Pat Toomey

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, today I wish to honor and recognize a distinguished D-Day veteran from Pennsylvania, Mr. Andy Simkovitch, and to commemorate the 72nd anniversary of the D-Day landings. A resident of Erie, PA, Mr. Simkovitch was a U.S. Navy sailor that served aboard the tank landing ship USS L.S.T. 501 during World War II. He was involved in Operation Overlord at Utah and Omaha Beaches, where he transported troops during the D-Day landings on June 6, 1944. During the operation and while under heavy German fire, he went to the beach nine times. Following his actions in France, his ship headed to the Pacific and saw combat in numerous battles, including the Battle of Okinawa. Mr. Simkovitch stayed in the Pacific until Japan surrendered, and he was then honorably discharged in March 1946. The courage and bravery displayed by Mr. Simkovitch earned him the Chevalier Legion of Honor medal, the highest honor bestowed by the nation of France. With only 855,000 of the 16 million American WWII veterans remaining today, it is increasingly important to honor those that served our great Nation and ensure future generations know about the struggles and sacrifices these brave veterans endured. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, I wish to thank Mr. Simkovitch for his dedicated service to our Nation in advance of the 72nd anniversary of the D-Day landings. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. TOOMEY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak on S. 2943, which is the National Defense Authorization Act that we recently invoked cloture on the motion to proceed. I guess we are going to be on this bill, and I am glad we are. In particular, I want to address section 578 of this act. Section 578 is designed to protect our servicemembers' children when they are in school--specifically, to protect them from convicted pedophiles and other dangerous felons who try to infiltrate our Nation's schools, when they can, to find more victims. This is a cause I have been working on for at least 2\1/2\ years in the Senate. We have a serious problem. We have made some progress, but we have a long way to go. For me, this effort to address this began with a terrible story of a child named Jeremy Bell. The story begins in my home State of Pennsylvania, in Delaware County, PA. A schoolteacher had molested several boys and had raped one of them. Officials at the school figured out that something was going wrong, prosecutors were brought in, but they never felt they had enough evidence to press charges to bring a case. The school decided they would dismiss this teacher. They didn't want him around anymore, but, shockingly and appallingly, they decided that to facilitate his departure from the school, they would help him get a job in another school. They would actually recommend him for hire somewhere else. Well, he did get a job in another school, in West Virginia, in part, with the help of the letter of recommendation he got from the Delaware County School District. That teacher went on to become a school principal, and of course he continued his appalling victimization of children. It ended when he raped and murdered a 12-year-old boy named Jeremy Bell. Justice eventually caught up with that monster who had gone from Pennsylvania to West Virginia. He is now in jail, where I hope he will remain for the rest of his life, but for Jeremy Bell, of course, that justice came too late. Sadly, Jeremy Bell is not alone. Year after year, we see staggering and heartbreaking numbers. In 2014, at least 459 teachers and other professional school workers across the country were arrested for sexual misconduct with the kids they are supposed to be taking care of. That is more than one per day. In 2015, the number went up. It got worse--it was 496 arrests--again, schoolteachers and school personnel who have unsupervised contact with these children, and so far 2016 is not doing any better. We have had 185 arrests in just 144 days. One way to look at this is, just since I got engaged in this battle 2\1/2\ years ago, we have had at least 1,140 school employees arrested for sexual misconduct with the children in their care. Of course, these are just the ones who have been caught. These are the ones we know about. These are the ones where there is enough information and evidence that the law enforcement folks were comfortable in making an arrest. How many more? How much is this going on? Of course, every one of these stories is a terrible tragedy for the victims. Like the child whose sexual abuse began at age 10 and only ended when, at 17, she found she was pregnant with the teacher's child or the teacher's aide who raped a young mentally disabled boy who was in his care. These are hard things to talk about but think about how infinitely harder it is for the victims who suffer through this, and the examples go on and on. This has to stop. We have to be doing everything we can to try to prevent this and to protect the kids who are in our country's schools. This is why, in 2013, I introduced a bill that was meant to do exactly that. It was called the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act. It is a bipartisan bill, and it included fundamentally two protections. The first was a ban on this terrible practice that led to the murder of Jeremy Bell. It holds that a school would have to be forbidden from knowingly recommending for hire someone who was a known child molester. It seems so appalling. How could this happen? But the Jeremy Bell case is not the only case. In fact, this phenomenon by which schools try to get rid of their monsters by making him someone else's problem is so widely recognized that schools will facilitate that person getting a job somewhere else. This phenomenon has its own name. It is called passing the trash. People who are advocates for crime victims, people who help children cope with the horrendous experience they have been through, know this very well. They know this phenomenon because they have seen it all too often. That is the first piece of my legislation from 2013, make it illegal to knowingly pass the trash. The second piece is to require a thorough background check--a thorough criminal background check whenever someone is being hired who will have unsupervised contact with children in the school. That means teachers, but it also means coaches, it means the schoolbus driver, it means contractors, if the contractor will have that kind of access to the children. Last December we had an important victory on this because the first protection, the prohibition against knowingly passing the trash, passed the Senate. It was a battle. There were people here who fought this very aggressively, but eventually I was able to get a vote on the Senate floor and it passed overwhelmingly. It was then included in the text of the Every Student Succeeds Act. That legislation has since been signed into law. So it is now the law of the land that it is forbidden to knowingly recommend these pedophiles for hire. As I said, that was only the first part of our legislation. The success we had back in December was only a first step. We were not able to succeed with the tougher, more comprehensive background checks we need. So I said at the time: I am not finished. We are going to continue this fight--and we are. That is why I am here today--because the legislation we are about to take up, the National Defense Authorization Act, takes us another important step forward, which helps in this effort to have more comprehensive background checks. I have a personal interest in this. I have three young children--a 15-year-old, a 14-year-old, and a 6-year-old--and I represent 12.8 million Pennsylvanians. The vast majority of the people I represent have the same view I do, which is: When we put our kids on a bus in the morning to go to school, we have every right to believe we are sending our child to the safest possible environment. So that is what this is about. What this legislation does in the Defense authorization bill is it incorporates a bill I introduced earlier this year. That bill is called the protecting our servicemembers' children act. The national defense authorization bill takes my bill, this protecting our servicemembers' children act, and incorporates it. It builds it in. It covers DOD, Defense Department-operated schools in the United States, of which there are many, but it also covers schools in school districts that receive Federal impact aid because children of our military folks attend those schools. So that is one of the ways we cover some of the cost of educating the children of our men and women in uniform. We do it by providing this impact aid to the school districts to which they send their kids. What my legislation does and what the NDAA therefore does is it requires these schools to conduct the same kind of background check that the DOD requires of its own schools, which is exactly the right thing to do. It also provides that if a person has been convicted of certain serious crimes--which includes violent or sexual crimes against a child--then that criminal may not be employed in a position that gives him unsupervised access to children. It is as simple as that. This will cover schools that serve about 17 percent of our schoolchildren, roughly 8.5 million kids. I think this is just common sense. A background check for school workers is simply common sense. All States, all school districts do this to some degree. The problem is, not everyone does it to an adequate degree. It should not be possible for a person who has been convicted of child rape to walk out of prison, walk down the street, and get a job in an elementary school. That should be absolutely impossible. I am not suggesting that a convict shouldn't be able to get any job, but I absolutely am suggesting that he should not be able to get a job in which he has unsupervised contact with children. To me, that is a no-brainer. This feature--my bill, this legislation--does not impose any new burdens on the Department of Defense. The DOD regulation already requires this thorough background check on all DOD-operated schools. But what we do is reaffirm that so that no future administration could water that down by Executive order or some other way. Also, I suggest that there is an important reason why it is absolutely essential that we provide this protection to the members of our military; that is, the men and women who put on the uniform of this country don't always have a say in where they are going to be stationed. They don't necessarily get to decide which base and which State they are going to work and, therefore, which school their children will attend. So when they get moved to another State, over which they have no say, they certainly have no say in the background check policy of that school or that school district or that State. The least we can do for these men and women who take enormous personal risks and make huge sacrifices to protect us is to protect their kids when their kids are going to school. I should salute the efforts of State Senator Tony Williams from Pennsylvania because the children in Pennsylvania are protected by a very rigorous background check system, thanks largely to Senator Williams' insistence that we do this and his advocacy for legislation that gets that done. When Pennsylvania servicemembers are stationed in another State, they still deserve the same level of protection that they get in Pennsylvania. But Tony Williams' bill that is now the law of the land in Pennsylvania does not apply beyond the borders of Pennsylvania, and that is why we need this legislation--to make sure that all the men and women who wear the uniform of this country can know that their children will have this protection. The least we can do for the people who are ensuring the safety and security of all of us in our country is to make sure their children are safe from convicted pedophiles and other dangerous felons who attempt to infiltrate the schools. Let me also thank someone else. I want to thank the chairman. Senator McCain has been an ally of mine in this ongoing battle to keep our kids safer for years now. His leadership has been outstanding. It is because of his commitment to the safety and security of our kids that my legislation is in the National Defense Authorization Act, the legislation that we are considering today. Senator McCain was a cosponsor of my first bill to protect kids in the classroom. His support was essential in the victory we had last year when we were able to prohibit passing the trash. It is absolutely the case that without his steadfast support, we would not have this provision in this legislation today. So I am very grateful to Senator McCain for his leadership on this, and I am proud to be standing with him on this important issue. Let me close with this. It is past time to act; it is past time to do something about this. In the 2\1/2\ years since I have been trying to make sure that we stop permitting schools to pass the trash, in the 2\1/2\ years since I have been trying to get the most rigorous standards for doing background checks--during that time alone--there have been over 1,100 school employees arrested. Those are the ones we know about. How much bigger does this number have to get? How much longer do we have to wait? More importantly, how many kids have to be brutalized? How many kids have to have their childhood shattered before we are going to impose the toughest possible regimen to protect these kids? I have seen way more than enough. The families who have been torn apart by this devastating crime have seen way too much. I urge my colleagues today to get this done. Let's take a big step forward in providing a significant additional level of security and protection for the children of the men and women who sacrifice so much to protect all of us. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the upcoming inauguration of Dr. Andrew Gurman of Hollidaysburg, PA, as the 171st president of the American Medical Association on June 14, 2016. Dr. Gurman is an orthopaedic hand surgeon who maintains a private practice in Altoona, PA. He is the first hand surgeon and only the second orthopaedic surgeon to have been elected to serve as president of the AMA. Dr. Gurman graduated from Syracuse University and received his medical degree from the State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, in 1980. After completing his surgical internship and residency in orthopaedic surgery at the Montefiore Hospital/Albert Einstein program in New York City and a fellowship in hand surgery at the Hospital for Joint Diseases Orthopaedic Institute, Dr. Gurman entered practice in central Pennsylvania and became active in local medical societies, having served as both speaker and vice speaker of the Pennsylvania Medical Society. He was also a member of its board of trustees and executive board. Dr. Gurman has also served as the chair of the Altoona Hospital bylaws committee and orthopaedic surgery peer review committee, as well as the chair of orthopaedic service. I want to congratulate Dr. Gurman on his election and inauguration as the president of the American Medical Association and wish him well. I look forward to working with him in his new role to craft policies that will improve access to affordable, high-quality health care and make a difference in the lives of countless patients across the Nation.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak about amendment No. 4012. I want to thank my cosponsors--Senators Sessions, Vitter, Cotton, and Inhofe. This amendment addresses a very serious public safety threat; that is, the threat posed by sanctuary cities. This is a problem that is not a theoretical abstraction. It is a problem that some Americans know all too well--one father, in particular. On July 1, 2015, Jim Steinle was walking arm in arm with his daughter Kate on a pier in San Francisco. A gunman opened fire and hit Kate. Within moments, she died in her father's arms. Her last words were: ``Help me, Dad.'' What is maddening about this is that the shooter should never have been on the pier in the first place. He was an illegal immigrant. He was here illegally. He had been convicted of seven felonies, and he had been deported five times. But it gets worse. Just 3 months prior to his shooting and killing Kate Steinle, the San Francisco police had him in custody. Federal immigration officials knew that the San Francisco police had him in custody. They knew he was here illegally, in violation of multiple deportations--a violent criminal convicted on multiple occasions. They said: Hold him until we get somebody there to pick him up and deport him. But the police refused to hold him. Instead, they released the shooter into the public. Why did they do that? Because San Francisco is a sanctuary city. That means that they are a city that specifically--and by law, within the city--forbids their police from cooperating with Federal immigration officials. Even when the police wants to cooperate, it is against the law in the city to do so. The local police and President Obama's administration agree that, with respect to a dangerous person, the Federal and local law enforcement authorities ought to cooperate, but the local politicians-- in San Francisco, in this case--have overridden that judgment. Instead, the police, who had every opportunity to prevent this man from being on the pier that night, released him, and he went on to kill Kate Steinle. As a father of three young children, I can't even imagine the pain that family has gone through. Sadly, the Steinles are not alone. According to the Department of Homeland Security--our current administration's Department of Homeland Security--during an 8-month period that they examined last year alone, sanctuary city jurisdictions released over 8,000 illegal immigrants, and 1,800 of them were later arrested for criminal acts. It included two cities that released individuals who had been arrested for child sex abuse. In both cases, the individuals released sexually assaulted other children again. In the wake of these tragedies, you would think that elected officials across America would end this practice of having these dangerous sanctuary city policies. Sadly, that is not the case. In the biggest city in my State, Philadelphia, they have taken the opposite approach. In fact, they imposed one of the most extreme versions of sanctuary cities anywhere in America. Two weeks ago, President Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security visited Philadelphia for the specific purpose of trying to persuade the city government to make a tiny exception to their sanctuary city policy. He wanted to change the policy so that the Philadelphia police would be able to notify Federal immigration officials if they are about to release from their custody a person who has been convicted of a violent felony or convicted of a crime involving a gang or is a suspected terrorist. The mayor of Philadelphia refused. Even under those circumstances, the police of Philadelphia are forbidden from cooperating and sharing the information with Federal immigration officials. What are the kinds of consequences for this? Consider the case of Alberto Suarez. In 2010, Alberto Suarez kidnapped and raped a girl from Montgomery County, which is just outside of Philadelphia. He bragged to the girl that the police would never be able to catch him because he is here illegally. Five months later, he kidnapped a 22-year-old woman from a Philadelphia bus stop, and he raped her. He has been apprehended, he has plead guilty, and he is awaiting sentencing. But some day, he will be released. Under the current Philadelphia city policy of being a sanctuary city, the police cannot inform Federal immigration officials when they are releasing him. This is ridiculous. Imagine that the Philadelphia police have in their custody an illegal immigrant whom the FBI suspects of plotting a terrorist attack. The Department of Homeland Security might very reasonably say to the police: Hold on to him until we can get an agent down there to take him into custody and ask him some questions because we suspect that he is involved with a terrorist plot. The Philadelphia police's response--not by their choice but by virtue of Philadelphia's being a sanctuary city--to the Federal official is this: Could you come back again after he has actually committed the terrorist attack and been convicted of it, and then we will see if we can help you? This makes no sense at all. This is not partisan. This policy has been criticized by the former Philadelphia mayor, former Pennsylvania Governor, and Democrat Ed Rendell. It has been criticized by President Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security and Pennsylvania law enforcement officials across the political spectrum. Let me be very, very clear. This is not principally about immigration. It is not about immigration at all. It is about violent and dangerous criminals. Everybody knows--I certainly know--that the vast majority of immigrants are never going to commit a violent crime. It isn't about them. It is about the fact that if you have any significant population--and, certainly, 11 million people are here illegally--some subset of that population will be violent criminals. We know that. I have an amendment. It is modeled on a bill that the Senate voted on last October. It was supported by a bipartisan majority of Senators in that vote. It deals with this problem. First of all, there is an understandable reason why some communities have become sanctuary communities, and that is because a court decision has created a legal liability for the cities if they, at the request of the Department of Homeland Security, detain someone who later turns out to have been the wrong person. That legal liability has scared a number of communities. It is understandable. This amendment changes that. It makes it clear that when the local police are in compliance with a Department of Homeland Security detainer request, the local police have the same authority as the Department of Homeland Security. If that person has been identified wrongly, then the liability still exists. If the person's civil rights have been violated, they can sue. But the liability is with the Department of Homeland Security, as it should be, and not against local law enforcement officials who are temporarily acting on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security. Having corrected that problem, if this amendment passes, what we say is this: If you want to, nevertheless, be a sanctuary city and refuse to allow the local police to cooperate with Federal immigration officials, then we are going to withhold community development block grant funds from such a community. As you know, these are the funds that have great discretion in the hands of local elected officials to spend on various projects. The fact is that sanctuary cities impose a very real cost--a real cost for the Federal Government. The most important cost, by far, is the danger to society that it imposes. It is entirely reasonable for the Federal Government to withhold some of these grants in the event that a city chooses to inflict that cost on the rest of us. This legislation is endorsed by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Sherriffs' Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the International Union of Police Associations, which is a division of the AFL-CIO. It is a simple, commonsense amendment, and it stands for the simple principle that the safety of the American people matters, and the life of Kate Steinle matters. Right up front, I want to debunk some of the misinformation that is occasionally promulgated about this amendment. One is the idea that it would discourage people from coming forward and reporting crimes or reporting that they witnessed a crime or that they were a victim of crime, and that, therefore, it is a bad idea. The fact is that our legislation has been drafted in such a way that if a local community has a law that says that local law enforcement shall not inquire about the immigration status of a crime victim or witness, according to our legislation, that doesn't make you a sanctuary city. Any city would still be free to offer that protection to people so that they would not have to fear deportation for disclosing a crime. The fact is that this amendment is germane, and it was timely filed. It satisfies all of the relevant rules. This is the right time, and this is the legislation to consider this. It is time to stop with this politically correct nonsense and being so worried that we can't offend anyone that we are going to risk the safety of our communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may offer my amendment No. 4012.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, with all due respect to my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, I just have to say that this is exactly what Americans are so fed up with. There is a real problem out there with public safety, and they know it. This is a ridiculous and indefensible policy, but I am willing to have a debate about it. I did not ask for unanimous consent to have my amendment adopted. I asked unanimous consent to have it debated and have a vote. If a majority of Senators disagrees with me, then I don't know why they can't come down here and cast a vote and let us know. It is germane, it is in order, and it complies with all the rules. The status quo means dangerous criminals are being released onto our streets. That is a fact. I will tell you what is going on here. We have colleagues who are afraid to cast a vote. They are afraid of having to make a choice. They are afraid that if they vote with me to put pressure on cities to end sanctuary cities, it will offend some people, and they don't want to do that. If they vote against it, they know they are endangering their own constituents, and they don't want their constituents to know that. Rather than standing up and making a decision, what do they do? They say: Let's not allow the debate; let's not allow the amendment. This is exactly what the American people are so fed up with. I am not giving up on this. This is a very important issue. We have a responsibility to be stewards of the money that we give these cities. I think the vast majority of Pennsylvanians, the people whom I represent, want me to be a steward who is looking after their safety, and the status quo doesn't do that. This amendment would solve a very important problem. It is outrageous that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are afraid to have this debate, afraid to go on record, and afraid to let their constituents know whether they support sanctuary cities or not. We are not finished with this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

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

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to address the issue of vacancies on the Federal bench in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the 5\1/2\ years I have been in the Senate, I have sought to find common ground with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, with considerable success--and sometimes we continue to search for that success--whether it is legislation to prevent pedophiles from infiltrating our classrooms or working to fight this terrible scourge of opioid abuse and overdoses in Pennsylvania or trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill. One of the accomplishments of which I am most proud is the work I have done with Senator Casey to fill vacancies as they have occurred on the Federal bench in Pennsylvania. Senator Casey and I have developed a fairly elaborate process. We are blessed to have very talented men and women who have volunteered their time, energy, and expertise to help us identify and vet candidates when a vacancy occurs, to recommend those candidates, and to begin a process by which we can get some of the best and brightest people in Pennsylvania who are able and willing to serve on the Federal bench to do exactly that. Using this process, Senator Casey and I have gotten together, we have agreed, and we have recommended to the President, the President has then nominated, and this Senate has confirmed 16 men and women to the Federal bench in Pennsylvania; 14 are district court judges, 2 circuit court judges. There are only two States in the Union that have confirmed more Federal judges in this period of time, and those are the very large States of California and New York, which have had considerably more vacancies. This makes a difference for the people of Pennsylvania. For instance, because Senator Casey and I have cooperated this way, we have been able to fill empty courthouses--Federal courthouses which have sat vacant where people do not have convenient access to justice. In the cities of Reading, Williamsport, and Easton, vacant courthouses are no longer vacant because through our work we now have Federal judges sitting, hearing, and trying cases, and providing justice in those communities. Despite what has been a very successful record so far, we have more work to be done. We have vacancies in Pennsylvania now. As a matter of fact, there are currently four district court--district court-- nominations for Pennsylvania that are pending in the Senate. Two are still being reviewed by the Judiciary Committee, and two have been approved by the committee. They have had their hearing, they have had their markup, they have voted, they have been successfully reported out of committee, and they are on the Executive Calendar. For some time, Senator Casey and I have been working to get all four of these nominees through the process and confirmed, and I strongly believe all four should be confirmed. Today, I want to focus in particular on two, and those are the two who have already been successfully reported out of committee. They are now listed on the Executive Calendar. These are vacancies that are especially concerning to me, because in one case the Federal courthouse in Erie, PA--the fourth biggest city in Pennsylvania--has a vacant courthouse. It is vacant. It has been vacant for almost 3 years. For almost 3 years, there has been no Federal judge able to hear cases, and so the people in Erie and the surrounding counties have very long travel distances. They have to go all the way down to Pittsburgh or take a very long drive to get to another Federal courthouse, and that is not right. It is not right for the people of Erie, and it is not right for the people of Northwestern Pennsylvania generally. We have another district judgeship in the Western District of Pennsylvania that likewise has been vacant for almost 3 years. Here is what I want to stress: The two nominees for these judgeships who I am talking about would fill judgeships that have been vacant far longer than any other pending on the Executive Calendar. There are other nominees pending on the Executive Calendar. I get that. There are people who want to confirm every one of them. I understand that, but no vacancies have been outstanding for as long as these two vacancies for which we have two qualified candidates who have been successfully reported out of committee, and they are very well-qualified nominees. In fact, I want to talk briefly about each of them. Judge Susan Baxter has a very impressive 34 years of legal experience, including over 20 years serving as a Federal magistrate judge and over a decade as a practicing lawyer in both the public and private sectors. She spent 3 years as a teacher. She completed her education at two of Pennsylvania's very impressive schools, getting her law degree from Temple and her undergraduate degree from Penn State. Judge Baxter has agreed to sit in the Erie courthouse, which would eliminate the problem of a vacant Federal courthouse in the city of Erie. Marilyn Horan is the other judge. Judge Horan likewise has extensive legal experience for 37 years, 20 of those years as a judge in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas in Butler County, PA; 17 years as a practicing lawyer, including 14 as a partner in a law firm. Judge Horan likewise attended two terrific Pennsylvania schools. She got her law degree from the Pittsburgh School of Law and her undergraduate degree from Penn State. There is no question in my mind, both of these women will make outstanding additions to the Federal bench in Pennsylvania. I believe the seats they will fill, if they are confirmed by the Senate, have been vacant too long. Three years is just far too long. Yesterday my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, made a unanimous consent request for these 2 Pennsylvania judges but also 9 others, for a total of 11. I was not on the Senate floor at the time. Had I been, I would have voiced my support for that request, and I would have agreed to that vote. Unfortunately, Leader McConnell disagreed and raised an objection. So we find ourselves stuck at zero: We have nobody pending for confirmation. We have our colleagues on the other side saying let's have 11 judges confirmed. I am suggesting a slightly different course. How about we try a step in the right direction? How about we vote on these 2 judges, 2 of the 11? That is not the entire slate, but it is not zero. They are the two judges who would fill the vacancies that have been vacant the longest. These women represent real bipartisan cooperation. One was initially suggested to the President by Senator Casey. I suggested the other. One is a Democrat. The other is a Republican. The other seats have had vacancies for far shorter periods of time. So I think this would be progress if we could simply agree to have a vote on these two nominees, then see where we go from there. Let's get off this all-or-nothing, 0-or-11 situation, and let's confirm the two judges who would fill the vacancies that have lasted the longest. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 460 and 461 en bloc; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I want to make it clear that I did not have an objection to the modification of the unanimous consent request that was made by the Senator from Rhode Island. I think Senator McConnell makes a valid point about judicial vacancies that have occurred under President Obama. But where we disagree is that I think right before us we have excellent candidates who have been vetted by both sides. They have been chosen by both sides. They have come through the process. They have had their hearings. They have been reported out by the committee. It does not serve the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to have to continue to wait. I am not finished in this effort. I am stymied today. I must say that I am disappointed that my friends on the other side can't agree to make some progress. It is not as though I am, for instance, asking that only Republican judges be confirmed or only judges who are chosen by Republicans. I am not asking that. We have a Democrat and a Republican, chosen by my Democratic colleague and myself, and I understand they are not in the sequence that is traditionally dealt with. But we are at an impasse here. They are the two judges who would fill the vacancies that have lasted the longest, through no fault of their own. I am trying to find a way to get somewhere between 0 and 11, neither of which is accepted. This is a very frustrating and disappointing moment, but I am not going to give up trying. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, today I rise to congratulate the York County Children's Advocacy Center on the celebration of their 10th anniversary. The York County Children's Advocacy Center opened its doors in May of 2006 in York, PA. Since its opening, the center has stayed true to its mission ``to reduce the trauma of child abuse investigations, foster professional collaboration and cooperation, and provide education and advocacy regarding the prevention of child abuse within the community.'' Without a child advocacy center, if a child is brave enough to report abuse, that child is often required to retell and, thus, relive the abuse through multiple, repetitive interviews with child protective services, prosecutors, police, victim services, and medical and mental health providers. The interviews often occur in places that magnify the child's trauma--police stations, emergency rooms, or offices of lawyers and social workers. The York Child Advocacy Center, by contrast, brings together law enforcement, trained interviewers, child protective services, medical providers, and mental health experts in a child-friendly, safe house, where an abused child feels secure and only has to undergo one interview and one physical exam. As a result of the center's tireless efforts, over 3,000 children have received vital services. The York County Children's Advocacy Center has achieved many important milestones. Some of these milestones include earning full accreditation through the National Children's Alliance, expanding their forensic interviewing and forensic medical services, and being accepted as a United Way partner agency. Each of these milestones has allowed the York County Children's Advocacy Center to better serve the most vulnerable in our society, our children. On behalf of the Senate, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the York County Children's Advocacy Center as they celebrate 10 years of dedicated service to York County's children and families.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to address an amendment that has been filed, and on which I hope we are going to have a vote. That is amendment No. 3814. It is called End Crony Capitalist Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program. Let me describe what this is about. We are all watching this Presidential election campaign unfold, and a big theme on both sides of the aisle is about how the Obama economy is not working for so many millions of ordinary Americans--middle-income, middle-class, working- class Americans who are working as hard as ever and falling behind. It is true. It has absolutely been a fact that this economy is not anywhere near where it should be. Part of that and part of the theme is how Washington works for the well-connected--for the few who get to figure out how to get special benefits from taxpayers. But that doesn't apply if you are an ordinary man or woman who is just working hard to feed their family and take care of their family and who doesn't have the lobbyists and the connections to get special treatment. It is infuriating for people, and they are right. One of the most egregious examples is the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program. This is a program that forces taxpayers to lend money to especially preferred--very affluent, generally--and well- connected businesses. It was created in 2007, and it requires the Department of Energy to lend this money--up to $25 billion of taxpayer money--to private corporations that ought to be funding their activity privately. Why should my constituents in Pennsylvania be made to take the risk for some company that has an idea they want to float? Why in the world should it be that my constituents and your constituents, Mr. President, have to subsidize a particular business because some politicians decide they like it? This is completely outrageous, and this program is particularly egregious. So far this program has made five loans worth $8.4 billion. Of the five, two of them have already defaulted. Two have already gone under. Why should our taxpayers have to make these loans to companies that then fail, and the taxpayers end up holding the bag? Fisker Automotive is one of them. They got a $529 million loan in 2010. It took less than 1 year for them to default. The Department of Energy--which is to say, our constituents, taxpayers--then took a $139 million loss, just on that one transaction. The Vehicle Production Group got a $50 million loan in 2011. Two years later, they defaulted. Taxpayers lost almost all of it--$42 million. But it gets even more absurd. In 2011, the Department of Energy, under this program, tried to make a $730 million loan to a company owned by a Russian oligarch so he could build a steel plant to compete with American steel companies and steelworkers that are already making this product. Why in the world should my constituents be forced to subsidize a Russian oligarch? This is ridiculous. And by the way, the plant had already been built. It was retroactively funding facilities that he already had the resources to build. This is just crazy. This is what drives people crazy. The GAO has recommended three times that this program be terminated. They have estimated that if the program continues, they are going to lose another $400 million. So here we have Washington picking a handful of preferred companies to get huge taxpayer subsidies. It has proven it is a losing program. Why are we doing this in the first place? So we have an amendment that would end this program. Senator Coats, Senator Fischer and myself want to end this. We don't want taxpayers to continue to subsidize these companies. We don't think crony capitalism is the way our system should work. We think our economy should work for everybody who shows up and punches a clock and works hard, not the well-connected who can get a big subsidy from Washington. So we have an amendment that would end it. Now, there is some controversy about whether we are even going to have a vote on this, which is really disturbing. I hope we can resolve this and have this vote. I will live with the consequences of this vote, as we all have to. But if there are people who like this program and think that our taxpayers should continue being forced to give away money and subsidize preferred special interests, OK, come on down to the floor and make the case. Argue for why we should continue this crony capitalism, and why it is that politicians ought to put their thumbs on the scale of our economy and divert taxpayer dollars to preferred interests. Come on down and make the case. At least have the courage of your convictions, and let's have a vote. That is all I am asking for. So I am hoping we will get this. I am hoping we will have a vote and, of course, I am hoping we will end a terrible program that undermines the confidence the American people have in our government. We could take a step in the right direction of restoring some confidence that this town can figure out what to do and can take steps to help our economy be fairer, more open, and more successful for all Americans. I thank the Chair.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, this is exactly the kind of program our constituents hate. It is the crony capitalism where taxpayers are forced to subsidize preferred companies, special interests. How many hundreds of millions of dollars do taxpayers have to lose? I understand there is some discussion that maybe on some bill in the future, this will get phased out as part of another deal, but who knows if that is ever going to happen. Here is a chance to wipe out some crony capitalism, some corporate welfare, and a huge loss for taxpayers.

Mr. TOOMEY. Let's adopt this amendment.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the city of Scranton on its 150th anniversary and highlight the rich and industrious heritage that has continued to drive the Electric City well into the 21st century. The story of Scranton is unique and yet distinctly American. The city's visionary founders, brothers George and Selden Scranton, arrived in the Lackawanna Valley in the early 1840s and, after early failures, became the first Americans to produce iron rails on a mass scale. Railroads expanded dramatically throughout the United States once these crucial components became available, and Scranton became a hub of commerce, manufacturing, and transportation. By the 1860s, the Scranton family's company had grown into the second largest iron-manufacturing center in America, employing thousands of people. With 35,000 residents at the time, Scranton was officially incorporated as a city on April 23, 1866, and would become the county seat for the newly formed Lackawanna County in 1878. The success of Scranton's coal, iron, and steel industries served as a catalyst for other important enterprises in the region. Large-scale textile, printing, and food-processing operations, together with increased educational opportunities, all played a vital role in the region's growth. Between 1860 and 1910, Scranton's flourishing industrial activity drew thousands of new immigrants. The story of the Scranton family's endeavor, now known as the Lackawanna Steel Company, is one of the greatest success stories of American manufacturing. Through perseverance and dedication, Scranton grew from a small, agrarian village to a thriving, multicultural city. Today Scranton is a leader in higher education, medicine, and manufacturing. Driving Scranton's development are five institutions of higher education preparing thousands of students for a 21st century economy. For example, the Commonwealth Medical College provides state- of-the art medical education to students from across the globe, and companies in Lackawanna County have made significant investments in innovative technology and improved medical care. Scranton is well- positioned to be a beacon for entrepreneurs and businesses looking to take advantage of the high-quality workforce that Scranton's colleges and technical schools are producing. Today I wish to recognize the profound contributions that the city of Scranton and its residents have made to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania over the last 150 years. I wish them all the best as the people of Scranton celebrate the city's sesquicentennial anniversary on April 23, 2016.

Mr. TOOMEY

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

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about a huge problem that I am pretty sure is affecting every one of our States. It is certainly affecting my State in a very serious way, and the abuse of opioid painkillers often leads to the abuse of heroin, overdoses, and death. This is wreaking havoc all across Pennsylvania. It is affecting every geographic part of the State. It is in urban areas, suburban, and rural areas. It affects every demographic group and every age group. The scale of the problem is shocking. The increase in the number of people who are overdosing and becoming addicted is disturbing. I began hearing about this issue immediately when I became a Senator in 2011, and frankly this problem is getting worse. I recently became the chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Health, and that has given me an opportunity to delve into this ever more deeply. We have had a series of hearings across Pennsylvania to get as much expertise as possible so we can learn about what is causing this and how we should deal with it. There are three areas that have come to my attention--three directions--that I think the Federal Government can pursue to help deal with this very complex and very widespread problem of opioid addiction. No. 1, we need to improve the access and quality of treatment for people who are addicted. There is no question that this is a very difficult disease to treat. There is so much we don't understand. We don't understand what predisposes someone to be more likely to develop an addiction. We don't understand the genetic implications. We know there are some behavioral issues, but we don't understand as much as we need to know about it. We do know there are often underlying mental health issues which contribute to this problem. Whatever these causes are, we need to learn more so we can treat and prevent them better, and we need to treat the people who currently find themselves in the very difficult situation of facing addiction. As I said, that is category No. 1. There is another thing we can do in the Federal Government. We need to take steps to reduce the diversion of these powerful prescription narcotics to the black markets. In fact, prescription opioids are available on the street for a price. There is a market for them, and they contribute to the addiction problem we have. They don't get there because a burglar broke in and stole them from a pharmacy. That is not the typical way these narcotics get to the street. They get there because someone prescribed it and a prescription was filled. We need to look at ways to reduce that phenomenon. I introduced legislation with Senator Casey, my Pennsylvania colleague, Senator Portman, Senator Brown, and Senator Kaine. That legislation is designed to reduce the frequency and occurrence of prescription opioids finding their way into the black market. Our bill provides Medicare with a tool that Medicaid and private insurers have long had, and that tool is called Lock-In. When an insurer--in the case of our legislation it would be Medicare--discovers that a patient is doctor shopping, which is systematically going to multiple doctors and getting multiple prescriptions for opioids, filling them at multiple pharmacies, and ending up with a commercial scale quantity, our legislation would allow Medicare to lock that patient into a single prescriber and single pharmacy. Any person with a legitimate need can get that need met, but we can put an end to some of these very large quantities reaching the black market. The good news is our legislation was offered as an amendment. Senator Casey and I offered it as an amendment to the CARA legislation a few weeks ago. It was adopted by the Senate, and of course the underlying CARA legislation was passed by the Senate. I am hoping the House will take this up, pass it, and get it to the President, and I am confident he will sign it. That would be a big step in the right direction. The third category of action that I think we need to consider are steps that would reduce overprescribing in the first place. One of the things I have learned from the many hearings I have had across Pennsylvania are doctors who have told and described to me a culture within medicine in recent decades which has put so much emphasis on eliminating all pain that doctors are tending to prescribe these opioids in far greater quantities than would have been imagined a couple of decades ago. That is an important piece. I have raised questions about whether it is appropriate to use opioids to treat long-term chronic pain as opposed to short-term acute pain. That is another area we ought to be raising questions with health care professionals so they can help us understand so we have an answer. There is yet another way I think we can address this in the Senate, and that is an unintended consequence of ObamaCare--a provision in ObamaCare that I think is encouraging doctors to overprescribe opioids in the hospital setting. That is what I want to talk about today. First, a little background on this. ObamaCare created a system that provides financial rewards to hospitals that perform well on certain outcomes, such as reducing readmissions and hospital-acquired infections, for instance. If they do badly in those areas, then they are penalized and get lower reimbursements. It is a financial set of incentives to get better outcomes. Those two examples I just mentioned, readmissions and hospital-acquired infections, are objective, measurable, quantifiable, and there is little doubt we want to see less of those things. You can argue that it makes sense to have financial incentives to deal with that. ObamaCare also links reimbursement for hospitals to a much more subjective outcome separate and apart from the ones I just mentioned; that is, patient satisfaction as defined by the government. Specifically, the Federal Government mandates that hospitals survey their patients about their stay at a hospital using a form known as the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems, or HCAHPS. It is known as HCAHPS. That is the survey hospitals are required by ObamaCare to administer to their patients. Hospitals that have a higher score on this survey get more money and hospitals that have lower scores on this survey get less money. There is a roughly $500 million swing nationally across the country based on these personal patient satisfaction scores alone. It is not just that the government is saying these scores are important, the government is making it financially important to these hospitals. This raises a question, and the question is, Is the hospital score on some bureaucrat's test always in the patient's best interest? It is not clear to me that it always is. There is no doubt that hospitals, physicians, nurses, and health care providers generally want to have satisfied patients. We all do. We want to be a satisfied patient when we go to see a doctor or go to a hospital. It is obviously a good thing if a patient has as good an experience as possible, but it is specifically the survey questions on pain management per se that are raising a lot of red flags and not just with me but with health care professionals and those who have been studying it. There was a recent Time magazine article entitled ``How ObamaCare is Fueling America's Opioid Epidemic.'' This article is a lengthy investigation into the unintended but as I said predictable consequences of this ObamaCare-created HCHAP survey and specifically the questions in the survey that relate to pain management and the prescription of opioids. One of the questions from the study is: ``During this hospital stay, did you need medicine for pain?'' Second question: ``During this hospital stay, how often was your pain well controlled?'' Finally, during this hospital stay: ``How often did the hospital staff do everything they could to help you with your pain?'' These are the questions that patients respond to, and they contribute to the overall score on the test. The score on the test determines, in part, the level at which the hospital is reimbursed by Medicare. There is a very powerful financial incentive for hospitals to make sure that patients are answering these questions in a way that will get the desired response from CMS--from Medicare. They are graded on these questions. So it is a big incentive. When you tie the measurement of these kinds of questions to reimbursement, you are very likely to get changes in behavior. In fact, that seems to be what is happening. I think we need to ask ourselves whether we are striking the appropriate balance here when 27,000 people are dying from heroin and prescription painkiller overdoses. Many of the people who are dying from heroin overdoses began with prescription opioids, and they moved on to heroin when they discovered that it was cheaper and more available than the prescription opioid that they got addicted to in the first place. So there is increasing evidence now that physicians and hospitals are, in fact, responding to these financial incentives, and they are responding by prescribing more opioids. Dr. Nick Sawyer, a health policy fellow at the UC Davis Department of Emergency Medicine told Time Magazine: The government is telling us we need to make sure a patient's pain is under control. It's hard to make them happy without a narcotic. This policy is leading to ongoing opioid abuse. A survey by the South Carolina Medical Association found that almost half of over 150 doctors responding reported that they were prescribing inappropriate narcotic pain medication because of the patient satisfaction questions. One doctor wrote that drug seekers ``are well aware of the patient satisfaction scores and how they can use these threats and complaints to obtain narcotics.'' Here are two examples from a story entitled ``Patient Satisfaction is Overrated,'' published by the Pennsylvania Academy of Family Physicians, about Press Ganey, a company that administers patient satisfaction surveys that often include these HCAHPS questions. One doctor reported that he had to give Dilaudid--and that is a powerful prescription opioid--for minor pain because his score on this test was too low in the previous month. An emergency room doctor with poor survey scores started offering hydrocodone goody bags to discharged patients to improve his ratings. Now, as I said, I have had multiple field hearings across Pennsylvania to hear firsthand from health care providers, recovering addicts, law enforcement--people who are dealing with this epidemic in a variety of ways. One of our witnesses in Pittsburgh last October was Dr. Jack Kabazie. He is the system director of Allegheny Health Network's Division of Pain Medicine. He testified: ``Physicians who have compensation or employment tied to patient satisfaction scores may feel pressured to prescribe opioids in response to patient pain complaints.'' Another ER doctor told my office how his hospital administrator informed him that the ER patient satisfaction scores are in the 50th percentile--or average--and that he should find a way to get them higher or ``I'll find someone who can.'' This is a big concern. There is a range of evidence that doctors and hospitals have been changing their prescribing habits in response to these pain questions. Now, let me be clear about one thing. None of us wants to see anyone needlessly suffer. None of us wants to themselves go through pain that is unnecessary. None of us want to see a loved one or anybody experiencing pain if it could be appropriately managed. For the terminally ill, of course, it makes sense to do everything possible to make those folks as comfortable as they can be in their final days. But what I am asking is this: Are we appropriately weighing the risks and the benefits here? Sure, there is a benefit to complete and immediate elimination of all pain that a powerful narcotic can temporarily provide, but we know that there is also a risk of addiction to that narcotic. That risk is very significant, and it has increased exponentially. That addiction is incredibly dangerous because it can spiral out of control and even lead to heroin abuse, addiction, and death. Have we gone too far in creating an expectation that the results for every patient must be zero pain? Or are there some circumstances in which it is better to treat pain as best we can with nonnarcotics-- other ways or other medicines? There are other treatments, including physical therapy. There are other ways to diminish pain. It may not be 100 percent effective all the time, but if it is temporary and it has zero risk of opioid addiction, then maybe we ought to be considering that a little more frequently. So this is definitely a complicated issue. There are many factors contributing to the heroin epidemic, the opioid epidemic. But it is increasingly looking like one of the contributing factors at some level is the financial incentives created by this aspect of ObamaCare, this particular questionnaire that focuses significantly on complete elimination of pain. I think we need to ask ourselves whether this is appropriate. Last week, the group Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing sent a petition signed by more than 60 nonprofit groups and medical experts--including Pennsylvania's Department of Health Secretary Karen Murphy--to CMS, calling for the removal of the pain questions from the HCAHPS survey. Now, that is one approach. Senator Johnson from Wisconsin has introduced a bipartisan bill that has a lot of merit. His bill is called the Promoting Responsible Opioid Prescribing Act. What his bill does is it removes the results of the pain questions from Medicare's calculations of reimbursement. So the questions would still be asked, and we would still learn about how patients feel about the extent to which their pain was managed. But it wouldn't affect the hospital's reimbursement. I think there is a lot of merit for that proposal. Again, it is because we are in the midst of a deadly crisis. It is killing people every day. The impact of opioid addiction and heroin addiction and overdose on a family is so devastating. I can only imagine the grief, but I know people who have been through the grief of losing a child, losing a loved one to this terrible scourge. That is why I am here on the Senate floor today. That is why I want to continue to focus on this. I think there are many things that we need to consider, but one of them is decoupling the results of these pain questions from the level of reimbursement, because the evidence is starting to mount that the financial tie is creating incentives to change behavior. So I hope we will, as a body, address this issue seriously, because there is a lot that needs to be done on this. I appreciate the recognition, and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I wish to honor and celebrate the holiday of Vaisakhi, a very important day for those who practice Sikhism. The world's fifth largest religion, Sikhism was founded over five centuries ago and was introduced to the United States in the 19th century. There are over 500,000 Sikh adherents in the United States. Pennsylvania is the home of many proud Sikh Americans, who contribute and make a positive impact in their workplaces, communities, and to our country. They are part of the rich cultural fabric of the Commonwealth. As a member of the American Sikh Congressional Caucus, I rise to honor this community on the holiday of Vaisakhi. This is an important celebration for the Sikh community and is celebrated this year on April 13. On this day in 1699, Guru Gobind Singh created the Khalsa, a fellowship of devout Sikhs. Vaisakhi is a festival which marks this occasion and the spring harvest. The Sikh community around the world recognizes this important holiday with parades, dancing, singing, and other festivities. Celebrations also include performing seva, or selfless service, such as providing free meals to others and volunteering for service projects in their communities. I am proud to represent the Sikh community of Pennsylvania, and I wish the Sikh American community a joyous Vaisakhi. Thank you.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I would like to underscore the points made by my colleague Senator Casey. I thank him for his leadership. This is a very simple matter that is very straightforward and common sense. We know there is a very real vulnerability in our commercial aircraft. We know this. There is no mystery here. And we have a very simple, affordable, reasonable solution that will provide the security we need. After September 11, 2001, Congress very rightly mandated that the cockpit door be reinforced so that it is virtually impossible to destroy that door, to knock down that door, to defeat the purpose of that door when it is closed and latched. The problem is that when it is open--which it must be open periodically during many flights--a very strong door is useless. We know what happens now on airlines because we have all witnessed it, right? When a pilot needs to come out or go in or there is access to the cockpit when that door is open, the flight attendant rolls a little serving cart in front of the door. I suppose that is better than nothing, but it is not much better than nothing. That cart can be rolled away. We are not the only ones who have observed this. An FAA advisory has observed this risk. The 9/11 Commission pointed out that the terrorists were very focused on the opportunity created by the opening of the cockpit door. As Senator Casey pointed out, there have been multiple attempts to breach that door. Several have been successful. We have an amendment that solves this problem in a very affordable, reasonable, sensible way. It is a lightweight, collapsible barrier made of wire mesh, and a flight attendant can simply draw it across the opening, lock it, and then at that point the cockpit door can be opened and there is no way someone would be able to rush through that wire mesh in time to get to the cockpit during that moment when the door is open. That is what our amendment does. It passed the Transportation Committee in the House unanimously. As Senator Casey pointed out, it has very broad support from many of the stakeholders who care about the security of our commercial aviation. It is our hope and understanding that we will be very soon propounding a unanimous consent agreement which will allow this amendment to be pending and that this will be one of the amendments which will be on the docket for a subsequent vote. I hope we will get to that momentarily. I hope we will get that locked in, and then I would urge my colleagues to vote yes on our amendment and enhance commercial aviation safety. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Senator Casey for his great work on this. We have been partnering on getting this accomplished for some time now. This is the opportunity to do it. This is the right legislative vehicle. This is the right bill. This is the FAA reauthorization bill. This is exactly where we ought to be taking a commonsense step toward making commercial aircraft safer. It is as simple as that. I am hoping that very soon we will adopt the motion to proceed so that we are on the bill. We have already filed this amendment. As soon as we can, we will bring it up so that it is pending, so that we can adopt this amendment. This passed the House Transportation Committee unanimously. I don't know why it wouldn't have the same outcome here. I want us to get on this bill, I want to offer this amendment, and I want to get on with this because Senator Casey is exactly right. In the immediate aftermath of that appalling attack on September 11, Congress passed legislation to require that the cabin door be reinforced, become a stronger barrier, and that is exactly what happened. It is a terrific barrier. It is very hard to see how anyone could break down the cabin door and access the cockpit when that door is closed. The problem is that the door is not always closed. As Senator Casey pointed out, it is necessarily opened from time to time during a flight. This creates the threat. It creates the opportunity for a terrorist who is so inclined to rush that open door. A very well reinforced door is useless when open, but that is the risk. That isn't just our assessment; the FAA has acknowledged the very serious nature of this threat. Let me quote from their April 2015 advisory. The FAA said: On long fights, as a matter of necessity, crewmembers must open the flight deck door to access lavatory facilities, to transfer meals to flightcrew members, or to switch crew positions for crew rest purposes. The opening and closing of the flight deck door (referred to as ``door transition'') reduces the protective anti-intrusion/anti-penetration benefits of the reinforced door. . . . During this door transition, the flight deck is vulnerable. This is not some theory; this is an objective fact. It is observed by the FAA advisory. The 9/11 Commission also observed that terrorists were very keyed in to the notion that the best time to strike would be when the door was open. That was at a time when the primary door was not as reinforced as it is now. The opening of the door clearly creates the opportunity for terrorists. This threat is real. It persists. There have been attempts to breach cockpits since 9/11. There have been successful attempts, including the successful hijacking of a Turkish Airlines flight in 2006. We know that the secondary barrier Senator Casey and I are proposing would be extremely effective. It is low cost, it is lightweight, and it is not intrusive. It is not deployed at all except immediately prior to opening the primary door. This is just a commonsense solution. It will provide a significant upgrade in the safety of these aircraft. We have an amendment. It has been filed, and as soon as we can, we would like to make this pending. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. Let's get this adopted. Let's pass the FAA reauthorization bill and get it to the President. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I intend to address an amendment to the FAA authorization bill that Senator Casey and I are offering. But before I do that, I wish to take a quick moment to celebrate an amazing basketball game last night and an amazing victory for an amazing team, the Villanova Wildcats. It just made everyone in Pennsylvania so proud. They have had a fantastic season, a fantastic tournament, and last night I think we witnessed one of the greatest college basketball games ever. I know that is saying an awful lot. There have been a lot of college basketball games, but the game was unbelievable. We had two fantastic teams, extremely well matched, extremely talented, very well coached on both teams, and they just played phenomenally. I don't know how many times the lead changed. I don't think it ever got more than 10 points away from either team. It was just so much fun to watch, all the way through. I think Jay Wright has proven once again what a magnificent coach he is. The kids who played demonstrated just amazing teamwork and talent, and all of the attributes we want to see in college athletics we saw on display last night. I can't say enough about the University of North Carolina. What a great team they are. They played with so much heart and they played so well. I think we are going to watch the end of that game--the final 5 seconds of that game--for a long time to come. I will say when Marcus Paige took that shot, it looked to me like he was 20 feet behind the three-point line. He had almost been knocked over. He was airborne in a very odd and awkward position because he had just dodged another player. He got the shot off, and somehow it dropped. They tied the game, and there were 4.7 seconds left. At that point, I thought: Well, I am in for a late night because this is going to be the first of overtimes since it is tied with only 4.7 seconds left, but that was not the way it ended, as we know. The Wildcats had a plan and they executed it brilliantly with a great play to move the ball up the court quickly, to get it to Kris Jenkins, who put up a long three-point shot, and released it just before the buzzer went off. The buzzer went off while the ball was sailing through the air, sunk the basket, and won the game with no time left. It was the most dramatic and exciting finish to a basketball game that I can recall. I want to take this moment to congratulate the Villanova Wildcats on an outstanding season, tournament, and game last night. Congratulations to our new national champions. Mr. President, now let me turn my attention to the amendment I alluded to; that is, an amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill. Senator Casey and I are going to offer as an amendment the legislation we have introduced as a freestanding bill, and that is the Saracini Aviation Safety Act of 2016. I thank Senator Casey for the very good work he has done on this issue for some time. Let me give a little bit of background on the amendment, which is based on the legislation that is named after Victor Saracini. Victor Saracini was a Bucks County, PA, native. He was a Navy pilot. After he left the Navy, he became a commercial airline pilot. He was a captain. He was the captain of United Flight 175 which, as my colleagues will recall, was one of the planes that was captured by terrorists on 9/11. The fact is, Captain Saracini was murdered by the terrorists when they stormed the cockpit, took control of the plane, killed Victor Saracini, and then flew the plane into the World Trade Center. Victor Saracini left behind his wife Ellen, who is with us today in the Senate. She has been a very forceful and effective advocate for greater safety on board our commercial planes. Victor also left behind two daughters, Kirsten and Brielle. The amendment does something very simple. It requires a secondary barrier to the cockpit on commercial aircraft. That is all. That will prevent unauthorized individuals from getting into the cockpit. It is as simple as that. It is a simple, lightweight, inexpensive technology, readily available. It is actually made from a wire mesh, and it provides a barrier between the passenger cabin and the cockpit door. It would only be engaged when the cockpit door is open. So why is this necessary? It is necessary because it is still entirely possible for terrorists to hijack commercial aircraft. Back in 2001, after 9/11, Congress took a step to make commercial aircraft cockpits more secure. They mandated the installation of reinforced doors, and these reinforced doors are much stronger than the doors that used to exist. It is very difficult--almost impossible--to breach those doors when they are closed, but the threat remains because on every long flight and on many short flights the doors are open. At some point during the course of the flight, pilots often get up and they get out of the cockpit. They have to go to the restroom or they go to get some food or a flight attendant goes in to check on the pilots or to bring them something they want. That moment when that door is opened, that door is no longer a barrier. Therein lies the danger. There is the moment of opportunity for terrorists. The FAA fully acknowledges the serious nature of this risk. In April of 2015, an FAA advisory said the following: On long flights, as a matter of necessity, crewmembers must open the flight deck door to access lavatory facilities, to transfer meals to flightcrew members, or to switch crew positions for crew rest purposes. The opening and closing of the flight deck door (referred to as ``door transition''), reduces the protective anti-intrusion/anti-penetration benefits of the reinforced door. . . . During this door transition, the flight deck is vulnerable. Of course, it is not only the FAA that was able to figure this out. The terrorists understand this as well. The 9/11 Commission report said this: Ali Sheikh Mohammed told them-- And the ``them'' in this case refers to the terrorists he was instructing. Ali Sheikh Mohammed told them to watch the cabin doors at takeoff and landing to observe whether the captain went to the lavatory during the flight and to note whether the flight attendants brought food into the cockpit. I continue to quote: The best time to storm the cockpit would be about 10 to 15 minutes after takeoff when the cockpit doors typically were opened for the first time. Furthermore-- States the 9/11 Commission report-- they had no firm contingency plans-- ``They'' being the terrorists-- in case the cockpit door was locked. They were confident the cockpit doors would be opened and did not consider breaking them down a viable idea. Since then, we have made the doors even more durable. It would be even more difficult to actually break down the door or otherwise open a closed door. The problem is when the door is open. This is not just a theoretical risk. Since 9/11, there have been at least 51 attempts at cockpit breaches worldwide. Five attempts have been successful. One successful attempt occurred in 2006 on Turkish Airlines Flight 1476. Terrorists were successful in entering the cockpit after a flight attendant opened the door to ask the pilots if they needed anything. So it seems to me unacceptable, when we have a readily available solution, to continue to take this risk. It is just common sense to install secondary barriers on commercial planes. These are inexpensive, several thousand dollars to install. They are lightweight and easy to use and very compact when they are not engaged. The only people who would be inconvenienced by these secondary barriers would be terrorists. Had the secondary barriers, these kinds of barriers, been installed on 9/11, it would have made the job very difficult for the terrorists to ever get into the cockpit. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I think this is a sensible amendment. The substance of this has been approved in the House. We ought to pass it on the Senate floor and pass this FAA reauthorization underlying bill. If we do that, in time, our skies will be that much safer. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, today I wish to honor the life of Mr. Gary M. Orlando, Sr. Mr. Gary Orlando passed away on Sunday, October 25, at the Erie VA Medical Center. A tireless and longtime advocate for veterans, Gary sat on the board of directors for the Paralyzed Veterans of America, PVA. He was also a member of the Disabled American Veterans, DAV. Gary was an Erie, PA, native, born on November 8, 1951. He served with the U.S. Army during the Vietnam war as a door gunner on a helicopter. While serving in Vietnam, he survived being shot down and was awarded the Army Commendation Medal, two Good Conduct Medals, and the National Defense Service Medal. Following his service with the Army, Gary worked for the U.S. Postal Service in Erie. In his free time, he enjoyed hunting, volunteering, and participating in the Wheelchair Games. He was also an avid fan of the Erie Otters Hockey Club. Gary was a relentless advocate for our veterans, a friendly face, and a supporter for countless veterans in the Erie area. Gary is survived by two sons, two grandchildren, one great- granddaughter, one brother, one brother-in-law, and several nieces and nephews. He was laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery, an honor he richly deserved. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, I wish to express my thanks for Mr. Orlando's steadfast service to our Nation and his commitment to our veterans.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise on the same topic that the Senator from Indiana was addressing very eloquently through the absolutely heart-wrenching stories he told of his constituents and their families. These are stories we hear all across America. I hear them all across Pennsylvania day in and day out. Drug addiction is an enormous problem. It is devastating families and communities in our States. I share the view of the Senator from Indiana that this legislation is very important. It takes a number of steps that are very constructive. I congratulate Senator Whitehouse and Senator Portman for a very good piece of legislation that is going to help save lives. It is going to help save families and communities. I have an amendment that I am going to address that is going to take another step to help save lives, and I hope my colleagues will overwhelmingly support this because it is an epidemic the likes of which I don't know we have seen in a very long time. Last October, I convened a field hearing of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on health care to learn more about this very epidemic of opioid addiction and heroin addiction and the overdoses that are resulting. We did it in Pittsburgh, and Senator Casey joined me. We reserved a very large auditorium, and we invited some of the leading local experts, doctors who were dealing with people who were suffering from addiction, law enforcement folks, recovering addicts. We had a standing-room-only crowd in that room. Such was the intensity of the concern of this issue and the breadth of it because we all know people who are affected by this terrible scourge. A couple of things I learned in the hearing that are important is that we have to figure out how we can reduce some of the overprescribing of these narcotics--these prescription opioids--upon which people then become addicted. We also have to find ways to address the diversion from prescriptions that are obtained through the conventional process, the black market, the streets, and the places where it feeds the addiction. I think one of the overlooked elements of this problem has been the opioid epidemic that is affecting older folks, aging baby boomers, and senior citizens who have become addicted to opioids for a variety of reasons. The headlines have screamed about this. USA Today's headline said: ``Many seniors Hooked On Prescription Drugs.'' The Wall Street Journal had a headline recently: ``Aging Baby Boomers Bring Drug Habits Into Middle Age.'' This came from a TV news channel: ``Senior citizens getting hooked on painkillers.'' This is growing problem, and it doesn't know any demographic limits. It affects senior citizens as well as young people. In fact, to give a sense of one of the, perhaps, contributing elements to this, in 2013 there were 55 million opioid prescriptions written in America for Americans over the age of 65. It is a stunning number. It is a 20- percent increase in just 5 years. We have not had a comparable increase in the number of senior citizens. It is a huge increase in the number of prescriptions per person. This is probably related to the fact that the number of opioid-addicted seniors has itself tripled in the last decade. One of the problems has been identified by the Government Accountability Office. They estimate that in 1 year alone, 170,000 Medicare enrollees engaged in doctor shopping. That is the process by which beneficiaries go to multiple doctors to get multiple prescriptions for the same or similar powerful narcotics. They go to multiple pharmacies to get them all filled, and they end up with these commercial quantities of prescription drugs--vastly beyond anything that any individual could need. The GAO discovered that one beneficiary had visited 89 different doctors in one year just to get prescription painkillers--89 doctors in one year. That is almost 2 a week. Another beneficiary received prescriptions for 1,289 hydrocodone pills. That is almost like a 2-year supply. It makes no sense. I could go on and on with cases in which fraud is being committed for the purpose of obtaining these prescriptions, which are then sold in the black market. There is also a subset of Medicare beneficiaries who are innocently getting duplicate opioid prescriptions because they are being treated by different doctors for different maladies. They have multiple illnesses. They get multiple prescriptions because in many cases there is nobody providing adequate oversight and coordination for their care. So we have both, people who are intentionally and fraudulently getting multiple prescriptions and then we have people who are innocently getting it. So there is a way we can deal with this inappropriate prescription and diversion into the black market, and the administration has asked us to do this. This administration--the Obama administration--has asked Congress to give them, in Medicare, the power to limit certain beneficiaries who are engaged in doctor shopping, exactly as people already can do so within Medicaid and with private health care providers. So the simple idea is to give Medicare the power when it identifies a beneficiary who is engaged in doctor shopping--getting multiple, duplicative prescriptions, either intentionally or unintentionally--to allow Medicare to lock that patient into one prescriber and one pharmacy. That way you don't have this problem. That is what the administration has asked us to do. So I have introduced a bill that does exactly that. It is called the Stopping Medication Abuse and Protecting Seniors Act. Senator Brown of Ohio is the lead Democrat on this bill. I thank Senators Portman and McCain also for their work. This is the amendment we are offering to this bill to give Medicare the very same tool that Medicaid has, the tool that the administration is asking for, and the tool that all experts say makes sense. As I said, Medicaid and commercial users already do this, and we are not inventing something new. What we are doing is simply applying a proven technique that limits overprescribing and diversion, applying that to Medicare, where it does not exist today. No one who legitimately needs a prescription for opioids will be denied that. That would be completely unreasonable and inappropriate. In fact, we exempt seniors in nursing homes, where the nursing home can provide the monitoring, and seniors who are in hospice, and cancer patients who might need unusually large quantities are exempted. In fact, this legislation would actually lock in a small fraction of 1 percent of Medicare enrollees, but that is the fraction that is engaging in this very dangerous behavior. First, I am grateful for the very broad bipartisan support that we have. As a result, if we get this passed today--which I certainly hope we will--we will help opioid-addicted seniors find treatment because they will be notified when they come up on this list--when it is discovered that they are going to multiple doctors and multiple pharmacies. It will stop the diversion of these powerful narcotics. It will save taxpayer money because taxpayers reimburse for all of these prescriptions, even those that are fraudulent. Maybe, most importantly, it will reduce the availability of these opioids. We have 25 Republican and Democratic cosponsors on the bill. We have the support of the National Governors Association. Nearly identical language was already passed in the House. It was embedded in the 21st Century Cures Act, where it passed overwhelmingly. The President's budget has asked for this very mechanism repeatedly. The CMS Acting Administrator was before our committee, and Administrator Slavitt said this legislation ``makes every bit of sense in the world.'' The CDC Director is for it. The White House drug czar is for it. The Pew Charitable Trusts testified on behalf of our legislation, and the Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing support it--not to mention many law enforcement groups and senior groups, such as the Medicare Rights Center. This is a tool that is overdue. We have this tool in private health care insurance coverage. We have this tool in Medicaid. We just need to have this tool in Medicare. I wish to single out for a special thanks my coauthor Sherrod Brown. Senator Brown and his staff worked very hard and did a tremendous job. They provided, in fact, very valuable feedback to make sure that all the stakeholders were going to be treated fairly and specifically, that beneficiary rights would be properly respected. That is a very important and very constructive contribution that Senator Brown made to this legislation. He also helped to secure many endorsements from outside groups. My fellow Pennsylvanian, Senator Casey, was very helpful and is passionate about this issue. He has seen firsthand the damage that is being done across Pennsylvania from opioid abuse. He is a cosponsor of the legislation. We had a very successful hearing in the Finance Committee. I thank Senator Hatch for having this very topic of how we can limit the diversion through Medicare of these very dangerous narcotics, and I thought that was a very constructive hearing. I also thank Senator Kaine, who, through his work on the Senate Aging Committee, has been very active and extremely helpful on this issue. Again, this is an amendment that has broad, bipartisan support. It has been vetted by the stakeholders. It has been vetted by and requested by the administration. It is endorsed by numerous health care and law enforcement groups. The reason it has such broad support is because it will save lives, it will protect seniors from opioid overprescriptions, it will stop fraud, and it will dramatically reduce pill diversion. So to vote no on this would be to allow the continued flooding of very dangerous prescription opioids onto the black market, and I can't think of any reason we would want to do that. I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan Toomey-Brown-Portman- Kaine amendment. Let's get this adopted and then let's pass this underlying bill, which is very, very constructive as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, this is a bipartisan, commonsense policy. I wish to thank my coauthors, Senators Brown, Portman, and Kaine. Lock-in is a tool by which beneficiaries who are abusing prescription opioids are locked in to a single prescriber and a single pharmacy for access to these powerful narcotics. It would make it difficult or impossible for these excessive prescriptions to continue when a patient is so locked in. It is a tool that is already used by Medicaid and private insurers. What our amendment would do is extend this important tool to Medicare. It is a policy that has been requested by the administration. It is in the President's budget. It has broad bipartisan support. It will help stop fraud, help coordinate care for seniors, and save taxpayer money. As Senator Wyden observed, his amendment, had it proceeded, would not have actually extended this tool to Medicare. The only way we can do that on this bill is to pass this amendment. I would encourage everyone's support. I think we have an agreement for a voice vote on this, but before we go to that, I wish to yield to Senator Brown for his comments.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, in light of the agreement for a voice vote, I ask unanimous consent that the 60-vote affirmative threshold with respect to amendment No. 3367 be vitiated.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to address a huge problem that is happening in every one of our States and in all of our communities and to talk about a bill that is meant to be helpful in this area. It is about the huge problem we have with opioid abuse, opioid addiction, including both prescription and heroin addiction and abuse. This is an epidemic that is truly unbelievable in scale. It is affecting people of all ages, all ethnic groups, all demographics, all income classes, all geography. It is everywhere, and it is a huge problem. I have heard about it in every county I have visited in my State. In all 67 counties of Pennsylvania, I have heard about how big this problem is. In fact, more Pennsylvanians will die this year from heroin overdoses and the misuse of opioid painkillers than from the flu or homicides. I wanted to learn more about this, so last fall I convened a hearing of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Health Care, which I chair. Senator Casey joined me in that hearing at Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh, where we had this, to learn more to understand about the nature and scale of this huge opioid addiction problem and what we might do about it. I was surprised when I got to the room. It was a huge auditorium, and it was standing room only. The room was completely packed with people because this epidemic is affecting virtually every family. It affects almost all of us at some level and in some way. It is tearing families apart. It is taking the lives of people who are in the prime of their lives. It is a huge problem. The hearing was very helpful in illuminating some aspects of the nature of the problem. We had medical professionals who are dealing with the treatment, and we had people who are suffering from addiction. A recovering addict who has put her life back together told a very compelling story about what she went through. We had people in law enforcement. So we had a lot of testimony with different perspectives. One of the things I took away is that there are at least three categories of ways we can help try to deal with this huge scourge. One is the problem of the overprescription of narcotics, the overprescription of painkillers, opioids, which are chemically very similar to heroin. A lot of people begin their addiction with these prescriptions, and then when they can no longer obtain or afford the prescription opioids, they move on to nonprescription forms, such as heroin, and it usually goes downhill very dramatically from there. So reducing overprescription has to help. There are ways to deal with that. A second is to reduce the diversion of these opioids when they are being prescribed. My legislation really does focus on that. The third is, we need better treatment and we need better outreach. We need better ways of treating people. We need to treat the addiction, but also, many people find themselves addicted after they develop a mental health problem that is an underlying problem that contributes to the addiction. We have to do a better job identifying and helping people with mental health problems. We have many aspects to this challenge that arises from this terrible epidemic, but let me focus in on one aspect of this, the overprescription and the diversion of prescription narcotics. The Government Accountability Office estimated that in 1 year alone, there were 170,000 Medicare beneficiary enrollees engaged in doctor shopping. Doctor shopping is the process whereby a person goes to multiple doctors, gets multiple prescriptions for perhaps the same opioid--maybe oxycodone or some other kind of painkiller--then goes to multiple pharmacies to get them all filled and ends up walking out of the pharmacy with a huge quantity of these very powerful, very addictive opioids, which they then sell on the black market. It is a very valuable commodity on the black market. The GAO found that there was one beneficiary who visited 89 different doctors in a single year, all for the same kind of prescriptions. There is another beneficiary who received prescriptions for 1,289 hydrocodone pills. That is a 490- day supply. You are not supposed to get more than a 30-day supply. The inspector general found that a midwestern pharmacy billed Medicare for reimbursement of over 1,000 prescriptions for each of just 2 beneficiaries--1,000 prescriptions per beneficiary--and one physician ordered all the prescriptions for one of those beneficiaries. Last April, the DEA indicted two doctors in Mobile, AL, who were writing prescriptions for massive amounts of pain pills that were then filled at the pharmacy next door to the pain clinic they also owned. The examples go on and on. This is fraud. Let's be clear that that is what it is. This is fraud. This is people who are systemically abusing these programs so they can obtain commercial-scale quantities of a very valuable narcotic, which is also very dangerous and very addictive, because it can be lucrative. Why is it lucrative? In part, because the American taxpayer pays for their supply. That is how outrageous this is. People are getting multiple prescriptions, going to multiple pharmacies, and when the prescription is filled at all of these pharmacies on these multiple occasions, the bill is submitted to Medicare, and Medicare reimburses. Think about this. We have this criminal enterprise where the supply of narcotics is being paid for by taxpayers, and then the people who fraudulently obtain these drugs go out and sell them in what I am sure is a very lucrative arrangement. This is beyond outrageous; It is the description of the obviously fraudulent. There is another category of people who end up with multiple prescriptions and it is completely innocent. There is no criminal intent whatsoever, no criminal activity. It is especially elderly people who have multiple illnesses and they have different doctors who treat them. In many cases, there is not a good coordination of the care for those patients. There is nobody coordinating what all of the doctors are doing, so doctors separately and--if it weren't for what other doctors are doing--appropriately give a prescription for a powerful narcotic. They don't know there is another doctor doing the same thing. This patient unwittingly ends up with an excessive quantity of these opioids, which dramatically increases the risk that the patient will become addicted and will suffer any number of very harmful consequences. So we have the fraudulent cases of excessive prescriptions and then we have the innocent cases, but both are problems. The legislation I have introduced addresses both problems. First, I want to thank the cosponsors, the coauthor of the bill. Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio is the lead Democrat on this bill. It is a bipartisan bill. Senator Portman and Senator Kaine have also been very helpful. They are original cosponsors of the bill. It is called Stopping Medication Abuse and Protecting Seniors Act. We now have 25 cosponsors. We had a very constructive hearing last week in the Senate Finance Committee about this legislation, this approach. Senator Hatch said he hopes the bill will move very soon. I hope the bill will move very soon. It is very important. Here is what it does. When Medicare discovers that a beneficiary is obtaining multiple prescriptions well beyond what any individual should appropriately have, then Medicare would have the authority to require that person to get their prescriptions in the future from one doctor and get it filled at one pharmacy. It is called lock-in because you are locked in to a single doctor and you are locked in to a single pharmacy. In one step, that would go a very long way to making it very difficult to commit this kind of fraud or to accidentally obtain more prescriptions than you ought to have. This procedure is not a new concept. It already exists in Medicaid. It is used every day in Medicaid to protect innocent people from excessive prescriptions and to protect taxpayers from fraudulent abuse. It is done by private carriers all the time. Private health insurance carriers use this lock-in mechanism when they discover excessive prescriptions being written. It is designed in a way--as these other programs are, the private and Medicaid--so that no one who legitimately needs a prescription--because there are legitimate prescriptions for opioids and for narcotics. No one who has a legitimate need will have an access problem. People will still be able to obtain exactly what they need. The lock-in applies only to a narrow category of controlled substances, schedule II controlled substances, which is what we think is appropriate. I think this is going to be very helpful. It is going to help opioid- addicted seniors be identified as such so they can get the treatment they need. It is going to stop the diversion of these powerful narcotics. It is going to save taxpayers money. CBO estimates that $79 million over 10 years will be saved by bringing an end to these illegal prescriptions. And it is going to reduce the quantity of these terribly powerful drugs on the streets. This legislation has very broad bipartisan support. Just last weekend the National Governors Association came out fully in favor of adding a lock-in provision for Medicare. We had nearly identical language passed in a bill in the House as part of the 21st-century cures legislation, which passed overwhelmingly. The support includes the President of the United States. His budget has repeatedly asked Congress to give Medicare this authority. CMS's Acting Administrator, Andy Slavitt, just recently, before our committee, said this legislation makes ``every bit of sense in the world.'' We have the support of the CDC Director; the White House drug czar; Pew Charitable Trusts; Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing; many law enforcement groups; senior groups, such as the Medicare Rights Center. This is a list of just some who support this legislation. This is really just common sense. We already have this capability in Medicaid. We already have this capability in private health insurance. It is long past due that Medicare have the ability to protect seniors from accidental excessive prescriptions but also to prevent people from committing fraud, which we know is happening on a very large scale today. I am not aware of any opposition to this. We have broad bipartisan support. I am hoping we can get this passed very soon, certainly in the next week or so. The House will certainly pass this, as it already has as part of the 21st-century cures legislation, and we can get this to the President and get this signed into law and start to help save lives and save taxpayers money at the same time. Mr. President, I yield the floor.