Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we have a great opportunity in the Senate to recognize and reconfirm an extraordinarily distinguished and dedicated public servant who happens to be from West Hartford, CT, Jessica Rosenworcel of the Federal Communications Commission. I understand there was an agreement as part of the approval of Commissioner O'Rielly and that Michael O'Rielly, in fact, was reconfirmed as part of a very unusual request that there be that agreement. The President renominated Ms. Rosenworcel for a new 5-year term in 2015, and she was easily and unanimously confirmed by the Commerce Committee. I think we ought to keep that agreement in the Senate, that anyone a party to that agreement when the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, agreed to reconfirm Republican FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly--that we ought to move forward. But apart from the politics and the internal agreements that may have been reached--and they deserve to be honored--Commissioner Rosenworcel is supremely well qualified, and she is needed on the Commission, which is sorely in need of her expertise and experience in specific areas. Let me give just a few examples. No. 1, as an example of her leadership, she led the effort to provide for writing rules that will enable enforcement of the 9/11 locating standards for all 9/11 services across the country. The GPS location services require those rules. She has written standards and will enable those standards to become the guiding light for all 9/11 services. That is important in cases of emergency. It is important in cases of physical and emotional trauma or crashes--an accident. It is important in cases of opioid or heroin overdoses, which are becoming increasingly prevalent across the country. In fact, in Connecticut and, my guess, Oklahoma and all across the country, there is an epidemic of opioid and heroin addiction tragically taking a toll in deaths and financial costs. When there are overdoses, the administration of Narcan or naloxone within a limited period of time may be the difference between life and death and, in fact, can bring people back from the brink of death. Those types of location standards will help emergency responders go to the places they are needed. The standards applied to the 9/11 services that enable the first responders to go to those places are a result of the work that Commissioner Rosenworcel has done on the FCC. That is only one example of the kind of work she has done. She has been outspoken on the cruel struggle faced by students left out of the broadband revolution, as countless are in areas that have no Internet access at home and face obstacles, literally, to complete homework they are given at school and to apply for scholarships they need financially. Today, roughly 7 in 10 teachers assign homework that requires access to broadband, but the data from the FCC suggests that almost 1 in 3 households lacks subscriptions to broadband services. They simply do not subscribe to those services at any speed with any server due to lack of affordability and, frankly, lack of interest. Ms. Rosenworcel has made this ``homework gap''--a term, by the way, that she coined--one of her top priorities and has pushed all of us to think creatively to provide all students with the connectivity they need for a fair chance to succeed. That is really the American dream--a fair chance to succeed, closing the gap that results from this lack of access to the Internet, which in turn creates a homework gap and a scholarship gap and generally deprives those students of a fair chance. As Commissioner, Ms. Rosenworcel has visited schools across the country in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, and many more and witnessed how the Internet can support greater learning opportunities and also how limited broadband capacity prevents students from developing the skills essential for them to compete in the global, digital economy. Drawing from these experiences and her experience in the Senate working on this program, she called for an E-Rate 2.0 to ensure that the E-Rate Program is reinvigorated to meet the future connectivity needs for libraries and schools through stronger broadband capacity standards and robust funding. That robust funding is an investment this Nation needs to make. She is continuing the legacy of Senator Rockefeller to fight for strong public safety, not only on the FCC 9/11 rules, which keep communities safe and provide emergency responders the ability they need to go to places where there are overdoses or other health emergencies, but she has also worked on a bipartisan policy, a spectrum policy leading the FCC to raise recordbreaking amounts in the last year's wireless spectrum auction and ensuring that there is more than enough to fully fund FirstNet, the nationwide interoperability network for public safety officials to communicate during emergencies. She has taken her own time--and she has a young family--on multiple occasions when she is back home in Connecticut to join me in helping to educate wireless customers and consumers on what they can do to avoid cramming--those are the charges on phone bills that consumers never consent to and never know about in many instances--and where they can go to seek refunds when they are victims of these kinds of cramming scams. She has been a champion of consumer interest on cramming refunds, on preventing cramming, and on helping to reach wise and prudent settlements with the carriers. She has joined me to call on telephone companies to offer consumers new tools to block robocalls. What I find--and it is a relevant point during the campaign season in which we find ourselves--is that voters, consumers, residents, people from all walks of life in both parties, and a lot with no party at all, deeply resent the robocalling we see so often. Those robocalls come from commercial interests and sometimes from political interests. I approve banning robocalls. Whether or not we agree to ban them, consumers ought to have the ability to block them if they choose to. That is the cause she has championed with me. I deeply respect her commitment to consumer interests. She is widely acknowledged for her keen judgment and insight on all these issues, advancing smart telecommunications policy for the public benefit. She is a graduate of Wesleyan University and New York University Law School. Her career has been about telecommunications law, which included time as senior communications counsel for the Senate Commerce Committee under the leadership of both Senator Rockefeller and Senator Inouye. In her time on the Commission, she has been a champion of consumers, students, emergency responders, of everyday working men and women who deserve the best system and protection of their interests when it comes to telecommunications. There was an agreement that ought to be respected, but as important or even more important than an agreement, she deserves and the country needs for her to serve as a Commissioner. I urge my colleagues to reconfirm her swiftly and overwhelmingly so that she can continue to do this vital and important work she has been doing. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the faces and voices of the opioid and heroin epidemic are all around us. The victims and survivors are everywhere, in Connecticut and across the country. Just this past weekend, one of them perished. A young woman, Erikka Lyn Hughes, was found unconscious in her boyfriend's apartment, later dying from a heroin overdose. Erikka was only 21 years old. She had her whole life ahead of her, and her future was destroyed as a result of this epidemic. Her family, bravely and strongly, has chosen to speak out and stand up in the midst of their shock and grief to say that they hope that Erikka's story will inspire action to combat this epidemic of overdose and addiction. Rampant opioid overdose and abuse and misuse in our country has reached epidemic proportions, and it shows no signs of slowing. In Connecticut, I have seen these stories firsthand. This public health hurricane has swept our State and our Nation, crashing down on the lives of families and innocent people, much as a natural disaster would destroy homes or landscapes, leaving a path of pain, heartbreak, and addiction in its wake. The numbers in Connecticut are as shocking as they are tragic. Last year in my State, a record number of people--nearly 700--died from opioid overdoses. Sadly, this number is abstract, but it reflects a disheartening trend that has led to a 75-percent increase in prescription drug overdoses in Connecticut since 2012. I have heard stories, seen faces, and heard voices firsthand in roundtables that I conducted around the State of Connecticut--nine in all--involving public health experts, doctors, specialists, public officials, law enforcement, and--maybe most movingly and profoundly--recovering addicts and their families. I heard from parents who have buried children far too young. I heard from first responders whose quick action saved lives using Narcan. I heard from doctors who understand that change is needed to prevent this disease from spreading further and from families and professionals from Torrington and Rocky Hill, Willimantic and Wethersfield, Bridgeport and New London, New Britain and New Haven--across our State--people who came forward to break the silence and defeat the denial that is one of our greatest enemies in this fight against opioid addiction and abuse. This problem knows no boundaries and no distinctions in income, race, religion, ZIP Code. It afflicts and affects everyone everywhere, and that is the beginning truth to solve the problem. I heard heartbreaking stories from a woman who lost both of her sons to addiction. The sobering conversations I had with her family and others, while not always easy, were absolutely crucial to my understanding how widespread and pervasive this problem is. What I heard from them and what I believe is necessary is a call to action. It is more than an effort to honor the legacy of Connecticut citizens who were lost last year--mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, sisters, and brothers--but to teach every one of us to reach those who are still fighting their own private battle against this disease. Make no mistake. It is a disease. It is every bit a disease--as much as any we have discussed on this floor--requiring research and action and urgent and drastic steps that we can and must provide because it is demeaning and reducing our Nation's fabric. It goes to the core of America. These conversations led me to do a report. I was inspired by the loved ones and families who have lost the most to do a call to action. It is called ``Opioid Addiction: A Call to Action,'' and it has 23 specific and definite recommendations. Some require funding, but others are without fiscal impact. I hope to discuss them at length in a series of speeches on the floor and not to leave this issue at one talk, one speech, one remark, but to talk about it continuously, as we all should be doing in our communities, because, again, denial and silence are the enemies here. This report outlines 23 policy proposals focused on curing our Nation's addiction to opioids. The proposals are all grassroots, community-based solutions suggested by people who have firsthand knowledge. They are experts--maybe not in academic training, maybe without Ph.D.s and qualifications based on formal studies, but they know this pervasive problem. They have seen it firsthand, and they have observed the wreckage and destruction that opioid addiction causes. They cannot bring back the lives of their loved ones, but they are determined that others will be spared this hurricane's effects. These proposals, which touch on prescribing practices, adequate treatment, emergency medical response, law enforcement, and help for our veterans, have the common goal of ending this crisis. They are a response to the most pressing issues I heard throughout our conversations. While none is a panacea, none is a single bullet, all of them together are the beginning of a long process that must be undertaken toward curbing this epidemic. A place to start is with our prescribing practices, which is where misuse and abuse so often begin. Our Nation makes up 5 percent of the world's population; we use 80 percent of its opioid painkillers. In 2012, doctors wrote 259 million prescriptions for painkillers, enough for every American adult to have a bottle of these controlled substances for themselves. Many of us have children. My wife Cynthia and I have four. Every one of them plays sports and every one of them has suffered sports injuries. Most of them could have availed themselves of these painkillers. We drew the line and said no. Other parents should be doing the same, but more importantly, the providers should be exercising greater discipline and self-restraint because every one of those bottles, even if prescribed for legitimate injuries such as broken bones, repaired LCLs, and other kinds of injuries, is potentially a risk. Just last week a couple in Connecticut was arrested for selling painkillers out of their home. For 2 years they collected 1,400 powerful painkillers from their local pharmacy, abusing their own prescriptions in the process. In the pharmacy that got them arrested, the couple picked up 300 oxycodone and 140 oxymorphone tablets. This flagrant abuse of the system should not be possible in our State or any others. There are legitimate reasons for painkillers to be prescribed, especially in chronic pain or end-of-life situations. There is no need to deprive people of those painkillers when they need them for those inevitable reasons, but my call to action outlines steps to confront this issue where it can be addressed so as to minimize the risk of abuse or misuse or overuse, especially when young people such as our children are involved. It would mandate training for medical professionals to reduce opioid overprescribing. It would call for drug enforcement agency guidelines for partial fills of these prescription opioids, meaning fewer of these prescription drugs would make it onto our streets. Of course, reducing prescriptions can't be the only answer, particularly when so many who need care go without it. My report also seeks to improve treatment options, calling for meaningful mental health parity, implementation of the law requiring it, and much more vigorous and effective enforcement to ensure that people who need help actually receive it. This step includes access to medication-assisted therapy that can prove essential to the recovery process. We can do more to guarantee that Naloxone, a powerful antidote to heroin overdose, remains both affordable and successful. This means holding manufacturers accountable when they begin raising prices to astronomic levels. The prices have been skyrocketing. Local police and firefighters are often unable to afford it in their current budgets. It means also pushing for elimination of copays when it is prescribed at pharmacies. Insurance ought to cover it. It also means that the Federal Government must do its part and increase funding for Narcan so that cash-strapped first responders can actually afford it to save lives. Our law enforcement officials require both the training and resources needed to keep our streets safe and our communities healthy and drug- free. That means funding to establish prescription drug monitoring programs--effective programs to facilitate training so that police officers can recognize when suspected criminals are actually people struggling with addiction and to assist drug take-back programs throughout our States and Nation that allow the return of unused prescription drugs. Finally, in my role as ranking member on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, I have encouraged the establishment of more consistent and safe VA prescribing practices and the creation of an integrated service model for mental health and pain management. I am pleased that the Senate raised this issue and addressed it and passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act earlier this year, but that measure is a downpayment. It is only the beginning. I hope policy levels at all levels of government will draw on the strategies delineated in this legislation and in my report and elsewhere to combat the devastating epidemic of addiction and abuse. Passing new laws is not the only answer. Enforcement and implementation of existing ones is necessary too. The prime example is mental health care, where still, years after President Bush signed that measure in 2008, its implementation is inconsistent and inadequate, and enforcement of mental health parity remains an aspiration, not an action. Part of what we need to do is make sure that existing laws are implemented effectively and fairly and that the investment is made in commonsense, practical measures like the 23 recommendations I have outlined in this report--by no means an exclusive way to deal with this problem. I have no pride of authorship in these 23 recommendations. I would yield to wiser and better suggestions, but the point is that action is necessary. It is necessary now because every day we lose lives. Despite the best efforts of our first responders and our medical community, we continue to lose lives and futures, and our families continue the grief and heartbreak that I saw in my roundtables and that families in Connecticut feel today. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the Senate has remarkable, even magic moments. Yesterday was one such time for my colleague from Connecticut and me. Senator Murphy and I had the great honor and privilege to again welcome Team 26 from Newtown, CT, at the end of a truly extraordinary journey--their fourth bike ride from Newtown--to commemorate and remember the 26 beautiful children and educators who were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School. This incredibly searing and horrific moment in the life of our State in December of 2012 was marked by their first journey 3 years ago. This one was their fourth ride through rough roads and tough traffic, and snow and rain across the Northeast as they pedaled--literally pedaled-- to Washington, DC, from Newtown. We said goodbye to them on Saturday morning in some pretty cold weather. I was there. They braved some fierce storms to be here, but the memory they carried with them and the resolve and resilience they showed truly epitomizes the spirit of Sandy Hook and its wonderful people who not only survived that unspeakable tragedy of December 2012 but also showed America a lesson with acts of kindness, unceasing advocacy, resilience, resolve, and--most importantly--a message of peace, love, and hope. I wear still on my wrist a bracelet I received then. Its lettering is worn out, so it is no longer readable, but it is that same message of hope, peace, and love they brought with them as they traveled here. Today a number of them came to the Capitol. I was proud to greet them with their leader, Monte Frank, who organized that first ride. He is responsible for the extraordinary leadership in keeping that together and keeping them going over those rough roads. With us at the Capitol today were Peter Olsen, Andrea Myers, Drew Cunningham, and Ken Eisner. They are among the 26 riders who came to Washington yesterday, met with us outside the House of Representatives, then went to the White House and met with officials there--including Valerie Jarrett--and eventually with the Vice President of the United States, Mr. Biden. The members of Team 26 chose to ride to Washington, DC, not only for their personal reasons but to deliver a petition with a very clear message that guns have no place on campuses. They have no place on school grounds. They have no safety reason to be there. In fact, they aggravate the danger of firearms and other kinds of peril on school property. They also ride on behalf of commonsense, sensible measures that can be achieved--and we have an obligation to achieve. That is what they said to us as we met with them in front of the Capitol yesterday. Their message was that we can save lives, that we can work together. We can get things done across the aisle, on a bipartisan basis, to do what 90 percent of the American people want, which are universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and criminals, making sure gun trafficking is a Federal crime and that straw purchases are against Federal law, ensuring that fewer guns get into the hands of dangerous people, particularly domestic abusers. When domestic abuse is combined with a gun in the home, death is five times as likely. This message ought to also include limiting the use of high-capacity magazines that can prevent all kinds of terrible rampages with assault weapons that have become all too prevalent in this country. Providing protection when temporary restraining orders are issued in domestic violence cases can help some of the most vulnerable members of our society, victims of domestic abuse, at a time when they need it most, and making sure the gun-manufacturing industry is not given an exemption from liability that every other industry has to defend against when it breaks the law. PLCCA ought to be repealed, and I have introduced legislation that would do it. This problem of gun violence affects all of us--not just through the mass shootings and massacres that occurred, such as Sandy Hook, but 30,000 deaths every year. Many of them are suicides, preventable, senseless, and avoidable if we take action to tackle the problem of gun violence in this country. That is the message of the riders who braved those storms, who traveled those rough roads, and reminds us that Congress has been complicit in these deaths by its failure to act. Congress is complicit in gun violence and its deadly toll in this country. Monte Frank is a Sandy Hook resident who was one of the founders and leaders of Team 26. He rode here again this year and has ridden every year. I am proud he is a friend. He recently wrote: Team 26 will ride again because we promised the families in Sandy Hook that we would continue to honor their lost loved ones. We made the same promise to the many victims' families we have met since then in Baltimore; Bridgeport, Conn.; Harlem, N.Y.; and the District of Columbia. While we established Team 26 for Sandy Hook, Team 26 could just as easily be named for the victims of gun violence in Chicago on a given weekend. In fact, gun violence is so prevalent that we could be called Team 26,000 and that number would fall short of the number of gun deaths each year in America. I have with me the petition they brought here, but more important, I am here to tell my colleagues we must act. We must cease our complicity in this body. If tens of thousands of people in this country were infected with Ebola or the Zika virus or the flu, there would be drastic and urgent action to meet that public health crisis. The epidemic of gun violence in this country is no less a public health crisis. It is equally an epidemic, and it can be stopped. It must be stopped. I want to close with the words of Dennis Niez of Bethlehem, CT. Dennis rode here with Team 26 and wrote the following, entitled ``Why I Ride.'' I ride for the kids who will never know the joy of riding a bike, the feeling of freedom, the visits of their best friends to their house. All of it taken away in a split second with a firearm left loaded in the same house where they're supposed to feel safe. I ride because the same people who have serious mental health issues are able to purchase deadly firearms without a background check because of a loophole. I ride because the same people who have a temporary restraining order because of domestic violence are sometimes able to keep a deadly firearm. I ride so our elected officials, regardless of affiliation, will feel shame when they look at themselves for not doing enough to keep guns away from people who should not have them. I ride because kids in the U.S. are nine times more likely to die from a gunshot than in any other western country. I ride because Dawn Hochsprung was my kid's principal in Bethlehem, CT, someone they will always remember. She was a friend to all the kids. I ride because doing nothing won't make the problems go away. On that beautiful, sunny day yesterday, as remarkable and magic a time as it was, I thought of all those Sun-filled days that those 20 beautiful children and 6 great educators will never have and that others also will be deprived of having because Congress is failing to act. We must act, and I hope we will act and carry with us in our hearts always the message of Team 26. I am proud to yield to my colleague and partner in this effort, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I want to express my gratitude to my friend from Delaware, who is truly an expert on this issue, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. He has been a leader in this area, and I am delighted and honored to join him on the floor today to discuss the ever-evolving and concerning cooperation between Russia and Iran, particularly in recent months. He has very eloquently and persuasively described a number of the concerns that we share. I want to associate myself with what he has said here this afternoon. As we all know, Iran has conducted multiple ballistic tests in the last several months. That is beyond question. I have continuously condemned both Iran's ongoing ballistic program and Iran's failure to uphold its international obligations under the U.N. Security Council resolutions by calling for sanctions enforcement at the Armed Services Committee hearings and in letters to the administration and in public statements. We have been steadfast in this effort. While the administration has heeded my calls by enforcing sanctions against 11 entities and individuals supporting Iran's missile program, clearly more must be done. The United States and the international community must vigilantly enforce sanctions on Iran's ballistic development, as well as its state sponsorship of terrorism and human rights violations which continue day in and day out. These steps must be taken to hold this regime accountable and prevent Tehran from believing it can violate international law with impunity. Nothing less is at stake here than that principle. Yet Russia has refused to punish Iran. As a world power and permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, Russia can and must be doing more to counter Iran's destructive deeds, including ensuring that Iran abides by U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231. This resolution calls on Iran ``not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches, using ballistic missile technology.'' That is a quote. That mandate applies for up to 8 years from the JCPOA's adoption day, October 18, 2005. In March, one of Iran's defiant tests notoriously involved a missile that had a disturbing and alarming message scrawled on the side: ``Israel must be wiped off the face of the Earth.'' This explicit message, by the way, written not only in Persian but in Hebrew, was designed to directly threaten Israel. That is hardly speculation. It should not be tolerated by any Nation. Even worse than Russia's refusal to condemn Iran's ballistic missile tests, is that Russia has essentially rewarded Iran for its bad behavior by continuing--even increasing--its cooperation with Iran through military deals. In February, Iran's Defense Minister visited Moscow to discuss purchasing an array of weapons. Any sale of major combat systems to Iran in the next 5 years would require approval by the U.N. Security Council under Resolution 2231. But the United States has made it clear that such a sale will not be supported. Therefore, it will not be approved by the U.N. Security Council. Media reports in recent weeks have highlighted Russia's shipment of parts of an S-300 air defense system to Iran. In addition, Russia and Iran are supposedly in talks over Sukhoi fighter jets. If such sales are finalized and the systems are delivered, Russia would be directly defying U.N. Resolution 2231. Supplying weapons to Iran is particularly dangerous and potentially damaging because it is not done in a vacuum. Russia's growing partnership has far-reaching ramifications because Hezbollah, Iran's terrorist proxy in Lebanon, also benefits, at least indirectly, from Russian arms and military operational experience in Syria. The flow of support from Russia to Iran to Hezbollah feeds into yet another threat that deeply concerns me and our greatest ally in the Middle East and one of our greatest in the world, Israel. Coupled with continued chaos in the region, the Russian-Iranian cooperation, which strengthens Hezbollah, only adds to the urgency and importance of ensuring that Israel remains secure, stable, and independent. Last November, Senator Bennet and I co-led a letter to the President concerning the need to renew the memorandum of understanding on U.S. military assistance--the MOU, as it is known--with Israel to help that nation prepare for, respond to, and defend against threats in an uncertain regional environment and to ensure its qualitative military edge. There is nothing original or novel about that policy or principle. The current MOU provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel through fiscal year 2018. As threats in the region continue to evolve, including Iran's malign influence, reinforced and enabled by Russia, the administration must engage at the highest levels to continue to develop a shared understanding of threats confronting Israel by strengthening the MOU that serves as the foundation of our bilateral security efforts. Those efforts support not only Israel, they are in the national interests of the United States of America. Indeed, they are essential to our national interests in the region and in the world. While negotiations remain ongoing between the United States and Israel regarding the historic renewal of the MOU, I want to express that I continue to support making the MOU a truly transformational investment to deepen the U.S.-Israel strategic partnership. It is based on a shared understanding of the environment that confronts Israel and the United States together. Russia is only exacerbating the threats in the region to our partnership--the United States and Israel--as well as to each of our nations. The Russian-Iranian cooperation legitimizes and strengthens Tehran's adventurism, as well as the Assad regime in Syria, and threatens international security. Moscow's affair with Tehran and beyond has brought Russian military might to a network of terrorism that we must continue to monitor closely and work to combat for the safety and security of the United States. It is our security and it is Israel's security that is at stake, and the entire international community's security. I again thank my colleague from Delaware for giving me this time and his patience in hearing me out. I look forward to working with him and other colleagues who are concerned about the Russian-Iranian cooperation. They are certainly deeply concerning. I thank him again for his leadership and vision on this topic.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I want to join in the remarks just made by the senior Senator from Illinois that we have an obligation to do our job and to provide a hearing and a vote for the President's nominee--not as a matter of discretion or convenience but as a mandatory obligation we have as Members of this body. It is an obligation that comes from the Constitution, which says that we shall exercise this duty of advising and consenting. For all the reasons my colleague has expressed so eloquently, the American people feel that it is our job, and they are right. Nothing so epitomizes the feeling of the American people that Washington is failing to work, that this body is failing to do its job, that the Congress and the Federal Government are failing the American people, than the failure to deal with this nominee. The refusal to even meet with him mocks the American system of justice. For all who care about the quality of our judicial nominee, this intransigence is both an insult and an injury, and it will do lasting damage to the Court if it drags this third branch of government into the mire of partisan bickering. The judicial branch depends, for the enforceability of its decisions, on the trust and credibility of the American people that it is above politics and that decisions made by the judicial branch are on the merits without regard to the special interests and the money that so infects this branch, and they are entitled to our support for the credibility and trust of the judicial branch, and nothing epitomizes the need for that credibility and trust more than the U.S. Supreme Court. It is the highest Court in the land, and it is the most powerful. It is an anomaly in a democratic government because it is unelected, appointed for life, at the top of the judicial pyramid, exercising vast powers, with only the trust and credibility of the American people as its means of enforcement. It has no army or police of its own. Its decisions and enforceability depend for their effect on it being above politics. The controversy and the intransigence and refusal to even consider this nominee is a great threat to that institution. Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education, and Research Act Mr. President, on the issue of getting the job done, I want to go to a separate topic very much on our minds at this time of year, very distinct and different, but I want to join it in these remarks because it is timely as we begin the next phase of our bipartisan efforts to combat Lyme and tick-borne diseases. We will be building support this week for a bill that has been introduced by Senator Ayotte and me, with the strong involvement and leadership of Senator Gillibrand, S. 1503, the Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education, and Research Act, with 13 cosponsors. It is a bipartisan bill that is critically important to public health. Today we will be welcoming a number of my friends and constituents from Connecticut and around the country who are experts to provide briefings to our staffs in sessions that have been organized by Senator Ayotte, Senator Gillibrand, and me. We are very pleased to welcome some of the leaders of this effort: John Aucott, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine; Dr. Brian Fallon, a good friend and leading expert in this area and a professor at the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons; Ally Hilfiger, who has been a survivor and strong supporter and advocate; Rebecca Tibball, a fourth grade teacher from my home State of Connecticut who has been battling Lyme disease since August of 2014; and David Roth, also a leader and a longstanding patient advocate from New York who in his day job is a managing director at the private sector group Blackstone. These individuals are here to call attention to and build support for curing a disease that is literally exploding exponentially in this country and now constitutes an epidemic that literally impinges and cripples the lives of millions of Americans. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that more than 36,000 Americans suffered from Lyme disease in 2013. It says that the number who actually contracted this disease is probably 10 times higher because it is undetected and undiagnosed in so many people and it is underreported even when it is discovered in individuals. Most of the cases of Lyme disease occur in a limited number of States. Ninety- eight percent of them occur in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. I name those States because the Senators in those States ought to be behind this bill, every single one of them. But those cases are only the ones reported. In many States there is no systematic reporting of Lyme disease, so the full extent, breadth, and depth of this epidemic is truly unknown. We know in this body how to respond and recognize a public health threat. It was done for Ebola. It is done for influenza. It hopefully will be done for Zika. What is needed is the same kind of bipartisan awareness and support for legislation to help people who suffer from Lyme and other tick-borne diseases. Sometimes this Senator is asked: Why has the Congress failed to recognize and respond to this severe public health threat? There is no good explanation except for the underreporting and the unawareness, and that is no excuse. In the meantime, the cases of Lyme disease are exploding in number, and the severity impacts our economy as well as the quality of life for Americans. It affects people's ability to perform their jobs, children's ability to go to school, and families' ability to function normally. The disease, if undetected and untreated, can cause the most severe kinds of pain and disability. Lyme disease is named after a town in my State. I have always felt it was tremendously unfair for the beautiful and wonderful town of Lyme to have its name bear the burden of this disease, but regardless of the name, the burden is on the entire country--not simply on Connecticut and not simply on the Northeast or any part of the country or profession--to take action. That action must include provisions in this bill to strengthen Lyme disease surveillance and reporting, an education program, establishing epidemiological research objectives for tick-borne diseases, and the preparation of a regular report to Congress on the progress of efforts to combat these devastating tick- borne diseases. The effects are devastating, pernicious, and insidious, creeping into every aspect of a victim's life. Our bill has earned the support of 13 Senators from both parties, including five members of the HELP Committee. When it comes to fighting Lyme disease, there is no partisanship. The ticks that carry this disease don't know a red State from a blue one. They don't make any discrimination between the boundaries of different States. The devastating diseases that can spring from these ticks are common to our entire country and therefore demand a national response and a Federal program that we have outlined in this bill. I am proud to join with Senator Ayotte and Senator Gillibrand in this effort. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to send your staffs to the briefing we have today. I thank others from Connecticut--such as Alexandra Cohen--who are going to be coming today, and I look forward to continuing this fight, which has to be one of a nationwide commitment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, an important consumer right is under attack, under siege today in the United States Senate. It is the right to know what is in your food. A lot of consumers take for granted that they will read the ingredients on a package and they will know what is in their food. The right to know what you are putting in your body is a basic right, especially what your children are putting in their bodies. I understand that the Agriculture Committee has reported--and the majority leader has indicated that he will bring to the floor--a misguided anti-consumer measure that will not only dilute but decimate an essential aspect of that right to know. It is not the name of the bill its proponents are using, but I agree with Members of the House and this body who have called this bill the DARK Act. Why? Because it denies Americans the right to know. Unfortunately, that is essentially what the bill does. It denies Americans the right to know. I hold a pretty simple belief that labels on the food we buy should accurately reflect what is in the food. Whether it is the nutritional content, the ingredients--whether something is organic or not-- consumers should know what they are paying for and what they are putting in their bodies. That is how we keep the large corporations that make most of our food from using ingredients that are unhealthful--unhealthful and, essentially, potentially deceptive. Like the overwhelming majority of people in this country--and by the way, a poll released in December said it was about 90 percent--I support mandatory on-package labeling of food containing genetically modified organisms, GMOs. This support cuts across geographic lines and party lines because it is such a commonsense position. Leave it up to consumers--you and me--to decide when we buy food products and when we consume them. If they want to buy a particular product, let them do so, but make sure they know what they are getting. This issue is of particular importance to my constituents. I am proud that Connecticut was the first State to enact legislation that would require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. And as attorney general of Connecticut, I championed this measure, and it is a consummate example of consumer protection and consumer education. The DARK Act, by contrast, would strip my State of its ability to protect our own people. It would prevent States, including Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont, which have already done so, from enacting laws requiring the labeling of GMO foods. It would take away from States their right to pass laws to ensure their citizens have access to basic information about their food, and it would preempt longstanding State consumer protection laws in all 50 States. These laws pertain to false advertising, consumer protection, fraud, breach of warranty, or unfair trade practices. This measure is a sweeping and draconian proposal, and that would be bad enough, but the DARK Act actually goes further. It would also bar States and local communities from enacting any kind of law overseeing genetically modified crops. Several counties in California and Oregon, as well as the States of Washington and Hawaii, have restricted planting of GMO crops, citing the health effects of the seeds and economic effects of megacompanies that produce these seeds on local farmers and the unknown long-term environmental consequences. But this bill would stop all of those efforts, State and local efforts. It would stop them dead in their tracks. In addition to keeping information from consumers, the DARK Act would affect hard-working farmers who will have no way of knowing if the seed they purchased is genetically engineered, and that is true even if the seeds are altered in any way that prevents crops from reproducing, forcing farmers to buy new seeds every season from the GMO company. I don't mean to cast aspersions on the biotechnology industry. There is enormous potential in research on this front, and scientists have made many, many contributions to our food supply. There may be scientific efforts under way in this area that have healthful and economically beneficial results, but keeping consumers in the dark is harmful, and the rule ought to be first do no harm. If there is scientific support for the health or environmental benefits, why not let consumers know? Let consumers make knowledgeable and informed choices. Consumers are capable of those kinds of choices, and I am shocked that this deliberative body is considering a measure that is crafted so purposefully and intentionally to, in effect, deceive the American public and actively deny them the accurate information they deserve. There is no question that this bill is nothing more than a carve-out for big businesses and mega-GMO seed corporations. My view is that this body ought to facilitate transparency. The Federal legislation should promote information and education, not inhibit or prevent it. That is why I have endorsed a bill that Senator Merkley and others of us are proposing and advocating that in a very commonsense way allows manufacturers to choose from a menu of options to indicate to consumers whether a product includes genetically engineered ingredients. I want to make clear and emphasize we are not calling for some kind of skull and crossbones logo or black box warning label. In fact, we are not talking about a warning; we are talking about information. The options on the menu that would be offered to food producers are nonjudgmental, clear, concise, and accurate. This information is impartial and objective, allowing consumers to make informed decisions. Last month, the Secretary of Agriculture convened a series of meetings in an attempt to broker a compromise between industry and labeling advocates, and I want to take a moment to commend the unflagging leadership of a number of groups in my State and one of my constituents, Tara Cook-Littman, who by coincidence was the only woman at these meetings. She is the cofounder of Citizens for GMO Labeling. She led the grassroots effort in Connecticut to pass the first-in-the- Nation GMO labeling law. She is also the mother of three children whom I have met. Like most Americans, she cares deeply about what she and her family are eating. As part of their innovation cycle, food companies often redesign and relaunch products, adding new attributes to existing products, such as flavors and new ingredients, so they can handle the normal course of relabeling and repackaging. One of the most important points Tara has raised is that the industry's proposed solution to include QR codes on GMO products is really no solution at all. QR codes, which let customers use a smartphone to scan a product to be linked to a Web page with information, are no substitute for clear, explicit labels that all consumers can see with the transparency and objectivity they deserve and need. Relying on QR codes discriminates against people who are unable to afford a smartphone or a data plan. It threatens privacy by allowing industry to keep track of who is scanning what product-- information that many of us might not want to be in the hands of companies and used to market to us--and, from a very practical standpoint, may not be usable where reception is weak or nonexistent. As anyone who has ever shopped with a baby or a child knows, shopping is hard enough under some circumstances, and forcing consumers to try to get the right scan of a product when information could simply appear on the label is absurd. What is the reason for the QR code other than to make it more difficult for a consumer to know? What rationale could there be other than creating a hurdle for that consumer to learn that information? So I urge my colleagues, do not be fooled or tricked by the DARK Act claims that food prices will rise with GMO labeling--not so. Food processors regularly make changes to these labels to meet changing consumer demands or for other marketing or regulatory reasons. In fact, Ben & Jerry's cofounder, Jerry Greenfield, confirmed: ``It's a normal course of business to be going through changes on your labels.'' And other responsible food companies have joined Ben & Jerry's, most prominently Campbell's Soup. I commend their leadership. My constituents and all consumers should be aware that there are companies like Campbell's that have stepped forward and want consumers to be more informed, not less. We are on the brink of potentially passing legislation as early as tomorrow morning that would ban States such as Connecticut from requiring GMO labeling. That is a violation of the very essence of States' rights to protect their citizens. It may well be that some States would want to be stronger in protecting their citizens than others, and they should have the right to do so. Preempting all State legislation in this area infringes on that fundamental sovereignty and right of States to protect their citizens. As the American Association for Justice has stated, this legislation will unjustly preempt State consumer protection laws. I know the importance of that preemption doctrine as a former attorney general who has fought consistently to allow States to set standards for consumer protection and enforce those standards, both Federal and State. I commend those manufacturers that have realized that now is the time to embrace GMO labeling, including Campbell's, Ben & Jerry's, Amy's Kitchen, and Nature's Path. I hope we can work together with food manufacturers to give American consumers, like consumers in 63 countries around the world--63 countries around the world--a more transparent food system by approving a mandatory on-packaging GMO labeling system and rejecting this anti-consumer effort. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be on the floor to speak again in support of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which the Senate will consider and I hope approve this week. It is a long overdue measure to address the public health hurricane, a crisis we face in this country. It is every bit as real and threatening as threats from abroad. In fact, I have just now come from a hearing of the Armed Services Committee, where I had the opportunity to question some of our Nation's leading military experts, including the head of our Special Operations Command, General Votel, about the threat posed by illicit substances, such as heroin, to this country. The testimony was that those substances, when they come to this country, follow the same route as terrorists, illicit arms, and other military threats to this Nation. The bipartisan support for the measure before us is a sign of the meaningful strides that this Nation has taken, but more is necessary to be done toward ending the epidemic of heroin addiction and prescription drug abuse. It is a danger to every community across the country, big cities and towns in Connecticut, suburban and urban. Every race and religion, ethnic group, and demographic is potentially a victim. I have heard from our colleagues across the country that this crisis truly has proportions on a par with any of the tornadoes, floods or hurricanes we have seen as natural disasters. Abuse and addiction are crippling communities around the country, shattering families, and imposing enormous financial and human costs. In my home State of Connecticut, overdose deaths have steadily increased, as they have throughout the Nation, and they now surpass automobile crashes as the leading cause of injury-related death for Americans between the ages of 25 and 64. Connecticut saw more than 700 overdose deaths in 2015. Without a doubt, we must act. Many communities across Connecticut and our country already have taken steps and have dedicated resources to stopping the epidemic of heroin addiction and prescription drug overuse. I am very privileged to welcome a number of those communities to the Senate today. They are represented by mayors from major cities in Connecticut: Mayor Joe Ganim of Bridgeport, Mayor O'Leary of Waterbury, Mayor Moran of Manchester, along with local officials from Bridgeport, Groton, Manchester, New Haven, South Windsor, and the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of officials I just referred to.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. They have shown by their actions they are willing to not only talk the talk but actually walk the walk. I participated with Mayor Ganim over the weekend in a public press conference, noting the truly extraordinary and excellent work by their drug task force to stop, apprehend, arrest, and prosecute a major drug ring in the city of Bridgeport. I have talked to Mayor O'Leary about efforts in Waterbury and throughout his region--a very responsible and effective action he took as police chief of Waterbury--but we know we are not going to arrest our way out of this crisis. Law enforcement needs more effective support and resources. There is no way around the need for supporting and enhancing the operations of our local, State, and Federal law enforcement officials--in fact, increasing the partnership and cooperation among them, as was so dramatically shown by the successful law enforcement in the city of Bridgeport against this drug ring last week. All have a role and all of their cooperation is necessary. All of us have a responsibility to support their work, but the bill before us also recognizes that we are not going to arrest or jail our way out of this crisis. In fact, it provides resources for treatment and services and a more effective means of delivering Narcan, which can literally be a lifesaver, bringing overdose victims back from the brink of death. What I have heard in roundtables I have conducted around the State of Connecticut is the need for those additional steps, not focusing on any one of them but a multifaceted effort, as this bill reflects. In the roundtables I have conducted, I have heard from law enforcement professionals, first responders, doctors, addiction specialists, elected officials, and many others, including recovering addicts and their families. Their stories are riveting and heartbreaking about the effects of addiction, beginning with powerful prescription painkillers for routine surgery, broken ankles or wrists, and wisdom teeth that have been removed. There was overprescription of 20 pills, 30 pills, when 2 pills or 3 pills would have been sufficient, and those pills are the gateway to more serious addiction or they find their way onto the street where they fuel the addiction of others and lead to addiction to heroin, which often is cheaper than the prescription pills. Those stories I have heard from around our State, stories from people struggling with addiction or who have lost a loved one to this disease, add to the public record that exists. That record includes a story that appeared within the past week or so in the New London Day. It talks about two childhood friends, Nat and Joe. Both of them struggled with heroin addiction, but they are now in recovery. Between them, they have lost several friends, a former girlfriend, and a stepbrother to overdoses, and each has a sibling who has also become an addict. Nat is now 27 and the father of two. He said: I started taking pills when I was 19 or 20 and was stressed out when I was going through a custody battle over my son. Somebody said to try one, and then I was taking them a couple of times a week and then every day I was buying off the street. It was out of control. It got so that I couldn't work without drugs. The same happened to Nat's friend Joe with Percocet. He described how he took a few pills, liked the feeling, and rapidly began to take drugs with other friends, including OxyContin and heroin. Another article in the Waterbury Republican American told the story of Thomas Obst, who was prescribed OxyContin for an eye injury. When he later suffered from withdrawal symptoms, he turned to heroin to keep himself from suffering. He explained: You never know what a street drug is mixed with, but it's less expensive . . . someone mentioned heroin. I thought I could control it. Thomas eventually overdosed, but his life was saved by a brave State Trooper named Josh Sawyer, who was able to administer naloxone. This drug can be a lifesaver if it is available to police--as it was in this instance--and first responders and firefighters. Unfortunately, its price has skyrocketed, and it is increasingly in short supply. These stories from Connecticut are hardly unique. Our colleagues know they are happening in their communities. They know overdose deaths are skyrocketing, that addiction is increasing, and that the toll taken on their States and our communities is absolutely horrendous. During our roundtable in Bridgeport last Friday, a manager of the Bridgeport Recovery Community Center explained the obstacles that people afflicted with addiction face in trying to obtain treatment this way: Insurers will dictate what they will and will not pay for. You have to continually prove that this person is allowed to stay. You must make daily phone calls to plead your case. When treatment is made available, there should be no wrong door; there should be no harassing need to demonstrate the problem and the need for treatment. We need more availability of insurance and increasing recognition that addiction is not a stigma, it is an affliction, a disease, every bit as much so as any other disease. And supplies of the drugs that can help treat that addiction--SUBOXONE, for example--have to be made available. The legislation before us would provide more treatment, more beds, but it is only a down payment, only a beginning. There is truly a need for recognition that we face a public health hurricane and that this crisis, a spreading epidemic, will only become worse if we fail to provide more assistance. This bill strengthens State programs like Connecticut's that are already in place, including State prescription drug monitoring programs as well as training for law enforcement and emergency responders in the use of Narcan. It provides important recovery support services for those struggling with addiction, and it would strengthen existing Federal programs, such as the DEA's drug take-back program. The bill also provides more support for substance abuse treatment services for incarcerated individuals. We know a lot of people in prison today are there because of their addiction. If they are to emerge successfully from incarceration, they need that support and assistance to break the grip of addiction. As important as this bill is, I agree with many of my colleagues--and they have spoken on the floor--that it is far less effective than it could be without the $600 million supplemental appropriations that I have advocated and fought to pass. I am disappointed the amendment of Senator Shaheen, which I spearheaded and cosponsored, was not included in this measure, and I look forward to continuing to fight for the resources necessary to make this fight real. I want to thank all of my colleagues, including Senator Whitehouse and others, for incorporating a bipartisan provision I wrote with Senator Coats called the Expanding Access to Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs Act. This provision will allow nurse practitioners and physician assistants to access the information they need. Specifically, they would be able to access State prescription drug monitoring programs to consult a patient's prescription opioid history and thereby determine if a patient has a history of addiction or receiving multiple prescriptions from multiple sources. I know from my decade and a half of work in this area how doctor shopping and other abuses can in fact exacerbate this problem of addiction and prescription drug abuse. Although nurse practitioners and physician assistants wrote over 7 million opioid prescriptions in 2013, few States permit them to consult and submit prescribing data to these important State databases. Allowing these providers to access more information about patient history enables them to address potential addiction before--and I stress ``before''--it becomes a serious problem. I hope this body will adopt a number of other amendments that I have proposed, including the one Senator Markey and I have spearheaded, amendment No. 3382, prescriber education. Prescriber education is crucial. In a roundtable I held at the Yale medical school, a number of the docs told me that now--only recently--are there sufficient education and training and specific courses devoted to pain management and prescription discipline. Many doctors now lack that education, and our amendment would require that training as a condition for continued--Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for a few more minutes.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. It would provide as a condition that this training be conducted before any doctor receives a renewal of his or her license by the Drug Enforcement Administration. To help our veterans, an amendment that I have offered, No. 3438, would eliminate naloxone copays for our veterans. As ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have seen how the opioid epidemic has affected our veterans. It is truly devastating. Safe prescribing of opioids is vital because many veterans, especially those returning from combat, have serious pain issues that must be addressed, but they must be addressed safely, with care and caution about the dangers of addiction. I appreciate our dedication to addressing this problem. I hope that it will be bipartisan and that our approval this week will match the urgency of this problem in communities around the State of Connecticut and around this country. The solution to this problem is long overdue for action, and I look forward to this next step--only one of many that have to be taken--in aiding our law enforcers, our health care providers, our public officials, such as our representatives today on the Hill, in moving forward and addressing this problem. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. May I have just 1 more minute?

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I begin by calling attention to a private Iranian airline, designated by the U.S. Department of Treasury for its support for terrorism and funneling of weapons to Hezbollah and to the Assad regime in Syria. This airline continues to operate and even expand its international business network, despite tough words from the administration. But this kind of tough language is insufficient. The time to impose sanctions on Mahan Air is now. The time to impose sanctions on Mahan Air is clearly now. I have called on the administration in a letter, which I helped to lead and on which I am joined by a number of my colleagues, in late February--February 29--to the Secretary of the Treasury. Sanctions might be forthcoming against this airline if this body were to approve Adam Szubin to be Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, but so far we have failed to do so. His confirmation has been blocked. I regret it. Whether or not he is confirmed, sanctions should be imposed on this airline. Mahan Air relies on a host of local partners who provide financial and other services for it to maintain this robust international flight network. So taking this action against Mahan Air will not only send a signal, it will end actions by Mahan Air that are against international law and support terrorism and the funneling of weapons to some terrorist groups that can do harm to the United States as well as to our allies and partners abroad. Mr. President, I also want to talk about the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. Hopefully, we will vote today in support of it. It is a great bipartisan bill. I am privileged to have worked on it as a member of the Judiciary Committee. I thank all of the members of that committee and others, most especially Senator Whitehouse and Senator Leahy, for incorporating provisions that I have helped to offer in this bill. We heard from our colleagues around the country about the public health crisis that we face today. It is more than a crisis. It is a hurricane--almost like a public health hurricane--a natural disaster that requires us to act now. Abuse and addiction are crippling our communities, shattering our families, carrying enormous financial and human costs. The overdose deaths have steadily increased. They now surpass automobile accidents as the leading cause of injury-related deaths for Americans between the age of 25 and 64. The United States consumes over 80 percent of prescription opioids, even though we make up only 4.6 percent of the world's population. In Connecticut, I have held roundtables across our State, and I hear again and again the tragic stories of young people who begin taking powerful painkillers when they break a leg or a wrist in a sports injury or when they have wisdom teeth removed and they receive a prescription for 30 days. They only need 3 days' worth of painkillers, if they need them at all. But the overprescription and the abuse that results from it often leads to addiction. The gateway to addiction is these powerful painkillers that provide the beginnings of the problem. One university counselor wrote to me recently: When I first began this position 14 years ago, it was extremely uncommon to be working with a student who abused a substance besides alcohol. Today, I have a recovery house and a program full of students battling addiction from [prescription opioids]. I have heard from mothers and families, from teachers and counselors who have struggled to find quality substance abuse treatment programs and behavioral health services for their loved ones. One mother wrote to me about her two sons. Some 8 years ago, her oldest son died from a heroin overdose after a prescription program released him early. Her younger son continues to struggle with addiction but was recently told by his insurance company that he lacked a long enough history of substance abuse to qualify for inpatient treatment. We must address these problems, and the solution is multifaceted. Supporting law enforcement is part of the solution, with resources and with other measures that will enable interdiction of the supplies of heroin and cracking down on the illicit supplies of painkillers. But law enforcement has told me, as a former colleague, that we are not going to arrest our way out of this problem. The jails and prisons alone do not provide a solution. There is a need for more treatment and services. I hear that point again and again and again, but that source of solution alone will not be the panacea. There is no one solution. Education for our doctors and providers and prescribers is part of what is needed. Again, alone, no single solution is sufficient. I want to thank the bill sponsors for incorporating the provision that I wrote with Senator Coats, the Expanding Access to Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs Act. This provision would allow nurse practitioners and physician assistants to access the information they need. Specifically, they would be able to access State prescription drug monitoring programs to consult a patient's prescription opioid history and determine if that patient has a history of addiction or is receiving multiple prescriptions from multiple sources. It is critical that we recognize the key role that nurse practitioners and physician assistants play in curbing prescription drug abuse and diversion. I propose a number of amendments that attack other elements of this problem. I am going to continue to advocate for them, whether they are in the final package or not--and some of them may well be. I will continue the effort to make them real and adopt them as law, whether or not they are included in this measure. Over and again, we have heard that many struggling with addiction start by abusing those prescription drugs after receiving a legitimate prescription. That is why Senator Markey and I have submitted amendment No. 3382, which would cut down on overprescribing opioids by requiring providers, when they apply for a license from the DEA to prescribe these controlled substances, to first complete education programs so they are encouraged to adopt responsible prescribing practices. Those practices can be as simple as keeping track and scrutinizing the use of these painkillers. Every licensee, every provider, every nurse practitioner, everyone writing out a slip of paper that enables somebody to purchase these powerful prescription painkillers would have to take a course and complete this training. In Blumenthal amendment No. 3327, a separate measure that I am proposing as ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, there would be better access to naloxone, known as Narcan, by veterans. We have seen how naloxone or Narcan is a lifesaver. It can bring people back from the brink of death. There should be more of it. It should be more available to our police, firefighters, and first responders on the streets of Connecticut and in neighborhoods and communities across the country. It is insufficiently available. It has skyrocketed in price, and there have been shortages. But I have seen how the opioid epidemic has affected, particularly, our veterans, and often, again, with overprescriptions in certain parts of the country. We have moved to address that problem. In Wisconsin, for example, and with the great help of Senator Baldwin, my colleague on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, we have worked to craft legislation that will help contain and cut that abusive prescription of opioids. I believe that this measure will give information to veterans and the tools they need also to prevent deaths in case of an overdose. Much of the work of the Veterans' Affairs Committee is focused on the opioid epidemic and the Jason Simcakoski Memorial Opioid Safety Act we are working to pass into law. But safe prescribing of opioids is vital because many veterans, even when legitimately prescribed, have serious pain issues that can lead to abuse once those issues are addressed. So I have filed this amendment that would eliminate the requirement that veterans pay a copay for naloxone kits and for education for providers as to how to use them. In other words, the providers will provide education, along with providing the prescriptions, as to how to use the Narcan kits that veterans could receive without any copay. Naloxone is necessary for those first responders, and the underlying bill includes provisions that would help to provide it, but this measure would focus particularly on veterans, where the need is great and growing greater. I wish to point out that the cost of this measure would be less than $100,000 per year. The savings in dollars long term would vastly exceed that amount, and the savings in lives more than justifies this, even without the savings in dollars. We are talking here about the ability to save veterans' lives. We have an obligation to leave no veteran behind, to keep faith with our veterans, and to make sure that a minimum amount of spending will enable the saving of lives. I appreciate again the work of my colleagues in crafting this bill. I hope we will move forward in passing it and that the amendments I have suggested will be adopted to strengthen it even further. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I am always honored to be in this Chamber, and I feel immensely privileged to participate in any debate. But I must say, Mr. President, that the average American listening to the colloquy that has been conducted just within the past few minutes would regard it somewhat in disbelief, maybe dismay, because the Presiding Officer is absolutely right that the people of our States are literally dying as a result of the heroin and opioid epidemic that has created a public health hurricane, a crisis of untold proportion. This body should and hopefully will pass a bill that will help to address that public health crisis. It is only a downpayment, only a first step, and only effective if accompanied by funding, an emergency supplemental necessary to provide the real resources to address this problem. But this body is capable of passing that bill and still debating whether there should be a hearing and vote on the President's Supreme Court nominee. The voting on the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, also known as CARA, is within the control of the majority. That is a simple fact. As Ronald Reagan said, facts are stubborn things. The fact is that control of the votes on that measure are within the prerogative of the majority. In the meantime, the majority also has the power and authority to say we will have a hearing and a vote on the President's Supreme Court nominee; we will do our job. That is what Senators are elected to do. That is why we have come to the floor of the Senate to say that the Senate must do its job. It has a constitutional duty. It has no discretion whether it should wait for a politically opportune time to do its job or whether it should hear from its base politically. It should do its job when the President submits his nominee. What may be most regrettable about this debate and about the majority leadership's refusal to have a hearing and a vote on the President's nominee is that it demonstrates political machination--game playing-- that threatens the Supreme Court as an institution. It endangers its credibility and trust. The Supreme Court has no armies or police force. It depends, for the enforceability of its decisions, on its credibility and trust. And when it is demeaned in the eyes of the public, when its stature is diminished, when it is dragged into the political morass of a partisan debate and partisan paralysis, its credibility and trust and its stature are vastly diminished, and its powers and institution are in danger. I am dismayed that these machinations tend to diminish and demean this institution where I worked for a year as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, where I argued cases when I was attorney general, and where I was yesterday on those steps with the same awe and admiration and, indeed, reverence that the American people should feel for an institution above politics, higher than the ordinary give-and- take and contention that occurs on this floor and throughout the political institution. The refusal to even consider having a hearing, having a vote, having a meeting with the President's nominee endangers this institution. Elections have consequences. We all say so. Obstruction has consequences too. The failure to consider these nominees means that critical decisions will be left undecided. I urge my colleagues to enable us to have a vote.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. Madam President, I want to close with the words of Justice Scalia, who said, when he was asked to recuse himself, that leaving the Court potentially equally divided 4 to 4--that a 4-to-4 vote was to be avoided if possible. He said: With eight justices [it] rais[es] the possibility that, by reason of a tie vote, [the Court] will find itself unable to resolve the significant legal issue presented by the case. . . . Even one unnecessary recusal impairs the functioning of the Court. Even one unnecessary 4-to-4 vote impairs the stature and credibility and the effectiveness of the Court. I urge all of us to move forward with the President's nominee when it is made. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, earlier today I joined a number of my colleagues outside the Supreme Court to work with advocates who were gathered there, thousands of people, including many young people. Looking into their faces, I realized that for them Roe v. Wade is history, but my mind went back to 1974, the year after Roe v. Wade, when I was a law clerk to Justice Blackmun. I heard similar voices from the serene, contemplative chambers of Justice Blackmun and thought then--in fact all of us thought then--that Roe v. Wade would settle for all time, at least for the next decades, the reproductive rights of women in the United States of America, and we were wrong. We were wrong that the law would be settled, that rights would be protected, that Roe would be accepted, and that privacy would become enshrined as a matter of constitutional law or at least accepted politically. We were wrong. Today, in a historic case, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on a challenge to the basic fundamental right of privacy with practical implications that will alter the lives of women in Texas, where the case rose, and throughout the country. I know firsthand from my experience as a law clerk, but even more so in the decades since as an advocate for reproductive rights and women's health care, as U.S. attorney, as a member of the Connecticut General Assembly, first as a member of the House and then in the State Senate, and as our State attorney general, working and fighting to enshrine in State law the rights protected by Roe v. Wade and then protect them from physical threat and intrusion at the clinics where those rights were made real. Those rights mean nothing if they are unprotected. If women need to travel hundreds of miles, if women need to leave their jobs and their children for days, if women have no access to those rights, they are unreal for them. That is the net fact of the law that is underchallenged in the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. That law, HB2, in effect, so restricts the availability of reproductive rights in practical, real terms as to place an insurmountable burden for many women on the exercise of those rights. Those rights are prevented from being real for them, for countless others, and they will be put out of reach for countless women across the country if this law is not struck down. That is what we are asking the Supreme Court to do: to strike down this law that under the pretense of protecting women's health, imposes restrictions that deny rights, rights to privacy that are basic to the human condition. They are constitutional rights, but nothing is more basic than the right to control your own body. Nothing is more essential than protection of rights to decide when to have a child. These issues of control over one's body involve control over one's faith, rights of privacy, and power to make basic life decisions. That is what it means to have a right to privacy. It is the right to be left alone--as one of our Supreme Court Justices said, the right to be left alone from unwarranted and unnecessary government intrusion. The Supreme Court will have to make a judgment about whether the burden placed on that right is justified by this supposed protection of women's health. Anybody familiar with this case knows that supposed reason for these laws that require many privileges for doctors or particular widths of hallways in clinics is a ruse, a pretense, in fact, a falsehood. My view is the outcome should be clear in this deliberative battle before the Court, but the ramifications, the practical impacts, are severe for those women in Texas who would have no access to reproductive health care, and for women around the country because the simple stark fact is, since 2011, State legislatures have enacted 288 laws like the one in Texas, designed to restrict access to reproductive rights. We are not talking about a situation limited to Texas. In State after State, legislature after legislature, these rights would be restricted by similar laws. That is the reason I have introduced the Women's Health Protection Act, to stop this invasion--it is truly an invasion--of women's reproductive rights. The measure I have introduced would, in effect, strike down such measures, prevent them, so as to reduce, and hopefully even eliminate, the cost and the time required for litigation challenging them in State after State, like what happened in Texas where women have been denied the certain assurance, the basic security of knowing that this care will be available to them, because of the continuing litigation, the costs of lawsuits, and the time-consuming contention and controversy that arises from it. The arbitrary and arcane restrictions imposed by the Texas law concerning admitting privilege requirements and building specifications are unrelated to health and safety and clearly create an undue burden on women's right to choose. That is the legal principle, the core tenant that needs to be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. I joined with a number of my colleagues, and in fact led the amicus brief to the Supreme Court, which urges them to reach the right result and strike down this law. My hope is that the outcome will not only be right for Texas and the women of Texas--and the people of Texas because the right of privacy is not guaranteed only to women, it is to men, and the decisions that women make affect families and children as well as their spouses. I hope the Supreme Court finally does what Roe v. Wade was thought to do in clear, bright-line text that will prevent States from intruding with these pretense, ruse laws, supposedly protecting health when, in fact, all they do is restrict the right to privacy. I am proud to join with my colleagues in fighting these attacks on women's health care. But I hope that the clerks, as I once was, in the Supreme Court will look from those windows today and think to themselves that this case will, in fact, finally settle these issues, finally give women the assurance and security they need. There is no need to keep returning and relitigating these issues. There is no need for this body to consume time and energy on defunding Planned Parenthood. There is no need for these kinds of repeated battles over rights that should be secure and unchallengeable in 21st Century America. Rehashing this fight simply costs us in time and other precious commodities that we should be spending on jobs, economic progress, veterans, national security, investment in infrastructure, investment in our human capital, and college affordability. All of the present issues--those and others of this day--are what should occupy us on this floor and occupy the country as we move forward, hopefully guaranteeing that the rights in Roe will be real for every American woman. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here today to urge this body to fulfill its constitutional duty and take action on the Supreme Court nominee who shortly will be submitted by President Obama. I come here not only as a U.S. Senator but also as a former Federal prosecutor, a U.S. attorney in Connecticut from 1977 to 1981, a former State attorney general for 20 years, and a veteran of four arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. I am also here as a former law clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun, and I share with the Presiding Officer the experience of having had that supremely important and formative experience, and, of course, it shapes my view as well of the Court. I have immense respect and awe for the position and power and eminence of the U.S. Supreme Court, its role in our democracy, and its history of scholarship and public service. I have the same admiration for Justice Antonin Scalia, and I take this moment to remember his uniquely American life. As the son of an immigrant, he was a dedicated public servant, a gifted writer, and a powerful speaker. I heard him speak on a number of occasions and argued before him in the Court in a number of memorable exchanges. His sense of humor and his quickness of wit and insight remain with me now. As all of my colleagues will attest, he dedicated his life to serving the public, which can be demanding and difficult at times, but his life showed, as we know, that the difficulties and the demands are well worth the rewards. My thoughts are with his wife Maureen and his entire family. My personal view, speaking only for myself, is that one way to honor Justice Scalia is to adhere to the Constitution, to follow its words, which are very explicit on the topic of nominating and confirming a Supreme Court Justice and which give us the role of advising and consenting after the President has nominated. I hope we will fulfill our constitutional duty to advise and consent--to do our job, literally, to do our job as we were elected and took an oath of office to do. That is what we are paid to do--our job as prescribed by the Constitution. I fundamentally reject the notion that the Senate's refusal to act, as laid out in no uncertain terms by my Republican colleagues, fulfills this obligation. In fact, the abdication of responsibility through this rejection is disrespectful to that document and to the Court itself. President Obama has indicated that he is currently engaged in a thoughtful and deliberative process, working to select a nominee with the intellect and integrity that will persuade the American public and hopefully also the Senate to support his suggestion. His nomination would allow the Supreme Court to function again with the nine members who are essential to its deliberation. The conclusions my colleagues advance during such a process will, of course, be to each of them to decide. I will be, in fact, among the most exacting and demanding of our colleagues who question that nominee in a hearing, who seek answers in screening and researching the expertise and experience of that person. In no way should the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, or the U.S. Senate, where we all serve, act as a rubberstamp. No way. No rubberstamp. We must advise as well as consent, and advising means being demanding and careful. But I think we have an obligation to go through that process. We can't just say, sight unseen, no. We can't say that we are going to leave it to the next elected Senate or the next elected President. We have been elected and he has been elected to do our job. The Supreme Court must have a full complement of Justices to effectively address some of the most complex issues and consequential legal challenges our Nation faces today. Put aside the merits of each-- whether it is immigration or affirmative action, women's reproductive rights, voting rights--decisions are needed. The lack of decision has consequences, just as elections have consequences. Obstruction has consequences, too, and we cannot afford to weaken the Federal judiciary's capacity for effective governance. We can't allow a manufactured crisis in the Senate to plunge another branch of government into gridlock and to plague the judiciary with the same partisan paralysis that is so detested by the American people. In fact, the rejection of our constitutional responsibility to do our job would epitomize the gridlock and partisan contention that America finds so abhorrent today. Like my colleagues, I go around the State of Connecticut, and what people say to me more commonly than anything else is ``Why can't you do your job? Why can't you get stuff done?'' Let's get this done. Statements by Majority Leader McConnell and Chairman Grassley, as well as a number of my other colleagues, have indicated that President Obama's nominee to the highest Court in the land should not even be considered, but turning our backs on that constitutional obligation to act would be equivalent to shutting down the government. It is of exactly the same kind of consequence. It may not be as far-reaching in its immediate effect, but it has the same long-term consequences, which are not merely to prevent decisions and actions from happening-- necessary decisions and actions--but also to undermine credibility and faith and trust in our government. When it comes to the Congress or the President, maybe that credibility is of lesser importance, but it is a chief asset of our judiciary. The Supreme Court of the United States has no armies or police force. It commands the Nation's respect through its credibility. It enforces obeyance by virtue of that credibility. This posture by my Republican colleagues threatens to drag a vital, nonpartisan institution into the morass of procedural gamesmanship and electoral mudslinging--the kind of game playing and gamesmanship that has so disillusioned and dismayed Americans more broadly. As I have discussed this process with the people of Connecticut, I have heard outrage over this attempt to hamstring the Supreme Court, which looks like the recent, similarly illogical process of shutting down the government. If my Republican colleagues want to reject a nominee, that is their right. After a hearing, they can vote no. They may have reason, and those reasons may be subjective or fact-based and objective. But to simply deny any consideration--even a meeting with a nominee--is stark obstructionism. It is an extreme version of the phenomenon that has frozen this body for much too long. The majority campaigned in 2014 on restoring law and getting things done. They promised Americans everywhere that the new Senate majority would usher in an end to gridlock on Capitol Hill. We made some progress--too slow, too little--but moving in the right direction will be forestalled, if not doomed, by this obstructionism, and these promises would be broken if the Senate refuses to act. At this critical time, we cannot hold the highest level of an entire branch of government hostage because of political gamesmanship. That is not what the American people elected us to do, and it is not what the American people deserve. Doing so would dishonor the bipartisan tradition of providing a hearing and a vote for a Supreme Court nominee, which is our constitutional obligation and has been followed by past Senates. Even when a nominee during President Reagan's Presidency was nominated 14 months before the election and even though the vote came during the last year of that President's term in office, Justice Kennedy was confirmed. We should do the same. Why not? There is plenty of time between now and then to give deliberate due consideration to the President's nominee. I hope that the outrage and outcry from the American people will persuade my colleagues to reconsider, reflect, and reverse this disastrous course. In fact, I believe they will relent because this course is dangerous to the Court, damaging to our Nation, and ultimately destructive to our democracy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am so honored to follow my great friend and very eloquent advocate from Massachusetts, Senator Markey, who said much more powerfully than I can our reasons for opposing Dr. Robert Califf as the nominee for the head of the FDA. To say it very simply, this agency needs drastic reform. It needs an overhaul in the way that it approves these powerful painkilling substances that can be a gateway to addiction, whether to opiates or whether to heroin. I am proud to stand on the floor with Senator Markey, Senator Manchin, and others who feel that more must be done, that our Nation is lagging in addressing an epidemic. It is truly a public health hurricane that is sweeping Connecticut and our country. I have done roundtables around my State that are among the most moving public experiences of my service in the Senate and, indeed, my time for 20 years as attorney general on any public issue. It is an issue that concerns Iowa as well as every other State in the country. It is an issue that should bring us together on a bipartisan basis to address this true public health crisis. My reason for opposing Dr. Califf is, very simply, the failure of the FDA to recognize its own shortcomings and the prospect that there will be no change in the way the FDA is responding or failing to respond to this crisis if he is confirmed. With his confirmation, all that we can see ahead is more of the same. That is unacceptable. The FDA must be part of the solution or it will continue to be part of the problem. There is no question that the solution to this problem has to be multifaceted. In the roundtables that I have held around our State and in my conversations with the experts in this field and in the meetings that I have conducted with public health officials around the State with recovering addicts and their families, law enforcement, as well as public officials, I have seen that there is no single solution. There is no one-size-fits-all for recovering addicts, for communities, for different parts of the country. There has to be an emphasis on law enforcement because cutting off the supply has to be an objective, and law enforcement needs and deserves more support from this Nation and from the Congress. There has to be an emphasis on treatment and services. We are not going to arrest our way or jail our way out of this public health crisis, nor is treatment alone a sufficient solution. Part of the solution has to be more action from the FDA to oversee, scrutinize, and stop the pipeline of painkillers and opioids that are continuing to deluge our community. The urgency of this crisis is clear. In 2015 my State had more than 700 prescriptions leading to overdose deaths. These fatal overdoses are also avoidable. The number of opioid-related deaths around the Nation has skyrocketed, and behind every one of these heartbroken families and communities is a realization that more must be done. We depend on the FDA to deal with these kinds of problems. The American people rely on this agency to implement a strong, regulatory approach to protect them. Unfortunately, the FDA has utterly and abjectly failed to protect the American people against the epidemic of opioid overuse. The FDA has a troubling history in this area, and I am well familiar with it because I highlighted it when I was the attorney general of our State, asking for stronger warnings for patients and consumers, asking for better oversight of oxycodone and related medicine, and asking for better supervision and education of the prescribers. And I asked in letters, in petitions, and in legal actions. In effect, the FDA has fueled this crisis by approving too many drugs with too little analysis. Too often, it has failed to use an advisory committee when approving a new opioid painkiller. It has demonstrated a troubling preference for speed over safety. It has expedited consideration at the risk of public health. It is essential to have an independent panel of experts to review and advise the agency on its approval of any opioid painkiller, giving the public a chance to provide input before a product comes to market. Unfortunately, in addition to instances where no advisory committee has been convened, the FDA has simply approved new drugs over committees objections. This failing to listen to warnings from experts harms public health and safety and confidence and credibility of this agency. One example, which some of my colleagues may remember, concerns the FDA's approval of the drug Zohydro. This high-dose, extremely potent opioid, which lacks abuse-deterrent properties, was approved in 2014 despite strong objections from the scientific advisory panel that approved it. That panel voted 11 to 2 against approving the drug. The questionable oversight tactics the FDA has employed so far leave me with serious doubts about its ability to implement its recently released action plan. In this plan, the agency committed to convening advisory committees when approving any opioid painkiller that is not abuse-deterrent. This approach is, very simply, insufficient. We have seen how dangerous opioids can be. All opioids, whether or not they are classified as abuse-deterrent, should be reviewed by an independent advisory committee. And even if an opioid is classified as abuse-deterrent, that doesn't mean it cannot be abused or that an advisory committee shouldn't be consulted. The FDA itself recognizes that abuse-deterrent technology is in its infancy and independent advice is therefore essential. Unfortunately, instances where the FDA has failed to listen to its advisory committees are not limited to the context of drug approvals. In 2012 the agency recognized that opioids could lead to a number of dangerous outcomes--addiction, accidental overdose, and death. In response, the FDA implemented a risk-management strategy for extended- release opioids, including requiring education for prescribers on safe prescription practices and the potential for abuse and addiction. Two years have passed--2 years since the first of these trainings was made available--but the FDA has yet to release information showing how many prescribers have been trained and educated on responsible prescribing practices. The FDA has ignored my call for this information to be released. The FDA has ignored the recommendations from two advisory committees that a similar strategy should be used for immediate-release opioids as well--a crucial issue, given that 91 percent of all opioids prescribed are in this category. I urge my colleagues to join with me in sending a signal to the FDA that more effective scrutiny and actions are vitally important. The FDA has failed to take this crisis seriously. Until it does, it is failing the American people. And a new FDA head must indicate there will be a sea change--a fundamental overhaul--in the way FDA oversees and protects the American people. I would like to highlight as well the crucial importance of finalizing the deeming rule, which is necessary to ensure the agency's authority over all tobacco products--also pertaining to addiction; the drug is nicotine--and that is essential to ensure that not only cigarettes but also e-cigarettes--that the companies that make them cannot market to children and to people who may be led to addiction to that drug. I am determined that the Nation do better in addressing this urgent crisis--a public health hurricane sweeping this country, as disastrous as any physical crisis of tornadoes or floods, maybe, in destroying lives and jeopardizing our national security. I am pleased to yield back to my colleague Senator Markey and to be joined by my great friend and colleague Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia.