Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the release of the report by the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, better known as the Church Committee. On this day in 1976, the first of five books detailing egregious abuses of power by the intelligence community was released by the Church Committee. The report was the first ever comprehensive oversight study of the intelligence community, which had operated largely without any oversight since its founding during World War II. Prior to this study, the Intelligence Committees did not exist in either the Senate or the House, and there was no formal apparatus to check the actions of the Nation's intelligence community. The Church Committee truly was the first of its kind. It grew out of extraordinary circumstances during a period of national soul-searching in the shadow of the Vietnam war and Watergate scandal. In the early 1970s, a series of abuses were revealed in the press, including an expose alleging that the CIA had been spying on antiwar activists around the country. The American people were understandably outraged, and in response, the Senate convened a committee to conduct a comprehensive review of all intelligence activities. The committee--under the chairmanship of Idaho Senator Frank Church, with Texas Senator John Tower as vice chairman--was comprised of 11 Senators and 133 dedicated staff members. Over the next 15 months, the staff poured over millions of CIA and FBI records to produce a 2,500- page report broken into 6 unique books, each covering a different topic including foreign assassinations, domestic spying, and an investigation into the killing of President Kennedy. What they discovered was shocking, including vast abuses both domestic and abroad that showed the intelligence community operated outside the framework of the Constitution and undermined the Bill of Rights. The committee found that, in the decades leading up to and including the 1970s, the CIA and FBI had been conducting a massive, illegal domestic spying operation, which included the following: The CIA opened and photographed over one-quarter million pieces of domestic mail, the FBI maintained extensive files on over half a million American citizens, and the NSA wiretapped all international calls from the United States and documented the callers. In addition to mass data collection, the agencies conducted targeted operations as well. Civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., was the subject of an aggressive surveillance program overseen by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover sought to compile a detailed record of King's personal life in order to blackmail and delegitimize him as a public figure. King's phone was tapped without a warrant, for example. The NAACP, Black Panthers, and antiwar groups were also all spied upon. In fact, President Eisenhower on several occasions received advanced copies of NAACP speeches from informants. The abuses didn't stop at our border. The Church Committee uncovered evidence that the CIA had plotted or engaged in assisting in the assassination plots of the leaders of Cuba, the Congo, the Dominican Republic, Chile, and South Vietnam. In the Congo, the CIA reached the final stages of a plot to assassinate Patrice Lumumba and had even delivered poison to its agents. However, before the plan was carried out, Lumumba was executed following a coup. Most infamously, the United States conspired in numerous plots against Fidel Castro, though none were ever carried out. The public airing of these--and other--allegations shook our country and our partners abroad and prompted swift action by Congress and the executive branch. On February 18, 1976, President Ford issued Executive Order No. 11905, banning all assassinations. The order has stood ever since. Within months of the release of the Church Committee report, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was formed by a vote of 72 to 22. The committee was established to conduct constant and vigorous oversight over the intelligence community. In addition, in 1978, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which established the FISA Court to oversee requests for intelligence warrants within the United States. The Church Committee study revealed to the world the danger of allowing intelligence agencies to operate in the shadows and with unchecked power. Our duty to conduct oversight is one I take very seriously. As the chairman of the Intelligence Committee from 2009 to 2015 and as vice chairman since 2015, I have undertaken this responsibility with the awareness that, without the efforts of the Church Committee, congressional oversight of the intelligence community would never have been possible. We must also remember that the Church Committee and its reports had their vocal and adamant opponents. Oversight is, at times, resisted, a fact we discovered firsthand in completing and declassifying as the Committee's Study of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. The legacy of the Church Committee report lives on in the study the Intelligence Committee released in 2014. The study reviewed over 6.3 million cables, emails, memoranda, and transcripts. It is a documentary history of the CIA's words and actions in the years during which the CIA conceived of, carried out, and made representations about its Detention and Interrogation Program. The public is familiar with the report's 500-page executive summary and findings and conclusions that were declassified and released. The full study is over 6,700 pages long and includes 38,000 footnotes. To this day, critics of the study have not demonstrated a single factual inaccuracy. Among many revelations, the study showed that, contrary to the CIA's claims, the use of torture was brutal and did not result in otherwise unavailable intelligence that ``saved lives.'' It also demonstrated that the CIA provided inaccurate information about the program to the White House, the Department of Justice, to Congress, and the public. Much like the Church Committee report before it, the study demonstrated the important role oversight plays in securing our country's commitment to the rule of law. The importance of the work the Church Committee did back in 1975 and 1976 cannot be understated. Our government operates on the basis of trust from the American people. The oath each of us take in public service is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The actions of the intelligence community leading up to the Church Committee violated that trust and must never be repeated. Senator Church and his committee, in shedding light on these dark times, helped right the ship of American democracy and set an important example for all future Members of this body of how to conduct vigilant and thorough oversight.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa for his remarks and also his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. I found his remarks very interesting. I note that the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee is now on the floor. I have been very fortunate to serve as his ranking member, and I think that we have put a very good bill together and that his leadership has been very strong. Last week Senator Alexander brought to the floor a chart, and on that chart there were red and blue lines, and they depicted a lot about the spending patterns of this Nation, which absolutely is relevant, considering we are talking about spending. Well, I wanted to put my rendition before us since no one on the floor is asking to speak at this time. Since 2006 I have asked my staff to put together some charts on spending, which I share every week at my constituent breakfast with the constituency from California. I want to tell you a little bit about this chart. The source of this chart is the Congressional Budget Office, and it is the budget and economic outlook part of that. Going back to 2006, we looked at budget numbers, but the actual way to look at it is really outlays. What does the Federal Government spend every year? That is the number which creates the debt and creates interest on the debt. In 2006 the Federal Government spent $2.654 trillion in total. Here is how it was spent: This big red part is what are called entitlements. These are mandatory payments to programs to which an individual is entitled. If you are entitled to it, you get it regardless of what impact it has on the budget. They were 53 percent of what the Federal Government spent in 2006, and interest on the debt was 8 percent. So if we add 53 percent and 8 percent, that was about 61 percent of everything that was spent during that year. Nondefense discretionary was 19 percent and defense was 20 percent. So the green and the blue were the discretionary programs, the yellow was interest on the debt, and the rest were entitlements. This year the total outlay is $3.919 trillion. Entitlements have gone up to 63 percent of what the Federal Government will pay out this year. Interest on the debt has dropped 2 percent to 6.5 percent, largely because interest rates are low. Defense discretionary is 15 percent, and nondefense discretionary is 15.5 percent. So if we put these two things together, which we are now passing appropriations bills on, they comprise only about 30.5 percent of what the Federal Government will spend this year. The rest is entitlements and interest on the debt. If you are entitled to Social Security, you get it. If you are entitled to Medicare, you get it. If you are entitled to Medicaid; disabled; women, infants, and children; and a whole host of very good programs because they help people--but they are expensive and they cost. This isn't often talked about, and I think it is not talked about because individuals don't want to worry people. But it is a problem, and it is a problem that needs some solutions. If you project these numbers 10 years forward to 2026, we go from total outlays, total government payments in 2016 of $3.9 trillion, to $6.401 trillion, and entitlements are then 65 percent of what the government will spend in the year 2026. Interest on the debt will double from what it is today to 13 percent because it is estimated that interest rates will go up. So, adding the two together, you see that we are well over 70 percent in spending. If we look at discretionary spending, defense discretionary and nondefense discretionary, we will see they are both 11 percent. That is the economic outlook. So only 22 percent of the budget will be what the Appropriations Committee will be doing in 10 years from now because the rest of it will not be able to be controlled. So we have a constantly escalating picture. In my own view, those things like the Army Corps of Engineers, which in a sense is the only infrastructure program this country really has outside of the highway program, will be compressed more, and everything we spend to make this a better country will be compressed more because of the growth in entitlements and interest on the debt. Well, I believe the time has come for Members on both sides of the aisle to sit down and see what we can do to work out solutions to this ever-growing problem. Is it additional taxes? Are there ways we can change these programs so that they become more efficient to cover people and pay for them in a better way than putting them on the debt, which is effectively what we are doing? So I want to state to our distinguished chairman, who is now here, last week we had his red and blue lines, so this week I brought my charts that I have been using since 2006, and I believe the numbers are correct, and I believe they are also astonishing and they need our concern. I would like to work with the chairman in the future, and perhaps we could bring together Republicans and Democrats to sit down and consider some remedies that will not be punishing for people but will bring this huge red mark and thereby the interest mark into better control than today. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Murray, I call up Murray amendment No. 3813 and ask unanimous consent that it be reported by number.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, is it appropriate for me to speak on the Murray amendment?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I say to the body that I support this amendment. The Murray amendment would reinforce ``Buy American'' provisions that have been in place for decades. These provisions say that when American tax dollars are being spent, the preference should be to buy American products. Despite current Federal regulations, there are concerns that the Corps of Engineers is circumventing these ``Buy American'' provisions and acquiring welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain manufactured by foreign sources. The Murray amendment simply reiterates current requirements to support American-made products, echoing language from our colleagues in the House and the 2016 appropriations bill. The amendment is good for families and workers across the country, and I urge this body to support it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to say a few words. The junior Senator from California has been speaking in opposition to the waters of the United States amendment sponsored by Senator Hoeven. I just want to put before the body a little bit of the history. In 2006 the Supreme Court introduced real uncertainty regarding which wetlands and water bodies were subject to Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Since 2006 the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have been working on new rules to clarify their jurisdiction and address the Supreme Court's ruling. EPA and the Army Corps just finalized the new rule last May. This new rule helps resolve almost a decade of confusion by clearly stating which types of water bodies are subject to Federal jurisdiction and which are not. It will make Federal permitting easier, faster, and less costly for business and industry. It maintains all previous exemptions and exclusions for normal farming and ranching practices and agricultural discharges, such as irrigation return flow and storm water runoff. Nevertheless, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a stay suspending implementation of the rule. I strongly believe we should let the courts decide whether the executive branch has overreached in its interpretation of congressional statute, just like the Constitution calls for. The President has threatened to veto the entire Energy and Water appropriations bill if this amendment is included in it. Right now, we have the best opportunity in 7 years to pass this bill as a stand-alone piece of legislation and get the Senate appropriations process working again. So I am very hopeful and would strongly recommend that the Senate defeat the Hoeven amendment. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I just wanted to compliment the Senator from Indiana on the remarks he has just made and thank him very much. I also want to urge Members: Please bring amendments to the Energy and Water appropriations bill to the floor. We hope to finish this bill. The only way we are going to do it is if Members bring and file their amendments.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the comments of the distinguished Senator from the State of Maryland. I must say that when I first came to the Senate, I looked at these perhaps with not as full an understanding of them as I have now. But I think the committee supports it, the bill supports it, and the Appropriations Committee supports it. I certainly agree with the Senator and support him.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I heard what our chairman said. I thoroughly support him. I commend the Senator from Hawaii for seeing this and proposing this amendment. We recommend that it be adopted. Can we call the vote? We yield back any time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the fiscal year 2017 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. I wish to begin by thanking my friend and colleague, Senator Alexander. We have served together as chairman or ranking member of this subcommittee for the past 5 years. I know of no one in this body who is more intelligent or has a greater sense of fairness. I just want Senator Alexander to know what a great treat it has been to work with him for 5 years. I think we have a bill that will stand the test of time. Each of us has had different views on different parts of the bill, but that is part of what makes this a great country. I say to Senator Alexander, I just want to thank you for being who you are and thank you for being the kind of U.S. Senator you are. Thank you very much. As the chairman mentioned, this bill has reached the floor for the first time since 2009. It is also being considered as an appropriations bill on the floor with the quickest time since the budgeting process began in 1974. I just want to say thank you to our leadership on both sides for the desire to get us back to regular order and particularly on appropriations bills. I wish to thank all of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for supporting this bill during last week's markup. As the chairman said, the vote was 30 to nothing, and that is a pretty good vote, so I thank my colleagues very much. I believe this is a good bill. It is a fair bill. It does contain trade-offs and hard choices, and we have worked together to settle differences. Obviously, the chair is the chair and those views come No. 1, but in the case of this chair, he has been eminently fair and I am very grateful for that. As he said, our allocation is $37.5 billion. That is a $350 million increase over fiscal year 2016, and given the top line budget constraints, this is a good allocation. Let me first speak about the defense portion of the bill. Defense spending in this bill is $20 billion, a $450 million increase over fiscal year 2016. Our defense spending includes funding for cleaning up the environmental legacy of the cold war, maintaining our nuclear deterrent, supporting our nuclear Navy, and partnering with allies to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists. Funding for our nuclear deterrent this year is $9.3 billion, $438 million above last year and equal to the President's budget request. The science and engineering activities needed to maintain the nuclear stockpile without explosive testing are fully funded at $1.8 billion. The life extension programs for our nuclear warheads are also fully funded, including for the new cruise missile warhead, which I will speak to a little bit more in a moment. I wish to take a moment now, though, to discuss my concerns with the long-range standoff weapon, or the LRSO. I believe the Defense Department is wrong when it argues that this isn't a new nuclear weapon. I think it is, and it carries with it powerful ramifications. The LRSO would carry an upgraded W80 warhead capable of immense destruction, and it would be fitted on to a new missile specifically designed to defeat the world's most advanced missile defense systems. I firmly believe that the LRSO is unnecessary. The United States has already developed and fielded a conventional cruise missile specifically designed to do the same job as the LRSO. Furthermore, the United States has a variety of nuclear ballistic missiles that can reach any target anywhere in the world. Why do I feel so strongly about this? It is very personal with me. I am one of the few who have seen this. I was 12 years old when the United States of America--my country--dropped nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As the hundreds of thousands of bodies were seared with burns as the radiation spread, I have never quite gotten over what happened. I have reached the concept that nuclear weapons are really bad for this world. I will not go into it. When we see countries like North Korea practicing tests and other countries struggling to get a nuclear weapon and the high likelihood of terrorists also seeking out radioactive materials, I am very concerned about the probable use of this missile. In a letter sent 2 years ago, Under Secretary of Defense Frank Kendall wrote the following: ``Beyond deterrence, an LRSO-armed bomber force provides the President with uniquely flexible options in an extreme crisis.'' This suggestion--that nuclear weapons should be a ``flexible'' option--is alarming. We should never lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons. In fact, I believe we can further reduce the role of nuclear weapons while still maintaining their deterrent effect by terminating the LRSO and instead relying on conventional nonnuclear weapons. Obviously, this is a point of disagreement between the two of us. This is why I am very thankful to the chairman. He has agreed to include language in the committee report requiring Energy Secretary Moniz and the Nuclear Weapons Council to provide more information on this warhead, including its military justification and the extent to which conventional weapons systems can meet the same objectives. I think we should have that material. I am also grateful to Senator Alexander for his commitment to hold a subcommittee hearing on the new nuclear cruise missile. I believe this issue hasn't received the attention it deserves, and it requires some public discussion. So I want to say thank you to him. I have yielded to his point of view and exchange. I actually am happy with the report language and the hearing. So I thank the chairman very much. Going back to the nonproliferation account, it is funded at the President's requested level of $1.8 billion. But this is a $120 million decrease from last year, and I hope we can do better next year. Work with Russia on securing material and facilities in that country has slowed, but other threats remain at home and abroad, and I believe we should be investing more. Funding for the environmental cleanup of legacy cold war sites is the highest it has been in many years--and that is very good--at $5.4 billion, which is a $126 million increase above last year. This reflects the importance this subcommittee has placed on addressing environmental contamination at sites in Washington, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Tennessee. I thank the chairman for what he said about putting a pilot nuclear waste facility reference in our bill. Nuclear waste is piling up all over this country, with no good place for it to go. I can reference my State alone. Southern California Edison, a huge utility serving over 16 million people, has had two big nuclear reactors, each one 1,100 megawatts. They are now in the process of decommissioning those reactors. This facility sits in the heart of an urban area, and there are now 3,300 hot plutonium rods in spent fuel pools at that facility site. We need a place for nuclear waste in this country because it is very dangerous to have it spread all over and to have decommissioned reactors with hot plutonium waste in spent fuel pools right on the coast of the Pacific Rim where we see earthquakes happening, not the least of which was in Ecuador and a recent quake in Japan. Now let me turn to the nondefense half of the bill. Our nondefense allocation this year is $17.5 billion, and that is roughly a $100 million decrease from fiscal year 2016. One of the anomalies of this portfolio is the fact that as defense goes up, it crowds out the nondefense--important things like the Army Corps of Engineers, important things like the Office of Science. So our nondefense allocation is at $17.5 billion. Despite this, the bill maintains funding levels for basic scientific research, energy technology development, and water infrastructure. Funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science sees a modest increase of $50 million to $5.4 billion this year. The Office of Science is the largest single funder of physical science research in the United States--think of that--and supports research at 300 universities in all 50 States. Its experimental facilities host more than 24,000 researchers each year. Funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is $2.1 billion, equal to fiscal year 2016, and that program funds activities to develop the technology that makes our homes, cars, and factories more efficient. It lowers the cost of renewable energy sources like solar and geothermal. While I wish we could have funded the President's proposed mark for Mission Innovation climate change, I want my colleagues to know that we did the best we could, but we were simply unable to make it work with the allocation we received. The chairman mentioned the Army Corps of Engineers. With the highway program and the Army Corps, this is really the Federal infrastructure program, and it is funded at $6 billion. This is a historic high. It maintains level funding for the Bureau of Reclamation at $1.275 billion. In particular, the bill provides an estimated $1.3 billion from the harbor maintenance trust fund. That is the highest level ever. While users of our Nation's harbors and ports pay into the fund, the money does not get disbursed by itself, and it is up to us to appropriate the money out of the fund. This has been a challenge under current budget caps, and it has been a challenge to me because my State--California--pays approximately 40 percent of the fund's receipts each year but gets shortchanged by the disbursement formula. So I am very pleased that the chairman and the members have agreed to provide an additional $50 million for energy ports and donor ports like L.A.- Long Beach and Seattle-Tacoma that otherwise see little benefit from the harbor maintenance trust fund. The bill, once again, includes $100 million for the Bureau of Reclamation's Western Drought Response program. Ten of the 17 reclamation States are currently suffering from severe to exceptional drought conditions that have devastated the agricultural industry, left some rural communities without any water for drinking or bathing, and killed tens of millions of trees that could lead to yet another catastrophic wildfire season in these 10 States. We in California had hoped that El Nino storms would refill California reservoirs, but the drought persists and will persist. It is estimated that we need a snowpack, just for point of interest, of 150 percent of the average by April 1 in order to end the drought, and the snowpack was only 87 percent of the historical average. Therefore, this $100 million is critical to operating water systems more flexibly and efficiently, restoring critical wetlands and habitat, and ensuring that the best science and observational techniques are being brought to bear. The bill also makes critical investments in new water supply technologies to help mitigate the current drought and lessen the impacts of future droughts such as desalinization, water recycling, and groundwater recharge. As Members begin to bring amendments to the floor, I very much urge my colleagues, particularly on this side, to exercise restraint, particularly with policy amendments. The Senate has just completed a broad energy authorization bill, and I understand that the Environmental and Public Works Committee will soon be drafting a Water Resources Development Act. So I want my colleagues to know that the subcommittee has had to make some tough choices, but these decisions were made in a bipartisan way and have led us to draft a balanced bill, one that I believe and hope should satisfy Members on both sides of the aisle. I thank the chairman and the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tim Dykstra, a detailee for the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, have full floor privileges during the consideration of this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today is Equal Pay Day, and I wish to speak about the importance of ensuring women in this country are paid fairly. April 12--102 days into the year--marks the day that women's wages catch up to men's wages from the previous year. That is unacceptable. We can do better. Last week, the national women's soccer team filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The complaint states that women are paid just 40 percent of what men are paid--despite the fact that our women's soccer team has long been one of the best in the world. The team has won four of the last five Olympic Gold Medals and three of the last seven World Cups. Women soccer players are even given smaller per-diems when they travel. Women receive $50 per day while men receive $62.50 per day. This shows the pervasiveness of wage discrimination in this country. The most successful women's soccer team in the world still earns just 40 cents for every dollar earned by men. Next, I would like to turn to my home State. Women in California are paid just 84 cents for every dollar earned by men. While better than the national average of 79 cents, California's wage gap totals nearly $40 billion each year in lost wages. That is $8,053 for every woman who works full time. This gap has a significant effect on the economic security of working families--40 percent of women are the primary or sole breadwinners in their families. That means 40 percent of families depend on women's wages to pay the bills. Every dollar women lose to the wage gap makes a difference. Here are just a few examples of what the wage gap costs families: $8,000 is about 1 year's worth of groceries for a family of four, 4 months of mortgage and utility payments, or 6 months of rent. And the wage gap is even bigger for African-American and Latino women. African-American women are paid just 63 cents. Hispanic women are paid just 43 cents. We can't allow this discrimination to continue. Next, I would like to address a longstanding myth about the wage gap. Some say it exists only because women choose lower-paying professions than men. For example, women are the vast majority of child care and home health care workers. This is a myth. Even when women perform the same job as men, with the same level of education, the wage gap persists. For example, men who are nurses are paid $5,000 more than women, even though only 10 percent of nurses are men. We need to do more to close the wage gap, and I am very proud that California is leading the way. A landmark bill signed by Governor Jerry Brown last year protects women from retaliation if they ask how their pay compares to their colleagues. This is important because secrecy contributes to the wage gap. Women often don't know they are being paid substantially less than men. The bill also requires employers to justify higher wages for men who perform the same jobs as women. This law is a big step to improve the economic security of California families. While it is good news that States are addressing this issue, the wage gap is a national problem. It affects all American women, and the Senate must take action. The Paycheck Fairness Act is a good place to start. I have long supported this bill, which is sponsored by Senator Barbara Mikulski. The Paycheck Fairness Act is similar to the new California law. It would protect women from retaliation and require employers to justify paying women less than men for the same job. The bill would also make it easier for women to take legal action under the Equal Pay Act, including class action lawsuits. Under current law, it is significantly easier to recoup lost wages if they were denied through other discriminatory practices--like failure to pay overtime. Lastly, the bill would create a training program to help women learn how to negotiate their salaries. This is a commonsense bill, and one that is long overdue. In closing, President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963. At the time, women made 59 cents for every dollar earned by men. In 53 years, we have only closed the gap by 16 cents. At this rate, it won't be eliminated until 2059. Women and their families deserve better, and they can't afford to wait that long. I strongly urge the Senate to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of a resolution, submitted by Senator Collins, to honor four women recently recognized by the Vital Voices Global Partnership. This is a global organization that identifies, supports, and highlights women around the world who exhibit leadership to transform their communities. I am pleased to sponsor this resolution with Senator Collins. The four women honored by this resolution are leaders who have made a true difference in their countries in the face of adversity. Hafsat Abiola of Nigeria founded the Kudirat Initiative for Democracy to end violence against women in Nigeria and remove barriers for the civic participation of women. She has been actively working on gender equality and women's leadership in Nigeria since she was a teenager, and continues to advance women's rights. Khanim Latif of Iraq is the Director of Asuda, which works to combat sexual and gender-based violence in Iraq. She has worked on gender- based violence issues in Iraq for over 15 years, and has helped provide refuge to women subjected to horrific violence in her country, including to those who have been subjected to ISIL's violent campaign against the region's Yazidi population. Yoani Sanchez of Cuba founded ``Generacion Y,'' a platform to capture daily life in Cuba as an effort to encourage political change. It stemmed from her personal experiences growing up in Cuba, and the experiences of her family. Akanksha Hazari of India works to empower impoverished, rural communities in India. She has done this by pioneering a loyalty program--through mobile phones--to provide social goods such as clean water to rural customers in India. These women were recognized by Vital Voices because they have made significant strides to better the communities in which they live, and they continue to do so. The resolution, submitted by Senator Collins and myself, further recognizes their contributions, and I hope that we can all draw inspiration from their leadership. I congratulate these women, and look forward to hearing about their continued success.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for the Defend Trade Secrets Act and to explain some of the changes that were made in the Judiciary Committee to ensure the bill does not adversely impact California. First, let me congratulate Senators Hatch and Coons on their work on this bill. This bill will help protect vital trade secrets of American companies by providing a Federal cause of action for the theft of trade secrets. It will ensure there is access to Federal courts in these cases. During consideration of the bill in the Judiciary Committee, some members, including me, voiced concern that the injunctive relief authorized under the bill could override State law limitations that safeguard the ability of an employee to move from one job to another. This is known as employee mobility. Some States, including California, have strong public policies or laws in favor of employee mobility. These are reflected in some State court precedent or in laws that are on the books. When this bill came before the Judiciary Committee, there was a serious concern that a Federal law without similar limits would override the law in those States and create impairments on employees' ability to move from job to job. If that were to happen, it could be a major limitation on employee mobility that does not exist today. To prevent this, the bill now includes language to preserve the law in California and elsewhere. Specifically, the bill bars an injunction ``to prevent a person from entering into an employment relationship,'' period. In other words, relief under this bill cannot include an injunction barring a person from starting a new job. As I understand it, this reflects the practice under current law in California. Secondly, any injunction that is issued cannot be based ``merely on the information the person knows.'' This language makes clear that any injunctive relief must be based on real evidence of a threat to the trade secrets, not simply on the employee's knowledge. Third, the bill also includes language to ensure that any injunction issued under the bill does not ``otherwise conflict with an applicable State law prohibiting restraints on the practice of a lawful profession, trade, or business.'' This language will ensure that States are able to protect against the use of this bill to create unlawful restraints on business practices within their States. In fact, California's strong public policy in favor of employee mobility stems from such a law, which is located at section 16600 in the State's business and professions code. This law states: ``Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.'' As I said in the markup of this bill in the Judiciary Committee and as is noted in the Judiciary Committee's report, if a State's trade secrets law authorizes additional remedies beyond what this bill authorizes, those State law remedies will still be available. I felt it was important to protect California, which has a vibrant and dynamic economy of almost 40 million people in so many sectors. I am very grateful that Senators Hatch and Coons were willing to accommodate my concerns, and I am pleased to support this bill and to cosponsor it. Thank you very much.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I wish to express my strong support for the resolution to enforce the subpoena against backpage's CEO Carl Ferrer. From my work as chairman and now ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, I know how important congressional investigations can be to ensure that we have all the facts, and that is the type of issue before us today. In this case, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is conducting a bipartisan investigation into the use of the Internet to facilitate sex trafficking, particularly sex trafficking of minors. As my colleagues know, this has been an area I have worked to address legislatively, including in an amendment to the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act that passed 97-2 that makes it a Federal crime to knowingly advertise minors for commercial sex. I believe the Investigations Subcommittee's work can inform the work of the Congress as a whole to better protect vulnerable children trafficked over the Internet. Backpage is a Web site that allows for the advertisement of commercial sex online. In 2013, it was estimated that $8 out of every $10 spent on online sex advertising in the U.S. goes to backpage. Moreover, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children has itself determined that backpage is linked to 71 percent of all suspected child sex trafficking reports that it receives from the public through its ``CyberTipline.'' Thus, this bipartisan investigation naturally involves questions about the specifics of how backpage operates. As I understand it, the subcommittee's subpoena seeks documents to help explain backpage's current policies and practices. These questions involve, among other things, whether backpage edits the content of ads before they are published, whether backpage might be more helpful to law enforcement with the data it collects, and whether backpage has resources sufficient to further prevent trafficking on its site. But backpage has refused to comply with this subpoena. Where an investigative subcommittee is conducting a bipartisan investigation into the most horrific crimes committed against young people, it is the right thing to do for the Senate to enforce this subpoena through the legal process. I would like to also share about a case that arose in my State very recently. Last week, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department arrested three individuals charged with abducting a 20-year-old woman and transporting her to the Bay Area to sexually exploit her. The victim was initially kidnapped in Palmdale, where she was viciously assaulted and then moved 6 hours north to Oakland, where her pictures were taken and posted to backpage.com. She was then driven back down to Orange County and had a gun pointed at her by one of her attackers. The victim was fortunately able to make some panicked calls to her mother while taken captive, and the L.A. Sheriff's office was able to find her in a motel and rescue her. The suspects were then captured and now face a litany of charges. This all occurred just weeks ago. The point is sex trafficking, facilitated by the Internet, continues to plague communities all over the country. I recently met with John Clark, the new president and CEO of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. The National Center reported that over the last 5 years, there has been an 846 percent increase in reports of suspected child sex trafficking and that this increase is ``directly correlated to the increased use of the Internet to sell children for sex.'' That is sobering. Every day in America, vulnerable victims are advertised over the Internet and exploited by traffickers. I believe the Congress must get to the bottom of it, try to understand how it is happening, and do all that we can to stop it. So I fully support enforcement of this subpoena and urge my colleagues to do the same. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to express my opposition to the legislation introduced by Senator Roberts to preempt State labeling laws for genetically modified organisms, also known as GMOs. The Mellman Group released a poll last year that found that 89 percent of Americans support mandatory labeling of GMOs. The calls and letters I receive from California constituents confirm widespread support for this policy. Since 2015, I have received more than 90,000 letters and emails from constituents who want a mandatory labeling standard. Since the beginning of this year, my office has received nearly 2,000 calls in favor of mandatory labeling. Clearly, the public wants their food to be labeled in a consistent and transparent manner. However, Senator Roberts' proposal would preempt voter-passed mandatory GMO labeling laws in Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont. Overriding these State laws would be a step backward for consumer knowledge. I recognize that the food industry cannot comply with 50 different State labeling laws. That is why I have cosponsored legislation introduced by Senator Jeff Merkley to create a consistent, transparent Federal standard on how to label foods that contain GMO ingredients. This legislation would require food producers to add a statement or symbol after the ingredient list to state that the product contains GMO ingredients. Companies would be given four options to meet the requirement. In contrast, Senator Roberts' bill makes it more difficult for consumers to find out what is in their food. It requires the Department of Agriculture to create new, voluntary labeling guidance, despite the fact that the Food and Drug Administration already created voluntary guidance. Furthermore, Senator Roberts' bill allows a confusing array of options for disclosure beyond labeling. This includes 1-800 numbers, Web sites, smartphone applications, and social media posts. In my view, the only fair and consistent way to label food is on the package in a clear, straightforward, and consistent manner. Consumers do not have time to scan barcodes on food packages or to call 1-800 numbers. Consumers want the information they need to make the best choices for them and their families readily available on packaging. And I believe they deserve to have that information. I want to make it clear that I recognize that the Federal Government and scientists agree that GMO products are safe. I also realize that California farmers may need to rely on genetic engineering to address challenges such as climate change and disease. But I do not understand why industry is so opposed to informing consumers of how their food was produced. The industry says it should only be required to label foods when there is a human health reason to do so. However, the Federal Government has always had labeling requirements for food that aren't due to a human health reason. These requirements exist because they allow consumers to make informed choices in the marketplace. For example, the Federal Government requires juice that was made from concentrate to be labeled ``made from concentrate.'' The Federal Government requires foods processed with irradiation to be labeled as such. The Federal Government has a specific labeling requirement for what constitutes ground beef based on what parts of a cow is used, the fat content, and how it is processed. During this election season, many Americans have expressed a view that Washington is out of touch with the rest of the country. So I want to ask, does Washington really want to overrule consumers who want GMO labeling? Does Congress know better than the majority of American consumers? In my view, we should trust consumers and make sure they have the information they want on the food they buy. As such, I urge my colleagues to oppose Senator Roberts' preemption legislation. Instead, I ask my colleagues to engage in a meaningful discussion for how we can create a mandatory standard that is flexible for industry but gives consumers the information they want.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to speak for the second time about the Supreme Court vacancy, and I do so not callously, not spontaneously but after 23 years of service on the committee. I like to believe I have some experience and some knowledge about how these matters have been handled in the past. I truly believe we have an obligation to consider a President's judicial nominees no matter when, and I wish to speak about why that duty is so important--particularly for the Supreme Court--and the consequences of not fulfilling it. To be very candid, I am shocked at the supreme nature of what is happening because of what I believe its impact is going to be in the next year. Since the Judiciary Committee started holding hearings on Supreme Court nominations in 1916, not a single nominee for a vacancy has been denied a hearing--ever. Even during Presidential election years, the Senate has done its job. In 1988, President Reagan's final year in office, Senate Democrats confirmed Justice Kennedy. Three years later, 1991, Justice Thomas was confirmed after the Presidential campaign had begun. Democrats could have said no hearing, no committee work, no vote, no consideration by the full Senate, but that didn't happen. The nominations were processed and they were confirmed. So why is it so important that we do our job? Why is an eight-member Court unable to function to the highest and best use of the U.S. Supreme Court? Ties in the Supreme Court create uncertainty in the law. Important legal questions go unanswered. The law varies then, throughout the country, and people and businesses often fail to receive justice. I wish to review just some of the examples where an incomplete Court was unable to levy justice. There are several examples of the importance of nine Justices, if one looks at recusals over the past few years. No. 1, in 2010, Justice Kagan recused herself from Flores-Villar v. United States. This case was going to decide whether a United States citizen father must reside in the United States longer than a United States citizen mother in order to confer citizenship to his child born abroad. The court deadlocked 4 to 4. The result is a child in one part of the United States may be considered a citizen while another in the exact same situation in a different judicial circuit may not be a citizen. This issue remains unresolved today. No. 2, in 2000, Justice O'Connor recused herself from Free v. Abbott Labs. The court should have determined how many plaintiffs in a Federal class action suit must meet a certain damage threshold for the case to proceed in Federal court. Again, the Court deadlocked 4 to 4. Because the case was left undecided, a later Eighth Circuit case--the circuit covering Iowa and other Midwest States--was thrown out. That meant 30,000 individuals claiming damages from a nearby refinery were denied justice in the Federal court; this, even though the company admitted releasing lead and other pollutants into the air. The issue was resolved by another Supreme Court case, but it was 5 years later and that was little consolation to families who didn't receive justice in Federal court in the interim period. No. 3, in 2007, Chief Justice Roberts recused himself from Warner- Lambert v. Kent. This case was meant to decide whether individuals can sue for injuries caused by defective pharmaceuticals when the drugmaker allegedly hid information from Federal regulators. The 4-to-4 tie in that case failed to clarify the law, which still varies across the country today. Let me give an example. Plaintiffs in the Sixth Circuit are now unable to sue for personal injury in this situation, while individuals harmed in the same way by the same drug in States covered by the Second Circuit are allowed to do so. No. 4, in another case in 2007, New York City Board of Education versus Tom F., Justice Kennedy recused himself. The deadlocked Court failed to rule on whether special needs children must first attend public school before they receive tuition reimbursements to attend a private school better equipped to help them learn. This meant courts in different States treated these children differently. The issue was eventually resolved, 2 years later--2 vital years of schooling that children may have missed out on. No. 5, in 1987, before Justice Kennedy took his seat, the Court heard U.S. v. Carpenter and Winans. The case, which came in advance of that year's stock market crash, involved defendants convicted of securities fraud based on allegations they misused information from a Wall Street Journal investment advice column. The Supreme Court failed to determine whether the action could be a basis for prosecution. The law was left unclear for 10 years, during which time some lower courts overturned criminal convictions for this sort of fraud. These are just a handful of cases that illustrate how an incomplete Court can't fulfill its duty and why the Senate must do its job and fairly consider this President's nominee. To leave the Supreme Court in this situation for a year and some months is, in my view, unconscionable. So why is it happening? I actually can't come up with any reason to refuse to review Obama's nominee other than politics. The only explanation is that Senate Republicans want to deny this President the ability to fulfill his constitutional obligations, and this isn't the only evidence of such targeted obstruction. It has been a sustained course of action for more than a decade now. During the Clinton administration, more than 60 nominees to the Federal courts were blocked by a Republican Senate. Many weren't even given a hearing. A comparison with the final years of President Bush's term is particularly telling. In the 2 final years of the Bush Presidency, the Democratically controlled Senate confirmed 68 judicial nominees. That included 10 confirmations in September of his final year in office. So 8 months from now, back in the Bush years, the Democrats in control were confirming Bush appointments. So far, over President Obama's final 2 years, Republicans have allowed confirmation votes on only 16 judicial nominees. Think about that--11 confirmations in President Obama's second-to-last year versus 10 confirmations just 4 months before President Bush left the White House. I think the inequality here must sink in. People must begin to understand that. The length of the process has also ballooned. Under President Bush, the median number of days between committee and floor votes was 14 days--2 weeks--for circuit court nominees and 19 days--3 weeks--for district court nominees. For President Obama, the corresponding length between committee and floor votes for circuit court nominees was 84 days--2\1/2\ months-- and for district court nominees, 98 days. So we see immediately the difference between how the sides are handling judicial appointments of a President that may have been in the other party. Most of these nominees were eventually confirmed by unanimous or near-unanimous votes. So that shows no need for extended delays. There were no problems with the nominees to deserve extended delays. When President Bush left office, there were 34 vacancies. That is a vacancy rate of 3.9 percent. Today there are more than 81 judicial vacancies, nearly 10 percent of all article III judges. Republicans have clearly decided not to do their job, and the American justice system is going to suffer for it. One thing I don't like to do or make is anything that can be described as a threat, but I will be candid with you because I don't think I am a firebrand. I don't think I am that partisan, but when this is done with the Supreme Court, it signals a whole other level of malevolent obstruction. One thing I have learned in my 20 years is what goes around comes around. To do this, to keep this seat vacant for over a year because it is the fourth year of President Obama's term makes no sense at all. As I said, it is unconscionable. If you don't think an eight-member Court is a problem, you really don't need to take my word for it. Let's listen to the Justices themselves. Justice Scalia, in deciding not to recuse himself from a case in 2004, said the Court would be ``unable to resolve the significant legal issue presented by the case.'' He pointed to the Court's own recusal policy, which remains in effect today. It says that ``even one unnecessary recusal'' limits the Court's ability to function. One can interpret from that that by not doing their job, the Republican side of this aisle is certainly limiting the Court's ability to function. I am not sure the other side should want that on their shoulders. I am not sure what may come up this next year--the degree to which justice would be denied in a 4-to-4 Court, but justice would certainly be denied, and it is probably going to happen. Judge Rehnquist said it in 1972--when he warned that a divided Court ``would lay down one rule in Athens, and another rule in Rome.'' So here is the conclusion. A President is elected to a 4-year term-- both sides of this aisle know that--but today Republicans are in effect saying that a Democratic President only gets 3 years of judicial confirmations if a Supreme Court vacancy comes before it. That is not what the Constitution says. All of us swore an oath to fulfill the Constitution, and I truly hope my Republican colleagues will stop, will think about this, will think about what will happen next year if this President is denied this appointment for the remainder of this year and a judgeship is certainly delayed way past that point. I think to deny this goes against both the spirit and the letter of our duties as spelled out in the Constitution of the United States. Once again, I would say, please, Republicans in this House, do your job. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words in support of amendment No. 3362, which Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley and I, with Senators Cantwell and Ayotte, have cosponsored. This bill has passed the Senate by unanimous consent three times. It ensures that international drug traffickers can be prosecuted when there is reasonable cause to believe that their illegal drugs will be trafficked into our country. It also better enables the prosecution of manufacturers and distributors of listed precursor chemicals who know or intend that these chemicals will be used to manufacture illicit drugs destined for the United States. Finally, it makes a technical fix to the Counterfeit Drug Penalty enhancement Act of 2012 at the request of the Justice Department. I would like to thank Senators Grassley, Ayotte, and Cantwell for cosponsoring this amendment. I hope my colleagues will pass it this time with a vote, since it has been done by unanimous consent three times in the past. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to join my colleagues in supporting the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. This bipartisan legislation takes a strong and balanced approach to tackling the prescription drug and heroin epidemic our Nation faces, and I am proud to be a cosponsor. I would like to note the hard work by many of my colleagues and their staffs--Senators Whitehouse, Ayotte, Coons, Kirk, Klobuchar, and Portman. Their States have been especially hard hit by this epidemic, and this bill would help alleviate some of the suffering. We are all well aware of the sobering statistics. Drug overdoses kill more than 120 Americans each day--more than motor vehicle crashes or gunshot wounds. Opioid and heroin overdoses account for more than half of these deaths. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2014, 25,760 people died from prescription drugs, and of that, 18,893 deaths were caused by opioid painkillers. Heroin caused an additional 10,574 deaths. These numbers have continually increased over the past 15 years, and today we are in the midst of an epidemic. That is why we need this bill. We need a comprehensive response to a problem that has touched every State of our country. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act strengthens our substance abuse prevention, treatment, recovery, and law enforcement infrastructure. While it focuses on prescription opioid abuse and heroin use, it also has the potential to help other drug problems that we face. Specifically, it authorizes a number of programs to: ensure access to appropriate, evidence-based medical treatment; address local and emerging drug threats and trends; equip first responders with lifesaving tools, such as Naloxone, an opioid overdose-reversal drug; and strengthen prescription drug monitoring programs to reduce overprescribing, doctor shopping, and ultimately overdose deaths. The bill also establishes an interagency task force on pain management and opioid painkiller prescribing. The overprescription and overuse of these drugs are a major factor in this epidemic. Lastly, to examine ways to improve access to drug treatment, the bill requires a Government Accountability Office study on the 16-bed limit for Medicaid reimbursement to drug treatment programs, also known as the Institutions for Mental Disease exclusion. The holistic nature of this bill is a clear step in the right direction. It also supports the administration's efforts to confront this epidemic and can help accomplish the goals laid out in the 2015 National Drug Control Strategy. However, there are two things that I believe would have made this comprehensive bill even more effective: 1, addressing the sheer volume and availability of opioid painkillers; and 2, full funding. First, on the widespread availability of prescription opioids, I would like to outline a few often-cited facts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health care providers wrote 259 million prescriptions for opioid painkillers in 2012. This was enough for every American adult to have their own bottle of pills. Since 1999, the sale of prescription opioid painkillers has increased by 300 percent. At the same time, there has been no change in the amount of pain patients reported. During this same time period, deaths from overdose of prescription opioid painkillers quadrupled. Additionally, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 20 percent of people ages 12 and older have used prescription drugs nonmedically at least once. The majority of those who abuse prescription opioids get them for free from a friend or relative, often from legitimate prescriptions written in excess. And, over the past 5 years, the Drug Enforcement Administration has collected more than 5.5 million pounds of unused or unwanted drugs, including opioids. Moreover, data from Express Scripts shows that while there are fewer individuals filling prescriptions for opioids, the overall number of prescriptions filled, as well as the number of days per prescription, both increased. All of this shows there are simply too many pills available for diversion and abuse, and I believe better prescribing practices can play an important role in reducing excess supply. Our doctors and health care providers must improve the way they prescribe these opioids, to ensure safe and effective pain relief, but also to prevent misuse and overdose. At the same time, we must also maintain appropriate access for legitimate medical needs. Updated guidelines, such as those the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will soon release, will help improve prescribing practices. Increased prescriber education can also help. I am also looking into the possibility of responsibly regulating initial opioid prescriptions to reduce risk for misuse, addiction, and diversion. In my view, a patient who has a simple dental procedure does not need a 30-day supply of Vicodin. This is the type of prescribing that I believe we need to fix. Second, a bill like this can only have a positive impact if its programs are actually funded. My colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, has introduced an amendment that would provide emergency funding for the programs authorized in this bill, and I urge its passage. I do not need to tell you that opioid and heroin abuse are very serious problems, but today we have an opportunity to address the issue head-on and save lives. I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for this important bill. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for approximately 15 minutes--probably less.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, at noon today a group of us on this side of the aisle went to the Supreme Court and stood in front of it and spoke about what was happening with the Republican decision to not proceed with the advice and consent provisions of the U.S. Constitution. I have been a member of the Judiciary Committee for 23 years. I sat through six Supreme Court nominations. In those 23 years, as a nonlawyer, I really became infused with great respect for the American system of justice, for the trial courts, for the appeal courts, and for the supreme courts on the State level as well as on the national level. I don't think there is a system of justice that affords an individual, a company, or an organization a fairer way to proceed to litigate a case than the American justice system. So as I stood there and heard some of my colleagues speaking, I began to think of the enormity of what is happening. We all know that the Constitution is clear that the President's role is to nominate and the Senate's role is to advise and consent on the nominee, nothing less, nothing more. I strongly believe that we should proceed to render the President's nominee to the highest Court of the land and proceed to consider that advice and consent process with a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. To do anything less, in my view, is to default on our responsibility as U.S. Senators. That has been the process, no matter how controversial a nomination. That has been the process even when the President and the Senate are of different parties. And, yes, that has been the process during Presidential election years. That is what happened when Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in the last year of President Reagan's term when Democrats actually held the Senate majority. In fact, a total of 14 Justices have been confirmed in the final year of a President's term. Now, why is this important? The Supreme Court is a coequal branch of our Federal Government. It is a vital part of the separation of powers. It is the final arbiter of the law of the land. And one of our important jobs as Senators is to ensure that the Court has the Justices it needs to decide cases. It is impossible to overstate the importance of a functioning Supreme Court. Brown v. Board of Education desegregated our schools. Loving v. Virginia struck down laws that made interracial marriage illegal. Roe v. Wade ruled on the constitutionality of State limits on women's access to reproductive health care, which has been upheld as precedent for over 40 years. Bush v. Gore even decided who would move into the White House as President of the United States. More recently, the Supreme Court struck down limits on campaign money, nullified a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, upheld ObamaCare, and legalized same-sex marriage. Now, what does a 4-to-4 Court mean? The prospect of having more than a year--as a matter of fact, some are saying it is up to 2 years--of tie votes on the Court in major controversial issues would be terrible for our system of justice. Justice Scalia wrote about the prospect of the split Court in 2004. In responding to a request to recuse himself, he declined. He said if he were to recuse himself, ``the Court proceeds with eight Justices, raising the possibility that, by reason of a tie vote, it will find itself unable to resolve the significant legal issue presented by the case.'' That is Justice Scalia. He continued, quoting the Court's own recusal policy: ``Even one unnecessary recusal impairs the functioning of the court.'' So that is what we are doing. We are impairing the functioning of the Supreme Court of the United States. What the Republicans are doing will affect cases for we think at least 2 years--cases left from this year and those to be heard next year. If Republicans are successful in blocking a hearing and a vote on the President's nominee, the Court will find itself unable to resolve important legal questions for a lengthy period of time. Imagine that you are a plaintiff, someone who has been wrongly terminated from a business, or a business in a legal dispute, or imagine you are a person or a business held liable as a defendant for millions of dollars in a civil case or someone who has been charged with or convicted of a crime. You might spend years of your life in prison or even be subjected to the death penalty even though there may be a legal problem with your conviction or sentence. In all of these instances, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the Court ``will find itself unable to resolve the significant legal issue presented by the case.'' That will mean that individuals and businesses, as well as the American people, will be denied the full system of justice guaranteed by this Constitution. Our people should not stand for this. There are major issues pending before the Supreme Court. There are important measures to help stop climate change, immigration issues, race in college admissions, the fundamental concept of ``one person, one vote,'' and the ability of unions representing public employees to function. The point is this: Important issues are before the Court, or will be, and there should be a full Court to hear them. There is absolutely no reason--none--that the Senate should refuse to do its job and conduct full and fair hearings and hold a vote on the nominee. Just a bit of history: The Senate has not left a Supreme Court seat vacant for a year or longer since the middle of the Civil War. That is a fact. It has not happened since the middle of the Civil War. That would be about 1862. Even as the nominations process has become more contentious, the Senate has still considered Supreme Court nominees in a timely manner. This has happened regardless of who sat in the White House or which party controlled the Congress. Here are a few historic facts to consider: Since the Judiciary Committee began holding hearings in 1916 for Supreme Court nominees, a pending nominee to the Supreme Court vacancy has never been denied a timely hearing--never denied a timely hearing--even in the final year of a President's term. Since 1975, the average time between a Supreme Court nomination and a vote by the full Senate has been 67 days. That is about 2 months. I would remind my Republican colleagues that this includes Justice Anthony Kennedy's confirmation, which took place in February of 1988--a California judge--in the final year of President Reagan's Presidency and before a Democratic Senate. So in the final year, a Democratic Senate took a Republican President's nominee, who was a Republican, and made him a Justice of the United States Supreme Court. This has held true even for controversial nominees. Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas both failed to win a majority vote by the Judiciary Committee, but their nominations still advanced to a full Senate vote. That was even the case for Justice Thomas, a very conservative jurist, who replaced Justice Thurgood Marshall, a very liberal jurist. And, again, this took place in a Democratic-controlled Senate. Many of my Republican colleagues have voiced their own support for a President's right to have his nominee considered. Someone I consider a friend who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee during periods of my tenure, Senator Orrin Hatch, who voted in favor of Justice Ginsburg, said at the time--and I know this because I was sitting right there and heard it--he believed a President deserves some deference on Supreme Court appointments. He said he would not vote against a nominee simply because he would have chosen someone else. Senator Grassley, now chairman of the Judiciary Committee, made similar comments, saying Congress must not forget its advice and consent responsibilities. Well, those responsibilities don't cease with the death of a jurist. As a matter of fact, that is the clear intent of the Constitution, that the advice and consent responsibility is mandated, no matter what. So to refuse to hold hearings before a nominee is even announced, to me, is shocking, and it makes me think: To what extent is the partisanship in this body going when it is willing to deny the Supreme Court a vital member? It will be like denying a baseball team a pitcher. They couldn't conduct a game without a pitcher. And a case that has any controversy cannot be fairly held without nine Justices. That is not what we were sent to Washington for. It is not how to do the people's business. To deny the American people full and fair Senate consideration for a Supreme Court nominee would be unprecedented in our history and further undermine faith in the Senate as an institution. I really deeply believe this, and I don't know why we would let this happen. If Republicans follow through on this threat, the fairness of the process for the Supreme Court will forever be tarnished. The consequences could reverberate for generations, and it will be a serious gesture against the functioning of this great democracy. So all we ask is, do your job. It is why we were sent here after all. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I yield the floor.