  The Senate has taken such action more than a dozen times in our 
Nation's history, and there is no reason to abandon that precedent now. 
I am talking about when a Justice position opens up during an election 
year. We have that precedent, which I think is important. Again, I 
think the most important precedent, the most important example for 
historians, is what I led with: the fact that we have to go back to the 
Civil War to find a time when we left a vacancy on the Supreme Court 
open for a year. Think about that. Through World War I, through World 
War II, through huge tumult in this country, we always made sure we had 
a fully staffed Supreme Court.
  It would be unprecedented to deny a Supreme Court nominee fair 
consideration in the U.S. Senate. In the last 100 years, the Senate has 
taken action on every Supreme Court nominee regardless of whether the 
nomination was made in a Presidential year. It is now February, which 
gives us plenty of time to consider and confirm a nominee. Let's go to 
that next.
  People say: When will we have the time to get that done? I would 
submit that we do. We have hundreds of days before us. In fact, the 
Senate has taken an average of only 67 days. Let's make it easier: 2 
months--about 2 months. That is the average since 1975 from the date of 
the nomination to the confirmation vote--2 months. That means that if 
the President offers a nomination, say, in the month of March--that 
sounds like a good month to have a nominee--that nominee would receive 
a vote in the Senate by Memorial Day. There are our 2 months. And if we 
even wanted to add a little time on, we would certainly do it by the 
Fourth of July, which is a very good holiday for those who believe in 
the Constitution and in the words of the Constitution.
  Until we confirm a nominee, the Court is left with only eight 
Justices. A split decision will prevent the Supreme Court from making 
critical decisions and leave lower courts without a precedent to 
follow. A major responsibility of the Supreme Court is to resolve 
disagreements among lower courts. A failure of the President or the 
Senate to meet its constitutional obligations would cause the Supreme 
Court to be unable to fill its constitutional obligations.
  These Supreme Court Justices aren't elected directly; they have 
lifetime appointments. Their job is to be insulated from elections and 
politics, and that is why we have these strict and straightforward 
words in the Constitution that say that the President shall nominate 
someone for the job, and they also say that the Senate will advise and 
consent. We have those words in place in the Constitution, in that 
incredibly important document that guides us in this Chamber every 
single day, just for a situation such as this one, just for situations 
such as these.
  In closing, I remind my colleagues of the important work the people 
have sent us here to do. Yes, we have major disputes every day. That 
happens every day. We get into arguments about issues. There are 
political campaigns going on. But we have always at least followed the 
Constitution. That is what this is about today.
  As soon as we have a nominee, as soon as the President exercises his 
constitutional duty and puts someone in place, we should follow the 
Constitution and our longstanding traditions and the history of this 
country and uphold that duty. We should diligently consider the 
President's nominee to be the next Supreme Court Justice. As members of 
the Judiciary Committee, we must have the confirmation hearing. We must 
do our jobs.
  Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I am here to talk about Takata airbags, 
but I want to say to the Senator from Minnesota that she is so right 
on. The Constitution, article II, says that the President ``shall 
nominate'' and the Senate ``shall confirm.'' It doesn't say ``may'' or 
``wish.'' It says ``shall.'' It is a constitutional responsibility of 
our duties.
  Just do your job, U.S. Senate. Just do the job, and we will see, once 
the

[[Page 1971]]

President comes forward with a nominee. Let's see. Are we going to have 
committee hearings? Let's see if we are going to have open and 
bipartisan discussion on the merits of the nominee that is put forth. 
Let's see if the Constitution is trashed or whether the Constitution is 
upheld in the process put out to us in the third branch of government. 
I thank the Senator from Minnesota.


                             Takata Airbags

  Mr. President, I came here to speak about something else--something 
that looks very sinister. As a matter of fact, I ask unanimous consent 
to have two items to show to the Senate with regard to the Takata 
airbag crisis.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON. It looks kind of sinister, unfortunately, because it is. 
It is supposed to save lives, not kill. This is an airbag. It obviously 
has already been inflated. It goes right in the steering wheel, so when 
you get in an accident, this inflates and fills up with gas within a 
split second, and that protects your head and your torso from coming 
forward and being injured.
  What happens if this malfunctions, and what happens if the very 
manufacture of it causes it to malfunction under conditions? Let me 
show you what happens.
  I said these things look pretty sinister. Indeed, this is pretty 
sinister because this is a fragment that was in the metal casing in one 
of these airbags in Florida that, when it malfunctioned, caused the 
explosive force of the ammonium nitrate gas. It was so explosive that 
it ripped apart the metal casing, and this part that I am showing came 
flying into the face of the driver, severely injuring the driver. In 
this case it hit the forehead.
  I have told the Senate on many occasions that fragments of metal like 
this have come out just within the Orlando area of my State. They found 
a woman in the middle of an intersection where she had a collision, and 
when the police arrived, they found out that she was dead. She had bled 
to death. They looked at her neck and it was slashed. The police's 
immediate response was that this was a homicide. Upon reflection, she 
had a collision in the intersection that otherwise would have been a 
major fender bender, but because of a defective Takata airbag, it sent 
a piece of metal like this into her neck and cut her jugular vein.
  Near Orlando, a firefighter--a big, strapping, 6-foot-4 hunk of a 
man--doesn't have an eye anymore because a piece of metal fragment like 
this one from a Takata airbag came out when there was nothing more than 
a fender bender. When this bag exploded, it sent out a piece of metal. 
In his case, that firefighter doesn't have the sight in one eye because 
this piece of metal fragment hit him.
  Unfortunately, this has happened all over the country. Unfortunately, 
it has happened with a great deal of, shall we say, dragging of feet, 
coverup, and obfuscation. These airbags are supposed to save lives, but 
when they fail, they rupture violently and they send metal fragments 
right at the driver or the passenger.
  These Takata airbags have such an explosive force. What is behind it? 
Well, our staff on the Commerce Committee has just produced a report 
which this Senator is releasing today. It is an update on this report 
which found, through a review of recently obtained internal documents 
in the Takata Corporation, that Takata employees routinely manipulated 
safety testing data. That would be bad enough, but let's see the 
consequence of this drip, drip, drip approach to now a substantial 
number of recalls. There were a million vehicles recalled in 1 week, a 
million more the next, and there is no end in sight.
  A few days ago, there was a Reuters report that said that in addition 
to the already 20-plus million recalls of Takata airbags, an additional 
70 to 90 million Takata airbags may have to be recalled right here in 
the United States. Can you imagine what that is going to do to all 
these poor auto dealers? I mean, don't even speak about the person who 
is in the greatest jeopardy, the one who is behind the wheel of a car 
with an explosive grenade right in front of their face, and the grenade 
may go off. But can you imagine the poor auto dealers, the Toyotas, the 
Hondas?
  Let me tell you about the last person killed. He was in a Ford F-150 
pickup truck, and it was in South Carolina. By the time people got to 
the truck after the crash that would not have killed him, he was dead 
because of a fragment like this. I wish you could see this fragment. I 
wouldn't want that hitting me with an explosive force that inflates the 
airbag in less than 1 second. That is why the Commerce Committee has 
decided to jump all over this. We have been doing it for the last 2 
years. We had a hearing on this 2 years ago.
  On the current recall, I said it was in excess of 20 million. It is 
actually 29 million with these defective inflators. That is because 
nine people are dead and dozens are injured. We find out now that in 
all, there may be 120 million airbags that eventually in the United 
Stated alone will have to be recalled. If you want a shocking figure, 
there may be in excess of 260 million airbags recalled worldwide.
  Knowing of all these problems, it is puzzling that the consent order 
that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration signed with 
Takata allows the continued production of ammonium nitrate-based 
inflators indefinitely. Then they said that certain ones had to be 
phased out by 2018. Why isn't the NHTSA taking a more aggressive 
approach? What is going on after all of these inflators, based on what 
we see with ammonium nitrate, have exploded?
  The essence of this and of the report we are releasing today as an 
addendum to the previous report is that the current recall may have to 
be redone. Why? Because auto manufacturers are installing new live 
grenades into people's cars as replacements for the old live grenades.
  According to Reuters and the New York Times, there are also internal 
documents that show Takata officials were aware of these consistent 
problems at its manufacturing plants. These reports claim that 
officials knew of manufacturing issues that could lead to moisture 
contamination, contaminating the ammonium nitrate wafer inside of the 
airbag inflator. This just adds all the more to the finding of 
evidence.
  Last June, the oversight and investigations staff of the Commerce 
Committee released a report on the Takata airbag fiasco showing that 
the company knew there were serious production and testing issues 
dating back more than one decade. That is why we wanted to release this 
report today. Through a thorough review of recently obtained internal 
documents at Takata, it was discovered that Takata employees 
continually manipulated the safety testing done. For example, in this 
report, in a 2005 memo to the Takata vice president, an engineer at 
Takata explained that ``the integrity of the validation reports . . . 
is in serious question.''
  That engineer continued: ``These are not trivial changes in that the 
data clearly in violation of the customer specs is altered to meet the 
customer specs.'' The engineer called that ``a clear misrepresentation 
of the facts.''
  That is what the Takata engineer said to one of the Takata vice 
presidents back in 2005. That was 11 years ago.
  In a 2006 email, a different engineering manager explained that 
testing reports were ``cherry picked'' and a Takata employee was 
``schmoozed'' to accept deviations in the data.
  So was he schmoozed or intimidated? Whatever it was, it was altering 
what was the truth. The manager concluded--this is the Takata manager 
in 2006, which was 10 years ago--that ``the plant should have been 
screaming bloody murder long ago.''
  Well, if I were a lawyer making a case to a jury, I would rest my 
case right now. The fact is, we are not lawyers arguing to a jury. As 
Senators, we are here to try to protect the American people. And this 
data manipulation has continued. Even after the recalls had been 
announced and the rupturing inflators had caused deaths and injuries, 
the data manipulation continued.

[[Page 1972]]

  I will give an example. A 2010 presentation explains that an 
experimental inflator was experiencing a significant safety and weld 
quality issue. According to that presentation, ``[Takata Japan] was 
informed of these results, but altered them and reported good results 
to Honda.'' Furthermore, even when these issues were raised to senior 
Takata employees, no action was taken.
  In a Takata director's notes from 2013, he explains that he shared 
his view that the range of a certain recall might be a ``violation of 
our moral obligation to protect the public.'' Let me repeat that. A 
``violation of our moral obligation to protect the public''--that came 
from a Takata director. Wow.
  The engineer raised these concerns with Takata's senior vice 
president of quality assurance, but the vice president failed to take 
action to address it.
  These new documents that we note in this report from the committee 
speak for themselves. Takata failed to prioritize the safety of its 
products, and as a result, nine people are dead and dozens were 
injured. And even after exploding Takata airbags killed these innocent 
people, company employees continued to manipulate safety testing data. 
This is not only inexcusable, it is reprehensible.
  We have these thousands of automobile dealers around the country who 
have sold vehicles with the Takata airbags. They cannot sell a new 
vehicle if that vehicle is under recall because of a Takata airbag. 
Under law, they cannot sell that new vehicle. Also, rental car 
companies that have more than 15 cars cannot rent cars if they are 
under recall. But used car dealers can sell used cars that have 
defective Takata airbags in them that are under recall--without fixing 
it.
  I really feel for our automobile dealers. I really feel for our 
automobile dealers also because what in the world are they going to do 
with the customers now screaming ``Replace this airbag'' when, in fact, 
there are not enough replacement airbags? In fact, because the National 
Highway Transportation Safety Administration has allowed some of these 
replacements to go in with this ammonium nitrate, this is a horrendous 
situation.
  So I come to the floor today--this has been going on for over 2 
years. We brought this out in a hearing in the Senate Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation Committee. And today I urge Takata and 
NHTSA to do what should have been done long ago: Stop producing these 
ammonium nitrate airbags and get them out of people's vehicles. And by 
the way, give your automobile dealers some relief. And how about giving 
the American driving public, which is driving around with one of these 
things in their face, some consideration and put them first? Hopefully, 
we will see some more action on this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
proceed for 15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          GUANTANAMO DETAINEES

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about President 
Obama's plan to move Guantanamo Bay terrorists to the United States. 
However, it is not much of a plan. With all due respect, it is more of 
a failed attempt to fulfill a campaign promise and, in my view, what he 
believes will secure his legacy.
  Fortunately for us--those who believe that moving dangerous enemy 
combatants within our communities is dangerous, irresponsible, and an 
illogical idea--the President's plan contains nothing really 
substantive. In fact, it fails to recommend an alternative location to 
any current facility at all. As a matter of fact, I call that a win.
  The plan does not provide any intelligence to substantiate the 
President's claims, nor does it even provide a chart or a graph to 
support the mathematics on the alleged cost savings, and there is no 
estimate regarding the cost to local and State governments to support 
such a move. Indeed, the 9-page report is short in every regard.
  The White House received the Department of Defense's results of their 
site surveys and other data regarding a potential closing last month. 
And this--I am holding up the report here--this is all we have in 
return: 9 pages.
  I know the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, my good 
friend and colleague, Senator John McCain, is not going to be pleased 
with the lack of substance or data or the articulation of a real plan. 
The same goes for Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee, who at this particular time is going to be introducing 
legislation of his own to provide intelligence with regard to the 
administration's lack of intelligence on moving detainees to the United 
States.
  The lack of a plan and the inability of this administration to 
provide an alternative site indicate that none of the sites visited by 
DOD's survey team met the demands necessary to hold detainees and, more 
important, keep our community safe. The fact that no site was named and 
no substance on those visits was provided tells me there is no 
alternative to match what we are now doing safely and securely at 
Gitmo, period.
  This so-called plan, as outlined by the President in his speech today 
from the White House, skims over four steps to closing Guantanamo Bay.
  First, it articulates the administration's plan to continue moving 
detainees designated for transfer by the President's national security 
team to foreign countries.
  In some instances, this may have been successful with regard to 
individuals being rehabilitated, but a third of the time, detainees 
transferred to third-party host countries have returned to the 
battlefield. And these are just the ones we know about. This is called 
recidivism, and the rates are too high for this process to be called 
``secure and responsible,'' as the administration has labeled it.
  Second, the administration plans to continue its review of the threat 
posed by those detainees who are not currently eligible for transfer 
through the Periodic Review Board.
  This is to provide a new review on the current population of 
detainees who have been deemed too dangerous to transfer--deemed too 
dangerous to transfer, and yet this President wants to give them a 
second shot at getting out. This doesn't make any sense. Terrorists are 
not criminals. As much as this President would like for you to believe 
they are, terrorists are not equal to the inmates we have across 
America's prison system. They are fixated on the destruction of 
America. They have no regard for life, not that of their own and 
especially not the lives of innocent civilians.
  The report hones in on having a detainee population anywhere from 30 
to 60. There seems to be an assumption on the part of the President 
that the review board will determine that half of those deemed too 
dangerous for transfer or release are suddenly safe for transfer or 
release. Does the President believe this is possible or does this 
assumption simply serve his own means to create cost savings for his 
plan that can never be realized?
  The plan also fails to account for the fact that our Nation is still 
mired in the War on Terrorism. We are still fighting in the Middle East 
and worldwide, including the United States of America, to ensure that 
terrorism does not prevail. What about the individuals we detain from 
this day forward? What about those individuals with critical 
information related to the next terrorist threat? How can we operate 
without a facility like Guantanamo Bay to hold terrorists we take off 
the battlefield?
  Third, the plan attempts to identify individual dispositions, one by 
one, for those who remain designated for continued law of war 
detention, to include Article III, military commissions, or foreign 
prosecutions. What a muddle.
  In his remarks today, President Obama advocated for trying terrorist 
suspects in Article III courts. The President named two American 
citizens--Faisal Shahzad and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev--to articulate his 
point. Both of those individuals, however, were apprehended in the 
United States, not on the battlefield.
  The intent of the Guantanamo detention facility is to protect the 
American

[[Page 1973]]

people by removing terrorists from the battlefield. As the United 
States faces a growing threat from terrorist organizations, such as 
ISIS, which have tens of thousands of members, bringing those 
terrorists to the United States to stand trial simply cannot be the 
answer. It is not safe for the American people and irresponsible to our 
national security.
  Fourth, the plan states the administration's desire to ``work with 
Congress to lift unnecessary prohibitions in current law.'' That is in 
quotes, ``work with Congress.''
  Well, there is something that is unique with the President, ``work 
with Congress to lift unnecessary prohibitions in current law.'' But it 
does not anywhere in its nine pages endorse a specific facility to 
house Guantanamo detainees; rather, the plan describes a prototype for 
a detention facility in the United States--not Kansas, not Colorado, 
not South Carolina, not anywhere in the United States.
  The President's long-awaited plan is to work with Congress to 
identify the most appropriate location as soon as possible, according 
to the summary provided to my office by the Department of Defense. 
Question: How could it take 7 years to arrive at the idea to work with 
Congress? What a novel idea, but only for this express purpose. If the 
President had a suitable alternative, he would have provided it in this 
plan. If he had a suitable alternative, he would have provided it in 
2009 when we stopped his plan the first time.
  Further, the plan fails to substantiate President Obama's repeated 
claims that Guantanamo Bay serves as a recruiting tool for jihadists. 
Let me repeat this. The plan fails to substantiate President Obama's 
repeated claims that Guantanamo Bay serves as a recruiting tool for 
jihadists, a rallying point for terrorist attacks, hindering relations 
with allies, and draining Department of Defense resources. My goodness.
  I wrote Defense Secretary Ash Carter in November to ask for 
intelligence reports or data to support many of these assertions. I 
asked Secretary Carter if an intelligence assessment has been done in 
conjunction with the site surveys recently conducted by the Department 
of Defense from the safety of our community's standpoint. I asked for 
the Department's rationale for evaluating Fort Leavenworth, when three 
previous evaluations have made it abundantly clear it is and continues 
to be an unacceptable alternative. I asked if there were intelligence 
products regarding previous site evaluations at Fort Leavenworth.
  The administration has argued that Guantanamo is a recruiting tool 
for terrorists. So I logically asked for an intelligence assessment to 
support that argument. As a follow on, I asked what assessment had been 
done to reflect that Guantanamo has increased terrorist recruitment. 
And finally, was there any empirical data to support the 
administration's argument that national security threats will decrease 
if enemy combatants are held in the United States? Common sense will 
tell you that it would increase.
  Two months later, the response confirmed my assumptions. The 
Department of Defense had no intelligence products--none. There were no 
intelligence products, no data to provide to support the President's 
argument that GTMO serves as a recruiting tool and that moving 
detainees to the mainland would increase security and decrease the 
terrorist threat to the United States.
  My colleagues, this plan really confirms what many of us already 
know: There is no safe alternative to GTMO--not in Kansas, not in 
Colorado, not in South Carolina. Nowhere on the mainland is there a 
secure and responsible alternative. If there were, this President would 
not have failed to articulate it in his plan.
  Mr. President, a plan that is a legacy speech does not safeguard the 
lives of the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are postcloture on the nomination.
  Mr. MANCHIN. I wish to speak on the nomination of the Food and Drug 
Administration, Dr. Robert Califf.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I believe the FDA needs new leadership, a 
new focus and a new culture, and Dr. Robert Califf's past involvement 
with the pharmaceutical industry reflects that he will not be this 
person. He will not have the impact or leadership capabilities the 
Nation needs to stem the tide of the opioid crisis we have all over 
this country, even in your great State of Oklahoma and my State of West 
Virginia, which has been ravaged by this. I would like to put this in 
context for a little bit. He has been there over a year--a good man. I 
am not speaking about his ability, his honesty, his integrity, his 
education, his background, and all the good work he has done. But he 
has been there for a year, and for the past 20 years Dr. Califf 
basically has come from the institutional research side, from 
education, and with that, his support has come from the pharmaceutical 
industries, those that are putting opioids on the market. I just feel 
it would be hard, human naturewise, for him to change and rule to keep 
these products from coming onto the market. So to put this in context, 
this is not personally about Dr. Califf. This is about the culture he 
comes from and the year he has been there as the No. 2 man and what has 
happened during that period of time.
  Let me go over some things. Over the last decade, the FDA has 
approved new drugs at historically high rates. In 2008, companies 
filing applications to sell never-before-marketed drugs were denied 66 
percent of the time. They were denied 66 percent of the time. Yet 
between the beginning of 2015 and August of 2015, the FDA rejected only 
3 uses for new chemical entities and approved 25. That is an approval 
rate of 89 percent.
  Now, tell me how in 7 short years that culture changed to where 
anything and everything coming at us was passed through, when we have 
already become the most addicted country on Earth. If one looks at new 
drugs and not the use of drugs, they have rejected only 1 and approved 
23. That is a 96-percent approval rate in 2015. So of the new drugs 
that came to the market, only 1 was rejected--a 96-percent approval 
rate.
  In 2008, the FDA's approval of new marketing claims for existing 
drugs was 56 percent. In the first 8 months of 2015, it was 88 percent. 
This includes approving OxyContin for children as young as 11. The 
FDA's 2013 approval of Zohydro drew widespread concern. All of us were 
outraged when we heard this new drug came on the market.
  To put another time period in context, I had worked for 3 years to 
try to get all opioids from a schedule III to a schedule II so doctors 
could prescribe only for 30 days. You had to go back and see your 
doctor. Up until that time, Vicodin and Lortab--the two most widely 
prescribed opioids--were schedule III. That means you could get a 90-
day prescription and then call in to get it refilled. They were going 
out like M&Ms.
  We were able to do that, and no sooner did we get that done--and it 
took 3 years, when it should have been 3 weeks. Within the same week 
that all opioids got to us from a schedule III to a schedule II, they 
approved a new drug called Zohydro, which was 10 times more powerful 
than Vicodin or Lortab--much more powerful. That approval was done 
against their advisory committee 11 to 2. That means 13 experts 
evaluated this drug and said: It is not needed, too powerful, don't do 
it. Guess what, they did it anyway.
  Now they are saying that they are not going to pay attention to the 
advisory committee. Not only did they say they are not going to pay 
attention to the advisory committee, but we have had the decision on 
OxyContin being given to 11-year-old children; we have had the two new 
drugs that came out in 2014 after Zohydro and the pushback from 
Senators representing our respective States; they had a new drug called 
Targiniq, which is an extended-release OxyContin product, and Hysingla,

[[Page 1974]]

which is an extended-release hydrocodone product.
  So there were three new decisions made, with two new powerful opioids 
coming to the market and the decision that OxyContin would be given to 
11-year-olds. That was done without any review from the advisory 
committee. They got so much pushback from Zohydro, they said: We are 
not going down this path again. We will just not have anybody review 
it. We will just go ahead and do it.
  If you believe that is a culture that will protect the welfare and 
well-being of our citizens in our States all through this great country 
of ours, then I am sorry because I don't. I am sorry, but that is why I 
have been so passionate. I have more people dying of legal prescription 
drug abuse than anything else in the State of West Virginia. More 
people die. It is ravaging families.
  I have personal letters I will read, and they will tear your heart 
out with what is happening and how this grips and tears people apart. 
It tears communities apart. Every law enforcement agency in America 
will tell you--no matter what town they are in, what county they are 
in, or what State they are in--that over 80 percent and upward of 95 
percent of all crimes committed are drug related, are some sort of drug 
related.
  There is not one of us right now in this beautiful Senate Chamber 
that doesn't know somebody in our immediate family or Senate family 
that hasn't been affected by drugs, either prescription legal drugs or 
illegal drugs. It is awful. It is an epidemic.
  I believe the FDA must break its cozy relationship with the 
pharmaceutical industry and instead start a relationship with the 
millions of Americans. I have said that I am going to fight against the 
FDA protecting a business plan and hopefully the culture will change, 
and they will start protecting America and the plan of families and 
citizens of this great country to have a healthy lifestyle.
  It is because of this belief that I am urging my colleagues to vote 
against the confirmation of Dr. Robert Califf as the director of the 
Food and Drug Administration. He will still be there and still be a 
valuable person. He is just not that person with the passion to change 
the culture in this important agency. We have let this sleeping giant 
go for far too long.
  My office has been absolutely flooded, Mr. President, with stories 
from West Virginians--but I have received them from all over the 
country--who want their voices to be heard. They say: Please use my 
name. I am not ashamed. We have been hiding too long. I have watched 
too many people's lives be destroyed. So today I will read letters not 
only from West Virginians but also people across this great country of 
ours that have been impacted by the opioid abuse epidemic.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to these letters from their States and 
stories from my State about these drugs before confirming Dr. Califf, 
and in all good conscience make that decision tomorrow when we vote. Do 
you really believe he can bring the changes needed and not just say: 
Well, we have to have somebody there. He is already there. He will do a 
good job where he is; he is just not going to be able to kick them and 
shake them up and say we are not going down this path any more. There 
are some good people. We have made some recommendations of some good 
people who would bring the cultural changes that need to be brought.
  I am going to read first about a young lady from Southern West 
Virginia. Her name is Chelsea. This is her story.

       As a recovering addict, I have watched myself, my friends, 
     and loved ones suffer from this horrible thing we call 
     addiction. As I watch all these people now suffering, I know 
     they had no idea what they were getting themselves into, and 
     neither did I.
       Whether it be for pain or just simply hanging with the 
     wrong people like I did, we all have one thing in common, we 
     chose to do drugs for the first time.

  Someone made a decision to do drugs for the first time.

       Growing up, I can honestly say I had what most people would 
     call a normal childhood.

  Chelsea comes from an upper socioeconomic family in Southern West 
Virginia. She continues:

       I was raised by two hardworking parents who would and will 
     still do anything for me. I was a gymnast and a cheerleader 
     for most of my life and went to church every Wednesday and 
     Sunday. My dad was even the Mayor of Madison at one point. 
     But even being raised up in a good home did not stop me from 
     doing drugs.

  So this has no socioeconomic bearing. It does not. It is not a 
partisan issue. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, it makes no 
difference. Rich or poor makes no difference. Chelsea continues:

       I can still remember the first time I heard about someone 
     getting high. I was in the 6th grade and became friends with 
     a girl whose parents got high themselves. We would walk about 
     the playground and she would talk of these things called 
     ``drugs.'' As she talked day in and day out about how getting 
     high made her feel, it made me start to wonder what this 
     thing called ``getting high'' was really about.

  Now, mind you, I am talking about a 12-year-old girl. She was just 12 
years old.

       I can remember thinking how cool I thought it was that her 
     parents had done drugs with her and would party with her.

  So another friend of hers, also 12 years old, had parents who were 
doing drugs with her and would party with her.
  Chelsea continues:

       One weekend I went to her house to stay the night and this 
     was the first time I had gotten high. We smoked some pot, 
     drank some alcohol, and I was turned on to my first pill 
     around the age of 12. From this day forward, my life would 
     forever be changed.
       From the ages twelve to fifteen I partied some on the 
     weekends and sometimes during the week, but as time went on 
     my addiction and tolerance grew more and more. By this time, 
     I was doing more pills because I had access to them. Between 
     stealing Lortabs off my dad, to hanging with that girl so we 
     could get high with her dad, to buying pills off the local 
     drug dealer on the street, I had moved from doing them every 
     now and then to every day.
       I would stay a lot of weekends at this girl's house just to 
     get high because my parents would never have done that nor 
     did they know I was doing it. By sixteen my life took another 
     turn. My grandmother, who I called Nana, had taken care of me 
     most of my life while my mother worked. She was diagnosed 
     with lung cancer two years prior. In the last days of her 
     life, I would visit her in the hospital and she would tell me 
     how proud she was of me and how I was her little model.
       I had also met a very special guy by the name of J.R. a few 
     months before this who I spent a lot of time with. On July 
     18, 2003, my Nana passed away. On the day of her wake, J.R. 
     took me out to dinner, and on the way home he asked me to go 
     meet his dad. I explained to him I could not and that my 
     grandma's funeral was the next day.
       He dropped me off that night, kissed me good-bye, and that 
     was the last time I ever heard from J.R. Twenty minutes after 
     he left me, he wrecked and died. I felt like my heart had 
     been ripped out of my chest.
       The day of his funeral is the next time I met the love of 
     my life that would soon try to destroy my life. It was called 
     OxyContin. I fell in love immediately with OxyContin. It took 
     all of my cares and worries away, and from that moment on all 
     I wanted to do was be numb.
       As the years passed, my drug addiction grew worse. I was 
     not only doing pain pills, I was now experimenting with all 
     kinds of other things.
       I can still remember my senior week in high school. While 
     everyone was excited about going to the beach, I had to make 
     sure I had enough drugs to go and not be sick. I took Roxy's 
     and Oxy's, pretty much anything I could get my hands on, and 
     eight balls of cocaine.
       By this time in my life I didn't care about anything. It 
     never once had crossed my mind that if I got caught with all 
     of that I could go to jail. I was just worried about my next 
     high.
       The following months were the same. I was doing anything I 
     could to get my hands on drugs, from pain pills to cocaine to 
     meth. I did not care as long as I was high. I was hanging 
     around with people who were as sick as I was and places that 
     I look back now that I would not even take my dog.
       At 19 I met a guy who would fuel my drug addiction even 
     more. He was 40 years old and dealt OxyContin. At this point 
     I could not afford my habit, so I did what I had to do. I 
     started seeing my drug dealer.
       My life soon went from bad to worse. I had OxyContin 80s 
     any time I wanted them, and at the time I thought life can't 
     get any better than this. When you are doing eight to ten 
     OxyContin 80s a day, you will do whatever it takes to get 
     them.
       At this point I was turned on to heroin. Heroin would have 
     taken my life if it hadn't scared me so much. The high from 
     heroin is so intense that anyone who had done it

[[Page 1975]]

     would have fallen in love. But, actually, it scared the life 
     out of me.
       As time passed and I wasn't getting high like I wanted to 
     anymore from snorting OxyContin, I decided to start shooting 
     up. That is one thing I never thought I would do is shoot up. 
     I always told myself that people who shot up were the 
     homeless people on the streets, complete and utter trash.
       Now here I was sticking a needle in my arm to get what I 
     wanted. And to be honest, I thought life was bad before. It 
     just got a whole lot worse. The life I was and the life that 
     I knew was gone, and OxyContin was completely ruling my life 
     now.

  OxyContin is a legal drug made by a legal pharmaceutical that knew 
exactly the effects this would have when they put this on the market 
over 20 years ago.
  She said:

       What stood before everyone was pure addiction.
       I had started stealing off of everyone by now and didn't 
     care who I hurt. People's priceless possessions that meant so 
     much to them meant nothing to me. All I'd seen was my next 
     fix. That's all I could see.
       People were bringing me stolen stuff and I was taking it to 
     the nearest pawn shop or my drug dealer. I had no shame. I 
     had needle marks all up and down my arms, and I would lie to 
     my family about how they got there. It was like I had no 
     conscience, or, better yet, my addiction was my conscience.
       Eventually I got caught stealing and was charged with 17 
     different felonies and one misdemeanor. This still did not 
     slow me down even though I was looking at two to 20 years in 
     prison. Nothing scared me more than being sick from the 
     drugs.
       On September 29, 2008, I was called in for a random drug 
     test and failed because I had shot up OxyContin the day 
     before. At the courthouse they handcuffed me and shackled me 
     and sent me to Southwestern Regional Jail where I did a total 
     of 10 days. As I sat there in that jail cell and cried, I 
     thought a pill could not be worth two to 20 years of my life, 
     and I hit my knees and prayed to God that if He brought me 
     out of that jail cell, that I would never, ever, ever touch 
     drugs again. The Lord answered my prayer and the judge gave 
     me the choice to stay in jail or go to the Life Center of 
     Galax, in Galax, Virginia.
       I chose to go to rehab. I completed the 30-day program and 
     came back and did Thomas Memorial's intense outpatient 
     program for 6 more weeks. Once I got home I was sentenced to 
     two to 20 years, but they suspended my sentence. I went 
     through drug court and completed it. I was the third person 
     to ever graduate from the Lincoln County Drug Court.
       I also had to do 14 more days in jail, 6 months of home 
     confinement, and 4 years' probation. I can honestly say that 
     going to jail and rehab saved my life. If I hadn't have been 
     put in jail, I would probably be 6 feet in the ground just 
     like a lot of my friends that I had to bury.
       All of these things combined gave me something I hold very 
     dear to my heart. My recovery. Recovery has not only given my 
     life back. It has given me a chance to be a daughter, a 
     sister, a wife, and hopefully a mother someday, a productive 
     member of society, a good friend, but most of all, my 
     recovery has given me a chance to be the voice of the sick 
     and suffering addicts who lay in bed at night wondering if 
     there is a way out.
       I enjoy giving people hope and showing them that treatment 
     does work. I am living proof that if you work the program of 
     recovery, it will work for you. Since that day I had found 
     myself sitting in that jail cell with no hope and my life 
     completely consumed by my addiction, my life has changed for 
     the better. I have graduated with an Associate's Degree in 
     applied science from Southern West Virginia Community 
     Technical College.
       I went on to get my Bachelor's degree in the arts of 
     psychology from West Virginia State University, and now I am 
     currently working on my Masters of Social Work degree at 
     Concord University, and I will graduate with that degree in 
     May.
       I have also been able to go to various schools, drug 
     courts, and different places around the state to tell my 
     story of addiction from where I was then to where I am now. I 
     have also had the pleasure of working with a great group of 
     people who are trying to get a sober living home open in 
     Danville, West Virginia called the Hero House.

  I can tell you, she is so passionate about getting this Hero House so 
she can help other people. Anybody listening who wants to help Chelsea 
in Danville, WV, with the Hero House, please do so or contact my 
office.

       Now, with all this being said, I don't tell my story to get 
     praise. I tell my story because there is a son, a daughter, a 
     husband, a father, a wife, and many, many other people out 
     there addicted to drugs and they do not see a light at the 
     end of the tunnel.
       When you are in active addiction, that light is so dim and 
     a lot of times people think they are going to die from this 
     horrible disease. But I am here to show people that you don't 
     have to die. You don't have to let that horrible addiction 
     win. You can step out and take your life back, because I am 
     here to tell you that if you don't, if you don't, your 
     addiction is going to take you to your grave.
       Drugs do not discriminate. They know no good, no bad, no 
     rich, no poor. There are so many people out there who suffer 
     from this because there is little to no treatment.
       By the grace of God I was sent to rehab and given a second 
     chance. I still have the horrible reminders every day of the 
     things I did to my family, to my body, and, most of all, to 
     my self-esteem.
       I have the track marks after being 7 years sober that 
     constantly remind me of the life I once lived. I have a poor 
     self-image because of the men I chose to give myself to just 
     to get a pill, and the damage I did to my family because I 
     had no cares in the world.
       One day I hope there is enough treatment to help the 
     addicts who want help. People need to be given a second 
     chance and shown there is a better way of life than to do 
     drugs.

  I have another story called Tami's story, but I know Chelsea. I know 
this girl. She is impressive. She said: Please tell my story, I want 
people to know. No one could come from a finer family than I came from. 
No one can go lower than I have gone, and no one but by the grace of 
God could be saved like I was.
  When we hear these stories--and all she is saying is there is no 
treatment. She was lucky. She found a treatment center. Somehow we have 
to come to grips with this. We have a tax on tobacco because we know it 
is harmful and we have to cure people of the disease. We have a tax on 
alcohol. We have no fee whatsoever on opiates--none--and it is 
destroying lives like nothing else that has ever happened in this 
country. We need to make people conscious of this, and we need to have 
an FDA that is compassionate, but not only that, is committed to the 
change that needs to be made in our culture.
  I want to read Tami's story, from West Virginia. That is in the 
northern panhandle. Chelsea was way down in the southern part of our 
State of West Virginia.

       We have 2 adult children suffering from substance use 
     disorder.
       Our son entered the military while in college. He was sent 
     to Iraq right after 9/11, December 27, 2001. He experienced 
     things that he never talked about, celebrated his 21st 
     birthday there, and returned home. He was not a saint when he 
     went to war. He had a juvenile past of drinking. Back then we 
     thought he was a typical teenager acting out. When he 
     returned, he suffered PTSD, as many do, and went to the VA 
     hospital for treatment. He was put on cocktail after cocktail 
     of medications.

  We all know this. We all know that basically these brave men and 
women who are willing to risk their lives and sacrifice their lives for 
us--in order to treat their pain, we think, just give them a 
prescription, and they are able to get anything and everything. That is 
what they are talking about when he was put on cocktail after cocktail 
of medications--was this his starting point of the spiral into 
addiction?

       I believe his addiction to opioids, benzoids, and 
     amphetamines started then. I know that he spiraled from that 
     point on. He lost his marriage, he didn't see his son, he 
     bounced from drugs to drugs to drugs. He obtained several 
     DUIs, and time after time he walked away, no offer of help, 
     no sentencing. He bounced, married again. She was addicted to 
     heroin. He bounced again, was in and out of our house. 
     Unfortunately, we always gave him a safe place to land.

  She said: ``Unfortunately,''--not fortunately but unfortunately--``we 
always gave him a safe place to land.''

       The last time I saw him is when I called the police on him. 
     I discovered that him and his girlfriend, with two small 
     children, who had been living in our house for four months 
     were using and selling drugs. I found out he was recently 
     incarcerated for drug traffic and sent to a correctional 
     rehabilitation facility.
       Our daughter was an athlete all through school. She 
     received injury after injury, and at 18 started seeing 
     specialists for back pain. That was in 2004. They prescribed 
     opiates. I never saw the addiction coming. She lost her best 
     friend since first grade that year to a drunk driving 
     accident. She went to counseling. More prescriptions.
       She appeared fine, gave birth to a beautiful baby boy, and 
     then because of back pain more pain prescriptions were given. 
     I realized she had a problem when she was pregnant with her 
     second child and was stepped down to Vicodin while pregnant.

  Vicodin while pregnant.

       After his birth, we started her first rehab experience. She 
     returned to the father of her children sober. She relapsed 
     and began snorting heroin.
       At this time she was living in Ohio and we were unaware of 
     her relapse. We found out

[[Page 1976]]

     when her mother-in-law went to court and took her children. 
     That was one of the worst days of all of our lives. We 
     immediately picked her up, brought her back to West Virginia, 
     and into treatment.
       Fast forward. Thousands of dollars later on attorneys, 
     doctors, rehab, she returns to Ohio to try to obtain her 
     children. Relapsed. She began shooting heroin and then 
     arrested. We let her sit in jail and picked her up on her 
     release. Charges were dismissed. Back to West Virginia she 
     comes, hospitalized for a week and rehab again.
       She has now been in recovery for 13 months. She fell in 
     love with a nice, drug-free man, moved to Ohio to try to 
     obtain custody of her children back, and is six months 
     pregnant. One thing I can say is my daughter was always a 
     good mother. Even while on active addiction, she worked and 
     took care of them.
       As you can tell, both of our children became addicted to 
     prescription drugs first. . .

  And they tell me this is exactly how it starts. It starts at a very 
young age. Recreational marijuana, prescription drugs out of your 
parents' medicine cabinet, taking it to school, being the cool kid in 
school, sharing those drugs, then you begin using them, then you sell 
them. This is how it starts, and it leads to obtaining street drugs to 
feed their addiction. So it goes from occasional to recreational to 
addiction to feeding that addiction.

       This is a condensed version of course. As with any family 
     dealing with addiction, it does not show the tears, the hurt, 
     the financial breakdown put on the family; (we are broke).

  Literally and figuratively. She says: I want to thank you for 
listening.
  Doctors keep prescribing pills, and they will tell you that they have 
had very little training in this area. As they go through all of their 
medical schools and advanced training, they get very little training on 
the effects these drugs have on human beings and the addiction.
  We took 1 billion pills off the market when we went from 90 days to 
30 days of Vicodin and Lortab. We took that many pills off the market. 
That means 30 days.
  I have people in my office or in their families--and I know the 
Presiding Officer does as well--who will go to the doctor for something 
where they may need pain relief for 1 or 2 days. Do you know what they 
get? They automatically get enough pills for 30 days. That is the path 
of least resistance. It is legal, they can do it, and the doctor will 
write a 30-day prescription.
  We are working on a bill that will be coming to the floor. We need to 
make a lot of changes to that bill, but most importantly, we need to 
make sure we have an agency in the Federal Government of the United 
States of America that is fighting to protect every American. And it is 
not a business plan that we have to adhere to, not at all. These are 
good companies. They are legal pharmaceutical companies. They do an 
awful lot of good. I challenge every one of them that is listening to 
what we are talking about right now to give us pain relief without 
addiction to opioids. Do something. Break through the chemistry or 
something. It has to be there. We have been able to solve every other 
epidemic. We have been able to cure epidemics and pandemics, and now we 
have one that has been ravaging our country for almost 30 years.
  I have Samantha's story. She says:

       Hello. My name is Samantha Holbrooke.

  She wants you to know her name.

       I am from Fayette County, WV. I am a 28-year-old female. I 
     have been an addict for the past 6 years. This letter is to 
     explain to you how addiction has affected my life. It is also 
     to express my view on drugs and what it is doing to our 
     society.
       I first started drugs when I was 13 years old. I was a 
     recreational marijuana user. My mother was an alcoholic and a 
     drug addict. My father was not in the home or involved in my 
     life.
       Unfortunately, that is true for many people around this 
     country.
       My mother would allow me to drink with her and go to bars. 
     I was often her designated driver, but I was only 13 years 
     old. I got in my first and only bar fight at 13. It was with 
     a 24-year-old woman. She thought I was coming on to her 
     boyfriend. In reality, we were smoking weed, not trying to 
     hook up.
       When I was 19, my oldest sister and mother introduced me to 
     hydrocodone, Ritalin, Xanax, and Percocet. My sister and 
     mother had no income; I did. By getting me on pills, they 
     were able to get free pills by charging me to get them for 
     them. By the time I was 22, I think I was snorting Oxycodone.

  Oxycodone is made in a single source, which is a powder form that is 
compressed. They would break it down, crush it, and snort it to get the 
quicker high.

       That became my drug of choice. I eventually got in with a 
     doctor who was pretty much a pill mill.

  We know we have them all over this country.

       He wrote me a prescription for Xanax and Oxycodone. I got 
     even more strung out on those two.
       As a result of using drugs, I now have memory problems, 
     concentration problems, and the list goes on and on. I lost 
     about 30 pounds. I lost my job. I lost my home. I lost my 
     child. I lost my fiance to suicide. He was drunk when he shot 
     himself in the head. I believe that had he not been drinking, 
     he wouldn't have taken his own life.
       As a result of these life-changing events, I became 
     severely depressed. I then took the wrong road and began to 
     use drugs intravenously. I started lying and stealing. This 
     led me to gain two felony charges and several other 
     misdemeanors. I went to jail and prison and spent 2\1/2\ 
     years locked up. I am now on DRC because I am on parole and 
     had a relapse, which led to several bad decisions, and now I 
     am paying the consequences.
       I am now in recovery. I am a recovering addict. I joined 
     Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous. The classes and 
     programming in prison helped me to think better. I now 
     analyze a situation before making a decision.
       This is my story. Prescription drugs and all drugs have 
     ruined a large percentage of the citizens of West Virginia's 
     lives. I am now in full control of my life again, thank the 
     Lord.

  This story is anonymous, but they wanted to share it with us.

       I grew up in a nice home. My grandfather was a pastor. My 
     dad grew up in church. My family went to church every Sunday. 
     We had a nice house. We had nice cars. My mom didn't have to 
     work, and my dad took very good care of us.
       My dad had surgery, a common surgery to remove several 
     large veins in his legs. This is where his addiction began. 
     This is where he found his unlimited supply of numbness.
       I was in middle school, and this is when I remember things 
     being different. Things were changing. My dad stayed out with 
     his friends a lot. He wasn't home for dinner anymore. When he 
     was home, he was lying down sleepy and always said silly 
     things. I would stay up late at night until he would get 
     home, only to hear my mom and dad fighting, screaming, and my 
     mom crying. Eventually I hated to hear the garage door open 
     because I didn't want him to come home. Before my dad would 
     take me to school, standing in his business suit with his 
     briefcase, he would scarf down pills out of a little orange 
     bottle. He would tip it back like he was eating a box of 
     Nerds. I didn't know any better. My naive, my innocent mind 
     didn't know what was happening. I couldn't comprehend that a 
     doctor could be his drug dealer!

  They couldn't comprehend that because we have been taught to trust 
doctors.

       Things got worse. I started finding bottles of liquor and 
     cans of beer hidden, and I passed it off. The 3 empty beers 
     in the back of his company car: Oh, they must be his 
     ``friends''. No one in our family drinks, definitely not my 
     dad.

  I remember whole vacations, weekend trips, and afternoons ruined by 
his addiction. Mad fits of rage until one day my mom stood up and 
couldn't take it anymore. My dad got the help he needed, but how did he 
get the help? In hiding, in private--a local rehab facility. He was on 
a business trip. Our culture has stigmatized a group of people--a group 
of people who transcend race, status, gender--at the expense of their 
lives.
  This is a hidden killer. Drug abuse and drug addiction are hidden 
killers. So many of us have people in our families or close friends who 
don't want to talk about it. They are ashamed, and so it gets covered 
up and hidden away. As a result, we don't bring people out, let them 
know the effects, and cure them.
  She says:

       My dad was hurting. No, not from the wounds on his legs 
     when he had his surgery but from depression and bipolar 
     disorder. These are the roots of his addiction. They go hand 
     in hand. When will we see this? When will we stop seeing 
     addicts as a problem and see them as human beings and 
     hurting?

  For the last 20 to 30 years, I have been in public life, and the 
Presiding Officer has been in public life a good bit. I always thought 
that anybody who fools with drugs is a criminal and should be put in 
jail. We have done that, and it hasn't solved a thing. It has gotten a 
lot worse. We have to rethink this issue. This is not a crime.

[[Page 1977]]

Addiction is basically an illness. It needs to have a cure, and 
treatment is that cure. We have to face that. Senate Republicans and 
Democrats are looking at how to fix the sentencing guidelines, and I 
think it is encouraging and healthy for us to have these discussions.
  She says:

       Is it a selfish sickness? Of course it is. But how can we 
     help them see the light when we push them aside? Because 
     ``they asked for it?'' Just like a lady with skin cancer 
     ``asked for it'' because she laid in a tanning bed? What if 
     we treated addicts with the same compassion that we treat 
     cancer patients?
       My father has been clean for almost a decade, and the 
     demons of his addiction still haunt us all. No, we weren't 
     homeless, nor did we have to face a death to be completely 
     broken by this horrible epidemic, but I had a zombie for a 
     father for my adolescence. I missed my childhood, years that 
     we can never get back, memories that will never be erased, 
     all because of a little orange pill bottle chased and hidden 
     with a brown paper bag.
       Luckily, my story ends with a happy ending. I still have my 
     dad. My story hasn't ended up the way so many do every day, 
     like my two friends who didn't get help in time and passed 
     away.

  I have stories from all over the country, and they are pathetic. I 
have a couple more I can read from West Virginia. I will go to 
different States.
  This is Erica's story. She says:

       Hello, My name is Erica and I am an addict. And I say that 
     with great pride as I celebrated 10 years of recovery in 
     November of 2015.
       I began using drugs here in West Virginia at the ripe age 
     of 13.

  Thirteen seems to be that magic--adolescence. We are coming into 
adolescence. We are willing to experiment. We think we are invincible. 
We think nothing can harm us.

       Prescription drugs were easily accessible at that age and 
     opened the door to 11 years of anguish, desperation, jails, 
     and dirty needles. I came from a stable, drug- and alcohol-
     free home, but I was able to gain access to prescription 
     drugs from my peers and my local middle school and high 
     school on a daily basis.
       As my disease progressed, I dropped out of high school my 
     freshman year and continued to put myself and family through 
     years of pain and suffering. I attempted drug replacement 
     therapy to control my opioid addiction, but that was only a 
     temporary solution, and I eventually returned to drugs.
       Finally, I found myself in the court system and facing 
     felony drug charges. It was then that I was able to find 
     freedom through a 12-step fellowship.
       Today I can say I am a cum laude graduate of Marshall 
     University, fully employed, homeowner, wife, and the mother 
     of two wonderful West Virginia boys.
       I pray my children don't follow the path that, not only 
     myself, but many of my West Virginians fall into. The disease 
     of addiction is progressive and fatal if not treated or 
     prevented.

  Here in West Virginia, we are leading the Nation in drug overdoses. 
And where I live in Cabell County, we have had over 900 overdoses in 
just the year of 2015.

       As a mother, I must trust our leaders to make responsible 
     choices to help us seek solutions, gain back our communities, 
     and save our children from following the same deadly path.

  I know the FDA was so proud that they came out with some new 
guidelines, and they said now they are going to start paying attention 
to the advisory committees. They didn't say they would adhere to their 
recommendations; they would just start paying attention to them. Also, 
the CDC--the Centers for Disease Control--put out some guidelines of 
how we should be prescribing, the knowledge we should have, how we 
should be administering, and what we should be doing to curb this drug 
abuse. And guess which agency fought against that and put it on delay? 
The FDA.
  The only thing I ask all of my colleagues to do is to please 
consider--just send a message with the vote you make tomorrow. It is 
not about the doctor at all. It is not about the person before us. It 
is about getting an advocate who will make a real change and make sure 
we fight this war.
  This story is another anonymous story:

       My brother is in his early 20s and was hired at the local 
     plant that employs the majority of the county. He was injured 
     on the job, saw his doctor, and was prescribed Lortab long 
     term.

  Lortab, as I said before, is a schedule III, 90 days. You can keep 
calling it in, calling it in, and calling it in.

       As the effects from this started to wane, he was prescribed 
     Xanax, Klonopin, and a variety of other prescription 
     medicines. He then lost his good-paying job but found other 
     work at a lower pay after almost a year of unemployment.
       This prescription med addiction continued for years, and 
     once laws finally cracked down on prescribing narcotics, it 
     left him unable to get all the medicines he had previously 
     been prescribed. Once it became too expensive to buy them on 
     the street, he turned to heroin.
       My fun-loving brother who was always at family functions, 
     loved to be around his nieces and nephews, totally 
     disappeared. I suspected that something more serious was 
     going on, but he wouldn't answer calls or texts.
       In August, I hadn't seen him in several months. We have 
     always been close. This was very unusual. I sent him a novel 
     of a text since he wouldn't take my phone calls confronting 
     him over the rumors that I had heard of his heroin use. He 
     denied it.
       A few short weeks later, I got a call from my mother that 
     he was transported to the hospital by ambulance but 
     discharged a few hours later for chest pain. He later told us 
     he had gotten a bad batch of heroin and was certain he was 
     dying.
       He told the EMS he had used that morning, as well as 
     hospital staff. I still to this day don't understand how 
     someone can come in suffering from an overdose and be 
     discharged a few hours later.

  People don't have knowledge. They are not being trained in this 
horrible epidemic that we have in this country.

       NOTHING was mentioned to him about treatment or rehab and 
     he was treated as a lesser person. I was worried before, but 
     after this was in a constant state of fear that I would get a 
     call that my 31-year-old brother was dead.
       In October, he called me to tell me yes he was a heroin 
     addict, but a new treatment center had opened near his home 
     and he wanted to get clean. He asked if I would go with him, 
     and I said of course yes.
       His insurance wouldn't cover a dime of this treatment. It 
     would be all out of his pocket at $100 a day plus the cost of 
     meds. For someone working at a $30,000 or less a year job, 
     paying for housing, utilities, food (he never did receive 
     public assistance),--

  He was too proud for that--

     this cost was more than he could do.
       Again I told him I would be there and pay for whatever he 
     couldn't. I convinced him he needed more of a support system 
     than just me and he finally told our parents. We were raised 
     in church and came from a large religious family. He was so 
     ashamed of what he had become he didn't want the family to 
     know and the majority of them still don't know to this day.

  I am hoping, as this letter was written anonymously, eventually he 
will share this with the family, maybe preventing other members from 
going down this road.

       He will tell them when he is ready. My mom and I went with 
     him to his first appointment at the suboxyne clinic, and one 
     of us has been at every appointment since. It is wonderful--
     he has a session with a psychiatrist at every visit.
       It's more than prescribing meds. They are doing the 
     counseling to make sure their patients get clean. I am proud 
     to say that after only four months, not only is he clean but 
     he has weaned off the suboxyne.
       He still goes for counseling and has the nurse's cell that 
     he can call 24 hours a day if he's having a hard day. In the 
     future he wants to tell his story and help others facing the 
     same crisis.

  Madam President, I have been reading stories of people addicted all 
over the State of West Virginia. I have stories from your State also, 
Madam President. I would like to read that for you.
  This is in New Hampshire--Sandown, NH. This is Kathleen's story. I am 
sure she has sent you the same copy she sent me. She wants her name to 
be known.

       My name is Kathleen Stephens. I am a 56 year old RN, BSN, 
     from Sandown, NH. I am currently the Director of Clinical 
     Service at a nationwide hospice company. My story is much 
     like thousands of others out there, pretty average, fairly 
     normal. I have two children; a 33-year-old son who graduated 
     with a degree in Mathematics from Boston University and a 31-
     year-old daughter who graduated with a psychology degree from 
     Assumption College. I myself have a Bachelor of Science and 
     Nursing degree and my children's father a Bachelor's degree 
     in business from Wharton School of Business in PA. I give you 
     this detailed background for to you see that we are a well 
     educated and successful family. We are a white, mid to upper 
     middle class who have always lived in a beautiful 
     neighborhood surrounded by loving families whose children 
     played outside, joined peewee soccer, little league, 
     softball, basketball and girl scouts to name but a few. We 
     were the home in the neighborhood where

[[Page 1978]]

     all the children loved to play. We took our children to drive 
     in movies, camping, the beach, museums and always visited 
     their grandparents. We were normal, that's all, or what we 
     perceived was normal.
       When speaking with our children now, they both recount 
     wonderful childhoods and deem themselves ``lucky.'' Our house 
     was filled with love. I hugged my kids all the time, never 
     hesitated to demonstrate to or tell them how much I loved 
     them. They had grandparents who were always around, who also 
     demonstrated love for them. About 5 years ago, my daughter, 
     and her boyfriend, an Intern at Tufts Medical School decided, 
     after being together for 2 years that they would move to 
     Sacramento. I was devastated inside but encouraged my 
     daughter to follow her heart. Over the subsequent years, our 
     communications went from daily to weekly to scattered. Each 
     conversation seemed more distant than the last. We saw her an 
     average of twice a year; most significantly, when we paid her 
     expenses to come home for Christmas. Her boyfriend never 
     came; he distanced himself from us almost immediately.
       I'm sure at this point you know the story. About 18 months 
     ago I finally confronted my daughter asking what was wrong, 
     seeing her go from a loving daughter to a distant person I no 
     longer knew. Over the previous few years, she turned into a 
     virtual stranger. I told her I loved her no matter what and 
     that I would be there for her. At that time she denied any 
     issue. A few weeks later she was in the hospital and called 
     me. Apparently, she had hit bottom. She confided that she was 
     a heroin addict. I was more than shocked. She had been in a 
     substance free dorm in college, hated drinking, drugs and was 
     pretty straight laced overall. I kept myself in check saying 
     that no matter what I would support her, asked her to come 
     home so we could help her. She confided that it started with 
     a prescription for opioids that her boyfriend had shared with 
     her. He was given one for back pain years before, got hooked 
     and decided she might just like it.
       So, amazingly she did come home, but she went back a few 
     months later. She then returned to get clean again and went 
     back a few months later. She overdosed multiple times, of 
     which I knew nothing until recently. Her boyfriend gave her 
     IV heroin while she was in the hospital being treated for 
     pneumonia to keep her habit going. He was the one, I found 
     out later, that he shot her up because she hated doing it. He 
     had developed a hold on her that was a bond of heroin high. I 
     knew the drug had gotten her when, due to the stress of 
     everything happening, I ended up in the hospital ruling out a 
     heart attack. She drove me there, dropped me off and went to 
     get high (I found out later). I ended up being fine, stress 
     of course, and she ended up going back home yet again. She 
     stayed clean after going into a rehab, which kicked her out 
     after 8 days because her insurance was declined. She then 
     attended NA--

  Narcotics Anonymous--

     meetings almost daily and got a job that she loved. In the 
     meantime, her boyfriend was found out through a ``random'' 
     drug test and suspended. She was clean for 4 months, the 
     happiest four months of my life. We spoke every few days, or 
     texted. Her voice was truly hers again . . . her laughter, 
     her expressions, her humor. I felt she was finally back with 
     us. She had left her boyfriend and went into a sober living 
     home. Life was good and I was so grateful to have my 
     daughter, my best friend, back.
       About 3 months into her sobriety she decided to reach out 
     and try to get her boyfriend sober as well, the beginning of 
     the end. At exactly month 4 she went to his house and he had 
     a ``surprise'' for her. She was new in her sobriety, just 
     once she said, and she fell back down the rabbit hole. I knew 
     when she didn't return my calls or texts that it was bad. But 
     finally she responded; she was back into it again, but she'd 
     get out she promised.
       The next 8 months were a few weeks clean then back into 
     drugs again. I did not send her money. Honestly, she never 
     asked. She knew I'd never support her habit. Around 
     Thanksgiving 2015 she had had it. She called me and said she 
     wanted to get back into rehab and leave her boyfriend 
     permanently. Her life was no longer worth living. Weeks of 
     trying to get her into rehab went unsuccessfully when we 
     finally found Clean and Sober in Sacramento. At that point 
     she was clean two weeks, had slowly packed up or sold her 
     belongings and was ready for the break. But she had to sneak 
     out to get away from her very controlling, manipulative 
     partner; and she did.
       The happy part: She is today 60 days sober. She has a new 
     job (She had been fired from the other one), which she loves. 
     She blocked her boyfriend from her phone, her email and her 
     facebook. She is the daughter, once again, that I know and 
     love, but I love her regardless of the disease of addiction. 
     Love the addict, hate the disease. And for right now I thank 
     God, pray a lot, and take it one day at a time.

  I have another one here I want to share with you. The thing I wanted 
to share, Madam President, is this: My State and your State have 
probably been hit as hard as any two States in the country. We have 
people coming to us all the time. We are fighting every way we can. We 
are introducing pieces of legislation. We are not worrying about who is 
Republican or Democrat. How can we help Americans--the beautiful people 
in New Hampshire, the wonderful people in West Virginia, who are facing 
more deaths, more disease, more destruction to the family?
  I want to share with you that when I first got elected--Senator Byrd 
had died in 2010. I was Governor of the State of West Virginia. I had 
to make a decision. I thought maybe I could come to Washington and help 
with the experiences I had and what I had seen in my State and times. 
We had challenges.
  After I was elected to the Senate, I had gone back to Oceana, WV. At 
that time it had been called ``Oxyana'' because drug use was so rampant 
in this beautiful town. I remembered this town because when I was a 
freshman in college, my roommate was from this town. It was the most 
beautiful town I had been in. They had everything. What a privilege it 
would have been to grow up in this beautiful town, but I could see many 
years later it was not the town I knew or remembered in my mind. I went 
to the middle school. These were all children in fifth to eighth grade. 
I tried to give pep talks. I wanted to get them involved and tell them 
how good they could be, how much we are counting on them, what they 
need to get a good education and contribute something back to society, 
and how fortunate and lucky they are to be in this little town.
  After I finished speaking--they were attentive and cooperative--there 
was a group of them. They asked: Can we talk to you privately? I will 
never forget this. These were 12- and 13-year-old boys and girls. There 
had to be six or seven of them. I went in the back room and sat at a 
table. They started talking and telling me their stories. These were 
stories they had watched and were telling me. This was the first time I 
had ever heard from a child up close and personal who said: My dad 
worked at the mines. He had a back problem. He got hurt. They kept 
giving him pills. We lost our house. Mom and dad were fighting. They 
got divorced. We lost everything. I've got nothing now. My grandparents 
were watching me while I was trying to take care of us. My dad is an 
addict.
  I heard these stories from these five kids. They were all pleading.
  Now fast forward to the year 2015. I go back to the same school. 
These kids that were 12 years old are now seniors in high school. The 
same group wants to talk to me. They had lived a clean life, but I 
think about what they have gone through and what they have seen. Then I 
sit down with another group of 12- and 13-year-olds from the same area. 
They are telling me stories about how they are watching their lives 
before them when they watch a boyfriend or a stepfather because the 
family had broken apart, the mother remarried or whatever, and the 
person that she is with is a drug addict. This little child watches her 
mother get shot up and killed because of the drugs the boyfriend shoots 
into the mother. Can you imagine a 12- or 13-year-old having to live 
with this and see this happen in their home?
  What we are asking is simply for the Food and Drug Administration to 
change, to be the watchdog to help us. They are supposed to protect us. 
They don't say: I did my job. The pharmaceutical company told me they 
made this drug, and this is the way it was made. This is what it was 
supposed to do. We checked it out. Everything is fine; leave it on the 
market.
  You are not looking at the welfare of the people. You know what it 
does. You know it is addictive. We have no treatment centers. We are 
doing nothing to treat this. We are not challenging these 
pharmaceutical companies who are good companies. They do a lot of good 
and put a lot of products out there that are very good, but they are 
bringing these opiates on the market quicker than ever before, more 
powerful than ever before, and they know what is going to happen.
  I am challenging all of them. I think the FDA should challenge them. 
We are not going to approve more opiates. We are not going to let you 
bring on the

[[Page 1979]]

market stronger opiates that we know are addictive and will ruin 
people's lives. If they will do that and challenge these companies to 
come out with new research and development that can scientifically give 
us relief needed for people who have chronic pain without making them 
addicts who lose their lives--we should be able to do that in this 
great country. I am going to read you a story from Kentucky, my next 
door neighbor, the majority leader's home--Kentucky and West Virginia. 
This is Emily from Louisville, KY.

       My name is Emily Walden. I am a mother who lost my 21-year-
     old son to a drug overdose in 2012. My son TJ came from a 
     good family, was a member of the Kentucky National Guard and 
     the most respectful young man you could have ever met. TJ 
     made an initial poor decision that led to an addiction to the 
     drug Opana; he had unlimited access to this drug during that 
     time. TJ did not want to die from this. He tried very hard to 
     overcome his addiction and I tried very hard to save his 
     life. I started researching the drug Opana about five years 
     ago and would like to share with you what I have learned that 
     illustrates the need for changes to our FDA policies and 
     approval processes for all opioid drugs.
       The drug Opana contains the opioid Oxymorphone which was 
     removed from the market in 1979 due to the overdose deaths 
     and addiction this drug was causing across our country.
       In 2002, the FDA started holding IMMPACT meetings every 
     year allowing pharmaceutical companies to pay money to be 
     included in discussions and changes to clinical trials, 
     design.
       We call that pay to play--the impact it has because they 
     are able to go to these types of settings and get absolute 
     front row seats with the people they are trying to persuade 
     to take another look at these drugs that might have been 
     taken off the market because they were deemed too dangerous. 
     This is allowed to go on. It has been going on for far too 
     long, and the FDA is part of it. This is part of the change 
     that needs to be made and made immediately.
       Endo Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of Opana, attended 
     each one of these ``pay-to-play'' meetings.
       In 2003, Endo Pharmaceuticals brought the drug Opana to the 
     FDA for approval and was denied due to the overdoses that 
     occurred during the clinical trials.
       In 2006, Endo Pharmaceuticals again brought the drug Opana 
     to the FDA for approval but this time using new clinical 
     trial that applied a modified process, called ``Enriched 
     Enrollment,'' which removed patients with preexisting opiate 
     sensitivities from the trial. The Enriched Enrollment process 
     skews results and seriously underestimates risks associated 
     with the proposed drug involved in the clinical trial. In 
     addition, the FDA ignored their own review guidance by 
     bypassing their advisory committee and approved Opana for 
     moderate to severe pain.
       At the time Opana was approved, our country was already 
     experiencing an explosion of overdose deaths and addiction 
     from the overprescribing and misrepresentation of the safety 
     of opiates. In addition to causing thousands of deaths and 
     addiction, the approved use of Opana has now been directly 
     implicated in an outbreak of Hepatitis C and HIV cases in the 
     State of Indiana.
       The FDA has continued to use Enriched Enrollment--

  Or pay to play--

     to approve new opiates and override or bypass altogether 
     their advisory committee for new opiate approvals and for new 
     uses of opiates further contributing to the overdose deaths 
     and addiction. These process changes must stop.
       The year after my son died I traveled to Washington DC for 
     the first time in my life and was very fortunate to be able 
     to meet with the then Senate Minority Leader--

  Now Senate majority leader--

     Senator McConnell, the next year I had nine meetings which 
     included a meeting with then acting Director Botticelli of 
     ONDCP, DEA Administrator Michelle Leonhart and seven meetings 
     with Senator's staff. In 2015 I had thirteen meetings 
     scheduled. I am not going away! We need change to curb this 
     horrible epidemic that started with prescribed opiates and 
     the mistakes that were made need to be corrected.
       How many people have to die? How many more people have to 
     become addicted? The FDA is sending the wrong message to 
     physicians by continuing to approve opioids during the worst 
     drug epidemic our country has ever faced.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). The Senator's postcloture time 
has expired.
  Mr. MANCHIN. I ask unanimous consent to continue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Thank you, Madam President.

       The FDA is supposed to be protecting public health and yet 
     over 200,000 people have died and they have failed to put 
     appropriate restrictions on these dangerous drugs to prevent 
     overdose deaths. I want to know why there is one death from 
     something such as ecoli and every head of lettuce is pulled 
     from the shelves in ten different states but opioids have 
     killed thousands of people and they are considered safe and 
     effective? How can that be?
       When is the FDA going to put human life before the 
     paychecks of Big Pharma? What will it take? A million deaths? 
     We need an FDA commissioner that will protect the citizens of 
     this country that is willing to take the overall best 
     interest of public safety into consideration and not allow 
     the pharmaceutical companies to have him in their back 
     pockets. My son TJ had a lifelong dream of joining the 
     military and fighting for his country. He would have given 
     his life to protect and serve. He was one of the most 
     patriotic young men and his country failed him. Please do the 
     right thing. Please do not let one more mother get a knock on 
     her door saying their child is gone and that they will never 
     [ever] come home [again]. There is no greater pain than 
     burying your child! My son, my precious child with the most 
     beautiful blue eyes, caring and loving heart, died in part by 
     the greed of big Pharma and--

  Most importantly--

     the carelessness of the FDA. It is time for change!

  Another story from Kentucky. This is in Northern Kentucky and this is 
Kimberly's story.

       My name is Kimberly Wright. I am a [mother from Northern 
     Kentucky] who works in the trenches to save the lives of 
     people in my Community. NKY was hit by a pill epidemic around 
     2000. That pill Epidemic has now turned into a Heroin 
     Epidemic. Since 2013 the death toll continues to climb. In 
     2015 we have had 1,168 overdose reverses. We still await the 
     number of deaths. Our entire system is on the verge of 
     collapse--our Courts, Police, Children's Services, Jails. Our 
     jails currently have 99% Heroin and Pill cases housed in the 
     jails. Our Treatment system is seriously strained with not 1 
     new bed added in the last 10 years since this epidemic 
     started. We are in a War in [Northern Kentucky]. Every day we 
     wait to see how many died that day. We have people getting in 
     their cars driving high on pills and Heroin wrecking into 
     innocent people and killing them. This is the United States 
     of America and this is a shame. We allow the FDA and Big 
     Pharma to profit off the deaths of an entire generation of 
     young people. We are in effect losing 2 jumbo jets full of 
     kids every day in America due to Pills and Heroin. We need 
     help. We are begging for help to stop this madness. Our 
     American families are losing our children at an alarming rate 
     to overprescribing Drs and Big Pharma. We beg you, please 
     help us stop this.
       I lost my sister Alicia Cook on October 26, 2010, to an 
     overdose. Alicia was a nurse with 2 young daughters. This 
     Epidemic has no boundaries and it's in every community in the 
     Country. Northern Kentucky has the highest rates of HEPC, 
     surpassing the National Level, due to heroin and pills being 
     injected. We have a high rate of homeless children due to 
     their parents being dead or drug addicted with no end in 
     sight. We have 52% of grandparents raising their 
     grandchildren due to death and addiction. This is a nightmare 
     for parents. When our children were born we could have never 
     imagined this would be our life. You don't sleep at night 
     from the anxiety of wondering if you are the next parent to 
     get that call that your child has overdosed. It's like being 
     in a constant panic attack. It's not normal to grieve the 
     loss of a child who is alive, for they are truly lost. I 
     [know lots of] parents who have lost their child and I can't 
     imagine their pain and grief. I grieve for my addicted 26-
     year-old daughter who is in the fight of her life [because 
     of] her Addiction. I watch her destroying herself every day. 
     I don't want to join the mothers who have lost their child to 
     this Epidemic. I know how I suffer now and I just can't go 
     there. I will continue to fight for my community. Will you 
     [please] join me?

  That is Arlene's story.
  Indiana is one of the States that has been hit so hard also. This is 
Danielle's story from Southern Indiana.

       My name is Danielle McCowan. I live in southern Indiana and 
     work as a server. About 2 and a half years ago a customer by 
     the name of Josh Harvey left me his number. At the time he 
     told me he was living in Chicago for school. Little did I 
     know he was in rehab there. Granted, I didn't know about his 
     addiction for over a year because we hadn't stayed in 
     constant contact. Over a year or so ago I found out about his 
     heroin addiction. He still told me little about it. I do know 
     it started out with prescription pills and later went to 
     heroin when the pills became harder to get. He served a month 
     in jail in Michigan for the entire month of this past July 
     over a heroin related charge. He came home immediately after 
     and overdosed that same weekend. Luckily, his dad saved him 
     that time. Now he got enrolled in college and was going to an 
     outpatient program doing better. Or so we all thought. School 
     let out for break and I guess it all went downhill. He came 
     to me on November the 4th telling me he had used

[[Page 1980]]

     a couple of times and wanted my advice. I suggested an in-
     patient program. He went to Wellstone after he left my house. 
     He sat for several hours and finally was given a room. I went 
     and checked on him 2 different times while he waited to make 
     sure he was there. Thursday I didn't receive any calls. 
     Friday nothing either. Then Saturday morning, the 7th of 
     November, his mother called me to break my heart. He had 
     passed away that Friday, the 6th, over in Louisville and 
     didn't know who to contact until that Saturday morning, I 
     guess. He had checked himself out of Wellstone, broke into 
     his house, took his Xbox which he later either pawned or 
     traded for heroin. Never in a million years did I think I'd 
     become close to anybody addicted to heroin. It doesn't 
     discriminate. It can get ahold of any and everybody. Never in 
     my life have I been so depressed or heartbroken. All I want 
     is his story shared. He was my happy ending gone away too 
     soon.

  They continue. They continue on, these stories, the heartaches and 
the lives destroyed, lives changed. Few too many lives are saved.
  Massachusetts. As the Presiding Officer knows, Senator Markey has 
been working with me very closely and all of us on this horrible 
epidemic that we have. This is Sara's story. She is from Amherst, MA.

       My nuclear family is middle class or the working poor, but 
     it is blended in that I was raised by my mother and step-dad, 
     but my bio father's side of the family would be considered 
     well-off. Heroin first came to my radar after my brother 
     Donny became addicted to pain pills after surgery, and heroin 
     followed suit after RX's stopped. Then it seemed like it was 
     everywhere around me: my nephew, my niece. Then we lost my 
     cousin Cory, who passed in a sober house for his addiction to 
     alcohol, along with a needle and an empty bag next to him. 
     Cory is an example of a young man institutionalized by 
     multiple incarcerations and just when he would try to lift 
     himself up, in he would go again. He was trying to get clean 
     for his girlfriend and unborn child when he passed away, and 
     he was happy, thinking he was getting better. Living with 
     someone close who struggles and then multiply that by two, 
     and adolescence, young adulthood mixed in, and you have my 
     descent as an empathetic aunt who felt powerless to change 
     anything.
       Then the bottom dropped out. My cousin, John Ahern, passed 
     at the end of August after a long period of recovery alone in 
     the woods. It didn't matter he came from privilege or was the 
     nicest person I had ever known in my life for so long. He 
     leaves behind three loving sons. They both couldn't access 
     the help they needed at various stages, including recovery, 
     and died alone.
       It is my mission to stand up for them and the young people 
     like my niece who began her struggle at 14, and now 
     approaching 18 has some clean time. There are no support 
     programs in my community for this age group, and especially 
     for non-White young people like my niece and nephew. They are 
     both of Latino descent. Please do something.

  People are begging us everywhere in this country to help them, and 
basically it starts with treating this as an illness and not as a 
crime. It starts also with having clinics, having basic places where we 
can serve them and help them get clean. They cannot do it by 
themselves, and they are the first to tell you. The stories I am 
reading here exemplify that so well.
  I have a Florida story here, and Florida has also been ravaged. 
Florida was a problem that we had in West Virginia because of the pill 
mills there. People would take the bus down or they could take a cheap 
flight down to Florida, buy all the pills they could and come back. 
Florida has been very helpful in the last years trying to stop the pill 
epidemic.
  This is Janet from Fort Lauderdale.

       Dear Senator Manchin. I appreciate you taking the time to 
     stop the appointment of Dr. Califf from becoming the FDA 
     commissioner. I founded STOPPnow--Stop the Organized Pill 
     Pushers now--due to all the drug-addicted babies I was caring 
     for as a neonatal intensive care nurse at a children's 
     hospital in Broward County, FL. We started holding protests 
     in front of the 150 pill mills that were in Broward County 
     alone. Many parents came out to protest with us. Parents from 
     all over the country contacted us as well. Too many parents 
     are crying themselves to sleep over the loss of their child.
       At first, there were no consequences for either the clinic 
     owner or the doctor. Then they started arresting the doctors 
     for money laundering. Our State's attorney has called the 
     doctors drug dealers in white coats. The Board of Medicine is 
     not protecting the public by allowing high-prescribing 
     doctors to keep their license. Therefore, the plight of the 
     drug-addicted babies and the devastation to the families 
     continues to rise. When one clinic owner was arrested, he was 
     earning $150,000 a day.

  I repeat, $150,000 a day.

       Not one doctor in that clinic to date has lost his license 
     or his practice.
       We only have the judicial system helping to alleviate this 
     in Florida. Doctors are now being charged with first-degree 
     murder. It would be kinder for a doctor to lose his license 
     than to sit in a courtroom at their own murder trial.
       We have been unsuccessful in our efforts for lawmakers to 
     mandate that prescribers use the prescription drug monitoring 
     program in Florida. Yet in this environment, there is a bill 
     passing through the committees allowing nurse practitioners 
     and physician assistants to prescribe narcotics without a 
     doctor signing off on the order. I would support this bill if 
     they included the mandate. And, of course, the FDA approved 
     that children as young as 11 years old can be prescribed 
     OxyContin. We definitely need an investigation.

  Madam President, as you can see, these are problems that we have all 
over the country. This is not just your State and not just my State. I 
know it is hard. They say we need someone in there, so let's just go 
ahead and confirm Dr. Califf. Dr. Califf is an honorable man. He is 
still there. He is going to be there. He has been there for 1 year. In 
the 1 year that he has been there, we have basically put more opiate 
drugs on the market without even going through a clinical overview. If 
that change were going to come, it would have come by now. I am sure he 
could have had input, and I would hope that he would.
  Dr. Califf has called a lot of our colleagues and said that these 
changes will be coming. This Senator will tell you the changes they 
recommended when they said they were going to make changes. They said: 
We are going to make sure that we are going to start listening to our 
staff and people who are reviewing these drugs.
  They are going to listen to them, but there is no mandate that they 
will have to follow.
  This Senator has a piece of legislation that the Presiding Officer 
coauthored, and I appreciate that very much. Basically what we are 
saying is this: When you have your advisory committee--and every drug 
must go through an advisory committee's opinion, and if they recommend 
as they did with Zohydro to not let it go on the market, that cannot be 
bypassed, neglected, or pushed aside. Our bill would basically state 
that they must bring it to the people's representatives in Congress and 
state why it is so very important for them to bring this new high-
powered drug to the market--as if we don't have enough.
  The United States has 5 percent of the world's population but 
consumes 80 percent of these addictive opiate drugs. Something is 
wrong. Something must change.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to be able to read the 
letters of people who have been affected by this all over this great 
country in all of our States. I know we feel the pain, and we are going 
to try to make these changes and make sure this agency will do what it 
is supposed to do.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Remembering Justice Antonin Scalia

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, first of all, I want to take a moment 
to honor the life and service of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
  Justice Scalia was a dedicated public servant who gave so many years 
to our courts and our country. He and I didn't agree on every issue, 
but his intellect, passion, and commitment were unquestionable. I know 
he will be missed, and the thoughts and prayers of Washington State 
families go out to his family.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Madam President, people across the country are now looking at what is 
happening here in Congress, and they are frustrated. They look at the 
many challenges we face as a Nation, and they want Democrats and 
Republicans to work together to tackle them to make sure our government 
is functioning and that it is working for all of our families, not just 
the wealthy and few.
  Madam President, I share that frustration. We have been able to get 
things done when Democrats and Republicans work together to break

[[Page 1981]]

through the gridlock. That shouldn't end just because it is an election 
year. It certainly should not end when it comes to one of our most 
important roles here in the Senate, working with the President to 
evaluate and confirm judges for the highest court in our land.
  The Supreme Court plays such an important role in protecting the 
rights, liberties, and responsibilities of all Americans. Over the 
years the Court has made decisions that have moved our country in the 
right direction, and it has made decisions that have set us back. When 
the Court can do its work, it offers certainty to people across the 
country when it comes to their rights as workers or as patients or as 
consumers or as women or as citizens. At its best, it helps our 
judicial system rise above politics, above partisanship, and above the 
spats and sniping of the moment. In order to do that, the Court must 
have a full bench. It cannot have vacancies leading to potential 
deadlocks at every turn.
  That is why I was so disappointed that hours after Justice Scalia 
passed away, Republican leaders jumped out of the gate to say they 
would not allow the vacancy to be filled while President Obama was 
still in office. Right away--before the Nation had a chance to take in 
and mourn the loss of a Supreme Court Justice, a man who seriously 
believed in the Constitution--Republican leaders injected politics and 
partisanship into a process that should be about our obligations as 
Americans.
  The Constitution is very clear. Let me take a moment to read from it 
directly.
  In article II, which clearly defines the powers of the President, 
section 2 states that ``he shall nominate and by and with the Advice 
and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public 
Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court and all other 
Officers of the United States.''
  Madam President, this could not be more explicit. The President 
``shall nominate'' and shall appoint with ``the Advice and Consent of 
the Senate''--not shall nominate in the first 3 years, not shall 
nominate unless the Senate leadership wants to keep the seat open for a 
while. The President ``shall nominate.'' That is his responsibility.
  Then it is our responsibility in the Senate to consider, advise, and 
ultimately help make sure that the vacancy is filled with a qualified 
person. Of course, the Senate has the right to weigh in with our advice 
and consent. It is our job to vet nominees sent to us by the President, 
to make sure they are qualified for the job, and to determine if they 
meet the basic standards of honesty, ethics, qualifications, and 
fairness. Personally, this Senator will want to evaluate if they will 
be independent, evenhanded in deciding cases, and if they will uphold 
our rights and liberties, including the critical right to privacy.
  Republican leaders are not objecting to a person; they are objecting 
to this President being allowed to do his job. That is not advice and 
consent; it is politicize and obstruct.
  Republicans say there is a precedent to stall on Supreme Court 
nominations in the last year of a President's term. That is not true. 
President Reagan had Justice Kennedy confirmed with a unanimous vote in 
a Democratic Senate in his last year in office.
  Since 1975, the average number of days from nomination to final 
Senate vote is about 70 days. So this kind of obstruction and 
partisanship is absolutely wrong. People across the country will not 
stand for it, and I hope our Republican leaders will back down and do 
the right thing because evaluating and confirming Supreme Court 
Justices is one of the most important roles we have in the U.S. Senate.
  In fact, it is this issue that actually pushed me to run for the 
Senate in the first place. Back in 1991 I was a State senator, a former 
school board member, a mom. Like so many people at that time, I watched 
the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. For days I watched in 
frustration.
  I couldn't believe this nominee wasn't pushed on the issues that I 
and so many others thought were so important to our country. I didn't 
feel the Members on that committee represented the full spectrum of 
perspectives, and I decided then and there to run for the U.S. Senate 
to give Washington State families a voice.
  Now, as a U.S. Senator, I want my questions answered. I want to make 
sure my constituents have a seat at the table and I get to push 
nominees for the highest Court in the land on the issues I care about 
most, but I can't do that if Republicans play election-year politics 
and don't even allow us to have that debate. The American people will 
not have a voice, the Court will be dysfunctional for a year longer, 
and Republicans will have politicized a process that should be above 
this sort of petty partisanship.
  Many Republicans may not want to hear this, but Barack Obama is still 
President Obama for almost a full year more. This Senator is hopeful 
that Republicans will step back from this very dangerous and very 
partisan path they are on and work with us to consider and confirm a 
nominee in a reasonable timeframe.
  Families across the country deserve to have a functioning Supreme 
Court and a Congress that works well enough to allow this to happen.
  Thank you, Madam 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. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here now for the 128th time to 
urge that we wake up to the ugly changes that carbon pollution is 
wreaking on our climate. It is happening all around us, and it is 
happening right now, not in some far-off future.
  As humans we are terrestrial beings. We live on the land. So 
naturally we pay more attention to the experience where we live--things 
such as increasing average temperatures on the land and changes in 
extreme weather when it hits the land. We don't so much pay attention 
to what is happening in our warming and acidifying oceans.
  The oceans are a big deal in climate change. For decades the oceans 
have absorbed more than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped in the 
atmosphere by greenhouse gas emissions. Of all the different places the 
excess heat goes, 93 percent is into the oceans. What we see in the 
atmosphere--the temperature changes we have already measured, the 
changes we are seeing in our habitat and what is happening to the 
western forest--all of that is less than the remaining 7 percent.
  A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change found that the 
oceans have absorbed as much energy just since 1997 as they had in the 
preceding 130 years--as much in 20 years, less than 20 years, as they 
had in the preceding 130 years.
  According to an Associated Press write-up of the study's findings, 
``Since 1997, Earth's oceans have absorbed man-made heat energy 
equivalent to a Hiroshima-style bomb being exploded every second for 75 
straight years.'' That is the energy load of heat that has gone into 
our oceans--a Hiroshima-style bomb exploded every second for 75 
straight years. What does all that excess energy mean for the oceans? 
It means that sea levels are rising, in part due to melting glaciers 
but also because of expanding ocean water. It is basic physics, 
explained by the principle of thermal expansion. When the ocean warms, 
it expands. It can't go down, so it comes up along our shores.
  We have measured sea level rise in Rhode Island since 1930. Since 
then, the water level is up nearly 10 inches at the tide gauge at Naval 
Station Newport, and rates of sea level rise are on the increase 
worldwide. Since 1993, global sea level has risen at a rate 
approximately double the average rate observed through the 20th 
century. It is accelerating.

[[Page 1982]]

  Current forecasts confirm that if we do nothing to curb greenhouse 
gas emissions over the next decades, the oceans could rise as much as 3 
or 4 feet by 2100. Our State coastal management agency predicts that we 
could see as much as 7 feet of sea level rise in the Ocean State, in 
Rhode Island, by the end of the century. I hope my colleagues 
understand that when I come to do this, I am deadly serious about 
things that are predicted to happen in my State.
  This week, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 
reported that global sea levels are rising at their fastest rate in 
nearly 3,000 years. That study also estimates that about half of the 
20th century sea level rise would not have occurred without global 
warming.
  The lead author, Dr. Robert Kopp, an earth scientist at Rutgers 
University, explained in the New York Times:

       Physics tells us that sea-level change and temperature 
     change should go hand-in-hand. This new geological record 
     confirms it.

  Sea level rise matters to my constituents and to all coastal 
communities. A related study, led by Dr. Robert Strauss, found that 
approximately three-quarters of the tidal flood days now occurring in 
towns along the east coast are a result of the rise in sea level caused 
by human emissions. For example, looking at tide gauge data, 32 flood 
days were recorded in the decade from 1955 to 1964 at Annapolis, MD, 
and 34 flood days were recorded in that same period for Charleston, SC. 
In one decade, there were 32 flood days in Annapolis and 34 flood days 
in Charleston. Scroll forward to the decade 2005 to 2014, and the 
number of flood days in Annapolis jumps to 394 from 32--in one decade--
and 219 flood days were recorded in Charleston.
  Sea level rise brings coastal erosion, and it brings saltwater 
inundation of coastal marshes and habitats. It amplifies the effects of 
storm surge and flooding as storms ride ashore on higher seas. It 
changes flood zones and affects flood insurance for homeowners. These 
are real problems, and they are serious problems.
  Dr. Strauss explains in a New York Times article this week:

       It's not the tide. It's not the wind. It's us.

  The main culprit is carbon dioxide building up in the atmosphere, 
which again in 2015 reached new record levels. To put a little context 
on this, for as long as human beings have inhabited planet Earth, we 
have existed safely in a range between 170 and 300 parts per million of 
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, we broke beyond 300 
parts per million early last century, and we haven't looked back. We 
have now exceeded 400 parts per million.
  Among its harms, this excess carbon dioxide has a particularly 
damaging chemical effect on our oceans. Oceans, in addition to 
absorbing 90 percent of the heat, I pointed out, are absorbing about 30 
percent of the carbon dioxide--it goes right into the oceans--roughly 
600 gigatons since preindustrial times. As all that carbon is absorbed 
into the oceans, it changes the oceans' chemistry. It makes the oceans 
more acidic. The chemical reaction is simple, but the effects on the 
ocean are serious.
  This chart shows ocean pH--or acidity--over the past 25 million 
years, and we can see some variation across those millions of years. 
This is what is projected for the next 100 years: pH drops equals 
acidity rises.
  According to a research article published in the journal Nature 
Geoscience, the rate of change in ocean acidity is already faster than 
at any time recorded in the past 50 million years. Scientists go back 
and they can see this in the geologic record. We have broken every 
record for 50 million years--millions of years before human beings were 
ever on the planet.
  This all may sound esoteric, but it has real hometown consequences 
for Rhode Island, where coastal life defines our heritage, our culture, 
and our economy. Fishing is big business in my State. Rhode Island's 
annual farmed oyster production, for instance, is valued at over $5 
million. But carbon pollution is changing the very chemistry in which 
those oysters must survive.
  Research on the effects of ocean acidification on shellfish and other 
marine life can barely keep up with a rapidly acidifying ocean--another 
reason we need more money for research. Change is coming at us faster. 
We have to speed up the pace of research to understand it. But what we 
do know is that shellfish, such as mussels, clams, and oysters, make 
their shells from calcium carbonate, and calcium carbonate dissolves in 
acidified seawater.
  Here is how Bob Rheault, executive director of the East Coast 
Shellfish Growers Association, put it:

       The only thing we know for sure is that the larvae, in that 
     first 48-hour period before they start feeding, are 
     tremendously susceptible to dissolution. Their energy budget 
     goes negative because they haven't started to feed yet, and 
     if they haven't got enough energy in that egg and they're 
     starting to dissolve, then it takes extra energy to lay down 
     shell, and they sometimes don't make it.

  Here we see normal, healthy oyster larvae in those first few crucial 
days of development, compared to larvae growing in more acidic ocean 
water.
  NOAA scientists have projected that the world's oceans and coastal 
estuaries will become 150 percent more acidic by 2100. This could mean 
disaster for shellfish--a $1 billion industry around the country. U.S. 
shellfish production is currently expected to see a 10- to 25-percent 
reduction in the next five decades, according to the Woods Hole 
Oceanographic Institute. Again, pardon me for being serious about this, 
but it is currently predicted that a major industry in my State is 
going to be knocked down 10 to 25 percent because we are making our 
oceans acidic with carbon pollution.
  A study published last year found that Rhode Island's shellfish 
populations are especially vulnerable. Mark Gibson is the deputy chief 
of marine fisheries at the Rhode Island Department of Environmental 
Management, and he calls ocean acidification a ``significant threat'' 
to local fisheries. I don't know how many Senators are expected to 
forget or ignore a significant threat to an industry in their home 
State because it is inconvenient for lobbyists and for the fossil fuel 
industry, but I don't think that is a fair thing to ask of me.
  But acidification is not the only problem for fishermen. In a 2015 
survey from the Center for American Progress, 40 percent of fishermen 
in the Northeast reported catching new fish species they don't usually 
see in the waters they fish. Rhode Islanders are starting to catch 
tarpon and grouper, usually tropical fish; our valuable winter flounder 
fishery is virtually gone; and our lobstermen have to go farther and 
farther out to sea to find cooler waters where they can catch their 
lobsters.
  Among the fishermen surveyed, 80 percent of those who noticed 
``warmer water temperatures'' attribute it to climate change. This is 
new. When I first got to the Senate, if I went down to Galilee--Rhode 
Island's largest fishing port--and tried to talk to the fishermen there 
about climate change or ocean acidification, I was lucky if they didn't 
throw me off the pier. They didn't want to hear about it. But then it 
started to hit home. Now fishermen come to me and say: Sheldon, it is 
getting weird out there. Sheldon, this is not my grandfather's ocean 
any longer. These are men who fished with their grandfathers, who 
fished with their fathers, and who now have their own boats. They know 
these waters, and when they say that the ocean has changed and it is 
getting weird out there, we should listen. They are on the water every 
day, and they see these changes happen before their very eyes.
  I hope my Republican colleagues are like those fishermen. I am sure 
some of them probably want to throw me off a pier for all these talks, 
but mostly they probably just don't want to hear about climate change. 
But what I am hoping is that soon they will hear it from the fishermen 
in their own States, or their farmers or their foresters, and that they 
will hear it from their State health officials, their State emergency 
officials, their own State universities, and they will listen. When 
they do, they will realize the fossil fuel industry has been 
duplicitous with them and has been leading them away from their own 
State's best interests.

[[Page 1983]]

They will learn that the fossil fuel industry lobbyists are false 
friends as well as greedy ones.
  We have a clear scientific understanding of the problem. Yet 
relentless fossil fuel opposition prevents us from moving toward a 
solution. It is a disgrace, frankly.
  It is time to pay attention to reality, to the evidence, to what our 
farmers and foresters, and, yes, our fishermen are telling us. It is 
time to shut off the toxic polluter-paid politics that cloud this issue 
and give Washington a dirty name. It is time, indeed, to wake up.
  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. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Tribute To Alee Lockman

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I rise to recognize Alee Lockman.
  Alee Lockman is the pride of Brockton, MT. In fact, Alee grew up on 
her family's wheat farm 10 miles north of Brockton in eastern Montana. 
Alee is also the pride of Froid High School, a classic high school in 
Montana. She was the valedictorian of a graduating class size of six. 
Alee graduated from Froid High School and went on to Harvard and 
graduated in 2010.
  Alee Lockman also served as my communications director for the past 3 
years. She came back to Washington when I was elected to the House and 
served on my team there. She worked on my campaign staff as well when 
we ran for the U.S. Senate. And thanks to Alee's tireless work and 
strong work ethic, we were able to win that race, and she came over to 
the Senate side and served as my communications director there for the 
past year-plus.
  She played an absolutely invaluable role in my office. She is a 
brilliant, creative thinker who has a talent unparalleled.
  I will never forget our road trips across Montana. There were times 
when we would spend countless hours in a small, little compact car--I 
am used to driving my big Ford pickup--that we would rent and literally 
drive thousands of miles across Montana and visit all the small towns.
  Nobody was a greater advocate for rural Montana issues--somebody who 
lived it and breathed it her entire life--than Alee Lockman. In fact, 
one of the best nights of the month was our monthly tele-townhall 
meeting, where tens of thousands of Montanans would know Alee's voice 
because she would always introduce me. I always took pride in 
announcing: ``You just heard from Alee Lockman from Brockton, MT.''
  I could always count on her to provide wisdom and much needed 
insight, particularly when it came to my prolific social media feeds. 
Sometimes Alee would place guardrails around what I probably should or 
should not be saying.
  We are going to miss Alee Lockman. Alee has gone on to pursue a 
great, new opportunity, which I am very excited about for her, and I 
wish her the very best.
  I wish to thank Alee Lockman for her service to the people of 
Montana, to this Nation, and to this institution.
  You are going to be missed, Alee, and we wish you the best of luck in 
your future endeavors.

                          ____________________