Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my understanding is that cloture has not been filed.

Mr. LEAHY. I would agree with the Presiding Officer. I will stay here Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and vote and pass this, I would hope with actually putting money in it so we are not just passing something symbolically without teeth.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, addressing the distinguished Member through the Chair, he is well aware of my concern and the difference between EB-5, which we debate all the time, and a Supreme Court nomination. This goes beyond apples and oranges. There is absolutely no comparison. I think the Republicans having had a closed-door meeting where a small percentage of the Senate decided there should be no debate or discussion on a Supreme Court nomination--there is no way that having a closed-door meeting off the floor is something that--it wouldn't pass the giggle test. I think all of us, both Democrats and Republicans, would have been rightly criticized by the press if we had done that. This is anything but routine. We are talking about the Supreme Court. I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator from Connecticut and then 5 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Blumenthal be granted three more minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Connecticut, especially since he brings a wealth of knowledge here. He was one of the most noted attorneys general of his State. Also, he has that very unique knowledge of one of the most highly sought positions--a clerk to a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. In many ways, these are the people who have a closer view. So Senator Blumenthal's experience as a clerk of the Supreme Court is something none of us should ignore. Madam President, I ask to be able to yield to the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator McCain and I are introducing bipartisan, bicameral legislation to make reports published by the Congressional Research Service, CRS, available to the American public online. This legislation will open up an invaluable, taxpayer-funded resource for use by schools, universities, researchers, libraries, and individuals across the country. The CRS was founded more than 100 years ago to provide comprehensive, non-partisan information on vital issues affecting national policy. In 2015, CRS issued over 1200 new reports and updated almost 2500 existing products, on matters ranging from the structure of government agencies, to summaries of legislative proposals, foreign policy primers, and everything in between. These reports are posted on an internal website for use by Members of Congress and their staff, but they are not distributed directly to the public. In an informal arrangement that is all too familiar in Washington, this unnecessary restriction has created a cottage industry of services that make copies of the reports available to lobbyists for a subscription fee. Schools and the general public cannot access them, nor do readers know whether the scattering of CRS reports they can find online through third-party websites are authentic, complete, or up-to-date. That's not very `public' and does nothing for the average citizen in Vermont or the rest of the country who does not have easy access to Washington. Our bipartisan, bicameral legislation stops this unequal access by providing for CRS Reports to be published online in a comprehensive free, and searchable database on the website of the Government Publishing Office, GPO. This straightforward but important step has long been called for by libraries, educators, and public interest groups across the country. It is also supported by retired and former CRS employees, who note that ``CRS reports are widely available on Capitol Hill to staff and lobbyists alike, are released with no expectation of confidentiality, and could be of immense value to the general public.'' The century-old CRS was founded on the principles of nonpartisanship and respect for accurate, thoughtful information to inform the policy conversations of the day. It is a testament to the best ideals of Congress, and all Americans should benefit from the work and resources it provides. When I think of my grandchildren working on research reports for school, I want them to have access to this resource. I also want the American people to know what information their Members of Congress are receiving on leading policy issues of the day. The legislation includes several important measures--responsive to concerns from CRS--to ensure that only appropriate materials are shared online. It makes clear that the GPO website will include only final, non-confidential CRS Reports and similar written, non-confidential CRS products that are intended for general Congressional distribution. It firmly excludes from publication any memoranda or other custom materials that CRS provides in response to a research request from an individual Member of Congress. The bill allows for identifying information for individual CRS researchers to be redacted so that CRS, not individual staffers, is the named author of a work. It also requires the inclusion of a written notification in all CRS Reports to explain that the materials were prepared by CRS for use by Congress, and should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS's institutional role. This is an exciting time for the Library of Congress and its divisions such as CRS. For the first time since 1987, the President has nominated, and I hope the Senate Rules Committee will soon consider, a new Librarian of Congress to lead one of the largest libraries in the world. As we move further into the digital age, now is an important moment to consider the promise of this great American institution and the resources it provides. I thank Senator McCain for his long partnership with me on this effort, as well as Representatives Lance and Quigley who today are introducing bipartisan companion legislation in the House. I hope members will join us in supporting this straightforward, but important, step to make CRS reports available to the public so that all Americans may enjoy this invaluable resource equally. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator McCain and I are introducing bipartisan, bicameral legislation to make reports published by the Congressional Research Service, CRS, available to the American public online. This legislation will open up an invaluable, taxpayer-funded resource for use by schools, universities, researchers, libraries, and individuals across the country. The CRS was founded more than 100 years ago to provide comprehensive, non-partisan information on vital issues affecting national policy. In 2015, CRS issued over 1200 new reports and updated almost 2500 existing products, on matters ranging from the structure of government agencies, to summaries of legislative proposals, foreign policy primers, and everything in between. These reports are posted on an internal website for use by Members of Congress and their staff, but they are not distributed directly to the public. In an informal arrangement that is all too familiar in Washington, this unnecessary restriction has created a cottage industry of services that make copies of the reports available to lobbyists for a subscription fee. Schools and the general public cannot access them, nor do readers know whether the scattering of CRS reports they can find online through third-party websites are authentic, complete, or up-to-date. That's not very `public' and does nothing for the average citizen in Vermont or the rest of the country who does not have easy access to Washington. Our bipartisan, bicameral legislation stops this unequal access by providing for CRS Reports to be published online in a comprehensive free, and searchable database on the website of the Government Publishing Office, GPO. This straightforward but important step has long been called for by libraries, educators, and public interest groups across the country. It is also supported by retired and former CRS employees, who note that ``CRS reports are widely available on Capitol Hill to staff and lobbyists alike, are released with no expectation of confidentiality, and could be of immense value to the general public.'' The century-old CRS was founded on the principles of nonpartisanship and respect for accurate, thoughtful information to inform the policy conversations of the day. It is a testament to the best ideals of Congress, and all Americans should benefit from the work and resources it provides. When I think of my grandchildren working on research reports for school, I want them to have access to this resource. I also want the American people to know what information their Members of Congress are receiving on leading policy issues of the day. The legislation includes several important measures--responsive to concerns from CRS--to ensure that only appropriate materials are shared online. It makes clear that the GPO website will include only final, non-confidential CRS Reports and similar written, non-confidential CRS products that are intended for general Congressional distribution. It firmly excludes from publication any memoranda or other custom materials that CRS provides in response to a research request from an individual Member of Congress. The bill allows for identifying information for individual CRS researchers to be redacted so that CRS, not individual staffers, is the named author of a work. It also requires the inclusion of a written notification in all CRS Reports to explain that the materials were prepared by CRS for use by Congress, and should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS's institutional role. This is an exciting time for the Library of Congress and its divisions such as CRS. For the first time since 1987, the President has nominated, and I hope the Senate Rules Committee will soon consider, a new Librarian of Congress to lead one of the largest libraries in the world. As we move further into the digital age, now is an important moment to consider the promise of this great American institution and the resources it provides. I thank Senator McCain for his long partnership with me on this effort, as well as Representatives Lance and Quigley who today are introducing bipartisan companion legislation in the House. I hope members will join us in supporting this straightforward, but important, step to make CRS reports available to the public so that all Americans may enjoy this invaluable resource equally. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while the distinguished senior Senator from Texas is still on the floor, he mentioned the astronaut and his year in space. As one who has a hobby of photography, I was envious as I looked at all those. I am sure the distinguished Senator from Texas has the same feeling I had seeing these photographs and seeing what an amazing country we are in all times of days and nights and seasons. So I thank him for raising that issue. Mr. President, this week we are considering the Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act or as they call it CARA. There are few problems in this country that have had more of a devastating impact on American families than opioid abuse. Communities across the country are struggling and they are seeking help. Vermont is no exception, and I found this as I held hearings around the State. Finally, after years of a misguided approach, Congress now sees addiction for what it is, a public health crisis. We have before us a bipartisan bill we are considering that demonstrates strong bipartisan support by Senators for addressing addiction. CARA authorizes a critical public health program that I helped create to expand access to medication-assisted treatment programs. Some Vermonters who have been struggling with addiction have had to wait nearly a year to receive treatment. In fact, several died waiting. Unfortunately, the story is not unique. The bill also includes my provision to support rural communities with the overdose reversal drug naloxone. Rural locations have the highest death rates in the country from opioid poisoning, talking about my small State of Vermont, but every State, no matter how large or how small, has rural areas. I want people to know that rural locations have the highest death rate. Now, if we can get naloxone into more hands, we can save lives. Last week, the police in Burlington, VT, were equipped with naloxone, and they were able to save a man's life with this impactful treatment. In fact, the man was unconscious. They saved his life, and Police Chief Brandon del Pozo called it ``a textbook case of how police save lives using naloxone.'' Now, CARA recognizes that law enforcement will always play a vital role. That is why I worked to include an authorization for funding to expand State-led anti-heroin task forces. These are important efforts, but I can't emphasize enough that one authorization bill alone is not going to pull our communities out of addiction--not the communities in my State, in the distinguished Presiding Officer's State or in anybody else's State. We can't pretend that solving a problem as large as opioid addiction does not require more resources. That is why the amendment proposed by Senator Shaheen is so essential. It puts real dollars behind the rhetoric. It is going to ensure that the important programs authorized in CARA can actually succeed. We can all feel good about going on record saying we are against the problem and that we want to solve the problem of opioid addiction. But if we say we are not going to give you any money to do it, it sounds more like empty rhetoric. In fact, Congress has approved much larger emergency supplemental bills addressing Ebola and swine flu. Even though we didn't have a single Ebola case in this country, we had supplemental funds addressing it, while we have thousands of opioid addiction cases across the country. These efforts were appropriate--but for Ebola and swine flu. Now we have a public health crisis that is here in our own country, and we must respond. Of course, we have responded to epidemics in other countries, but this is an epidemic here at home. I think everybody agrees that opioid addiction is an epidemic. We should start treating it like one. The Shaheen amendment provides that commitment. I urge every Member who supports CARA--and that is a strong bipartisan group in this body--every Member who is concerned about addiction in their community--and I have to assume that includes every Senator--to put real resources behind CARA. I think of the different hearings I have held around our State. In one city, where some had suggested maybe we shouldn't have a hearing yet because we shouldn't talk about what is going on, the mayor of that city took just the opposite view. He said: We have a problem; so we should talk about it to see what we can do about it. He was happy I came there. Although he is a Republican and I am a Democrat, we both said there is no politics and partisanship in this and we ought to face it. But here is what happened. We scheduled that hearing, and we thought we could use a hall of such-and-such a size. As the days toward the hearing kept coming, we found we needed a bigger and bigger hall because more and more people wanted to come there. We found we had the faith community, law enforcement, the medical profession, mothers and fathers, addicts, and educators. All of these people came together and said: We have a problem, and we need the resources to work together. Law enforcement can't do it alone. The medical profession can't do it alone. The faith community can't do it alone. Educators can't do it alone. But together, with the resources, we might be able to do something. For another hearing I held--again, the very same thing in a small town--we had to keep enlarging the place where we were going to meet. I recall several people testifying, but one was a now-retired but highly respected, decorated pediatrician. He told us about talking to a couple. He didn't identify them for obvious reasons. But he said: You know, we have this opioid problem here in our city. We have young teenagers who come from very good families--families that are well educated, prosperous, have good income, nice homes. But these teenagers are addicts, and they are getting some of this right from their home medicine cabinet. In this hall with hundreds of people, you could hear a pin drop. He stopped and paused for a moment, and he said: The parents thanked me and said: This is something we should watch out for. He said: No, I am talking about your daughter. Your 14-year-old daughter is an addict. I am talking about her. There are a lot of others in this community, but I am talking about her. I am talking about her. To this day, I can hear the collective gasp in that room. I later had the opportunity to meet the parents and the doctor and see the things they were doing. They had the ability, and to the extent that there were things available, they could pay for them, but most people couldn't. Yes, we should pass CARA, but we should also acknowledge that we have this problem in every single State in the Union, across every demographic, every income level, every area of education. Let's pass some appropriations so that we are not just giving empty words and we are not addressing a terrible problem with just empty words. But the Senate is saying: We will stand up for a problem in our own country, as we have in other countries when we have helped other countries, and we will stand up for a serious problem right here at home, and we have the courage to spend the money to do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I found this interesting. When my children were little, I would read fairy tales to them, and they especially loved ``Through the Looking-Glass'' and ``Alice in Wonderland.'' And listening to this speech, I thought of ``Through the Looking-Glass'' and ``Alice in Wonderland.'' It is interesting how President Obama gets blamed for everything. ``Oh, the approval rating of the Supreme Court has gone down.'' The majority of the Supreme Court Justices have been appointed or nominated by Republican Presidents. And we are going to blame President Obama because the Republican Justices, nominated by Republican Presidents, are bringing down the approval rating of the U.S. Supreme Court? According to my dear friend from Iowa--he is saying President Obama should be blamed for what those Republican Justices on the Supreme Court did. This is ``Alice in Wonderland.'' I don't care what happens; President Obama has to get blamed for it. Even if we have a hurricane or something, it must be President Obama's fault. But this is about as far a stretch as I've ever heard. If the approval rating of the court goes down because of the five Republicans who constitute the majority of it, it is about as farfetched as ``Alice in Wonderland'' to blame President Obama for it. Let's talk about facts. I like to talk about facts. It's the way Democrats have handled Republicans' nominees. What my distinguished friend doesn't point out, even though it has been pointed out to him by the Vice President and by the President personally, certainly in my presence, Vice President Biden's speech--you should read the whole speech--he is talking about what happens after the election. Vice President Biden as Chairman Biden put through, in an election year, a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court and got a unanimous vote of Democrats and Republicans in this body. Those are the facts. The fact is that we now use a different standard, it appears. In President Bush's final 2 years, Democrats controlled the Senate. I was chairman. We confirmed 68 of his nominees. In President Obama's final years in office, Republicans have allowed only 16. These are facts. This isn't rhetoric, these are facts. We allowed 68 for a Republican President and Republicans allowed only 16 for a Democratic President, and then they are going to blame the state of the judiciary on President Obama? Then he talked about Vice President Biden when he was chairman and what he might have said during President H.W. Bush's last year in office. Do you know what Vice President Biden did? They tried to imply that he blocked judges. He put through 11 Republican nominees for the circuit court and 53 Republican nominees for the district court--11 for the circuit court, 53 for the district court. Do you know what Republicans have allowed? Five lower court nominees this year. So if you say we want to follow the Biden rule, I wish we would. We put through 53 district court nominees and 11 circuit court nominees, and during a Democrat President's last year in office the Republican- controlled Senate has allowed only five. Come on, let's be fair. The fact is, in a Presidential election year, we have never blocked a Supreme Court nominee because it was a Presidential election year. In fact, since the Judiciary Committee began holding confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominees in 1916, it has never denied a nominee a hearing. I tell you this because the Constitution requires the President to make a nomination--it is very clear--and then it says that we shall advise and consent. Well, they are saying: ``No, we won't advise; we won't consent; we won't even have a hearing.'' Mr. President, I have taken the oath of office here seven times. It is a moving, thrilling moment. I am sure the distinguished Presiding Officer, when he was sworn in, knew it was a solemn moment. You promise to uphold the Constitution, so help me God. The Constitution says the President shall nominate. It says we shall advise and consent. I took my oath very, very seriously. That is why--just as Vice President Biden did when he was chairman--I moved a significant number of Republican judges through, even in the last year that President Bush was in office. And that is so different from what we see now. Just think about it. They criticize Vice President Biden. The last year President George H.W. Bush was in office, Vice President Biden was chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He put through 11 circuit court judges and 53 district court judges. If you want to talk about the Biden rule, the Republicans have allowed only five lower court judges. Come on, let's get this out of partisanship. By any standard whatsoever, when there has been a Republican President and a Democratically-controlled Senate, we have treated that Republican President far better than they have treated Democratic Presidents. But then to hear that because the five Republican-appointed majority members of the Supreme Court are bringing down the approval rating of the Supreme Court for the American people, telling the American people it must be President Obama's fault--even if those five members were nominated and approved before President Obama's Presidency--that goes too far. That is ``Through the Looking-Glass.'' That is ``Alice in Wonderland.'' I see the distinguished senior Senator from Rhode Island on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last year, I hailed the signing of a new agreement between the United States and Canada designed to improve cross-border travel, commerce and security between our two countries. Secretary Johnson of the Department of Homeland Security was joined in Washington by Canada's Minister of Public Safety, Steven Blaney, for the signing of that new preclearance agreement, which was negotiated under the Beyond the Border Action Plan. Preclearance facilities allow travelers to pass through U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP, inspections in Canada, prior to traveling to the United States. Preclearance operations relieve congestion at U.S. destination airports, facilitate commerce, save money, and strengthen national security. The United States currently stations CBP officers in select locations in Canada to inspect passengers and cargo bound for the United States before departing Canada. The new agreement signed in March 2015 will lead to expanded U.S. preclearance facilities in Canada in the marine, land, air and rail sectors. However, the Department of Homeland Security requires specific, narrowly tailored legislation to fully implement the new agreement. CBP Officers assigned to preclearance locations operate with law enforcement authorities and immunities as agreed upon by the United States and the host country's government. Under the new preclearance agreement with Canada, the United States secured the right to prosecute U.S. officials if they commit crimes on the job while stationed in Canada--and thereby preclude a prosecution by Canadian prosecutors. But in some cases, the United States may lack the legal authority to prosecute U.S. officials because many federal crimes do not have extraterritorial reach. The Promoting Travel, Commerce and National Security Act of 2016, which I am proud to introduce today with Senator Murkowski, would ensure that the United States has the legal authority to hold our own officials accountable if they engage in wrongdoing abroad in Canada. This legislation will allow for full implementation of the expanded Canada preclearance agreement. Enacting this legislation will promote two key national goals: enhancing our national security, and creating a more efficient flow of travelers and goods. By placing CBP personnel at the point of departure, screening occurs before a person boards a flight, increasing our ability to prevent those who should not be flying to the United States from doing so. In 2014, preclearance stopped more than 10,000 inadmissible travelers worldwide before they left foreign soil. As Secretary Johnson has said, ``We have to push our homeland security out beyond our borders so that we are not defending the homeland from the one-yard line.'' At the same time, preclearance facilitates travel and trade. I am pleased that a bipartisan coalition in the House of Representatives, led by Representatives Elise Stefanik and Ann Kuster, will also introduce companion legislation today as well. And I am grateful for the support of Senators Schumer, Johnson, Heitkamp, Shaheen, Cantwell, Murray and Gillibrand for this important legislation. I hope with this bipartisan, bicameral support, this simple, straightforward enabling legislation will be enacted this year. In Vermont, we look to our Canadian neighbors as partners in trade and commerce, and as joint stewards of our shared communities. While both nations strive to ensure that the border is secure, the ties between Canada and Vermont run deep. We rely on each other for trade, commerce, and tourism. And many Vermont families have members on both sides of the border. This agreement has long been a dream for Vermonters who have fond memories of taking the train north to Montreal to enjoy all that this vibrant cultural hub offers. It is also a win for visitors from Canada's largest cities who love to come to Vermont to ski, shop and dine. I commend Secretary Johnson for his commitment to forging this agreement that will greatly benefit Vermont and the United States. I look forward to enacting this legislation into law so that these projects can move forward.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last year, I hailed the signing of a new agreement between the United States and Canada designed to improve cross-border travel, commerce and security between our two countries. Secretary Johnson of the Department of Homeland Security was joined in Washington by Canada's Minister of Public Safety, Steven Blaney, for the signing of that new preclearance agreement, which was negotiated under the Beyond the Border Action Plan. Preclearance facilities allow travelers to pass through U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP, inspections in Canada, prior to traveling to the United States. Preclearance operations relieve congestion at U.S. destination airports, facilitate commerce, save money, and strengthen national security. The United States currently stations CBP officers in select locations in Canada to inspect passengers and cargo bound for the United States before departing Canada. The new agreement signed in March 2015 will lead to expanded U.S. preclearance facilities in Canada in the marine, land, air and rail sectors. However, the Department of Homeland Security requires specific, narrowly tailored legislation to fully implement the new agreement. CBP Officers assigned to preclearance locations operate with law enforcement authorities and immunities as agreed upon by the United States and the host country's government. Under the new preclearance agreement with Canada, the United States secured the right to prosecute U.S. officials if they commit crimes on the job while stationed in Canada--and thereby preclude a prosecution by Canadian prosecutors. But in some cases, the United States may lack the legal authority to prosecute U.S. officials because many federal crimes do not have extraterritorial reach. The Promoting Travel, Commerce and National Security Act of 2016, which I am proud to introduce today with Senator Murkowski, would ensure that the United States has the legal authority to hold our own officials accountable if they engage in wrongdoing abroad in Canada. This legislation will allow for full implementation of the expanded Canada preclearance agreement. Enacting this legislation will promote two key national goals: enhancing our national security, and creating a more efficient flow of travelers and goods. By placing CBP personnel at the point of departure, screening occurs before a person boards a flight, increasing our ability to prevent those who should not be flying to the United States from doing so. In 2014, preclearance stopped more than 10,000 inadmissible travelers worldwide before they left foreign soil. As Secretary Johnson has said, ``We have to push our homeland security out beyond our borders so that we are not defending the homeland from the one-yard line.'' At the same time, preclearance facilitates travel and trade. I am pleased that a bipartisan coalition in the House of Representatives, led by Representatives Elise Stefanik and Ann Kuster, will also introduce companion legislation today as well. And I am grateful for the support of Senators Schumer, Johnson, Heitkamp, Shaheen, Cantwell, Murray and Gillibrand for this important legislation. I hope with this bipartisan, bicameral support, this simple, straightforward enabling legislation will be enacted this year. In Vermont, we look to our Canadian neighbors as partners in trade and commerce, and as joint stewards of our shared communities. While both nations strive to ensure that the border is secure, the ties between Canada and Vermont run deep. We rely on each other for trade, commerce, and tourism. And many Vermont families have members on both sides of the border. This agreement has long been a dream for Vermonters who have fond memories of taking the train north to Montreal to enjoy all that this vibrant cultural hub offers. It is also a win for visitors from Canada's largest cities who love to come to Vermont to ski, shop and dine. I commend Secretary Johnson for his commitment to forging this agreement that will greatly benefit Vermont and the United States. I look forward to enacting this legislation into law so that these projects can move forward.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the senior Senator from Delaware. We have plenty of time to get a nomination to the Supreme Court from the President and to confirm a Justice, just as this body has done 12 times in Presidential election years. I think probably the most recent, of course, was when Democrats controlled the Senate and we confirmed unanimously President Reagan's nomination in an election year, his final year in office. So it can easily be done. Besides, let us just do our job. We get paid to be here and to do our job. We ought to do it. We also have the matter that each one of us has taken a very solemn oath before God to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution says the President shall nominate and the Senate shall advise and consent. We ought to do just what we all have solemnly sworn to do. I take my oath very seriously. I hope other Senators do too. Now, Mr. President, today the full Senate is going to begin a discussion about one of the most challenging public health crises of our time--addiction to prescription painkillers and other opioids. In my home State of Vermont, there are few issues more pressing than opioid addiction. It is tearing apart families and communities-- families and communities I have known all my life. In March 2008, nearly 8 years ago, when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I first held a hearing in Rutland, VT, about the challenges this epidemic presents in rural parts of our country. In subsequent field hearings, we learned about how communities like Rutland, VT--a beautiful community--were constructively seeking ways to get ahead of addiction. But we also learned--and I think we knew this--that there are no easy answers, and we need a comprehensive approach. Education, prevention, and treatment are essential if we are to reverse the tide in this fight. Vermont's all-hands-on-deck example serves as a model for other States and communities across the Nation. In fact, just last week an article in the Christian Science Monitor detailed how Vermont's pioneering approach has been embraced well beyond Vermont's borders. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Christian Science Monitor article entitled ``How one state turned its `heroin crisis' into a national lesson'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Opioid addiction is not a new issue. It is not new to me, and it is not new to Vermont. But it is about time that the full Congress gave this public health crisis the attention it deserves. The bill we begin to consider today, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA, represents a positive step forward, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of it. For decades, the knee-jerk response in Congress to those who struggled with addiction was misguided. We embraced harsh and arbitrary mandatory minimums, we ignored effective treatment options, and we pushed addicts further underground and away from recovery. Such policies reflect a complete misunderstanding of the problem of addiction. At my hearings and everywhere I went, we saw police officers, faith communities, educators, medical professionals, parents, and addicts coming together, saying that no one group had the answer but the community had to come together. Because we know addiction is a disease, we know our tools for combating addiction must be the same as other disease--a commitment to evidence-based education and proven techniques for prevention, treatment, and recovery programs. As one who has served in law enforcement, I know that law enforcement is an important element in a comprehensive approach. That is why I worked to include in this bill an authorization for funding to expand State-led anti-heroin task forces. But this legislation is important because it treats addiction as the public health crisis that it is. The bill authorizes a crucial program that I helped create that expands access to medication-assisted treatment programs--programs that have been plagued by massive waiting lists. The clinic in Chittenden County, VT--that is the largest of our 14 counties--has seen its wait list lengthened to nearly a year. What happens when that wait list is long? Several people have overdosed and died while waiting for treatment. Those deaths were probably preventable. We shouldn't die waiting for treatment. We have to do better. The bill also recognizes the devastating impact that opioid abuse has on rural communities. Just as in your State and every other State, we have rural communities. Vermont is predominantly rural communities. My home where my wife and I have lived since we got married is on a dirt road. We know rural America. We know it has been hit hard by addiction. Emergency medical services in rural communities are often limited. I am glad that the bill we reported out of committee includes my provision to support our rural communities for the overdose reversal drug naloxone. Over the last decade, death rates from opioid overdoses have steadily climbed across the country. But there is a real disparity between rural communities and major cities. We found the more rural a location, the higher the death rate. Getting lifesaving drugs into more hands will save lives across the country, especially in our rural communities that are among the hardest hit. This is not a partisan issue. I thank Senator Whitehouse and Senator Grassley for working with me on this legislation in our Judiciary Committee. I hope we will soon see its passage here in the Senate. But one authorization bill by itself is not going to end addiction. It is not going to end the deaths that we are seeing in rural America and in urban America. We need a significant commitment of targeted funding to implement this bill. Senator Shaheen's $600 million emergency supplemental appropriations bill provides those resources, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of that legislation, as well. In your State, my State, and the other 48 States right now, we passed larger emergency supplemental bills that addressed swine flu and Ebola. We do not have Ebola in our country, but we passed an emergency supplemental bill to address that. We need to address what we have right here within our country today. Swine flu and Ebola presented far, far fewer dramatic health risks to our communities. We need to take this challenge just as seriously. The bill we are considering today has received strong bipartisan support and deservedly so. But I hope all the Senators supporting CARA today will also support Senator Shaheen's legislation. One goes hand in hand with the other. We need to authorize these advances in dealing with the opioid crisis, but then we actually need to fund them. We cannot pretend that solving a problem as large as opioid addiction costs nothing. We have an opportunity to equip our communities with the support and resources they need to finally get ahead of addiction. Programs will save lives. That is a worthy investment. It is very easy to say we will pass a law to stop opioid addiction. We can all feel good about voting for that. Who is going to vote for legislation to say ``let us continue opioid addiction''? But if we do not put the money in it, then, basically, we are saying we want to feel good but we are not going to do anything for you. We spend money worldwide. Some of it is for good causes, and some of it is totally wasted. Here we have a problem in the United States of America, where our priorities are first and foremost to our country. If you saw some of the people I heard in these hearings all over our beautiful State, some of the families with whom I have talked across their kitchen tables, and a young woman who had been addicted and is now helping to counsel others and the story she told, or if you saw a movie or TV program, you would say it couldn't be that grim. Well, it was. It is. These people go across all income brackets, all brackets of education. It is tearing apart parts of our communities across the country. Fortunately, we have had some very brave people stand up. I hope Senator Shaheen's appropriation goes through because, if it does not, we are saying all the right things, as we should, except for one thing: We are not going to pay for it. This is too important to say the check is in the mail; just wait and wait. We can do better. We can do better.

Mr. LEAHY. I see nobody else seeking recognition, so I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask the time be equally divided.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for years, I have consistently opposed efforts by Congress to restrict the Obama administration's ability to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. The indefinite detention without trial of detainees at Guantanamo contradicts our most basic principles of justice, degrades our international standing, and harms our national security. The mere existence of this facility serves as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and the facility costs American taxpayers more than $4 million per detainee each year--an astonishing amount of money that could be repurposed to keep our men and women in uniform safe. I recently received a letter from former Marine Corps Commandant Charles Krulak, co-signed by an additional 60 retired generals and admirals that noted ``closing Guantanamo is not just a national security imperative, it is about reestablishing the core values of who we are as a nation.'' I could not agree more. I ask unanimous consent that General Krulak's letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Last May, I wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to expedite the transfer of cleared detainees to foreign countries and accelerate the periodic review board process to determine if additional detainees could be transferred. Since that time, the President has made progress toward closing the Guantanamo detention facility. To date, only 91 detainees remain, and top national security officials have already cleared 35 of those detainees for transfer to foreign countries. I am encouraged that the plan unveiled by the administration yesterday morning calls for accelerating the review process to determine if additional detainees can be transferred, as I urged, and for completing that process by the fall. Now that President Obama has delivered a plan, Congress must do its part and lift the unnecessary and counterproductive restrictions on transferring detainees to the United States, so that we can finally shutter Guantanamo once and for all. We should all want to see additional detainees finally brought to justice in our Federal court system, which has a long and proven track record in terrorism prosecutions--unlike the military commission system that has been bogged down in legal challenges and procedural hurdles. The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has been a stain on our national reputation for more than 14 years. Closing Guantanamo is the morally and fiscally responsible thing to do, and it is long past time to stop the fear-mongering so we can work together to close it down.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to recognize Leslie Proll, the director of policy for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., for her years of excellent public service as she begins a new chapter in her career. Since 1998, Leslie has served as policy director at LDF, where she has advocated for the organization's policy and legislative priorities. She has brought her expertise to bear on advancing important Federal civil rights legislation and advocating for well-qualified, diverse nominees to serve in our Federal judiciary and the executive branch. My staff has worked closely with her over the years, and she has been steadfast and unwavering in her commitment to civil rights. Leslie provided invaluable support when Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 and passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009. Her contributions to these two critical legislative initiatives, along with the civil rights community, proved instrumental in moving these two bills through Congress. Leslie has been an effective and tireless advocate in promoting diversity in our Federal judiciary so that our courts are more representative of the citizenry they serve. Our justice system has been made a better one because of her contributions. I commend Leslie for her years of service and wish her the best as she moves forward in her career.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 with Senator Cornyn. The Justice for All Act, originally enacted in 2004, was an unprecedented bipartisan piece of criminal justice legislation. It has improved many aspects of our criminal justice system, and this reauthorization includes critical updates to ensure public confidence in the integrity of the American justice system. The bill builds on the work I began in 2000, when I introduced the Innocence Protection Act. That measure was designed to ensure that defendants receive competent representation in criminal cases and have access to post-conviction DNA testing in those cases where the system got it wrong. The Innocence Protection Act became a key component of the Justice for All Act, and is reauthorized in the bill we introduce today. We know our justice system is imperfect and that innocent people are sometimes convicted, and even sentenced to death. There were 149 people exonerated just last year, the highest number on record. They spent an average of 15 years in prison before their names were cleared. There have been 337 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States since 1989. Twenty of them were sentenced to death. The first person exonerated from a death row crime by DNA evidence was a man named Kirk Bloodsworth. Kirk was a young man just out of the Marines when he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for a heinous crime that he did not commit. Now the Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program is a cornerstone of the Justice for All Act. This program provides grants to States for testing in cases like Kirk's where someone has been convicted, but where significant DNA evidence was not tested. This bill expands access to post-conviction DNA testing so that more innocent people will have a chance at the redemption they deserve. For example, this reauthorization will permit individuals to access DNA testing even if they previously waived their right to testing as part of a guilty plea. This change is critical because we know that people sometimes pled guilty or confess to crimes they did not commit. In fact, of the 337 people who have been freed based on DNA evidence, 88 falsely confessed or pled guilty. That is almost 30 percent of DNA exonerations. Had it not been for DNA testing, they would likely still be behind bars, or worse. The bill also takes steps to encourage prosecutors to search for additional leads when the DNA evidence tested excludes an individual. Under the legislation, the government must run that DNA through the national database to see if it matches someone else in the system who might be the actual perpetrator. Unfortunately, this is not always done. This commonsense measure will increase public safety by getting the true criminals off the street. Even in cases that do not involve DNA, it is imperative that every criminal defendant, including those who cannot afford a lawyer, receive effective representation. This bill requires the Department of Justice to assist states in developing a proficient system of indigent defense. I know as a former prosecutor, that the system only works as it should when each side is well represented by competent and well-trained counsel. This helps prevent wrongful convictions in the first place. The Justice for All Reauthorization Act also increases resources for public forensic laboratories. Prosecutors and police officers depend on the efficient and accurate testing of evidence to solve cases. Putting more resources into forensic testing will also help reduce rape kit backlogs and ensure that survivors of this terrible crime are able to see their cases prosecuted and begin to feel safe again. This bill further addresses the needs of sexual assault survivors by directing grants to forensic exam programs, prioritizing those that operate in rural areas or provide assistance to underserved populations. Timely access to forensic exams is a critical first step in ensuring perpetrators are held accountable and taken off the streets. We must also ensure that the evidence collected from these exams in the form of rape kits are processed quickly. To help with that effort, the bill also provides support for law enforcement to create evidence tracking systems for rape kits, so their processing can be monitored and accounted for. Finally, we must ensure that law enforcement and victim services programs have the resources they need to move these cases through our justice system and assist these survivors. This bill also strengthens some key provisions of the Prison Rape Elimination Act, a bill I strongly supported when it was enacted in 2003. Specifically, changes imposed by this bill will require that states comply with regulations designed to prevent sexual assaults in our jails and prisons or lose Federal grant money. The Department of Justice will work with the states to assist them, but ultimately states will be penalized if they do not act. This bill imposes the true accountability required to eradicate this awful crime. This reauthorization also expands rights for victims of all crime. It builds upon the success of the Crime Victims' Rights Act by making it easier for crime victims to have an interpreter present during court proceedings and to obtain court-ordered restitution. I firmly believe that improving our criminal justice system is a priority and a place we should not be afraid to invest additional resources. There are parts of this legislation that I would like to see receive more funding, but this bill, like most legislation, is a compromise. As a result, this bill does reduce the total authorized funding under the Justice for All Act, but I believe it does so responsibly. I also believe that many of the changes advanced by this legislation will help states, communities, and the federal government save money in the long term. The programs created by the Justice for All Act have had an enormous impact, and it is crucial that we reauthorize and improve them. It has been 12 years since this law was updated, and we must work together to address the challenges currently facing our Nation's justice system. I thank the many law enforcement and criminal justice organizations that have helped to pinpoint the needed improvements that this law attempts to solve and I appreciate their ongoing support in seeing it passed. Today, we rededicate ourselves to building a criminal justice system in which the innocent remain free, the guilty are punished, and all sides have the resources they need to advance justice. Americans deserve a criminal justice system which keeps us safe, ensures fairness, and fulfills the promise of our constitution. This bill will bring us closer to that goal.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 with Senator Cornyn. The Justice for All Act, originally enacted in 2004, was an unprecedented bipartisan piece of criminal justice legislation. It has improved many aspects of our criminal justice system, and this reauthorization includes critical updates to ensure public confidence in the integrity of the American justice system. The bill builds on the work I began in 2000, when I introduced the Innocence Protection Act. That measure was designed to ensure that defendants receive competent representation in criminal cases and have access to post-conviction DNA testing in those cases where the system got it wrong. The Innocence Protection Act became a key component of the Justice for All Act, and is reauthorized in the bill we introduce today. We know our justice system is imperfect and that innocent people are sometimes convicted, and even sentenced to death. There were 149 people exonerated just last year, the highest number on record. They spent an average of 15 years in prison before their names were cleared. There have been 337 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States since 1989. Twenty of them were sentenced to death. The first person exonerated from a death row crime by DNA evidence was a man named Kirk Bloodsworth. Kirk was a young man just out of the Marines when he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for a heinous crime that he did not commit. Now the Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program is a cornerstone of the Justice for All Act. This program provides grants to States for testing in cases like Kirk's where someone has been convicted, but where significant DNA evidence was not tested. This bill expands access to post-conviction DNA testing so that more innocent people will have a chance at the redemption they deserve. For example, this reauthorization will permit individuals to access DNA testing even if they previously waived their right to testing as part of a guilty plea. This change is critical because we know that people sometimes pled guilty or confess to crimes they did not commit. In fact, of the 337 people who have been freed based on DNA evidence, 88 falsely confessed or pled guilty. That is almost 30 percent of DNA exonerations. Had it not been for DNA testing, they would likely still be behind bars, or worse. The bill also takes steps to encourage prosecutors to search for additional leads when the DNA evidence tested excludes an individual. Under the legislation, the government must run that DNA through the national database to see if it matches someone else in the system who might be the actual perpetrator. Unfortunately, this is not always done. This commonsense measure will increase public safety by getting the true criminals off the street. Even in cases that do not involve DNA, it is imperative that every criminal defendant, including those who cannot afford a lawyer, receive effective representation. This bill requires the Department of Justice to assist states in developing a proficient system of indigent defense. I know as a former prosecutor, that the system only works as it should when each side is well represented by competent and well-trained counsel. This helps prevent wrongful convictions in the first place. The Justice for All Reauthorization Act also increases resources for public forensic laboratories. Prosecutors and police officers depend on the efficient and accurate testing of evidence to solve cases. Putting more resources into forensic testing will also help reduce rape kit backlogs and ensure that survivors of this terrible crime are able to see their cases prosecuted and begin to feel safe again. This bill further addresses the needs of sexual assault survivors by directing grants to forensic exam programs, prioritizing those that operate in rural areas or provide assistance to underserved populations. Timely access to forensic exams is a critical first step in ensuring perpetrators are held accountable and taken off the streets. We must also ensure that the evidence collected from these exams in the form of rape kits are processed quickly. To help with that effort, the bill also provides support for law enforcement to create evidence tracking systems for rape kits, so their processing can be monitored and accounted for. Finally, we must ensure that law enforcement and victim services programs have the resources they need to move these cases through our justice system and assist these survivors. This bill also strengthens some key provisions of the Prison Rape Elimination Act, a bill I strongly supported when it was enacted in 2003. Specifically, changes imposed by this bill will require that states comply with regulations designed to prevent sexual assaults in our jails and prisons or lose Federal grant money. The Department of Justice will work with the states to assist them, but ultimately states will be penalized if they do not act. This bill imposes the true accountability required to eradicate this awful crime. This reauthorization also expands rights for victims of all crime. It builds upon the success of the Crime Victims' Rights Act by making it easier for crime victims to have an interpreter present during court proceedings and to obtain court-ordered restitution. I firmly believe that improving our criminal justice system is a priority and a place we should not be afraid to invest additional resources. There are parts of this legislation that I would like to see receive more funding, but this bill, like most legislation, is a compromise. As a result, this bill does reduce the total authorized funding under the Justice for All Act, but I believe it does so responsibly. I also believe that many of the changes advanced by this legislation will help states, communities, and the federal government save money in the long term. The programs created by the Justice for All Act have had an enormous impact, and it is crucial that we reauthorize and improve them. It has been 12 years since this law was updated, and we must work together to address the challenges currently facing our Nation's justice system. I thank the many law enforcement and criminal justice organizations that have helped to pinpoint the needed improvements that this law attempts to solve and I appreciate their ongoing support in seeing it passed. Today, we rededicate ourselves to building a criminal justice system in which the innocent remain free, the guilty are punished, and all sides have the resources they need to advance justice. Americans deserve a criminal justice system which keeps us safe, ensures fairness, and fulfills the promise of our constitution. This bill will bring us closer to that goal.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. We must not let that dysfunction infect the Supreme Court, an independent, coequal branch of government that was designed to be above politics. The next nominee to the Supreme Court deserves full and fair consideration by the Senate. This includes a timely hearing and then having an up-or-down vote. I am worried that even before President Obama took office, and ever since then--even after he was reelected by a 5 million-vote plurality-- there has been an unrelenting and cynical campaign by some hyper- partisans to delegitimize the President's authority. There were the birthers, and there have been and still are spurious slurs of all kinds. Outside of this body, the efforts to undermine President Obama's constitutional authority to fill this Supreme Court vacancy draws some of their vehemence and venom from these dark corners. But every one of us took an oath of office--every one of us--and we are sworn to uphold our constitutional duties. Let us not be intimidated and pressured to avoid our sworn duty. Let us act for the good of the American people and for the good of this great Nation. Some have justified their call for unprecedented obstruction by claiming it is because the American people need a voice. Give me a break. The American people have spoken--millions of Americans--and an overwhelming majority of Vermonters voted in record numbers in 2008 and again in 2012 to elect President Obama. In doing so, they granted him constitutional authorities for all 8 years of those two terms. A President isn't elected for 1 year or 2 years or 3 years. A President is elected for 4 years at a time. Just saying that President Obama is a ``lame duck'' President does not make it true. In fact, the next election is not until November. The American people expect those they elected to do their jobs for their entire term. That means both in the Senate and in the White House. They don't expect Senators to say: Well, we can't vote on anything this year because it is an election year. We will collect our full salary, but we are not going to vote on anything. The American people don't like that. It is rare that a vacancy in the Supreme Court arises during an election year, but it is just false to say Justices do not get confirmed in Presidential election years. More than a dozen Supreme Court Justices have been confirmed in a Presidential election year. The Democrats led the Senate during President Reagan's final year in office, and we voted. President Reagan's nominee was confirmed by a Democratic-led Senate during the President's final year in office. He received a hearing and a confirmation vote. It would be the height of hypocrisy to say we shouldn't apply the same process with a Democrat in the White House and Republicans in control of the Senate. We can't say that we will follow our constitutional duties and do our work if we have a Democratic-controlled Senate and a Republican President but we can't do it if it is the other way around. Some Republican Senators have acknowledged that the next Supreme Court nominee should receive a fair hearing. But the process can't end there. I have served on the Judiciary Committee for 36 years. During my time on the committee, we have never refused to send a Supreme Court nominee to the full Senate for a confirmation vote. Even in those cases where a majority of the committee had opposed the nomination, we still reported the nominee to the full Senate. Once reported to the full Senate, every Supreme Court nominee has received an up-or-down confirmation vote during my 40 years in the Senate. We have to uphold this bipartisan tradition for the next Supreme Court nominee because so much is at stake. Merely holding a hearing without full committee process and a confirmation vote is insufficient for a Supreme Court nominee. It would be a charade, and it would be an avoidance of our constitutional duties. If Republicans refuse to uphold their constitutional responsibility to consider the next Supreme Court nominee, I believe it will harm our constitutional system of government. If they succeed in deliberately holding open a seat on the Supreme Court for more than a year, they will be intentionally disabling the Court's ability to fulfill its constitutional role, and Republicans will be harming the Supreme Court for more than a year. Justice Scalia once wrote that a Supreme Court of just eight Justices risked the possibility the Court ``will find itself unable to resolve the significant legal issue presented by the case.'' The legal issues before the Supreme Court are significant, and the importance of a single vote on the Court cannot be overstated. One vote on the Supreme Court decided landmark cases concerning our campaign finance laws, clean water and air policies, marriage equality, and voting rights. Americans deserve a fully functioning Supreme Court. I have traveled all over my State. I have traveled all over this country. I have talked to Republicans and Democrats alike. What I know about my fellow Americans that makes me so proud is that they show up for work and they do their jobs. Americans don't have the luxury of telling their bosses that instead of doing their job, they would rather delay, delay, delay. If they did, they would probably be fired. The U.S. Senate shouldn't tell the American people that we are not going to do our jobs; that we will delay, delay, delay. The stakes are too high. The American people actually expect us to show up for work and do our job. Let's get to work, do the job the American people sent us here to do. And we may want to reread our oath to uphold the Constitution. It requires no less. Mr. President, I don't see others on the floor about to speak. I will yield the floor when I do. We have allowed this whole process to become far too partisan. I am a lawyer, a former prosecutor. I have argued cases in the State court, Federal courts, Federal trial courts, and Federal appellate courts. When I have gone to the Federal courts, I have always thought that the beauty of this--whether Republican or Democratic nominees--is that I could get a fair hearing. I thought it was a great honor to go there. People come from other parts of the world, and they talk about our Federal judiciary as an example for them. I recall that when a country that had been under dictatorship changed to a more democratic form of government, some of their people came to my office and asked about our judicial system. They said: Is it true that in the United States of America, people can actually sue their government? I said: That is true. It happens all the time. They said: Well, is it true that sometimes the government loses? I said: It happens all the time. They said: Well, do you replace the judge when that happens? I said: No. They are independent. It was like a lightbulb went on. They realized how different we are. Think of the image we send to the rest of the world--as well as 300 million Americans--if we say: No, we are going to politicize the Supreme Court, the Court that is supposed to be the final arbiter on constitutional questions. Look at what it says to them if we say: Yes, we have time to take more recesses this year than I think the Senate ever has, that I can ever remember, but we don't have time to do the job we were elected to do, the job we are paid to do--have a hearing on and vote on a Supreme Court nominee. The American people have jobs. They can't pick and choose when they will bother to show up. They can't say ``I know this is what I am supposed to do in this job, but I don't feel like it'' or ``I have a partisan reason not to do it. I am going to sit this out. See me next year, and I may do my job.'' Nobody would accept that. But that is really what is happening. The Republican leadership is saying ``No, we want to sit this out. We don't want to do our work. We don't want to do our job. See us next year, and maybe we will then.'' That has never happened. It never happened during an election year. There have been at least a dozen Supreme Court vacancies during an election year, and a dozen times the Senate, no matter who was President, came together and handled the nominee and got them confirmed. Why did Senators do that in the past? Probably because they figured they had been elected, they were being paid by the American people, it was part of their job, and so they showed up and did their job. Are we now going to change what has been the precedent ever since the beginning of this country and say ``Oh, we are better than that. We don't have to do our job. Keep paying us, but we don't have to do our job even though we have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and do our job''? Even Justice Scalia said that would be wrong, that you shouldn't have an eight-member Supreme Court. And we don't. Let's actually show up and do the job we were elected to do, do the job we are paid to do. Let's do what every other American has to do. They have to show up for work. They have to do their jobs. They can't say ``I don't feel like it this year. I will see you next year. Oh, by the way, send me my paycheck.'' That is not the American way; it should not be the Senate way. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this past weekend the Nation honored Justice Antonin Scalia, who was laid to rest after serving on the Supreme Court for nearly three decades. Marcelle and I were home in Vermont when we learned that Justice Scalia had passed. Frankly, we were stunned by the news. I did not often agree with Justice Scalia, but he was a brilliant jurist with a deep commitment to our country and to the Constitution, and we enjoyed his friendship for decades. He will be remembered as one of the most influential Justices in modern history. While his family and all should have had a chance to mourn his passing, I was shocked when, in the immediate wake of his death, Senate Republicans moved quickly to shut down the constitutionally mandated process to fill the vacancy left on the Supreme Court. Within hours of his death being announced, they declared they would oppose any effort to confirm the next Supreme Court Justice this year. I have served in this body longer than any Member here and I have heard some shocking things during that time, but I am surprised by the political crassness of these statements. Before a nominee had even been named, some Republicans reflexively decided to prematurely reject anyone--anyone--nominated by the President. This impulsive rush to judgment runs completely contrary to how this body has always treated nominees--always treated nominees--to the highest Court in the land. Republicans should not allow the hyper- partisan rhetoric of the campaign trail to trump one of the Senate's most important constitutional duties. I have talked to the President, and I know he will fulfill his constitutional duty. He will nominate an individual to bring the Supreme Court back to full strength, and of course he should. The President has already begun consulting with Members of both parties in Senate, but after a nomination has been made, we in the Senate should get to work and do our jobs--the jobs we were elected to do. I was all over my State of Vermont last week. The Vermonters I spoke with last week reflect Americans across the country who are tired of partisan political games that are chipping away at the foundation of our constitutional democracy. I heard this from both Republicans and Democrats in Vermont. As Oliver Goodenough, a law professor at Vermont Law School, wrote this weekend in the Rutland Herald, an extended Supreme Court vacancy caused by Senate inaction ``would certainly create a constitutional embarrassment.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mara Greenberg and Colleen Zengotitabengoa, detailees on the Senate Judiciary Committee, be granted Senate floor privileges for the duration of the 114th Congress.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider the nomination of Dr. Robert Califf to head the Food and Drug Administration. For too long, the FDA has been without a Senate- confirmed commissioner, and, given the scope and reach of the agency, action on Dr. Califf's nomination is welcomed. After speaking with him and carefully reviewing his record, I have decided to support this nomination. Consumers depend on the FDA to ensure that food, medicine, and products sold in this country are safe. The agency has oversight of one-quarter of all consumer goods sold in the United States, including nearly $1 trillion in foods, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, and supplements. The Commissioner must supervise this critical work with independence from outside influence. Some Senators have raised concerns about Dr. Califf's record as a researcher who worked closely with drug companies and have questioned his ability to make decisions free from the influence of the multibillion dollar pharmaceutical industry. After speaking with Dr. Califf and reviewing his record, I believe that he will conduct himself with integrity and in the best interest of the public. While the head of the FDA must be an independent voice, we should not discount the benefits having a Senate-confirmed Commissioner who understands the importance of medical research and the potential to advance lifesaving treatments. Under Dr. Califf's leadership, the Duke Clinical Research Institute made advances in drugs that dissolve blood clots, cut the risk of heart attacks and strokes, and lower cholesterol. As director of the Duke Translational Medicine Institute, Dr. Califf worked closely with the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, and the Institute of Medicine to help ensure scientific discoveries are translated into usable treatments. I believe that Dr. Califf's understanding of the importance of research in promoting lifesaving treatments and his ability to navigate potential conflicts that can arise with drug-industry funded research will be an asset to him as the leader of the FDA. Dr. Califf and I also discussed other issues of importance before the FDA, including the labeling of generic drugs. For several years, I have led a group of nearly 40 Democrats in Congress in pressing the FDA to require generic drug manufacturers to update their safety labeling, instead of simply mirroring the brand companies' warnings, as they do now. Generics fill over 80 percent of prescriptions, but injured patients have no remedy against them if their product is mislabeled. Patients who are injured by a brand-name drug can seek justice, but they have no remedy if, like countless Americans, the drug that injures them is a generic. All drug manufacturers should be required to improve the warning information they give to doctors and consumers. Americans have waited 3 years for the FDA to finalize their rule regarding the labeling of generics, and I intend to continue to urge the FDA, and Dr. Califf if he is confirmed, to move forward on this critical issue. The next Commissioner of the FDA must also work to promote safer alternatives to powerful prescription painkillers and to remove from the market older, less safe drugs. Dr. Califf and I discussed the FDA's recent announcement to expand access to abuse-deterrent formulations of these powerful drugs to help address the opioid epidemic in this country. While it is a step in the right direction, the FDA can and must do more. I appreciate Dr. Califf's commitment to redouble the agency's efforts in combatting this issue, while working closely with other governmental agencies that can oversee the prescribing of these drugs. I expect to work closely with the agency on this issue and will continue to press Dr. Califf to take action in this area. I hope that the FDA will also recognize the significant concerns that I and others in Vermont and other maple producing States have for the harm being done to maple sugar producers' income as a result of potentially false and misleading labeling of products that contain neither maple syrup nor real maple flavor. I recently meet with sugarmakers in Vermont who are asking for a strong and thorough investigation into possibly misrepresentative labeling of food products whose labels incorrectly indicate the presence of maple syrup and request appropriate enforcement action where warranted. The tradition of sugaring is significant not only to our cultural heritage in Vermont and throughout New England, but to our efforts to strengthen the working landscape and local agriculture in rural parts of our States. Vermont's cheese industry, particularly raw milk cheese producers, have also raised concerns about FDA overreach. While I fully support the FDA's efforts to ensure the safety of our Nations' food supply, I believe that standards set by the FDA must be scientifically based and must address a known threat to public health. There have been some positive steps forward, and the FDA has recently met with these producers, agreeing to hand over the FDA's data on the standards they had set. I hope that progress continues, and I look forward to hearing how these discussions and data sharing is going. We know that food safety will also be high on the priority list for the FDA as it works to implement the Food Safety Modernization Act, FSMA. A landmark piece of legislation, FSMA was passed in 2011 to ensure the production of safe foods; yet the farmers and processors in Vermont and across the country are in need of science-based, clear technical assistance to aid in their compliance with this new set of rules. I was proud to learn recently that the University of Vermont was recently chosen to lead the Northeast Center to Advance Food Safety. This new collaboration will advance understanding and practice of improved food safety among the region's small and medium-sized produce growers and processors as they learn to comply with these new complex food safety standards. The FDA has been without a Commissioner for nearly a year and with no shortage of issues to address. I am pleased the Senate is moving one step closer to filling this position with tonight's vote. I look forward to working with Dr. Califf on the many pressing issues before the FDA.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we will vote on the nomination of Leonard Strand to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Federal district court in the Northern District of Iowa. I will vote to support his nomination. The next district court nominee pending after we return from the President's Day recess will be Waverly Crenshaw, an exceptional African-American nominee who is nominated to a judicial emergency vacancy in the Middle District of Tennessee. Mr. Crenshaw has the support of his Republican home State Senators, Senators Alexander and Corker, and he was voice voted out of the Judiciary Committee last July. There is no reason to continue to delay the confirmation of such a qualified nominee who is urgently needed for Tennesseans to receive swift justice. I hope the Senators from Tennessee can convince their majority leader to schedule a vote for Mr. Crenshaw as soon as we return from recess. I further hope that the majority leader will continue to regularly schedule judicial confirmation votes to ensure that our Federal judiciary is fully functioning. Since Republicans took over the majority last January, they have allowed votes on just 15 nominees. In stark contrast, at this point in the last 2 years of the Bush Presidency in 2008, when Senate Democrats were in the majority, we had confirmed 40 judicial nominees. Senate Republicans' obstruction has resulted in judicial vacancies soaring across the country--rising by more than 75 percent. Judicial vacancies deemed to be ``emergencies'' by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts because caseloads in those courts are unmanageably high has nearly tripled in that time. Senate Democrats worked hard to reduce these judicial emergency vacancies to 12, but under Republican leadership, they have now risen to 32. There is an urgent need for the Senate to confirm highly qualified nominees who will get to work in Federal courthouses across the country where justice for too many Americans has been delayed. Judge Strand will fill just one of these emergency vacancies. There are dozens more to fill. Judge Strand is an excellent judicial nominee who has served in our Federal judiciary since 2012 as a U.S. magistrate judge in the district court for the Northern District of Iowa. Prior to joining the bench, he spent over 20 years in private practice as a partner at the Cedar Rapids, IA, law firm Simmons Perrine Moyer Bergman PLC. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Judge Strand ``Well Qualified'' to serve on the Federal district court, its highest possible rating. He has the strong support of his home State Senators, Chairman Grassley of the Judiciary Committee and Senator Ernst. After today, 17 judicial nominees will remain pending on the Senate floor. These nominees are from Tennessee, Maryland, New Jersey, Nebraska, New York, California, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania. Many of these nominees will fill emergency vacancies, and nearly half of these nominees have Republican home State Senator support. Furthermore, there are another 15 judicial nominees pending in the Judiciary Committee from California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wisconsin. It is our constitutional duty as Senators to provide advice and consent on these judicial nominees. The Federal judiciary is dependent on us to fulfill this obligation, and the American people expect that we will do the jobs we have been elected to do in the U.S. Senate. This is why the demand from certain moneyed Washington interest groups that Republican Senators oppose the confirmation of any judicial nominee this year, regardless of a nominee's merit or qualifications, is so destructive. Not only would this require Senators to cede their role and judgement to outside political action committees, but refusing to confirm any judicial nominees for the rest of this year would also make the high number of vacancies in our Federal judiciary even worse. This would hurt the American people and weaken our justice system. We cannot allow this to happen. In the first 5 weeks of this year, the Senate has voted on five judicial nominees. During this time, we have also debated and voted on legislation and confirmed executive nominees. There is no reason why the Republican majority cannot continue to hold confirmation votes on judicial nominees when we return. In 2008, when I was chairman of the committee with a Republican President, we worked to confirm judicial nominees as late as September of the Presidential election year. In fact, that year Senate Democrats confirmed 28 of President Bush's judicial nominees, 22 of these in the last 7 months of 2008. This includes the confirmation of 10 of President Bush's district court nominees pending on the Senate floor in a single day by unanimous consent on September 26, 2008. I urge my fellow Senators to vote to confirm Judge Strand and look forward to continuing to work with my fellow Senators to ensure that we continue to vote on the remaining pending judicial nominees when we return from recess.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as a Vermonter, it is with great pride that I call to the Senate's attention the success of one of Vermont's fine businesses, Hill Farmstead Brewery, which was recently named the best brewer in the world by RateBeer for the second year in a row and for the third time in 4 years. The brewery's success is a testament to the hard work and dedication of founder and brewer Shaun Hill, whose philosophy revolves around brewing beer as an art rather than solely as a business. His drive to brew the best beer in the world has brought accolades and interviews in national publications from Vanity Fair to the New York Times; yet he remains staunchly opposed to following the path of most conventional breweries. Rather than focusing on boundless production, his business model gives value to what is created with integrity, grit, and perseverance. Shaun's approach sets the Hill Farmstead Brewery apart from other, more commercial enterprises. Its location in Greensboro, VT, is situated in the Hill family's former dairy barn, surrounded by dirt roads and rolling hills. Despite its remote geography, beer lovers come from far and wide to experience the world-renowned beers, to take in the beautiful setting, and to buy some beer to take home. Because a visit to Hill Farmstead is a unique and intimate experience, it is no surprise that is on the bucket list of beer lovers around the world. As members of his team fill orders, it is not uncommon to see Shaun buzzing around the brewery, moving grain or stopping to talk with visitors. Even if they do not know it at the time, these visitors are taking with them something extremely special. Bottled with the beer is a taste of something greater: Vermont values, and a celebration of life, initiative, and hard work. Experiencing dramatic growth in the last decade, the craft beers made at Vermont's 40 breweries have a reputation as being some of the best in the world. It is not uncommon for people to drive from New York City, Boston, or even Washington, DC, to spend a few hours or a weekend visiting Vermont breweries. So it is wonderful to watch an entrepreneur like Shaun, with such a passion for his work, grow his idea into a valued and sought after product from all over the country. While many Vermonters still feel the effects of a recovering economy, there are a lot of good things happening in our State thanks to people like him. When Shaun opened his brewery 5 and a half years ago, he said his goal was to brew the best beer in the world. Well, he achieved that goal and in an impressive short amount of time. Its consistent and exemplary performance over the years, combined with success in creating several phenomenal beers across various styles, have this brewery to shine above more than 22,500 other breweries worldwide. The distinct and nuanced beers pay homage to the art of brewing and to the ambition of their creator. They are a testament to the quality products produced in Vermont, by Vermonters.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see my distinguished colleague from Maine on the floor. Both of us would like to speak about how for years law enforcement in Vermont and elsewhere have sought more effective tools to go after straw purchasers and gun traffickers. Straw purchasers are people who do not have a criminal record but who purchase firearms for other people, and all too often they enable violent criminals, drug traffickers, and terrorists to obtain guns and to circumvent the background check requirements of Federal law. This Senator finds it frustrating. I am a gun owner. I go through background checks, but when I think of drug traffickers getting guns through a straw purchaser, that is wrong. In fact, they ship guns with impunity across State lines, not only from Vermont to other parts of New England but also along the Southwest border, allowing them to conduct illegal gun transactions in our cities and towns. Law enforcement officers who have tried to stop this have been hamstrung because under current law there is no Federal statute specifically prohibiting either the practice of straw purchasing or firearms trafficking. So today I am reintroducing legislation with the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, to plug those gaps in the law. The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2016 would make it a Federal crime to act as a straw purchaser of firearms or to illegally traffic firearms. It would also establish tough penalties for anyone who transfers a firearm when they have reasonable cause to believe it would be used in a drug transaction, crime or an act of terrorism. It will fix a loophole in the existing law and make it clear that it is a crime to smuggle firearms out of the United States just as it is a crime to smuggle firearms into the United States. This legislation answers the call from law enforcement to strengthen our investigative and prosecutorial tools to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. We have to do more to protect our communities. The heartbreaking reports of mass shootings have become all too common and no corner of our country is immune from the tragedies that accompany everyday gun violence--not even Vermont. Criminals in search of firearms exploit gaping loopholes in our gun laws, and they utilize straw purchasers and trafficking networks or unregulated gun markets. In addition, the rise in addiction to heroin and opioids in the Northeast has exposed a new so-called iron pipeline of firearms trafficking. We are seeing firearms serve as a currency. You can use a firearm to buy illegal drugs like heroin. Addicts are being directed to straw purchase firearms for dealers because dealers who have criminal backgrounds could not pass a background check. In Vermont, for example, Federal investigators are reporting increasing instances of straw purchasers buying guns for drug dealers or finding guns that were purchased in Vermont being trafficked to criminals in other States, such as New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, where the guns are traded for heroin or used in violent crimes. This morning the Judiciary Committee approved bipartisan legislation that takes a comprehensive approach to dealing with heroin and opioid addiction. I fought to include provisions to help law enforcement and to provide assistance to rural communities like we have in Vermont. Passing a gun trafficking bill is another way we can keep our communities safe. Remember, straw purchasing and gun trafficking is not just tied to drug trafficking. Even terrorists, like the suspected San Bernardino shooters, have utilized straw purchasers to acquire their guns. In the San Bernardino case, the prosecutors did not have the option of charging the friend of the terrorists with a straw purchasing offense. Instead, the only charge that was available against him for unlawfully purchasing the two rifles used in the mass shooting was a paperwork violation of making a false statement. This Senator has heard from many prosecutors, Republicans and Democrats alike, that these paperwork charges are wholly inadequate to deter or stop such dangerous conduct. It is time to take action. Only Congress can fill the gap. Congress must not become so numb to tragedy after tragedy that we fail to fulfill our responsibility to legislate. It is true that no one piece of legislation can prevent all criminals from acquiring firearms, and it certainly will not solve the epidemic of gun violence, but that is not an excuse for inaction. I would hope all of us would agree that criminals and terrorists should not have guns and that we should investigate and prosecute the straw purchasers and gun traffickers who help criminals and terrorists get guns. Law enforcement officials have complained for years that they lack the statutory tools to effectively investigate and deter straw purchasers and gun traffickers. That is why this bill has such strong support from law enforcement groups such as the National Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Tactical Officers Association, the National District Attorneys Association, and the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys. This bill builds on the progress we made last Congress when I worked with Senator Durbin to introduce similar legislation. I want to acknowledge the tireless efforts of Senator Durbin and others on this issue, and I am glad he is an original cosponsor of this important legislation. As are many others, I am proud to be a responsible gun owner. I enjoy target shooting in the backyard of my farmhouse--with a nice safe backdrop I might add. I am deeply committed to the fundamental and individual rights afforded in the Second Amendment. I know Senator Collins shares my commitment to protecting those constitutional rights, but we also share a desire to go after violent criminals, drug traffickers, and terrorists. We do not want to hand guns to violent criminals, drug traffickers, and terrorists, and if they do get guns we want to make sure law enforcement officials arrest the people who gave them the guns to keep guns out of their hands. This legislation does just that. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my good friend, the senior Senator from Maine.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see my distinguished colleague from Maine on the floor. Both of us would like to speak about how for years law enforcement in Vermont and elsewhere have sought more effective tools to go after straw purchasers and gun traffickers. Straw purchasers are people who do not have a criminal record but who purchase firearms for other people, and all too often they enable violent criminals, drug traffickers, and terrorists to obtain guns and to circumvent the background check requirements of Federal law. This Senator finds it frustrating. I am a gun owner. I go through background checks, but when I think of drug traffickers getting guns through a straw purchaser, that is wrong. In fact, they ship guns with impunity across State lines, not only from Vermont to other parts of New England but also along the Southwest border, allowing them to conduct illegal gun transactions in our cities and towns. Law enforcement officers who have tried to stop this have been hamstrung because under current law there is no Federal statute specifically prohibiting either the practice of straw purchasing or firearms trafficking. So today I am reintroducing legislation with the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, to plug those gaps in the law. The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2016 would make it a Federal crime to act as a straw purchaser of firearms or to illegally traffic firearms. It would also establish tough penalties for anyone who transfers a firearm when they have reasonable cause to believe it would be used in a drug transaction, crime or an act of terrorism. It will fix a loophole in the existing law and make it clear that it is a crime to smuggle firearms out of the United States just as it is a crime to smuggle firearms into the United States. This legislation answers the call from law enforcement to strengthen our investigative and prosecutorial tools to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. We have to do more to protect our communities. The heartbreaking reports of mass shootings have become all too common and no corner of our country is immune from the tragedies that accompany everyday gun violence--not even Vermont. Criminals in search of firearms exploit gaping loopholes in our gun laws, and they utilize straw purchasers and trafficking networks or unregulated gun markets. In addition, the rise in addiction to heroin and opioids in the Northeast has exposed a new so-called iron pipeline of firearms trafficking. We are seeing firearms serve as a currency. You can use a firearm to buy illegal drugs like heroin. Addicts are being directed to straw purchase firearms for dealers because dealers who have criminal backgrounds could not pass a background check. In Vermont, for example, Federal investigators are reporting increasing instances of straw purchasers buying guns for drug dealers or finding guns that were purchased in Vermont being trafficked to criminals in other States, such as New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, where the guns are traded for heroin or used in violent crimes. This morning the Judiciary Committee approved bipartisan legislation that takes a comprehensive approach to dealing with heroin and opioid addiction. I fought to include provisions to help law enforcement and to provide assistance to rural communities like we have in Vermont. Passing a gun trafficking bill is another way we can keep our communities safe. Remember, straw purchasing and gun trafficking is not just tied to drug trafficking. Even terrorists, like the suspected San Bernardino shooters, have utilized straw purchasers to acquire their guns. In the San Bernardino case, the prosecutors did not have the option of charging the friend of the terrorists with a straw purchasing offense. Instead, the only charge that was available against him for unlawfully purchasing the two rifles used in the mass shooting was a paperwork violation of making a false statement. This Senator has heard from many prosecutors, Republicans and Democrats alike, that these paperwork charges are wholly inadequate to deter or stop such dangerous conduct. It is time to take action. Only Congress can fill the gap. Congress must not become so numb to tragedy after tragedy that we fail to fulfill our responsibility to legislate. It is true that no one piece of legislation can prevent all criminals from acquiring firearms, and it certainly will not solve the epidemic of gun violence, but that is not an excuse for inaction. I would hope all of us would agree that criminals and terrorists should not have guns and that we should investigate and prosecute the straw purchasers and gun traffickers who help criminals and terrorists get guns. Law enforcement officials have complained for years that they lack the statutory tools to effectively investigate and deter straw purchasers and gun traffickers. That is why this bill has such strong support from law enforcement groups such as the National Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Tactical Officers Association, the National District Attorneys Association, and the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys. This bill builds on the progress we made last Congress when I worked with Senator Durbin to introduce similar legislation. I want to acknowledge the tireless efforts of Senator Durbin and others on this issue, and I am glad he is an original cosponsor of this important legislation. As are many others, I am proud to be a responsible gun owner. I enjoy target shooting in the backyard of my farmhouse--with a nice safe backdrop I might add. I am deeply committed to the fundamental and individual rights afforded in the Second Amendment. I know Senator Collins shares my commitment to protecting those constitutional rights, but we also share a desire to go after violent criminals, drug traffickers, and terrorists. We do not want to hand guns to violent criminals, drug traffickers, and terrorists, and if they do get guns we want to make sure law enforcement officials arrest the people who gave them the guns to keep guns out of their hands. This legislation does just that. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my good friend, the senior Senator from Maine.