[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2841-2869]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            COMPREHENSIVE ADDICTION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2015

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

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

  Pending:

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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12 
noon will be equally divided between the two managers or their 
designees.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.


                       Remembering Justice Scalia

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, on February 13, 2016, the Supreme Court 
lost one of its Justices, our Nation lost a true legal giant.
  Justice Scalia was described by colleagues as ``extraordinary,'' 
``treasured,'' and ``a stylistic genius.'' Beyond his unwavering 
dedication to upholding the originalist viewpoint of the Constitution, 
Justice Scalia was also wholeheartedly committed to his family. He was 
a husband, father of 9, and grandfather to 36 grandchildren.
  His son Paul said of him during his homily:

       God blessed Dad with a love for his family. . . . He was 
     the father that God gave us for the great adventure of family 
     life. . . . He loved us, and sought to show that love. And 
     sought to share the blessing of the faith he treasured. And 
     he gave us one another, to have each other for support. 
     That's the greatest wealth parents can bestow, and right now 
     we are particularly grateful for it.

  Justice Antonin Scalia was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1986 by 
President Reagan and was confirmed by the Senate in a unanimous vote. 
While his time on the Court often led to some criticism of his legal 
opinions and his very colorful dissents, he remained respected by his 
colleagues, even those of the opposite end of the judicial spectrum. 
This is a sign of true character--to have an open, honest debate about 
a particular issue while respecting the individual person holding an 
opinion different from your own.
  Justice Scalia said:

       I attack ideas. I don't attack people. And some very good 
     people have some very bad ideas. And if you can't separate 
     the two, you gotta get another day job.

  The sentiment was best portrayed through his friendship with Justice 
Ginsburg. As one of his friends, she said:

       We are different, but we are one. Different in our 
     interpretation of written texts. One in our reverence for the 
     Constitution and the institution we serve. From our years 
     together on the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We 
     disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and 
     received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released 
     was notably better than my initial circulation.

  Justice Scalia was known for his wit and his sarcasm in his writings, 
famously referring to legal interpretations of his colleagues as 
``jiggery-pokery,'' ``pure applesauce,'' and ``a ghoul in a late horror 
movie.'' Yet it was these same criticisms that Justice Ginsburg said 
nailed the weak spots in her opinions and gave her what she needed to 
strengthen her writings.
  Justice Scalia represented a consistent, constitutional voice on the 
Supreme Court. Just as the Constitution is the pillar of our legal 
system, so too is his affirmation to this foundational document of our 
Nation. He said:

       It is an enduring Constitution that I want to defend. . . . 
     It's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the 
     Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution, as opposed 
     to what people today would like.

  Justice Kennedy said:

       In years to come any history of the Supreme Court will, and 
     must, recount the wisdom, scholarship, and technical 
     brilliance that Justice Scalia brought to the Court. His 
     insistence on demanding standards shaped the work of the 
     Court in its private discussions, its oral arguments, and its 
     written opinions. Yet these historic achievements are all the 
     more impressive and compelling because the foundations of 
     Justice Scalia's jurisprudence, the driving force in all his 
     work, and his powerful personality were shaped by an 
     unyielding commitment to the Constitution of the United 
     States and to the highest ethical and moral standards.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Mr. President, with Justice Scalia's passing, we have a vacancy on 
the Court to fill.
  The question is, When?
  I would submit, with only months left until the Presidential 
election, that we should let the people decide.
  I have heard over and over for the past 7 years that elections have 
consequences, but apparently some people seem to only think elections 
have consequences on Presidential elections. The American people 
elected a brand new Senate in 2014 because of their incredible 
frustration with the operation of the previous Senate and because of 
the direction that we are now heading under this President.
  I have heard this argument for years: The President should be able to 
do what he wants. He is the President. But may I remind everyone of a 
document in our National Archives called the U.S. Constitution, which 
gives divided power to our Nation. The President is not over the 
Senate, not over the House, and not over the Supreme Court.
  Hyperbole of this has been overwhelming to me in the debate of the 
past few weeks. I have heard that unless we replace Justice Scalia 
right now, we will ``shut down the court.'' I have heard on this floor 
people say that if we don't replace Justice Scalia immediately, it is 
``dangerous,'' it is ``unprecedented,'' it is unheard of. I have heard: 
``Do your job''--a failure to do your duty. I even heard one Senator 
say: ``The Constitution says the President shall appoint and the Senate 
shall consent.''
  Well, let me show you article II, section 2 of the Constitution where 
that comes up. It says that the President ``shall have Power, by and 
with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided 
two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate''--the 
President shall nominate. That is his constitutional responsibility. 
But it is not the constitutional responsibility--it never says the 
Senate shall give consent to the President. Why? Because the 
Constitution gives the role of selecting a Supreme Court nominee in a 
50-50 responsibility between the Senate and the President of the United 
States.
  The President shall nominate; that is his responsibility. But that 
only moves forward with the advice and consent of the Senate. There is 
no ``shall give consent.'' There is no requirement how it moves.
  In fact, Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers, on this very 
issue, said that the ``ordinary power of appointment is confided to the 
President and Senate jointly.''
  This is a 50-50 agreement. What we are facing right now are 
incredible attacks on the chairman of the Judiciary Committee because 
he dares to do what Vice President Biden, Senator Schumer, and Senator 
Reid recommended years ago. I even heard that we shouldn't listen to 
the words of Vice President Biden. I would understand why people would 
say that, because when you go back to Vice President Biden's words, 
when he was a Senator and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in the 
same spot Chairman Grassley is in now, this is what, at that time, 
Senator Biden said. Senator Biden, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
arguing on this same issue, said: ``Arguing from constitutional history 
and Senate precedent, I want to address one question and one question 
only: What are the rights and duties of the Senate in considering 
nominees to the Supreme Court?''
  This is from Vice President Biden--then Senator Biden:

       Some argue that the Senate should defer to the President in 
     the selection process. They argue that any nominee who meets 
     the narrow standards of legal distinction, high moral 
     character, and judicial temperament is entitled to be 
     confirmed in the Senate without further question. . . . 
     Apparently, there are some in this body and outside this body 
     who share that view.

[[Page 2842]]

       I stand here today to argue that opposite proposition.

  This is from Vice President Biden. He stated at that time:

       We have quashed the myth that the Senate must defer to a 
     President's choice of a Supreme Court Justice, the men and 
     women at the apex of the independent third branch of 
     Government.
       Can our Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process, 
     so wracked by discord and bitterness, be repaired in a 
     Presidential election year?

  Vice President Biden, as Senator Biden, said:

       History teaches us that this is extremely unlikely. Some of 
     our Nation's most bitter and heated confirmation fights have 
     come in Presidential election years.
       The Senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would 
     respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the 
     full throes of an election year.

  Vice President Biden at that time said this:

       It is my view that if the President goes the way of 
     Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year 
     nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously 
     consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the 
     nomination until after the political campaign season is over.

  He said, instead:

       It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the 
     political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme 
     Court nomination must be put off until after the election 
     campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is 
     central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. 
     President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution.

  This past week Senator Reid came to the floor to discuss Senator 
Grassley and what he is doing, which is exactly what then-Senator Biden 
recommended to be done, and he made this statement. Senator Reid said 
this past week:

       Last Thursday, the senior Senator from Iowa addressed the 
     Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC, which took 
     place here in Washington. In his speech to them, here is what 
     Senator Grassley said: ``I feel it's about time that we have 
     a national debate on the Supreme Court and how it fits in 
     with our constitutional system of government.''

  Then Senator Reid continued:

       The chairman of the Judiciary Committee is suggesting that 
     we reevaluate the Founding Fathers' work, reevaluate the 
     Constitution of the United States, and change the 
     Constitution of the United States. Why is Senator Grassley 
     debating what the Constitution makes clear? The Senate must 
     provide its advice and consent on nominees appointed by the 
     President to the Supreme Court. Think of the irony. Justice 
     Scalia was a strict constitutionalist. Yet now, in the weeks 
     following his death, Senator Grassley wants to throw out the 
     Constitution just because President Obama gets to pick 
     Scalia's replacement.

  That is what Senator Reid said this week.
  Let's look at what Senator Reid said in 2005 on this exact same 
issue. In 2005, on this floor, Senator Reid said: ``The President of 
the United States has joined the fray to become the latest to rewrite 
the Constitution and reinvent reality.''
  This is speaking of President Bush at the time. Senator Reid 
continued, ``Speaking to fellow Republicans Tuesday night, 2 days ago, 
he said the Senate `has a duty to promptly consider each . . . nominee 
on the Senate floor, discuss and debate their qualifications and then 
give them the up-or-down vote that they deserve.' Referring to the 
President's words, duty to whom? The duties of the Senate''--this is 
from Senator Reid in 2005:

       The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. 
     Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate 
     has a duty to give Presidential appointees a vote. The fact 
     was even acknowledged by the majority leader that a vote is 
     not required. Senator Byrd asked the majority leader if the 
     Constitution accorded each nominee an up-or-down vote on the 
     Senate floor. The answer was no. Senator Frist was candid. 
     The answer was no. The language was not there, Senator Frist 
     said. He is correct. Senators should read the same copy of 
     the Constitution Senator Frist had memorized.

  Continuing with what Senator Reid said:

       It is clear that the President misunderstands the meaning 
     of the advice and consent clause. That is not how America 
     works. The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the executive 
     branch.

  So earlier this week, Senator Reid chastised Senator Grassley, saying 
he wants to rewrite the Constitution. In 2005 Senator Reid stood on 
this floor and encouraged all Members to read the Constitution--that it 
nowhere requires that we take an up-or-down vote. So I don't know which 
one to take on this--the current statements from Senator Reid or the 
previous statements from Senator Reid--because they are in direct 
contradiction.
  Senator Schumer, on July 27, 2007, speaking about the last 18 months 
of President Bush's term as President, said:

       For the rest of this President's term and if there is 
     another Republican elected with the same selection criteria 
     let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of 
     confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of 
     balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by 
     another Roberts; or Justice Ginsburg replaced by another 
     Alito.
       Given the track record of this President and the experience 
     of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme 
     Court, at least: I will recommend to my colleagues that we 
     should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in 
     extraordinary circumstances.

  I have also heard: Don't look at the words but the actions. Senator 
Reid, Senator Schumer, and, when they were here, Senator Obama and 
Senator Biden have all filibustered Supreme Court nominees when they 
were Senators--all four of them have. Suddenly, now this is a dangerous 
idea that will shut down justice and is completely unconstitutional, 
and there are shouts of ``Do your job'' that come from the same Senate 
leaders who blocked untold nominations from untold Republican 
Presidents and didn't allow amendments on basic bills.
  There is a lot of emotion in this body. I get that. There are a lot 
of politics in this process. I would hope to bring some facts to light 
and to turn down the hyperbole and all the rhetoric. So let me bring 
some basic facts to this.
  The last time a Supreme Court vacancy arose in an election year and 
the Senate approved a new appointee to the Court in that same year was 
1932. Since there is no nominee right now, it would not be possible to 
fill the vacancy in time for that individual to hear cases in the 
spring session of the Supreme Court. That means any nomination selected 
now would only be able to serve--in our colleagues' arguments--in the 
fall, which is a much shorter session of the Supreme Court, before this 
President actually leaves. So we are talking about the final session at 
the end of this fall--a very few number of cases.
  Justice Stephen Breyer, just a few weeks ago, stated this about the 
passing of Justice Scalia:

       We'll miss him, but we'll do our work. For the most part, 
     it will not change.

  The Supreme Court is open and is working this week. In fact, the 
Court hasn't halted at all. The Court has heard 10 cases already since 
Justice Scalia's passing, and they are continuing to release decisions.
  It is a myth that there needs to be an uneven number of Justices for 
the Supreme Court to actually work. In the past 6 years, 80 percent of 
the cases were decided 6 to 3 or greater. So it is a small minority of 
the cases that ever get to a 5-to-4 decision. And we don't know that a 
5-to-4 would end up not being a 5-to-3 at this point.
  Eight members can operate the Court. In fact, the Constitution 
doesn't even give a specific number to the Justices. How many Justices 
are on the Supreme Court has always been a decision of the President 
and the Congress together. The first Congress, for example, enacted the 
Judiciary Act of 1789, which stated the Supreme Court consists of ``a 
chief justice and five associate justices.'' If you are counting right, 
that is six Justices on the early Supreme Court.
  The size of the Court varied during the 19th century, with the Court 
shrinking to 5 Justices for a while, following the passage of the 
Judiciary Act of 1801, growing to as large as 10 Justices in 1863. Then 
in 1869, Congress changed the number to nine, where it has remained.
  But the Court doesn't need nine Justices to actually decide a case. 
In fact, Congress has established the quorum requirements to be only 
six. If the Court ends in a tie decision, 4 to 4, or in the case of six 
justices, 3 to 3, the

[[Page 2843]]

Court will not write an opinion but will affirm the lower court, or it 
will ask for a reargument of the case.
  In other words, the Court is already set up to function and is 
functioning, and it will continue to function with eight people.
  I would say what is really happening is that the Democrats, who 
implemented the nuclear option while they were leading the Senate and 
packed all the lower courts, urgently want to be able to pack the 
Supreme Court as well. That will not happen.
  We will also not allow a recess appointment, as has been floated 
multiple times in the media--the President will just do a recess 
appointment and go around us. The Senate chooses when the Senate is in 
recess, not the President. So we can do this: We can remain in 
continuous session without recess to prevent a recess appointment by 
this President through the rest of this year. Many of my Republican 
colleagues and I have already agreed to be in Washington every 3 days 
for the rest of this year to gavel in this body in pro forma session so 
this President cannot put in a recess appointment judge.
  Ironically enough, this right of the Senate was approved by the 
Supreme Court just a few years ago by a 9-to-0 ruling when this 
President tried to force in new members on the National Labor Relations 
Board through a recess appointment, and this Supreme Court kicked those 
out, saying the President cannot choose when the Senate is in recess.
  Our Nation faces really big issues: accelerating debt, threats from 
terrorism, a struggling economy, major education, and health care 
reform issues. This is a moment when the people of the United States 
should speak about the direction of our Nation. We are still a nation 
of the people, by the people, for the people. And for the next 
President and for the next Supreme Court nomination, we should let the 
people decide.
  With that, 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. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, last month we all learned with great 
sadness of Justice Antonin Scalia's passing after nearly 30 years on 
the Court. He would have turned 80 years old on Friday, March 11.
  In recent weeks, foremost on people's minds as they reflect on 
Justice Scalia's legacy and his life is his dedication to the letter of 
the law, his respect for constitutional and statutory text, his view 
that the U.S. Constitution is a sacred document which must be read and 
adhered to.
  His decisions and opinions were aimed to follow the Constitution 
wherever it took him, even if it may not have been to a place where he 
would agree politically. Justice Scalia not only understood the 
importance of not legislating from the bench, but he also cared deeply 
about the lesson being taught by the work of the Court. Through his 
writings, his opinions, including his dissents, he taught us great 
lessons.
  Now all of this is very important and relevant, ironically, as we 
consider our role and path forward in the decision to fill his vacancy. 
Instead, unfortunately, we have seen rhetoric and arguments which fly 
in the face of that dedication to the text, to the Constitution, to 
statutory law and rules, and following that letter.
  My esteemed Democratic colleagues have taken to the Senate floor, and 
they have encouraged outside groups to storm committee rooms--all 
arguing that somehow there is a legislative or constitutional mandate 
that the Senate have hearings, take a vote now, and not allow the 
American people to weigh in through the election. They argue that 
somehow the Senate is constitutionally obligated to hold hearings and 
vote right now before the election, but as Justice Scalia would surely 
point out: Read the text. Look at the Constitution. Look at all 
relevant statutes and rules. That is not the case. It is clear, 
otherwise. In fact, it is crystal clear. So let's do that in homage to 
Justice Scalia.
  He wrote many opinions arguing for exactly what I am saying: Read the 
clear language that is at issue--either the Constitution or a statute 
or whatever is at issue. He wrote opinions against what before his time 
was rampant use of so-called legislative history, looking at the 
history of how a law was passed really to give people fodder to make it 
up as they go along and reach almost any conclusion and interpretation 
they want to. Justice Scalia taught us--and he had a real impact on the 
Court through his decisions--that we need an unwavering commitment to 
principle and respect to statutory text as written.
  As he often said in so many different ways, ``Legislative history is 
irrelevant when the statutory text is clear.'' In one opinion he noted 
that ``if one were to search for an interpretive technique that, on the 
whole, was more likely to confuse than to clarify, one could hardly 
find a more promising candidate than legislative history.'' He said 
directly that ``our cases have said that legislative history is 
irrelevant when the statutory text is clear.''
  Again, that is a big part of his legacy and very relevant in this 
discussion about how the Senate should fulfill its duties. Let's look 
at the text of the Constitution and any relevant text like our rules 
below the Constitution.
  In the U.S. Constitution, article II, section 2, clause 2 says 
clearly: 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, and all other 
Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein 
otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law.''
  That is what it says on the issue. That is all it says on the issue. 
Those words are straightforward, and those words do not mandate a 
hearing or a vote in any certain timeframe. It is very clear from the 
Founders and from numerous Court decisions since then that within the 
constraints of those words, the Senate sets its rules of how to proceed 
on all Senate matters, including confirmations. So another very 
important and very clear text that we should read word for word and 
adhere to are the standing Senate rules. Senate rule XXXI states: 
``When nominations shall be made by the President of the United States 
to the Senate, they shall, unless otherwise ordered, be referred to 
appropriate committees; and the final question on every nomination 
shall be, `Will the Senate advise and consent to this nomination?' 
which question shall not be put on the same day on which the nomination 
is received, nor on the day on which it may be reported by a committee, 
unless by unanimous consent.''
  It only says when the vote cannot be taken. It doesn't say that a 
hearing has to happen or a vote has to be taken within a certain amount 
of time.
  Another part of rule XXXI is even more direct on this point: 
``Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at 
which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session 
without being again made to the Senate by the President.''
  So this is even more direct and makes crystal clear that there is no 
requirement of a hearing or a vote on any particular nomination in any 
particular timeframe during a session. Again, that is very 
straightforward, very crystal clear, but the Congressional Research 
Service has a report which validates and confirms the obvious. Upon 
their review of all of this text, they say:

       A committee considering a nomination has four options. It 
     can report the nomination to the Senate favorably, 
     unfavorably, or without recommendation, or it can choose to 
     take no action.

  So they say the obvious from reading the relevant text. Those are the 
options. There is no requirement for a hearing or for a vote within any 
certain timeframe.
  There are other ``authorities''--I will put that in air quotes--which 
confirm

[[Page 2844]]

this view, and ironically those authorities I am referring to are 
Democrats who are taking exactly the opposite view now. When the shoe 
was on the other foot, time and time again, they said: There is no 
requirement to move forward on any certain timeframe.
  The minority leader, Harry Reid, said: ``Nowhere in [the 
Constitution] does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential 
[nominees] a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice 
and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every 
nominee receives a vote.'' That is a direct quote.
  In June of 2003, Senator Patrick Leahy--he is significant because he 
is ranking member of the Judiciary Committee--said clearly:

       The Constitution divides the appointment power between the 
     president and the Senate. It expects senators to advise the 
     President, not just rubber stamp his choices. It says advise 
     and consent, not nominate and rubber stamp.

  Even further back, in June of 1992, then-Chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, now-Vice President Joe Biden argued for the need to set 
aside partisanship and work to bring unity forward in the Senate by 
saying: ``President Bush should consider following the practice of a 
majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the 
November election is completed.'' He said that during a Presidential 
election year, just like we are in the midst of a Presidential election 
year right now.
  Chuck Schumer, another leader of the Judiciary Committee, said much 
the same thing in the past, making crystal clear that there is no 
requirement--in fact, he said 18 months before the expiration of 
President Bush's term. So not during his last year, but 18 months 
before the end of that term that the Senate shouldn't confirm any Bush 
nominee, except in extraordinary circumstances.
  It is very clear from their own words that there is no obligation to 
use any certain timeframe to have any absolute committee hearing or 
vote within a certain period of time. So then the question is, What is 
the best thing to do for the American people? I firmly believe the best 
thing to do for the American people is to put the American people in 
charge, to put them in the lead, to maximize their role, their power, 
and their vote. That is what the opportunity of a major Presidential 
election gives us.
  Of course, if you have a vacancy early on in the term of a President, 
you are not going to have another big election for some time, but that 
is certainly not the case right now. We are in the midst of a huge 
election with enormous consequences for the future, and it is very 
clear the choices--whatever the final two choices may be--would offer 
very different options in terms of the type of Supreme Court Justice 
they would appoint.
  I think we best serve the American people in almost all cases--
certainly in this case--by maximizing their voice, their role, and 
their power. They often feel absolutely shunned, put to the side, 
ignored by Congress, by Washington now. We need to put them in charge, 
and in this Presidential election year we have a unique opportunity do 
that. That certainly is what I am committed to doing.
  I can tell you, as I travel Louisiana, the huge majority of my fellow 
citizens whom I have talked to agree with that approach. I just 
finished doing four townhall meetings in all different parts of the 
State. In a few weeks I am going to do four more, all different parts 
of the State. That is not a scientific survey, but nobody came to those 
townhall meetings who didn't agree with that path forward. A great 
majority of calls and emails and letters from my fellow Louisiana 
citizens on this issue absolutely confirm and support that path 
forward.
  Let's put the American people in charge. They are crying for a voice. 
They are crying with frustration over not being listened to by 
Washington. This is a major decision. Let's put them in charge. Let's 
let them lead in this Presidential election year on this very important 
issue.
  Of course, whoever is elected, the next President will have a big 
impact on our country. That person will serve for 4, maybe 8 years and 
make decisions that are enormous on a whole host of issues, but this 
appointment to the Supreme Court could have an even more lasting 
impact, could have an impact for decades to come, and it is even more 
important in that frame of mind, in that viewpoint, to put the American 
people in charge, to maximize their role and their voice about what 
direction we should take.
  So many Louisianians feel as I do. The Court has strayed from Justice 
Scalia's proper philosophy of actually reading the Constitution and 
reading statutory text and applying it as written. So many Louisianians 
feel as I do; that they are making it up, in many cases, as they go 
along; that they are legislating from the bench; that they are using 
clever techniques, such as looking to legislative history--something 
Justice Scalia, as I noted, railed against--as ammunition to get to 
whatever endpoint they desire to get to. That is not the role of any 
court, certainly not the role of the Supreme Court.
  The Supreme Court should apply the Constitution and the law as 
written, not make it up as they go along, not legislate from the bench, 
not get to some political endpoint through clever legal arguments--just 
as we in understanding our role should read the Constitution, should 
read the Senate rules and not suggest what is clearly not the case; 
that somehow there is a mandate to have a hearing, to have a vote in 
some set period of time.
  I urge my colleagues to put the American people in charge. This is a 
big decision, and I think we will do far better putting them in charge 
than allowing some insider Washington game to control and manipulate 
the process without hearing their voice, which we have every 
opportunity to properly hear through this important election this year.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am so pleased we are making strong 
progress on the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, and I hope we 
will get this bill done within a day. It is very important, especially 
to States with rural areas, such as the Presiding Officer's and mine, 
and I am glad we are starting to make headway.


                         U.S.-Canada Relations

  Today, Mr. President, I am here to talk about something else, and 
that is the importance of the U.S. relationship with Canada. Senator 
Crapo and I cochair the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group 
and have been working in the trenches on everything from softwood 
lumber, to the Detroit-Windsor bridge crossing, to issues of 
intellectual property, to dairy, to beef, and with the arrival of Prime 
Minister Trudeau, this work has suddenly gotten a little more 
glamorous. We are excited about that and excited about the Nation's 
newfound interest in our important relationship with Canada. In fact, 
Canada is one of our largest trading partners. There is so much 
business that goes on between the Presiding Officer's State and Canada, 
as well as my State and Canada. Prime Minister Trudeau is bringing a 
newfound interest in this work.
  Many of our two countries' priorities, which include national 
security, infrastructure, and energy, align closely. During this visit, 
I expect our relationship will deepen, and we will hear more about how 
our two nations will work together on our shared priorities. We hope 
they will discuss hockey, which is something that is very important to 
Minnesota and Canada. A number of our hockey players have actually come 
from Canada, and a number of the Canadian hockey players have come from 
Minnesota. But we think there are other important topics as well.

[[Page 2845]]

  First, I will start with our economic relationship--a relationship 
that supports 9 million U.S. jobs. Canada purchases more goods from 
America than any other nation. If you asked people what country in the 
world is the biggest purchaser of U.S. goods, I think they might not 
predict that the answer is Canada. Canada is the No. 1 buyer of goods 
produced in 35 out of 50 States, including Minnesota. Last year 
Canadians bought $376 billion worth of goods made by American 
businesses, and it is a two-way street. The United States imports more 
than $300 billion in Canadian goods every year.
  Over the years, to enhance this relationship, we have taken many 
important steps to improve the flow of travellers and goods across our 
common border. In the wake of September 11, we created a U.S. passport 
card, which is a secure but less expensive and more convenient 
alternative to a traditional passport. We removed unnecessary double 
screening of luggage--a bipartisan bill I passed with Senator Roy Blunt 
of Missouri--and then expanded the number of preclearance airports, 
which allows American security personnel to be in those airports. I 
think we are up to eight now.
  We have agreed to build a new bridge connecting Windsor, Ontario, and 
Detroit, MI. It is a source of great concern. The bridge that is there 
now is privately owned and has huge lines. It is not a very good 
situation. So a new bridge is in the works, and we are very excited 
that our two countries worked on that together.
  I especially want to acknowledge Ambassador Doer, the longtime 
Ambassador from Canada to the United States who worked on that with our 
two Ambassadors. I also want to acknowledge the newly named Canadian 
Ambassador, Ambassador David MacNaughton, who will continue the strong 
diplomatic relations between our countries.
  Our national security partnership is also incredibly important. We 
share the longest border in the world with Canada. Obviously border 
issues are important, but more than that, Canada, as part of NATO, has 
worked with us not only in Afghanistan, where they supplied many troops 
and now provide funding there, but they are also on the frontline with 
ISIS. They actually have hundreds of trainers working on the frontline 
there. I would be remiss not to mention them standing up to Russian 
aggression in Ukraine. Believe it or not, Canada has a major Ukrainian 
population, and they have been our friend in dealing with Ukraine as 
well.
  Prime Minister Trudeau has also been a leader in welcoming refugees 
to the country. Right after his election, he showed up at the airport 
to greet Syrian refugees. It was not just a symbol; they actually 
brought in 25,000 Syrian refugees during the last year and are expected 
to take in 10,000 more this year, which is significantly more in total 
than the United States has been able to bring in. We know the vetting 
process is incredibly important, but we do want to thank Canada for 
taking part in what is a travesty internationally.
  They are working on combating Ebola with initiatives such as Power 
Africa and are also working with us on the climate change numbers.
  By the way, our two countries are working together with Mexico. We 
have formed a very powerful trading block, and we want to encourage 
that with our standards and other things that we do in terms of 
building electrical capabilities to allow us, as a North American 
block, with a new day in North America, which was agreed to among the 
three Presidents of countries in the last 2 years, to compete in the 
block in an increasingly competitive global economy, including 
harmonizing emission standards and doing other work together.
  As one of the cochairs of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary 
Group, we welcome the new Prime Minister to Washington. When I was 
sworn in as a U.S. Senator in 2013, my friends and colleagues 
celebrated at the Canadian Embassy. I am the first person I have found 
to have my swearing-in at the Canadian Embassy, but I chose it to make 
a point--that we should not forget one of our best trading partners. 
For years it was the only Embassy draped in banners that read 
``friends, neighbors, partners, allies.'' So many other countries do 
not acknowledge their friendship with the United States in a way that I 
think they should. Canada doesn't hide it. Canada is proud of it. And 
we welcome the Prime Minister today.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
on amendment No. 3378 is expired.


                Vote on Amendment No. 3374, as Modified

  The question occurs on amendment No. 3374, offered by the Senator 
from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, for the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Donnelly.
  Hearing no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3374), as modified, was agreed to.


                 Vote on Amendment No. 3378, as Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 3378, 
offered by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley.
  Hearing no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3378), as amended, was agreed to.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 524, a bill 
     to authorize the Attorney General to award grants to address 
     the national epidemics of prescription opioid abuse and 
     heroin use.
         Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley, Deb Fischer, John 
           Barrasso, Shelley Moore Capito, Roy Blunt, Johnny 
           Isakson, John Boozman, Mike Crapo, David Vitter, Mike 
           Rounds, Bill Cassidy, James E. Risch, Lindsey Graham, 
           John McCain, Thom Tillis, Orrin G. Hatch.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 524, 
a bill to authorize the Attorney General to award grants to address the 
national epidemics of prescription opioid abuse and heroin use, shall 
be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. 
McCaskill) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 93, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 33 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

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

                                NAYS--3

     Lee
     Markey
     Sasse

[[Page 2846]]



                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cruz
     McCaskill
     Rubio
     Sanders
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 93, the nays are 3.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Utah.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the opening words to the preamble of the 
Constitution of the United States are familiar to all of us: ``We the 
People.'' But what do those words mean?
  It was ``the People'' who established the U.S. Constitution. We 
established, among other things, the Senate in article I, section 1, of 
the Constitution. It is for ``the People'' that my colleagues and I, 
along with every other public official across these United States, now 
serve.
  And it was on behalf of ``the People'' that the Constitution 
established ``one supreme Court,'' consisting of judges appointed ``by 
and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.''
  Since the tragic passing of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, there 
has been a great deal of debate about this particular provision of the 
Constitution. But there should be no controversy. The text of our 
founding charter is clear.
  The President has full and complete power to nominate individuals to 
the Supreme Court, and the Senate has full and complete power to reject 
or confirm the nominee. It is as simple as that. Indeed, the Senate 
retains complete discretion with respect to whether it should even 
consider--much less accept or reject--Presidential nominees.
  This should not be controversial. It is how virtually every student 
of the Constitution--and how nearly every Member of Congress--has 
understood the Senate's power of advice and consent for the past 228 
years since the Constitution was ratified.
  Senator Harry Reid said in 2005: ``Nowhere in that document does it 
say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote.''
  Senator Pat Leahy in 2003 acknowledged that the power of ``advice and 
consent'' included the power to withhold consent.
  Then-Senator Joe Biden in 1992 argued from the floor of this Chamber 
that the Senate should refuse to consider a Supreme Court nominee until 
the people had spoken in the upcoming Presidential election.
  But now, with the Presidential election in full swing, some of my 
friends on the other side of the aisle maintain that the opposite is 
true. Some argue instead that the Senate is constitutionally obligated 
to hold hearings and to vote on any candidate President Obama might 
eventually nominate to replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. I 
respectfully dissent.
  If this a-textual and a-historical account of the Constitution were 
accurate--and it is not, but if it were--then prior Senates violated 
the Constitution when they did not cast up-or-down votes on Supreme 
Court nominees. Even the Standing Rules of the Senate would be 
themselves suspect under this theory, contemplating as they do that 
``[n]ominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at 
which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session 
without being again made to the Senate by the President. . . .''
  Neither does the prospect of a temporary eight-member Supreme Court 
raise any significant constitutional concern or even any significant 
pragmatic concern for the Supreme Court of the United States.
  For instance, during the Supreme Court's 2010-to-2011 term, the Court 
decided over 30 cases with 8 or fewer Justices participating, almost 
entirely as a result of recusals arising, as they often do in this 
circumstance, from Justice Kagan's nomination. Similarly, following the 
retirement of Justice Powell in 1987, the Court acted on 80 cases with 
8 or fewer Justices. In short, the sky does not fall when the Court 
operates with only eight Justices. As Justice Breyer recently stated, 
the work of the Court ``[f]or the most part . . . will not change.''
  Now, we have to remember that any Supreme Court nominee made by 
President Obama would not be seated until weeks before the people 
choose the next President. Let me explain what I mean by that. Even if 
the President of the United States were to nominate someone today to 
serve on the Supreme Court of the United States to replace Justice 
Scalia, using historical averages, under any calculation of the amount 
of time that it typically takes to confirm a Supreme Court Justice, 
that confirmation could not be completed until after the Supreme Court 
is scheduled to have heard its last oral arguments for this term--the 
term that began in October of 2015. What does that mean? Well, it means 
that for the rest of this year, the Justice couldn't participate in 
cases being argued this year. What that also means is that by the time 
the Court resumes its work and begins its next session starting in 
October of this year, we would be just weeks before the next 
Presidential election. Yet that would be the first moment at which any 
newly confirmed Justice would start hearing cases being argued before 
the Court--cases being argued on their merits for consideration before 
the Court--just weeks before the next Presidential election.
  Consider also that since the nomination of Justice Scalia to the 
Supreme Court in 1986, nearly 30 years ago, it has taken more than 70 
days, on average, for the Senate to confirm or reject a nominee after 
that nominee has been submitted to the Senate for its advice and 
consent.
  So, again, based on that historic average, even if the President 
nominated somebody today and assuming that nominee were confirmed, that 
individual would not be seated in time to hear or rule on any of the 
cases the Court is considering on the merits for its docket this year, 
and that would, of course, mean that the next time arguments were 
heard, the first time this particular Justice could participate in such 
arguments on the merits before the Court would be just weeks before the 
Presidential election.
  This is a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land--a 
Court that considers not only the interpretation of Federal laws, 
statutes, and regulations in operation within the Federal Government, 
but also the very meaning of the Constitution itself. In light of the 
fact that this is a lifetime appointment to that Court and in light of 
the fact that the people are about to speak this November to decide who 
ought to occupy the Oval Office, we should, in respect and deference to 
the people of this great country, wait until the American people have 
spoken. They deserve a voice.
  In my view, the future of the Supreme Court is now at stake, and the 
election for our next President is also, of course, well underway 
already. So it is the people who should determine what kind of Supreme 
Court they wish to have.
  Now, the President is entitled, of course, to discharge his own 
constitutional authority to nominate. No one can take that from him. 
That belongs to him. But the Senate is equally entitled to withhold 
consent and to protect the people's voice. We have to remember that it 
was considered at the Constitutional Convention the possibility that 
the Senate would itself have the exclusive power to nominate executive 
branch officials. It was also suggested that the Senate be given a veto 
power over the President's appointment prerogative. Neither of those 
ended up in the Constitution. Instead, what ended up in the 
Constitution, based, I believe, on the Massachusetts Constitution, was 
a shared power--one in which the President has the power to nominate 
but does not have the power to appoint, unless or until such time as 
the Senate chooses to grant its advice and consent and thereby confirm 
a nominee put forward by the President.
  As James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, ambition must 
counteract ambition, and the people should decide.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 2847]]


  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, there is a vacancy on the most important 
Court in America, and the message from Senate Republicans is crystal 
clear: Forget the Constitution. It doesn't matter who President Obama 
nominates because the Republicans will allow no votes on that nominee. 
They will hold no hearings on that nominee.
  Their response to one of the most solemn and consequential tasks that 
our government performs--the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice--
will be to pretend that that nominee and President Obama himself simply 
do not exist--cannot see them, cannot hear them.
  At the same time they are blocking all possible Supreme Court 
nominees, Senate Republicans are in a panic because their party seems 
to be on the verge of nominating one of two extremists for President--
two candidates who think nothing of attacking the legitimacy of their 
political opponents and demeaning millions of Americans, two candidates 
whose extremism, Republicans worry, will lead their party to defeat in 
November.
  These are not separate issues. They are the same issue. If Republican 
Senators want to stand up to extremists running for President, they can 
start right now by standing up to extremists in the Senate. They can 
start by doing what they were elected to do right here in the Senate. 
They can start by doing their jobs.
  The refusal of the Republican Senators to execute the most basic 
constitutional duties of their office is shocking, but it is not new. 
Article II, section 2 of the Constitution says that the President of 
the United States ``shall nominate'' judges, executive officials, and 
Justices to the Supreme Court with the ``Advice and Consent of the 
Senate.'' There is no secret clause that says ``except when that 
President is a Democrat,'' but for 7 years that is how Republicans in 
the Senate have acted. Since the first day of the Obama Presidency, 
Republican Senators have bowed to extremists who have rejected the 
Obama Presidency and abused the rules of the Senate in an all-out 
effort to cripple his administration and to paralyze the Federal 
courts. The Constitution directs Senators to provide advice and consent 
on the President's nominee, and every Senator swore an oath to uphold 
the Constitution. If Senators object to a nominee's qualifications, 
they can vote no and they can explain themselves to the American 
people. President Obama and I are members of the same political party, 
but I haven't agreed with every single nomination he has made, and I 
haven't been shy about it. That is how advice and consent works. Learn 
about the nominee and then use your best good-faith judgment about 
their qualifications, but Republican extremists aren't voting against 
individuals based on a good-faith judgment about a specific person. No. 
They are blocking votes wholesale in order to keep those jobs vacant 
and undermine the government itself.
  For years Republicans have executed a strategy to delay votes on 
confirming government officials across the board. In 2013, only 1 year 
into President Obama's second term, Republican leaders flatly rejected 
his authority to confirm any judges to fill any of the three open seats 
on the second highest court in the country, and Democrats had to change 
the filibuster rules in order to move those nominees forward. Once 
Republicans took over the Senate in 2015, judicial confirmations nearly 
ground to a halt.
  It is not just judges. For months after the President won reelection, 
Republicans held up his nominees to run the Department of Labor and 
Environmental Protection Agency, largely on the suspicion that those 
highly qualified individuals might actually help those agencies do 
their work. For years Republicans held up nominees to the National 
Labor Relations Board--even Republican nominees--in order to cripple 
the ability of that 80-year-old agency to resolve disputes between 
workers and their bosses. For years Republicans held up the President's 
choice to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, refusing to 
confirm anyone unless the President would agree to gut the agency.
  Republicans regularly hold up the confirmation of dozens of 
Ambassadors, undermining our national security and our relationships 
with other nations. Last year Republicans blocked confirmation of the 
Attorney General, the highest law enforcement official in this 
country--blocked her for 166 days--longer than it took the Senate to 
consider the prior seven Attorneys General combined.
  For more than a year the Republican chairman of the Banking Committee 
hasn't held a single vote on any of the 16 Presidential nominees 
sitting on his desk, not even nominees who are critical to maintaining 
the financial stability of this country or the ones who are responsible 
for choking off the flow of money to ISIS.
  The message couldn't be clearer. No matter how much it damages the 
Nation, no matter how much it undermines the courts, no matter whether 
it cripples the government or lays waste to our Constitution, Senate 
Republicans do pretty much everything they can to avoid acknowledging 
the legitimacy of our democratically elected President. For too long 
the Republicans in the Senate have wanted to have it both ways. They 
want to feed the ugly lies and nullify the Obama Presidency while also 
claiming they can govern responsibly. Well, that game is over. 
Candidates motivated by bigotry and resentment, candidates unable to 
govern, candidates reflecting the same extremism that has been nursed 
along for 7 years right here in the U.S. Senate are on the verge of 
winning the Republican Party's nomination for President.
  Now Republican Senators must make a decision because here is the 
deal: Extremists may not like it, but Barack Obama won the Presidency 
in 2008 by 9 million votes. He won reelection in 2012 by 5 million 
votes. There were no recounts and no hanging chads, no stuffing the 
ballot box or tampering with voting machines, no intervention by the 
U.S. Supreme Court. No. President Obama was elected the legitimate 
President 7 years ago, and he is the legitimate President right now. So 
if it is true that some Republican Senators are finally ready to stand 
up to the extremism that denies the legitimacy of this President and of 
the Constitution, I say to you: Do your job. Vote for a Supreme Court 
nominee. Do your job. Vote on district court judges and circuit court 
judges. Do your job. Vote on Ambassadors. Do your job. Vote on agency 
leaders and counterterrorism officials. If you want to stop extremism 
in your party, you can start by showing the American people that you 
respect the President of the United States and the Constitution enough 
to do your job right here in the U.S. Senate.
  Thank you, 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. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today I rise to address the 
responsibility of the Senate in its advice and consent role under the 
Constitution. Of course, the President's duty is to nominate a Justice 
when the vacancy exists for a Justice, and that responsibility is very 
clearly written into our Constitution. The Constitution also very 
clearly conveys the Senate's role in providing advice and consent. This 
is the vision of our founding document. Actually, our Founding Fathers 
wrestled with exactly how to best construct this nomination and 
confirmation process. They knew there had to be a way to appoint judges 
in the judiciary and certainly ambassadors and directors in the 
executive branch, how to go about that. In those early efforts to craft 
the Constitution, some argued that this responsibility should be with 
the Executive, with the President; others argued

[[Page 2848]]

that, no, no, it is better given to the assembly, to the body. Well, 
that conversation went back and forth. We can read a little bit about 
the thinking through Alexander Hamilton's The Federalist Papers 76 
because he laid out the conversation as it went back and forth. They 
recognized that there were certainly advantages to having the President 
make the appointments.
  I quote from Alexander Hamilton's paper:

       The sole and undivided responsibility of one man will 
     naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact 
     regard to reputation. He will under this account feel himself 
     under stronger obligations and more interested to investigate 
     with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be 
     filled.

  In short, direct your accountability to one individual who would be 
responsible for carrying that out.
  But they were also concerned about some disadvantages of the 
Executive making appointments. Giving absolute power of appointment to 
the President could lead to unwarranted favoritism, as it was put, or 
incompetence in those appointed.
  Well, then again they thought, how about the assembly? They recognize 
that you have certainly a rich makeup of views in an assembly and 
perhaps that could be of value. On the other hand, they also felt that 
there would be a lot of horse-trading over appointments and that they 
would just never get the job done, and indeed, as Hamilton noted, ``the 
intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often left out of sight.''
  So that was the dilemma, and they came up with a strategy to take the 
strength of the Executive and the strength of the assembly; 
specifically, that you would indeed have the power invested in one 
person, and of course the Executive, in creating nominations for the 
executive branch, wanted to make sure those--there was an inherent 
desire to make sure those folks were competent, but there was also 
still this concern about, what if there was too much favoritism and 
what if individuals of unfit character were appointed to the bench? So 
give the Senate the chance to review and provide consent or, as 
Hamilton wrote, ``to prevent the appointment of unfit characters.'' 
That is what it boiled down to. So the strength of the Executive and 
the strength of the Senate combined in order to solve this knotty 
problem of how you filled the key posts in the judiciary and the key 
posts in the executive.
  All of this led to the exact crafting of article II, section 2, of 
the Constitution. It referred that the President--``and 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 so on and so forth. Of course, this isn't, when 
there is a vacancy, the President can if he or she desires; no, it is 
shall. This is a responsibility. You have to fill the position. So the 
President has an obligation under this clause, and we in the Senate 
have an obligation to follow up with the advice and consent function.
  That is where we stand and why this esteemed Chamber has operated now 
throughout the more than 200-year history in providing that check and 
balance on the Executive. It is the President's responsibility to 
nominate, and it is our responsibility to vet those nominees, to 
examine them, to see if they have the fit, the characteristics of both 
their own qualifications and their character. That is the basis: 
qualifications and character. That is the question that we have 
addressed in this Chamber century after century.
  But here we are today with a unique circumstance in which the 
leadership of this body has said: We are not going to fulfill the 
responsibility that is given to us under the Constitution. We are going 
on strike. We don't want to do our job.
  I think the American people are saying the opposite: Senate, do your 
job. Senate, you were assigned a job in the Constitution. Senators, you 
signed an oath to abide by that Constitution. You have a responsibility 
under the vision of our Government to make it work. You have a 
responsibility to fulfill that job, to do that job.
  The Supreme Court is only the latest manifestation of the challenges 
we have had with nominations for the executive and for the judicial. I 
hope we can come together and develop a much more rapid system of 
vetting nominees and, if there is not a major objection, having those 
at lower levels essentially conveyed quickly into their posts, because 
this is something that we know will be the case.
  We know that over time, there will be Republican administrations and 
there will be Democratic administrations. We know that under the vision 
of three co-equal branches of Government, it is not the role of 
Congress to systematically undermine the other two branches. That was 
not the design of our Constitution. So we wield a particularly sacred 
responsibility not to use our partisan inclinations as a tool to try to 
destroy the Presidency of a different political party or to pack, 
basically, the courts according to our own philosophy. We are not doing 
that now. As a body, we are failing our responsibility.
  The Constitution says: Do your job. The people of America say: Do 
your job. The leadership here in the Senate is saying: We refuse to do 
our job. That is just wrong.
  Our Court does play this critical role in making sure that our laws 
and regulations stay within the bounds of the Constitution. It is not 
since the Civil War that the Supreme Court has been left with a vacancy 
of more than a year. The Civil War is a very unique circumstance. Since 
the 1980s, every person appointed to the Supreme Court has been given a 
prompt hearing and a vote within 100 days. Since 1975, it has taken on 
average only 67 days to confirm Supreme Court nominees.
  We can look at the list: Justice Kagan, 88 days; Justice Sotomayor, 
67 days; Alito, 83; Roberts, 63; Breyer, 74; Ginsburg, 51; Thomas, 99; 
Souter, 69; and, on through the list, Kennedy, 65; Scalia, who just 
passed away, 85; and Rehnquist, 89.
  You notice that these are nominations by both Democratic Presidents 
and Republican Presidents. And in each case, the Senate--regardless of 
the party in control of the Senate--did their job, vetted these 
nominees, held a vote on them, and proceeded. But now we have more than 
317 days still left in this administration, and the leadership of this 
body is saying that they are not going to do their job for 317 days. 
They are not going to meet with a nominee, not going to hold a 
committee meeting on the nominee, not going to report that to the 
floor, not going to hold a floor debate--not because of the standards 
set up in the Constitution, not because of this standard: Is this a fit 
character? Is he or she fit by qualifications? Is he or she fit by 
judicial temperament? The standard of unfit character--no, this is a 
strike, a job strike based solely on partisan politics. This is 
bringing partisan politics into the very place it should never be--
confirmation of our judges not at 100 days but more than 300 days, 
which is totally out of sync with the history of this Nation, totally 
out of sync with the responsibility that each of us is assigned to help 
provide advice and consent.
  More than a dozen Supreme Court Justices have been confirmed in the 
final year of a Presidency. I want to emphasize that because there have 
been folks here in the Chamber who have said: Well, there should be 
some special rule. In fact, they even thought there was some special 
rule that you don't confirm a Supreme Court Justice in the final year 
of a Presidency.
  That simply is not the case. More than a dozen Justices have been 
confirmed in the final year of a Presidency. Most recently, Justice 
Kennedy was confirmed in the last year of President Reagan's final 
term. It was not a Republican-led Senate that did that confirmation. It 
was a Democrat party-led Senate that did that confirmation because the 
Democratic Party leadership and Members said: This is not partisanship. 
This is a responsibility we have, and we are going to execute it.
  But, unfortunately, we are hearing a very different story at this 
moment from the Republican leadership in this body, and it is an 
embarrassment. It is

[[Page 2849]]

an embarrassment to this Chamber. It is an embarrassment to our 
responsibility. I certainly am appealing that it be remedied. There is 
time to remedy it. The President hasn't put forward his nomination yet. 
It is time to recognize that perhaps those comments that were put 
forward in the heat of the moment can be set aside and we can still do 
our job.
  When people elect a President, they don't say to the President: Do 
your job for 3 years, but you get the last year off. When they elect 
us, they don't say: Well, do your job for 5 years, but you get the last 
year off. They certainly don't say: And by the way, after a couple of 
years, you can take a year off from your constitutional 
responsibilities. A President is elected for all 4 years. Our 
responsibility is to provide advice and consent, and it goes on 
continuously.
  In the last 200 years, the Senate has carried out its duty to give a 
fair and timely hearing and a floor vote to the President's Supreme 
Court nominees--whether the President was a Democrat or a Republican, 
whether this body was led by a Democratic majority or a Republican 
majority. Let's not change that tradition. Let's not fail our 
responsibility. In fact, let's honor our constitutional responsibility.
  I will close by calling on my colleagues: Let's work together to 
diminish the partisanship and improve the problem-solving. Let's turn 
down the rhetoric in terms of our back and forth during this campaign 
year and, certainly, turn it down enough that we can fulfill that core 
responsibility that provides advice and consent on nominations and 
certainly on what is probably the most significant and important 
nomination--that of an individual to the Supreme Court of the United 
States of America.
  To summarize, the Constitution lays out the job before us. The 
American citizens expect us to do our jobs. Let's do our job.


                       Genetically Modified Food

  Mr. President, I am going to shift gears here to discuss a bill that 
has recently come out of committee and the way that we should consider 
responding to it. This conversation is all about defending Americans' 
right to know what is in the food they buy and Americans' right to know 
what is in the food they feed to their family and they feed to their 
children. I will also discuss the legislation I am putting forward to 
attempt to be a bridge between some very different visions on that 
topic.
  Let me start by saying this is all about genetically modified food 
and the information provided to citizens on the package about that. 
This often turns into a debate: Well, GMO has done some wonderful 
things over here. Others say: Well, it has created some problems over 
here.
  I am going to acknowledge that both of those are true. It has done 
some very positive things, and I will mention some in specific. But it 
has also created some challenges, some problems, and I will mention 
some of those. But after we recognize that that is the case, where do 
we come back to? Here is where we come back to: We should enable the 
individual in our beautiful Republic to make the decision and not have 
Big Government make the decision or suppress information. That is what 
happens in the non-``we the people'' world. That is what happens in 
dictatorships. That is not what should happen here in the United States 
of America, where individuals have the right to know what is in their 
food.
  Let me go ahead and explain some of the benefits and some of the 
challenges. Let's start with the example of golden rice. Golden rice 
was developed by the International Rice Research Institute. It provides 
greater amounts of vitamin A in the rice to reduce the deficiency that 
exists in many diets around this planet for that essential vitamin.
  That is a pretty positive development. I don't know at this point of 
any side effects or other things that have been brought to light. 
Nature is complicated, but for now, let's recognize that providing 
vitamin A where it is needed is a pretty positive thing.
  Let's take a look at carrots. Carrot cells have been transgenically 
modified to produce a chemical that treats Gaucher's disease. Gaucher's 
disease is a metabolic disorder where people lack a specific enzyme 
which helps rid the body of certain fatty substances. Those fatty 
substances then accumulate, causing enlarged livers, spleens, bone 
damage, bruising, and anemia. These transgenic carrots are part of the 
answer, part of the solution.
  Let's turn to sweet potatoes. Researchers are genetically modifying 
sweet potatoes to withstand multiple viral infections commonly 
encountered in South Africa, making this a much more successful crop 
and providing more food to people who need more food. So that is a 
positive development.
  All of this is not a one-sided scientific picture. There are also 
scientifically documented concerns. We can call them scientifically 
documented problems that have occurred with transgenic crops.
  Let me start by noting that the most common transgenic crops in 
America are crops that have been modified to be resistant to 
glyphosate. That is an herbicide. After the introduction of these 
resistant crops, which means you can put more herbicides or weed 
killers--you can put a lot more weed killer onto the acreage--you 
basically knock out the weeds much more easily and less expensively 
than with other strategies.
  What happened? Well, basically, since 1994--early 1990s--several 
major crops have become almost 100-percent transgenic-glyphosate 
tolerant. The amount of glyphosate put on the crops has grown from 7.4 
million pounds in 1994--let's round it off--to 160 million pounds in 
2012, and the number keeps climbing. This is a huge amount of 
herbicide. Try to picture in your head 160 million pounds of herbicide. 
Well, it is so effective in killing everything except the GM corn, GM 
soybeans, and GM sugar beets. It is so effective in killing everything 
else that very few weeds survive. One of the weeds that doesn't 
survive, because most don't, is milkweed. Milkweed happens to be the 
food for the monarch butterfly. As we have seen the enormous increase 
of glyphosate applied to our fields, we have seen a crashing of the 
monarch butterfly ecology. It is not the only thing affecting the 
monarch. Several other things are affecting them as well, but it is--in 
scientific study after study--a very significant factor.
  Let's also take a look at something else; that is, that all of this 
glyphosate doesn't stay on the fields. When it rains, it gets washed 
into our waterways. Our waterways are full of things that are affected 
by our herbicides, and so it has a big impact on the ecology of our 
streams and rivers. That is a serious scientifically documented issue 
that we are continuing to learn more about as time passes.
  Let's turn to another issue. This is a fascinating story. It is about 
a pest that bores into the roots of corn. It is called the corn 
rootworm. The corn was modified so it would have a pesticide in the 
cells and would kill the rootworm when it bored into the corn, but 
guess what happened. If you do this on a vast scale, Mother Nature 
comes along and has a few genetic mutations here and there and suddenly 
that rootworm starts to propagate with others that are now resistant to 
this pesticide that has been put into the roots. So now more pesticide 
has to be added to the corn, and as a result of that we have an 
opposite outcome than what was expected.
  The hope was that this would reduce pesticides, but now you have to 
put the pesticides back in it, and so now we have the evolution of 
superbugs. Here we have the adult beetle, and the rootworm is a 
reference to the larvae stage of this beetle. These are the type of 
concerns that are raised.
  I say all of this just to explain that while there are benefits of 
transgenic crops, there are also issues that are raised in the natural 
world. So anyone who takes this floor and says that nobody should be 
concerned about bioengineered crops is simply refusing to look at the 
scientific literature that says, no, there are things we should be 
concerned about. That is why it comes back to the right of the 
individual to know what is in their food. They want to know if it is a 
transgenic crop, and they can look up the details and make their own 
decision. Why have Big Government say that we are going to make

[[Page 2850]]

the decision for you? Why have Big Government say that we don't trust 
you with information and we are not going to allow you to know what is 
in your food? No. That should be in some dictatorship, not in the 
United States of America.
  Well, we have a big battle now because out of committee last week has 
come a bill, and this bill is known as the DARK bill. It stands for 
Deny Americans the Right to Know because Big Ag says that we don't 
believe in this whole ``we the people'' model of a republic. No, we 
like to have a government that makes decisions for people and that 
denies information to people because we don't trust them, as consumers, 
to decide what they want to eat. We don't want them to know what they 
are feeding their children and their family. We want to make the 
decision for them. Well, 90-plus percent of Americans disagree. They 
want the information to make the decision on their own. They can find 
out about the benefits over here. They can find out about the concerns 
over here. Different foods have different transgenic crops in them. 
They should get to make the decision and not have Big Government making 
the decision for them.
  This bill, the DARK Act, prohibits counties, cities, and States from 
any decision to provide information on a package to their citizens 
about what is in their food regarding transgenic crops.
  I got together with the representatives of the food industry and 
advocates for consumer information. I tried to find out if there is an 
overlap so we can craft a bill that will bring these two communities 
together, and we made some progress on that, and so I will share that 
with everyone.
  Basically, a big concern of the food industry--totally legitimate--is 
that they don't want 50 different standards in 50 different States or 
to have a bunch of counties decide to make up their own rules, which 
would result in hundreds or thousands of rules. If you operate a 
warehouse, you can't send different cans of soups to grocery stores 
across the country. No. So that makes sense. They want a 50-State 
solution. Furthermore, they want to have it acknowledged that there is 
nothing pejorative about the concept of bioengineering or transgenic. 
They want to know that people know this is a situation where there are 
some positive benefits, and I have mentioned some of those positive 
benefits. They don't want a label on the front of the package because 
they think it would be scary to consumers, and they want flexibility as 
to exactly what system they use to alert consumers.
  The bill I put forward provides all of those goals for a 50-State 
solution. There is nothing on the front of the package, nothing 
pejorative, and provides flexibility for the food industry. It does not 
go to the final step that much of the food industry wants, which is no 
unpackaged labeling because then there is no compromise between the two 
sides.
  The consumer side would like to have something mandatory so it is on 
each package of food. They want it clear so a person can pick up the 
food or the can or the sack and have it easy to identify on the 
package. That is the compromise bill I have put forward. It enables the 
food industry to either put an asterisk on an ingredient that is 
bioengineered and have it explained below or it enables an industry to 
put a symbol in parentheses after the ingredient or it enables an 
industry to just put a symbol on the ingredients panel. In Brazil they 
use a ``t.'' It is a very simple ``t.'' It is not scary, but for those 
who want to know, it is identified.
  This approach of simplicity--nothing scary, simple access that is 
easy to see--this is the bulk of what both sides want to accomplish so 
we can have a 50-State standard.
  It has been endorsed by a number of groups. Over the last few days my 
bill has been endorsed by Campbell's, Stoneyfield, and Nature's Path. 
It has been endorsed by Amy's Kitchen and Ben & Jerry's and Just Label 
It.
  We can give up the ability of each State to have a separate labeling 
system if we do this simple symbol or parentheses or asterisk on the 
ingredients panel so a person who cares can look it up.
  I think about it this way. My daughter has always wanted to buy 
products that don't have highly enriched corn syrup or high fructose 
corn syrup. Along the way, she read something and said: I am just not 
sure that is something I want to buy. So she picks up a package, turns 
it over, and often the ingredients on the package have tiny print, but 
she can figure it out. It is the same for this. Enable the consumer who 
is willing and wants to make the effort to be able to pick up a can--
again, it doesn't have to be on the front--and find out what is going 
on.
  This is the world standard. There are 64 other countries, including 
28 members of the European Union, Japan, Australia, and Brazil, that 
all require some type of indication on the ingredients panel or on the 
package. Do you know who else is in that group? China. China is a 
dictatorship. China doesn't deny its citizens the right to know. How is 
it possible that a bill in this Chamber has been introduced to take 
away the right of Americans to know what is in their food? Even China 
doesn't do that, and we must not do it either.
  I appreciate the folks who have already signed up to sponsor this 
bill. Senator Leahy, Senator Tester, Senator Feinstein, Senator 
Sanders, Senator Murphy, Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Blumenthal, 
thank you. Thank you for standing up for your citizens' right to know. 
Thank you for standing up for a fair compromise that solves the big 
problem the food industry is facing with the potential of 50 different 
States having 50 different standards. Thank you for finding the area of 
compromise that works on both sides of this equation.
  I appreciate the endorsements. I appreciate the sponsors, but what I 
really appreciate is that we have freedom of speech in our country to 
be able to carry on this conversation, but how is it consistent to have 
freedom of speech and then say that we want to ban information from our 
consumers? How is that consistent? This is like the mob that says that 
we don't want our citizens to read certain books so we are going to 
burn them, we are going to ban them--and that is what this DARK Act 
does. It has been introduced and went through the Agriculture 
Committee. It bans the ability of States to provide information to 
their consumers. That is just wrong. Even China doesn't go there, and 
we should not go there either.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  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. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, earlier this afternoon we had a very 
strong vote here in the U.S. Senate to move forward on the legislation 
we are currently considering. It is called the Comprehensive Addiction 
and Recovery Act. It is legislation that is intended to make the 
Federal Government a better partner with State and local governments, 
with our nonprofits who are in the trenches around the country, and 
with all of our States dealing with this now-epidemic level of heroin 
addiction, prescription drug addiction, and overdoses.
  Today, as we are here in the Senate, on average, we will lose over 
100 people a day in the United States of America to deaths from 
overdoses. Frankly, that is just part of the problem, as horrible as 
that is. So many people are being saved by this miracle drug called 
naloxone or Narcan. Also, others who may not be overdosing are not 
working. Their families are broken apart. They are committing crimes to 
support their addiction. So many Americans are not achieving their God-
given purpose because of this addiction issue that is gripping our 
country. Our legislation is meant to address it in a very direct way.
  The debate on the floor that we had over the past week has been very 
interesting to me. It is the first time in decades that this Congress 
has taken up

[[Page 2851]]

this issue in this manner. We have had a very open debate on addiction 
policy. What does it mean? I think what you heard Members say on both 
sides of the aisle is that we have learned a lot about addiction over 
the years and that addiction now is viewed by most as a disease, an 
illness. Like other illnesses, it needs treatment.
  I think that is a very important change in terms of how we address 
this issue, and the policy before us today on this floor that I hope we 
will vote on in the next 12 hours or so represents a change in thinking 
about this, that indeed we want to do everything we can to prevent the 
addiction in the first place, to keep people out of the funnel of 
addiction, to have better efforts in education and prevention, and that 
is in this legislation. But also, once we have people who are addicted, 
we need to get them into treatment. And for people who are arrested for 
possession, who are users of drugs, it is better to get them into 
treatment and recovery than just getting them into jail or prison 
because we have found that hasn't worked. So the criminal justice 
system has a role to play here--legalization is not a good idea--but 
that ought to be, in part, diverting people into treatment that works 
better for them to be able to get at this problem. Otherwise, folks 
will continue to see these incredibly high levels of use, addiction, 
and all the negative consequences that stem from that.
  I thank my coauthor of this legislation, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. 
He and I have worked together over the past few years on this 
legislation, bringing in experts from all over the country and getting 
expertise from our home States. In Ohio, we had a number of roundtable 
discussions that added a lot of important input to be able to come up 
with legislation that actually works, that is actually going to direct 
funding to evidence-based programs and prevention and treatment and 
recovery that work.
  We talked a lot to our law enforcement community. That is one reason 
the Fraternal Order of Police supports our legislation. So does the 
Sheriffs' Association, so do the prosecutors, and so do the attorneys 
general, because we have actually worked with them to say: How can you 
be more effective in dealing with this very real problem you have in 
your community? And if you talk to law enforcement, you talk to 
firefighters, you talk to emergency medical folks, they will tell you 
this issue is at the top of their list. They are frustrated by it. They 
are looking for a solution, and this legislation helps to come up with 
the solution.
  I also thank Senator Ayotte, Senator Klobuchar, and 42 bipartisan 
cosponsors for their support of this legislation. It is comprehensive, 
it is evidence-based, and it is going to make a difference.
  Not only has it had a lot of support here in the Senate--and I hope 
we will see that again in the final vote--but it also has support in 
the House of Representatives. There was a companion bill at one time 
that was identical to our legislation, also called CARA, the 
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. Ours has changed a little bit 
through the process, but it is very similar to the House companion 
bill. There are over 80 cosponsors to that legislation. It is a 
bipartisan bill on the House side as well.
  So this is one of those issues where if we pass it here in the 
Senate, we have a very good chance of passing it in the House and 
getting it to the President for his signature so it can begin to make a 
difference in our communities.
  The reason we are here today talking about this is, again, because so 
many people are suffering. There are 23 million Americans, it is said--
23 million Americans--who are in recovery from addiction. Think about 
that. We are doing this for them, to ensure that they can have 
successful recoveries, to help them to ensure that they can keep their 
lives together and not fall back into this struggle of addiction.
  With 23 million people recovering, think of the millions who are 
still struggling. Together, those who are recovering and those who are 
addicted have begun to stand up and let their voices be heard. That is 
one of the differences I have seen in this debate, is that the stigma 
that has been associated with addiction has begun to be removed.
  There was a rally here on the Capital Mall several months ago. It was 
called the Unite to Face Addiction rally. There were people there from 
all over the country. Thousands of people came to Washington, DC--
thousands. And the message from them was, one, pass CARA, this 
legislation--and I appreciate their help. We wouldn't be here today on 
the floor talking about this issue if they hadn't engaged with their 
elected representatives in the House and the Senate and our leadership 
to help us get this moving. Second, there message was, look, addiction 
is a disease and it has to be treated like other illnesses, and we have 
to have legislation that helps break the stigma associated with drug 
addiction so that we can address it and we can begin to get people out 
of the grip of addiction and get our communities and families out of 
the grip of addiction. This is a cause, and it is one that requires law 
enforcement and the criminal justice system, but it also requires love 
and faith and communities coming together. It is one that we can only 
carry out together--all of us, not as Republicans or Democrats or 
Independents but as Americans, as fathers and mothers, family members 
and friends and coworkers who care about those who are facing this 
great challenge of addiction.
  CARA now has the support of over 130 groups around the country. These 
are criminal justice groups. These are people who are in the trenches 
every day dealing with treatment and prevention. These are folks who 
are in public health. These are people who are in law enforcement and 
understand the importance of this. They have all come together to say: 
Let's pass this legislation so we can begin to implement this evidence-
based program to respond to this epidemic.
  It does add prevention and education efforts. It does do a lot to get 
prescription drugs off the shelves and get the medication out of the 
hands of our youth. It does allow us to monitor drugs. It authorizes 
law enforcement task forces to combat heroin and methamphetamine in 
areas that are particularly hard hit. It expands the availability of 
the miracle drug we talked about earlier--it doesn't always work, but 
it has saved a lot of lives--called naloxone or Narcan.
  In the criminal justice system, it does identify and treat 
individuals suffering from substance abuse disorders and expands 
diversion and education efforts to give those individuals that second 
chance.
  We give special help in this legislation to our veterans. We 
establish more funds for these veterans treatment courts. I have been 
to them in Ohio. They are incredible. Yesterday, I talked about the 
story of one of the veterans who had been in and out of the prison 
system. Now he not only has his life back together, he has his family 
back together. He is back in school getting a degree. He is one example 
of many who got off track because of PTSD, because of an addiction, 
used self-medication to deal with his PTSD, was in the prison system 
and is now back out. We are supporting that effort.
  We do help women who are postpartum and suffer from addiction. We do 
help babies who are born addicted. We have this incredible situation 
where in Ohio we now have a 750-percent increase in the number of 
babies who are born with this syndrome--with addiction. They have to be 
taken through withdrawal. I have gone to these neonatal units with my 
wife, and we have seen these incredibly compassionate doctors and 
nurses. What I hear from them is, you have to do something. This 
legislation takes that important step to the Federal level.
  CARA supports recovery programs focused on youth and building 
communities of recovery. It creates a national task force on recovery 
to get the experts really engaged to help us to improve ways to address 
some of the collateral consequences caused by addiction.
  Economists will tell us that addiction now costs this country about 
$700 billion every year. Think about that.

[[Page 2852]]

That is lost productivity. That is more expensive health care. If you 
go to the emergency room in your community to find out what is going 
on, you will see a lot of people coming in because of addiction. There 
is the cost of policing and incarceration. Law enforcement tells me 
that most of the crime being committed in our communities is now being 
committed because of this issue.
  So $700 billion every single year is a lot of money, no doubt, but 
addiction costs us something else too: It costs us in dreams that are 
never fulfilled, in families who are torn apart, in lives that are 
lost. We don't just measure our success in dollars and cents. We 
measure it in safer neighborhoods, less crime, in empty jail cells, and 
by the number of people who never have to struggle with drug abuse in 
the first place because of more effective prevention and education. We 
measure it in the moms and dads who beat addictions so they can come 
back to be with their kids and bring their families back together. We 
measure it in the families who are not torn apart but instead are 
healed.
  As we move forward to pass this legislation--the Comprehensive 
Addiction and Recovery Act--our message is a really simple one. To 
those who struggle with addiction, to those who think they cannot 
overcome, to those who believe there is no one out there who cares 
about them or can help them: You are not alone. We are with you. There 
is hope. I have seen people beat this. I have known people who have 
beat this. You can beat this.
  And we can be a better partner here at the Federal Government to be 
able to help people overcome this struggle. We need to pass this bill 
and get it signed into law to begin to make a real difference for the 
families we represent.
  The House has companion legislation also called CARA. They have a big 
bipartisan group supporting it. After we pass this legislation here--
because I am confident we will based on the vote this afternoon--I hope 
the House will take it up, take up CARA, and get it passed. Let's get 
it to the President for his signature, and let's truly begin to deal 
with this epidemic--it is at crisis levels, it is urgent, and it can't 
wait--so that we, all of us, can begin to make a real difference for 
those we represent.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). The Senator from Maryland.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, Senator Cardin of Maryland, my 
colleague, and I are here on the floor today to ask that two 
nominations for the Federal bench, the district court, be confirmed. 
They are the next two judges in line on the Executive Calendar for the 
Federal district courts.
  One is Mr. Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., a highly qualified nominee from 
the State of Tennessee. The other is Ms. Paula Xinis from our own State 
of Maryland, a brilliant, talented lawyer who also is ready to be 
confirmed. Both have been approved by the Judiciary Committee. Mr. 
Crenshaw was approved in July and has been waiting for a vote. Ms. 
Xinis was approved by the Judiciary Committee in September. So it has 
been more than 6 months to allow Senators to be able to evaluate the 
excellent work done by the Judiciary Committee on whether these 
nominees should be confirmed.
  We think it is time that the full Senate did its job and gave these 
two outstanding candidates for the bench a vote. Therefore, I come to 
the Senate floor with Senator Cardin and I ask unanimous consent that 
the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nominations: Calendar No. 215 and Calendar No. 307; that the Senate 
proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on these 
nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or 
debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that 
any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume 
legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would 
just point out to my friends from Maryland, and the senior Senator who 
has made this consent request asking that we move off of the current 
legislation--the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act--off of that 
important legislation into executive session to consider these 
nominations, that it is the prerogative of the majority leader to set 
the agenda. If every Senator could come to the floor and cherry-pick 
different nominations from the calendar and ask consent that we move to 
executive session and then consider those, it would result in some 
chaos. For those reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am certainly disappointed by the Senator 
from Texas objecting to the request of the senior Senator from 
Maryland, Ms. Mikulski.
  The request of Senator Mikulski is for us to consider two article III 
judges who are next in line for consideration before the U.S. Senate. 
They have cleared the committee. They have both been approved by the 
committee by voice vote, a unanimous vote within the Judiciary 
Committee.
  I know Paula Xinis--the vacancy to be filled in Maryland at 
University Park. She joined the law firm of Murphy, Falcon & Murphy in 
Baltimore. She is a senior trial attorney, well qualified to take the 
seat of the former chief justice, Deborah Chasanow. She was appointed 
by President Obama in March of 2015. We are now approaching the 1-year 
anniversary of her appointment--1 year anniversary for a 
noncontroversial, well-qualified appointment to the district court.
  Let me just talk a little bit about fairness. I heard what the 
Senator from Texas said about the majority leader scheduling the votes 
on the floor of the Senate, but I think my colleagues should be aware 
of the facts in regard to filling judicial vacancies.
  We have completed the confirmation process on 16 article III judges 
since the beginning of this term of Congress. The comparable number in 
the last 2 years of a Presidential term where the President was of the 
Republican Party and the Senate was controlled by the Democrats--just 
the opposite of what we have today--was the year 2007 and 2008 under 
President George W. Bush. The Judiciary Committee was chaired by 
Chairman Leahy. That year, by March 9, we had cleared and confirmed 40 
judicial appointments--40 compared to 16 in this Congress. By the end 
of the year, we had approved 68 of President Bush's nominees.
  Going back to the other time with a Republican President and with a 
Democratically controlled Senate--President Reagan--in 1987 and 1988, 
under Chairman Biden, by March 9 of the last year, the Senate had 
confirmed 47 of his nominations, compared to 16 this year, and by the 
end of the year, we had confirmed 85 nominees, including a Supreme 
Court Justice, Justice Kennedy.
  We have pending right now on the floor of the Senate that have 
cleared committees--every single one by voice vote unanimously--we have 
12 article III judges who are ready for action and 5 other judicial 
appointments, for a total of 17. But that is not the whole story. We 
have 25 nominees who are still pending before the Judiciary Committee, 
including Stephanie Gallagher of Maryland, to fill a vacancy. This is 
not the only vacancy we have in Maryland. We now have two in Maryland 
waiting for action by the U.S. Senate.
  So there is a matter of fairness here. There is also a matter of 
respect for the judicial branch of government in allowing the courts to 
be able to function.
  The district court is where most individuals get their justice. That 
is the trial court. That is the court where most of our citizens will 
go for their judicial relief. We have vacancies where appointments have 
been made that are noncontroversial, well-qualified people, and we 
can't get a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate? My friend from Texas 
tells me this is the prerogative of the

[[Page 2853]]

majority leader. It is our responsibility to act on these nominations.
  Senator Mikulski has set up a process in Maryland where we take an 
interview process to get the very best talent to serve on our courts. I 
am honored to work with her as we go through the process of finding the 
very best to serve on the courts. How do you expect to allow their name 
to come forward when it takes a year to consider a nomination? If you 
want to get the very best on the courts, we have to act, and we have to 
be responsible.
  Let me just say something. We have to take up these nominations. I 
appreciate that we always have a lot of work that we have to do. We 
have time today to get these nominations done. I call on the majority 
leader and I call on my friends to say: Look, let's get our court 
vacancies filled. Let's carry out our responsibility and vote on these 
nominations.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, why am I here today on the floor asking 
for these two nominations to be confirmed? They are the next two judges 
in line on the Executive Calendar for our Federal district courts: 
Waverly Crenshaw, Jr., a highly qualified and talented nominee from the 
great State of Tennessee; and Paula Xinis, nominated from my State of 
Maryland. Both Mr. Crenshaw and Ms. Xinis have been waiting for months 
to have their day and get their vote. Mr. Crenshaw has been waiting 
since July, Ms. Xinis since September. I think 6 months is enough time 
to provide our advice and evaluate these nominees. It is time to do our 
jobs and give these candidates a vote. I urge the Republicans to allow 
these nominations to move forward.
  We are easily on pace to be the least productive Senate in recent 
history. Last year Republicans confirmed the fewest judges in almost 50 
years: a total of 11 in 2015. Since Republicans took over the Senate 
the number of judicial emergencies has nearly tripled, which leaves 
courts overworked and understaffed.
  Now some Republicans say there is precedent for their obstructionism. 
Some Republican Senators have tried to fudge their numbers, saying the 
judges confirmed during our lameduck session at the end of 2014 should 
count toward their abysmal numbers for 2015. Well, what about those 
numbers? I didn't realize that's how the Senate worked: that we take 
credit for work that others did. Some Republican Senators specifically 
asked for lameduck passage of their nominees. They didn't want to wait 
for the next Congress--but they're stalling now, before we are even in 
lameduck. They are already talking about stopping nominations with 9 
months left to do work.
  A lack of judges has real consequences for the American people. Due 
to our constitutional protections, criminal trials must happen with a 
``speedy and public trial.'' What does this mean in our courts? 
Criminal trials end up prioritized, protecting those charged with 
crimes, but civil trials are put on hold--sometimes for years--while we 
wait for judges to have time for them. What does this mean for the 
American people? Judges spend less time on cases, judges have to 
encourage cases to settle instead of getting their day in court, judges 
have to encourage defendants to consider plea deals rather than wait 
out a lengthy trial process. Justice delayed is justice denied, which 
is what is happening around our country right now.
  For Marylanders to receive their day in court, we need Judge Paula 
Xinis to be on the bench. I was extremely proud to nominate Paula Xinis 
to President Obama with Senator Cardin. She is a brilliant litigator 
and public servant. When I consider nominees for the Federal bench, I 
have four criteria: absolute integrity, judicial competence and 
temperament, a commitment to core constitutional principles, and a 
history of civic engagement in Maryland. Ms. Xinis exceeds these 
criteria. She has dedicated her career to the rule of law. The 
persistence and character she has shown in advocating for her clients 
and in her activities in the community make her truly an outstanding 
nominee. She has a deep respect for the law and what it means to every 
American. She will ensure that everyone who comes before her truly 
feels that they have been heard and have received equal justice under 
the law.
  It is absolutely critical that we have judges in our courts to make 
sure that the judiciary is strong, independent, and that all Americans 
get their days in court. The President has made dozens upon dozens of 
judicial nominations. Now the Senate must do its job. Enough time has 
passed on these two nominees. It is time to have our say. I do not take 
this duty lightly, but I will do my job. I carefully evaluate nominees 
and render an independent judgement based on my commitment to core 
constitutional principles. These candidates deserve timely hearings and 
timely votes. We have had the hearings. We have had plenty of time to 
evaluate their merits. Now is the time to vote.
  Mr. President, I would like to compliment once again my very able 
colleague from Maryland for his statement, in which he laid out facts 
and he laid out the historic precedent, and I want to associate myself 
with those remarks.
  I also want to add that I am really frustrated. I am so frustrated 
that, No. 1, President Obama doesn't get to be President Obama. His job 
as President is to nominate competent people for an independent branch 
of government, the Federal judiciary. He did his job. Then it came to 
the Senate. Really, we thank the Judiciary Committee because they did 
hold a hearing and did their due diligence to examine the worthiness of 
whether these nominees should be brought to the Senate. Do they have 
the judicial temperament? Do they have the judicial experience? Are 
they of sound character to truly be independent and render impartial 
justice, which our Constitution mandates? The Judiciary Committee said 
yes.
  It comes to the Senate on something called the Executive Calendar. 
That is Senate-speak for the nominating calendar. It means they are on 
the calendar, waiting their turn to have a vote, but this is just a 
slowdown.
  We don't want to be in a showdown here. I didn't bring this up with 
Senator Cardin to disrupt consideration of the opioid bill. We have a 
terrible problem in Maryland with opioids and heroin. We are for this 
bill. We are for bipartisan action, but we are driven to taking action, 
asking for unanimous consent because we are not getting action.
  I would have yielded to a compromise if the gentleman from Texas, 
himself a member at one time of the Texas Supreme Court, had said: How 
about Mr. Crenshaw first and Ms. Xinis after the break that will be 
coming up? You know, we are like college kids; we get spring break. 
Well, we would agree to that. All we are looking for is for Mr. 
Crenshaw, who was on the calendar before Ms. Xinis, to go first.
  We are not pushing, but we are persistent. All we want is a time 
certain when we could get a vote on Ms. Xinis. We are now in the 
business of discouraging people from coming into public service. They 
are willing to put their career on hold and their life on examination 
to be able to serve on the Federal bench or other nominations. She did 
it. Our nominee did it. She is in a law firm. Her career is on hold.
  We also have Ms. Stephanie Gallagher, who is a Federal magistrate 
judge, waiting for a hearing. What are we doing here? People are 
finally going to say: I don't want the hassle. I don't want the 
harassment. I don't want to go through all this just to wait, wait, 
wait, wait.
  The Senate needs to move in an orderly way. When a nominee has been 
moved through the process, nominated by the President, gone through the 
due diligence of the Judiciary Committee, and is waiting, I think we 
ought to do it. I think we ought to take a couple of days and just vote 
on these nominations.
  I believe our courts are overwhelmed. There are backlogs in the 
courts. There are people waiting for their ability to have a trial. We 
need good judges. We need to be able to make sure that the people are 
willing to serve and they have the credentials, the judicial 
temperament, and the character to serve.

[[Page 2854]]

We need to be able to at least give them a vote. Now, if you don't like 
the Obama nominees, vote them down. Vote them down, but don't slow down 
the process.
  We have a constitutionally mandated process. Let's follow it. Let's 
do our job. We have Mr. Crenshaw and Ms. Xinis. We are happy to have 
Mr. Crenshaw go first, but we sure would like a date for Ms. Xinis.
  We call out to our colleagues to give us a date, give us a vote. Give 
it to us now.
  Mr. CARDIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                 Omnibus and Defense Authorization Bill

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last night we saw another unusual election 
result. We see a ``businessman'' now in a very significant lead for the 
nomination of the Republican Party, the party of Abraham Lincoln and 
Ronald Reagan.
  As I watched the postmortems last night and this morning, we see 
again that many of those who voted cite as one of their primary--if not 
the primary--reasons distaste, anger, and frustration about Washington, 
DC, specifically the Congress of the United States, as well as the 
President. They believe they need somebody who is an outsider, someone 
who is not ``of the establishment.'' I guess that applies to anyone who 
is in elected office.
  Some of us have been surprised. Certainly no one predicted these 
outcomes, not only on the Republican side but on the Democratic side. 
We saw our colleague from Vermont engineer quite a stunning upset in 
the State of Michigan last night. But he also--even though a Member of 
the Senate, Senator Sanders clearly is speaking in opposition to the 
machine, the business as usual in Washington.
  Sometimes we ask ourselves why the American people give us such a low 
approval rating. I see polls show that the approval rating of Congress 
is 12 percent, 13 percent, 14 percent, sometimes as high as 15 percent. 
I would inform and remind my colleagues that it wasn't always like 
that. We didn't always have such a low approval rating in the Congress 
by the American people.
  I think it is worthy of note that in the last year since regaining 
the majority, we have enacted some legislation that I think we could be 
proud to go back and talk to our constituents about, whether it be 
education reform, where we did away with common core, or whether it be 
a highway bill that was much needed to provide infrastructure for our 
States, counties, and towns. We passed a budget. We passed a defense 
authorization bill that has some of the most significant reforms in 
history. But the fact is, those numbers haven't changed, and they 
haven't changed sometimes for good reason.
  That is why I come to the floor today, because I am ashamed and 
embarrassed, as a representative of the people of my State, to talk 
about billions of dollars of unnecessary wasteful spending of their 
taxpayer dollars, and it happened on the Omnibus appropriations bill--
omnibus. A lot of my constituents don't know what ``omnibus'' means. 
What it means is, we are required to take up 13 appropriations bills. 
We don't do it--and I would put the responsibility for that on the 
other side of the aisle, but it doesn't matter, really, because we end 
up, at the end of the year, with a massive, hundreds of billions of 
dollars bill that is about this high, that none of us have seen or read 
and there is no amendment to it, and we have approximately 48 to 72 
hours in which to vote yes or no, with the option being the government 
not continuing to function. That is not the way to do business. That 
doesn't inspire any confidence in us on the part of the American 
people, and it is disgraceful.
  So the omnibus, again, was passed with votes from both sides, 
actually, but the fact is that our responsibility was to take up these 
bills one by one, to examine them, to have amendments, and to have the 
Congress--in this case, the Senate--work its will. We didn't do that.
  Here it was. We walked in, and here was this bill--not that size but 
this size--that no one had read, no one had a chance to peruse, and 
even if we had, we couldn't do anything about it because the bill was 
not amendable because if we amend it, then it bounces back to the other 
side of the Capitol, and we run out of time, and the government shuts 
down. That is the wrong way to do business.
  One of the major reasons for what happened is it is open to 
incredible abuse. I came to the floor today to talk about the abuse of 
the most sacred responsibility we have, which is the defense of this 
Nation.
  I am proud to be chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a 
post I aspired to for many years. We work hard on the Defense 
authorization bill. We work hard in the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. We work on a bipartisan basis. We have hearings, we examine 
the issues, and we examine the programs. We are talking about, again, 
hundreds of billions of dollars, of taxpayers' dollars, whether it be 
pay and benefits for the men and women who are serving or whether it be 
the equipment they need or many of the policies that govern the defense 
of this Nation. And I am proud of the work we do.
  So after producing a bill with an overwhelming majority vote--90-some 
votes--with the authorization for all of this to do with our Nation's 
defense, the Appropriations Committee decides to overrule what we have 
authorized, in violation not only of the way the Senate is supposed to 
function but in violation of a resolution adopted by the Republican 
conference, which I will read:

       Earmark Moratorium
       Resolved, that it is the policy of the Republican 
     Conference that no Member shall request a congressionally 
     directed spending item, limited tax benefit, or limited 
     tariff benefit, as such items are used. . . .

  Et cetera.
  So what was in this omnibus bill? Let me give you the best example: 
$225 million for a ship called a joint high-speed vessel, for a ship 
the Navy did not want. No one asked for this.
  We had hearings in the Armed Services Committee on shipbuilding. We 
examined all of the proposals. Some of them we didn't accept. Others we 
did. Others, through votes in the committee, debate, and discussion, 
came up with our shipbuilding authorization.
  So what was done in this Omnibus appropriations bill by the 
Appropriations Committee? For the second year in a row, $225 million 
the Navy did not request and did not need.
  By the way, my friends, I would not take too much time in the Senate, 
but building a ship is just the beginning of the expense. You have to 
man it, you have to put the ammunition on it, you have to put the 
equipment on it, and you have to operate it for as long as 30 years, 
and the Navy did not want it. The Navy has lots of unmet military 
requirements. So what was put in there and why? Because, frankly--and I 
use these words without reservation--it is made in Mobile, AL. It is 
made in Mobile, AL. It is blatant. It is blatant. And then, of course, 
there were so many other items in it.
  It is like any other evil. First you condemn things. Then you condone 
them. Then you embrace them. There is no better example of that than 
the so-called money for ``medical research.'' In fact, years ago 
somebody decided: Hey, we will spend some money for medical research on 
some of the illnesses that affect the men and women in the military. I 
don't take exception to that. But it grew and grew and grew and grew 
and grew.
  Now, in this bill, $1.2 billion extra--not million but billion 
dollars--is asked for. Let me give examples: $120 million for breast 
cancer, $12 million

[[Page 2855]]

for lung cancer, $6 million for multiple sclerosis, $20 million for 
ovarian cancer, $7.5 million for epilepsy, $12.9 million for HIV/AIDS. 
My friends, all of those are worthy causes. All of those should 
probably be funded.
  We should do all those things, but not on the Defense bill. It was 
not authorized and was jammed in for the Willy Sutton syndrome. The 
Willy Sutton syndrome is about the famous bank robber who, when asked 
why he robbed banks, said: That is where the money is. Well, the 
defense appropriations is where the money is.
  So here we have, over the last 23 years, as it has grown and grown 
and grown, just $2.4 billion of the $10 billion spent on these 
congressionally directed medical research programs being relevant to 
the military. In other words, $7 billion went to research things such 
as osteoporosis and mad cow disease instead of training, equipment, and 
care for our troops and their families.
  We do not have enough money to care for the men and women in the 
military and take care of their families and take care of their medical 
needs. We don't have enough money for that as a result of 
sequestration. So what did they do? They put in $1.2 billion more in 
medical research.
  There are a few other examples. There is an additional $7 million in 
funding for a machine gun. These guns are made with a 500-percent 
increase. There is $750 million for a National Guard and Reserve 
equipment fund and $600 million in additional funding for DOD's science 
and technology budget.
  This is very interesting, my friends, this science and technology 
budget. Here is what happens. They put out $600 million, and it is 
supposed to be for ``scientific and technology research.'' But it 
doesn't say for what specific item. So what happens is the members of 
the Appropriations Committee then write to the Department of Defense 
and tell them to spend certain money on certain projects. That is the 
way of getting around the letter of the earmark ban if not the spirit 
of it.
  Then, of course, there is the Russian rocket. Today we are having to 
use for space launches Russian rocket engines. The company that makes 
these Russian rocket engines happens to be run by cronies of Vladimir 
Putin. In fact, two of the cronies of Vladimir Putin are such thugs and 
gangsters that they have been on our sanctions list. We have sanctioned 
them. Yet our friends on the Appropriations Committee, again, with 
ULA--the people who are buying these rocket engines--are based in 
Alabama and, of course, headquartered in Chicago, IL. The engines, as I 
mentioned, are manufactured by this Russian company that is controlled 
by a guy name Chemezov and a guy named Rogozin, who have been 
sanctioned. Yet we are sending tens of millions of dollars to them.
  What we did was we restricted the cost and encouraged the 
competition, and we had hearings on it. It was a big issue. We had 
votes in the committee on it, we discussed it and we debated it. And so 
what did the appropriators do? They put a provision into this bill 
reversing what we authorizers did. That is in complete violation of the 
rules of the Republican conference.
  So I have talked very often with our twelve freshmen. I can't be more 
proud of what these freshmen Senators have brought to this conference. 
They have brought enthusiasm, they have brought knowledge, they have 
brought youth, they have brought military experience--people like 
Senator Ernst and Senator Cotton and others who bring their military 
experience. I am so proud to have many of them serving on the Armed 
Services Committee. I have asked them to get together and condemn this. 
I campaigned for almost all of them. They promised the people of their 
States, as I promised the people of my State, that I wouldn't allow 
this waste of billions of their tax dollars, that I would fight against 
it. So I am asking our freshmen Senators to join together--and I hope 
they will because I have had conversations with them--to reject this, 
and, if we go into another appropriations omnibus, that they will not 
allow this to happen.
  Why did I focus my comments on defense? It is for two reasons. No. 1 
is obvious. I am chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. So I take 
strong exception when the men and women who are serving in the military 
are having to leave the military involuntarily because we don't have 
enough money, yet they are wasting billions--billions--of taxpayer 
dollars. Second of all, it is not right. It is not right. And thirdly, 
we authorize--we authorize--and our bill is passed by the Senate and 
the House, for 53 straight years, and signed by the President of the 
United States.
  This bill is important to defend the Nation. When our careful 
deliberations, our votes, our hearings, our debates day after day on 
the floor of the Senate as we consider the authorization bill
is then overturned--overturned--and pork barrel projects such as a $225 
million extra vessel the Navy neither needs nor wants are added to it, 
then, my friends, do not be surprised when we have an approval rating 
of 12 or 13 or 14 percent.
  The American people are smart. Our constituents are smart. When they 
see billions of dollars wasted in this fashion, it is no wonder we 
receive their condemnation and their sarcasm and their disapproval.
  So I am asking my freshmen colleagues to take the lead--to take the 
lead because they are the ones who are closest to the people--and to 
help me reject this corrupt process. And it is corrupt.
  I want to also assure all of my colleagues that if they try this 
again--if they try this again--I will do everything in my power--
everything in my power--to make sure it is reversed or that it never 
happens to start with. We owe the American people much better than the 
process I just described.
  Mr. President, I note the presence of the senior Senator from Texas, 
and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the senior Senator from 
Arizona, for his great work over the years, and particularly now in the 
Committee on Armed Services, which he chairs. He has been tenacious in 
his attempt to make sure that no dollars are inadvertently or 
unknowingly wasted, especially when it comes to the Pentagon.
  I, for one, believe this is the No. 1 priority of our country. I know 
he shares that view. But it is pretty hard to make the argument that we 
ought to continue to give more money to the Pentagon if the money is 
not being used efficiently, either because of their internal 
administrative problems or for some other reason.
  I know, because I happened to be at the Pentagon this morning, that 
many of our military chiefs are concerned that the things that are 
being put in appropriations bills are not things they actually want or 
need and that there are other priorities. The best way to get those 
vetted is through the Senate Committee on Armed Services and working 
with the Appropriations Committee to make sure the money is being used 
as efficiently as possible and not wasted--certainly not on things the 
military doesn't want or doesn't need.
  So I thank my colleague for his continued leadership.
  Mr. President, I wanted to talk about a few topics here. No. 1 is the 
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, the legislation we have been 
working on now for 2 weeks. Anybody who has been listening understands 
the importance of this legislation, which will help stem the tide of 
the massive epidemic of opioid prescription drug abuse and heroin abuse 
that continues to claim lives across our country.
  This bill is actually a good example of how the Senate can work in a 
bipartisan fashion to advance good policies that positively impact the 
lives of ordinary American citizens. I know most people in this 
polarized environment are not aware of this bipartisan work we have 
been able to do over this year and last year, but we have actually done 
a number of good things. Some, if you told them, they might not even 
believe it, but to the people who are open to the facts, I think this 
is another good example. Of course, in this instance, it has been the 
result of the strong leadership of the junior Senator

[[Page 2856]]

from New Hampshire, Ms. Ayotte; Senator Portman of Ohio; the chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee, the senior Senator from Iowa, Mr. Chuck 
Grassley; along with our Democratic counterparts, people like Senator 
Whitehouse.
  I am hopeful this legislation will contain an amendment I offered 
last week to help those who struggle with both substance abuse and 
mental illness. It is estimated that more than 10 million Americans 
suffer from both addiction and mental health disorders. These are 
called co-occurring disorders. It is a fact that many people who don't 
otherwise get treatment for their mental health problems try to self-
medicate, making their lives even more complicated and worse, and that 
is what this amendment is designed to address.
  Many mental health and substance abuse services, like specialty 
courts, have operated on separate tracks, and they only treat one part 
of the problem. This amendment really isn't all that earth-shaking. All 
it would do is make the commonsense link between mental health and 
substance abuse, something that we direct our existing criminal justice 
programs to apply to these coexisting disorders as well. That way 
people who struggle with both addiction and mental health problems can 
have both of those problems addressed using the money we are already 
appropriating and already spending in grants to local law enforcement 
and medical providers.
  It would also expand substance abuse and transitional services to 
help those suffering from co-occurring disorders to receive the 
treatment they need to recover. So I look forward to voting on this 
legislation and getting it passed soon.
  I would note that we are having a few bumps along the way, in terms 
of our Democratic friends allowing votes on amendments. There are 
apparently about 25 different amendments that have been negotiated 
between the Republicans and Democrats, but I am told our Democratic 
friends are objecting to any amendments by Senators who happen to be 
running for election in 2016.
  Now, the Democratic leader, in a fit of candor the other day, said 
they were going to object to an amendment authored by the Senator from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Johnson, because he is running for election. Well, I 
would ask them to back off of that sort of political hardball and to 
let us get our work done.
  It doesn't help when they object to noncontroversial amendments or 
they take certain amendments hostage because they do not want somebody 
to score points by getting something done. I mean that is why we are 
sent here; it is to get things done for our constituents.
  Regarding the amendment I mentioned just a moment ago, that 
apparently is one of those being held hostage. I would like to share a 
letter from the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the American 
Correctional Association, and the National Association of Police 
Organizations that supports the amendment I just talked about. If the 
Democratic leadership will not listen to me, maybe they will listen to 
them. I hope they will listen to the voices of the families who suffer 
from mental illness and to law enforcement officials.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    March 2, 2016.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cornyn, On behalf of the undersigned mental 
     health, substance abuse and criminal justice organizations, 
     we are writing to express our support of the Mental Health 
     and Substance Abuse Act amendments to S. 524, the 
     Comprehensive Addictions and Recovery Act (CARA).
       Approximately 65% of persons incarcerated in jails and 
     prisons across the United States have substance use 
     disorders. Many of these individuals have co-occurring mental 
     illnesses such as depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, 
     or schizophrenia.
       It is further estimated that 2 million people with serious 
     mental illness are admitted to jails across the U.S. each 
     year. Twenty percent of all inmates in state and federal 
     prisons, approximately 314,000 individuals, have serious 
     mental illness. Many of these individuals also have drug or 
     alcohol use problems.
       Historically, mental health and substance abuse services 
     have been operated separately, and coordination in addressing 
     the needs of people with co-occurring mental illness and 
     substance use disorders has proven challenging. This has been 
     true as well with specialty courts established to address the 
     unique needs of non-violent offenders with substance use 
     disorders (drug courts) or mental illness (mental health 
     courts). Drug courts have frequently not been equipped to 
     address the needs of people with mental illness and mental 
     health courts have frequently not been equipped to address 
     the needs of people with substance use disorders.
       The provisions included in the Mental Health and Substance 
     Abuse Amendments would be helpful in addressing these 
     problems.
       Section 802 would add ``mental health treatment and 
     transitional services for those with mental illnesses or with 
     co-occurring disorders'' among those prioritized for 
     assistance when transitioning out of criminal justice 
     systems.
       Section 803 would include ``training for drug court 
     personnel . . . on identifying and addressing co-occurring 
     substance abuse and mental health problems'' to federal 
     criminal justice training priorities.
       Section 804 would add grants for developing and 
     implementing specialized residential substance abuse 
     treatment programs that ``provide appropriate treatment to 
     inmates with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse 
     disorders or challenges.''
       Inclusion of these provisions in CARA would be very helpful 
     in fostering positive treatment outcomes and in reducing 
     recidivism among offenders with mental illness and substance 
     use disorders.
       Senator Cornyn, we greatly appreciate your strong 
     leadership on these issues and stand ready to help in any way 
     we can to move them forward.
       Please contact Ron Honberg with NAMI with any questions or 
     if we can provide further support.
           Sincerely,
       National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), American 
     Correctional Association, National Association of Police 
     Organizations, TASC, Inc. (Treatment Alternatives for Safe 
     Communities--Illinois), The National Alliance to Advance 
     Adolescent Health, American Orthopsychiatric Association.


              Calling For Appointment of a Special Counsel

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, separately, earlier this morning I joined 
my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee to hear testimony from 
the Attorney General of the United States, Loretta Lynch.
  As a former attorney general of my State, I have always taken a great 
interest in our system of justice at the State level and now certainly 
at the national level, and I have tried to do everything I can to help 
strengthen the rule of law and help keep the American people safe, and 
that includes transparent and fair investigations.
  I spent a little bit of time asking the Attorney General this morning 
about her Department's investigation into the former Secretary of 
State, Hillary Clinton, and her use of a private email server during 
her tenure. I have talked many times on the floor about my concerns 
surrounding her use of an unsecured email server. The former Secretary 
did refuse to use the government server and decided to basically play 
by her own rules, setting up a server at her home in New York. But the 
fact is, this sort of reckless conduct put our country at great risk. 
Several experts from the intelligence community have outlined how her 
unsecured server left her emails--some highly classified--vulnerable to 
hacking in cyber attacks. So this is a very serious matter.
  Last fall, about 6 months ago, I asked the Attorney General to 
appoint a special counsel to fairly and fully conduct an investigation. 
That is because Secretary Clinton is not just a random citizen or 
former government employee; her case is awfully high-profile. As a 
result, I think there are many questioning whether she is being treated 
in exactly the same way as any other citizen would be treated under 
similar circumstances or whether she is getting some sort of 
preferential treatment. Because the Attorney General is a political 
appointee of the President of the United States and given Ms. Clinton's 
high profile, there are real conflicts of interest and real concerns 
about politics ahead of justice. Those could be addressed and mitigated 
by providing a

[[Page 2857]]

special counsel, as the law provides, to provide some measure of 
independence from the Attorney General so the public can have 
confidence that this case is being treated just like every other case 
and not with some sort of political favoritism based on a conflict of 
interest.
  This morning, I questioned the Attorney General about recent reports 
that the Department has granted immunity to the staffer who set up 
Secretary Clinton's private server.
  So anybody listening understands, the only reason immunity would be 
granted in a criminal investigation is if somebody invokes their Fifth 
Amendment rights against self-incrimination. But if given immunity, 
then that individual must cooperate with law enforcement authorities 
and cannot refuse to answer questions because they no longer have any 
likelihood or any chance of being convicted of that crime, having been 
granted immunity.
  This does indicate that this investigation has taken on a new level 
of seriousness, and I suspect the FBI continues to be hard at work 
trying to get to the bottom of this, as I would expect them to do. I 
hope this indicates that the Department of Justice is treating this 
case with the great care and gravity it requires. They are integral to 
this grant of immunity because the FBI can't do this on their own, and 
it takes the prosecutors of the Department of Justice to agree to a 
grant of immunity as part of an investigation.
  I still believe the American people deserve an independent 
investigation, and I will continue to press for the appointment of a 
special counsel to that end.


                    Mental Health Reform Legislation

  Finally, Mr. President, I want to address another issue I questioned 
the Attorney General about, and that is about needed reforms to our 
mental health system. I believe I repeated to her today--I have 
repeated this story so many times, I sometimes forget when I have said 
it before. But I recently had a chance to meet with a number of major 
county sheriffs, and somebody asked me: Would you like to meet the 
largest mental health provider in America?
  I said: Well, sure.
  He said: Well, he is over here. It is the sheriff of Los Angeles 
County.
  So the fact is, many people incarcerated in our jails are suffering 
from mental illness, and they may have committed petty crimes, such as 
trespassing and the like, but they are not getting their condition 
treated as long as they are warehoused in jails. Many communities, such 
as my hometown of San Antonio, TX, have created a model of how to 
divert people from jail to get their mental health issues treated and 
at the same time make sure we don't continue this turnstile of people 
coming in and out of our jails when their underlying mental illness 
problems are not being treated.
  I asked her to take a look at a bill I introduced, the Mental Health 
and Safe Communities Act, which is designed to help communities and 
families who are struggling to help their loved ones who are mentally 
ill. Many families don't have access to adequate treatment or lack the 
resources to comply with doctors' orders.
  The fact is, back in the nineties, back when a major policy change 
was made in America and people were essentially turned out of 
institutions where the mentally ill were treated, there wasn't any 
followup to make sure there was some sort of safety net or some follow-
on treatment to make sure their needs were taken care of.
  Today, any of us who have walked down the street in a major American 
city know we have a lot of homeless people living on our streets who 
are essentially suffering from some form or another of mental illness, 
and their needs are not being addressed. Some of them, perhaps because 
they abused alcohol or other drugs in order to try to medicate or take 
care of their problems on their own, end up committing crimes of one 
type or another, not necessarily what I would call a serious crime but 
serious enough to get them arrested and put in jail.
  I am hopeful that we will take this opportunity, as we are looking at 
our criminal justice system at large, along with prison reform and 
legislation that passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee--which I 
hope will soon come to the floor of the Senate--to deal with issues 
like this confluence of mental health and criminal justice in a way 
that is more enlightened, in a way that is cheaper, and in a way that 
is more humane and more efficient than simply warehousing people who 
are mentally ill in our criminal justice system.
  We can do better, and I am hopeful that models like those in Bexar 
County, TX, where mentally ill persons are able to find programs that 
actually help them solve their underlying problem--those kinds of 
models are helpful to the rest of the country and to us as we try to 
craft means for our communities to better care for those suffering from 
mental illness.
  I look forward to moving this legislation soon. The chairman of the 
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Senator Alexander, 
tells me he has been working with Senator Murray, his ranking member, 
along with Senator Cassidy and Senator Murphy, on another piece of 
legislation that they are proposing on mental health. My hope is that 
the group of us who are interested in this issue can cobble together a 
consensus piece of legislation which the majority leader could then 
bring to the floor of the Senate to let us do some additional important 
bipartisan work to help address this problem.
  I don't see any Senator wishing to speak, so I suggest the absence of 
a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  Cuba

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, after decades of isolation, we are seeing a 
measured shift in our policy toward Cuba. We have resumed diplomatic 
relations, expanded travel opportunities, lifted caps on financial 
assistance between families, and eased trade restrictions.
  I congratulate the administration for spearheading these changes. It 
took courage to embark on this path. These policy changes are supported 
by the vast majority of Cuban Americans. They are applauded by sector 
after sector of the U.S. business community, and they are welcomed by 
Americans at large, but still it took someone to lead and President 
Obama did. I applaud him and his administration for doing so.
  Make no mistake, conditions are improving for the Cuban people 
because of these changes. There are some who do not fully appreciate 
the meaningfulness of this opening to Cuba. They maintain that we have 
somehow offered concessions to the Cuban Government without benefit to 
the United States or to the Cuban people. Some contend that we have 
moved prematurely when human rights issues remain unresolved in Cuba.
  To be clear, human rights abuses persist in Cuba. We all seek to 
remedy these abuses. Yet extending 50 years as the Cuban Government's 
convenient scapegoat for the failure of socialism is unlikely to yield 
gains in human rights in the future any more than our policies have 
done in the past. Instead, this opening to Cuba takes full advantage of 
the opportunities presented by the failures of socialism. Recognizing 
the inherent right of Americans to travel to Cuba isn't a concession to 
dictators. It is an expression of freedom. It is Americans who are 
penalized by our travel ban, not the Cuban Government.
  During my first visit to Cuba in 2001, I told the Cuban Foreign 
Minister in a meeting in Havana that I was attempting to lift the U.S. 
travel ban. I added, if the Cuban Government didn't improve its human 
rights effort, I would seek to lift the entire trade embargo. It was 
taken as an attempt at humor, of course, but for me it was no joke. I 
have always believed that denying Americans the ability to travel to 
and trade with Cuba has done more to extend dictatorial rule on that 
island

[[Page 2858]]

than any other policy we could have adopted.
  For far too long U.S. administrations, both Republican and 
Democratic, have insisted that U.S. measures, such as ending the travel 
ban or easing the trade embargo, must be met by moves by the Cuban 
Government to improve the human rights condition of the citizenry. I 
understand this instinct, but I will submit that ending the travel ban 
and easing the trade embargo, even when done unilaterally, leads to 
better human rights conditions in Cuba.
  Milton Friedman wrote that economic freedom is ``an indispensable 
means toward the achievement of political freedom.'' Far from being 
concessions to dictators, changes in our policy toward Cuba are 
reinforcing and advancing opportunities for Cubans in the private 
sector. Citizens who are totally dependent on government for their 
livelihood are subject to the whims of all-powerful leaders in a way 
that those who are economically independent are not.
  In a very real sense in Cuba, the economic agenda is the human rights 
agenda. Recognizing its precarious economic position in recent years, 
the cash-strapped Castro regime has laid off thousands of government 
workers and expanded legal opportunities in the private sector. This 
has given way to a dramatic rise in the number of entrepreneurs on the 
island who are running restaurants, bed and breakfasts, taxi services, 
barbershops, beauty salons, and much more. In fact, it is estimated 
that as many as one-third of Cuba's 5 million workers are now operating 
in Cuba's private sector. This exponential expansion of Cuba's 
entrepreneurial class would not have happened were it not for U.S. 
policy changes in 2009 that has led to an explosion of travel and 
remittances among Cuban Americans. Some suggest that remittances to the 
island are responsible for 70 to 80 percent of the capital used in 
small businesses in Cuba.
  Recent changes to U.S. regulations allowing for additional travel and 
remittances have further expedited the expansion of the private sector 
in Cuba. Additional regulatory changes, such as allowing the so-called 
people-to-people exchanges to be conducted on an individual as opposed 
to a group basis, would propel this movement even further. Again, this 
entrepreneurial expansion in Cuba has not only given scores of Cubans a 
better quality of life, it has lessened their dependence on the Cuban 
Government in a way that has improved their human rights condition.
  The recent bilateral air service agreement also represents a key 
piece to ensuring the continued travel of Americans to the island. This 
agreement will, for the first time in 50 years, provide scheduled air 
service between the United States and Cuba. Frequent and regular travel 
between the two countries will continue to open economic ties, and it 
will lead to private sector economic opportunities on the island.
  I should note that the administration has done just about all that 
its authority permits to affect change on the island. In the coming 
months, it will be up to Congress to take the next steps.
  I hope that we--particularly those of us on this side of the aisle 
who believe so strongly in the value of free markets and free 
enterprise--will remember these principles as we promote democracy and 
human rights in Cuba.
  Margaret Thatcher famously said: ``There can be no liberty unless 
there is economic liberty.'' This statement is as true in Cuba as it is 
anywhere in the world. It is my hope that this principle will guide our 
actions as we endeavor to promote freedom and liberty in Cuba.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am here this afternoon on the floor 
to join with colleagues as we discuss the Comprehensive Addiction and 
Recovery Act, CARA. I would suggest that from the perspective of 
families across the country, many would look at this and say this is 
probably one of the more important pieces of legislation that this 
Senate could be taking up this year.
  If we think about this crisis, this epidemic that we are seeing 
across the country with opioid addiction, it is probably one of the 
most pressing public health issues facing American families all across 
the country. As we have heard from colleagues, this is not just one 
single State's issue. This is not just one region of the country. This 
is across all 50 States. I always like to think that in Alaska, because 
we are so far away, we are so remote, perhaps we might be insulated 
from some of the negative aspects of this modern society. In fact, we 
cannot isolate, we cannot insulate ourselves from the scourge of the 
drugs and the drug addiction we are seeing.
  This addiction does not discriminate. It doesn't discriminate against 
any demographic, any group. Again, it can't be confined to a single 
geographic region. It impacts young people. It impacts our older 
people, the lower income people, the middle-income people, and the 
higher income levels. Those of us who have served our Nation as our 
honored veterans, pregnant women, and even newborn babies can suffer 
from addiction.
  The stories we hear when we are back home visiting with our 
constituents, talking with friends, talking with neighbors, and then 
hearing these stories recounted on the floor--these are heartbreaking 
stories that come from all over the country, from the east coast, 
again, all the way to the most remote villages of Alaska. We have seen 
and we have heard the pain that opioid addiction causes. It is 
important that we take action and that we address this issue now before 
it worsens. Unfortunately, as we see the statistics, that is where it 
is going, that is the trend, and that is the direction.
  The rates of addiction and hospitalization will only continue to 
skyrocket unless we can throttle this back, unless we can get our hands 
around it. This is our opportunity not only to treat but to prevent 
opioid addiction. Lots of numbers have been discussed on the floor 
about this epidemic that we are seeing, and the numbers really are 
horrifying. In Alaska, the mortality rates related to opioid and heroin 
abuse have more than tripled since 2008. In 2015, we had 33 Alaskans 
die from heroin overdose--perhaps even more that we just haven't been 
able to identify. The rates on inpatient hospitalization for heroin and 
opioid poisoning have nearly doubled since 2008. The cost is over 
millions of dollars.
  As we know, it is often our young people who suffer from addiction 
the most, and certainly the most directly. Between 2008 and 2013, the 
rate of individuals between 21 and 29 years old being admitted to 
treatment centers has doubled. Again, we are talking about numbers, and 
we are talking about statistics. But we are really not. We are talking 
about our friends, we are talking about family, and we are talking 
about neighbors. But we can make a difference if we provide the 
resources and if we provide the education and the outreach, not just to 
young people but to all, so that they understand the dangers of opioid 
addiction.
  Unfortunately, some of what we have seen with this addiction is that 
somehow or another, opioids are viewed as less a health threat because 
they are prescription. What CARA does, what this legislation in front 
of us does, is to help address the educational need, provide States and 
communities with grant options and resources to ensure that all in the 
community--the educators, the parents, the doctors, other members of 
the community--have the knowledge and have the tools they need to guide 
and support young people and the community at large. But it is just so 
hard; it has been so hard to see families and friends lose their loved 
ones to addiction.

[[Page 2859]]

  Over the past several months in the community of Juneau, our State 
capital, there have been a series of newspaper articles that have 
chronicled how that community has been impacted by the loss of young 
people due to heroin. Six young people, all under the age of 30, were 
lost last year. In September, a young man who was a softball player 
lost his life due to heroin overdose. Two weeks after that, another 
family lost a son who was going to film school.
  You read the stories, you read the details about the lives of these 
young people, who could be like any of us until something happens. And 
what that something is is an exposure to opioids and an addiction that, 
again, cuts a life short. Those parents of these young people, as 
parents in States all across the Nation, grieve for the loss of their 
children and wonder what they could have done to perhaps help save 
their child's life. Again, the community of Juneau is recounting that, 
but it is all over our communities.
  This drug addiction knows no boundaries. It seeps into and corrodes 
Alaska's most remote and rural communities. These are communities, I 
will remind you, where it is not like there is easy access to them. 
These are communities--80 percent of the communities in the State of 
Alaska are not connected by road. In order to get to them, particularly 
this time of year, the only way to get in is to fly in. It is expensive 
to fly in. In the summer, there are water options, but that too is 
expensive. So while it is difficult for people to move in and out, 
somehow or another the drugs are coming in and out. The heroin and the 
opioid addiction have found their way into these remote communities, 
leaving families and loved ones scrambling and desperate as they try to 
help those whom they love.
  Unfortunately, the resources we have in terms of any form of 
treatment centers are so incredibly limited. In one of the communities 
that is on the road system, the community of Palmer, just north of 
Anchorage, our largest city, I was at an event this summer. Lots of 
people wanted to talk to me at this picnic. There was a woman with her 
daughter who was in her early twenties, and that woman waited 
patiently, patiently, patiently to be able to speak with me alone. She 
asked to go off into a corner of the outdoor area that we were in so 
that she could speak to me about her daughter's situation. Her daughter 
was an addict. She had been in and out of jail. She had been in and out 
of treatment. Nothing had worked, and this mother had no place else to 
go, no place else for her daughter to go. So she, as one mom who cared, 
was trying to help raise awareness of the lack of facilities, the lack 
of treatment, and the lack of options for so many in her situation. You 
listen to stories like that, and you realize that we must attempt to do 
all we can.
  Granted, we are sitting here in Washington, DC. The Federal 
Government doesn't always know what is best. We know that for a fact, 
but how is it that we can help these families, these communities, as 
they deal with, again, this scourge that has afflicted so many?
  We have had some good news in the State of Alaska. Just this week, 
the Alaska State House of Representatives passed a bill that will 
remove civil liabilities for providing or administering the drug 
naloxone to treat opioid and heroin overdose. It was actually the 
representative from Juneau, Representative Munoz, who spoke to the need 
for reform and helped lead this important measure. That is on its way 
to the Governor's desk. Again, I think it is an important option for 
lifesaving treatment.
  As we work together--those of us who have cosponsored the CARA bill 
and all who have expressed their concern--we know we need to keep the 
pressure on. We need to keep the momentum up to address this, not only 
in Alaska but around the country, to fight back, to deal with this 
addiction we are seeing, and to really attack the issue from every 
degree. From mental health to criminal justice reform, community 
programs, educational resources, tools for veterans and pregnant women, 
addressing this widespread issue with a widespread response is 
important.
  I thank my colleagues who have led on this issue, and the Presiding 
Officer here today has clearly done just that. I thank the Presiding 
Officer for his leadership on this.
  As I have spoken this afternoon on opioid addiction, and perhaps more 
specifically to heroin addiction, I always feel compelled to mention 
that in my State, and particularly in Anchorage, we have seen a spike 
of ``spice'' abuse. This is a synthetic marijuana. More and more, we 
are seeing individuals who are being sent to the hospital. It is our 
firefighters who seemingly are responding to more spice and more heroin 
incidents than they are responding to fire calls. Recognizing that it 
is not just heroin, but it is other drugs that are truly wreaking havoc 
on our families and our communities, we need to unite together to make 
a difference.
  So I think what we are doing here in this body is a first step. 
Passing this legislation is an important response, and through what we 
are doing, we can work to change the direction in which, unfortunately, 
we have been going.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)


                            vote explanation

 Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for 
today's cloture vote on S. 524, the Comprehensive Addiction and 
Recovery Act of 2015. I would have voted yea.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. 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. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Wasteful Spending

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, today marks the 36th edition of my ``Waste 
of the Week.'' For those who have been listening I have been down here 
every week, while the Senate is in session, addressing what has been 
documented as waste, fraud, and abuse.
  I took on a major role when first coming back to the Senate starting 
in 2011 to deal with the larger issue of our plunge into debt through 
deficit spending year after year after year. Despite numerous attempts, 
many of them bipartisan, all blocked by decisions made at 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue, we have not been able to put in place a reasonable 
plan--or any plan whatsoever--that would reduce our spending, balance 
the budget and begin to chip away at this ever-deepening cesspool of 
debt. It is hurting our economy, and laying a burden on future 
generations that will have enormous negative consequences.
  Given the fact that those larger efforts came to naught, I have 
decided to start chipping away from the other end of the fiscal 
spectrum to identify waste, fraud, and abuse, a much more efficient, 
effective Federal Government and not waste taxpayer dollars that these 
days are hard-earned and pretty scarce.
  This ``Waste of the Week'' deals with not as substantive an issue as 
many of these. The speeches talk about a whole range of issues that are 
taking a lot of taxpayer dollars out of the purses and wallets of our 
constituents, sent to Washington and simply wasted.
  Every once in a while I try to present something that is so 
ridiculous, so unnecessary, that it catches the public's attention and 
ought to embarrass every Member of this body. Some arguments can be 
made about, well, perhaps the Social Security Disability Trust Fund 
could be adjusted so we wouldn't do this or that. But every fourth or 
fifth time down here I like to throw out something where people say: 
Are you kidding me? We are actually using our hard-earned tax dollars 
to do this?
  One that caught the most attention was the grant that amounted to 
hundreds of thousands of dollars to determine whether a massage made 
you feel better after an expenditure of physical effort. If they were 
asked that question, there is probably no one in America who would not 
conclude that. They

[[Page 2860]]

would say, yes, that works. I'd prefer a massage over no massage at 
all. But this grant was used to determine that.
  Rather than take a human subject, they used mechanical massages on 
the backs of white rabbits. Actually, these rabbits were from New 
Zealand. Then they looked at the grin on the rabbit's face--I don't 
know how they determined it. Rabbits can't turn around and say: Yes, 
that feels good. Apparently they made some kind of measurement, and 
after spending about $400,000, came to the conclusion that, yes, it 
really works. Well, that caught people's attention.
  There are a lot of people who are outraged at the way we are spending 
their money. There are people trying to make their mortgage payment, 
trying to get to the end of the week for the next check, to buy 
groceries, or to set aside money for their kids to go to school.
  This is one of those weeks where I want to bring forward yet another 
issue of ``Can you believe this is how the Federal Government is 
spending your money?''
  I am told by my staff that there is a new word around called 
``hangry.'' It means that if you are hungry, you tend to get a little 
bit disjointed, and you are more angry than you would be if you were 
not hungry. I suppose that is something we could easily prove by all of 
us just asking: What is our disposition when we are hungry? Are we a 
little more tense or a little more quick to trigger in terms of getting 
upset about what someone may say to us or something like that--a little 
more irritable.
  So this new generation has taken this condition called hangry, which 
is hungry and angry, and turned it into the term ``hangry.'' The 
National Science Foundation said: Well, we better find out whether this 
is true. So they issued a $331,000 grant for researchers to study 
whether ``hanger'' actually occurs. If you get hungry, do you end up 
feeling ``hangry''? That was the question. So researchers issued a 
$331,000 grant for the study on married couples. Listen, you can't make 
this stuff up. They came up with the idea of giving each spouse a 
voodoo doll, and if they felt they were angry, they were to take a pin 
and stick it into the voodoo doll. They each had their own voodoo doll. 
Like I said, you can't make this stuff up. It only cost $331,000.
  So whenever a spouse made the other spouse angry, the other spouse 
grabbed the voodoo doll and grabbed a pin and stuck it in. The 
conclusion was after a 3-year study and $331,000 spent--yup, we proved 
it. ``Hanger'' occurs when you are hungry.
  There are some Senate pages who are trying to hold back their 
laughter. I see a lot of smiles on the faces of people in this Chamber 
saying: Surely, this can't be true. Surely, this is made up. Surely, 
this is a spoof to try to prove a point. This actually happened, folks. 
This actually happened.
  The serious part of this is that the taxpayer paid for it. At a time 
when we are trying to repair roads and bridges, when we are trying to 
put money forward for health care research, when we are dealing with 
terrorist issues to make sure our national security is strong, when our 
military is underfunded, when we are trying to deal with all the issues 
of the day, we are taking this money--and of all things the National 
Science Foundation could do, they do this.
  We take the $331,000 and add it to our ever-growing accumulation of 
documented waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars. We have now 
risen to a position of $157,591 million and change. It is not small 
stuff. It adds up. This is what your Federal Government is doing, and 
we wonder why the American people are frustrated. We wonder why they 
are angry when they hear issues like this.
  I am not trying to stoke the flames and make the American people more 
``hangry.'' I am simply trying to expose this so we will be so 
embarrassed with these kinds of things that people will come down to 
this Chamber and offer legislation to clean up this stuff. We have 
already made some progress but we can make more.


                       Migration Crisis in Europe

  Mr. President, I would like to reserve some time to talk about 
something that I think is very serious, to discuss an issue that I 
think has an impact on all of us, particularly our national security.
  Last week NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Gen. Philip Breedlove, 
whom I have had the opportunity to talk to a number of times, testified 
before the Senate Armed Services Committee about how he views the 
threats facing us today and what the most serious threats are to the 
United States. Featured among them was a serious migration crisis that 
is destabilizing our European allies. He said:

       Europe faces the daunting challenge of mass migration 
     spurred by state instability and state collapse. The influx 
     of people is masking the movements of criminals, terrorists, 
     and foreign fighters. Within this mix, ISIS [or ISIL] . . . 
     is spreading like a cancer, taking advantage of paths of 
     least resistance, threatening European nations and our own 
     [nation] with terrorist attacks.

  Each day as we watch on television or read in the papers, this 
migration crisis continues to grow worse. Efforts by the European Union 
to stem the tide have failed to even slow down the flow of refugees and 
migrants. These repeated failures, now moving into its second year, are 
threatening to break the European Union apart as each member country 
resorts to a ``fortress Europe'' mentality, enforced by national means. 
These include new razor wire barriers along internal EU borders. They 
encourage divergent national policies on refugee admissions that make 
almost a mockery of EU policy consensus or even common efforts.
  The EU agreement on common borders--described as the Schengen 
Agreement of 1985--has been considered the bedrock of European unity. 
If this fundamental agreement is crushed by the unsupportable weight of 
hundreds of thousands of desperate migrants, how can the European Union 
itself be saved? That is the question.
  Many of our European friends are asking that question. I was recently 
in Munich at a security conference, and representatives from all the 
European nations were there. The No. 1 topic was the flow of migration 
and the destabilization of Europe and the unity of Europe, nations not 
abiding by their earlier commitments to receive migrants, nations 
raising barriers and building walls--whether they are razor wire or 
concrete walls--around their borders. It is creating a major crisis in 
Europe.
  The political stability and social cohesion of individual European 
states are clearly under strain. We have seen street riots and police 
suppression. Growing hostility between citizens and migrant groups is 
spreading like wildfire. Extremist political groups are feeding on this 
chaos and further threatening democratic institutions. Even in Germany, 
an extremist rightwing, basically fascist party has grown its 
population from zero 4 years ago to 15 percent to 20 percent today, 
taking over in many places as the third largest party in Germany. We 
all know that after key state elections this weekend, this may be 
growing.
  The latest EU effort to come to grips with this enormous problem is 
continuing at a summit meeting this week in Brussels, with attendance 
by Turkey. The draft agreement on the table shows how desperate the 
Europeans have become. Without discussing the detailed items here, it 
is sufficient to note that the central proposition under consideration 
is this: a convoluted system to send some migrant refugees from Greece 
back to Turkey in exchange for other migrants to be resettled directly 
from Turkey to European countries. The United Nations High Commissioner 
for Refugees and other refugee organizations have denounced this 
proposal as unworkable and illegal. Some EU countries, such as Hungary, 
have even promised to veto this scheme.
  Without entirely prejudging a proposal still under consideration, I 
nevertheless have to guess that even if it is accepted and enacted, it 
is unlikely to address meaningfully the real dimensions of this 
migration problem. Something else clearly has to be done. The numbers 
that are coming in show an ever-expanding number of migrants

[[Page 2861]]

seeking relief by taking treacherous routes--many of them guided by 
criminal elements--into Europe and the European resistance and the 
instability all of that has provided.
  The draft EU-Turkey agreement does include a commitment to pursue 
another idea, and that is what I want to talk about on the floor this 
afternoon. I have long advocated this as hopefully a more workable 
condition; that is, to create conditions in and near Syria that will 
permit people to remain there in humane conditions of relative safety 
near their home country, within their own culture. To my knowledge, 
European leaders as a group have not before committed to pursue this 
solution, but I have raised it with European leaders personally. The 
response has often considered the caution that Europe would not be 
willing to commit the resources necessary for such a solution. I agree 
that the resources required would be considerable and that the 
political courage required would be even greater, but, I have argued, 
what is the alternative? Until political leaders in Europe, and here as 
well, see that creating safe areas in and near Syria is the only 
possible solution to this migration crisis, the political courage and 
vision to take it up will be absent. But now, at least, the Europeans, 
having failed at a number of other efforts to address this 
destabilizing problem, are talking about it.
  It has always been clear to me that such a solution is far beyond the 
capacity of Europe alone. It will require the United States and other 
cooperating powers to work with our European partners to create areas 
in and near Syria where Syrians can find safety and humanitarian 
relief.
  As difficult as this task sounds--and surely it is--it has been done 
before. There is a precedent here. The manner in which the 
international community eventually came to deal successfully with the 
Bosnian war in the 1990s gives us a useful template for how we can 
approach the safe-area task in Syria. That template, derived from our 
Bosnia experience, includes two essential components: the U.N. Security 
Council and NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
  First, we are going to have to have a clear mandate from the U.N. 
Security Council creating U.N.-designated safe areas.
  Secondly, the U.N. Security Council would have to create a new U.N. 
protective force. ``UNPROFOR'' is the term that was used in the 
Balkans. In the Balkan example, that force was comprised of 40,000 
troops from 42 contributing countries. In Syria, I would suggest that 
such a course would include most NATO countries and especially 
neighboring Islamic countries. Russia should also be pressed to 
participate. NATO could take on primary planning and organization 
tasks.
  When I discussed this proposal with Europeans, the first response has 
been that no one is willing to put troops in the field to fight this 
war. It is important to emphasize that this UNPROFOR would not be in 
Syria to fight the war; rather, it would exist to protect the 
designated safe areas. The force would have policing functions intended 
to protect and secure the borders and keep radical elements out or 
under control. That was the model that was put in place in the Balkans. 
It succeeded. There were some glitches, there were some problems, but 
it succeeded.
  Third, it is obvious that safe areas in Syria would require rigidly 
enforced no-fly zones authorized by the UNSC.
  Mr. President, I have presided a number of times, and when the clerk 
turns and discusses the timeframe--may I ask whether I am under a time 
limitation? If so, I ask unanimous consent to extend that for just a 
few moments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, as I said, it is obvious that safe areas in 
Syria would require rigidly enforced no-fly zones authorized by the 
U.N. Security Council. I suggested that with its planning and 
leadership capabilities and massive resources, NATO should take on that 
job, as it did in the Balkans. In this role, too, NATO must work 
creatively to bring in the regional powers in a broad, coordinated 
effort under NATO leadership.
  Fourth, as in Bosnia, the U.N. must mobilize a massive relief effort 
within Syria led by the UNHCR and similar humanitarian organizations.
  The international community must be willing to pay for this important 
humanitarian effort. We should call for major contributions from the 
regional states, European countries, and other traditional donor 
countries long committed to the humanitarian crisis.
  Dealing with so many refugees in safe, humane conditions will be 
expensive, yes, but it cannot be more expensive than the costs already 
being borne by those destination countries burdened with uncontrolled 
migration.
  In the current discussions of Turkey, the EU has offered 6 billion 
euros to help them deal with refugees, and Turkey has reportedly 
demanded as much as 20 billion euros. With such sums being discussed--
and they almost certainly are underestimates--the costs for caring for 
these desperate people humanely, in conditions of safety, and in or 
near their homeland, are easily justified.
  Far greater costs will be incurred if this problem is not dealt with 
effectively. For example, a collapse of the Schengen system and 
reimposition of border controls in Europe--a process now underway--
could cost as much as 1.4 trillion euros over the next 10 years, 
according to a recent European Commission report. This is the cost in 
reduced economic outlook for the region, not including the costs for 
infrastructure and personnel if the Schengen system is abandoned.
  In returning to where I began, the extra security gained by such a 
solution is beyond price.
  I strongly believe the time has now come for us to press vigorously 
for the safe-area solution to the migrant crisis. The problem is 
growing far worse with each passing month. Efforts to identify other 
solutions have failed, and the safe-area proposal may be the only one 
left standing. Those who are discouraged by the admitted obstacles and 
great difficulties in pursuing this solution must simply be persuaded 
to take it up with creativity, determination, courage, and leadership.
  I have discussed this proposal directly with Vice President Biden, 
Secretary of State Kerry, Supreme Allied Commander and NATO Commander 
General Breedlove, and senior European leaders. The Vice President, 
based on his own experience with the Balkan wars, agrees that the 
Bosnia precedent could be a useful guide. The general agrees that there 
are sufficient resources if there is sufficient political will. The 
European leaders I have spoken with agree that no other alternative is 
visible at this time. That they included this idea in the negotiations 
with Turkey is a positive sign. I intend to keep these discussions 
going in coming days.
  In conclusion, I am under no illusions about how difficult this task 
would be for either us or our allies. It is an enormous undertaking, 
and even when it does not address the underlying conflict in Syria, 
which has so far defied all of our best efforts, it is something we 
must pursue. However, the continuing flow of millions of refugees and 
migrants is completely unsustainable, posing serious threats to our 
European friends and ultimately to all of us.
  I will continue to press for this and talk to European leaders and 
others in our country to see this as a necessary, viable, and doable 
solution to a crisis situation that is having enormous impacts on the 
stability of Europe and even on the United States in terms of this 
humanitarian crisis.
  With that, I thank my colleague for his patience and allowing me to 
conclude.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am on the floor for the 130th time 
in my ``Time to Wake Up'' series urging us to wake up to the threat of 
climate change here.
  Time and time again, peer-reviewed science demonstrates that carbon 
pollution from burning fossil fuels is causing unprecedented climate 
and oceanic

[[Page 2862]]

changes. We see the effects already in our farms, our forests, and our 
fisheries. Yet the Republican-controlled Congress continues to hit the 
``snooze'' button every time an alarm goes off.
  Every major scientific society in our country, upon examining the 
data, says climate change is real and it is caused by our carbon 
pollution. So do all of our National Laboratories. So do our leading 
home State universities. The Presiding Officer is from Nebraska, so let 
me read what the University of Nebraska says on its Web site: ``Climate 
change poses significant risks to Nebraska's economy, environment, and 
citizens.''
  Another quote: ``The magnitude and rapidity of the projected changes 
in climate are unprecedented.''
  The fundamental science of climate change is settled, and the stakes 
of the climate crisis loom large. In poll after poll, Americans 
demonstrate they understand the connection between climate change and 
the role humans play in affecting climate. A recent poll shows that 64 
percent of Americans support enacting policies to address climate 
change and 78 percent of Americans think Federal Government should curb 
the release of greenhouse gases.
  In spite of the overwhelming science demonstrating that climate 
change is real and the growing awareness and determination of the 
American public to do something about it, Congress continues to 
prevaricate. The reason is simple: the power and threats of the fossil 
fuel industry. But is this strategy, the fossil fuel industry strategy 
of obstruction and denial, actually self-injurious?
  Let's look at coal. The coal industry--longtime provider of 
inexpensive yet dirty energy--is in economic decline. Between 2008 and 
2014, coal production and consumption have decreased by 15 percent and 
18 percent respectively. Analyses by the U.S. Energy Information 
Administration suggest 2015 U.S. coal production was likely down a 
further 10 percent, the lowest level since 1986. Coal is losing its 
share of the electricity market to natural gas and to wind power. From 
2002 to 2012, net generation from coal declined by 22 percent and coal-
fired electricity, which just 15 years ago constituted 50 percent of 
the electricity on the grid, now makes up only 33 percent, roughly, and 
falling. Gas-fired powerplants generated more energy than coal in 7 of 
the 12 months of 2015. Prior to 2015, gas-fired electricity generation 
never exceeded coal.
  The top four U.S. coal companies--Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, Cloud 
Peak Energy, and Alpha Natural Resources--produce approximately half of 
the domestic volume of coal in this country. In the past 5 years, all 
four companies' stock prices have crashed. According to a recent report 
from the Niskanen Center, a Libertarian-leaning think tank, the 
combined total revenue of these top producers between 2010 and 2014 
declined by approximately 18 percent.
  Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs recently delivered more bad news for 
the global coal market. According to its analysis, ``the industry does 
not require new investment given the ability of existing assets to 
satisfy flat demand, so prices will remain under pressure as the 
deflationary cycle continues.''
  The coal industry seems divorced from this reality. Consider what 
Peabody's CEO Gregory Boyce argued in his company's 2014 annual report: 
``[T]hermal coal consumption from the low-cost U.S. regions . . . is 
likely to increase 50 to 70 million tons over the next 3 years as 
natural gas prices recover, demand from other regions is displaced, and 
expected coal plant retirements are offset by higher plant utilization 
rates.''
  Well, the Energy Information Administration disagrees, projecting 
thermal coal demand growth of just 4 million tons between 2012 and 
2018. And remember, this was Peabody Energy's CEO speaking last week. 
Wyoming's Star Tribune reported that Peabody Energy's senior lenders 
are recommending that America's largest coal company file for 
bankruptcy, as Arch Coal, the second largest coal miner in the United 
States, did in January. Patriot Coal Corporation, Walter Energy, and 
Alpha Natural Resources have also all filed for bankruptcy in the past 
year.
  The fossil fuel strategy of political obstruction for coal is looking 
more and more like economic suicide.
  In some corners, light is dawning. Appalachian Power president and 
CEO Charles Patton told a meeting of energy executives last fall that 
coal is losing a long-term contest with natural gas and renewables. He 
said this: ``If we believe we can just change administrations and this 
issue is going to go away, we're making a terrible mistake.''
  Well, what if there is an answer to this terrible mistake that is 
also an answer to climate change. What if we could reduce the amount of 
carbon pollution we dump into the atmosphere and oceans while helping 
communities to transition from coal-based economies to clean energy 
ones, helping coal miners. More and more conservative and libertarian 
economists are making the case that the ailing coal industry should 
embrace a fee on carbon.
  The idea is simple. You levy a price on the thing you don't want--
carbon pollution--and you use the revenue to pay for things you do 
want. Greg Ip, chief economics commentator for the Wall Street Journal 
wrote:

       The most reliable way to limit the bushing of fossil fuels 
     is to alter market signals so as to divert demand toward 
     cleaner sources of energy or conservation. We know how to do 
     that: Put a price on carbon dioxide emissions via a tax, or 
     via tradeable emission allowances in a cap-and-trade system. 
     Both incentivize the market to find the least economically 
     harmful way to reduce emissions.

  Dr. Aparna Mathur of the conservative American Enterprise Institute 
conducted an analysis with a colleague from the Brookings Institution 
showing a carbon fee could reduce emissions, shore up the country's 
fiscal outlook, and play an important role in broader tax reform. Dr. 
Mathur points out: ``The fact that we understand better the burden of a 
carbon tax and how to offset it for low-income households should make 
us more likely to adopt this policy, not less so.''
  In fact, even the fossil fuel industry knows a carbon tax is an 
effective mechanism to help shift toward a low-carbon energy future. 
Six of the world's major oil and gas companies, including BP Group and 
Royal Dutch Shell, wrote the United Nations last summer saying they 
could take faster climate action if governments work together to put a 
proper price on the environmental and economic harms of greenhouse gas 
emissions. Here is what they said:

       [W]e need governments across the world to provide us with 
     clear, stable, long-term ambitious policy frameworks. We 
     believe that a price on carbon should be a key element of 
     these frameworks.

  Harvard Professor N. Gregory Mankiw was chair of the Council of 
Economic Advisers for President George W. Bush, and he served as an 
economic adviser to Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney. He 
agrees: ``The best way to curb carbon emissions is to put a price on 
carbon.''
  With a robust price on carbon, Congress could help coal mining 
companies, help coal mine workers, and help States and communities with 
significant coal mining activity. A carbon fee could be used to help 
coal companies by supplanting current taxes and fees and funding carbon 
capture for existing operating coal plants. A carbon fee could help 
coal workers by retraining them for high-paying jobs and providing 
pension and health care security not available from bankrupted 
employers. A carbon fee can provide assistance to coal mining 
communities to help them transition through all the challenges I have 
described.
  A report by David Bookbinder and David Bailey of the Niskanen Center 
said this:

       The coal industry is facing terminal decline. . . . An 
     unfettered chaotic decline of the coal industry would create 
     major social and economic issues such as deep regional 
     unemployment and a multitude of unfunded liabilities, 
     particularly for coal-dependent States.

  They point out that there is a way to solve these problems:

       Compensation for the losers from government policy action 
     is an important conservative principle.


[[Page 2863]]


  It is in this spirit that I introduced, along with Senator Schatz, 
the American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act of last year. I call it a 
carbon fee because none of the revenues would go to fund Big 
Government. The bill is a simple proposal to cut emissions while 
raising over $2 trillion in revenue, all of which would be returned to 
the American people--no bigger government.
  In addition to slashing the corporate tax rate, which the revenues 
would let us do, and providing families with tax credits beginning at 
$1,000 per couple, which the revenues also would allow us to do, the 
bill would provide $20 billion of flexible annual funding back to the 
people through their States to be used to help them through this 
inevitable transition--this inevitable transition. In coal-heavy 
States, this money could make the difference for communities that have 
been reliant on coal jobs.
  Arthur Laffer, economic adviser to President Reagan, called our bill 
a ``game-changer.'' He said of my proposal: ``I applaud Senator 
Whitehouse's efforts to reduce carbon emissions while simultaneously 
offsetting--through pro-growth marginal tax rate decreases--the harm 
done to the economy by the carbon tax.''
  I introduced my bill to start a conversation with Republicans on how 
best to design a carbon fee to help the economy. I would welcome the 
opportunity to sit down with any colleague to discuss ways to improve 
our proposal.
  The coal industry in particular has a clear choice: either to keep 
fighting climate action, keep obstructing, keep their head in the sand, 
continue to be truculent and obtuse until they crash into more 
bankruptcy in that unfettered chaotic decline the Niskanen Center 
predicts or they could embrace a carbon fee and use it to provide for 
coal communities, to provide for coal workers, to provide for carbon 
recovery, and to provide for retirees burdened with unfunded pension 
obligations.
  Mr. President, I have put a ladder into the water, and I urge the 
coal industry, before it goes under, to grab hold.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, our Nation's Founders fought the British 
Empire to create an independent nation governed by laws. They fought so 
their children could be freed from the callous fiats of a monarchy on 
the other side of the ocean.
  Our Founders learned from the excesses and mistakes of European 
powers and came together to design a new system of government, a 
carefully balanced system, one of distributed powers and 
responsibilities, checks and balances. American schoolchildren learn 
about the three coequal branches of government and the unique roles 
they play in maintaining that carefully crafted balance of power.
  A strong, independent, and fully functioning judiciary is inseparable 
from a healthy American democracy. Our Founders wisely reached 
consensus to create a system wherein the President designates judicial 
nominees and the Senate provides advice and consent. This prevents 
undue influence or control by either the White House or the Congress 
over the Supreme Court. Simply put, the Senate has a constitutional 
duty to provide timely consideration of any President's Supreme Court 
nominees.
  Today, I would like to focus on three distinct and complementary 
reasons why we must fulfill this obligation. First, we should examine 
the ample historical records available to determine the intent of our 
Nation's Founders. Second, we should look at the actual text of the 
Constitution and the plain meaning of the words in the document we all 
agree represents the highest law in the land. Finally, we can look at 
the Senate's track record and traditions when it comes to considering 
Supreme Court nominees.
  As Senators, we raise our hand and take a solemn oath to defend the 
Constitution of the United States and faithfully discharge the duties 
of our office. One of the core constitutionally mandated duties of 
serving as a Senator is to advise and consent on Supreme Court 
nominees, and it is not one we can take lightly.
  We are fortunate that many of our Nation's forefathers were prolific 
writers who left us reams of documents that now help us understand the 
debates and the discussions that led to our current system of 
government.
  Our Nation's fourth President and the youngest member of the 
Constitutional Convention, James Madison, kept a record of the debates 
that occurred during those formative months of our Nation in the summer 
of 1787. I urge my colleagues to revisit this record as they consider 
how to proceed with our Nation's next Supreme Court nominee.
  On June 4, 1787, James Wilson of Pennsylvania--a signatory of the 
Declaration of Independence and a member of the Continental Congress--
argued that justices should be appointed by the executive branch alone 
and strongly opposed appointments made by the Federal legislature. 
Madison disliked the appointment of judges by the legislature but also 
wasn't satisfied with a unilateral Executive appointment. He ultimately 
suggested that judicial appointments should be made by the Senate. This 
issue of judicial appointments was debated vigorously and continued 
over multiple sessions as delegates traded proposals. Charles Pinckney 
of South Carolina and Roger Sherman of Connecticut opposed Wilson and 
pushed for the legislative appointment of Justices.
  Madison, however, moved us closer to our present system by suggesting 
that only the Senate should have the power to appoint Justices to the 
Supreme Court and not the House of Representatives.
  Nathaniel Gorham, a delegate from Massachusetts, first introduced the 
concept of appointment by the President with the advice and consent of 
the Senate. This balanced approach resolved the concerns of delegates 
who believed unilateral Presidential appointments bordered on monarchy, 
while also addressing the concern that legislative appointments were 
simply too vulnerable to the fleeting parochial interests that may 
dominate the discussion on any given day.
  Months later, on September 7, 1787, the delegates unanimously agreed 
on the final language that governs the nomination and confirmation of 
Supreme Court Justices to this day. Our Founders' focus on the 
appointment and confirmation of the Supreme Court Justices was not an 
academic exercise, nor was it an intergovernmental turf war. It was an 
iterative, deliberative process with a clear goal: a strong and 
independent judiciary.
  Alexander Hamilton, probably the most prolific of our Founders when 
it comes to the written word, directly addressed the independence of 
the judiciary in The Federalist Papers. He argued: ``Liberty can have 
nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to 
fear from its union with either of the other departments.''
  Hamilton was concerned that a Supreme Court too heavily influenced by 
Congress or the White House would not adequately protect the rights and 
freedoms of the American people. He wrote that an independent judiciary 
``will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the 
Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure 
them.''
  Tying the hands of the Supreme Court by keeping an empty seat on the 
nine-member bench amounts to the union between the departments that 
Hamilton warned us about. Refusing to even consider a Supreme Court 
nominee strengthens the Senate to the detriment of the executive and 
judicial branches, throws off a carefully crafted balance of power, and 
contravenes our Founders' intent. Some legal scholars, Senators, and 
members of the judiciary argue that intent is irrelevant and that we 
should strictly construe the words on the page.
  Let's look at the plain meaning of the constitutional text. Article 
3, section 1, states that ``The judicial Power of the United States, 
shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as 
the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.''

[[Page 2864]]

  While lower courts could be established by Congress, the Supreme 
Court resolves issues between and among the States. It is the highest 
Court in the land, a Court of finality.
  The Constitution specifically addresses the appointment of Justices 
to the Supreme Court.
  Article 2, section 2, states the President ``shall nominate''--and I 
repeat ``shall nominate''--``and by and with the Advice and Consent of 
the Senate, shall''--and I repeat ``shall''--``appoint Ambassadors, 
other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court.''
  ``Shall'' is not a word that is considered ambiguous. Its meaning 
hasn't evolved over time. It is not open for interpretation. It is not 
permissive in nature. It is instructive, and it is clear.
  There are many modern-day issues we face that our Founders could have 
never imagined. We will grapple with novel constitutional questions for 
as long as this Nation exists. But the question of how Supreme Court 
Justices are appointed is something our Founders debated, decided, and 
they enshrined in the Constitution.
  The President is required to nominate a Justice, and the Senate has 
the job of confirming or rejecting that appointment. If the Senate 
attempts to undermine the President's constitutional responsibility to 
nominate a Justice and this body fails to provide advice and consent on 
that nomination--well, we then have abdicated one of the Senate's most 
important and sacred constitutional obligations.
  The Senate has a longstanding tradition of swiftly considering and 
confirming judicial nominees. Presidents and the Senate have 
historically taken their responsibility to fill the Supreme Court very 
seriously, even when they were at odds over who that nominee may have 
been. I am surprised and also disappointed that so many of my 
colleagues seem to be ignoring their constitutional obligations in a 
stark departure from the history of the U.S. Senate.
  According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, since 
the Judiciary Committee's creation 200 years ago, they have typically 
reported Supreme Court nominations that were opposed by a committee 
majority to allow the full Senate to make the final decision on whether 
the nominee should be confirmed.
  Let me repeat this very important fact. Even if a nominee was opposed 
in committee, their nomination was still brought to the floor of the 
Senate for a vote.
  Let's also consider recent history. Since 1975, the time from a 
President's formal nomination to hearing has averaged 42 days. The time 
from a nomination to committee vote has averaged 57 days. The time from 
a nomination to floor vote has averaged 70 days.
  The current vacancy we are dealing with occurred 269 days before the 
2016 election and with 342 days remaining in President Obama's term in 
office. Without doing a whole lot of math, it is safe to say that there 
is more than enough time to nominate, consider, and confirm a Supreme 
Court Justice before the November election if we move at a deliberate, 
average pace, on par with what has existed for over four decades.
  If the Senate waits for a new administration before even considering 
a nominee, we will be approaching a full year with an empty seat on the 
highest Court in the land. Not since the American Civil War has the 
Senate taken longer than a year to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.
  There is a reason that Presidents and the Senate work together and 
historically do not drag out Supreme Court nominations: An eight-member 
Supreme Court simply cannot fully do its job. The cases in which the 
Supreme Court relies on having all nine Justices to break a deadlock 
are often those that are most contested. They involve timely, novel 
legal issues and resolve splits between Federal circuit courts.
  Legal scholar Justin Pidot recently cited Chief Justice William 
Rehnquist regarding situations where the court of appeals had arrived 
at different conclusions about the resolution of legal issues. 
Rehnquist said: ``Affirmance of each of such conflicting results by an 
equally divided Court would lay down `one rule in Athens, and another 
in Rome,' with a vengeance.''
  Over 30 constitutional law scholars recently echoed that sentiment, 
writing: ``A vacancy on the Court for a year and a half likely 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 differ in meaning in various parts of the country.''
  Federal law is just that: It is Federal. We cannot have one 
interpretation of Federal law in Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky and a 
whole different interpretation of law in Wisconsin, Illinois, and 
Indiana.
  Previous Presidents have weighed in on the importance of a fully 
operational Court. President Reagan said: ``Every day that passes with 
a Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's business in 
that crucially important body.''
  I know many of my colleagues in the Senate revere President Reagan, 
and I wish to repeat his important words that have so much relevance to 
what we are debating here today. He said: ``Every day that passes with 
a Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's business in 
that crucially important body.''
  In fact, President Reagan was able to make a Supreme Court 
appointment in his final year in office. The Senate fulfilled its 
duties by providing timely consideration of that nominee, Justice 
Anthony Kennedy.
  Forcing lower courts to serve as the courts of last resort empowers 
congressionally created courts and weakens the Supreme Court in a way 
that was never intended by the Framers of the United States 
Constitution.
  I wish to remind my colleagues that the Constitution allows Congress 
to decide how to organize the lower courts. But the Constitution 
requires--it requires--the advice and consent of the Senate for 
confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. We must do our job so that the 
Supreme Court can do theirs.
  The American people have elected President Obama to office twice, and 
he has a constitutional obligation and clear authority to nominate a 
candidate to succeed Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court.
  The Senate has previously confirmed six Supreme Court nominees in 
Presidential election years, including most recently under President 
Reagan. There is no reason we should not consider any nominee put 
forward by the President with a fair hearing and a vote. Each and every 
Member of this body has the responsibility to thoroughly scrutinize and 
decide whether or not to confirm the President's nominee.
  I ran for the U.S. Senate because of my desire to serve the people of 
the State of Michigan. I took an oath, as did every Member of this 
body, swearing to defend the Constitution and faithfully discharge the 
duties of our office.
  The Senate must honor the thoughtfulness of our country's forefathers 
and respect the independence of each of the branches of our Nation's 
government. We must also respect the United States Constitution. The 
role of the Supreme Court is simply too important to our democracy for 
the Senate to ignore the Constitution and wait nearly a year to do its 
job.
  Members of this body must fulfill their obligations. The Members of 
this body must honor their duty and uphold their constitutional oath. 
And the Members of this body must fully consider and evaluate the 
qualifications of any nominee the President submits.
  I look forward to doing my own thorough review of the President's 
nominee and working with my colleagues to fulfill our essential 
constitutional duties.
  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. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page 2865]]


  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Biomedical Research

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, last year the law everybody wanted to 
fix was named No Child Left Behind. Despite many different opinions and 
many different political attitudes, we got it done. I give great credit 
to the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Patty Murray, and to the members 
of our Education Committee, 22 Senators of widely divergent political 
views, for their willingness to do that.
  I often say if all you want to do is announce your opinion, you can 
do that at home. You can stand on the street corner and preach or you 
can get your own radio program, but if you want to be a U.S. Senator, 
after you announce your opinion, you are supposed to get a result, and 
that means work with other people to identify common areas of interest 
and see if you can, and we were able to do that with the bill that 
fixed No Child Left Behind. Not only did we reach a consensus that 
needed to be fixed, we reached a consensus on how to fix it. The 
President signed it on December 10. He called it a Christmas miracle. 
It passed broadly in this body and it had the effect of reversing the 
trend toward a national school board, of repealing the common core 
mandate, and of, according to the Wall Street Journal, being the 
largest devolution of power from Washington to local control of schools 
in 25 years. So it was a significant bill, and I would argue that no 
bill that the Congress enacted last year was more important.
  This year, I would suggest that if we are successful, that the most 
important bill that passes this body will be a bill to advance 
biomedical research, a companion bill to the 21st century cures bill 
the House of Representatives already passed. That is because this is 
the opportunity that everybody wants us to take. It is the opportunity 
to take advantage of the tremendous advances in scientific discovery 
that have created an environment where we have opportunities to help 
virtually every American.
  We are able to cure some cancers instead of just treat cancers. 
Children with cystic fibrosis are beginning to be actually cured of 
their disease, a disease that was completely debilitating. Remarkable 
advances are being made because of genomic research. We have 
exceptionally talented people in charge of the agencies in dealing with 
this; for example, Dr. Francis Collins with the National Institutes of 
Health and now the recently confirmed Dr. Califf at the Food and Drug 
Administration. So this is the best opportunity we have to make a mark 
in the Senate this year to help virtually every American, and we have 
some catching up to do.
  It is rare that I would admit the House of Representatives is ahead 
of us, but they are. They called their bill the 21st century cures 
bill. We have a common objective; that is, to get cures, drugs, and 
treatments through the regulatory process and the investment process 
more rapidly and into the medicine cabinets of the doctors' offices so 
they can help people. They finished their work last year. The President 
has taken the lead. He has called for a Precision Medicine Initiative. 
It is one of his major initiatives. I talked with him about it last 
year. I said: Mr. President, we will help you do that, and the way to 
do it is through our Biomedical Innovation Initiative. What he wants to 
do, to begin with, is to get a million genome sequenced so that when 
the Senator from Arizona is sick--which he rarely is, he is in such 
good health--or I am sick, the doctor may prescribe medicine that fits 
our own individual genome and not just a medicine that is, in effect, 
one-size-fits-all. That is just part of the excitement of precision 
medicine. And then more recently the President has announced the Cancer 
Moonshot to try to make further advances in that.
  There is additional interest on both sides of the aisle in a surge of 
new funding for the National Institutes of Health, possibly including 
mandatory funding, if it is properly done, which means replacing other 
mandatory funding. There is bipartisan interest in that.
  But none of that will happen unless we move through our committee and 
on to the floor and to a conference with the House and on to the 
President's desk our biomedical research bill, our companion bill to 
the 21st century cures.
  The only way to get support for the President's Precision Medicine 
Initiative, the only way to get the Cancer Moonshot, the only way to 
get a surge of funding that may include mandatory funding for the NIH 
is to pass this bill. Let's be blunt about it.
  The good news is, we are making good progress. We are making good 
progress. I wanted to report to the Senate that this morning we had our 
second markup, our second meeting of our full committee where we 
discussed the measure we have been working on for more than a year for 
our biomedical innovation bill. We have come up with 50 bipartisan 
proposals that Members have been working on to get patients access to 
more drugs, cures, and treatments in a safe and effective way. We have 
held 10 bipartisan hearings on our innovation project, and 6 of those 
10 hearings have been on an electronic health care records system. That 
program, we found, was in a ditch. The taxpayers have spent $30 million 
on it to try to draw into it doctors and hospitals to use electronic 
medical records so that you could take--so you know what your records 
are and the doctors could prescribe and diagnosis more easily. The 
problem was, it wasn't done very well. Stage one was helpful, most of 
the hospitals and doctors said to me. Stage two was difficult, and 
stage three, in their words, was terrifying.
  Precision medicine will not work unless we have an interoperable 
electronic health care records system that has as its goal simplifying 
what happens in the doctor's office or the patient's bedroom in such a 
way--both with devices and with data--that people can make sense of it. 
It will improve the practice of medicine. It will reduce the huge 
amount of time doctors are spending on documentation. Some doctors say 
they spend 40 or 50 percent of their time doing that. If they are doing 
that, either they are doing something wrong or the government is doing 
something wrong, and my guess is we are. That is my guess. So we set 
out this year to take several steps to change that.
  The administration--and I will give them credit--has gotten the 
message as well, and they, including Dr. DeSalvo and Secretary Burwell 
and Andy Slavitt, the head of CMS, have made a priority of trying to 
take this electronic medical records system and get it back on track so 
that doctors and physicians will see it as an opportunity and not as a 
burden.
  We have several steps in our legislation that will help make 
electronic medical records work better. They include giving agencies 
more flexibility for alliances like the Vanderbilt-Google partnership 
that was announced the other day. They include dealing with the privacy 
issues that occur when you get a million genomes sequenced. They 
include encouraging interoperability and data sharing that is essential 
to doing this. So we are all working together to do that, but it will 
be necessary to pass our bill for electronic medical records to move 
more rapidly, and it will be necessary for the electronic medical 
records system to work if the President's Precision Medicine Initiative 
is to work.
  Last month we had a markup in our committee where we considered 15 of 
our bipartisan proposals and 7 bills, and we passed them all. The bills 
will mean better pacemakers for Americans with heart conditions, better 
rehabilitation for stroke victims, more young researchers entering the 
medical field, and better access for doctors to their patients' medical 
records, as I just described. And for the parents of a child suffering 
from a rare disease like cystic fibrosis, the bill from Senators 
Bennet, Burr, Warren, and Hatch increases the chances that researchers 
will find a treatment or cure for your child's disease. That was the 
good work in the committee last month.
  Today, we met all morning and we considered 7 more bills, and about 
15

[[Page 2866]]

more proposals were incorporated in those bills. Each of those bills, 
the Senators feel, is an important step forward. For example, Senators 
Casey, Isakson, Brown, and Kirk offered a bill, which was passed, to 
create drugs to treat or cure rare diseases in children.
  Senators Burr, Bennet, Hatch, and Donnelly proposed, and it was 
passed, to create a new system for breakthrough devices that is similar 
to the breakthrough for drugs that Senator Burr and Senator Bennet and 
others worked on in 2012, and that has shown such promise and such 
results. Everyone is pleasantly--I wouldn't say surprised, but maybe 
surprised by how many new drugs have been approved by the FDA using the 
breakthrough process from 2012. We hope the same will be true with the 
breakthrough process for devices.
  Senators Bennet and Hatch offered a bill that will remove the 
uncertainty in the definition of ``medical devices'' that was adopted 
in 1976. Most people didn't even know what software was in 1976.
  Senators Burr, Casey, Isakson, and Roberts had a bill to spur the 
development to save the lives of victims of bioterror.
  Senators Isakson, Casey, Donnelly, and Roberts offered a bill to 
prevent the promising new field of combination products from getting 
caught in redtape at the FDA. By combination products, I mean devices 
and drugs together.
  A bill from Senators Wicker, Klobuchar, Bennet, Collins, and Franken 
would increase the say patients would have in the FDA approval process 
about treatments received in a clinical trial.
  Senators Franken, Nelson, Isakson, and Brown had a bill to encourage 
companies to develop a treatment, cure, or vaccine for the Zika virus.
  These were all adopted, but for these to become law, we have to pass 
our bill. We have to bring it to the floor this year, and we have to do 
it in a bipartisan way and pass our bill.
  At 3 markups--our third one will be in April--we will consider 50 
proposals, and every single one of them has bipartisan support. There 
are two or three areas where we have a difference of opinion. I am glad 
to see the Senator from Illinois is here because one of the areas we 
discussed this morning is one where he has been very important, and 
that is to have a surge of additional funding for the National 
Institutes of Health. Numbers of us were very proud of the work Senator 
Murray, Senator Blunt, Senator Durbin, and others did to make sure that 
we had $2 billion more in the regular appropriations last year for the 
National Institutes of Health--very important.
  A number of us believe that it would be appropriate in connection 
with this innovation legislation to have a surge of additional funding 
for specific projects at the National Institutes of Health but not at 
the expense of a steady increase in the regular discretionary funding. 
There are a variety of reasons for that. I won't go into them all today 
because the Senator from Illinois may want to speak. But if we are 
talking about mandatory funding, mandatory funding is already out of 
control, and the President's new budget has $682 billion of mandatory 
funding in it. It also has new taxes to pay for it, which the Congress 
isn't going to adopt. The more responsible proposal would be to reduce 
mandatory funding by $682 billion.
  In any event, if we have any mandatory funding, it needs to replace 
other mandatory funding. And we don't want to create a situation where 
anyone gets the idea that mandatory funding is a substitute for steady 
increases in discretionary funding, which has happened before. As 
Senator Blunt pointed out this week in our appropriations hearing, when 
the Congress put in the mandatory funding for community health centers 
and the National Health Service Corps, the discretionary funds started 
to dry up.
  So we have different proposals for how to deal with this. The 
Democratic Senators on our committee have recommended $50 billion over 
the next 10 years. I recommended an NIH innovation fund which would 
create a surge of funding for high-priority initiatives at NIH, 
including the President's Precision Medicine Initiative, the Cancer 
Moonshot, the BRAIN Initiative, Big Biothink Awards, and a Young 
Investigator Corps. It would be in addition to discretionary funds, not 
a replacement for them.
  So my hope is that Senator Murray and I and our committee can work 
together over the next 2 or 3 weeks and complete our work on our 
biomedical research legislation by our markup on April 6. I hope we can 
come to the floor and present to Senator McConnell, the majority 
leader, along with that, a bipartisan consensus for an additional surge 
of funding, including mandatory funding for medical research in the 
areas I have suggested. I have said that we will need to replace other 
mandatory funding in order for it to be considered. I hope we can work 
that way in the committee, and I hope the Senate will look forward to 
receiving this.
  I will conclude by simply saying that last year I believe no bill was 
more important that we worked on in the Senate than the bill to fix No 
Child Left Behind. It affected 50 million children, 3.5 million 
teachers, and 100,000 public schools. The only reason it happened was 
because we had Senators of very different backgrounds and attitudes and 
political differences who agreed that a result was more important. The 
same here. The opportunity everybody wants us to take this year is to 
take advantage of this magnificent scientific revolution and encourage 
the research and the other steps we need to take to move treatments and 
cures and drugs into the medicine cabinets and the doctors' offices 
more rapidly, in a safe and effective way. I believe we can do that. I 
hope our work is finished by early April. I hope it is bipartisan.
  I look forward to the opportunity of being able to say later this 
year that the most important bill the Senate worked on with the House 
and the President is this 21st century cures idea. The House has done 
its job. The President is out front. We need to catch up. I am 
convinced we can.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, having followed my friend and colleague 
from Tennessee, Senator Alexander has spelled out an exciting 
possibility, and I know it won't be easy. It is a heavy political lift. 
But what he is talking about is coming up with a dramatic commitment of 
funds for medical research for the next 8, 9, or 10 years, over and 
above the ordinary budget of the National Institutes of Health.
  We have sat down and talked about this several times, and I 
wholeheartedly endorse not only his concept but also when he gets down 
to specifics. Some of the things he wants to focus on, including the 
Moonshot for Cancer, for example, is one, of course, the President and 
the Vice President and the vast majority of Americans would endorse 
because there isn't a single one of us who hasn't been touched by the 
threat or the actual disease of cancer among our families and friends.
  I won't go through the entire list, but whether we are dealing with 
the issues involving the brain, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, 
neurological issues--there are so many needs there, and I 
wholeheartedly endorse what he is setting out to do. On a bipartisan 
basis, I will work with him and Senator Murray and Senator Blunt and 
Senator Lindsey Graham. We all share these feelings, that this is 
something that will be a legacy item for this Senate.
  I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his leadership and his 
cooperation in building up the budget for the National Institutes of 
Health research this year. The $2 billion will make a difference. I 
thank the Senator for being on the floor.


                           Lead Contamination

  Mr. President, I would like to address a couple of issues.
  The contaminated water crisis in Flint, MI, is a wake-up call across 
America. We have to have protections

[[Page 2867]]

in place when it comes to lead contamination. My heart goes out to 
people in Flint, MI, dealing with the consequences of this preventable, 
manmade crisis. The Senate needs to do something to help the people of 
Flint. We must also recognize that children across America are poisoned 
every day by lead, and we need to do something about it to protect 
these families.
  A Chicago Tribune reporter, Michael Hawthorne, recently authored some 
articles on this issue, revealing hundreds of cases of childhood lead 
poisoning stemming from different sources in Flint, such as lead-based 
paint in federally subsidized housing. That's right--housing we own as 
taxpayers, housing we manage as the Federal Government, and housing 
which is dangerous to the children who are living there. Exposure to 
high levels of lead poisoning can be devastating to a child, causing 
irreparable damage. Because the children who live in this housing are 
from low-income families--many minority families--lead poisoning can 
further trap these kids in the cycles of poverty, violence, and 
inequality. Families are often stuck in the homes even after the lead 
is discovered with no place to go.
  That is why Senator Menendez from New Jersey and I joined together to 
offer the Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act, to ensure safe and affordable 
housing by reducing the threat of lead exposure and lead poisoning. 
Congressional Representatives Keith Ellison, Mike Quigley from my State 
of Illinois, Brenda Lawrence, and Dan Kildee have introduced companion 
legislation in the House.
  Since the enactment of Federal lead policies in the early 1990s, lead 
poisoning rates have fallen. This is a big success story. However, the 
risk of lead poisoning from lead-based paint hazards found in homes 
continues to threaten kids who are living in homes built before 1978. 
This is especially true in Illinois. It is a problem in Cleveland, 
Baltimore, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and many other cities.
  HUD regulations are outdated, ineffective, and based on old 
scientific discoveries that haven't been updated. Under current HUD 
regulations, a landlord is not required to remediate a home to make it 
safe where lead-based paint hazards have been found until a child's 
blood lead level is 20 micrograms of lead per deciliter. That standard 
from HUD is four times the standard of the Centers for Disease Control. 
When I asked Secretary Castro of Housing and Urban Development why 
would we have such a disparity--why would you allow lead contamination 
in a child four times the level of what the Centers for Disease Control 
says is acceptable? He said: I have no answer, and we are going to 
change it. It is just wrong. I salute him for acknowledging that, and I 
hope to help him in any way I can to change this regulation.
  We also need better inspections. Inspections to qualify to be a part 
of a Federal housing program are cursory visual inspections. There is 
no way to discover lead paint that can be dangerous to household 
members or kids unless you have a thorough inspection. In addition to 
that, once we discover there is lead in the residence, we have to find 
another place for the family to live unless that lead can be remediated 
quickly.
  No one knows this better than Lanice Walker. She moved out of public 
housing in 2012 and into a home with a housing choice voucher. What an 
opportunity for her family--a new home. Less than 5 months after she 
and her family moved in, her 4-year-old daughter was diagnosed with 
lead poisoning. Lanice was aware of the dangers of lead in kids. She 
asked the Chicago Housing Authority for permission to move. They said 
no. Why? Because her daughter's blood level hadn't met the HUD 
standard. It met the CDC standard, which was one-fourth, but hadn't met 
the HUD standards. So despite her daughter having a blood lead level 
twice that of what the CDC considers to be dangerous, they wouldn't 
move her out of her house. So she stayed. Within the next year, another 
child in the house was diagnosed with lead poisoning, too, and then 
another one. Before she moved out, all nine of Lanice's children had 
elevated blood lead levels. Even so, she received permission to move 
only after legal advocates intervened. This could have been avoided if 
the home had been properly inspected.
  Sadly, this isn't an isolated incident. Since 2012, in Chicago alone 
at least 180 kids in section 8 housing have fallen victim to this 
mismatch in the blood level standards. After hearing Lanice's story, 
the Chicago Housing Authority said it would voluntarily recognize the 
CDC guidelines, even though HUD didn't require them to. That is a good 
step. However, families all across America need the same relief that 
will come when HUD standards are changed. That is what this bill is all 
about. I commend it to my colleagues and hope they would look at it 
carefully in an effort to ensure that public housing is safe.
  What did we learn in Flint, MI? We think 9,000 children were exposed 
to the lead in the water that has had an impact on them--for some, 
brain damage that cannot be reversed. Who will answer for the poisoning 
of 9,000 children? How can we answer to the next generation that faces 
this hazard if we don't take this important step?
  We need to ensure that Federal lead standards are updated in 
accordance with the best available science, and adopt primary 
prevention measures to protect children from lead exposure in low-
income housing. That means aligning HUD standards with the CDC's 
standards and requiring a risk assessment before a family moves into a 
home, and allowing mothers like Lanice Walker to move her family 
without the fear of losing assistance when a lead hazard is identified.
  We all know how destructive lead poisoning is on children and our 
society. Yet, our federal policies are actually allowing young children 
to stay in unsafe homes for months after they have been diagnosed with 
lead poisoning. By updating HUD's regulations, we can protect the most 
vulnerable children from the harmful, irreversible effects of lead 
poisoning.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in this important effort. American 
children are depending on it, and they cannot afford to wait.
  Mr. President, we have a bill before us to deal with opioids and the 
heroin crisis. It is a crisis that hit Illinois and hit it hard. Across 
Illinois we suffered from over 1,700 drug overdose deaths in 2014--a 
30-percent increase over 2010; 40 percent were associated with heroin.
  Last October in Chicago, in a weekend, we had 74 people die from 
fentanyl-laced heroin overdoses in 72 hours. The Chicago metro area 
ranked first in the country, sadly, for total number of emergency 
department heroin visits. This is higher than New York, which has three 
times the population. This epidemic demands our attention. We need a 
comprehensive solution.
  First, look at Pharma flooding America with opioids such as 
OxyContin, hydrocodone, and similar opioid products. In the last year, 
there was a calculation that there were some 14 billion opioid pills 
manufactured by pharmaceutical companies in America. That is enough to 
give every adult person in America a 1-month prescription of opioids. 
Naturally, everyone doesn't need it, but they keep generating these 
volumes because the demand is there--not for medicinal purposes, sadly, 
but for narcotic purposes. The pharmaceutical industry has a 
responsibility, and doctors have a responsibility. Those pills don't 
move from the pharmaceutical companies to the end user except with a 
doctor and a pharmacy in most instances.
  Many doctors are too loose in their prescriptions when it comes to 
painkillers. They prescribe too many pills. I guess somebody makes more 
money that way, or maybe doctors are not bothered on weekends that way, 
but, sadly, it puts into circulation a lot of medications that are not 
needed for pain. Some pharmacies know exactly what is going on as 
people walk in with scrip after scrip for opioids. They fill them 
without question. Many States don't have laws to monitor these sales.
  Then comes the devastation of opioid addiction followed by heroin 
addiction. I have seen it across my State. There isn't a city too small 
or a suburb too wealthy or any corner of my State that

[[Page 2868]]

hasn't been touched by this crisis. It is everywhere. Many of the kids 
that I have seen at these roundtables who have survived it and tell 
their heroic stories of coming back from heroin addiction--you look in 
their eyes and say: I would never have picked that kid out of a high 
school class to be a heroin addict. Some of them have been addicts for 
years before they finally get the treatment they need.
  We need a comprehensive solution to address this crisis. We must 
prevent drug companies from flooding the market with excessive amounts 
of addictive pills. We must encourage the Drug Enforcement 
Administration to use their existing authority to keep unnecessary 
drugs off the market. We must crack down on doctors who over-prescribe 
and pharmacies that over-dispense. We must remove barriers to substance 
use disorder treatments, which is why Senator King and I introduced 
legislation ensuring that lower-income patients suffering from 
substance abuse disorders are able to get the care they so desperately 
need. And we must put our money where our mouth is. We cannot expect 
real change to come about through good intentions. We can authorize all 
the programs we want, issue all the directives we want, cite all the 
statistics we want, but nothing will change unless we give our Federal 
agencies and local governments the resources necessary to tackle this 
complex problem head on.
  This bill before us is a step in the right direction. It requires the 
establishment of a Federal interagency task force to develop best 
practices for pain management and pain medication prescribing, creates 
a national drug awareness campaign on the risks of opioid abuse, and 
authorizes grants to States, locals, and nonprofits to address opioid 
abuse and fund treatment alternatives.
  This bill could have a positive impact on communities in need if we 
are able to provide the necessary funding. That is why in addition to 
supporting the underlying bill I also strongly supported the amendment 
that Senator Shaheen offered last week. That amendment would have 
provided $600 million in emergency supplemental appropriations to 
address the heroin and opioid abuse epidemic. These funds would have 
helped ramp up law enforcement efforts, drug treatment and enforcement 
programs, and prevention programs through the Justice Department. They 
would have enhanced prescription drug monitoring programs. They would 
have improved access to medication assisted treatment services to high-
risk areas as well as support school and community partnerships to 
create safe and drug-free environments and provide additional 
assistance to States to help pay for prevention and treatment care.
  Unfortunately, Senator Shaheen's amendment was defeated when a 
majority of Republicans decided to vote against it. If we fail to 
provide the needed resources to help communities and families in need, 
we may be back here a year from now saying we should have done more. 
Families in Illinois and across the country can't wait that long.
  I support both the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act and the 
Shaheen amendment. But the bill should also address some of the many 
issues I have learned about at roundtable discussions in Illinois while 
talking to families, doctors, law enforcement, and those who have 
overcome substance abuse addiction.
  That is why I introduced several amendments that would have helped 
improve the underlying bill, from requiring greater consideration at 
FDA before new opioids can come onto the market, to creating incentives 
for States to improve their prescription drug monitoring programs, to 
removing existing barriers to substance abuse treatment for lower-
income patients, to requiring greater transparency on how many opioids 
are being manufactured in the United States annually. I am disappointed 
that many of these amendments will not receive a vote this week, but I 
will continue working with my colleagues in the Senate to advance these 
important proposals.
  Let me say that one of the things that has helped is the fact that 
years ago here in the U.S. Senate, two of my colleagues who no longer 
serve really did something historic. One was Paul Wellstone of 
Minnesota, who passed away in an airplane crash, and the other, Pete 
Domenici, a retired Senator from New Mexico. They required that every 
health insurance policy in America cover two things that weren't 
covered by many: one, mental health counseling and the other, substance 
abuse treatment.
  We built that into ObamaCare, so when you buy a health insurance 
policy in America today, it covers substance abuse treatment as well as 
mental health counseling. Luckily for many families, when their kids 
end up being addicted, they can turn to their health insurance, and 
their health insurance can help pay for substance abuse treatment. We 
need other sources, as well, when it comes to treatment for Medicaid, 
but for those who want to repeal ObamaCare and get rid of it, that is 
another provision to ask them about. Do they really want to get rid of 
a requirement that health insurance policies cover mental health 
counseling and substance abuse treatment? I think it is important that 
we have it. I am not sure what we would do without it.
  The opioid abuse and heroin epidemic is a national public health 
emergency that requires a comprehensive response coupled with the 
necessary funding to actually make a difference. The amendments I have 
filed, as well as the Shaheen amendment, would make important 
improvements and provide emergency funding to help families in Illinois 
and across the country. Our communities need us to come together as 
partners to help solve this problem. I hope we do not let them down.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Mr. President, I see my colleague from Oklahoma is here. This is the 
last statement I want to make, and it relates to the Supreme Court 
vacancy.
  A group of historians and scholars sent a letter to President Obama 
about the Supreme Court vacancy occasioned by the death of Justice 
Antonin Scalia. The signers of the letter include Robert Dallek, Doris 
Kearns Goodwin, David M. Kennedy, Thomas E. Mann, Norman Ornstein, 
Geoff Stone, and numerous others.
  The letter provides a helpful historical perspective on the decision 
by the Senate Republican majority to refuse any nominee to fill this 
vacancy a hearing before the U.S. Senate--something that has never 
happened in the history of the U.S. Senate.
  The Senate Republicans have said to keep that Scalia vacancy right 
where it is--a 4-to-4 Supreme Court for at least a year longer. We 
haven't had a vacancy in the Supreme Court for over a year since the 
Civil War tore this Nation apart over 150 years ago.
  This letter that has been sent to the President will be shared here. 
It makes clear that the actions that are being called for by the 
Republican majority are unprecedented--unprecedented. They have never 
happened--the fact that they would refuse to have a hearing for a 
nominee to fill the Scalia vacancy or a vote on that nominee.
  One only has to go back to 1988, not that long ago, when President 
Ronald Reagan, a Republican outgoing President in the last year of his 
Presidency sent a name to the U.S. Senate, then in control by a 
Democratic majority, to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Did the 
Democrats in the Senate in 1988 say to President Reagan: Oh, you are a 
lameduck. You are going to be gone in a year. We will wait until after 
the election. No. They said the Constitution requires President Reagan 
to send the Senate a name, and it requires the Senate to advise and 
consent, and they did. They had a hearing and they had a vote and 
Anthony Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee to the Supreme Court, was 
sent to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan with the support 
of the Democratic Senate majority. That is consistent with the 
Constitution.
  I hope we can return to that, and I hope that future generations will 
judge that this Senate under the control of the Senate majority party 
is going to live by the words of our Constitution.
  As I mentioned, a number of prominent historians and scholars from

[[Page 2869]]

across the political spectrum sent a letter to President Obama about 
the current vacancy on the Supreme Court.
  This letter provides a helpful historical perspective on the decision 
by Senate Republicans not to give any consideration to the forthcoming 
Supreme Court nominee.
  The letter begins by saying:

       We express our dismay at the unprecedented breach of norms 
     by the Senate majority in refusing to consider a nomination 
     for the Supreme Court made by a president with 11 months to 
     serve in the position. . . .
       It is standard practice when a vacancy occurs on the 
     Supreme Court to have a president, whatever the stage in his 
     term, nominate a successor and have the Senate consider it. 
     And standard practice (with limited exception) has been for 
     the Senate, after hearings and deliberation, to confirm the 
     president's choice, regardless of party control, when that 
     choice is deemed acceptable to a Senate majority.

  The letter notes that history is, ``replete with instances where a 
vacancy on the Supreme Court was filled during a presidential election 
year.''
  This includes 1988 under President Reagan; 1940 under President 
Roosevelt; 1932 under President Hoover; 1916 for two nominees named by 
President Wilson; and 1912 under President Taft.
  The letter also discusses how President Eisenhower used his recess 
appointment power in the presidential election year of 1956 to appoint 
Justice William Brennan. Eisenhower, a Republican, made that recess 
appointment on October 16 while the Senate was under Democratic 
control.
  The letter says, ``there was no objection to Eisenhower's use of the 
recess appointment--there was instead a widespread recognition that it 
was bad to have a Supreme Court operate for months without its full 
complement of nine members.''
  The letter then shifts from the lessons of history to the logical 
fallacies of the Republicans' position that a nominee of a so-called 
lameduck President should not be considered. Here's what it says:

       If we accept the logic that decisions made by ``lame duck'' 
     presidents are illegitimate or are to be disregarded until 
     voters make their choice in the upcoming election, that begs 
     both the questions of when lame duck status begins (after 
     all, a president is technically a `lame duck' from the day of 
     inauguration), and why senators up for reelection at the same 
     time should not recuse themselves from decisions until the 
     voters have decided whether to keep them or their partisans 
     in office.

  The letter ultimately concludes that, ``the refusal to hold hearings 
and deliberate on a nominee at this level is truly unprecedented and, 
in our view, dangerous.''
  I hope my Republican colleagues heed the words of these preeminent 
historians.
  There will be real consequences if the Senate fails to do its job and 
leaves a Supreme Court vacancy open for an extended time.
  As President Ronald Reagan said in 1987, quote, ``Every day that 
passes with a Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's 
business in that crucially important body.''
  Major legal and constitutional questions are constantly brought 
before the Supreme Court for national resolution. When a case ends up 
with a tie vote among the Justices, the Supreme Court's ruling has no 
precedential impact and important questions go unresolved.
  As Gregory Garre, former Solicitor General under President George W. 
Bush, recently said, ``the prospect of numerous 4-4 ties or dismissals 
would be undesirable to the Court.''
  Millions of Americans are awaiting resolution of the questions that 
are before the Court. It is not fair to leave them twisting in the 
wind.
  Consider the impact on the efforts of law enforcement to protect our 
communities.
  On February 23, four former United States Attorneys wrote an op-ed in 
the Cincinnati Enquirer.
  They said:

       For federal prosecutors, agents and criminal 
     investigations, a year is a lifetime. We have seen real 
     threats, whether it is the heroin epidemic or the threat of 
     ISIS recruitment, facing the people in our communities each 
     day. While law enforcement stands ready to protect the public 
     from those threats, they need to know the rules of the road.

  The op-ed continues:

       The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the hardest 
     and most important questions facing law enforcement and our 
     nation. Even as we write today, unsettled legal questions 
     regarding search and seizure, digital privacy and federal 
     sentencing are either pending before the Supreme Court or 
     headed there. It is unfair and unsafe to expect good federal 
     agents, police and prosecutors to spend more than a year 
     guessing whether their actions will hold up in court. And it 
     is just as unfair to expect citizens whose rights and 
     liberties are at stake to wait for answers while their homes, 
     emails, cell phones, records and activities are investigated.

  We expect our law enforcement agents and prosecutors to do their job 
every day, even in election years. We should expect Senators to do 
their jobs as well and fill this Supreme Court vacancy.
  Earlier this week, 356 constitutional law scholars wrote a letter to 
the Senate, explaining that ``a long term vacancy jeopardizes the 
Supreme Court's ability to resolve disputed questions of federal law, 
causing uncertainty and hampering the administration of justice across 
the country.''
  Justice Scalia, in a 2004 memorandum discussing the Supreme Court's 
recusal policy, noted the problems the Court faces when only eight 
Justices hear a case. He said that when the Court proceeds to hear a 
case with eight Justices, it ``rais[es] the possibility that, by reason 
of a tie vote, it will find itself unable to resolve the significant 
legal issue presented by the case.'' He then went on to note that under 
the Supreme Court's Statement of Recusal Policy, ``even one unnecessary 
recusal impairs the functioning of the Court.''
  Why would the Senate purposefully try to impair the functioning of 
the Supreme Court by leaving it with only eight Justices?
  The Senate should do its job and consider a Supreme Court nominee so 
the Court can function like it's supposed to. I urge my Republican 
colleagues to do their job. Give the President's nominee a hearing and 
a vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________