Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. In closing, in a little while this afternoon, we will have a series of votes on amendments to the Energy Policy Modernization Act, and we will have a final vote for passage of the bill. I believe and it is certainly my hope that the broad package will pass. I think it has been far too long since Congress passed a comprehensive energy bill. It is time for us to work together to pass this important piece of legislation to improve our Nation's energy policies and to help grow our economy. I believe there is support in the other Chamber, in the House, to take up this energy package and hopefully to pass it this year because it will improve our economy, it will improve our national security, and it will improve our environment. This is legislation we should all get behind. Again, I thank my colleague Senator Portman and applaud Senators Cantwell and Murkowski for all of the work they have done to bring this legislation to the floor. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my esteemed colleague from Maryland, who is here with a number of other people to talk about the need to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act to make sure that we end once and for all paycheck discrimination against women. I think the American people believe very strongly in fairness, equal treatment, and a level playing field for everyone, because these are core American values. I think that is why people find it shocking and unacceptable that women in the United States continue to be denied equal pay for equal work. More than half a century ago, President Kennedy signed into law the Equal Pay Act, yet today wage discrimination continues as an ugly reality across our Nation. Women earn only about 79 cents for every $1 men earn. It is a disparity that exists at all levels of education, in nearly every industry, across hundreds of occupations, from elite professionals to everyday blue-collar workers. There are complex factors that contribute to the gender pay gap, but according to a new study by the Joint Economic Committee, as much as 40 percent of the pay gap can be attributed to outright discrimination. Probably, most people who have watched TV in the last couple of weeks have seen one particularly egregious example that has been cited, and that is the U.S. women's soccer team, whose members make only about one-quarter of what their male counterparts make. Both the women's and men's soccer teams work for the same employer, the U.S. Soccer Federation. The women's soccer team generates significantly more revenue than the men's team. It has won the Women's World Cup three times, including last year. It has been the Olympic champion four times and has been the world's top-ranked team for nearly two decades. Yet they are paid a quarter of what men make. It is hard to understand that under any circumstances except outright discrimination. As outrageous as that case is, the wage gap is even more damaging to the 40 percent of American women who are sole or primary breadwinners in households with children, to the women who are waitresses and certified nursing assistants, and to secretaries who work at jobs where equal pay is not only about fairness but it is also about providing adequately for their families. It is about being able to afford Internet access so their kids can do their homework. It is about paying for their child's inhaler. There is a lot that women breadwinners can do with that extra $10,800 that women would earn on average if it were not for pay discrimination. I also serve as the ranking member on the Senate's Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, and I have seen how similar gender gaps confront women-owned small businesses. Just as women on average are paid 21 percent less than men, a recent Commerce Department study found that the odds of businesses owned by women winning a Federal contract are about 21 percent lower than for otherwise similar companies--for male-owned enterprises. In workplaces across America, women are speaking out more and more and are demanding equal pay. It is time for Congress to do our job as well. I know from experience that legislation can make a difference. As Governor, I signed a law to prohibit gender-based pay discrimination in New Hampshire and to require equal pay for equal work. We haven't made as much progress as I would like at this point, but at the time we signed that law, women in New Hampshire were making 69 percent of their male colleagues' wages. Today, they are making 76 percent or a little less than the national average. Back in the early 1980s, I served on New Hampshire's Commission on the Status of Women. I chaired a report on employment in New Hampshire. At that time, women were only making 59 cents for every dollar a man earned. The conclusion of that report was that this has an impact not just on women, but it is an impact on, of course, their whole family. It is something that their children, their husbands, and their entire family is affected by. If we can close this pay gap for women, it helps not only the women who make up two-thirds of minimum wage workers, but it helps their families. It helps pull their kids out of poverty. We need to do more at the Federal level, and that is why I strongly support the Paycheck Fairness Act. This legislation would empower women to negotiate for equal pay, it would close loopholes that courts created in the laws that are already in place, and it would create strong incentives for employers to obey these laws. This legislation is about basic fairness. It is about equal treatment. It is about creating a level playing field in the workplace for our daughters and our granddaughters and for every American. It also is about making sure that their spouses, their children, and their relatives benefit from making sure that they have the same access to equal pay as the men in the workplace do. So I urge my colleagues to support the Paycheck Fairness Act. Sixteen years into the 20th century is way past time to make good on our promise of equal pay for equal work in the United States. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I join with people across my State of New Hampshire in mourning the loss of State police Lieutenant James J. Geraghty, who passed away late last month after a valiant battle with cancer. He devoted his career to public service, serving in the U.S. Army, later as a police officer in Hudson, NH, and for the last 24 years as a State trooper. ``His priorities in life were well defined,'' said his friend and colleague, State police Lieutenant John Marasco. ``He was committed to his family, he was committed to this organization, and he was committed as the lieutenant overseeing the Major Crimes Unit to delivering justice to victims, many of whom were victims of homicide and relied on his voice to bring that justice to them.'' Jim, as he was known to family and friends, was born in Boston, MA, and grew up in Tewksbury. He attended St. John's Prep in Danvers, MA, and the University of Lowell before joining the U.S. Army in 1984. After assignments at U.S. Army bases in the southern United States and Germany, his love of New England motivated him to end his military service and return home for what would be a long career in law enforcement. He began his service with the police department in Hudson, NH, and went on to serve for two decades as a State trooper, respected by his colleagues as a model officer, mentor, and leader. He was promoted to detective sergeant in 2008 and took command of the major crimes unit. He retired in 2015. Jim was deeply devoted to his wife of 30 years, Valerie, and their four adult children, Jimmy, Colleen, Katie, and Erin. Friends say that his mantra was ``family first.'' He cherished annual family vacations in Wells, ME. Instead of talking about himself, he would often speak glowingly about the achievements of his children. At the 2015 Congressional Achievement Awards ceremony, Lieutenant Geraghty received a richly deserved Lifetime Achievement Award--the capstone of a distinguished career in public service. An inscription at Arlington National Cemetery accurately describes his service both in the military and in law enforcement: ``Not for fame or reward, nor lured by ambition or goaded by necessity, but in simple obedience to duty.'' I would like to express my gratitude to New Hampshire State police Lieutenant James Geraghty for his service and my sincere condolences to his beloved wife and family.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, people across the Washington area were saddened by the death of Officer Ashley Guindon, slain in the line of duty just one day after being sworn into the Prince William County Police Department in Virginia. This brave police officer is also being mourned in New Hampshire, especially in her hometown of Merrimack, where the law enforcement community considers her one of their own. As Merrimack Police Chief Mark Doyle said: ``When any law enforcement officer is struck down, it leaves a hole in our hearts. The fact that she and her family are part of the Merrimack community drives that point home even more so.'' Ashley was the only child of Sharon and the late David Guindon, a Navy veteran who also served in the Marine Corps Reserve and later the New Hampshire National Guard. After graduating from Merrimack High in 2005, she followed in her father's footsteps by joining the Marine Corps Reserve. Ashley loved flying and went on to earn a bachelor's degree in aeronautical science from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida and later a master's degree in forensic science. As a Marine Reservist for 6 years, she flew helicopters and used her forensic skills to assist the Mortuary Affairs Office. Ashley had a passion for public service and was always eager to help people in need. She volunteered with a suicide prevention program and regularly spent Thanksgiving helping out at a soup kitchen. She is fondly remembered by teachers and classmates at Merrimack High as exceptionally kind and friendly and as the talented leader of the Merrimack Cardinals cheerleading team. As a newly sworn-in police officer, Ashley was struck down while coming to the assistance of a woman who was being threatened by her husband. ``She has accomplished more in 28 years than I think I could in 100,'' Prince William County Police Chief Stephan Hudson told The Washington Post. ``That was her desire: to serve, to be involved with things that mattered, to give her life to something worth giving it to. And that's exactly what she did.'' In New Hampshire as in Virginia, the loss of a police officer is felt deeply in the local community and far beyond. We know that the work of law enforcement professionals is difficult and dangerous. They perform their duties with great professionalism and selflessness, putting their lives on the line every day. Ashley Guindon worked and studied hard to become a superbly qualified law enforcement professional. She was proud to wear the badge and to be a police officer. She gave her life in the line of duty, coming to the assistance of a stranger. I join with so many others in the Granite State and across the Washington area in expressing my respect and admiration for this remarkable young woman and my deep condolences to Sharon Guindon and the entire family. I know how proud they are of Ashley. We are all proud of Ashley. She was America at its finest.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, last month, one of New Hampshire's most respected veteran journalists retired after two decades of prolific work at the Coos County Democrat, a weekly newspaper based in Lancaster, in my State's North Country. I have had the privilege of knowing Edith and admiring her work since I first ran for Governor in 1996. In particular, I have respected her extraordinary work ethic. She was the only full-time reporter with the Democrat, often filing several stories a day. At times, the front page would be filled with stories carrying her byline. No story was too big or too small for Edith. She covered Presidential campaigns, select board meetings, festivals, factory openings, and, among her last stories, a characteristically detailed and colorful article on a proposal to renew bobcat hunting in the North Country. Over the years, Edith became a fixture on the landscape of New Hampshire's first-in-the-Nation primary. Presidential candidates knew that to gain credibility with North Country voters, they needed to successfully navigate a grilling from Edith. She has been a regular public affairs commentator on ``The Exchange with Laura Knoy,'' a popular New Hampshire Public Radio call-in show. As State Representative Rebecca Brown, a longtime colleague of hers, noted: ``Edith embraced small town reporting. She was indefatigable, including putting countless miles on the old Jeep, in which she took to carrying a step ladder in case she needed to get a better camera vantage over a taller crowd.'' Edith speaks with unrivaled knowledge and insight about her beat, the North Country. No reporter has better captured the struggle and indomitable spirit of that region. In her early years with the Democrat, her stories documented the pain and upheaval of too many devastating factory closings and job losses. More recently, she has covered heartening stories of new businesses and development projects flowing to the region, creating new jobs and opportunities. In many retirement tributes, Edith Tucker has been described as a North Country institution and icon, but I suspect Edith would prefer to be recognized simply as a skilled, hard-working beat journalist, always determined to get the story right and keep her community informed. She did exactly that for two decades. Edith Tucker has made the Granite State a better place, both by what she has accomplished and by who she is. There are many more stories-- and chapters--yet to be written in the life of this beloved and accomplished journalist. I join with people across the North Country in thanking Edith for a job superbly done and wishing her many happy years in retirement.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Rhode Island, who is the author of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. That is the underlying bill we were trying to amend. I would just point out that despite what the honorable chairman of the Budget Committee said, the fact is that the emergency supplemental funding amendment we introduced is very specific about where the funding goes. It goes to programs that are addressed in CARA, expanded, and improved; the substance abuse prevention and treatment block grants that go to the States to be distributed, funding the law enforcement through the Byrne-JAG and COPS grants that are very specific in how they can be used to fight heroin and opioid abuse. Like my colleague, I am disappointed--not surprised but disappointed. I very much appreciate those people who voted for this amendment, who were willing--particularly some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle--who were willing to step forward and say, if we are going to address this problem, we have to provide the resources that communities, that States need to fight this addiction. The question I have for those people who didn't vote to support this amendment is, How many more people have to die before we are willing to provide the resources that are needed to fight this epidemic--47,000 people in 2014. In New Hampshire, we are losing more than a person a day. In 2015, we lost over 400 people to overdose deaths from opioid and heroin, three times as many people as we lost in traffic accidents. So many communities will continue to be ravaged because we are not willing to commit the resources to tackle this pandemic. What do we tell the families of those people who have overdosed? What do we tell the parents of young people such as Courtney Griffin, whose father came and testified at a hearing Senator Ayotte and I had last fall in New Hampshire. He talked about the difficulties of getting Courtney treatment before she overdosed and died. I met a man at a treatment center in Lebanon, NH, a man in recovery who had been in and out of prison. I thought he put it very well when he said: You know, it costs about $35,000 a year to keep somebody in prison. Wouldn't it make more sense to put dollars into treatment because it is a whole lot less expensive to provide the funding to treat people who are using opioids and heroin, who are substance abusers, than to put them in jail? To all of my colleagues, I am disappointed, but I am not defeated. The fact is, this is coming back. It will come back in the appropriations process, and it will come back at every opportunity because I am not going to quit on those families in New Hampshire who need help. I am not going to quit on the treatment professionals who are trying to provide treatment for the people who are in need. I am not going to quit on the law enforcement, the police officers, the sheriffs, and all of the people in law enforcement in New Hampshire who are trying to put pushers behind bars and trying to get people off the streets and into treatment. I hope at some point the rest of the Members of this body are willing to take up this cause and provide the resources people need because I will tell you it is certainly worth it to address the 47,000 people we lost. We were willing to put $5.4 billion into Ebola, and we lost one person in America. We were willing to put $2 billion into fighting swine flu, and we lost about 12,000 people in the swine flu epidemic. We have not been willing to put funding in to address the thousands, the tens of thousands of people we are losing each year in this country. So we are going to keep at it. We are going to keep fighting until we get the resources that families and communities need to fight this scourge. I yield to my colleague from Maine, who has been--like my colleague from Rhode Island--a real leader in trying to address this issue.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Then pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, do I have any time left to speak under the previous 2 minutes?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I wish to call up amendment No. 3345, which is my supplemental amendment to address the heroin and opioid epidemic.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am not going to speak to this amendment right now because I hope to do it later. I spent a fair amount of time yesterday talking about the need to provide the resources to address the heroin and opioid epidemic, but I am very pleased to see my colleague from Maine on the floor to speak to it. He has been a cosponsor of the legislation and a huge advocate for addressing the challenge that Maine--like New Hampshire and so many other States--is facing from the heroin and opioid epidemic. I look forward to his remarks and to the opportunity for us to vote on this amendment later today.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Arkansas about the challenges of the heroin and opioid epidemic. I think it is really a pandemic that we are facing in too many States across this country. Certainly it is a huge issue in New Hampshire, my home State, where we have the highest percentage of deaths from overdoses of any State in the country. In a few minutes, we are going to be voting on the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which is an excellent piece of legislation, sponsored by my colleagues Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island and Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota, as well as my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte, and Senator Portman. We are also going to be voting on a number of amendments, including an amendment that I have proposed, which is emergency supplemental funding to make sure that the changes we are making as a result of the CARA legislation actually get the resources that need to be provided in order to make those changes work. In 2014, more than 47,000 Americans died from lethal drug overdoses. Each day, 120 Americans die from drug overdoses in New Hampshire. We are losing more than a person a day from drug overdoses--three times as many people as we lost last year in automobile accidents. These are numbers we have been using a lot on the floor of the Senate in the last couple of days, but I think they are numbers that we need to continue repeating and repeating because losing 47,000 Americans from drug overdoses is not acceptable. Everywhere I go in New Hampshire, I am told one thing consistently by drug treatment professionals and by law enforcement, and that is, they need more resources and they need them now. Health workers are being overwhelmed. Nationwide, nearly 9 out of 10 people with substance use disorders don't receive treatment. They are being turned away. They are being denied treatment because of a chronic lack of resources. The amendment Senator Whitehouse and I have proposed addresses this problem. It provides $300 million in emergency funding for the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant Program. This is funding that will save lives in our States of New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Arkansas, and in the Presiding Officer's home State of South Carolina. This is funding that will save lives in each of our States. Not only are health workers being overwhelmed, but law enforcement officials are also being overwhelmed. We need an infusion of new funding to mobilize additional efforts to stop opioid traffickers and drug dealers. This emergency supplemental amendment would allocate $230 million to the Byrne JAG Program to directly combat the opioid crisis. These are efforts that will keep drugs off the streets. In total, the Shaheen-Whitehouse amendment appropriates $600 million in emergency funding that will be immediately available to States and those working on the frontlines to address this crisis. I think that is why the National Governors Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the American Public Health Association, the American Society of Addiction Medicine, the American Academy of Pain Management, the American College of Physicians, the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, and so many other groups support this amendment. Again, the critical point here is that this amendment funds key provisions of the CARA bill. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act is a good bill. It is excellent work that so many people have been involved in. The sponsors did great work in writing the legislation. I support it. I am a cosponsor. But it is an authorization bill that does not provide funding. So if we support making the changes in law that are included in the CARA bill, we should also support providing emergency funding to those same programs. To all my colleagues in this body, we know that doing the same thing is not working. Every year more and more people are dying from drug use. Congress needs to rise to this challenge, just as it has in so many previous public health emergencies, because, make no mistake about it, this is a public health emergency, and we have a history of providing supplemental funding to address public health emergencies. In 2009, Congress appropriated $2 billion in emergency funding to fight swine flu--a bill that passed the Senate 91 to 5. Many of us who voted for that are still in this body. Just last year, Congress approved $5.4 billion to combat the Ebola outbreak--an outbreak that killed just one person in the United States. Compare that to the 47,000 people we lost in 2014 to drug overdoses. Surely--surely Congress can come together now to fight this raging epidemic that is right here at home. We can't avert our eyes from the 47,000 Americans who are killed by lethal overdoses each year. We can't accept that 9 out of 10 Americans with substance use disorders don't get treatment. We can't ignore the fact that law enforcement officers in communities across this country are overwhelmed by aggressive drug traffickers and a rising tide of opioid-related crimes. The $600 million emergency funding in the amendment I am proposing will help stem the tide. It will make a powerful difference in communities all across America. CARA is important legislation. I intend to vote for it. I hope this body will pass it. But I urge my colleagues to also support the amendment that makes sure we have the urgent emergency funding to ramp up this fight in the months immediately ahead. Passing CARA without any funding is like offering a life preserver to people who are drowning and not putting air in that life preserver. This is a nationwide crisis. It is way past time we mobilized a nationwide response that is equal to the challenge. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, we are voting on very good legislation with the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. This is a way to expand programs that work to address what is a real pandemic of heroin and opioid abuse in this country. But the reality is that unless we provide the resources to make these programs work, it is like giving a drowning person a life preserver that has no air in it. It doesn't make a difference. We are losing 47,000 people a year--120 people a day--to overdoses. Our law enforcement needs additional funding. The substance abuse treatment folks need additional support. What my emergency supplemental amendment would do is to support the programs that are in the CARA legislation. It is about equally divided between support for law enforcement and support for treatment. It helps with prescription drug monitoring, with education, and with recovery. It is the kind of support we need to provide if we are really going to make a difference in this epidemic we are all facing. I urge my colleagues to not just support the underlying legislation-- that is good and we should support it, but unless we provide the funding, we will not have done what we need to to accomplish real change to keep people from dying. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. The question is, Why do we need emergency funding? Some of my colleagues have argued that additional funds are not needed because there was enough money for the opioid crisis in last year's omnibus. Yes, it is true there is additional funding for these programs in the omnibus. I sit on the Appropriations Committee; I was one of many on that committee who worked very hard to fight for those dollars. But with spending caps in place, these increases are modest at best. The majority of my supplemental amendment appropriates resources to two programs: the substance abuse prevention and treatment block grant and the Byrne JAG Program. These programs have been critically underfunded in recent years. For example, the substance abuse prevention and treatment block grant received a small increase in the omnibus. That was good, but the reality is that over the last 10 years, funding for this program has not kept up with health care inflation. So we have a 26-percent decrease in the real value of funding despite the small increase we got in the appropriations process. In order to restore the block grant to its purchasing power from 10 years ago--10 years ago, before we had the explosion of the opioid and heroin crisis--just to get back to that level, Congress would need to allocate an additional $483 million for fiscal year 2017. My amendment provides $300 million for this program. It is a downpayment--only a downpayment--on where we need to be. The Byrne JAG Program has been flat-funded for the last 3 years. Fifteen years ago--again, before the explosion of the heroin and opioid crisis--Congress provided more than $1 billion in support to State and local law enforcement through Byrne JAG and block grant funding. By 2015 that number had been reduced to $376 million. Right now, despite the explosion in this heroin and opioid crisis, we are providing only about one-third of the support we provided 15 years ago. The reality is that criminal justice and prevention and treatment have been chronically underfunded and, as a result, deaths have continued to rise.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I should be finished shortly. We have talked to the Department of Justice and to Health and Human Services, and they are ready to get this funding out the door immediately because there is no time to wait. Law enforcement and health care providers on the frontlines need this money, and they need this money now. In the past, Congress has risen to the challenge of epidemics. In 2009, Congress appropriated nearly $2 billion in emergency funding to fight swine flu, which claimed the lives of about 12,000 Americans. That emergency appropriations bill passed the Senate 86 to 3. Mr. President, 51 Senators who voted for that bill are still serving in this Chamber, including 23 Republican Senators and every Member of the Republican leadership. Last year, Congress approved $5.4 billion in funding to combat the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, an outbreak that killed only one American. Surely we can come together now, this year, in this session, to fight a raging epidemic here at home. We cannot avert our eyes from 47,000 Americans who are being killed by lethal overdoses each year. We cannot accept that 9 out of 10 Americans with substance abuse disorders go without treatment. We cannot avoid the fact that law enforcement officers in communities across this country are overwhelmed by aggressive drug traffickers and a rising tide of opioid-related crimes. CARA will help fight the heroin and opioid epidemic in the longer term, but I urge my colleagues to also support this emergency supplemental funding amendment because it will provide urgent emergency funding to ramp up this fight in the months immediately ahead. This is a nationwide crisis, and it is time we mobilize a nationwide response that is equal to the challenge. I urge my colleagues, I urge the majority leader to allow a vote on my amendment and to pass this out so we can give our local communities and States the resources they need. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. We have also received support from groups such as the American Academy of Pain Management; the American Public Health Association; the American Society of Addiction Medicine; the Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses; the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids; the American College of Physicians; and the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the list of groups.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank the Presiding Officer. I am pleased to join my colleague from New Hampshire on the floor and the others who have spoken this morning so eloquently about the heroin and opioid epidemic that is ravaging families and communities in every one of our States. As Senator Ayotte said so well, we have seen in New Hampshire that we are at ground zero for this epidemic. In terms of the percentage of people affected in New Hampshire, we are losing a higher percentage than almost every State in the Nation. This is an issue we need to work together to address. I think we have to respond much more robustly than we have done at the Federal level because this epidemic is becoming a pandemic. It is affecting young and old, urban and rural, rich and poor, Whites and minorities. As others have said, the Senate is now considering the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act or CARA. I want to congratulate the sponsors of the legislation because this is a good bipartisan bill. It is important as we look at what we need to do to address the epidemic we face. In addition to the authorizations and the good work that is in the CARA legislation, we also need to provide the resources that law enforcement and health professionals who are on the frontlines of dealing with this crisis are going to need. Despite heroic efforts, law enforcement and treatment professionals are increasingly overwhelmed by the sheer scope and scale of the opioid and heroin crisis. Everywhere I go in New Hampshire, the lack of resources is abundantly clear. Our communities need additional funding--and they need it urgently. So this is why I have submitted an amendment cosponsored by the author of CARA, Senator Whitehouse, and I am pleased my colleague from New Hampshire has also joined in cosponsoring this amendment. This amendment would provide $600 million in emergency funding for critical programs that we know will help address this crisis. I am on the floor to urge the majority leader and the leadership of the Senate to allow a vote on this legislation because this is a nationwide emergency of the first order, and it is time for us in Congress to treat it like a nationwide emergency. In 2014, more than 47,000 Americans died from lethal drug overdoses-- more fatalities than from car accidents. Each day 120 Americans die of drug overdoses--2 deaths every hour. In our State of New Hampshire, where we have 1.3 million people, we are losing more than a person a day to drug overdose deaths. Here we have a map of America that shows the increases in deaths from drug overdoses. We can see in 2003 the majority of the map is lighter colored, so it means it doesn't have the same number of deaths. In 2008 we can see this dark red color which shows the deaths from drug overdoses increasing. Here, in 2014, we see the impact of those 47,000 people lost. The State of the Presiding Officer, like in New Hampshire, is at ground zero in the State of Arizona. In West Virginia, in Tennessee, and in Kentucky, they are seeing the same dramatic increase in the number of deaths from drug overdoses. This chart represents overdose deaths per 100,000 people. Again, it demonstrates how truly national in scope the crisis has become. No State is immune from the scourge. Across the country, our communities are asking why this is happening. They are asking why so many of our family members and neighbors are overdosing on these drugs. Sadly, as we have heard from people who have spoken on the floor, one of the primary reasons is because so many people are becoming addicted to prescription opioid drugs, better known as painkillers. In 2012, 259 million prescriptions were written for these drugs--almost 1 for every American. That is more than enough to give every American adult their own bottle of pills. During a 3-month stretch in 2015 in New Hampshire, 13 million doses of schedule II painkillers were dispensed at New Hampshire pharmacies in just one 3- month period--13 million pills in 3 months for a State with a population of 1.3 million, and nearly 80 percent of these prescriptions were for heavy painkillers like oxycodone, morphine, and fentanyl. If we look, we can see how this graph dramatically tracks the increase in drug prescribing and the number of deaths that resulted. The number of drug overdose deaths has risen as opioid prescriptions have increased. This orange line is the number of deaths. The green line is the number of prescriptions that are being written. We are missing the data for the year 2012, but there is no doubt that those deaths track the number of prescriptions for painkillers that are being written. The National Institutes of Health have found that people who are addicted to opioid painkillers are 40 times more likely to be addicted to heroin. So when someone gets addicted to pain pills and can no longer get prescriptions, they turn to drugs like heroin and fentanyl. What I heard from law enforcement in New Hampshire and from the medical community is that people turn to heroin because it is cheaper and easier to get than prescription drugs after they become addicted. Of course, we have seen that drug traffickers are taking advantage. They are flooding our streets with these drugs. In many of our communities, that bag of heroin is cheaper than a six-pack of beer. Of course the end result is a staggering increase in overdose deaths, which we can see on this chart. Again, in 2014, nearly 21,000 people died from opioid abuse. There were more than 10,000 deaths from heroin. That is a 222-percent increase from 2009 levels. So we can see that these are opioid deaths, these are deaths from cocaine, and these are deaths from heroin. We can see the red line and the green line have gone up dramatically. A professor at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Brendan Saloner, describes opioid addiction as ``a chronic relapsing illness, just like diabetes.'' We know treatment is the only effective answer. Again, what I have heard from law enforcement in New Hampshire is that they know they can't put drug users in jail. That is not the answer to deal with this challenge. We need to put the bad guys in jail, but we need to provide treatment to the people who need it because that is the only effective answer. Unfortunately, it is a tragic reality that nationwide nearly 9 out of 10 people with substance use disorders don't receive treatment. They are being turned away and denied treatment due to a chronic lack of resources. My colleague from New Hampshire spoke very eloquently about some of the people she heard from. We have heard from people in the same way in New Hampshire. Of the 1.3 million people in our State, it is estimated that 100,000 people--almost 10 percent--are currently seeking treatment for substance use disorders. We are able to offer services to only a small fraction of that total. Over the last decade the number of people admitted to State treatment programs increased 90 percent for heroin use and 500 percent--500 percent--for prescription drug use, with the largest increases occurring in the past several years. As we can see from this chart, lack of treatment is a national problem: the darker the green, the more people in that State who are not receiving treatment for addiction. Sadly, New Hampshire is a very dark green, as is Arizona, the Presiding Officer's State. You can see this dark green line coming down the east coast and going up the west coast. In 2014, in Kentucky, 82,000 people needed addiction treatment but failed to get it--in Tennessee, 116,000 people; in Arizona, 157,000; in Nevada, 55,000; in North Carolina, 200,000 people. These are all people who needed treatment who didn't get it. When people don't get treatment, they are overdosing in overwhelming numbers. Sadly, this map of the United States shows where the overdose death rates are the highest. Where the darkest colors are shown the death rates are greater than 19 per 100,000 of population. We can see many of the same States, such as New Hampshire, that have the most difficulty in people finding treatment. Those are the States where we are finding the highest death rates. In 2014 in Kentucky, 1,100 people died from a drug overdose; in Tennessee, 1,200 people; in Arizona, 1,200 overdose deaths; in Nevada, 500; and in North Carolina, 1,300. In recent days I have had a chance to visit three treatment centers in my home State, Headrest in Lebanon, Serenity Place in Manchester, and Seacoast Youth Services in Seabrook. These treatment centers are staffed by skilled, dedicated professionals. They are saving lives every day, but they tell me that for every life they save, many more are being lost for lack of treatment capacity, lack of facilities, and lack of funding. I had a chance on some of those visits to meet with some of the people in recovery. I can remember one young man up in Lebanon at Headrest who had been in and out of prison because of crimes committed when he was using. He said to me that it costs thousands of dollars to keep someone in prison. The figure he used was $35,000. He said: Don't you all know that it is cheaper to give somebody treatment? It is absolutely more cost effective for us to provide treatment for people who are in recovery, people who need help. I heard from a young woman in Manchester who said that she had been arrested for drug use. She said: I am not a criminal. My problem is I need treatment to deal with these drugs. Another young woman who was in her early twenties who had been in and out of the Manchester jail--the Valley Street jail--said: You know, they don't provide treatment in the Valley Street jail. I learned when I got picked up that I don't tell them that I have a drug problem or that I have mental health issues because if I do, they put me in the bubble where I get observed 24 hours a day, regardless of what I am doing. What I need is treatment. I don't need to be in the bubble. Well, that is why this supplemental amendment would increase resources for treatment and recovery--because the answer is treatment. Our amendment includes $300 million for the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant Program. This program is the premier Federal initiative to boost State and local resources for prevention, treatment, and recovery support. In 21 States this block grant program represents at least 75 percent of the State agency's substance abuse prevention budget. In some States, sadly, it is the only funding for substance abuse prevention. If we are going to get a handle on this problem, we are going to have to provide some additional resources for the treatment that these programs need. This funding will result in an immediate increase in the number of addicted individuals who will receive lifesaving treatment. It will also save taxpayer dollars in the future, just as I heard from that young man at Headrest, who said it is cheaper to provide treatment than to build prisons. He is absolutely right. The National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates that for every dollar spent on substance use disorder treatment programs there is a $4 to $7 reduction in the cost of drug-related crime. An outpatient treatment program can result in savings that exceed costs by a factor of 12 to 1. I live in Stratford County in New Hampshire. It has used the modest funding from this block grant program, the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant Program, to accomplish important things, including expanding the peer-based addiction recovery efforts and working at schools to engage at-risk students in the middle school years. If we can prevent addiction, that is obviously the best thing we can do. Unfortunately, many prevention and treatment efforts in Stratford County remain chronically underfunded. I recently learned about one local woman, a mother and waitress, who overdosed in front of her 2- year-old child. Fortunately, she received inpatient treatment, and now she is doing well. Others have not been so lucky. Like cities and counties all across America, Stratford has a months-long waiting list for those needing treatment. When people with substance use disorders are turned away, they remain on the streets--desperate, often committing crimes to support their addiction, always at constant risk of a lethal overdose. Vice News in New Hampshire recently profiled the opioid epidemic. The reporter interviewed one desperate user who said this: I tried to get help and stop, but at the treatment center they said I would have to wait 3 months. I had to go to the hospital and tell them I was going to kill myself just to get admitted. That should not happen in America. Another critical tool in the effort to stem the tide of this crisis is prescription drug monitoring programs. These State-run programs collect, monitor, and analyze electronically transmitted prescribing and dispensing data submitted by pharmacies and dispensing practitioners. We know that monitoring works. We have the data to show that it works, but only half of the 50 States are receiving Federal support. The emergency supplemental amendment would include $50 million for the CDC to expand and bolster State drug monitoring programs. Our amendment also allocates $10 million to improve access in high-risk communities to medication-assisted treatment services for heroin and prescription opioids because numerous studies have shown the effectiveness in including medication in the treatment of some individuals with substance use disorders. Medications like methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone have been shown to reduce opioid use. Our supplemental spending amendment would also speed emergency resources to law enforcement agencies. This Senator has heard from police in New Hampshire. They can't solve this problem by putting people in jail. They can help to solve it by putting traffickers in jail and by breaking up those networks that are supplying drugs. In recent years, the opioid epidemic has spread to small towns and rural areas in every part of the country. If we went back to that first map of the United States, we could see just how much the spread has been to rural parts of this country. Heroin traffickers in New York expressly target New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine--all States with a large rural population. We don't have any real urban areas in our States, but we can see the spread of those drugs in northern New England. This amendment will provide $230 million in emergency funding for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants, and $10 million for COPS Anti-Heroin Task Force Grants. The Byrne JAG Grant Program is the Nation's cornerstone crimefighting program. It has proved its effectiveness in each of our States, which is why it enjoys such strong bipartisan support. But the program has suffered cuts. In New Hampshire, we received $1.7 million in Byrne funding in 2007. Last year we received less than $1 million--almost a 50-percent reduction. I had the chance to travel with Senator Hoeven down to our southern border of Texas last spring because we both are on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security. We talked with some of our Customs and Border Patrol employees who were down on the border in Laredo and were interdicting drugs down on our southern border. One of the things they talked about is that drugs are coming across our southern border and they are going up the Interstate Highway System. They are going up Interstate 95 to northern New Hampshire. They are going up Interstate 35 through the middle of the country. We have to provide law enforcement with the funds they need to interdict those traffickers. We need an infusion of new funding to mobilize so that the programs are more aggressive for stopping opioid traffickers and dealers. Our amendment requires that Byrne JAG funds be used directly to combat the opioid crisis for this emergency funding. That will allow for programs that emphasize treatment over incarceration, such as drug courts. In New Hampshire we have seen what a difference it can make to have well-resourced, ambitious law enforcement initiatives. From May to December of last year, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Task Force, or the HIDTA Task Force, based in Bedford, NH, carried out Operation Trident. They draw on Federal, State, and local law enforcement resources in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. It makes sense because the more we cooperate, the more we can respond. Operation Trident resulted in 240 arrests. They took down four major heroin fentanyl trafficking organizations. They dismantled three processing mills, and they seized more than $1.2 million in assets. What we have to do is continue to recreate these successes all across the country by moving aggressively to take down the gangs and other trafficking organizations that are feeding the opioid epidemic. To do that we have to provide the resources. This emergency funding amendment doesn't create any new programs. Instead, we fund proven and effective initiatives like Byrne JAG and the substance abuse preventive and treatment block grants. These initiatives have earned bipartisan support because Senators have seen the good work it has done in each of our States. By allocating these emergency resources to these proven programs, this amendment will provide law enforcement and treatment professionals with the resources they need to go on the offensive to mobilize a real war on opioid trafficking and addiction. Perhaps most importantly, our emergency supplemental funding amendment funds the programs that are included in the CARA bill. I want to thank Senator Whitehouse and other drafters of CARA, who have made important statutory steps and programmatic changes to improve programs that help treat addiction. But CARA, as important as it is, is an authorization bill that doesn't provide any funding. If we support making the changes in the law that are included in the CARA bill, then we should also support the funding needed to make these programs work. This chart shows a quote from the National Governors Association. Recently, they came together and they endorsed emergency appropriations to address this crisis. They wrote: Governors applaud the introduction of legislation that would provide emergency assistance to states working on the front lines of the opioid crisis. . . . [I]nvestment is needed to help states mount an effective response to opioid addiction, from increasing prevention and education regarding the dangers of illicit drugs to strengthening state prescription drug monitoring programs, expanding access to addiction treatment and enhancing support for law enforcement. The Fraternal Order of Police has endorsed this amendment, saying: This bill will help our State and local law enforcement officers by giving them the necessary funding and tools to battle their communities' heroin and opioid problems. Something needs to be done. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the support letter from the Fraternal Order of Police.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 30 minutes, and I wonder if the Chair will advise me when I have about 3 minutes remaining.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, since the beginning of our Nation, the U.S. Senate has maintained an important bipartisan tradition of giving fair consideration to Supreme Court nominees. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution is unambiguous about the respective duties and responsibilities of the President and the Senate when there is a Supreme Court vacancy. The Founders did not intend these roles to be optional or something to be disregarded. Article II also states that the President shall hold his office during the term of 4 years, not 3 years or 3 years and 1 month, but 4 full years. The Constitution plainly says that it is the President's duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice and it is the Senate's duty to provide advice and consent on that nomination. Throughout our history, Senators have done their constitutional duty by considering and confirming Supreme Court Justices in the final year of a Presidency. In fact, the Senate has done that 14 times, most recently in 1988, when the Senate confirmed Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was President Reagan's nominee to the Supreme Court. He sent that nomination over to the Democratic majority in this body. Almost 28 years ago exactly to the day in February of 1988, the Democratic majority in the Senate confirmed Republican President Ronald Reagan's judicial nomination, Anthony Kennedy, unanimously 97-0. They didn't debate whether it was a Presidential year and whether they could act. It was in the middle of a hard-fought election. It was not at all clear what the outcome of that election was going to be. Since 1975, the average length of time from nomination to a confirmation vote for the Supreme Court--that is the average length of time; sometimes it has taken longer and sometimes it has been shorter-- but since 1975, the average length of time has been 67 days because our predecessors in the Senate recognized how important it is for the Supreme Court to be fully functioning. Unfortunately, this week we are seeing this bipartisan tradition regarding the Court being put at risk. Yesterday we heard the majority leader say that if the President nominates a person to the Supreme Court--any person, no matter how superbly qualified--there will be no hearings and no vote. We even heard some Senators say they would refuse to meet with any potential nominee. I think that is very unfortunate. It is unfortunate for a number of reasons, probably first and foremost because the people of the United States expect us to work together here in Washington to do the job of the country--to do the jobs we were elected to do--and because the current President's term ends in January of 2017. That is more than 300 days from now. During that time, the Supreme Court will hear many important cases, but if the majority in the Senate has their way, the Court will do so without a full roster of Justices. As Brianne Gorod of the Constitution Accountability Center has said, and I quote: The consequences of the Supreme Court being without all nine justices for so long can hardly be overstated. Most significant, a long-standing vacancy would compromise the Court's ability to perform one of its most important functions, that is, establishing a uniform rule of law for the entire country. Every Senator here has sworn to support and defend the Constitution-- full stop. That is the oath we have taken. Our oath doesn't say to uphold the Constitution most of the time or only when it is not a Presidential election year or only when it is convenient for us or only when we like the ideology that is being presented to us. Our oath says to uphold and defend the Constitution every day, no matter what the issue is that comes before us. The American people expect us as Senators to be faithful to our oath. They also expect us to do our jobs regardless of whether it is a Presidential election year. I believe we should respect our oath of office. I believe we should do the job we were sent here to do by the American people. I believe we should follow the Constitution. As former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said last week, and I quote again, ``I think we need somebody [on the Supreme Court] now to do the job, and let's get on with it.'' I say, let's get on with it. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I wish to support the trade enforcement conference report--legislation that will level the playing field for American businesses and help them reach foreign markets. This bill is aimed at supporting American businesses in an increasingly global economy. It makes sure our economic competitors play by the rules and helps our small businesses sell their products to new markets overseas. This bill passed the Senate 78-20 last March, with every single Member of the Democratic Caucus supporting it. While I recognize that there were changes made in the conference committee, this legislation still contains critical mechanisms to ensure fair trade for American businesses and workers. I believe that the United States can out-compete and out-innovate any economy in the world, but to do that, we need a level playing field, and that means making sure our competitors are playing by the rules. This legislation contains some of the strongest trade enforcement provisions that we have seen in decades. It gives Federal authorities the tools they need to enforce U.S. trade laws at the border and hold our trading partners accountable. It includes the ENFORCE Act, a critical measure to ensure that businesses and workers harmed by unfair trade can have their claims investigated and resolved quickly. And it strengthens the Treasury Department's ability to address currency manipulation. This bill also contains language I authored that makes sure that our small businesses are able to take advantage of new trade opportunities and reach new markets. Even though 95 percent of the world's customers live overseas, less than 1 percent of small- and medium-sized businesses in the United States sell to global markets. By comparison, more than 40 percent of large businesses sell their products overseas. The conference report includes my small business trade amendment, which would help narrow that gap by reauthorizing the successful State Trade and Export Promotion grant program, better known as the STEP program. STEP was created as a pilot program to help States work with small businesses to reach in the international marketplace, and just a few years in, it has been a great success. Already, the STEP Program has helped small businesses reach 85 country markets, resulting in over $1.1 billion in export sales for a return on Federal taxpayer investment of 19:1. In reauthorizing this program, we are giving small businesses a real chance to expand their markets, grow their businesses, and create new jobs. I want to thank Senate Finance Committee Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden for working with me to include my small business trade amendment in the final bill. The conference report before us today will keep American companies competitive. It will help small businesses sell overseas. And it will help drive innovation online. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and oppose efforts to prevent it from moving forward today. (At the request of Ms. Murkowski, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am happy to join my colleague, also from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Cory Gardner from Colorado, in support of the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act. This is legislation that will help hold North Korea accountable for its dangerous weapons programs. I know Senator Gardner talked about today's news, North and South Korea, and in the past month we have witnessed a string of actions by the North Korean leadership that has demonstrated their determination to advance the country's nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missile programs. On January 6, North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test, and just this weekend the country launched another long- range rocket. North Korea's goal could not be clearer or more serious. It is to place a nuclear warhead on an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States. Since North Korea's nuclear program was first uncovered in the mid-1980s, the United States has led the international effort to pressure the regime to abandon its nuclear activity. In large part, this pressure has come from the United States and United Nations sanctions. Although these sanctions have effectively halted most financial transactions between North Korea and the rest of the world, the North Korean regime and its benefactors continue to obtain hard currency to advance their illicit weapons programs. One way the North Korean Government finances its nuclear program is by laundering money in banks outside of North Korea--banks that until this legislation have not been subject to secondary U.S. sanctions. This bill will change that situation. It gives the Obama administration the ability to effectively cut off offending banks from the international financial system. When faced with this prospect, I believe prudent actors in China and other parts of the world will cast aside those in North Korea who have supported its nuclear activity. I certainly hope so. Let me also mention a provision I have added during the Foreign Relations Committee's consideration of the bill. It is an amendment that makes clear that the new and powerful sanctions this bill authorizes will not come at the expense of those American families still searching for their loved ones who served in the Korean war and who have never come home. I especially want to thank a New Hampshire advocacy organization--the Coalition of Families of Korean and Cold War POW/MIAs--for working with me on this important provision. The coalition, led by Portsmouth's Rick Downes, expressed concerns that the new sanctions in this legislation could inadvertently hinder efforts to find the more than 7,800 Americans still unaccounted for from the Korean war. Obviously, no one here wants to interfere with this mission, and I am happy this final bill explicitly exempts POW/MIA accounting efforts from these new sanctions. Nomination of Adam Szubin Mr. President, I want to raise one concern that I do have as we are heading into a vote on this bill; that is, the ability of the Treasury Department to identify and target those who should be subject to these new sanctions because that is crucial to the success of this legislation and to our overall North Korea strategy. The debate we are having today provides yet another illustration of why it is so essential to confirm Adam Szubin to be Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes at the Treasury Department. As the Under Secretary, Mr. Szubin would lead the Department in identifying and disrupting financial support to a range of actors that threaten our national security--North Korea as well as ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and others. Not only would Mr. Szubin be responsible for directly implementing a significant portion of the legislation we are expected to pass today, but he would also lead the Treasury Department's efforts to rally international support for these sanctions. I think this last point is critical and sometimes doesn't get a lot of attention. Enforcing sanctions requires cooperation. It requires often nudging other foreign governments and financial institutions to work within the sanctions regime. The lack of a Senate-confirmed appointee in this position undermines the Treasury Department and our efforts to build international coalitions to target terrorism and financial crimes. I am pleased the Senate is poised to pass the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act and increase the pressure on the North Korean regime, but I think it would make sense at the same time to confirm the person, Adam Szubin, who will be responsible for enforcing those very sanctions. Wouldn't it make sense for the Senate to strengthen Treasury's hand as they work to make the sanctions as effective as possible? Adam Szubin was nominated on April 16, 2015--301 days ago. Although the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing on his nomination back in September, the committee still has not advanced that nomination to the Senate floor. No one doubts Mr. Szubin's qualifications for the position. At his nomination hearing, Chairman Shelby called him eminently qualified. Mr. Szubin has served in both Republican and Democratic administrations. He has bipartisan support in this body. When we are all here--Republicans and Democrats--talking about the need to increase the pressure on North Korea in order to deny Pyongyang the resources it is using to develop nuclear weapons and the missiles it needs to target the United States, shouldn't we be supporting a nominee whose job it is to do this exact work? I think the Senate needs to vote on Mr. Szubin's nomination without further delay. I know he has the support of the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As I said, he has bipartisan support in this body, and it is very disappointing that we can't move him at the same time we are moving this bill. I hope the committee will change their minds and they will decide to take up his nomination and move it so we can ensure that the important tenets that are in this bill to help address what North Korea is doing will actually be enforced. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, the 100th anniversary Newport Winter Carnival opens this week to great expectations. Citizens in Newport, NH, are pretty confident that theirs is the oldest continuous winter carnival in the Nation, and they are certain it is the very best. Newport is a town of classic New England charm, nestled in the scenic hills of western New Hampshire. Much has changed in Newport since the town held its first winter carnival. A century ago, the swift currents of the Sugar River turned water wheels that powered the town's prosperous textile mills. During long winters, townspeople enjoyed skiing, skating, snowshoeing, and other activities that were at the heart of the first Newport Winter Carnival. Today those mills are no longer in operation, but their handsome brick buildings have been repurposed as offices, shops, restaurants, and apartments. Like many other former mill towns in rural New Hampshire, Newport has weathered economic challenges in recent decades. During many visits over the years, I have admired the town's resilience and indomitable spirit, which have earned it the nickname ``the Sunshine Town.'' Despite a century of dramatic changes and challenges, the Newport Winter Carnival has been a proud constant. People from neighboring communities come to Newport in midwinter to enjoy the warmth and friendliness of their neighbors and to have lots of old-fashioned fun. This year's carnival will begin with a reenactment. In 1917, a Dartmouth student from Newport skied the 29 miles from Hanover to his hometown to enjoy the Winter Carnival. His feat will be reenacted on Friday by his grandson and five others, who will light the ceremonial torch on Newport Common to start the festival. Festivities this year include the traditional Carnival Queen contest, a parade and talent pageant, broom hockey games, skijoring, and an arm wrestling competition with ``armed and ready'' Cathy Merrill, a Newport resident who recently won gold medals at the U.S. Arm Wrestling Nationals. The carnival will close on Sunday evening, February 14, with a fireworks display. I salute the Newport carnival committee and the scores of additional volunteers who put in countless hours to make the carnival a success. For them, this is truly a labor of love. I also salute the townspeople and families of Newport, who warmly welcome visitors not only for the carnival, but year-round, and always make us proud to be Granite Staters. Congratulations to the entire Newport community, and I wish everyone yet another successful Newport Winter Carnival.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Again, it is disappointing that the senior Senator from Alabama isn't here to talk about his concerns about Adam Szubin and why he is still on hold in the Banking Committee and that we haven't heard from the majority leader in the Senate about the importance of moving not only Adam Szubin's nomination but these other nominations that are critical as we make sure we do what we need to, to protect this country. I am disappointed, but as Senator Klobuchar said, we will be back. I yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, finally, I want to ask unanimous consent to move Adam Szubin, who has been nominated to be Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes. He has also been waiting almost a year. He is somebody who Senator Shelby, chairman of the Banking Committee, has said is eminently qualified, but the Banking Committee still has not voted to move his nomination to the Senate floor. His position is very critical because he would lead the policy, enforcement, regulatory, and intelligence functions of the Treasury Department. They are aimed at identifying and disrupting the lines of financial support to international terrorist organizations to a whole range of other bad actors. Next week on the Senate floor we are supposed to take up sanctions on North Korea. How can we in good faith tell the American people we are going to enforce sanctions on North Korea when we haven't been willing to fill the position that is responsible for doing that enforcement? It belies understanding that we are not going to move forward. Again, this is a position that I know is supported by the Foreign Relations Committee. The Republican chair of the Foreign Relations Committee has been very supportive of moving Adam Szubin's nomination, just as he has been supportive of moving the two Ambassadors, of moving Ambassador Shannon. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue about what we are doing to ensure the national security of this country. It is unfortunate we have rules in the Senate that allow one person to hold things up for an indefinite period of time when the national security of the country is at stake. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of PN371, the nomination of Adam Szubin to be Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes; that the Senate proceed to its consideration and vote without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am joining my colleague, Senator Klobuchar, to talk not just about these two positions of Ambassadors to Sweden and Norway but also about some of the other 27 nominees who deal with national security issues. As Senator Klobuchar said yesterday when we were on the floor, we said we were going to come down here every day. The Senate is not going to be in session every day, so we won't be here every day, but we will be back as often as possible to point out that we need to confirm these nominees. It is in the country's national security interests. The Presiding Officer serves with me on the Senate Armed Services Committee, so she understands just how critical it is that we have a team in place that can be part of the team that protects this Nation. As Senator Klobuchar said, Azita Raji has been waiting over a year since she was nominated. She went through the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously. Nobody objected. Sam Heins was nominated almost a year ago. He is nominated to be U.S. Ambassador to Norway. Again, this is not about just these two individuals; this is also about the message we are sending to two of our best partners and allies, Sweden and Norway. Both of these countries have been part of the anti-ISIL coalition fighting with us against the terrorists. Sweden has been on the frontlines of the refugee crisis, taking in thousands of refugees in Europe. As we think about the strains that the European Union is under right now, for us to have failed to put ambassadors in two of our most important allies is unforgiveable. Yesterday I said it was in 1914 that Norway had to scramble their F- 16 fighters. We know they didn't have F-16 fighters in 1914. It was 2014. So a little over a year ago, Norway, which is a NATO ally, scrambled its F-16 fighters 74 times to intercept Russian warplanes. As we think about the threats from Russian aggression, Sweden and Norway are right there. They are on the frontlines. Norway has committed to participate in NATO's missile defense system. So, again, it is very important as we are looking at our efforts to stop Russian aggression. Yesterday in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee we were talking about the strains on Europe. We had witnesses for both the majority and the minority who confirmed that our failure to move these nominees on the Senate floor is ``an enormous issue,'' a ``disastrous policy,'' and sends the message that Washington does not ``care about European security''--both minority and majority witnesses--even arguing that the United States does not have ``players on the field.'' Not only are there national security implications, but, as the Senator from Minnesota pointed out, vacancies in Sweden and Norway mean that some $11.3 billion in U.S. exports lack a strong champion in- country. I hope the Senator from Texas--who is out running for President--will come back or will lift his hold so we can send the message that we should be sending to our European allies about how important they are and how strongly we want to support what is happening in those countries. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to move two other national security nominees. The first is Ambassador Tom Shannon. He has been nominated to be Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. Again, he has been waiting 136 days since being nominated. He also went through the Foreign Relations Committee without any opposition. He would be responsible for working with Europeans on the implementation of the Iran agreement, on coordinating the G7 to combat Russian aggression, as well as providing daily oversight and direction to all the Department's regional bureaus. He is a career Foreign Service officer who has served in five administrations, two Democratic and three Republican. At this time I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: the nomination of Ambassador Tom Shannon to be Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Calendar No. 375; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.