Angus King

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, in 15 seconds I yield to no one here in my commitment to the environment, but I also have a commitment to common sense. We are talking about bridges, not expanding--same size, same dimensions, and same location. If that were it, I would oppose this amendment; however, this amendment has a safety valve that the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of the bridge must pass muster with the State-level permitting and environmental protection authority.

Mr. KING. I understand. I think we should support it. Thank you.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, this past May, members of Maine's law enforcement community gathered with the members of the public at Mount Hope Cemetery in Augusta to honor the more than 80 officers who have given their lives in the line of duty. In Maine, where we have more than 2,000 sworn police officers, this ceremony is both a longstanding and cherished tradition, and this year represented the 25th consecutive time that the Maine Chiefs of Police Association and the Maine Sheriffs Association have come together in commemoration of their fallen brethren. But for one person, this year's ceremony also marked a different anniversary. Anne Griffith, whom many of us know more affectionately as Woolie, was just 3 years old when on April 15, 1996, her father, Maine State trooper James ``Drew'' Griffith, was killed in a car accident while pursuing a speeding vehicle. I first met Woolie in the days that followed--at her father's funeral, as she endured an experience that no child should have to and as I, then Governor, attempted to convey the deep gratitude of a State that mourned alongside her. She was strong then, just as she is strong now. Woolie is now 25 years old, and this year marks two decades since her father's death-- and in that time, she has grown into a wonderful young woman--raised by her mother, Maine Warden Chaplain Kate Braestrup. In a remarkable testament to her fortitude and strength of character, Woolie several years ago made the conscious decision to follow in her father's footsteps by entering the ranks of the Maine State police. Today, she serves as an investigative analyst for the Maine State Police Computer Crimes Unit, donning the same blue uniform once worn so proudly by her father; surrounded by many of the same dedicated public servants who stood beside him years ago. Woolie spoke at the Maine Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Service in May. Her words were a powerful tribute to the law enforcement community, not only because they speak so well to their constant and ever-present work and vigilance to keep us safe, but also because they so aptly capture the unfailing love and kindness that too often is overlooked today. I deeply hope that future generations of Americans may look at her father's life, his legacy, and her tribute to him and to the law enforcement community and come to more deeply understand and appreciate the sacrifices of those who protect us every day. Mr. President, I ask that Anne Griffith's remarks at the Maine Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Service on May 19, 2016, be printed in the Record. The material follows: [May 19, 2016] Good Hope Cemetery--Augusta, Maine (By Anne Griffith) Good morning, My name is Anne Griffith. I am the youngest of four children of Maine Warden Chaplain Kate Braestrup and fallen Maine State Trooper Drew Griffith. It is a privilege to stand with you, and honor my father today. On behalf of the families of the fallen, I thank you all for being here. As the youngest of Drew's children, I was three years old when my dad died, too young to form clear memories. I did not have much of a chance to experience him as a father, and my memories of him are vague and uncertain. What I had, growing up, were stories--stories of his intelligence, his kindness, and his humor--told to me by those who had known him well: my mother, and my siblings of course, my family . . . and my blue family, too. Law enforcement officers who worked with Dad supported us, shared our sadness and kept us close over the years, caring for him by caring for us. They, too, gave me my father in stories. And so, two decades later I am still a part of that blue family. In 2014 I worked as a Reserve Patrol Officer. During this time, I thought often of my dad. I got a glimpse of him--his sorrows and satisfactions--through performing the tasks that he performed; I placed handcuffs on offenders while they fought me. I performed CPR on two victims . . . and could not save them. I helped in preventing the suicide of a mentally ill woman. For the past year, I have worked as an Investigative Analyst for the Computer Crimes Unit. During this time I have assisted in a variety of cases from child pornography possession to child molestation offenses. Because of the nature of my work for the Unit, I can definitively point to particular cases and know for certain that I made a difference in the outcome of the investigation. There is a satisfaction in this that my father felt . . . and I have felt it, too. I know there is no greater sense of honor and purpose than participating in the protection of innocent human lives. This is what my father died doing. Besides working with an incredible team, I am fortunate to work closely with those who knew and loved my father--Lt. Glenn Lang who helped to carry his casket, Sgt. Laurie Northrup who once told me her last conversation with my dad was of how much he loved his wife and children; Computer Analyst Andrea Donovan, who worked as a State Police Dispatcher and heard my Dad sign on 10-8, and sign off 10-7. I am able to know my father through them, just as they are able to know him through me. April 15, 2016 marked the 20th Anniversary of my father's line of duty death. To mark the day, I went for a run. A sergeant of the Maine State Police K9 Unit, and a recently graduated State Trooper ran with me, in the area where I grew up--and Dad's patrol area. We ended up at Marshall Point Lighthouse in Port Clyde, where a bench dedicated in my father's name is placed. The sky was clear blue and the air was crisp with salt from the nearby ocean. Neither the sergeant nor the brand-new trooper had ever shaken my father's hand, or laughed at his jokes. Still, they are his family, they are his brothers. They ran with him by running with me. The law enforcement family is large; it crosses state lines and international borders. Though my siblings and I lost our father, we did not lose our connection to his legacy, nor the family he became a part of when he joined the Maine State Police in 1986. I know who my father was because I know you-- his brothers and sisters in uniform, intelligent, good- humored and kind--who continue to serve and protect the people of Maine and of the United States. In honoring my father today, I honor you. Thank you.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, at 3:30 in the afternoon on December 23 of last year, about a half hour before sunset, the lights started to go out in western Ukraine. The power started to go out. The operator in one of the Ukrainian powerplants noticed, to his horror, that he no longer controlled the cursor on his computer screen. The cursor moved of its own accord and started opening dialogue boxes and opening breakers. The operator tried frantically to get back into the computer, only to find he was locked out and the password had been changed. At the same time, the call center of this utility in Ukraine was blocked by thousands of fake calls, so the utility itself could not know what was happening in the countryside. The backup generators around western Ukraine also went down. Malware was installed on the operating computers and a system called KillDisk was installed, which wiped the disks and rendered the computers useless. As a final insult, the power in the power control system itself went off and the operators were literally left in the dark. This was the first major cyber attack of a public utility anywhere in the world. It was sophisticated, it was well planned, and it was devastating. Within a few minutes, 230,000 people in the country of Ukraine were without power. That attack could have occurred in Kansas City, in San Jose, in New York, or here in Washington. Ever since I have served in this body as a member of the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, I have heard repeated warnings from every public official involved with intelligence and national security that an attack on our critical infrastructure is not possible, it is likely. How many shots across our bow, how many warning shots do we have to endure? Sony, the OPM, insurance companies, and now the nightmare scenario of an electric grid attack. We can learn something from what happened in the Ukraine, and there is a piece of good news and a lesson for us. The attack, which left 230,000 people without power, only persisted for about 6 hours. The interesting part of the scenario of this development was that one of the reasons they were able to get the power back on so fast was because the Ukrainian grid was not up to modern--I hesitate to say ``standards''--practices in terms of its interconnectedness and its digitization. There were old-fashioned analog switches, and the most old-fashioned analog switch of all, a human being, who could actually throw breakers and get the system back online. However, in this country we are not so lucky, and I use that in a very sort of backward way because we have the most advanced grid structure in the world. We are more digital, we are more automated, we are more interconnected, but that makes us more vulnerable. That makes us more vulnerable. We are asymmetrically vulnerable because we are asymmetrically interconnected. We keep getting these warning shots. A lot is being done by our utilities and by our government agencies to work on protecting this country from a devastating cyber attack. But I know of no one who would assert that enough is being done and that we are ahead of this threat. I introduced a bill yesterday, along with three cosponsors: Senator Risch from Idaho, Senator Collins from Maine, and Senator Heinrich from New Mexico--all of whom, along with myself, are members of the Intelligence Committee, where we hear about these threats practically weekly. The bill is pretty straightforward. It tasks our great National Labs with working with the utilities over a 2-year period to determine, not new software patches and new complexity, but if we can protect our grid by returning to, at least at critical points in the grid, the old-fashioned analog switches or good-old Fred, who has to go and throw a breaker with his dog. It may be that going back to the future, if you will--going back to the past and simplifying some of these critical connection points may be the best protection we can have. The idea is for the Labs to put their best people on this and for the utilities to do the same on a voluntary basis. I might add that there is nothing mandatory about this bill. We are trying to work on finding some solutions that are implementable in the short run to protect us from this grave threat. Once we get a report back, hopefully we will be able to implement this legislation across the country. I am tired of hearing warnings. It is really time for us to act, and this is a straightforward bill that I hope can move through this body at the speed of a cyber attack so that we can then have the defense we have to have. An attack on our critical infrastructure--particularly the electric infrastructure across this country--would, in fact, be devastating and would undoubtedly involve a loss of lives. I do not want to be here on a darkening winter afternoon and see the lights going off across America--the power to hospitals, the power to our transportation system, the power that makes our lives what they are today. This is not an abstract threat. We know from the Ukraine that the capability exists to do exactly that and take down the grid. We must act expeditiously and directly to counteract that threat. If we do not do so, we are failing our responsibility to the people of America, our constituents, and the United States. I urge rapid consideration of this bill, and I look forward to its consideration at the Energy Committee. Three of the four sponsors are also members of the Energy Committee as well as the Intelligence Committee, and I am hoping we can move this rapidly so we can begin the process of countering what is not an abstract threat but a direct, clear, and present danger to the future of this country. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, we just invoked cloture on an amendment to deal with the funding of an incipient epidemic--an epidemic that has serious ramifications for our society and for our country--and it is right that we did that. I rise today, however, to point out the fact that we are in the midst not of an incipient epidemic but a real epidemic that since lunchtime today has killed 15 people in this country. Fifteen people have lost their lives since the middle of the day today. The epidemic I refer to, of course, is heroin and opiate drug abuse and addiction. This is a crisis which is upon us right now. A month or so ago, we passed with great fanfare the CARA bill, the comprehensive addiction bill. It was the right thing to do. It was a good bill, but it had no funding. Passing a bill like that with no funding is like sending the fire department to a fire with no water. We cannot deal with this problem until we have the capacity to provide treatment to the people who need it. Right now there is a huge shortage of treatment beds. There is even a shortage of detox beds, let alone treatment. When a person finally gets to the point where they are struggling with this terribly destructive disease and they are ready to embrace and take on the treatment, to not have it available or to have it available at an exorbitant cost is tragic. We are losing lives every hour--47,000 people a year--and it is expanding and exploding, and it is tearing our communities apart. I am delighted that we invoked cloture on an amendment involving the Zika virus. It is important that we do so. But we also should be attending to this crisis that is staring us right in the face and is tearing our country apart. I hope we can soon get to an amendment that will allow us to begin the process of funding the resolution of this scourge before it takes more lives and before it tears apart more families and communities. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, when Senators rise on this floor, typically we are identifying problems, we are talking about how to solve them, and we are talking about how prior actions haven't quite worked. Today I have the pleasure of rising for the opposite reason. I am here to talk about something that has worked, something that we did, something that we worked on together on a bipartisan basis that has made an enormous difference for the students of our country. In the spring of 2013, there was an impending deadline. The interest rate on student loans, which in the past had been set by statute by Congress without regard to what the underlying economics were at the time or what the borrowing rate of the Federal Government was--it was an arbitrary number set by Congress, and it was due to double. In July of 2013, it was due to double to 6.8 percent. There was a proposal put forward by the leadership and by the Members on this side of the aisle which did not get sufficient votes. There was another proposal put forth by the Senators on the other side of the aisle which also didn't get enough votes. We were left with a situation with no proposal on the floor and an impending deadline that would have doubled rates for student loans for millions of students across the country. At that point, a small, bipartisan group of us got together and said: There has to be a better way to find a solution. We can't let this happen to our students. This is a particularly important time of the year to talk about this because this is when students are finding out where they are going to college next year, they are making their arrangements for financial aid, and they are thinking about what their commitment will be. Well, as of this afternoon, those students are going to be able to breathe a bit of a sigh of relief because we just learned that the interest rate on student loans taken out for next year based upon the cost of borrowing for the U.S. Government will be 3.76 percent. That is the lowest it has been in a decade, and it is considerably below--by almost half--what it would have been had we not come to that solution on that hot summer day in the middle of the summer of 2013. The group of people who worked on this and put it together were, as I said, a bipartisan group. The group consisted of Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina; Senator Manchin; Senator Tom Coburn, my friend from Oklahoma; Senator Alexander; Senator Tom Carper; Senator Dick Durbin; and Senator Tom Harkin. We had a lot of meetings, discussions, negotiations, and ultimately worked together to determine a fair and equitable way to set the rate for student loans from the Federal Government based upon the Federal Government's own cost of borrowing money and combined the best ideas from both plans. We got the strong support of the President, who encouraged the Democratic Members of our group to join in these negotiations, and we reached a consensus. The Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act passed this body with something like 80 votes, and that has made a real difference for our students. Here are some numbers: $50 billion, $5 billion, $275 million. Those are the answers. What are the questions? The first is, $50 billion is the amount of money students will save over the next 10 years based upon the difference of what the interest rate would have been and what it is going to be. This says 3.8 percent. We made this yesterday. It is actually lower; it is 3.76 percent. But this differential over 10 years equals $50 billion in the pockets of students across this country. That is a $5 billion-a-year difference in what they will have to pay in interest and what they would have paid had the law not been changed. That is an enormous amount of money for our students. In the State of Maine, the New America Foundation has estimated that this translates into over $275 million in interest savings to students just in the State of Maine. Well, those are big numbers: $275 million, $50 billion, $5 billion. So what does it mean in reality to an individual student? Here is what we are talking about. Under the old law, an individual typical undergraduate would have paid $17,000 in interest as opposed to $10,000. That is at least $6,000 that goes into the pockets of our students. That is going to make a real difference. I am delighted that we have had this success and that we have been able to report something that has actually been done right around here and then has truly benefited millions of students across this country, but we have plenty of work still to do. College is still too expensive. The burden of student debt generally is very heavy and weighs on not only the students but our economy. We need to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. We need to enact meaningful changes in the whole structure of how colleges can keep their prices affordable. We need to give students the tools they need to succeed. We also need to look at the structure of student loan programs to simplify, A, how you apply, and B, how you pay them back, how the structure is, and have simple, easily understood techniques to pay back according to your means, according to what you are earning at the time, an earnings-based repayment schedule so that students don't exit college with this enormous burden. One student told me: Senator, I feel like I have a mortgage but no house. That is essentially what is happening. So what I am talking about today is truly good news, but it is not the end of the story and we should not say: Well, we have taken care of that issue. Let's move forward. I do think every now and then it is important to acknowledge that occasionally the policies work out, and this is one that has worked out spectacularly for the students of America. Fifty billion dollars over the next 10 years will be saved by students who would otherwise be paying that money in interest, and that is money they can invest in their own futures and so can make a better life for themselves, their families, and our country. I appreciate the opportunity to acknowledge the work that was done by this entire body and by the House and by the President to resolve what would have been a true crisis for our students and to move it toward a much more manageable solution. I look forward to continuing to work on this issue and to keeping in touch with Chairman Alexander and Members of this body who are interested in continuing to work on this issue of the cost of college and how student loans are structured in order to make them work most effectively and fairly for the young people of this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KING

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

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a bill that I am introducing today, along with Senator Coons and Senator Portman, called the Stop Taxing Death and Disability Act. It is a bill that responds to a tragic and unintended and frankly unsupportable policy--an inadvertent policy, I believe--of our government. Senator Coons has been a great leader on this, and I also wish to express my appreciation to Senator Portman for joining. Not long after I was elected, I was contacted by Donald and Nora Brennen, a couple from Topsham, ME, which is just across the river from my hometown of Brunswick. They are both retired Navy veterans, and they experienced a tragedy in their lives that has inadvertently entangled them with the Internal Revenue Service in a way that I think makes no sense. Their son Keegan had graduated cum laude from the New Hampshire Institute of Art. He had taken on Federal and private loans in order to enable himself to get his education. He had a bright future. Unfortunately, barely 6 months after he graduated, he passed away suddenly from a non-traumatic brain aneurysm--a tragic loss which I think any of us as parents can only dimly appreciate or understand or empathize with. It is so unthinkable to lose a child in this way that it is just hard to conceive of. The Federal Government has recognized this kind of situation and forgives the student loan indebtedness of students who pass away in this situation. The Federal Government gets that part right. Congress has already directed the Department of Education to forgive outstanding balances for borrowers who pass away, as well as those funds borrowed by parents on behalf of a child who passes away. The same forgiveness provision, by the way, is also permitted for borrowers who suffer total and permanent disabilities that are certified by the Social Security Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs. So far, so good. While the Federal Government solved that part of the problem, it inadvertently created another by recognizing that the Tax Code generally treats forgiven student debt as income in the year it is discharged. Because of this, this family in Maine who lost their son was suddenly--overnight--faced with a $24,000 tax bill and a $6,000 tax bill from the State of Maine because of its conformance with the Federal law. In other words, you lose a child. The loans are forgiven, but the forgiveness is treated as taxable income, and suddenly, in the midst of your grief, you are faced with paying an enormous--one big tax bill on the entire amount of the loan being forgiven. In this case, the Brennens couldn't possibly pay this in one instance, and it makes no sense from the point of view of policy. It is the opposite of compassion. It is literally adding insult to tragic injury. Since 2012 when they lost their son, the Brennens have struggled to make ends meet. They had to go into their 401(k). They had to make some kind of arrangement with the IRS, and now they are in the process of paying this enormous tax off. This family in Maine is not alone in facing this burden. My office has heard from other constituents in our State, and our research indicates that there are at least several thousand across the country who are facing a tax bill in the midst of the most tragic and difficult circumstances. This just isn't right. It is something we should fix. As I said, the Department of Education does have it right, and they are working on this, but until this unresolved tax issue is resolved, they can't move forward with an efficient way to provide these discharges. The bill we are introducing today with Senator Coons and Senator Portman, the Stop Taxing Death and Disability Act, is a commonsense, compassionate, and sensible response to this tragic event. If we are going to forgive the student loan debt, which makes total sense and has been the law for some time, to then turn around and say that loan forgiveness is itself taxable--so in the midst of your grief, you are presented with a massive tax bill--just isn't right. It is not fair, it is not right, it is not compassionate, and it isn't consistent with the earlier decision that has been made to discharge these loans under these tragic circumstances. I think it is time for Congress to add the death and disability exemption to the Tax Code. I thank Don and Nora Brennen for sharing this story with me--it can't be an easy story to share--and for their service to this country in the U.S. Navy and their commitment to doing the right thing for their family. I hope and believe we can find it in our wisdom here and in our hearts to act on this bill to be sure that other families in America in the midst of their grief do not have to face this tragic situation. Again, I thank Senator Coons and Senator Portman for joining me in this bipartisan effort to right a wrong, to correct a mistake, to act in the best principles of this institution, to act on behalf of this small group but important group who suffered loss, to act to relieve this burden that should never have been in place in the first place.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I also want to address a second issue while I have the floor, and that is a conversation I had yesterday with Judge Merrick Garland. We had an opportunity to talk in my office for about 45 minutes to an hour. We talked about a wide range of topics: the limits on the President's Executive authority, how the Court should provide oversight to regulatory agencies, the Second Amendment, the role of stare decisis respect for precedence, general judicial philosophy. We talked about a number of issues, and I wanted to share with the Senate some observations from that meeting. No. 1, the first thing I thought of last night after reflecting upon this conversation is that I used to be in the judge-appointing business. As Governor of Maine, I probably appointed 10 or 15 judges over my 8-year term, maybe more. I don't have a specific number, but I do recall the process which brought prospective judges in by a judicial selection committee, and then I would consider their qualifications and interview them in much the same way I did yesterday. I always look for the same qualities: first, high intellect; knowledge of the law; nonpomposity--as a young lawyer, I didn't like pompous judges, and I don't like people who uphold themselves, particularly when they are in positions of authority, so a kind of modest demeanor; finally, a temperament whereby they can apply the law and make decisions without any discernible political or ideological bent. Indeed, as I thought back on the conversation I had with Judge Garland yesterday, I realized that he exactly fit that criteria. Were he an applicant or a candidate for the supreme court in the State of Maine and if I were the Governor, he would be the kind of guy I was looking for. The other thing I reflected on as I was thinking about the conversation is that I wish the people of America had been looking over my shoulder and had heard the conversation, the questions, heard his answers, studied his body language and how he approached these questions, how his mind works, how he thinks. I thought about the fact that many of us are having these meetings with the judge over these weeks, Members from both parties, and what we are doing is kind of a slow-motion hearing without the public being able to watch what is going on. I think that is where we are missing the boat on this nomination. I fully understand the discretion every Senator has to make their own decision on whether this is a nomination that should go forward, but we are denying the American people the opportunity to participate in this process by not having a hearing and allowing them to see and hear and meet Judge Garland. I don't understand that. Well, I guess I do understand the politics, and I will talk about that in a minute, but I don't understand why we are shutting the people out of this process, because if there was a hearing, it would probably go on for hours, there would be dozens of questions, the Senators could ask all the questions they wanted, and the public and the Senators would be able to observe this man and get a feel for who he is, what he would bring to this job, and the kind of person he is. I have not made a final decision. If and when he is brought to the floor for a vote, I haven't yet decided how I will vote, although based upon my meeting yesterday and my knowledge of his prior judicial experience and his reputation, I am inclined to say yes. But I want to have a hearing. I want to see how he does in that hot seat where he is asked difficult questions by our colleagues. I want to see the reaction not only of the Senators but of the people of America as they have a chance to meet Judge Garland. One of the things that concerns me about this process--and ironically Chief Justice Roberts commented on this just a few months ago, before the death of Justice Scalia--is the politicization of the Supreme Court. I am not naive, and I realize the Supreme Court makes important fundamental decisions. It is an important part of our governmental structure and makes far-reaching decisions that have effects on many people across the country. But I am afraid that today we have gotten to the point where the Supreme Court is treated as almost like a third branch of Congress. It is another political body. Instead of being elected by the people, it is being elected by the Senators, and we are arguing about who gets to elect this so-called swing vote and which way the Court is going to be. The Supreme Court should not be a political body, period. It should be a body made up of people--my impression of Judge Garland--who are servants of the law, who are students of the law, who are moderate and temperate. I walked out of our meeting and I thought, this guy is a conservative with a small ``c.'' He is a modest man with a deep knowledge of the law and a razor-sharp intellect but no political or ideological agenda that I could discern. I suspect that if and when--I believe it will ultimately be when--he is confirmed, he will turn into a Justice who will vote on one side of issues sometimes and make certain people happy and others unhappy at other times. I think he is going to be a straight-down-the-middle judge who calls it as he sees it, and I think that is exactly what we need on the Supreme Court today. The other quality he has demonstrated as chief judge of the circuit court is the ability to bring consensus. By all reports of people who have worked with him--judges, people who have known him--he is a consensus builder. He is not a flamboyant, strong, charismatic kind of guy, but he brings people together. He marshals the court. He works toward unanimity. He is not a dissenter. He is not a firebrand. He is principled, but he is a consensus builder, and we definitely need that. Five-to-four decisions, whichever way they go, in the long run are not good for the country, in my view, because they divide us and illegitimize the Court as a judicial arbiter of the Constitution as opposed to another political branch of our government. So I believe what we should be doing is fulfilling our constitutional responsibility--not to vote yes, necessarily. The Constitution does not say the President shall nominate and we shall approve--but to consider and to advise and consent. That involves the simple matter of a hearing and would include the American people in the process. There is a lot of discussion here of ``let's hear from the American people.'' The way to hear from the American people is to have hearings, let them watch, let them take the measure of this person, and let us know how they think we should carry forth our constitutional responsibility in this case. He appears to be--from what I know so far--an extraordinary candidate, not ideological, not partisan. I have no idea of his partisan background. I did not even ask him. It occurred to me afterward that perhaps I should have, but I didn't. I know he has worked in the Justice Department. He has been a prosecutor. He has been a private attorney, and he has been a very well respected judge. I think he is a judge's judge, a lawyer's lawyer. That is the kind of person I think we need on the Court in this day and age. So I hope we can find a way to move to hearings, to allow the American people to participate in this process, to watch the process unfold, to get to know the judge. Let's get to know him better and then make our decision so we can carry out our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. That, I believe, is what we owe the Constitution and what we owe the people of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a bill that I am introducing today, along with Senator Coons and Senator Portman, called the Stop Taxing Death and Disability Act. It is a bill that responds to a tragic and unintended and frankly unsupportable policy--an inadvertent policy, I believe--of our government. Senator Coons has been a great leader on this, and I also wish to express my appreciation to Senator Portman for joining. Not long after I was elected, I was contacted by Donald and Nora Brennen, a couple from Topsham, ME, which is just across the river from my hometown of Brunswick. They are both retired Navy veterans, and they experienced a tragedy in their lives that has inadvertently entangled them with the Internal Revenue Service in a way that I think makes no sense. Their son Keegan had graduated cum laude from the New Hampshire Institute of Art. He had taken on Federal and private loans in order to enable himself to get his education. He had a bright future. Unfortunately, barely 6 months after he graduated, he passed away suddenly from a non-traumatic brain aneurysm--a tragic loss which I think any of us as parents can only dimly appreciate or understand or empathize with. It is so unthinkable to lose a child in this way that it is just hard to conceive of. The Federal Government has recognized this kind of situation and forgives the student loan indebtedness of students who pass away in this situation. The Federal Government gets that part right. Congress has already directed the Department of Education to forgive outstanding balances for borrowers who pass away, as well as those funds borrowed by parents on behalf of a child who passes away. The same forgiveness provision, by the way, is also permitted for borrowers who suffer total and permanent disabilities that are certified by the Social Security Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs. So far, so good. While the Federal Government solved that part of the problem, it inadvertently created another by recognizing that the Tax Code generally treats forgiven student debt as income in the year it is discharged. Because of this, this family in Maine who lost their son was suddenly--overnight--faced with a $24,000 tax bill and a $6,000 tax bill from the State of Maine because of its conformance with the Federal law. In other words, you lose a child. The loans are forgiven, but the forgiveness is treated as taxable income, and suddenly, in the midst of your grief, you are faced with paying an enormous--one big tax bill on the entire amount of the loan being forgiven. In this case, the Brennens couldn't possibly pay this in one instance, and it makes no sense from the point of view of policy. It is the opposite of compassion. It is literally adding insult to tragic injury. Since 2012 when they lost their son, the Brennens have struggled to make ends meet. They had to go into their 401(k). They had to make some kind of arrangement with the IRS, and now they are in the process of paying this enormous tax off. This family in Maine is not alone in facing this burden. My office has heard from other constituents in our State, and our research indicates that there are at least several thousand across the country who are facing a tax bill in the midst of the most tragic and difficult circumstances. This just isn't right. It is something we should fix. As I said, the Department of Education does have it right, and they are working on this, but until this unresolved tax issue is resolved, they can't move forward with an efficient way to provide these discharges. The bill we are introducing today with Senator Coons and Senator Portman, the Stop Taxing Death and Disability Act, is a commonsense, compassionate, and sensible response to this tragic event. If we are going to forgive the student loan debt, which makes total sense and has been the law for some time, to then turn around and say that loan forgiveness is itself taxable--so in the midst of your grief, you are presented with a massive tax bill--just isn't right. It is not fair, it is not right, it is not compassionate, and it isn't consistent with the earlier decision that has been made to discharge these loans under these tragic circumstances. I think it is time for Congress to add the death and disability exemption to the Tax Code. I thank Don and Nora Brennen for sharing this story with me--it can't be an easy story to share--and for their service to this country in the U.S. Navy and their commitment to doing the right thing for their family. I hope and believe we can find it in our wisdom here and in our hearts to act on this bill to be sure that other families in America in the midst of their grief do not have to face this tragic situation. Again, I thank Senator Coons and Senator Portman for joining me in this bipartisan effort to right a wrong, to correct a mistake, to act in the best principles of this institution, to act on behalf of this small group but important group who suffered loss, to act to relieve this burden that should never have been in place in the first place.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I join my esteemed colleague, Senator Susan Collins, in recognizing the 100th Convention of the National Association of Superintendents of the U.S. Naval Shore Establishments, NAS NSE. This association works diligently to implement a strong and healthy program of naval maintenance and modernization at our naval shipyards, so future generations can benefit from a Navy that is always ready to defend our freedom. I specifically wish to recognize the work of the NAS NSE chapter at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME. Maintaining the structural and functional integrity of our Navy's submarines enables the United States to consistently serve and protect our Nation's interests around the globe, and the NAS NSE of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard serves as a paragon of efficient, quality service on behalf of our Navy's ships and servicemen. Portsmouth has earned a reputation as the Navy's Center of Excellence for attack submarine maintenance, which is a reflection of the hard work and determination of the association to manage and protect these American treasures for national security. Through their consistent dedication and skillful work, the men and women of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard play a vital role in furthering the esteemed tradition of excellence within the NAS NSE. Building on over a century of work to promote our Navy's strength, this year's historic convention focuses on the national initiative of improving productive capacity throughout the association. This year's convention will help to further streamline systems, optimize production, and enhance safety across all the NAS NSE's operations. Discussing and implementing improved strategies will help to ensure the continued effectiveness of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and shipyards all across the country. I congratulate the NAS NSE on their 100th convention, and I thank them for their dedication and hard work on behalf of our shipyards. I wish them continued success in the future as the association continues to ensure the safety of our Nation for generations to come.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the many years of productive community partnership fostered by the cooperation of four organizations--the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the American City Planning Directors' Council, and the American City Quality Foundation--in their administration of the American City Quality Month every April since its establishment in 1988. Thanks to the collaboration of both public and private partners connected through this program, communities across the Nation are bolstered each April by a combination of public meetings, educational opportunities for students, and public announcements, all dedicated to the betterment of urban areas. By advocating for improved city planning, decisionmaking, design, development, management, and action, the program brings attention to the need for revitalization and upkeep of metropolitan spaces. With the U.S. population expected to hit nearly 350 million by 2026 and almost 400 million by 2050, the sustainability of American cities, which contain 80.7 percent of the U.S. total population according to the 2010 census, is paramount to accommodating an ever-expanding citizenry. The focus of the program lies not only with large cities like Boston and New York, but also with smaller ones like Portland and Augusta, ME. These small cities are growing and developing into economic powerhouses attractive to both skilled workers and middle-class families. Ensuring the preservation of productive relationships, infrastructure, and environmental well-being in Maine's growing urban spaces is a crucial piece of the success not only for these cities, but for the entire State. American City Quality Month inspires the dialogue and partnerships necessary for sustainable growth and revitalization. I thank the organizers of American City Quality Month for ensuring that American cities of all sizes continue to promote the welfare of this generation and those to come.

Mr. KING

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

Mr. KING. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KING. Madam President, I listened with great attentiveness to the very distinguished chair of the Judiciary Committee, whom I have the utmost respect for, but I feel that I must respond, given this important question that is not before this body but should be. The first point this Senator would make is that the term ``lameduck'' is being used rather loosely. Lameduck, as I have always understood it, is the period between the election and a swearing-in of a successor. A lameduck Congress is the Congress before November and January. A lameduck President is the President's term between November and January. I think, as I have always understood the use of that term, to apply it to a President who is in the middle part or early part of the fourth year of his or her term is not an accurate characterization or usage of the term ``lameduck.'' The distinguished chairman said we are going to have a debate. I am delighted to hear that. The question is, When? I wasn't here in 1992. I wasn't here in 1987. I wasn't here in 2007. So I am trying to figure out how to respond to this situation, how to understand this situation, with reference to the Constitution. There are lots of provisions in the Constitution that are subject to windy law review articles, to lengthy court decisions, to interpretation, to characterization of what they actually mean, what was the original intent of the Framers, and all of those complicated issues of discussion, dissection, and explication. But the word ``four,'' as in one, two, three, four, and the word ``shall,'' as in ``shall do something,'' are not among those confusing terms. I would submit that the President has a constitutional obligation to submit a nominee to this body and this body has a constitutional obligation to consider that nomination--not an obligation to confirm, not an obligation to say yes, but an obligation to consider it. The Presidential term is 4 years; it is not 3 years and 1 month. That is in the Constitution. Article II, section 2, says the President ``shall nominate . . . Ministers . . . Judges of the supreme Court . . . with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.'' I would not for a minute presuppose what the decision of the Senate should be, but to argue that the Senate will not even hear the nomination, will not discuss it, will not debate it--in fact, some of the Members have said they will not even meet the person, with no knowledge whatsoever of who this person is. The President may nominate a person who is a combination of Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson, and St. Thomas of Aquinas, but he or she is not even going to be met with. I don't understand that as a matter of interpretation of the Constitution. There is a lot of discussion about the people ``should have a role'' in this decision. The Constitution makes that clear. They do have that role when they elect the President of the United States for a 4-year term, not for a 3-year, 1-month term. I can see no wiggle room on the President's obligation to submit a nominee to this body. This decision to stall this nomination, to not meet with a nominee, to not hold hearings, to not hold a debate, to not hold a discussion, has profound implications for the Court because the reality is this means the Court will be without a Justice for essentially two terms. We lost Justice Scalia in February. The term of the Court doesn't end until later this spring. He will not be present for the final decisionmaking on the matters that have been before the Court this term. Then, if we wait until a new President is elected, the new President comes into office on January 20, 2017, and submits a new nomination almost immediately. Let's say it is within the first 2 weeks of his or her taking office. The average time for consideration of a Justice is between 60 and 90 days. We are into February, March, April, and that is into the next term of the U.S. Supreme Court. By delaying this decision, we are basically going to leave the Court without a Justice, in contravention to the explicit provision of the Constitution, for what amounts to two terms. This Senator wants to be very clear: I am not saying that there is any constitutional obligation on this body to approve the President's nominee, but I believe there is a constitutional obligation to consider that nominee. That is really what we are debating. I am delighted to hear the distinguished chairman say we are going to have this debate, but we ought to have it now, under the Constitution, which requires the President to submit a nominee and, I would argue, requires this body to at least consider that nominee, to hold hearings, to let the people hear who the nominee is, to hear what their views are, and to make the decision within this body whether this nominee should be approved for this incredibly important, august, and solemn obligation to undertake as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Again, ``four'' and ``shall'' are not debatable propositions. Whether or not the Senate should confirm is clearly within the discretion of every Senator in this body, but to say that we will not have the opportunity to make that decision I think is contrary to the Constitution. It is contrary to the best interests of the American people, and I am surprised, frankly, that my colleagues are taking this position. Nobody is saying how they have to vote. If they don't like the nominee, they can vote them down, but why not have a hearing, why not have a debate, why not have a discussion, why not find out who this person is? The President may nominate someone who is of great appeal to both sides of this body. I would hope that the distinguished chair of the committee would reconsider his decision--the committee's decision--to not even hold a hearing and to carry out what I believe is the obligation to at least hear the nomination--not approve it, but to at least hear it--and therefore let the American people participate in this discussion. Therefore, let the American people participate in this discussion. But let's also follow the explicit provisions of the Constitution that require the President to submit a nominee and, I believe, require us to at least consider it, if not approve. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise in disappointment, surprise, and some confusion that we have this bill. We spent a week--I went to the Judiciary Committee. The bill came out of the committee unanimously. There is tremendous interest in this subject. When I have talked about it at home, I have said to my people in Maine, this is something we are going to be able to do because every Member of this body is being affected by this tragedy that is engulfing our country. This is something we are going to be able to do together and indeed we have done a lot together. We have a good bill. We have passed some good amendments. One of the President's amendments was in the bill that we passed this afternoon. This is important work, but it has to be funded--the old saying in Maine, and I suspect everywhere else, put your money where your mouth is. I was on a teleconference with some folks in Maine just 2 hours ago talking about this, and one of the chiefs of police said: It is time to move from talking about being interested in this to investing in it. We cannot solve this problem without money. It would be nice if we could. There is a drastic and dramatic shortage of treatment facilities in this country, and the only way we are going to be able to do it is to pay for it. We had a point of order on the budget. I have to tell you I am confused because I stood here less than 3 months ago when we passed the budget bill and $680 billion of tax extenders. Where was the point of order then? It wasn't funded. A dime of it wasn't funded. Maybe there was a point of order, but it was rejected and overwritten so fast that none of us noticed it. It was the speed of light. My mother used to say we strain at gnats and swallow camels. We swallowed $680 billion of entirely unfunded tax extenders, and we cannot solve it and bring it into our hearts to save lives for one one- thousandth of that amount, $500 million--one one-thousandth of the amount that we passed in a matter of minutes last December. I am confused by this. I don't understand it. By the way, 47,000 people, that sounds like a lot, but this is what really sounds like a lot. Since this debate started at 2 o'clock this afternoon, 10 people have died; 10 people have died in the last 2 hours; 47,000 people is 5 people every hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year. We are not talking about abstractions here, we are talking about people's lives. We are talking about what I consider one of the most serious problems I have ever seen in my State. We talk about Ebola. We talk about ISIS. We talk about all of these challenges we have. Yet this is something that is killing five people an hour, and we are not willing to put the funds in to do it. It is a false promise. I believe this bill is going to do a lot of good, but it is not going to meet the promise we are making to the American people by all of this drama this week about drug abuse and that we are going to do something about it. We are not going to do enough about it because in order to deal with this problem--and this is true everywhere--it is going to take money to provide treatment for people who need it. As I talked about this morning, the tragedy is when someone is ready to change their life and ready to try to defeat this awful disease--and they cannot find any place to give them treatment. I was at a detox center in Portland just last week. They are turning away 100 people a month from a detox center--not even a treatment center but a detox center--because they do not have the beds. I am delighted we are working on this bill. I am delighted we are passing it. I think there is a lot of good in it, and it is, in fact, a bipartisan bill. But to venture up to the edge of this problem and then step away because we are not willing to pay for what, in my mind, is one of the most serious emergencies we have faced since I have been in public life is disappointing, surprising, and it is a great missed opportunity for the country. I join my colleagues in regretting the decision that was just made. I think it was an opportunity where we could have spoken as one to realistically attack this scourge that is devastating our people. We are losing lives, we are squandering treasure, and we are breaking hearts. The only way we are going to be able to solve this problem or at least make a dent in it is to provide the wherewithal to the programs throughout the country that are struggling manfully and mightily to confront the problem and defeat it. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, this week, this body is talking about one of the most serious problems facing our country. The word ``epidemic'' really isn't strong enough to represent what we are seeing in terms of drug addiction--opioids and heroin, in particular. The bipartisan support for the bill that is on the floor this week is an indication of the belief of Members of both parties, of all parties of all parts of the country, that this is a critically important question. We have heard the appalling figures in committees and caucuses and on the floor. In the State of Maine, there are 200 deaths a year from overdoses. This is an eightfold increase in the last 3 years. The figure that got my attention most dramatically was that a year ago in Maine, we had 12,000 babies born, and of that number over 950 were addicted to a substance. That is almost 1 in 12 babies born in my State. Nationally, the figures are just as shocking and as bad. In my neighboring State of New Hampshire, the number of overdose deaths is now over 380 a year. It is more than one a day. Nationally, there are 47,000 overdose deaths--more deaths than are caused by automobiles. If this were Ebola or ISIS or any other kind of national crisis, we would be in 24-hour session to find a solution. We would be doing everything the equivalent of the Manhattan Project to deal with something that is killing so many of our citizens, particularly our young people. Like any other problem that gets to this body, this is complicated. There isn't any single solution. It involves law enforcement. It involves national security--stopping drugs at the border. It involves treatment of mental illness. It involves treatment of drug addiction and figuring out what works. It involves figuring out prevention. It involves dealing with the overwhelming number of opioid prescription drugs that we now know lead to heroin and other addictions. It is a very complex problem. There is no single answer, but there are some things we do know about this problem: The first thing we know is that law enforcement alone isn't enough. Essentially, we have tried that for 25 years. Law enforcement alone isn't enough. It is important. It is a critical part of our defense against the scourge, but it is not the entire answer. The second thing we know is that this epidemic is directly related to the dramatic rise of prescription painkillers based upon opioids. The data is that four out of five new heroin users started with prescription drugs. This is something we need to discuss. We need to discuss it with the medical community. We need to discuss it with the educational community, and we need to understand that when these drugs are prescribed, there are risks--serious, undeniable, dangerous risks that are taking an enormous toll on our society. Four out of five new heroin users started with prescription drugs. I met a young man in Maine who was in treatment, who was trying to recover, who had become an addict. He got there starting with a high school sports injury, and he was prescribed opioid treatment--opioid pills--and he ended up in the drug culture that was destroying his life. That is the second thing we know. We know that law enforcement isn't enough. We know that a big part of our focus has to be on opioids and prescription drugs. The third thing we know is, there are some treatments that appear to work. We don't know for sure. One of the things that I think we need to do in this body is to provide for the research and the data sharing and the data collection from around the country so we can find out what works. It appears that medication and counseling together are something that works, but we need more research and more data. The fourth thing we know is that treatment resources are grossly inadequate. This epidemic has exploded in the last few years, but the resources in terms of treatment have, in some cases, actually diminished. There are fewer beds today than there were 3 years ago because of budget cuts, because of policy changes, and we end up with young people and people generally that have this terrible problem eating up their lives with no place to go. The greatest tragedy is when we have someone who is suffering from addiction and wants treatment and is ready to take the step and say ``I need it,'' and there is no place to go. The estimates are that among teenagers who are caught in this trap, only 20 percent have treatment available to them. All these numbers and statistics and policy prescriptions aren't really my subject today. I don't want to talk about politics or even policy. I want to talk about people. In particular, I want to talk about this little boy. This picture is of a young man from Maine named Garrett Brown. There was an extraordinary story about Garrett in the Bangor Daily News late last week. A reporter, Erin Rhoda, an editor at the Bangor Daily News--one of our great newspapers--got to know this young man named Garrett Brown and spent a lot of time interacting with him over the last 3 years and recounted it in this extraordinary piece of journalism. It is the story of this young man's attempts to survive and what happened in his life. This isn't politics. It isn't policy. It is people. In reading this story as I sat in my darkened office late last week--as my staff went home, they thought there was something wrong with me. The lights were dimmed, the sun was setting, and I read this story. It was like reading the story of the Titanic or of the Lincoln assassination. You knew how it was going to come out, but you hoped it wouldn't happen. You kept seeing moments when it could have been avoided; the tragic end could have been avoided, but it didn't happen. That was what was so gripping to me about this story. It was so real, and it was so close to home. I have four boys of my own. I venture to say that every family in America that has a son has a picture like it or just like it somewhere in their family scrapbooks or stored on their telephone or in their computer. This is a wonderful Maine kid--a smiling 8-year-old, happy, and ready to go to school with his backpack. Then, about 15 years later, he is with his mom, and he is on his way out. He had a mom who loved him, but he had a system that failed him. He took responsibility, by the way. He said: It's not that my mom or my stepdad didn't care. They tried. My grandparents tried everything they could. They were devout Christians. There was nothing they would have done to change it. He took responsibility. But when he took responsibility, we didn't provide the means for him to effectuate that and save his own life. He had to want to beat it, but he also had to have the means, the resources to take that step. The Bangor Daily News quite accurately laid out the issue: ``Opioid addiction like Garrett's requires treatment.'' We have this idea in our society that it is just a choice. You make the choice; you don't have to take that pill. Well, the way these drugs work on your brain, they hijack the very parts of your brain that enable you to make that decision. They actually go to the parts of the brain that deal with executive function, decisionmaking, and fear, and derail those parts of the brain. It requires treatment. I am sure that occasionally there are people who can do this by themselves, but that is very rare. Most people require treatment, and odds are that those with an addiction to drugs or alcohol won't get any treatment at all. As I mentioned, only one out of five teenagers who needs treatment has it available to them. If they do go through treatment, they are likely to get the wrong treatment. There is a world of different theories on treatments options, and that is why I say we need to have the research so we can understand what works and put our resources into the things that will actually bring results. Often it means they die, and that is what happened to young Garrett. Between 2010 and 2014, the number of overdose deaths in Maine involving heroin overdose increased eightfold. This is Maine. This could have been any State in the country. It seems to be striking rural States now as strongly or even worse than urban areas of the country. I didn't know Garrett Brown, but he was a brave kid. I could tell by his conversations with Erin Rhoda and by his conversations with us. He knew he was talking to us. He knew this was going to be public. He knew he was communicating with us, and here is what he said: If this changes one kid's life, saves one kid from being in jail, saves his family the pain of seeing him go through it-- This is a guy with an addiction saying this. It is extraordinary. He continued: If this . . . saves one kid from overdosing and dying, then all that I've done hasn't been in vain. I guess that's why I keep doing this with you? This is a tragedy. It is not a tragedy of numbers. It is a tragedy of real people. It is a tragedy of young lives lost, of treasures squandered, and of hearts broken. I have never in my adult life seen a problem like this that is facing my State and every State in this country. We can't solve it all at once. There is no magic wand. But if we find young people like Garrett who are ready to take a step toward a cure--if not a cure, at least have an ongoing recovery--we need to meet them halfway. We need to meet them halfway through the support of treatment, the support of creating options that are available, by understanding the relationship between addiction and the criminal justice system, and ultimately by loving our neighbors as ourselves. People sometimes ask me: What is so special about Maine? I tell them Maine is a small town with very long streets. We know each other, care about each other, think about each other, and we try to help each other. I think this country can also be a community--should be a community where we think about and care about each other. Young lives lost, treasures squandered, and hearts broken. I hope we can start to change that tragic trajectory that is breaking so many hearts in this country this week so we can make a difference, not for Garrett but for the young people to whom he was desperately sending this message. We can, we should, and we shall. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, when I first entered this body in the winter of 2013, I was appointed to the Intelligence Committee. Every Tuesday and Thursday, we would meet for several hours talking about very difficult, very complex, and sometimes very scary issues. After sitting through those meetings for several months, it suddenly came to me what our mission in that committee is. It really comes down to balancing two provisions of the Constitution. The Preamble to the Constitution, which establishes the basic premise for why we have a government and why the Constitution was established, uses two important phrases in conjunction with each other. The first is ``to ensure domestic Tranquility'' and the second is ``to provide for the common defence.'' There are other elements listed, but that is part of the essence of any government: to ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense; in other words, to keep us safe. That is what government is all about. But on the other hand, the Bill of Rights, and particularly the Fourth Amendment, makes it clear that there are limitations on government's power in whatever area. The Fourth Amendment says that ``the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects shall not be violated'' and also: no unreasonable searches and seizures. Those two provisions are intentional, and they have been since the founding of the Republic. The role of the Intelligence Committee and this body, it seems to me, is to constantly recalibrate the balance between those two provisions based upon the threats our country faces and the developments of technology. That is really what this discussion is about. It has been brought into sharp focus in the last two weeks by the case involving Apple and San Bernardino, as well as other cases around the country. The Apple case points out the complexity and the difficulty of these issues. It is not simple. It is easy to say it was a terrorist's phone; open it up and get the information. But then we learn that, No. 1, Apple is not being asked to simply throw a switch or plug in a wire. It is being asked to write new software that would compromise its own software protections built into its iPhones all over the world. So it is being asked to create something, not simply open the doors. No. 2, although there has been some discussion about it as ``just this phone,'' it is not just this phone. Apple is being asked to create a new piece of software that compromises its operating system in such a way that the phone can be hacked. Once that piece of software is created, there is no telling where it will go. It is referred to in the tech literature as the ``golden key'' or the ``God key.'' Sure, Apple could keep it, but it might--who knows, a disgruntled employee could let it out. Apple itself could be hacked. It could fall into the hands of our intelligence community. It could then be made public. Once it is out there, we can't undo it. What I mean by raising these issues is not that I know what the answers are, but that it is very complicated. And what if Apple creates the key for the San Bernardino phone but it ends up in the hands of China or Russia or Iran or a criminal enterprise, then we have compromised the security of millions of our citizens, and perhaps of our country itself. The real point here is this is an issue of immense significance and public policy importance that should not be decided by a single court in California or Iowa or New Jersey or anywhere else based upon a 220- year-old law. This is an issue of policy that should be decided here. Indeed, in the district court opinion that was written yesterday in New York, that was released yesterday--I stayed up late last night reading it--the heart of that opinion was: This is a job for Congress. This is a policy question. The judge said the people who wrote the All Writs Act in 1789, the Judiciary Act of 1789, many of them were the same people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He said he could not believe they meant to import to the judiciary the power to make this kind of policy. That was the fundamental promise of the opinion. I commend that opinion to my colleagues. I have been reading judicial opinions for about 50 years. It is one of the best I have ever read in terms of the research and the footnoting. It is a very, very strong argument, and it makes the case I think very straightforwardly that this decision should not stay in the hands of the court. The real issue here is who shall decide this complex and portentous issue. Now, generally, I don't like commission bills. Typically, they are often the politicians' way of putting the problem off to someone else in the future and we will deal with it later and we will appoint a blue-ribbon commission. But I have seen them work. The Senator from Maine mentioned the September 11 Commission that I think did excellent work and provided the basis for a great deal of good policy. In Maine we had a commission years ago on workers' comp, which was a very difficult issue in our State, but the commission helped us to get a political solution that ultimately helped to solve that problem. I have seen commissions work, and I think this is exactly the right answer in this particular situation, because the issue is so complicated and because it involves technology, it involves law, it involves the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and it involves national security. These are important considerations, and we have to understand the ramifications of these issues before taking action. Now, we may want to and need to address the specific issues raised in the current Apple case on an interim basis. We may decide not to do that, but that is an option whereby we don't necessarily have to wait until the commission acts because the commission is talking about larger issues. Yes, it is talking about the encryption issue, or would talk about the encryption issue, but it is also dealing with broader issues of digital security. So we may want to make an interim decision while we wait for the work of the commission. I think the important point is that the question before the Senate is, Where should this decision be made? I would join my colleague from Maine by saying that this problem--this so-called going dark--the encryption problem and its constraints upon law enforcement are not new this week. We have been hearing about it in the Intelligence Committee and in the Armed Services Committee and generally in the press for 1 year or 2 years, and I believe the law enforcement community or the administration should have come forward with a legislative proposal for us to act upon. Of course, I am not absolving myself. We could have brought forth our own proposal. But it was their continuing to raise this issue, and I think it was incumbent upon them to say: Here is how I think it should be solved. Now, I know if Mr. Comey were here he would say: Well, we hoped we wouldn't have to bother you about this because we were trying to work this out with the technology companies. I understand that. But I wish, frankly, that we had put forth this bill 1 year ago or 2 years ago, and then we would be in the position of answering this question today instead of starting down the path of handing this question to a commission that we hope will provide some answers and guidance to us that will help us to make policy. I am delighted to be a cosponsor of this bill. I commend the Senator from Virginia for spearheading this effort. I think it is one that deserves quick attention here, and it is something that we can move so we can get to work on trying to understand all the ramifications of this decision. We don't want to compromise national security, but we also don't want to compromise personal security. And we don't want to create something that could redound against national security if it fell into the hands of some of our adversaries. So I am delighted to be able to help with this effort. I look forward to working with the sponsor and the other cosponsors. Hopefully, this is something we can move on with alacrity so that we can bring this issue back to this Congress sooner rather than later. We will never answer the questions finally because by the time we get some answers, there will be new developments in technology and new questions. But we at least need to bring this debate into the 21st century and try to find a solution that will make sense, both in terms of national security and personal security for the citizens of this country. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Virginia as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I ask the Senate to join me in honoring the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, or NCIS, as it celebrates 50 years of service in support of the Department of the Navy, its military and civilian personnel, their families, and the communities in which they live. I am proud to add my voice to those who applaud the consistent and effectual work of this elite organization. NCIS has deep roots in our military history, dating back to 1882, when Secretary of the Navy William H. Hunt established the Office of Naval Intelligence, or ONI, to collect technical information on the world's major naval powers. Since that time, as the United States' role in the world evolved, the need for an elite and specialized investigative branch of ONI became apparent. The Naval Investigative Service, now called NCIS, was born and has fulfilled a vital role in mitigating threats and protecting our Nation. Since then, NCIS has played a vital role in investigating and defeating threats to safety of our Navy and Marine Corps. The organization has grown to employ approximately 2,000 elite personnel and deploys to more than 150 locations around the globe. As such, the organization's broad, yet agile scope has enabled it to ensure the safety of our brave men and women, wherever they are stationed. Their missions have had such broad scope as deployment of special agents to Vietnam, response to the USS Cole and the September 11 terror attacks, and establishment of the Multiple Threat Alert Center for the Department of the Navy. NCIS has executed their duties with distinction and poise under the most strenuous circumstances. I congratulate NCIS on 50 years of success as a premier Federal law enforcement agency. We owe them a debt of gratitude for the elite work they perform in service to our Nation, and I wish them continued success for years to come.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I wish to honor two remarkable women, Dr. Connie Adler and Elizabeth Ward Saxl, who are new inductees to the Maine Women's Hall of Fame. Through their induction, we celebrate the tremendous impact that these women have on their communities and on women throughout the State of Maine. Dr. Connie Adler, from Woolwich, ME, currently serves as secretary of the board of directors of Franklin Memorial Hospital in Farmington, as well as on the boards of the Maine Health Access Foundation and Maine Family Planning. During her illustrious career, she has played a leading role in the pursuit of reproductive rights and the prevention of domestic violence. She has also established programs to increase access to health care for women living in rural and impoverished areas. Connie's work has been integral to keeping our communities healthy and safe. Elizabeth Ward Saxl, from Vassalboro, ME, has served as the executive director of the Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault for the last 16 years. She is a passionate advocate for joining public policy solutions with community-based approaches that address the complex problems impacting Maine's women and girls. Undertaking daunting projects like eliminating statute of limitations on child sexual abuse and creating housing protections for victims of sexual assault, Elizabeth has been a champion of abuse victims across the State. Her work also extends to immigrant, refugee, elder, and native populations, making her a valuable asset to all of Maine's marginalized populations. Congratulations to both Connie and Elizabeth for their induction into the Maine Women's Hall of Fame. With this well-deserved honor, they join the likes of Senator Margaret Chase Smith as shining examples of character and fortitude. I thank Connie and Elizabeth for all that they have done for Maine women and for our State as a whole. Maine is fortunate to have such tireless advocates fighting for health, safety, and prosperity.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the 75th anniversary of Atlantic Regional Federal Credit Union. This nonprofit institution has a long history of serving the people of Maine, and I am proud to add my voice to those in our grateful State in recognizing this milestone. In 1941, Atlantic Regional Federal Credit Union began as St. John's FCU, with just 37 members, in the town of Brunswick. Strong leadership and steadfast dedication to community service has enabled it to become one of the largest credit unions in our State and a bedrock of a thriving Maine midcoast. This truly impressive and steady growth was only possible through a tireless commitment to good service and sound business ethics. Through fundraising, scholarships, donations, and volunteering, Atlantic Regional has promoted the education, health, and wellness of the communities in which it serves. Perhaps most notably, they have undertaken a campaign against hunger by raising funds to donate to local hunger prevention programs. Through the Atlantic Regional Ending Hunger Campaign and Maine CU's Ending Hunger initiative, Atlantic Regional has been at the forefront of an effort that has raised over $5.3 million to help end hunger in Maine. It is through actions like these that Atlantic Regional Federal Credit Union has developed a meaningful connection with its members and the greater community. I extend my congratulations to the Atlantic Regional Federal Credit Union, its employees, its members, and I wish them many years of success to come.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the success of Maine Stitching Specialties, a fast-growing company that is quickly establishing itself as an important business in the Skowhegan manufacturing community. During the first week of March, Maine Stitching Specialties' founders, Bill and Julie Swain, will celebrate a major step forward in the expansion of their company as they team up with Wal-Mart to sell their premium textile goods. The company will commemorate this milestone with a ceremonial loading of the first truck and a celebratory farewell as the first shipment of goods departs to be sold at Wal-Mart stores. Bill and Julie Swain founded their pet products company, Dogs Not Gone, 8 years ago, and since then, their business has expanded to employ 22 people at their new Maine Stitching Specialties manufacturing facility. Their successful expansion 15 months ago set Bill and Julie apart from their competition, and today their company is one of the largest in Skowhegan. Maine Stitching Specialties' commitment to local manufacturing and high-quality products has garnered respect from numerous mainstream retail stores. In recent years, Bill and Julie have had the opportunity to sell their products to well-established companies like L.L. Bean and now Wal-Mart. Their reputation for manufacturing durable products and their commitment to the traditions and spirit of our State will ensure that Maine Stitching Specialties continues to grow and prosper. Bill and Julie represent a strong community of small business owners who are devoted to boosting our State's economy and creating jobs in local communities. Manufacturing is at the heart of industry in Maine, and the success of hard-working people like Bill and Julie helps our State remain economically competitive. I would like to recognize and congratulate Bill and Julie on their success and ongoing commitment to producing high-quality goods. Our State owes Maine Stitching Specialties a great deal of thanks for their vision and dedication and for their social and economic contributions to the people of Maine and to our economy. I look forward to Bill and Julie's continued success over the coming years and to watching Maine Stitching Specialties grow and thrive.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. I yield to the Democratic leader.

Mr. KING. I would agree, and that is exactly where I would conclude. I am not anti-utility. I am pro-customer. I am pro-competition. I am pro-free markets. I believe the utilities have a tremendous opportunity here to modify and adapt their business model to maintain their relationship with their customers. But if they do not, then I am afraid that technological changes such as storage are going to overtake them, and they could go the way of Kodak, Blockbuster, and Polaroid. I don't want to see that happen because I think they have a tremendous value to contribute to this discussion. I conclude by saying that this amendment is really a modest one. It is not a takeover of the regulatory process. It simply urges and advocates that the State public utilities commissions take into account the positive factors of solar as well as the costs in order to reach a fair compensation agreement between utilities and their customers. This is the future. It is going to happen. The only question is whether it happens efficiently, fairly or by fighting. I would prefer the former option. I think this is an important part of the future of this country, and we have an important role to play in this body. I urge support for this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING. Absolutely, and I think that is what has to be part of the discussion, because if the utilities insist on fighting and trying to overprice their storage, people are just going to say: I am going to buy my own storage, put it in the basement, and cut the wire.