[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6097-6108]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                  APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 2:30 
p.m. will be equally divided between the managers or their designees.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, at this point I wish to yield to Senator 
Reed of Rhode Island, the subcommittee ranking member and the comanager 
of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me thank the chairman for her 
consideration. I rise in support of the Zika supplemental amendment 
offered by Senators Murray and Blunt, as well as the amendment offered 
by Senator Nelson.
  The threat of the Zika virus is a serious public health issue and 
Congress must act to help minimize the spread before we have an 
epidemic on our hands. It has been over 2 months since the 
Administration asked for emergency funds for a comprehensive response 
to the Zika virus and to speed up development of a vaccine. This should 
not be a partisan issue, and inaction leaves us more susceptible to 
this serious public health emergency. This disease is spreading rapidly 
in other countries, and as we saw last year with Ebola--and with other 
mosquito-borne illnesses--we are living in an interconnected world and 
we are not immune to the spread of these diseases.
  Already, there are over 1,000 cases of Zika virus in the United 
States and U.S. territories, including over 100 pregnant women. We have 
only seen two cases so far in my home State of Rhode Island, but the 
virus is spreading and it isn't going away on its own. We will 
certainly see these numbers increase as we approach the summer months.
  I had the opportunity to host a discussion in Rhode Island about this 
topic just a few weeks ago, bringing together Federal officials from 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National 
Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as well as public health 
officials from the Rhode Island Department of Health, among other 
experts in the State. Everyone agreed that funding is needed 
immediately to ensure that we are prepared for Zika.
  State and local public health departments will be critical to 
strengthening efforts to prevent and diagnose cases of Zika, among 
other mosquito-borne illnesses this summer. While transmission of 
mosquito-borne illnesses has been limited in the United States so far, 
it is critical that state and local public health departments have the 
resources they need--in addition to ongoing communication with the 
CDC--so they have the most up-to-date information on diagnostics and 
testing for mosquito-borne illnesses.
  The NIH also needs more resources to help fast-track research and 
development of a vaccine for the Zika virus. The Zika virus has the 
potential to circulate in the United States over the long term, and we 
need to be prepared for the fact that we will be combating this disease 
for more than just a few months in the summer.
  We also need more research on the virus. The Zika virus has been 
around for decades, and there have been outbreaks in other parts of the 
world, but we didn't know it could cause a birth defect called 
microcephaly that impacts brain development until this year. We still 
don't know the long-term

[[Page 6098]]

impacts on these children and their mothers.
  I plan to support Senator Nelson's amendment to fully fund the 
administration's Zika supplemental request. I appreciate his efforts to 
push this issue and to help ensure that we have robust funding to help 
combat the threat of Zika.
  While Senator Nelson's approach is preferable, I also plan to support 
the amendment of Senator Murray and Senator Blunt to provide $1.1 
billion in funding to address Zika. This amendment is a bipartisan 
compromise, and my hope is that no less than this funding level will 
move forward and be signed into law before we head into the summer 
months.
  It is so critical that we move quickly on this so our state and local 
health departments will have the resources they need to deal with the 
potential growing cases in the coming months. Senators Murray and Blunt 
have been working for weeks on this amendment, and I want to thank them 
for their commitment to get to this agreement.
  I will oppose Senator Cornyn's amendment, which would make harmful 
cuts to the Prevention and Public Health Fund. This is a classic case 
of robbing Peter to pay for Paul. The Prevention and Public Health Fund 
makes exactly the kinds of investments in our public health 
infrastructure that better prepare us to deal with emergencies like 
Zika or Ebola.
  The Prevention and Public Health Fund also helps fund disease 
prevention programs such as cancer screenings and immunization programs 
that save us money in the long run. Instead of cutting the Prevention 
and Public Health Fund to pay for the Zika supplemental, we should 
actually be investing more into these programs. So it is my hope we 
will reject this approach and instead pass emergency legislation today 
to deal with the Zika virus.
  The funding that will be made available as a result of today's votes 
will be critical in the efforts to prevent outbreaks of the disease in 
the United States and hopefully the creation of a vaccine in the near 
future.
  There is still a lot we don't know about the Zika virus--and once we 
pass this emergency funding package, Congress will still need to work 
together to continue evaluating needs and determining whether more 
resources are necessary.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to protect Americans 
from the potentially devastating impacts of the Zika virus.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, shortly the Senate will proceed to 
consider three alternative proposals to provide much needed funding to 
combat the Zika virus. I am deeply concerned about the rapidly emerging 
and evolving Zika virus, which poses a particular threat to pregnant 
women and can cause serious birth defects.
  To learn more about this virus and other public health challenges, I 
recently toured the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 
Atlanta, GA, with my friend and colleague Senator Isakson. I was deeply 
impressed by the team of extraordinarily dedicated public servants who 
work there. These scientists leverage an enormous range of knowledge to 
protect the American people, including through rapid response to 
infectious disease threats.
  CDC's experts told me they call the mosquito that carries the Zika 
virus the cockroach of the mosquito world because it is so difficult to 
get rid of. This mosquito can breed in water that fits within the size 
of a bottle cap. It is commonly found in the United States in areas 
like Florida and our gulf coast.
  There are now more than 1,000 cases of Zika virus in the United 
States and its three territories, including two laboratory-confirmed 
cases in the State of Maine. Earlier, one of our colleagues showed a 
map of the States that are most affected by Zika, but the fact is, due 
to travel, there are confirmed Zika cases in virtually every single 
State, but of course Puerto Rico in particular has been especially hard 
hit, with the number of cases soaring. These statistics are even more 
alarming when we consider that we have not yet reached the summer 
months when mosquitoes tend to be more prevalent. Recent studies 
suggest that Zika might spread across the warmer and wetter parts of 
the Western Hemisphere. As many as 200 million people in our country 
live in areas where the mosquito that carries the virus could 
potentially thrive.
  You may have read what may seem like good news--that the Zika virus 
is asymptomatic in approximately 80 percent of those affected, but CDC 
recently concluded that the virus causes microcephaly and a range of 
other severe fetal brain defects. Americans are justifiably worried 
about the Zika virus, as the failure to prevent its spread could have 
devastating consequences for our families.
  In addition to the human and emotional toll, the Zika virus may 
ultimately cost the United States an astonishing sum of money when we 
consider that we already spend more than $2.6 billion per year on 
hospital stays related to birth defects. So the investment we are 
making today is not only the right thing to do from a humanitarian and 
public health perspective, it is also the right thing to do from an 
economic viewpoint.
  In addition to these serious birth defects, the Zika virus has been 
linked to Guillain-Barre syndrome, a disease that can cause paralysis 
and even death.
  It is imperative that we take steps to combat the Zika virus without 
delay. To that end, I support the bipartisan compromise agreement 
worked out by Senators Blunt and Murray to provide an additional $1.2 
billion to combat the Zika virus, including $361 million for the CDC 
and $200 million for the National Institutes of Health. We can and we 
should do more to plan for emerging disease threats through the regular 
appropriations process so we do not have to turn frequently to 
emergency supplemental funding, but in this case the Zika virus is an 
imminent and evolving public health threat that cannot wait and that 
cannot be ignored.
  The CDC has a very specific plan to rapidly respond to this very real 
threat, including by developing diagnostic tests that will help us 
identify the virus and help to educate providers and the public about 
appropriate prevention methods. I think it is important to understand 
that the CDC is the interface with State and local public health 
centers and agencies, so its role is absolutely critical in the 
education and prevention process.
  The National Institutes of Health is similarly prepared to conduct 
research into vaccines that might help us better prevent the virus and 
the conditions that it can tragically cause, but again that requires 
funding.
  The CDC has sounded the alarm in its warning about a serious Zika 
outbreak in our country. It is essential we devote sufficient financial 
resources to meet this new challenge. I am convinced that today the 
Senate will do its part to deal with this serious threat to our public 
health.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry: How much 
time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the Senator from Maine has zero time remaining.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield back the remaining time on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.


                             Cloture Motion

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

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Senate amendment 
     No. 3898 to amendment No. 3896 to Calendar No. 138, H.R. 
     2577, an act making appropriations for the Departments of 
     Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2016, and for other purposes.
         Marco Rubio, Debbie Stabenow, Harry Reid, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Richard J. Durbin, Al Franken, Jeanne 
           Shaheen,

[[Page 6099]]

           Robert Menendez, Brian E. Schatz, Joe Manchin III, Bill 
           Nelson, Charles E. Schumer, Michael F. Bennet, Edward 
           J. Markey, Benjamin L. Cardin, Tom Udall, Gary C. 
           Peters.

  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 
amendment No. 3898, offered by the Senator from Kentucky for the 
Senator from Florida, to amendment No. 3896 to H.R. 2577, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under this rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 73 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cruz
     Enzi
     Sanders
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 
47.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.


                             Cloture Motion

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

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Senate amendment 
     No. 3899 to amendment No. 3896 to Calendar No. 138, H.R. 
     2577, an act making appropriations for the Departments of 
     Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2016, and for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Roy Blunt, Roger F. Wicker, Marco Rubio, 
           Lamar Alexander, Richard C. Shelby, Thad Cochran, John 
           McCain, Michael B. Enzi, Jeff Flake, John Cornyn, 
           Shelley Moore Capito, Johnny Isakson, Richard Burr, Bob 
           Corker, Susan M. Collins, John Hoeven.

  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 
amendment No. 3899, offered by the Senator from Kentucky for the 
Senator from Texas, to amendment No. 3896 to H.R. 2577, 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 Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 74 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--45

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cruz
     Enzi
     Sanders
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 
45.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.


                             Cloture Motion

  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 Senate amendment 
     No. 3900 to amendment No. 3896 to Calendar No. 138, H.R. 
     2577, an act making appropriations for the Departments of 
     Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2016, and for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Roy Blunt, Roger F. Wicker, Marco Rubio, 
           Lamar Alexander, Richard C. Shelby, Thad Cochran, John 
           McCain, Michael B. Enzi, Jeff Flake, John Cornyn, 
           Shelley Moore Capito, Johnny Isakson, Richard Burr, Bob 
           Corker, Susan M. Collins, John Hoeven.

  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 
amendment No. 3900, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. 
McConnell, for the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Blunt, to amendment No. 
3896 to H.R. 2577, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 68, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schumer

[[Page 6100]]


     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Tillis
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--29

     Barrasso
     Coats
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cruz
     Enzi
     Sanders
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 68, the nays are 
29.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Maine.


         Amendment No. 3946 to Amendment No. 3900, as Modified

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I call up the Blunt amendment No. 3946.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for Mr. Blunt, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3946 to amendment No. 3900, as 
     modified.

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require the periodic submission of spending plan updates 
                  to the Committee on Appropriations)

       On page 10 of the amendment, line 1, strike ``. The'' and 
     all that follows through the period on line 3, and insert the 
     following: ``: Provided, That such plans shall be updated and 
     submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate 
     every 90 days until September 30, 2017, and every 180 days 
     thereafter until all funds have been fully expended.''.

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I would now like to yield time to 
Senator Isakson for a statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maine for the 
recognition.


                    Amendment No. 3900, as Modified

  I want to commend Senator Collins and Senator Reed for their hard 
work and great leadership on this amendment, Senator Murray and Senator 
Blunt for bringing this issue before us, and the Senate for having the 
good sense to invoke cloture on it this afternoon.
  If anybody in the audience or in this room doesn't think this is an 
emergency, they should have been with Senator Collins and me 2 weeks 
ago at the CDC in Atlanta. We spent 4 hours looking at the depiction of 
what a Zika outbreak is going to look like if it doesn't stop and if we 
don't abate it.
  There have already been 1 million cases in the Caribbean, Central 
America, and South America and 500 cases in the United States of 
America, and it is going to grow. The faster we get our arms around it, 
the better off the American people are going to be.
  This is a lot of money, but it is only a pittance compared to what it 
would cost if the epidemic got out of control and we didn't stop it and 
defeat it. This money will go to Labor, Health and Human Services, the 
State Department, the CDC, and other entities to provide the education, 
training, and information necessary to get control of this disease.
  Remember what happened with Ebola. When it broke out and we finally 
got involved, only through CDC's ability to educate and also to contain 
and control the disease did we finally get our arms around it and stop 
the epidemic. The same thing is going to be true with Zika. We need to 
contain, control, and get the necessary education to the countries to 
see to it that we stop it.
  I commend the Senate for invoking cloture on the amendment today. I 
commend these two Senators for their hard work, and I am glad we are on 
the leading point of the spear. I want everybody to be clear--this is 
an emergency. Had we not invoked cloture on this amendment today, in 
months we would have had a greater emergency because Zika would have 
spread unabated in the Southern United States.
  Lastly, I want to give great credit to Senator Collins for all the 
hard work she has done on health and human services for so many years 
and for her hard work for the CDC. On behalf of Dr. Frieden, we are 
glad you finally came and visited. God bless you.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                            Opioid Epidemic

  Mr. KING. Madam President, we just invoked cloture on an amendment to 
deal with the funding of an incipient epidemic--an epidemic that has 
serious ramifications for our society and for our country--and it is 
right that we did that.
  I rise today, however, to point out the fact that we are in the midst 
not of an incipient epidemic but a real epidemic that since lunchtime 
today has killed 15 people in this country. Fifteen people have lost 
their lives since the middle of the day today. The epidemic I refer to, 
of course, is heroin and opiate drug abuse and addiction. This is a 
crisis which is upon us right now.
  A month or so ago, we passed with great fanfare the CARA bill, the 
comprehensive addiction bill. It was the right thing to do. It was a 
good bill, but it had no funding. Passing a bill like that with no 
funding is like sending the fire department to a fire with no water. We 
cannot deal with this problem until we have the capacity to provide 
treatment to the people who need it.
  Right now there is a huge shortage of treatment beds. There is even a 
shortage of detox beds, let alone treatment. When a person finally gets 
to the point where they are struggling with this terribly destructive 
disease and they are ready to embrace and take on the treatment, to not 
have it available or to have it available at an exorbitant cost is 
tragic.
  We are losing lives every hour--47,000 people a year--and it is 
expanding and exploding, and it is tearing our communities apart.
  I am delighted that we invoked cloture on an amendment involving the 
Zika virus. It is important that we do so. But we also should be 
attending to this crisis that is staring us right in the face and is 
tearing our country apart.
  I hope we can soon get to an amendment that will allow us to begin 
the process of funding the resolution of this scourge before it takes 
more lives and before it tears apart more families and communities.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, today the Senate invoked cloture on an 
amendment to provide more than $1 billion in emergency spending to help 
combat the Zika virus. I support this effort. I think it is a good 
amendment, and I commend our leaders in the Appropriations Committee 
for reaching this bipartisan agreement.
  However, I join my colleague from Maine, my colleague from West 
Virginia, and all of those who are disappointed that the opioid 
epidemic is not being treated with the same degree of urgency.
  Some Senators on the other side of the aisle have said it is their 
preference to deal with the opioid epidemic through the regular 
appropriations process. Let me say that I am not encouraged by the 
results so far. With all due respect to my colleagues, an extra $1 
million here and there for a few programs, which is what we are seeing 
in the appropriations process, is not going to address the nationwide 
crisis that Senator King has said is going to kill tens of thousands of 
Americans this year.
  While the HHS appropriations bill is still being drafted, because of 
the tight budget caps that are in place for this fiscal year, I am not 
optimistic that it will include the type of game-changing funding that 
we need to stem the tide of this crisis. Unfortunately, we saw that the 
Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill included only minor 
increases to programs to

[[Page 6101]]

address the heroin and opioid epidemic. That is why we need emergency 
funding, and we need it now.
  In March, the Senate had an opportunity to provide $600 million in 
emergency funding to address this crisis, but despite strong bipartisan 
support, that amendment was defeated on a point of order. Congress 
needs to rise to this challenge, just as it has done during previous 
public health emergencies and just as we are doing right now to address 
the Zika virus. Just last year Congress approved $5.4 billion to combat 
the Ebola outbreak, which killed one American, but in 2014, 47,000 
Americans died from drug overdoses. Each day we wait, another 120 
people die of drug overdoses. We are losing one person a day in New 
Hampshire.
  Now is the time to act. I urge my colleagues to reconsider.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, first of all, I thank my good friend 
from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, for putting in this most needed 
funding to fight this epidemic, and I thank Senator King from Maine as 
well. We are all fighting it.
  My State has been hit the hardest of all the States, and New 
Hampshire is right behind us as far as having more deaths from opioid 
drug abuse than any other State. If you put what we are asking for into 
perspective and look at what we have done over the years since the war 
on drugs began about four decades ago, we have spent $1 trillion in the 
United States, but we are fighting this war the wrong way. We have all 
looked at this as a horrific crime, and we have just kept putting 
people away. In that period of time, we spent $450 billion to lock up 
these people in Federal prisons and most of them were locked up for 
nonviolent crimes.
  We need to look at this. This is an illness, and to treat an illness, 
you have to have funding. We just talked about Zika, and we have done 
it for Ebola. I even checked what we have done with polio. Since we 
eradicated polio, we have saved this country $220 billion. Can you 
imagine what would have happened if we hadn't? We wanted to have it 
eradicated around the world by the year 2000.
  The savings is enormous, but the bottom line right now is 
productivity. I have the lowest workforce participation in the country 
right now in West Virginia. A lot of it is due to the addictions that 
people have. In 2014, we had 42,000 West Virginians--including 4,000 
youth--who sought treatment for illegal drug use but failed to receive 
it. There was no place for them to go. They wanted to change their 
lives. They asked in every way possible to do that, but we have no 
treatment centers.
  This goes a long way to basically help treat an illness which is 
absolutely destroying America, not just in West Virginia, New 
Hampshire, and Maine, but I am talking about all 50 States. We have an 
epidemic we are dealing with today. Yet we are not dealing with it 
because we have no treatment, and that is because no one has put the 
priorities and values that we have in this country to eradicate this 
horrible scourge in our country.
  I ask all of my colleagues to please reconsider the funding that is 
needed to fight opioid abuse with proper treatment around the country.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


 Brown v. Board of Education Anniversary and Filling the Supreme Court 
                                Vacancy

  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to discuss the pending vacancy on 
the U.S. Supreme Court, and I do so on a very momentous day in American 
legal history. May 17, today, is the anniversary of the Supreme Court's 
decision in the pivotal case of Brown v. Board of Education. On May 17, 
1954, the Supreme Court ruled that the promise of equality--stated as 
paramount in the Declaration of Independence and then reaffirmed in the 
14th Amendment to the Constitution passed in the aftermath of the Civil 
War--could not be denied to little school children based on their skin 
color. The Brown v. Board case was actually five cases consolidated 
together--one from Virginia, one from Kansas, one from Delaware, one 
from South Carolina, and one from the District of Columbia.
  While most of us know what the Brown case resolved, few remember that 
the Brown ruling was in serious jeopardy because of the death of a 
Supreme Court Justice and the deep divisions on the Court among the 
remaining eight members. It was only through the prompt filling of a 
judicial vacancy that the Court was able to come together and render a 
ruling in America's best interest.
  The Brown case was originally argued in 1952, and the court that 
heard the argument was hopelessly divided. In fact, it was so divided 
that they asked that the case be reargued in 1953, and then to make 
matters worse, Chief Justice Fred Vinson died before the reargument. By 
many accounts, his death left the Court evenly divided over an issue of 
the most fundamental importance. Had the vacancy left by the death of 
Judge Vinson persisted, there is no way of predicting whether the 
Supreme Court could have even resolved the case. Imagine how different 
our history as a Nation would be if the Supreme Court had been unable 
to decide on a matter of fundamental importance.
  President Eisenhower nominated former California Governor Earl Warren 
to fill the vacancy. The Senate did its job, held a prompt hearing, and 
confirmed the appointment. Chief Justice Warren then used his skill to 
cut through the division and convince his colleagues that the Court 
should speak unanimously and say that a child's skin color should not 
determine which school he or she should attend. Because the Senate did 
its job, the Court was able to do its job, and all of America was 
lifted.
  I have listened to my colleagues and Virginia citizens about the 
current Supreme Court vacancy for 3 months. I have come to this 
conclusion: I think the Senate is treading on dangerous ground here. We 
are communicating--and I think the communication could be 
unintentional--a message to our public that is painful, and our actions 
in this high-profile matter are creating pain among many of my 
constituents. I fear that a precedent is about to be set that could 
undermine all three branches of our government.
  I offer these comments today because the Senate can correct the 
dangerous message we are sending, and I hope that calm reflection will 
call us to honor the great traditions of this body.
  The death of Justice Scalia on February 13 created a naturally 
occurring vacancy on a Court that is statutorily required to have nine 
members. Within hours of Justice Scalia's death, the majority leader 
announced a blockade on the vacancy, declaring that no nomination by 
President Obama would ever receive a hearing or a vote. This hastily 
announced blockade has been described as follows: The majority thinks 
the American people should decide on the Presidential race, and 
therefore, this nomination should be for the next President to make, 
even if that means a Supreme Court vacancy for more than a year.
  I want to examine the majority's rationale. What has the Senate done 
in other instances when a vacancy has occurred during the last year of 
a President's term? Well, that is easy enough to find out. Before 
Justice Scalia's death, more than a dozen Justices have been confirmed 
during a Presidential year. For the last 100 years, with the exception 
of nominees who have withdrawn their nomination, the Senate has taken 
action on every pending nominee to fill a vacancy on the Court.
  In the past, some Senators have suggested that a vacancy occurring 
during the final year of a Presidential term should be entitled to less 
deference than other Executive nominations, but that is related to the 
question of whether or not a Senator votes yes or no, and, of course, 
Senators are free to vote yes or no on nominees. But the refusal to 
even consider a nominee is unprecedented.
  Beyond the precedent of previous Senate actions, let's look at 
article II, section 2, of the Constitution. It says that the President 
``shall nominate''

[[Page 6102]]

and ``appoint''--``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate''--
various officials, including Supreme Court Justices.
  While all agree that the advice and consent provision gives the 
Senate the ability to affirm or reject a nominee, there is nothing in 
the clause suggesting that the Senate can blockade the consideration of 
a nominee, and there is certainly nothing in the clause to suggest that 
the President's appointed powers or the Senate's confirmation powers 
are somehow limited in the last year of a Presidential term.
  Finally, the meaning of the constitutional clause was extensively 
discussed as the Constitution was drafted, approved, and ratified by 
the States, and Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper 76 also discusses 
the provision at length. All understood that the advice and consent 
provision was an opportunity for the Senate to determine whether a 
Presidential nominee for a Senate confirmable position possessed ``fit 
character.'' That is the check against Presidential power intended by 
the clause. The President, knowing that a Senate would inquire into the 
character of a nominee, would not just nominate people purely for 
partisan, personal, or regional reasons--wanting to fill it with people 
from my State, for example. ``Fit character'' would require that the 
President nominate somebody who could pass that scrutiny in the Senate. 
``Fit character'' is a phrase with some significant subjectivity to it, 
giving each Senator the ability to decide what it means in a given 
instance. But the position that the character of the nominee doesn't 
matter at all--as evidenced by the majority's view that there would be 
no meetings, no hearings, and no vote regardless of the person 
nominated for the vacancy--is directly contrary, in my view, to the 
intent of the provision.
  I look at this, and I believe the asserted rationale that we should 
not take up the Garland nomination because the vacancy occurred in the 
final year of a Presidential term is at odds with the text of the 
Constitution, with the clear meaning of the text, as explained during 
the drafting of the provision, and with the clear line of Senate action 
in previous cases.
  What could explain the blockade of Judge Garland? I obviously don't 
know, and I can't comment upon motivations that I am unaware of, but I 
do want to discuss how it appears--a perception that we are leaving, 
possibly unwittingly, based on my discussions with Virginians. The 
current Senate blockade is variously interpreted as an opposition to 
the nominee, as opposition to the particular President making the 
nomination, or as some effort to undermine judicial independence.
  Let's look at those three interpretations that are very commonly held 
by Virginians and others. The first interpretation: Is it opposition to 
the nominee? I think we can dispense with that pretty quickly. The 
blockade strategy is not based on the character of the nominee, Judge 
Merrick Garland, and I can assert this safely because the blockade 
strategy was announced--no meeting, no hearing, no vote--before the 
President even nominated Judge Garland. It was said that regardless of 
the character of a particular nominee, they would not entertain a 
nomination from this particular President. This is ironic, given that 
the nomination for a Supreme Court Justice is fundamentally about the 
very essence of justice and that the essence of justice must carry with 
it a duty to consider each individual on his or her own merits. The 
position that we would refuse to consider Judge Garland on his own 
merits seems contrary, to me, to the very notion of justice itself.
  Now that Judge Garland has been nominated, we also know that the 
blockade is not about the character of the nominee. Judge Garland has 
an esteemed record as a prosecutor, private practitioner, and Federal 
appellate judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. He is the chief 
judge on that court. His judicial service alone is approaching the 20-
year mark on a court that most believe is second in importance only to 
the U.S. Supreme Court.
  I have not seen any Member of the majority assert any credible 
weakness in Judge Garland's background, integrity, experience, 
character, judicial temper, or fitness for the position. Indeed, the 
majority's senior Member, a respected former chair of the Judiciary 
Committee, has praised Judge Garland as exactly the kind of jurist who 
should be on the Supreme Court.
  In my recent interview with Judge Garland, I came away deeply 
impressed with his thoughtful manner and significant experience as a 
trial attorney and judge. This is no ivory tower jurist, but instead a 
man who understands the real-life struggles of plaintiffs and 
defendants, lawyers and juries, legislators and citizens, and trial 
judges who depend upon the Supreme Court to give clarity and guidance 
to the rules that impact the most important issues of their lives.
  I think we should give President Obama his due in proposing a nominee 
with such impeccable credentials. I reject the first possible 
explanation that the majority's opposition is about the nominee. In 
fact, a determination that Merrick Garland was not of fit character to 
even receive consideration as a Supreme Court Justice would set such a 
high bar for appointees that it is hard to imagine anyone ever clearing 
it.
  Since the Garland blockade has nothing to do with the character of 
the nominee, many perceive that it is instead explained by the 
majority's views of this President.
  Is there something about President Obama that would warrant his 
Supreme Court nominee receiving second-class treatment compared with 
past Senate practice?
  Could it be the circumstances of the President's election? Some 
Presidents have been elected with less than a majority vote of the 
American public and have thus been burdened with the notion that they 
did not have a mandate from the American public, but President Obama 
was elected in both 2008 and 2012 with overwhelming majorities in the 
electoral college, and his popular vote margins in both elections were 
also relatively strong in comparison with the norm in recent 
Presidential elections. So there is nothing about the legitimacy of 
President Obama's elections that would warrant treating this 
President's nomination different from previous Executives.
  This makes extremely puzzling the majority's claim that they want to 
``let the American people decide.'' The American people did decide. 
They gave President Obama the constitutional responsibility to nominate 
Justices to the Supreme Court from his first day in office to his last. 
Some may not be happy with the decision, but it is insulting to the 
President and it is insulting to the American electorate who chose him, 
according to longstanding and clear electoral rules, to demean the 
legitimacy of his election.
  Could it be the unique unpopularity of this President? I think one 
could hypothesize a situation where a President, in the last year of 
his term, is so unpopular that a Senate might conclude that the public 
is no longer supportive of the Executive, but that is not the case with 
President Obama. The President's current popularity is actually quite 
strong compared with other Presidents during their final years in 
office. So there is nothing about the President's popularity with the 
American electorate that would warrant treating his court nominee 
different than the treatment afforded to past nominees.
  So what could it be about President Obama that would warrant the 
blockade of his Court nominee in a manner completely different than the 
way the Senate has treated all other occupants of the Oval Office? In 
what way is this President different to justify such treatment?
  I state again what I have said before. Obviously, I don't know the 
answer. I cannot say why the Senate would be so willing to break its 
historic practice and, by my reading of the Constitution, to refuse 
consideration of a nomination made by this particular President, but I 
can say it is painful and offer some thoughts about how it appears to 
many of my neighbors, to many of my constituents, as well as to many of 
my parishioners with whom I attend church. They reacted with alarm when 
news came that certain leaders had declared,

[[Page 6103]]

soon after President Obama was elected, that their primary goal was to 
assure that he would not be reelected. They watched with sadness as 
some in Congress raised questions about whether he was even born in the 
United States. They saw some in Congress question his faith and his 
patriotism. They observed a Member of Congress shout ``you lie'' at 
this President during a televised speech to the entire Congress. They 
noticed, recently, as the Budget Committees of both the House and 
Senate refused to even hold hearings on the President's submitted 2017 
budget--the only time a President has been treated in such a manner 
since the passage of the Budget Control Act of 1974. In short, they are 
confused and they are disturbed by what they see as an attack on this 
President's legitimacy. I am not referring to an attack on this 
President's policies, which should always be fair game for vigorous 
disagreement, and I have often attacked this President's policies, but 
instead what people are worried about is some level of attack on the 
very notion that it is this individual occupying the Oval Office.
  This latest action--the refusal to even consider any Supreme Court 
nominee afforded by President Obama in his final year, when other 
Presidents were granted consideration of their nominees--seems highly 
suspicious to them. When that blockade is maintained, even after the 
President affords to the Senate a nominee of sterling credentials, the 
suspicion is heightened. When the asserted reason is the need to ``let 
the people decide,'' thus suggesting that the people's decision to 
elect this particular President twice is entitled to no respect, they 
are deeply troubled. What can explain why this President--the Nation's 
first African-American President--is singled out for this treatment?
  Again, I don't know, but we cannot blind ourselves to how actions are 
perceived. The treatment of a Supreme Court nomination by this 
President that departs from the practice with previous Executives and 
that cannot be explained due to any feature of the particular nominee 
under consideration feeds a painful perception about motivations. The 
pain is magnified when it is in connection with an appointment to the 
Supreme Court, whose very building proclaims in stone over its entrance 
the cardinal notion of ``Equal Justice Under Law.''
  There is a third interpretation of the Garland blockade that is also 
troubling. Some see the blockade as just sort of power politics--as an 
attempt to slant the Court. The death of Justice Scalia creates concern 
among those who fear a natural transition on the Court, so there is an 
effort to stop that natural and lawful transition.
  The blockade on filling a naturally occurring vacancy, in my view, is 
harmful to the independence of the article III branch. Even in the 3 
months since Justice Scalia's death, the Court's rulings have shown the 
challenges of an eight-member Court. On four occasions already, the 
Court has been unable to render a clear decision in a case of great 
importance. Since the blockade, if successful, will probably maintain 
the artificial vacancy until the spring of 2017, it is likely to happen 
in other cases as well. So lower courts, and all persons whose rights 
and liberties are subject to rule by this Court, are deprived of the 
clarity on Federal issues that the Court was designed to provide, but 
it is more than just a hobbling of the Court's ability to decide 
individual discrete cases.
  Seventy years ago, when Winston Churchill spoke at Westminster 
College about the descent of an Iron Curtain across Europe, he defined 
the differences between free societies and those driven by tyranny. Key 
to his description of free societies was an independent judiciary. It 
is an independent judiciary that serves as a bulwark against Executive 
or legislative power grabs, protecting the liberties of an individual 
from an overreaching Executive or from a majoritarian legislature that 
does not fully grasp the rights of minorities. That is what an 
independent judiciary is designed to do. I think we all know this 
independence of the American judiciary has been one of the great 
hallmarks of American democracy.
  In my view, the blockade of the Garland nomination undermines this 
independence. The Judiciary Act of 1869 sets the composition of the 
Court at nine Justices with life tenure, and that statute has remained 
in force for 150 years. When President Franklin Roosevelt didn't like 
certain rulings of the Supreme Court in the 1930s, he tried to expand 
the Court and elbow out older Justices by proposing a forced retirement 
age and an expansion of the numbers in that Judiciary Act of 1869. 
Everybody understood that FDR's actions were an attempt to attack the 
independence of the judicial branch, and so congressional leaders of 
both parties stood up to stop him.
  I think this current blockade is the legislative equivalent of what 
President Roosevelt tried to do. Refusing to consider an Obama 
nomination in order to artificially maintain a Court vacancy for more 
than a year is as much an attack on the judiciary as trying to expand 
it beyond nine members. I hope we would agree with this: Whether an 
independent judiciary is attacked by the executive or the legislative 
branches, we need to be equally diligent in repelling that attack.
  American diplomats work every day around the world trying to convince 
other societies of the virtues of the rule of law and the independent 
judiciary, but the current blockade, unless corrected, suggests that we 
do not practice what we preach. By refusing to fill a naturally 
occurring vacancy, we send the message that the rule of law and an 
independent judiciary are ultimately secondary to having a more 
favorable or a more compliant judiciary, even when we have to weaken it 
to obtain what we want.
  I once lived in a country with a military dictatorship that held this 
view of the judiciary. The judiciary was not prized for its 
independence but instead was priced for its slavish obedience to a few 
in control of society. By refusing to fill a Supreme Court vacancy 
because a partial and weakened Court is deemed more acceptable than a 
full and lawfully constituted Court, we move away from one of our best 
traditions--to become more like legal systems that we are working to 
change around the world every day. In doing so, we weaken the judiciary 
by leaving this vacancy that has already affected proceedings, we 
weaken the Executive by hobbling the constitutional power to fill 
dually constituted executive and judicial positions, but we also weaken 
the legislative body, which has that important duty of checking these 
nominees for fitness of character, and by doing it without even being 
willing to cast a vote, I think we hurt our own institutional 
credibility.
  In conclusion, I harken back to 1954. A matter of fundamental 
importance to our Nation was before the Supreme Court. The death of a 
Justice left an eight-member Court that had already shown it was deeply 
divided and likely unable to reach a ruling, but the Senate did its job 
and filled the Court and the Court could then render a ruling that 
changed the course of American history for the better.
  We should learn from that history and do our job. Persisting with 
this current blockade and sending these possibly unintentional messages 
is deeply dangerous. The refusal to carry out the commands of the 
Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1869, to abide by the Senate 
precedents, to fill a naturally occurring Supreme Court vacancy, to 
offer the advice and consent that is part of a Senator's job 
description, and to entertain a well-qualified nominee--even for a 
hearing, much less a vote--will not be viewed favorably in the bright 
and objective light that history will shine on all of our actions.
  We can fix this. If the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing, cast 
a vote, report Judge Garland to the floor, and then ensure that the 
Senate debates this nomination and holds a floor vote, we will uphold 
our responsibility. Judge Garland might be confirmed or he might be 
rejected, but in taking action--rather than mounting an unprecedented 
blockade--we preserve the ability of each Senator to make the

[[Page 6104]]

judgment about whether Judge Garland possesses the fit character 
necessary for this position. We act in accordance with the Constitution 
and the Judiciary Act of 1869, we follow the traditional practices of 
the Senate--practices that have served us well, as the case of Brown v. 
Board of Education shows--and we cure the painful and dangerous message 
that is communicated by the current blockade strategy.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I rise to follow the eloquent remarks of 
my colleague from the State of Virginia and to remark upon 62 years--62 
years since Brown v. Board was handed down by our Supreme Court; 62 
days since Judge Merrick Garland was nominated by our President to fill 
a vital vacancy on our Nation's highest Court. I wish to thank and 
commend my colleague, a very able attorney and someone who has argued 
cases passionately around a wide range of issues but none so much as 
civil rights.
  As Senator Kaine rightly pointed out, the history of Brown v. Board 
is that a series of cases were brought together from across several 
States--including his State of Virginia and my State of Delaware--
gathered together and argued in front of the Supreme Court by Thurgood 
Marshall, then chief counsel of the NAACP, and ultimately decided in 
1954. Initially, a divided Court was unable to render judgment because 
in the spring of 1953, Chief Justice Vinson had died, leaving the Court 
then in a similar situation as it is now--divided on a range of vital 
and important issues.
  The good Senator from Virginia has reminded us that our failure to 
act now--our failure to do our job and to follow the dictates of our 
Constitution, the ``shall'' language in article II, section 2--the 
failure of this body to offer any hearing or vote on this very capable 
circuit court judge sends the wrong message, not just here within this 
country to our citizens but around the world.
  The Senator from Virginia spent time--and it changed his life and his 
perspective--in Central America as a younger man in a country where 
judicial independence was a fiction on paper. I, too, spent time in the 
1980s in a country in Southern Africa known as South Africa, where this 
same legal system that existed here under Jim Crow existed there under 
the name of apartheid. It is to that country I go in just 2 weeks, with 
Congressman John Lewis of Georgia and with the children of Robert 
Kennedy, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of a speech given in Cape 
Town 50 years ago.
  It is a striking moment for us to reflect on the importance and the 
power and the centrality of Brown v. Board in wiping away the dark 
stain of Plessy v. Ferguson, that obscene legal fiction rendered in 
1896 that ``separate but equal'' allowed us to square the horrible 
distension of justice in our country of a separation between the races 
with the words in our Constitution, the words above the Presiding 
Officer, the words above the entrance to our Supreme Court, the words 
above the Presiding Officer's desk in our Chamber, ``E pluribus 
unum''--from many, one--more importantly, the words above the Supreme 
Court entrance, ``Equal Justice Under Law.''
  We have these soaring words in our foundational documents and in our 
most important government buildings that suggest that we will 
``dispense justice equally,'' that we will be gathered from many 
differences in backgrounds into one. Yet the reality in this country, 
for its initial decades, more than its initial century, was anything 
but.
  It was 62 years ago today that the Supreme Court of these United 
States issued a unanimous decision wiping Plessy v. Ferguson away.
  I rise briefly to comment that I grew up in a small town in Delaware 
known as Hockessin. It was a so-called ``Colored'' school in Hockessin 
that was the basis of one of these cases. There were actually two cases 
from Delaware: Belton v. Gebhart from Claymont, related to the Claymont 
High School, and Bulah v. Gebhart, relating to the Hockessin Elementary 
School. In both cases, a famous lawyer from Delaware named Louis 
Redding took their cases to the Delaware courts. A brave judge, Judge 
Collins Seitz, rendered a judgment that found the discriminatory 
practices in the State of Delaware illegal. It was that case that was 
affirmed--of the five gathered--in Brown v. Board.
  Although Delaware has a very troubled and checkered racial history, 
these cases are ones of which I and my constituents can justifiably be 
proud. Moments when the courts of this country have stepped up and 
wiped the stain of racism and of legal segregation from our books are 
moments of which we can and should be proud.
  As my colleague from Virginia pointedly reminded us, for 62 days the 
incredibly qualified and capable district court judge nominated by our 
current President has waited--waited for an answer from this body, 
waited for a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I 
serve, waited for a vote. In the century that there has been a 
Judiciary Committee of this body, every previous nominee who has not 
withdrawn has received a hearing, a vote, or both.
  What are we so afraid of in allowing this talented judge to come 
forward, to lay his views and his credentials and his experience before 
this body or a committee of this body? What is the concern? My 
colleague from Virginia has asked and I ask, what is the animating 
concern that insists that for 62 or 63 or 64 or more days, Judge 
Garland must wait, throughout this entire year perhaps, into next year? 
How many cases will remain undecided by an equally divided Court due to 
our unwillingness or the unwillingness of many in this Chamber to do 
their job, to take up the challenge, to have a hearing, and to cast 
their vote?
  With that, I simply want to say that it is to me of grave concern 
that we have not acted as a body, that we have not acted collectively 
to provide a path forward for this talented, capable judge. Many in 
this Chamber may find him not to be capable or qualified, but without a 
hearing, how would you know? He has submitted a full response--
thousands of pages--to the questionnaire typically expected before the 
Judiciary Committee of any nominee. His record is before us--abundant, 
voluminous. He has more experience than any previous nominee as a 
Federal circuit court judge. What is the concern that would prevent us 
from moving forward?
  On this 62nd anniversary of the most important decision, in my view, 
in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, Brown v. Board, I call on my 
colleagues to once again show the courage of Louis Redding, of Judge 
Seitz, of Justice Warren, and of all of those who rendered central 
decisions in the history of this country that allowed our Supreme Court 
to operate independent of political interference and capable of making 
real the promise above our Supreme Court of ``Equal Justice Under 
Law.''
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am very honored and I feel very 
privileged to be a member of this body today as we commemorate the 
anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. I thank my colleagues, the 
distinguished Senator from Delaware, and most especially my very good 
friend and colleague from Virginia for his very eloquent and powerful 
remarks and also for bringing us together in this colloquy today.
  Sixty-two years ago on this day, the Supreme Court unanimously struck 
down as unconstitutional the segregation of schools by race, declaring 
that ``separate but unequal schools are inherently unequal.'' Today, 
that proposition seems so obvious as to be indisputable and the fact of 
a unanimous Supreme Court seems inevitable, but it was hardly 
inevitable 62 years ago.
  It is a triumph and tribute to American justice that it happened and 
that it happened at all given the staunch and implacable resistance 
that there was to that proposition 62 years ago. In fact, the Supreme 
Court courageously stepped forward to advance American

[[Page 6105]]

justice and establish a milestone and reestablish the principle that it 
is enshrined in our Constitution that every citizen is entitled to 
equal protection under law.
  The battle to upend years of racial and educational inequity remains 
unfinished today. If we emerge from this colloquy with any message, it 
must be that the work remains unfinished and there is so much more work 
to be done in the spirit and letter of the law.
  The culmination of decades-long work and strategy by innovative 
lawyers, community organizations organizers, and other advocates of 
social change was that decision. It is a tribute to their work as well 
and a reminder that individuals can make a difference in our system, 
can litigate to a successful conclusion, can advocate principles that 
are a matter of moral imperative. It took an act of the Supreme Court, 
of an independent judiciary, to declare educational segregation 
unconstitutional and integration the law of the land.
  As a law clerk on the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1974-1975 term, 
working for Justice Harry Blackmun, I had the chance to watch 
arguments, some of them on pressing issues of the time, but also to 
talk with some of the Justices who watched or even participated in the 
Brown decision, including Justice Thurgood Marshall, the chief counsel 
for the plaintiffs in Brown.
  Anybody who thinks that decision was inevitable should talk to some 
of the lawyers who were involved in the litigation and who eventually 
advanced it to the Supreme Court and to its successful conclusion and 
read the history of the controversy within the Court and the internal 
debate that took place about the proper role of the Court and the 
principles to be applied. It was far from inevitable. But it also shows 
how the branches of government, working together and collaboratively 
advancing justice in America, are important to the fundamental dynamic 
of our constitutional system.
  The Brown decision took enforcement. President Dwight Eisenhower led 
that effort in one of the toughest tests in the massive protest in 
Little Rock, AR, just 3 years after Brown.
  Ten years after Brown, Congress expanded the logic of this great 
decision to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 making segregation in 
public places like restaurants illegal as well.
  Reading and reviewing the dynamics of the Court at the time, one 
wonders what would have happened if there had been only eight members. 
How history might have been different. Justice might have been delayed 
and perhaps history changed for the far worse, justice denied as a 
result of that delay.
  The group of Justices who unanimously issued the decision was no 
intellectual monolith; they were members nominated to the Court by 
Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower. Before the Court came an 
issue of major significance, which they came together to evaluate on 
principles of law that we all share, that discrimination is invidious 
and intolerable and violations of the Constitution will be held 
unacceptable in the Court.
  Today, congressional Republicans, very frankly, hamper the ability of 
the Supreme Court to answer important legal questions of our time by 
refusing to hold even a hearing or a vote for Judge Merrick Garland. 
Their doing so has left the bench of the Supreme Court with only eight 
Justices. That lack of a ninth Justice diminishes and in many respects 
even disables the Court, as we saw just yesterday in a decision that 
might well have been decided otherwise if there had been nine Justices 
to give a majority to one point of view or another.
  Justice Scalia warned against this very issue, stating that ``eight 
justices raise the possibility that, by reason of a tie vote, [the 
Court] will find itself unable to resolve the significant legal issue 
presented by the case. . . . Even one unnecessary recusal impairs the 
functioning of the Court.''
  Justice Scalia's foresight was prescient. In two recent cases, even 
before the one yesterday, the Court deadlocked, unable to reach a 
definitive pronouncement on the law, because of a 4-to-4 tie. 
Unnecessary circuit splits cause uncertainty, which in turn hampers the 
activities of ordinary citizens, of small businesses wondering what 
rules will apply to them, whether it is banking rules or investment 
regulations, hampering their ability to plan and create jobs.
  The Washington Post recently reported that the Court's acceptance of 
new cases has slowed significantly, leaving crucial unresolved legal 
questions without definitive answers. That is not how our system is 
supposed to work. That is not how the Founders saw it. That is not how 
the Supreme Court could resolve the Brown v. Board of Education 
challenge. The Supreme Court must have a full complement of Justices to 
effectively address these complex, challenging, urgent issues faced by 
our Nation today.
  I reject the notion that the Senate's refusal to act, as laid out in 
no uncertain terms by our Republican colleagues, fulfills our 
constitutional obligation. It is our obligation to advise and consent 
on the President's nominee. We ``shall'' do so. That is the 
constitutional mandate--not when it is politically convenient, not when 
we think it is advantageous, but when the President nominates, whoever 
the President is, whether it is President Eisenhower nominating Earl 
Warren or Presidents Truman and Roosevelt, who nominated other Justices 
on the Supreme Court who decided Brown v. Board of Education.
  We cannot afford to weaken the Federal judiciary's credibility, the 
trust and confidence of the American people in the authority of our 
judiciary. Its authority depends on it being above politics. Alas, what 
the Senate is doing is dragging the U.S. Supreme Court into the muck of 
partisan bickering.
  Brown v. Board of Education became the law of the land because of the 
U.S. Supreme Court's credibility. The Supreme Court had no police force 
to enforce it. It had no armies or mandatory physical force. It had its 
credibility and its authority, its moral authority because it was above 
politics in the minds of most Americans. That is the reason President 
Eisenhower was able to do what he succeeded in enforcing at Little Rock 
and the Presidents afterward have done similarly.
  Most importantly, I hope we all take time today to reflect on the 
importance of the Brown decision and recognize the grit and courage of 
the men and women who fought to end school segregation only 62 years 
ago. The best way of honoring their legacy is to do our job and our 
duty constitutionally, to fulfill that duty and their legacy by 
considering Judge Garland's nomination without further delay.
  I yield the floor and recognize my distinguished colleague from New 
Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I rise to discuss--along with my friends 
and colleagues on the Senate floor--what is a momentous anniversary for 
our country, the 62nd anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education 
decision, its legacy, and the work that still remains before us.
  I thank my colleagues for standing and speaking on this anniversary 
and understanding that it was 62 years ago today the Supreme Court 
unanimously affirmed that separate could never be equal, that under the 
law--at the very least--every child born in America, regardless of the 
color of their skin, had the right to pursue a quality education.
  The Court found that separate schooling of children based on their 
race was in direct violation of the 14th amendment of the Constitution. 
The Court's finding is perhaps best summarized by this excerpt from 
Justice Warren's opinion when he said:

       We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of 
     children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even 
     though the physical facilities and other ``tangible'' factors 
     may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of 
     equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

  Those were historical words. This not only made clear at the time 
that the deep and profound illegality of segregation was real, but it 
set a legal standard for generations in posterity that

[[Page 6106]]

reflects our deepest held American values, that we as a nation believe 
in equality. We as a nation believe in our interdependency to one 
another.
  In the decades since the Brown ruling, the implementation of the 
Court's decision has contributed to a lot of progress. Frankly, I stand 
here today because of the progress and momentum that was exhibited by 
that decision.
  Right before Brown v. Board of Education, only about one in seven 
African Americans, then compared with more than one in three Whites, 
held a high school degree.
  Today we have come so far the Census Bureau reports that 87 percent 
of Black adults have a high school degree, nearly equal to that of 
Whites, which are at 89 percent. Before Brown, only about 1 in 40 
Blacks earned a college degree. Now, more than one in five Black 
students are going to college. This is extraordinary progress we have 
seen in our country, something we should all celebrate.
  Under the law, at the very least, the Supreme Court clearly affirmed 
all Americans' right to a quality education and in doing so affirmed 
equal value, dignity, and worth of our kids.
  However, it is also worth reflecting on the anniversary of Brown that 
our Nation has struggled to live up to these standards in full. Brown 
advanced a civil rights movement that helped desegregate many parts of 
American society, but we still have work to do. Let us take this 
anniversary to recognize not just our progress, to celebrate not just 
that milestone, but to understand that the work of equality, the work 
of recognizing the value, the worth, and how much we need each other as 
a community still goes on.
  In fact, just yesterday, six decades after the Supreme Court in Brown 
struck down the doctrine of ``separate but equal,'' a Federal judge 
ruled that a school district in Mississippi was continuing to operate a 
segregated, dual secondary school system: one set of schools for Whites 
and one set of schools for Blacks.
  Across the country right now, about 40 percent of Black and Latino 
students attend intensely segregated schools--meaning more than 90 
percent minority student body--and White students are similarly 
segregated from their peers of color. Only 14 percent of Whites attend 
schools that one would consider multicultural, multiracial, and 
reflecting the diversity of our country, and too many of our schools 
continue to fall short of our low-income and minority students. In 
other words, too many of our students of color and of low-income 
students are concentrated in poor-performing schools.
  More than 1.1 million American students are attending over 1,200 high 
schools in our Nation that fail to graduate one-third of their 
students. To me, this is an outrage. It is an immoral affront to whom 
we are. We still have work to do.
  Our Nation is still struggling to live up to the ideals and, indeed, 
the judicial standards set by Brown in the realm of education in many 
ways because of our failure to live up to this standard in so many 
other areas of our American life.
  There still exists, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, that 
``Other America.'' Dr. King spoke of this in the year before I was 
born--in 1968--about the ``Other America.'' He spoke of the duality 
that persisted, the disparities in housing, education, employment, and 
in income. He spoke of what he referred to very pointedly as the myth 
of time, the misguided idea that only time can solve the problem of 
racial injustice, the idea that things will work out for themselves.
  As happy as I am about the progress we have made as a country, I have 
to say that we still have so much work to do almost 50 years after King 
spoke those words. Time has not solved the problem. There remain 
challenges in our country. This duality is more subtle in some ways 
than it was in 1954, but there still exists injustice in America. From 
housing to education, de facto segregation along socioeconomic and 
racial lines has blended together, in many ways replacing what was then 
de jure segregation.
  Census data has shown that residential segregation by race has 
declined very slowly but that Whites still live largely in 
neighborhoods with low minority density. People of color still live in 
neighborhoods with high minority density. Many of these neighborhoods 
were designed through policies that were discriminatory against 
minorities. We still are seeing the legacies of those policies from 
redlining to FHA policies, to HUD policies that were designed to create 
segregation. The legacy of that still exists in segregated 
neighborhoods today.
  While poverty rates among African Americans has fallen over the past 
half century--something we should be proud of--Black poverty rates are 
still more than double that of Whites. That means the same for kids 
today. Children of color are often twice as likely to be poor as White 
children.
  In fact, one out of the three Hispanic children growing up today are 
growing up in poverty. One in six African-American children live in 
what is called extreme poverty on less than $8 a day.
  This is not who we are as a nation. Our children are our greatest 
natural resource. In a global, knowledge-based economy, when we are 
competing against other nations from Germany to Japan, in this kind of 
economy, the most valuable natural resource a nation has is not oil or 
coal or gas, it is the genius of our children.
  Many people think Brown was about achieving greater justice for Black 
people, but what we really understand--especially in retrospect--as we 
see African Americans now contributing in every area of life, the 
reality is this was about bringing justice to all of America.
  Brown was saying that, hey, we as a country cannot stand if we are 
apart because a house divided does fall. Brown was saying the truth is, 
we do better when we are together, like the old African saying that 
says: If you want to go fast, go alone. But if you want to go far, go 
together--because we as a country need each other. It is like those 
words on the Jefferson Memorial, written in our Declaration of 
Independence, when we knew--to make this country work--we needed one 
another, so much so that those Founders pledged to each other their 
lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
  In this competitive nature, we cannot afford to waste things. Worse 
than the gulf coast oilspill, we are wasting the potential of our 
children when we leave so many floundering in poverty and lack of 
educational opportunities. Children growing up in poverty right now 
have dramatically negative life outcomes compared to people who are not 
growing up in poverty. In fact, right now in America, where 20 percent 
of children live in poverty, only 9 out of every 100 kids born in 
poverty will make it to college, often an index of being able to be 
successful, manifesting your genius, finding greater ways to contribute 
to the whole.
  We have work to do. In particular, we have work to do in an area that 
drives so much of the injustice in our country. One of the great ways 
we are seeing injustice in my generation that was not the case in my 
parents' generation, that was not a reality in the 1950s, has been the 
criminal justice system. Something has happened and exploded. Injustice 
in our country is growing like a cancer on the soul of our country.
  The same Supreme Court where that great case was decided, where 
written above the wall is ``Equal Justice Under Law,'' we now see a 
nation that has a criminal justice system that is not affording equal 
justice to all Americans.
  Unfortunately, we see that often falling among racial lines. We have 
this explosive drug war, which has not been a War on Drugs, but it has 
been a war on people, particularly the most vulnerable people in our 
society, from people who are addicted to substances, from people who 
have mental illnesses, from people who are poor, and, yes, 
disproportionately directed toward minorities.
  We now see a criminal justice system where we know, based upon data 
analysis, there is no difference between Blacks and Whites in usage of 
drugs. In fact, there is no difference in selling drugs between Blacks 
and Whites, but the reality is, if you are African American in this 
country, you are 3.7 times

[[Page 6107]]

more likely to be arrested for those drug crimes.
  If you are churned into the criminal justice system as a result of 
those arrests, just one arrest for a nonviolent drug offense--something 
that the last two Presidents have admitted to doing--and you are 
arrested for that, then you find yourself in a world where, as the 
American Bar Association says, you have literally 40,000-plus 
collateral consequences, where you find it exceptionally difficult to 
find employment when you finish with your sentence. You find it 
incredibly difficult to get a loan to perhaps start a business, to even 
attempt to get a business license or a Pell grant. If you can't feed 
yourself, in many cases, you find it hard to even get food stamps or to 
find public housing assistance.
  We now live in a nation where we have so overincarcerated 
disproportionately some areas of our country, that today 1 in 13 Africa 
Americans are prevented by law from even voting. They have lost their 
right to vote because of a felony conviction. In some States, the 
overincarceration for drug crimes is so great that we see, in places 
such as Florida, that one out of every five African Americans has lost 
their right to vote.
  This isn't just affecting those people who are churned into the 
system, it is affecting their children as well.
  Today in America, one in nine Black kids are growing up with a parent 
behind bars, which means it affects their financial well-being and it 
affects their ability to rise up out of poverty because they are being 
thrust down into it. In fact, a recent study has shown that we as a 
country--as a whole--would have 20 percent less poverty if we had 
incarceration rates similar to those in other industrial nations.
  So here we celebrate the anniversary of this momentous decision that 
took a huge step for our Nation in the march toward justice and 
equality, but because of staggering injustices like we see in our 
broken criminal justice system, kids often struggle more in school and 
are poorer and have fewer opportunities for success.
  So 62 years after Brown, we know our schools don't exist in vacuums. 
They exist because of the communities around them. When communities of 
privilege have the same amount of violations of drug crimes as 
communities of poverty, yet the communities of poverty experience a 
criminal justice system that has so much more incarceration, we are 
often condemning children to having greater hills to climb and greater 
mountains of injustice in front of them.
  I stand here on this day to celebrate so much this great decision but 
also to remind us that we have work to do in this country until we can 
begin to live up to this ideal of patriotism, which is love of country 
and which to me necessitates that we love each other. We don't always 
have to agree with one other. We don't always have to get along. But we 
have to recognize that every one of us in this Nation has value, has 
worth. We need each other, and we need our children to do well because 
if my neighbor's child loses, I lose. If they go to prison, I pay. But 
if they succeed--if they become a teacher, an artist, a biologist, an 
inventor, a businesswoman--then they contribute to this country and my 
children benefit because your children succeeded. That is the story of 
America.
  We cannot afford to leave people behind as we, as a nation, strive 
for excellence and greatness. We cannot be a nation that is truly 
reaching its potential if we are wasting so much of that potential on 
the sidelines.
  I would be remiss if I did not also speak to a process issue. While 
we are still working to fulfill the vision of Brown, it is more urgent 
now than ever that we have a fully functioning Supreme Court. We were 
fortunate to have had a functioning Supreme Court in 1954. There were 
nine Justices doing their job, a President willing to do his job, and a 
Senate--all working in a time of great tumultuous change in our Nation. 
People were focused and steadfast--in both parties--toward creating 
greater justice. With people in their seats, in their jobs, I have 
faith in America and in our ability to get it right.
  We need to make sure that today we give every opportunity to get the 
job done, to do the work that is necessary. It is important that we 
fill positions and vacancies, and the one on the Supreme Court now is 
clearly needed.
  So today is an important day of remembrance, but history shows that 
we cannot simply get stuck applauding our past. The glory and greatness 
of ancestry is truly worthy of our reverence. But if we are to honor 
those who struggled before, if we are to honor those milestones, if we 
are to celebrate the history that shows us at our best when we came 
together--Black American, White American, Latino American, Indian 
American, Asian American--if we are to celebrate those great days of 
the past, we must celebrate them not just with cheers and remembrances 
but by redoubling our work in accordance with those values.
  We must have a sense of urgency. Time is not neutral. We must use it. 
We cannot just count the great days of the past. We must make this day 
count as we continue the work of our Nation, as we continue to be the 
country that we say we are--a nation of liberty and justice for all.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                Honoring Police Detective Brad Lancaster

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I rise this afternoon in the middle of 
this debate on an appropriations bill because of the timing of a 
tragedy in our State and the reality that this is a week of importance 
to reflect upon what happened in Kansas just a few days ago.
  I wish to honor the life of Police Detective Brad Lancaster. He was a 
member of the Kansas City, Kansas Police Department, and he was killed 
in the line of duty. On May 9 of this year, Detective Lancaster joined 
Kansas City, KS, patrol officers in responding to a call about a 
suspicious person. When law enforcement arrived, the suspicious person 
fled into a field where Detective Lancaster exchanged gunfire and was 
hit twice. Unfortunately, ultimately, he died from his injuries.
  Detective Lancaster gave his life to keep his community safe, and he 
deserves our highest respect and appreciation, our love and care for 
his family, for his service, and for his sacrifice. His friends, 
family, and neighbors remember Brad Lancaster's commitment to his 
community and its extension beyond his 9 years of service to the Kansas 
City, Kansas Police Department.
  Before joining the police department, Brad served in the U.S. Air 
Force and completed two tours of duty abroad, including one in Kuwait 
during Desert Shield. Neighbors say Brad was a family man and one who 
was always there to offer a helping hand.
  Detective Lancaster is survived by his wife Jamie and two daughters, 
Brianna and Jillian. I join the Kansas City community and law 
enforcement agencies across the country in our prayers for Detective 
Lancaster and his family as we mourn his death.
  This tragic loss occurred just prior to National Police Week, a time 
in which we celebrate those who leave their homes and families each day 
and put their lives on the line to keep our neighborhoods safe. So 
today, during this National Police Week, and especially in the wake of 
this tragic death in Kansas City, I wish to express my sincere thanks 
and appreciation to American law enforcement officers and their 
families and to thank them for working tirelessly amid dangerous 
conditions for the sake of others and for upholding the law and for the 
burdens they shoulder and the sacrifices they make on a daily basis. We 
owe so much to these everyday heroes.
  Law enforcement officers perform some of the most difficult and 
hazardous jobs in America. A routine traffic stop can turn into deadly 
gunfire, a shootout without warning. Members of this legislative body 
and communities across America alike must do everything we possibly can 
to prioritize and protect the lives of those who protect us.
  Federally, efforts like the Justice Assistance Grant Program and the 
bulletproof vest grant program help enhance the safety of our law 
enforcement officers, and Congress's continued support

[[Page 6108]]

of these efforts is important. This body passed the Fallen Heroes Flag 
Act, which was signed into law on Monday. This week, I hope the Senate 
will unanimously adopt a resolution to express appreciation to the 
police officers and honor each of the 123 who were killed in the line 
of duty last year.
  Support and appreciation for law enforcement must be delivered not 
only in the communities where officers have been killed but to every 
officer every day. When we as Americans commit to the safety, training, 
and support of law enforcement, we can help to secure our streets, 
strengthen our communities, and, hopefully, reduce the number of deaths 
in the line of duty.
  May Kansas City, KS, police detective Brad Lancaster and each of 
those fallen heroes rest in peace.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Nomination of Eric Fanning

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am here with my good friend from 
Kansas and dedicated Member of the U.S. Senate--an expert on national 
security, a person who has served with honor in the U.S. Marine Corps, 
and has served in this body and in the other body honorably in 
positions of responsibility. Where we may have had a disagreement, my 
friend has shown he is a man of conviction regarding the detainees from 
Guantanamo coming to the United States of America. But he also 
understands fully the importance of the position of the Secretary of 
the Army.
  Senator Roberts and I have worked closely together on this year's 
Defense Authorization Act to ensure the administration does not have 
the authority to release or transfer detainees on the mainland. 
Unfortunately, the administration has failed for over 7 years to 
present a substantive plan on how they intend to close Guantanamo Bay, 
to me, to the Congress, to my colleagues, or the American people.
  Thanks to Senator Roberts' efforts, this year's bill extends the 
prohibition to any reprogramming request to transfer or release 
detainees. These provisions confirm that President Obama will not be 
able to move detainees to the mainland of the United States of America 
in the coming year.
  I want to point out that I understand Senator Roberts' emphasis and 
value that he places on Fort Leavenworth. Fort Leavenworth is the 
intellectual center of the United States Army. This is where General 
David Petraeus spent 2 years developing strategy for the surge--at Fort 
Leavenworth. This is where the up-and-coming leaders of the U.S. Army--
and other services as well, but primarily the U.S. Army--go to get 
their training, their intellect, and their ability to lead. So I can 
fully understand why my friend from Kansas would be adamantly opposed 
to the transfer of detainees to Fort Leavenworth, which would change 
the complexion and the makeup of that very important place in the past, 
present, and future of the U.S. Army.
  So I thank my colleague from Kansas for his agreement today. I would 
ask him to say a few words before I ask consent that this nomination be 
considered.
  Again, I appreciate my old friend whose passion, whose commitment to 
the people of Kansas is without equal--which also accounts for the fact 
that they have sent him here to represent them on several occasions.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I thank my colleague and my good friend 
from Arizona for enabling me to make a few remarks to address the 
nomination of Mr. Eric Fanning to serve as Secretary of the Army.
  I have pledged to the people of Kansas that I would do everything in 
my power to stop President Obama from moving terrorist detainees to 
Fort Leavenworth, KS. The Senator from Arizona has certainly described 
the situation very well: It is the intellectual center of the Army. I 
believe today that I can tell Kansans that the threat from this 
administration will go unfulfilled.
  Last week, in a private meeting with Deputy Defense Secretary Robert 
Work, I received the assurances I needed to hear to release my vote on 
Mr. Fanning. Make no mistake. I think President Obama's threat to act 
by Executive order still remains. However, Secretary Work has assured 
me that, as the individual charged with executing a movement of 
detainees to the mainland, he would be unable to fulfill such an order 
before the close of this administration. Practically speaking, the 
clock has run out for the President.
  As I have stated on this floor and to my good friend and colleague, 
the distinguished Senator from Arizona, my issue has never been--let me 
make this very clear--with Mr. Fanning's character, his courage, or his 
capability. He will be a tremendous leader as Army Secretary and will 
do great by our soldiers at Fort Leavenworth, Fort Riley, and--let me 
emphasize--every soldier serving our Nation today.
  I just talked to Mr. Fanning this afternoon and let him know I was 
releasing this hold and wished him good luck on his speech to the 
graduates of West Point. I look forward to voting for Mr. Fanning, who 
has always had my support for this position.
  I am happy to support his nomination today with these new assurances 
from the administration and from the chairman and ranking member of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee to work with me to strengthen 
provisions on funding for the transfer of detainees to the mainland in 
this year's National Defense Authorization Act. I have worked closely 
with Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed. I look forward to 
completing work on an authorizing bill shortly. Additionally, the 
Senate Appropriations Committee is committed to prohibiting funding for 
construction or modification to any facility in the United States for 
the purpose of housing detainees in this year's MILCON funding bill 
currently on the floor.
  With the clock running down on the last months of the Obama 
administration, it is increasingly improbable that this administration 
could bring high-value terrorists and their associated risks to an 
American community like Fort Leavenworth, KS.
  The bottom line is this: We have run out the clock, and Congress 
looks to prohibit this administration from moving detainees to the 
mainland at every turn. As the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney 
General have testified before Congress, moving detainees to the 
mainland is prohibited by law and will remain so through the end of 
this President's term.
  I again thank my friend and my colleague, Senator McCain, for working 
with me to work this out. My congratulations to Secretary Eric 
Fanning--Army Secretary Eric Fanning.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I again thank my old friend from Kansas 
for his agreement to move forward. I look forward to continuing our 
long, many years' effort together to keep this Nation safe.

                          ____________________