Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, yesterday the senior Senator from Arizona took to the floor to criticize the work of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. I am honored to be on that subcommittee as the vice chairman and to work with Senator Cochran, the Republican from Mississippi. The senior Senator from Arizona argued that the support for Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump is somehow connected to the work of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. I have heard some pretty outlandish claims by Mr. Trump on the campaign trail, but the fact that he would capture the hearts and minds of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee with his rhetoric is beyond me. Senator Cochran has been a Member of the Senate for many years. He is respected and has worked his way up to be chairman of the full committee. I have worked with him and found him to be an excellent partner. He is bipartisan and tries to make sure that we protect our Nation's national defense. I have never found him to be in the thrall of Donald Trump, but that suggestion was made yesterday by the senior Senator from Arizona. I will leave it to the American people to judge the wisdom or absurdity of that allegation. I would like to take a moment to correct the record on a few of the things that the senior Senator from Arizona said. The issues involved are pretty complex, but the crux of it comes down to this: The senior Senator from Arizona is proposing to waste $1.5 billion--and perhaps as much as $5 billion--on a controversial proposal on how the Department of Defense and intelligence agencies should launch national security satellites. In addition to costing billions of dollars--that is billions, not millions--the senior Senator from Arizona's proposal is opposed by the Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter; the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper; the Under Secretary of Defense, Frank Kendall; and the Secretary of the Air Force, Deborah James. One would think that the senior Senator from Arizona, who chairs the Defense Authorization Committee, would note that it is unified opposition from the Department of Defense to his ideas. Each of these individuals has expressed strong concern about the ideas of the senior Senator from Arizona. They have stated as clearly as they can and as often as they can that what he has in mind will harm our national security. They have even stated it in the senior Senator's committee hearings. He is either not listening, paying attention, or refusing to agree. Nevertheless, all that I did, all that the Senate has done last year with Senator Cochran on a bipartisan basis, was to listen to our senior national security leaders while protecting taxpayers from wasting billions of dollars. The matter generating all of this discussion is about competition for launching defense satellites into space. Let me tell you at the outset that before I came to the subcommittee, we made a terrible decision. About 10 years ago, the two leading competitors for launching satellites into space were two private companies, Boeing Aircraft and Lockheed. They came to the government with a suggestion, and they said: We've got a great idea. Instead of competing against one another to launch satellites--listen to this--we will merge our companies together, and we will save the government lots of money. I don't know why, but the Department of Defense and the committees on Capitol Hill bought it, and they created the United Launch Alliance, or ULA. It became a monopoly. These two merged corporations became a monopoly in launching satellites. You know what happens when you have monopoly status? The costs go up dramatically, and that is exactly what happened. In the last 10 years, United Launch Alliance has been a reliable partner with the Department of Defense, and they have launched satellites and other things into space which have been critical for national security. But because they are a monopoly with no competition, they became very expensive. There are new entries in the market that are promising in terms of launching satellites, and one of them is SpaceX. SpaceX has matured into a company that can play an important role in the future of satellite launches. I noted this fact, and as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I did something that is unusual by Capitol Hill standards. In January of 2014, I held a hearing. At the same table I invited the CEO of United Launch Alliance and the CEO of SpaceX to sit next to one another and testify. They answered questions about their capabilities and about the history of space launch in the future. The committee members asked them how they could save money, and each of them responded. At the end of the hearing, I suggested to each of the CEOs that they propound up to 10 questions to the other CEO that they didn't think were covered in our hearing. I tried to make this as open as possible and to invite a new competitive spirit when it came to these space launches. I think it was constructive. It is also clear that there is another element in this issue that brought the senior Senator from Arizona to the floor. The United Launch Alliance has several engines that can take a satellite into space. The most economical one, the RD-180, is not built in America. It is built in Russia. Now, that has become a major problem. Put Vladimir Putin and his adventurism to the side here. I have even joined with the senior Senator from Arizona, condemning what Putin has done in countries such as Georgia and Ukraine and his threats to the Baltics and Poland. Put that over to the side for a moment. It is best for us to make our own engines when it comes to the launching of satellites for America's national defense and intelligence. We put millions of dollars in the appropriations bill to incentivize the building of a new engine so we can finally break away from our dependence on this Russian RD-180 engine. For 2 years we have been putting that money in the bill. I am not opposed to competition. I favor competition. I favor an American-made engine. That is not the issue. Here is the problem: You can't just waive a wand or pass an appropriation and recreate a new rocket engine. It can take up to 5 years. What will happen in that 5- year period of time while we in America are developing at least one new American-made reliable rocket engine? We will have to be dependent either on that Russian engine in transition or run the risk that we are not going to have any engines available when we desperately need them for satellite launches. That is exactly what the Secretary of Defense has told the senior Senator from Arizona, and he just will not buy it. He has said: We have to cut the cord and walk away from the Russian engines. Here is something he can't answer: NASA also uses engines to launch satellites and people into space. Why would we launch people into space? For the space station. How do we get those folks up to the space station and bring them home? On Russian rocket engines. If the senior Senator from Arizona says that's it, cold turkey, no more Russian engines, what in the world is he going to do about NASA's needs for this engine in supplying the space station and making sure that the folks in orbit can safely come home? He can't answer that question because the answer truly tells him the problem he is creating here. What we are trying to do is this: Transition to American-made engines. I am for that. Create competition for space launches in the future. I am for that. And make sure we do it in a thoughtful, sensible way and not at the expense of America's national defense, our national intelligence, or the future of our space program. We can work with the Senator from Arizona. I would like to do that, but when he comes to the floor and suggests that all of us who oppose him are somehow cronies of Vladimir Putin or marching to the orders of Donald Trump, it doesn't create a very productive environment for conversation. Let's do the right thing. Let's work together on an appropriations authorization. Let's put the Russian engines behind us in an orderly way, let's create the American engine, and let's push for competition. That is where I got started on this, and that is where I am today. We need to listen to the experts--the experts at the Pentagon--who have told us repeatedly that to do this cold turkey and to cut off the Russian engines is, frankly, to jeopardize our national defense, security, intelligence gathering, and even our space program. That is something I hope the senior Senator from Arizona can agree is an outcome which we should avoid. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to say a few remarks about this resolution of disapproval. While I oppose this measure, I share the junior Senator from Kentucky's frustration with some aspects of our relationship with Pakistan. Notably, I think the jailing of Dr. Shakil Afridi for 23 years under highly questionable charges is an outrage. For those of you who don't remember, Dr. Afridi helped the United States locate Osama bin Laden. His approach may have been debatable, but one thing is clear--he doesn't deserve to languish in a Pakistani jail for more than two decades on manufactured charges. I have also been troubled by the Pakistani military and intelligence service's support for militant groups that work against U.S. interests in the region. In fact, I would argue that many of these groups are also working against the long term interests of our friends in Pakistan as well, as evidenced by its own domestic terrorist problem. I am also concerned that, despite important foreign aid given to Pakistan, there remains a troubling failure to address basic and urgent development needs--particularly education and schooling for girls. We also see continued cases of extreme religious intolerance, including death sentences for dubious charges of blasphemy. At the same time, I also want to take a moment to acknowledge that Pakistan has suffered horrible losses in taking on militant groups within its own borders--something I don't think we always recognize. And most importantly, I want to stress the importance of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--let's allow it to do its work and thoroughly consider this resolution first, rather than rush it through the Senate.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about an extraordinary person who passed away on Monday, March 7, at the age of 92. Dr. Quentin Young was a dedicated physician and an advocate for civil rights in Chicago. Some of Dr. Quentin's patients included the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Beatles, Studs Terkel, the late Mayor Harold Washington, and even President Obama. Dr. Young's commitment to the common good is what makes him a legend. He spent 35 years at Cook County Hospital and 56 years of private practice in Hyde Park improving health care while fighting for social justice and racial equality. His autobiography is titled, ``Everybody In, Nobody Out: Memoirs of a Rebel Without a Pause.'' And he meant it. Doctor Quentin Young grew up in Hyde Park in Chicago's Southside. And when America entered World War II, he enlisted in the Army and served his country honorably. After returning from the war, Dr. Young graduated from medical school at Northwestern University and would go on to spend 35 years at Cook County Hospital treating patients and becoming a moral voice during the Civil Rights era. When people outside of Chicago hear the words Cook County and hospital, people think about the show ``ER'' and doctors resembling George Clooney. For the people in Chicago, they think of Dr. Quentin Young. Dr. Young's experience at Cook County Hospital and his efforts during the Civil Rights movement were intertwined. In 1951, he was a founder of the Committee to End Discrimination in Chicago Medical Institutions, which focused on ending racist practices in Chicago's hospitals and clinics. By 1960, the Cook County Hospital was serving the Black community and immigrant Mexican community almost exclusively. Eighty percent of Chicago's Black births and nearly half of all Black deaths were at Cook County Hospital. This place was one of the frontlines of social inequality and Dr. Young and his family fought to change that. His efforts were not limited to the Chicagoland area. Dr. Young was a founder and national chairman of the Medical Committee for Human Rights or MCHR, which formed in June 1964 to offer support and medical care for civil rights workers, community activists, and summer volunteers working in Mississippi during the Freedom Summer. It was the MCHR that provided help and emergency medical care to anti-war protesters at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. In October of that year, Dr. Young received a summons by the House Un-American Activities Committee for his involvement in MCHR. He valiantly defended the MCHR's work. After Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., was struck in the head by a rock while marching through a White neighborhood, Dr. Young was there to patch him up. He was not only Dr King's physician but a fellow marcher during the Marquette Park protest in 1966. Dr. Young and the late Dr. Jorge Prieto, former head of the Chicago Board of Health, became the primary force behind the movement to found neighborhood medical clinics in the late 1960s. These clinics gave medical help to countless people when they couldn't afford to go to the doctor. From 1972 to 1981, he served as chairman of Medicine at Cook County Hospital. His example helped bring many dedicated people back to the hospital, but it wasn't without challenges. The staff went on strike because of the lack of resources in 1975. Dr. Young sided with the young doctors, and the governing commission fired him for it. With loyalty, the striking staff took his office door off its hinges so management couldn't change the locks and held a 24-hour vigil outside his office until he regained his position after a court fight. In 1980, Dr. Young founded the Chicago-based and Illinois-focused Health & Medicine Policy Research Group, which conducts research, education, policy development, and advocacy for policies that impact health systems to improve the health status of all people. He would go on to serve as Mayor Harold Washington's appointment as president to the Chicago Board of Health. Dr. Quentin Young never lost his passion for providing equal access to health care for the people of Illinois. Since retiring from private practice in 2008, he fought hard for a single-payer system. In 2001, at the age of 78, he walked 167 miles across Illinois, from Mississippi River to Lake Michigan, with former Governor Pat Quinn to promote access to health care. He never wavered in his belief in humanity's ability and responsibility to make a more equal and just nation. My prayers and thoughts go out to his family, Michael, Ethan, Nancy, Polly, Barbara, William, Karen, and his nine grandchildren.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, having followed my friend and colleague from Tennessee, Senator Alexander has spelled out an exciting possibility, and I know it won't be easy. It is a heavy political lift. But what he is talking about is coming up with a dramatic commitment of funds for medical research for the next 8, 9, or 10 years, over and above the ordinary budget of the National Institutes of Health. We have sat down and talked about this several times, and I wholeheartedly endorse not only his concept but also when he gets down to specifics. Some of the things he wants to focus on, including the Moonshot for Cancer, for example, is one, of course, the President and the Vice President and the vast majority of Americans would endorse because there isn't a single one of us who hasn't been touched by the threat or the actual disease of cancer among our families and friends. I won't go through the entire list, but whether we are dealing with the issues involving the brain, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, neurological issues--there are so many needs there, and I wholeheartedly endorse what he is setting out to do. On a bipartisan basis, I will work with him and Senator Murray and Senator Blunt and Senator Lindsey Graham. We all share these feelings, that this is something that will be a legacy item for this Senate. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his leadership and his cooperation in building up the budget for the National Institutes of Health research this year. The $2 billion will make a difference. I thank the Senator for being on the floor. Lead Contamination Mr. President, I would like to address a couple of issues. The contaminated water crisis in Flint, MI, is a wake-up call across America. We have to have protections in place when it comes to lead contamination. My heart goes out to people in Flint, MI, dealing with the consequences of this preventable, manmade crisis. The Senate needs to do something to help the people of Flint. We must also recognize that children across America are poisoned every day by lead, and we need to do something about it to protect these families. A Chicago Tribune reporter, Michael Hawthorne, recently authored some articles on this issue, revealing hundreds of cases of childhood lead poisoning stemming from different sources in Flint, such as lead-based paint in federally subsidized housing. That's right--housing we own as taxpayers, housing we manage as the Federal Government, and housing which is dangerous to the children who are living there. Exposure to high levels of lead poisoning can be devastating to a child, causing irreparable damage. Because the children who live in this housing are from low-income families--many minority families--lead poisoning can further trap these kids in the cycles of poverty, violence, and inequality. Families are often stuck in the homes even after the lead is discovered with no place to go. That is why Senator Menendez from New Jersey and I joined together to offer the Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act, to ensure safe and affordable housing by reducing the threat of lead exposure and lead poisoning. Congressional Representatives Keith Ellison, Mike Quigley from my State of Illinois, Brenda Lawrence, and Dan Kildee have introduced companion legislation in the House. Since the enactment of Federal lead policies in the early 1990s, lead poisoning rates have fallen. This is a big success story. However, the risk of lead poisoning from lead-based paint hazards found in homes continues to threaten kids who are living in homes built before 1978. This is especially true in Illinois. It is a problem in Cleveland, Baltimore, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and many other cities. HUD regulations are outdated, ineffective, and based on old scientific discoveries that haven't been updated. Under current HUD regulations, a landlord is not required to remediate a home to make it safe where lead-based paint hazards have been found until a child's blood lead level is 20 micrograms of lead per deciliter. That standard from HUD is four times the standard of the Centers for Disease Control. When I asked Secretary Castro of Housing and Urban Development why would we have such a disparity--why would you allow lead contamination in a child four times the level of what the Centers for Disease Control says is acceptable? He said: I have no answer, and we are going to change it. It is just wrong. I salute him for acknowledging that, and I hope to help him in any way I can to change this regulation. We also need better inspections. Inspections to qualify to be a part of a Federal housing program are cursory visual inspections. There is no way to discover lead paint that can be dangerous to household members or kids unless you have a thorough inspection. In addition to that, once we discover there is lead in the residence, we have to find another place for the family to live unless that lead can be remediated quickly. No one knows this better than Lanice Walker. She moved out of public housing in 2012 and into a home with a housing choice voucher. What an opportunity for her family--a new home. Less than 5 months after she and her family moved in, her 4-year-old daughter was diagnosed with lead poisoning. Lanice was aware of the dangers of lead in kids. She asked the Chicago Housing Authority for permission to move. They said no. Why? Because her daughter's blood level hadn't met the HUD standard. It met the CDC standard, which was one-fourth, but hadn't met the HUD standards. So despite her daughter having a blood lead level twice that of what the CDC considers to be dangerous, they wouldn't move her out of her house. So she stayed. Within the next year, another child in the house was diagnosed with lead poisoning, too, and then another one. Before she moved out, all nine of Lanice's children had elevated blood lead levels. Even so, she received permission to move only after legal advocates intervened. This could have been avoided if the home had been properly inspected. Sadly, this isn't an isolated incident. Since 2012, in Chicago alone at least 180 kids in section 8 housing have fallen victim to this mismatch in the blood level standards. After hearing Lanice's story, the Chicago Housing Authority said it would voluntarily recognize the CDC guidelines, even though HUD didn't require them to. That is a good step. However, families all across America need the same relief that will come when HUD standards are changed. That is what this bill is all about. I commend it to my colleagues and hope they would look at it carefully in an effort to ensure that public housing is safe. What did we learn in Flint, MI? We think 9,000 children were exposed to the lead in the water that has had an impact on them--for some, brain damage that cannot be reversed. Who will answer for the poisoning of 9,000 children? How can we answer to the next generation that faces this hazard if we don't take this important step? We need to ensure that Federal lead standards are updated in accordance with the best available science, and adopt primary prevention measures to protect children from lead exposure in low- income housing. That means aligning HUD standards with the CDC's standards and requiring a risk assessment before a family moves into a home, and allowing mothers like Lanice Walker to move her family without the fear of losing assistance when a lead hazard is identified. We all know how destructive lead poisoning is on children and our society. Yet, our federal policies are actually allowing young children to stay in unsafe homes for months after they have been diagnosed with lead poisoning. By updating HUD's regulations, we can protect the most vulnerable children from the harmful, irreversible effects of lead poisoning. I hope my colleagues will join me in this important effort. American children are depending on it, and they cannot afford to wait. Mr. President, we have a bill before us to deal with opioids and the heroin crisis. It is a crisis that hit Illinois and hit it hard. Across Illinois we suffered from over 1,700 drug overdose deaths in 2014--a 30-percent increase over 2010; 40 percent were associated with heroin. Last October in Chicago, in a weekend, we had 74 people die from fentanyl-laced heroin overdoses in 72 hours. The Chicago metro area ranked first in the country, sadly, for total number of emergency department heroin visits. This is higher than New York, which has three times the population. This epidemic demands our attention. We need a comprehensive solution. First, look at Pharma flooding America with opioids such as OxyContin, hydrocodone, and similar opioid products. In the last year, there was a calculation that there were some 14 billion opioid pills manufactured by pharmaceutical companies in America. That is enough to give every adult person in America a 1-month prescription of opioids. Naturally, everyone doesn't need it, but they keep generating these volumes because the demand is there--not for medicinal purposes, sadly, but for narcotic purposes. The pharmaceutical industry has a responsibility, and doctors have a responsibility. Those pills don't move from the pharmaceutical companies to the end user except with a doctor and a pharmacy in most instances. Many doctors are too loose in their prescriptions when it comes to painkillers. They prescribe too many pills. I guess somebody makes more money that way, or maybe doctors are not bothered on weekends that way, but, sadly, it puts into circulation a lot of medications that are not needed for pain. Some pharmacies know exactly what is going on as people walk in with scrip after scrip for opioids. They fill them without question. Many States don't have laws to monitor these sales. Then comes the devastation of opioid addiction followed by heroin addiction. I have seen it across my State. There isn't a city too small or a suburb too wealthy or any corner of my State that hasn't been touched by this crisis. It is everywhere. Many of the kids that I have seen at these roundtables who have survived it and tell their heroic stories of coming back from heroin addiction--you look in their eyes and say: I would never have picked that kid out of a high school class to be a heroin addict. Some of them have been addicts for years before they finally get the treatment they need. We need a comprehensive solution to address this crisis. We must prevent drug companies from flooding the market with excessive amounts of addictive pills. We must encourage the Drug Enforcement Administration to use their existing authority to keep unnecessary drugs off the market. We must crack down on doctors who over-prescribe and pharmacies that over-dispense. We must remove barriers to substance use disorder treatments, which is why Senator King and I introduced legislation ensuring that lower-income patients suffering from substance abuse disorders are able to get the care they so desperately need. And we must put our money where our mouth is. We cannot expect real change to come about through good intentions. We can authorize all the programs we want, issue all the directives we want, cite all the statistics we want, but nothing will change unless we give our Federal agencies and local governments the resources necessary to tackle this complex problem head on. This bill before us is a step in the right direction. It requires the establishment of a Federal interagency task force to develop best practices for pain management and pain medication prescribing, creates a national drug awareness campaign on the risks of opioid abuse, and authorizes grants to States, locals, and nonprofits to address opioid abuse and fund treatment alternatives. This bill could have a positive impact on communities in need if we are able to provide the necessary funding. That is why in addition to supporting the underlying bill I also strongly supported the amendment that Senator Shaheen offered last week. That amendment would have provided $600 million in emergency supplemental appropriations to address the heroin and opioid abuse epidemic. These funds would have helped ramp up law enforcement efforts, drug treatment and enforcement programs, and prevention programs through the Justice Department. They would have enhanced prescription drug monitoring programs. They would have improved access to medication assisted treatment services to high- risk areas as well as support school and community partnerships to create safe and drug-free environments and provide additional assistance to States to help pay for prevention and treatment care. Unfortunately, Senator Shaheen's amendment was defeated when a majority of Republicans decided to vote against it. If we fail to provide the needed resources to help communities and families in need, we may be back here a year from now saying we should have done more. Families in Illinois and across the country can't wait that long. I support both the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act and the Shaheen amendment. But the bill should also address some of the many issues I have learned about at roundtable discussions in Illinois while talking to families, doctors, law enforcement, and those who have overcome substance abuse addiction. That is why I introduced several amendments that would have helped improve the underlying bill, from requiring greater consideration at FDA before new opioids can come onto the market, to creating incentives for States to improve their prescription drug monitoring programs, to removing existing barriers to substance abuse treatment for lower- income patients, to requiring greater transparency on how many opioids are being manufactured in the United States annually. I am disappointed that many of these amendments will not receive a vote this week, but I will continue working with my colleagues in the Senate to advance these important proposals. Let me say that one of the things that has helped is the fact that years ago here in the U.S. Senate, two of my colleagues who no longer serve really did something historic. One was Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, who passed away in an airplane crash, and the other, Pete Domenici, a retired Senator from New Mexico. They required that every health insurance policy in America cover two things that weren't covered by many: one, mental health counseling and the other, substance abuse treatment. We built that into ObamaCare, so when you buy a health insurance policy in America today, it covers substance abuse treatment as well as mental health counseling. Luckily for many families, when their kids end up being addicted, they can turn to their health insurance, and their health insurance can help pay for substance abuse treatment. We need other sources, as well, when it comes to treatment for Medicaid, but for those who want to repeal ObamaCare and get rid of it, that is another provision to ask them about. Do they really want to get rid of a requirement that health insurance policies cover mental health counseling and substance abuse treatment? I think it is important that we have it. I am not sure what we would do without it. The opioid abuse and heroin epidemic is a national public health emergency that requires a comprehensive response coupled with the necessary funding to actually make a difference. The amendments I have filed, as well as the Shaheen amendment, would make important improvements and provide emergency funding to help families in Illinois and across the country. Our communities need us to come together as partners to help solve this problem. I hope we do not let them down. Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy Mr. President, I see my colleague from Oklahoma is here. This is the last statement I want to make, and it relates to the Supreme Court vacancy. A group of historians and scholars sent a letter to President Obama about the Supreme Court vacancy occasioned by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The signers of the letter include Robert Dallek, Doris Kearns Goodwin, David M. Kennedy, Thomas E. Mann, Norman Ornstein, Geoff Stone, and numerous others. The letter provides a helpful historical perspective on the decision by the Senate Republican majority to refuse any nominee to fill this vacancy a hearing before the U.S. Senate--something that has never happened in the history of the U.S. Senate. The Senate Republicans have said to keep that Scalia vacancy right where it is--a 4-to-4 Supreme Court for at least a year longer. We haven't had a vacancy in the Supreme Court for over a year since the Civil War tore this Nation apart over 150 years ago. This letter that has been sent to the President will be shared here. It makes clear that the actions that are being called for by the Republican majority are unprecedented--unprecedented. They have never happened--the fact that they would refuse to have a hearing for a nominee to fill the Scalia vacancy or a vote on that nominee. One only has to go back to 1988, not that long ago, when President Ronald Reagan, a Republican outgoing President in the last year of his Presidency sent a name to the U.S. Senate, then in control by a Democratic majority, to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Did the Democrats in the Senate in 1988 say to President Reagan: Oh, you are a lameduck. You are going to be gone in a year. We will wait until after the election. No. They said the Constitution requires President Reagan to send the Senate a name, and it requires the Senate to advise and consent, and they did. They had a hearing and they had a vote and Anthony Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee to the Supreme Court, was sent to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan with the support of the Democratic Senate majority. That is consistent with the Constitution. I hope we can return to that, and I hope that future generations will judge that this Senate under the control of the Senate majority party is going to live by the words of our Constitution. As I mentioned, a number of prominent historians and scholars from across the political spectrum sent a letter to President Obama about the current vacancy on the Supreme Court. This letter provides a helpful historical perspective on the decision by Senate Republicans not to give any consideration to the forthcoming Supreme Court nominee. The letter begins by saying: We express our dismay at the unprecedented breach of norms by the Senate majority in refusing to consider a nomination for the Supreme Court made by a president with 11 months to serve in the position. . . . It is standard practice when a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court to have a president, whatever the stage in his term, nominate a successor and have the Senate consider it. And standard practice (with limited exception) has been for the Senate, after hearings and deliberation, to confirm the president's choice, regardless of party control, when that choice is deemed acceptable to a Senate majority. The letter notes that history is, ``replete with instances where a vacancy on the Supreme Court was filled during a presidential election year.'' This includes 1988 under President Reagan; 1940 under President Roosevelt; 1932 under President Hoover; 1916 for two nominees named by President Wilson; and 1912 under President Taft. The letter also discusses how President Eisenhower used his recess appointment power in the presidential election year of 1956 to appoint Justice William Brennan. Eisenhower, a Republican, made that recess appointment on October 16 while the Senate was under Democratic control. The letter says, ``there was no objection to Eisenhower's use of the recess appointment--there was instead a widespread recognition that it was bad to have a Supreme Court operate for months without its full complement of nine members.'' The letter then shifts from the lessons of history to the logical fallacies of the Republicans' position that a nominee of a so-called lameduck President should not be considered. Here's what it says: If we accept the logic that decisions made by ``lame duck'' presidents are illegitimate or are to be disregarded until voters make their choice in the upcoming election, that begs both the questions of when lame duck status begins (after all, a president is technically a `lame duck' from the day of inauguration), and why senators up for reelection at the same time should not recuse themselves from decisions until the voters have decided whether to keep them or their partisans in office. The letter ultimately concludes that, ``the refusal to hold hearings and deliberate on a nominee at this level is truly unprecedented and, in our view, dangerous.'' I hope my Republican colleagues heed the words of these preeminent historians. There will be real consequences if the Senate fails to do its job and leaves a Supreme Court vacancy open for an extended time. As President Ronald Reagan said in 1987, quote, ``Every day that passes with a Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body.'' Major legal and constitutional questions are constantly brought before the Supreme Court for national resolution. When a case ends up with a tie vote among the Justices, the Supreme Court's ruling has no precedential impact and important questions go unresolved. As Gregory Garre, former Solicitor General under President George W. Bush, recently said, ``the prospect of numerous 4-4 ties or dismissals would be undesirable to the Court.'' Millions of Americans are awaiting resolution of the questions that are before the Court. It is not fair to leave them twisting in the wind. Consider the impact on the efforts of law enforcement to protect our communities. On February 23, four former United States Attorneys wrote an op-ed in the Cincinnati Enquirer. They said: For federal prosecutors, agents and criminal investigations, a year is a lifetime. We have seen real threats, whether it is the heroin epidemic or the threat of ISIS recruitment, facing the people in our communities each day. While law enforcement stands ready to protect the public from those threats, they need to know the rules of the road. The op-ed continues: The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the hardest and most important questions facing law enforcement and our nation. Even as we write today, unsettled legal questions regarding search and seizure, digital privacy and federal sentencing are either pending before the Supreme Court or headed there. It is unfair and unsafe to expect good federal agents, police and prosecutors to spend more than a year guessing whether their actions will hold up in court. And it is just as unfair to expect citizens whose rights and liberties are at stake to wait for answers while their homes, emails, cell phones, records and activities are investigated. We expect our law enforcement agents and prosecutors to do their job every day, even in election years. We should expect Senators to do their jobs as well and fill this Supreme Court vacancy. Earlier this week, 356 constitutional law scholars wrote a letter to the Senate, explaining that ``a long term vacancy jeopardizes the Supreme Court's ability to resolve disputed questions of federal law, causing uncertainty and hampering the administration of justice across the country.'' Justice Scalia, in a 2004 memorandum discussing the Supreme Court's recusal policy, noted the problems the Court faces when only eight Justices hear a case. He said that when the Court proceeds to hear a case with eight Justices, it ``rais[es] the possibility that, by reason of a tie vote, it will find itself unable to resolve the significant legal issue presented by the case.'' He then went on to note that under the Supreme Court's Statement of Recusal Policy, ``even one unnecessary recusal impairs the functioning of the Court.'' Why would the Senate purposefully try to impair the functioning of the Supreme Court by leaving it with only eight Justices? The Senate should do its job and consider a Supreme Court nominee so the Court can function like it's supposed to. I urge my Republican colleagues to do their job. Give the President's nominee a hearing and a vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, several weeks ago, the untimely passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia created a vacancy on the Supreme Court, which now has only eight Justices. It called into question the constitutional responsibility of the President of the United States when such a vacancy exists and the constitutional responsibility of this Senate. This morning in the Washington Post, there was speculation about six possible nominees the President could send to the Senate. It was speculation in the paper, and we don't know if any one of those would actually be the nominee suggested by the President, but it is very obvious--and having spoken with the President personally on this issue, I know he is carefully weighing the options. Why will the President move forward on this nomination? Because the Constitution requires it. In article II, section 2, it says the President shall appoint a nominee to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court--shall; not may, shall appoint--and the Senate shall perform its advice and consent duties with respect to that nomination. So there are two constitutional responsibilities: for the President to suggest a nominee and for the Senate to act on that nominee. There have been instances in American history where argument could be made that that constitutional responsibility should be ignored or at least delayed. One that comes to mind dates back to 1942. On October 3, 1942, a vacancy arose on the Supreme Court of the United States. On that day, Justice James Byrnes on the Supreme Court resigned his seat to become Director of the Office of Economic Stabilization in the Roosevelt administration. On January 11, 1943, President Roosevelt nominated Wiley Rutledge, a Kentucky native and former dean of the University of Iowa College of Law, to fill that vacancy. At this point in 1943, the United States was fully engaged in the Second World War. When the President sent up this nomination, battles were raging in Europe, Asia, Africa, and in the Atlantic and the Pacific. It was unclear whether we would prevail or the enemy would prevail. Each day brought alarming, stunning news about developments in the war. Three days after making his Supreme Court nomination, President Roosevelt flew to Morocco to join Churchill and de Gaulle at a Casablanca conference on the future of the war. At this conference, the Allies coordinated their strategy against the Axis powers and decided to launch an offensive in Sicily and in Italy. On January 27, 1943, American bombers from the Eighth Air Force conducted the first American air raid over Germany. On January 30, Japanese aircraft torpedoed and sank a cruiser named the USS Chicago in the South Pacific. Sixty-two men lost their lives. Over a thousand survived due to a daring and swift rescue. The Nation was clearly engaged in war. There was every reason in the world for the President and even the Senate to say: This is no time to talk about a Supreme Court vacancy. Instead, the President and the Senate, even in the midst of World War II, understood their obligation under the Constitution. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing for Rutledge on January 22, 11 days after his nomination had been sent to the Hill by President Roosevelt. The committee reported Rutledge's nomination to the floor on February 1, and he was confirmed by the full Senate on February 8, 1943, 28 days after his nomination. Mr. President, I wanted to put this set of facts on the record to make it clear that there is absolutely no excuse for what the Senate Republicans are doing with this vacancy. There is no excuse for the Senate Republicans to ignore their constitutional responsibility, a Constitution which they have sworn to uphold and defend. We are not in the midst of a world war; we are in the midst of a Presidential campaign. And that in and of itself explains why Senator McConnell, just hours after the announcement of the death of Antonin Scalia, made it clear that the Senate would not accept its responsibility under the Constitution to fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court. It is a sad reality that the Republicans have made this decision to leave the Supreme Court for over a year with this vacancy. When was the last time the Senate left the Supreme Court with a vacancy for over a year? It goes back to the Civil War, when we were at war with ourselves, with thousands being killed on a daily basis. It was in that turmoil that we left a vacancy on the Supreme Court for over a year. Now the Senate Republicans point to the turmoil of a Presidential election campaign as their reason for not accepting their constitutional responsibility. They make a vacuous argument that we should wait and pick a new President and let this new President, in his next term or her next term, fill this vacancy. Well, that is an empty argument because in the year 2012, in November of 2012, there was a Presidential election. The two major party nominees were, of course, President Obama running for reelection and Mitt Romney running on the Republican side. In that election, the American people made a clear choice. By a margin of 5 million votes, they reelected President Barack Obama, and they reelected him for a 4-year term. So it turns out that even in this year of 2016, Barack Obama is still the President of the United States. This may come as news to those on the Republican side of the aisle, but he was reelected for 4 years by a 5 million-vote margin, and their refusal to give this President due consideration of his nominee is a rejection of that verdict of the American people in that election. So for the first time in history, we find a nominee presented by the President about to come to Capitol Hill, and the promise of the Senate Republicans? They will not even hold a hearing, will not even consider this nominee, and won't bring it to a vote. In fact, Senator McConnell went further. He said he would refuse to even meet with any nominee sent by the President. That is unheard of, unprecedented, uncalled for, and an embarrassment to this institution of the United States Senate. I call on the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I am proud to serve, to step back and reassess the letter they signed 2 weeks ago. It was a letter accepting Senator McConnell's strategy, saying they would not do their job. They would, in fact, walk away from their job, walk away from their constitutional responsibility. I would hope they would realize they are leaving a mark in history which is indefensible, a mark in history which is unprecedented, and one which sadly will leave the Supreme Court with only eight Justices. The American people have spoken. They have chosen the President. The President has accepted his constitutional responsibility. The Senate, under Republican leadership, can do no less. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, yesterday the American people lost an icon. Nancy Davis Reagan died at the age of 94. Years ago, during an event at the White House, Nancy once serenaded her husband, singing: ``together we are going a long, long way.'' And boy did they ever. Born in New York and raised in Chicago, Nancy studied theater at Smith College in Massachusetts before moving westward to California to pursue a career in acting. She appeared in 11 motion pictures, but her life changed forever when her name appeared on the infamous list from the House Un-American Activities Committee. This was a list of people suspected of having ties to the Communist Party. Worried that she may be blacklisted, she demanded to meet with the president of the Screen Actors Guild in an effort to remove her name. And guess who was serving as president of the Screen Actors Guild-- Ronald Reagan. They met and fell in love. The rest is history. This month, 64 years ago, Ronald Reagan and Nancy Davis married, and in Nancy's words: ``my life really began when I married my husband.'' And what a life it was. From the Governor's mansion in California to the White House, one thing was clear, Nancy was always on Ronald Reagan's mind. Straight out of a Hollywood script, their 52-year marriage was a true American love story. Their mutual love and devotion is a beautiful reminder of what a marriage should look like. We should all be so lucky. Fiercely loyal to her husband and America, you didn't want to get on the wrong side of Nancy Reagan. She had grit and was one tough lady when she had to be. Nancy was a passionate protector of her husband and the Presidency. And during talks with the Soviet Union, she constantly encouraged her husband to stay with it and not give up. She understood that nothing is more important than peace, and the historic START I arms reduction treaty may not have been possible had it not been for Nancy. After her husband's Presidency, she championed issues such as drug and alcohol abuse and afterschool programs. In 1994, after announcing his diagnosis with Alzheimer's, Ronald Reagan wrote: ``I only wish there was some way I could spare Nancy from this painful experience.'' But Nancy endured by working to stamp out Alzheimer's and tirelessly advocated for embryonic stem cell research for the rest of her life. She was determined to save other families from the pain she had gone through and she raised millions of dollars for research. She praised President Obama when he removed restrictions on the Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and even teamed up with Ted Kennedy to work on these issues that were so close to her heart. Nancy had a special friendship with Ted Kennedy--who would call her every year on her birthday and sing an old Irish song to his dear friend. That type of bond between the two political parties is missing today in Washington. In an era when the political discourse can overwhelm the real problems we work to solve, Nancy Reagan's legacy can offer a path forward that we all can learn from. Before her death, Nancy reflected on the state of American politics and the inflammatory rhetoric we hear on the campaign trail, saying: ``Do you believe this? Do you believe this?'' Like many of us, she was disappointed by the lack of civility between the candidates. It certainly does not reflect a saying she made famous: ``Dignity should be at the center of everything we do.'' In honor of Nancy Reagan, I hope we all take that message to heart.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today marks the 51st anniversary of what has come to be known as Bloody Sunday. On March 7, 1965, John Lewis and Reverend Hosea Williams led 600 brave civil rights activists in a march over the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL. These courageous men, women, and children gathered to draw attention to the systematic disenfranchisement of African Americans in Alabama and throughout much of the Deep South. They marched in pursuit of the most fundamental right, the right preservative of all others--the right to vote. What they received that day, however, were brutal beatings from police batons as State troopers turned them back and chased them down. More than 50 of the demonstrators were injured. John Lewis was beaten unconscious and nearly killed. Ten days later, Federal district court Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr., granted protection to the activists, ruling that they were permitted to march from Selma to the State capitol in Montgomery. In the historic order he issued, Judge Johnson wrote: ``The law is clear that the right to petition one's government for the redress of grievances may be exercised in large groups. Indeed, where, as here, minorities have been harassed, coerced and intimidated, group association may be the only realistic way of exercising such rights. . . . These rights may be exercised by marching, even along public highways.'' Days later, the march proceeded with a crowd of approximately 3,200 marchers--which swelled to 25,000 by the time they reached the capitol. Within months, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law--guaranteeing that the right to vote would not be restricted through clever schemes, like poll taxes and literacy tests, devised to keep African Americans from voting. Last month, the foot soldiers of the 1965 voting rights marches were recognized with a Congressional Gold Medal. John Lewis, who since 1987 has been Congressman John Lewis, along with Reverend Frederick D. Reese, accepted the medal on behalf of the foot soldiers. At the ceremony, Congressman Lewis said: ``It was their determined marching feet that led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act. . . . They were just ordinary people with an extraordinary vision, to build a true democracy in America.'' In 2005, I was proud to join Congressman Lewis on a trip to Selma for a ceremonial walk across the Edmund Pettus Bridge to mark the 40th anniversary of Bloody Sunday. As we marched in recognition of that extraordinary vision to build a true democracy, we celebrated the marchers' achievement--a bill that has often been called the most significant civil rights law ever passed by Congress. Little did we know that, 8 years later, in 2013, the Supreme Court would strike down a major provision of that landmark legislation. In Shelby County v. Holder, on a 5-4 vote, a divided Supreme Court struck down the provision of the Voting Rights Act that required certain jurisdictions to preclear any changes to their voting laws with the Department of Justice. This decision effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act. Since the decision, States like Texas, North Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi have put in place restrictive State voting laws--which all too often have a disproportionate impact on lower- income and minority voters. In order to truly honor the foot soldiers of Bloody Sunday and repair the damage done by Shelby County, Congress must restore the Voting Rights Act by passing the bipartisan Voting Rights Advancement Act. This bill, which Senator Leahy, Senator Coons, and I introduced last year, would ensure that the Federal Government is once again able to fully protect the fundamental right to vote. I wish that, 51 years after Bloody Sunday, America had reached a point where the protections of the Voting Rights Act were no longer necessary. But we have not, and the Voting Rights Act is still very much needed today. In 2006, Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act with an overwhelming bipartisan vote in both the House and the Senate. It is time to once again come together on a bipartisan basis and recognize the ongoing challenges that minority voters all too frequently face. Congress must take action to repair the Voting Rights Act and ensure the legacy of those who marched 51 years ago.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the year was 1936. President Franklin Roosevelt had just been reelected with an overwhelming majority, and he decided he had had enough of the U.S. Supreme Court. They had been striking down some key pieces of legislation in his New Deal package. So he came up with a bold plan in February of 1937. That bold plan was to add enough new Justices to the Supreme Court to tip the balance his way. He presented this plan to change the Supreme Court for his political purposes to a Democratic Congress and a Democratic U.S. Senate, believing, with his big reelection majority and the fact that most of the Members of Congress had supported his New Deal agenda, that they would stand by him when it came to changing the Supreme Court so that it would start ruling his way. He was wrong. What happened then was that Members of the Senate decided to stand up to their President and to stand up for the Constitution. A little-known Senator from Arizona, Henry Ashurst, was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He deliberately delayed the FDR Court-packing proposal to a point where, when it was finally called, it was overwhelmingly defeated. Think about that in the context of our current debate about filling this Supreme Court vacancy created by the untimely death of Justice Scalia. In that case, in 1937, the Senate Judiciary Committee and its chairman stood up for the Constitution first, over and above even the President of their own political party. This was a popular President; yet they believed the Constitution was more important than any political issue when it came to the New Deal. So where are we today? We are in a situation where we have a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The Court still continues to hear cases of great historic moment--yesterday, the case involving abortion and I am sure, in weeks ahead, even more controversial issues. It is a Court that is at least limited by the fact that there are only eight Justices. In many instances, this Court is likely to end up with a tie--a decision which doesn't decide the law but leaves it still unresolved. So what is our responsibility as this Senate at this time as we reflect on the Senate of 1937? Well, we only have to turn to the U.S. Constitution--the Constitution which each of us, each and every one of us as Senators, Democratic and Republican, stood in the well and swore to uphold. The second article in this Constitution relates to the powers of the Presidency. In this book, it is only three pages, but the people who wrote the Constitution, our Founding Fathers, tried to put in those three pages the critically important elements to make sure that our democracy would continue. They tried to envision the possibilities and to authorize branches of government to do certain things. In article II, section 2, when it comes to the powers of the President, it says: he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court. Did it say he may appoint? No. The language is explicit. He shall appoint, and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall fill the vacancies on the Supreme Court. So what faces us today? An announcement by the Republican leadership, Senator McConnell, within hours of the announcement of the death of Justice Scalia, that for the first time in the history of the United States Senate, for the first time in our Nation's history, the Republicans have announced that they will not only refuse to fill this vacancy, they will not even allow a hearing on a Presidential nominee. And Senator McConnell went a step further and said he will not even meet with a nominee offered by the President to fill this vacancy. That is a clear violation of the constitutional responsibility which this Senate has. The Constitution doesn't require us to approve any nominee, no; it is advise and consent, not consent only. We can certainly vote no if we feel that vote is warranted. But the Constitution is very clear that we can't walk away from our constitutional responsibility when it comes to a vacancy on the Supreme Court. If the Senate Republicans have their way, this vacancy on the Supreme Court will continue on until the next calendar year. It will be the longest vacancy on the Supreme Court since the Civil War, when this Nation was torn apart. If there was any excuse in those days for not filling the vacancy, there is no excuse today. There is the argument made: Let the people decide. Let the people decide in the next election who the next Supreme Court Justice will be. But that ignores the obvious: There is a sitting President, elected for 4 years, with the constitutional authority every President has, and one of those authorities is to fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court. They argue: Well, the people will decide in November what will happen next year. I might remind them that the people decided in the year 2012 by a margin of 5 million votes that Barack Obama would be President of the United States--not for 3 years, not for 3 years and 2 months, but for 4 years. And to argue that he is somehow now unable, unwilling, or cannot be called on to exercise his Presidential authority flies in the face of reality--a reality which most Republicans will readily concede, at least in private. The Republicans think they are winning this debate. I think they are losing. They think their ``let the people decide'' approach to this is really carrying the day. I think our approach to this--saying to our Republican colleagues: Do your job--is carrying the day. How is this playing in Peoria, IL? I want to read from an editorial of the February 28 edition of the Peoria Journal-Star: The most worthless Congress in memory became more so last week, with Senate Republicans doubling down on their decision not to even hold hearings for any Obama nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the Scalia vacancy. They went on to say: Even as awful as Congress is, it's not often that its members combine dereliction of constitutional duty--(see Article II, Section 2)--with political cravenness (the aversion to tough decisions in an election year) in one fell swoop, but so Senate Republicans have here. Not only have they unconstitutionally changed a president's term from four to three years, not only are they renouncing their ``advice and consent'' role, not only are they effectively suggesting the Constitution be amended to popularly elect Supreme Court justices, but even more lame are the lengths Republicans went to in order to rationalize their decision. No more excuses. The Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate should do their job. When the President submits a nominee, we should give that nominee a fair and thorough hearing--a fair, respectful, and thorough hearing, as one Republican said over and over again--in full view of the American people and then vote. A fair warning to my Senate Republicans. They said the American people should decide. They will decide--they will decide in November that the Republicans in the Senate should do their job. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I do remember that.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague from Indiana. Mr. President, the bill before us is the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. It is one of the few bills on which we find so much bipartisanship. It really is an issue that all of us understand back home is a major problem, wherever home may be. In my State of Illinois, there is no town too small and no suburb too wealthy to avoid the challenge of this heroin crisis. Here is what is happening. Over the last 10 years, we have seen the pharmaceutical industry dramatically increase the number of painkiller pills for sale. One classification of those opioids includes OxyContin, hydrocodone, and other names that are pretty familiar to us. It turns out that there have been so many of these pills produced that they have now created an industry of their own--an illicit industry where people are buying and selling them to get high. When they reached a point where they can't find these pills or they are too expensive, they switch, in the same category of narcotics, to heroin. Of course, heroin can kill you if you have an overdose. We now have more people dying from overdoses of heroin across the United States than people who are dying in traffic accidents. To give you an idea of the volume of this challenge, I have been all across my State, from one end to the other, from Southern Illinois all the way up to Chicago and the suburbs and towns in between. There is hardly a single town that has been spared where some teenager wasn't found dead because of a heroin overdose. There are things we are doing to try to resolve this, but we are not doing enough and not doing it fast enough. So the bill that is on the floor, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, is an attempt to find new ways for prevention, education, and treatment of substance abuse. There is an amendment offered by Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire. It is really a test. All of us can agree on the goals. Senator Shaheen says that is not enough. That is an empty promise unless you pay to achieve the goals. We have to put the money into substance abuse treatment. We have to put the money into efforts with law enforcement to reduce the likelihood of these drugs coming into the United States. That is why I support her amendment. I will offer another amendment too. What we are finding is that there are not enough treatment facilities for this huge growth in people who are addicted to heroin and other narcotics. There just aren't enough. So my bill takes a look at Medicaid. That is the health insurance plan for people in low-income categories. A few years ago, we changed this law and said you can't treat people for substance abuse if you have any more than 16 beds in your facility--16. Can you imagine in the city of Chicago what that means? Well, I went to Haymarket, which is a wonderful operation started by Monsignor Ignatius McDermott decades ago, which treats people for alcoholism and substance abuse. They have empty beds now that can treat people who are addicted to heroin and help them to break away from this habit. But if they are under Medicaid, they can't offer these beds to these individuals. So I have an amendment with Senator Angus King of Maine, and this increases the number of beds in each facility to 40. This isn't a runaway number. It is a manageable number, and it is a realistic number. If we are going to deal with heroin addiction, we have to deal with it in an honest fashion. Let me give an example of what I consider to be one of the more effective approaches. In Gloucester, MA, the chief of police decided to try something new. They were having too many heroin overdose deaths, so he made the decision and announced that if you came to his police department or sheriff's office and announced your addiction, they wouldn't arrest you. They would put you into treatment. What happened was a number of people came forward and went into treatment. It was a good outcome for them and for the community. I have a similar story from the town of Dixon in Illinois. They had too many scary instances where people were either close to a heroin overdose or actually passed away. They tried the same thing as Gloucester, MA, and offered that if you came in and confessed your need for help and treatment, they wouldn't arrest you. They would take you into treatment. It worked. Over 20 local teenagers showed up because of their addiction and they were put into treatment. Of course, the problem is there aren't enough treatment facilities. So this amendment I have would expand the opportunities for treatment, and we have to do that. The good news about this, if there is a good part of this, is that we are finally dealing with addiction in reality. It is no longer viewed just as a moral failing or characterized as some omission of conscience. It is being viewed as a disease--a medical condition that should and can be treated--and that is why we are making a step in the right direction. We also--I think it bears repeating--we also changed the law in this Chamber not that many years ago, a law which was brought to the floor originally by Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota and Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, and that bill required that health insurance policies in the United States, in the future, would cover mental health counseling and substance abuse treatment. So, now, because that became the law, the health insurance plans we buy cover our families for those needs. Many families who never dreamed they would need substance abuse treatment for their kids, thank goodness, can turn to their health insurance plan for that kind of help. We have to protect that. Those who talk about repealing the Affordable Care Act would be repealing this very protection that families are using now for substance abuse treatment. That isn't the answer. The answer is to have more treatment facilities available so people can rid themselves of this addiction and get on with their lives. I have met so many of these people in my roundtables, including law enforcement and doctors, but the ones I remember the most are the young people addicted in high school who finally were able to break the habit. They have a chance now for real life, but it is because there was treatment there when they needed it. I hope my colleagues will consider this amendment. It will not come up today, but it will soon. This is a good bill. I hope they will vote for the Shaheen amendment because it pays for the services we are promising. I don't want to end up making an empty promise to America as we face this heroin crisis. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 1 week ago the Republican majority leader made an announcement that stunned a lot of observers on Capitol Hill. Senator McConnell said that the Senate Republicans would basically turn their backs on what I consider to be a constitutional responsibility and that they would refuse to consider the nomination to fill the vacancy of Justice Scalia, who recently passed away. In article II, section 2 of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers established a very clear process for appointing Supreme Court Justices. Under the Constitution, the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court.'' That is the language of the Constitution. It is explicit. The President has a constitutional obligation to send a Supreme Court nominee to the Senate, and the Senate has a constitutional obligation to consider the nominee. But the majority leader for the Republicans said last week that he would not give any consideration to a nominee sent by President Obama--not a hearing, not a vote--and then he went so far as to say he will not even meet with that nominee. This is a stunning abdication of the Senate's constitutional responsibility. All of us, as Senators, walk down this aisle, stand over to the side, raise our right hands, and swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and to bear true faith and allegiance to it. It is an oath each of us takes very seriously. The majority leader has tried to justify his decision by noting that this is an election year. Well, it turns out it doesn't take much constitutional study to realize that the Constitution applies to election years as well as every other year. There is nothing in the Constitution that directs the President or the Senate to ignore their responsibility when there is a political Presidential campaign underway. I have searched the Constitution. There is no reference whatsoever to a Presidential campaign year absolving either the President or the Senate from their constitutional obligations. One of the great ironies of the decision by the Senate Republican leadership was the way they reached it. Shortly after Justice Scalia passed away, Majority Leader McConnell issued a statement saying: ``The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice.'' Then last Tuesday he summoned the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to his office, and there he decided with them that they would deprive the American people of a chance to view a hearing on President Obama's nominee to fill the Scalia vacancy. This is an unprecedented obstruction of a Supreme Court nominee, and this decision to obstruct certainly wasn't made by the American people. It was a unilateral, partisan decision made by a handful of Senators behind closed doors. The Republican Senators didn't bring their decision out into the open, not to a hearing of the Judiciary Committee, which they chair; they did it quietly behind closed doors. But the American people heard what happened. Last Friday a letter was sent to the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Human Rights and 81 other national organizations. I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. The letter described the Republicans' obstruction as ``a clear perversion of your constitutional duties as understood by almost every scholarly authority on the topic and by most Americans.'' The letter said that the Constitution ``does not give a select few Senators veto power over the President's role in selecting and nominating a candidate. The Senate's duty is to evaluate a nominee's fitness and qualifications, not to pick the President making the nomination.'' I agree with that statement. By unilaterally refusing to give any consideration to any nominee made by this President, Senate Republicans are trying to stop this President from fulfilling his constitutional responsibility to nominate and appoint Supreme Court Justices under article II, section 2. They did it in secret in a back room, behind closed doors. Why are they so afraid to give President Obama's nominee a fair hearing? Are they concerned that if the nominee is well qualified and they turn that person down, it will reflect poorly on the Senate Republicans? The Senate Republican process of secrecy and obstruction is inconsistent with the Constitution. It does a disservice to the Supreme Court, to the President, and to the American people. I raised a point last week which is worth returning to. The argument is made that the next President should pick the nominee to fill this vacancy. The argument is made that the American people, when they select the next President in November of this year--that we will be saying to the American people: You make the choice. You select the President. And then you will know the Supreme Court nominee. Well, there may be some logic to that but for one thing: We have a President. He was elected in 2012 with a 5 million-vote majority. This is the fourth year of his Presidency. When you listen to the Republicans argue, you would think, wait a minute, Barack Obama was not elected for 4 years, only for 3 years and 2 months. They argue at this point in time that this President does not have the constitutional authority or responsibility to fill the vacancy of Justice Scalia. The American people spoke. It wasn't all that close. By a margin of 5 million votes, they chose this President for 4 years, not for 3 years or 3 years and 2 months. He is the President, he has the authority of the Presidency, and he has that authority not given to him by God but by the American people. It is authority which should not be taken away by the Republican majority of the Senate. Their argument, ``Wait for the next election''--do you know what that means? It means that if they have their way, if they fail to do their job, if they don't even have a hearing for President Obama's nominee, don't even bring it to a vote, and the vacancy continues on the Supreme Court, it will be historic. The last time we will have left a vacancy of this duration on the Supreme Court dates back to the Civil War. A nation at war with itself left a vacancy for more than a year on the Supreme Court. Now the Senate Republicans of 2016 want to leave a vacancy on the Supreme Court for over a year. There is no need for it, and the Constitution certainly makes it clear how this vacancy should be filled. There is no secret that there is a political motive. The Senate Republicans hope Justice Scalia's seat will be filled by a person they choose. This is a political calculation they are willing to make, to take the heat for not following their constitutional responsibility in the hopes that a President Trump will pick someone to fill this vacancy or some other Republican President in the future. That is what they are counting on. That is political. Politics shouldn't trump the Constitution. Nothing should trump the Constitution when it comes to governing the United States. Because it is an election year doesn't mean Senators can take a yearlong break and ignore their own oath of office. It is time for the Senate Republicans to do their job. The President and the Senate must fulfill their constitutional responsibility in times of war, in economic depression, and even in an election year. Last week Majority Leader McConnell reportedly told a group of House Republicans that there isn't ``a snowball's chance in hell'' that he would back down from his plan of obstruction. Nevertheless, today President Obama has invited Majority Leader McConnell to meet with him in the White House to discuss the Supreme Court vacancy. They have also invited the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley; the ranking Democrat, Senator Leahy; and the minority leader of the Senate, Senator Reid. Why did the President offer this meeting? Because that is what always happens. When a President is about to consider filling such a historic vacancy, he brings together the leaders of the Senate to discuss his thought process and perhaps to solicit names from them of potential nominees. Even when we have disagreed in the past and have Presidents and Senators from different political parties, they still extended that courtesy to one another. President Obama is extending the majority leader that courtesy even if the majority leader has made it clear and publicly stated repeatedly that he will not even meet with, let alone consider, the President's nominee. The President is setting a good example of what should be done in this circumstance where the President follows tradition and the Constitution. I am glad the President is taking this seriously. I know he is in the midst of a careful, deliberative process to choose a nominee. The President should select an outstanding person who has the qualifications, a commitment to justice, a deep respect for the role of the judiciary, and life experience that points toward integrity and good judgment. The President is doing his job as the Constitution requires. My Republican colleagues in the Senate should do their job as well. They should honor the process established in the Constitution and give the President's nominee fair consideration, a hearing, and a vote. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before I speak on a separate issue, I would like to address the issue raised by the Senator from Maine. Her experience in Maine is exactly the same as my experience in Illinois. There is no town too small, no suburb too wealthy not to have been touched by heroin overdoses and deaths. It is interesting--the Senator may be encouraged to know that in one small town in downstate Illinois, when they were desperate when two or three teenagers died in 1 week in a small town, they heard about a program in Gloucester, MA, where the chief of police, reacting to what the Senator said earlier, realized that we just can't keep arresting addicts. It is not working. He announced that if someone who was addicted came into the sheriff's office or the police department and reported their addiction, they wouldn't arrest them; they would take them to a treatment center immediately. The next day, 27 teenagers showed up in this small town in downstate Illinois. Then, of course, the challenge was where to take them. In rural areas, it is a long drive. Some of them were not in good shape for a drive. But they went into treatment. What they told me after I visited the town was that something happened immediately: The jail was empty because the jail had been filled with petty criminals who had been stealing, burglarizing, trying to feed their habits. Now they were in rehab. So it made it a safer community and at least gave them a chance to straighten out their lives. One of the amendments I am offering with your colleague from Maine is about treatment. We decided a number of years ago, for fear that we would be warehousing patients, to limit substance abuse treatment facilities under Medicaid to no more than 16 beds. Sixteen beds may work in a rural area; it certainly doesn't work in the city of Chicago. We are not expanding it dramatically, but we allow treatment facilities to have up to 40 beds for residential treatment for substance abuse. We don't want to go back into the bad old days of warehousing, but we certainly want to expand treatment because the problem you have seen and I have seen is growing. As you noted, if we don't move quickly on treatment, we can't expect to turn it around. I thank the Senator for bringing this to our attention. The bill before us truly is a bipartisan bill, and it should be. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this year marks the 90th anniversary of historian and scholar Dr. Carter G. Woodson's launch of Negro History Week--and is the 40th anniversary of the inaugural Black History Month. This year, as Black History Month is coming to a close, I want to celebrate by paying tribute to a Chicago neighborhood that has played a significant part in our country's African-American and labor history-- the Pullman Historical District. One year ago this month, President Obama designated the South Side Chicago's Pullman Historic District as the Nation's 406th national park. The Pullman National Historical Park has a special place in our Nation's history. It has been the site of some major historical events. The men and women of the Pullman community--the birthplace of the Nation's first Black labor union--the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters--helped shape our country as we know it today. By fighting for fair labor conditions in the 19th century, the Pullman workers advanced America's civil rights movement. In the 1890s, the Pullman community was the catalyst for the first industrywide strike during one of the worst economic depressions our Nation ever faced--and led to the creation of Labor Day as a national holiday. These railroad workers aren't always mentioned in the history books or picked to join the parades during Black History Month--but they made history and deserve to be honored. One hundred and one years ago, fearing that the history of African Americans was fading into obscurity, Dr. Carter G. Woodson founded the Association for the Study of Afro-American Life and History. His goal was to raise awareness of African Americans' contributions to civilization. He believed that truth could not be denied--and realized that past contributions by African Americans needed to be documented and taught. He once said, ``if a race had no recorded history, its achievements would be forgotten and, in time, claimed by other groups.'' I agree with Dr. Woodson--and so does the A. Philip Randolph Pullman Porter Museum in Chicago. Earlier this month, with the help of DePaul University, the A. Philip Randolph Pullman Porter Museum launched a new online registry that gives voice to the stories of Black railroad workers. By capturing stories from scholars and the relatives of these workers, we will preserve oral histories that otherwise might be lost to history. If you listen to the oral histories, you will hear stories from people like Theodore Berrien, who worked as a Pullman porter from 1940 to 1969. Berrien worked on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's funeral train from Georgia to Washington, DC. On the registry, Berrien's grandson says: ``He spoke of how kind Mrs. Roosevelt was and thanked him for his services during the trip.'' Or take Blaine McKinley Fitzgerald, who worked as a Pullman porter on the Illinois Central and Louisville and Nashville railroads from 1920 to 1946--his relatives wrote: ``Blaine's major route was from Birmingham to New York. He also worked the Rose Bowl trips to California when Alabama was a major contingent.'' You will hear how Blaine raised a family of six children on his salary as a Pullman porter--all college educated--who became teachers, lawyers, and engineers. Blaine's story is just one of many examples of how the Pullman porters helped build the African-American middle class in Chicago. But even as the African-American middle class expanded in Chicago and across the country, the struggle for justice, equality, and equal opportunities for African Americans in this country has continued. And the State of Illinois has played a significant role in that struggle. Springfield, IL native President Abraham Lincoln led our Nation through a war to save the Union, abolished slavery, and began the work we continue today to end discrimination. In 1909, the centennial of Lincoln's birth, 2,000 people gathered at a dazzling gala to honor the centennial of Lincoln's birth. Even though this was an event celebrating the centennial of the President that helped abolish slavery--like most in America at that time, it was segregated. The Chicago Tribune reported, that it ``is to be a lily white affair from start to finish.'' But across town, the Black community organized its own Lincoln centennial at the African Methodist Episcopal Church. The Reverend L.H. Magee spoke at that gathering and noted the widespread feeling of hurt over the exclusion of people of color from the main Lincoln banquet. Reverend Magee made a prediction about the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth in 2009--100 years in the future: ``prejudice shall have been banished as a myth and relegated to the dark days of Salem witchcraft.'' In many ways, his prediction was correct. We have come a long way to banish discrimination in our communities--our legal system recognizes that all men and women are created equal and should be free from discrimination in schools, housing, and employment. And in 2009, President Barack Obama, a former Illinois Senator, was sworn in as the first African-American President of the United States of America. Pastor Magee had a vision of a new America, but he may not have imagined that bricks laid by the hands of slaves would make a home in our White House for a family of color. But, while progress has been made, we cannot ignore that we still have more to do. When one in three African-American men will go to prison in their lifetime, we have more to do. When the unemployment rate for African Americans are more than double the rate for Whites, we have more to do. And when efforts exist across the country to make it harder to vote, rather than easier, we have more to do. But it is when the climb is the steepest that we can come together as Americans, to take the mountaintop once and for all. This month, let's celebrate these achievements and honor Dr. Carter G. Woodson's legacy by remembering all the contributions of the extraordinary men and women of the civil rights movement--including the Pullman porters. We have come a long way, but we still have work to do to fulfill the promise to make our Nation fairer and more equal and to do what Lincoln called on us to do: ``nobly save . . . the last best hope of earth.'' (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)