quorum call:

mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, there's been a great deal of discussion here on the floor of the senate about the current vacancy on the united states supreme court. democrats want to fill it immediately. now, republicans are much more interested in making sure that the american people have an opportunity to weigh in on this

very important decision. this is a lifetime appointment, a lifetime appointment, and the stakes could not be higher for our country. so it is perfectly reasonable to wait for the next president to make this critical nomination. it is also exactly the precedent that democrats in this body, in the senate, created for situations just like this one. now, first of all, let's remember that this is not uncommon for there to be a vacancy on the court. sometimes a seat can be empty for even more than a year. there are eight justices now. two of them have already said that they can handle the work that's available in front of them now with the seat vacant. justice alito said so, as did justice breyer. now, justice breyer was appointed by president clinton. when asked about the death of justice scalia, he said, we'll miss him, but we will do our work.

he also said, for the most part, it will not change. so there is no urgency to fill this vacancy on the supreme court right now. second, we should acknowledge that the process of nominating and confirming a supreme court justice has become very partisan. it's also become very political. some democrats have spent -- many democrats in the senate have spent the last three decades undermining the way that these appointments used to be made. it started in 1987 when senate democrats launched an all-out assault against the nomination of judge robert bork. it got so bad that dictionaries even created a new word. the word was to "bork" someone. it means to obstruct someone by systematically defaming or vilifying them. then in 1992, senator joe biden came down to the floor of the

senate to explain his rule, the biden rule, for supreme court nominations. he said that once the presidential election is under way -- quote -- "action on a supreme court nomination," he said, "must be put off until the election campaign is over." that's the biden rule. you can't get any clearer than that. joe biden was the chairman of the senate judiciary committee at that time when he announced the biden rule. you know, he was not all that worried about having only eight justices for a while. senator biden said that a temporary vacancy on the court, he said, was quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee the president descended on our nation would have to pay for what assuredly, he said, would be a bitter fight. if the fight would have been bitter in 1992, it would be even worse today.

today we've had another 24 years of democrats continuing to politicize the process. just days after george w. bush bibecame president, senate democrats vowed they would -- quote -- "use whatever means necessary" to block the president's judicial nominations. democrats went so far as to filibuster a supreme court nominee. that was the first time in the history of the united states senate that they ever tried to filibuster a supreme court nominee. it was the nomination of justice alito in 2006. the democrats failed. even though they failed, it set a new precedent. some of the leaders of that filibuster were senator barack obama, now president, were senator hillary clinton, then the secretary of state, now presidential candidate, and senator joe biden, now vice

president of the united states. senator reid voted to filibuster, as did current senators durbin, senator leahy, and senator schumer -- all part of the filibuster of the supreme court nomination of justice alito by george w. bush. that's the history of how our confirmation process became so political. that's three decades of democrats politicizing the process. that's the precedent for where we are today, and those are the rules that we will follow today. now, on top of all of that, president obama has spent seven years ignoring congress. he has made the confirmation process more confrontational and more contentious every step along the way. the president illegally made what he called recess appointments to the national labor relations board. he even did it, though congress

was not in recess. and i use the word "illegal" because the supreme court struck down the -- this action by president obama and the vote was 9-0 that the president acted illegally. even democrats in congress have said that they think the president has gone too far with some of his executive actions. so it's clear that senate democrats and president obama have been injecting politics into the confirmation process for many years. today they seem to wish that they hadn't done it. well, these are the rules that they wrote, and these are the standards that they set the senate will follow thes these r. we should wait until next year to take up this important decision. let the american people consider it as part of deciding who to support in november. let the new president make this

lasting decision without the political influence of the election hanging over it. it is not the job of the united states senate to rubber stamp the president's nomination. the job of the senate is to protect the constitution and to serve the american people. that's the oath that every one of us has taken in this body. we have a process for nominating and confirming justices to the supreme court. it's a system the democrats created and now they should be willing to follow the rules that they wrote themselves. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

fine madam president? plaintiff the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: madam president, i rise today for the second time. the presiding officer: the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mrs. feinstein: thank you. i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you. i rise today to speak for the second time about the supreme court vacancy, and i do so not callously, not spontaneously but really after 23 years of service on the committee. so i'd like to believe i have some experience and some knowledge about how these matters have been handled in the

past. and, madam president, i truly believe we have an obligation to consider a president's judicial nominees no matter when. and i'd like to speak about why that duty is so important, particularly for the supreme court and the consequences of not fulfilling it. to be very candid, i'm shocked at the supreme nature of what's happening because of what i believe its impact is going to be in the next year. since the judiciary committee started holding hearings on supreme court nominations in 1916, not a single nominee for a vacancy has been denied a hearing ever. even during presidential election years, the senate has done its job. in 1988 president reagan's final year in office, senate democrats confirmed justice kennedy.

three years later in 1991, justice thomas was confirmed after the presidential campaign had begun. democrats could have said no, no hearing, no committee work, no vote, no consideration by the full senate, but that didn't happen. the nominations were processed and they were confirmed. so why is it so important that we do our job? why is an eight-member court unable to function to the highest and best use of the united states supreme court? ties in the supreme court create uncertainty in the law. important legal questions go unanswered. the law varies then throughout the country and people and businesses often fail to receive justice. i'd like to review just some of the examples where an incomplete

court was unable to levy justice. these are several examples of the importance of nine-member justices there are if one looks at recusals over the past few years. in 2010, justice kagan recused herself from flores sr-frpblts r. vs. the united states. this case was going to decide whether a united states citizen father must reside in the united states longer than a united states citizen mother in order to confer citizenship to his child born abroad. the court deadlocked 4-4. the result is a child in one part of the united states may be considered a citizen while another in the exact same situation in a different judicial circuit may not be a citizen.

this issue remains unresolved today. in 2000 justice o'connor recused herself from free vs. abbott labs. the case should have determined how many plaintiffs in a federal class action suit must meet a certain damage threshold for the case to proceed in federal court. again the court deadlocked 4-4. because the case was left undecided, a later eighth circuit case, the circuit covering iowa and other midwest states was thrown out. that meant 30,000 individuals claiming damages from a nearby refinery were denied justice in the federal court. this even though the company admitted releasing lead and other pollutants into the air. the issue was resolved by

another supreme court case but it was five years later, and that was little consolation to families who didn't receive justice in federal courts in the interim period. three, in 2007, chief justice roberts recused himself from warner vs. lambert v. kent. this case was meant to decide whether individuals can sue for injuries called by defect -- caused by defective pharmaceuticals. when the drug maker allegedly hid information from federal regulators. the 4-4 tie in that case failed to clarify the law which still varies across the country today. let me give you an example. plaintiffs in the sixth circuit are now unable to sue for personal injury in this situation while individuals harmed in the same way by the

same drug in states covered by the second circuit are allowed to do so. in another case in 2007 new york city board of education versus tom f., justice kennedy recused himself. the deadlocked court failed to rule on whether special needs children must first attend public school before they receive tuition reimbursements to attend a private school better equipped to help them learn. this meant courts in different states treated these children differently. the issue was eventually resolved two years later, two vital years of schooling the children may have missed out on. five, in 1987 before justice kennedy took his seat, the court heard u.s. vs. carpenter and

winnes. the case which came in advance of that year's stock market crash involved tk-fts convicted of securities fraud based on allegations they misused information from a "wall street journal" investment advice column. the supreme court failed to determine whether the action could be a basis for prosecution. the law was left unclear for ten years during which time some lower courts overturned criminal convictions for this sort of fraud. mr. president -- madam president, these are just a handful of cases that illustrate how an incomplete court can't fulfill its duty and why the senate must do its job and fairly consider this president's nominee. to leave the supreme court in this situation for a year and

some months is in my view unconscionable. so why is it happening? i actually can't come up with any reason to renews to review obama's nominee than politics. the only explanation is that senate republicans want to deny this president the ability to fulfill his constitutional obligations. and this isn't the only evidence of such targeted obstruction. it has been a sustained course of action for more than a decade now. during the clinton administration, more than 60 nominees to the federal court were blocked by a republican senate. many weren't even given a hearing. a comparison with the final years of president bush's term is particularly telling. in the two final years of the bush presidency, the

democratic-controlled senate confirmed 68 judicial nominees. that included ten confirmations in september of his final year in office. so eight months from now back in the bush years, the democrats in control were confirming bush appointments. so far over president obama's final two years, republicans have allowed confirmation votes on only 16 judicial nominees. think about that. 11 confirmations in president obama's second to last year versus ten confirmations just four months before president bush left the white house. the inequality here really i think must sink in. people must begin to understand

that. the length of the process has also ballooned. under president bush the median number of days between committee and floor dates was 14 days, that's two weeks, for circuit court nominees and 19 days, three weeks, for district court nominees. for president obama the corresponding length between committee and floor votes for circuit court nominees was 84 days. that's two and a half months. and for district court nominees, 98 days. so you see immediately the difference between how the sides are handling judicial appointments of a president that may have been in the other party. most of these nominees were eventually confirmed by unanimous or near unanimous votes so that shows no need for

extended delays. there were no problems with the nominees to deserve extended delays. when president bush left office, there were 34 vacancies. now that's a vacancy rate of 3.9%. today there are more than 81 judicial vacancies, nearly ^10% of all -- nearly 10% of all article 3 judges. mr. president, republicans have clearly decided not to do their job, and the american justice system is going to suffer for it. one thing i don't like to do or make thing that can be described as a threat, but i will be candid with you because i don't think ai i am a firebrand, i dot think i am that partisan. but when this is done with the supreme court, it signals a

whole other level of malevolent obstruction, and one thing i've learned in my 20 years is what goes around, comes around. so to do this, to keep this seat vacant for over a year because it's the last -- the fourth year of president obama's term, makes no sense at all. and, as i said, it is really unconscionable. so, madam president, if you don't think an eight-member court is a problem, you really don't need to take my word for it. let's listen to the justices themselves. justice scalia in deciding not to recuse himself from a case in 2004 said the court would be -- quote -- "unable to resolve the

significant legal issue presented by the case." he pointed to the court's own recusal policy, which remains in effect today. it says -- and i quote -- "even one unnecessary recusal limits the court's ability to functio function." so one can interpret from that that by not doing their job, the republican side of this aisle is certainly limiting the court's ability to function. i'm not sure the other side should want that on their shoulders. i'm not sure what may come up this next year, the degree to which justice would be denied in a 4-4 court, but justice would certainly be denied, and it's probably going to happen. judge rehnquist said in 1972, when he warned that a divided --

quote -- "court would lay down one rule in athens and another rule in rome." so here's the conclusion: a president is elected to a four-year term. both sides of this aisle know that. but today republicans are in effect saying that a democratic president only gets three years of judicial confirmations, if a supreme court vacancy becomes -- comes before it. and that's not what the constitution says. all of us swore an oath to fulfill the constitution, and i truly hope my republican colleagues will stop, will think about this, will think about what will happen next year if this president is denied this appointment for the remainder of this year and a judgeship is

certainly is delayed way past that point. so i thoi den i think to deny ts against the spirit and the letter of our duties, as spelled out in the constitution of the united states. once again, i would say, please, republicans in this house, do your job. thank you, madam chairman -- madam president. i yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. portman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: madam president, i'm pleased to see that on the floor today we continue to make progress on the comprehensive addiction and recovery act, the legislation before us today and yesterday and this week has been about how to deal with this growing problem we have around the kurntion and i country, andt epidemic levels, of heroin and opioid addiction. we expect over 100 americans will die today, die from overdoses of addiction, overdoses of heroin or prescription drugs. this is a problem that doesn't

just affect my state of ohio, although we're one of those states that most severely impacts; it represents every single state represents by -- it affects every single state represented by someone in this chamber. senator whitehouse and i had have been the coauthors of this effort but so many others have been involved, senator ayotte, senator klobuchar, senator feinstein, who has been supportive has improved the legislation with an amendment accepted earlier this week dealing with the international drug cartels. there is an effort in this body to take on this issue, not in a partisan way but in a totally nonpartisan way. last week i was in ohio meeting with groups, talking about various issues, and every single place i went this issue came up. i was at a plant tour and people talked to me about it. we had a town hall meeting at that factory. and at the end of the meeting, after talking about taxes and

energy and health care policy, i just asked for a simple show of hands, how many of you have been affected or your friends or families have been affected by this new opioid/heroin addicti addiction? half of the hands went up. it is devastating so many of our communities and the cost to the taxpayers are also tremendous. i went to a hospital and what they wanted to talk about was how the emergency rooms are being filled with people overdosing or abusing drugs. i have been to three different hospitals in our state who are doing amazing things to care for those babies who are born with addictions. there's been a huge increase in my state of babies who were born because of their mothers being addicted during the pregnancy, they're actually born with an addiction to opiates. and they have to take thes these babies, some of to whom are so smawcialtion thesmall,they coul,

through the withdrawal process. we know this is something that again is tearing at our communities. so it is time to address this issue. there's been a recognition of that, and i'm very encouraged by the progress we've made this week on this legislation. i hope we can find a way to get to the feignal amendments and get -- the final amendments an get the legislation passed because it urgent that we deal with this. the house of representatives has their own legislation. it is also called cara, the comprehensive addiction and recovery act. it is bipartisan also and we believe if we can pass this bill with a strong vote here -- and we had an 89-0 vote to get on to the bill itself to move on to the legislation -- we believe we can get a strong vote -- senator whitehouse and i believe we can get a strong vote in the house as well and get it to the president's deck for his signature and begin to reverse this trend. the legislation is something this went through a unique process around here, which is

bipartisan or even nonpartisan from the starters and process of bringing in experts from all around the country. rather than us saying we know all the answers, we said, let's hear from others. so senator whitehouse, ayotte, klobuchar and others, we held a series of summits huer in washington. we -- here in washington. we brought people in. here in washington alone we had five of these conferences in 2014 and in 2015. we brought experts in from around the country but we also relied on expertise from the administration. in april of 2014 we held a forum on criminal justice and how it's affected by this issue and treatments. one of the things this legislation does is encourage -- it was an excellent forum, featured michael botticelli, a very effective director of the

office of national drug control policy. he's kaild the drug czar. this is -- he's called the drug czar. this is within the white house. michael botticelli came as a representative of the white house but so did a representative of the drug enforcement agency and gave us great input. inalin july of 2014, we held anr forum, how women are impacted by this epidemic. we talked earlier about the issue of pregnant women being addicted and their babies. this forum featured michael baht botticelli. in 2014 in december at the end of the year we held another forum. this was on the science of addiction and how we could potentially address the collateral consequence addicti addiction. this featured dr. nora vocala, director of national drug abuse in the obama administration. it also included the department of justice and substance abuse and mental health services administration officials. so samhsa was there, d.o.j. was

there, director baht chel bottis there as well. last year in april of 2015 we held a forum on our youth and how we can better prevent drug abuse. clearly we need to do a better diswrob get people to make the right decisions to avoid getting into the funk l of addiction. -- the funk l of addiction. -- the funnel of addiction. lastly in july of 23015 last year we held a forum on the impact of substance abuse and ptsd on our veterans. it was focused a lot on the issue of addiction and the high rates that we see sometimes of mental health and addiction coming from some of our returning veterans. this forum featured one of the giants in this field, dr. -- sorry, general barry mccaffrey. general mccaffrey and i have

work $together since his days in the clinton administration. he is not just a giant in the field but gave us great input as to how to write good legislation to help us with veterans courts, where veterans can get the help he had need. that forum by the way also featured officials from the department of defense, department of veterans affairs, and the office of national drug control policy. from all these participants in this process, we received a lot of great feedback that helped guide us. we went back and forth with legislative language with all these experts in the obama administration as well as experts from around the country. this legislation is supported by over 130 groups including those representing people who are in the trenches providing treatment, providing services on prevention, law enforcement, doctors, those who are involved directly in this issue have given us a lot of guide afnlts but that included the -- guidance, but that included the

expertise of those in the obama administration. i am aappreciative of their support for our efortses. because it was a inclusive process, a bipartisan process, the encouragement of the assistance we received from the drug experts in the obama administration, when we introduced this bill actually said, okay, here is our final product. after the back and forth and all the lemghtive language and all the experts, this bill received a lot of support immediately on a bipartisan basis. as i said as i said early year 130 national groups support it in part because they helped write it and some might not have been involved are looking at this problem and realizing that this is a conclusion that will really help. we've also got dozens of groups in my home state of ohio who support it in addition to the 130 national groups from the fraternal order of police to the national attorneys general association, to folks who are involved date to day in helping to deal with this issue at their local level.

yesterday -- the day before yesterday now i believe it was, we received a statement of administration policy from the political officials at the white house on the cara bill. and i've talked about how the administration has been so helpful and their experts have been so helpful but despite all the work they have done to support this bill, the white house did not issue a statement of administration policy that supported the legislation. it didn't oppose the legislation but it said instead that the drug epidemic would not be affected greatly by this legislation unless there was substantial new funding provided. now, this is kind of incredible given that this is the legislation we all worked on together, and i know that there's a difference it the political folks at the white house and the people who actually know the issue and are the experts on the issue. but i would hope that we could get a strong statement of administration support for a bill that was drafted with them on a bipartisan basis with senator whitehouse, myself, senator klobuchar and others, but we'll see. now, i support additional funding over and above the $80

million of new funding that cara provides for. not just for this year but for next year, the year after that, the year after that. it's an authorization bill. it's extremely important. i supported the shaheen amendment yesterday. it's actually wong to say as some of my colleagues have claimed that there's not funding for these cara programs. we already appropriated significantly more spending for this opiate problem for this fiscal year that we're in. not a penny of that has been spent yet by the way. over $120 billion -- over $120 million of additional spending. that $120 million of additional spending is targeted on ways to spend the money more wisely through cara because we worked with the appropriators, worked with the judiciary committee to make sure that was the case. having said that again i would love to have seen more funding over and beyond that provided by an amendment that was offered about by my colleague senator shaheen yesterday because i think that would helped even more but it doesn't mean we shouldn't support the underlying cara bill. my colleagues who have endorsed

it and voted with us and my coauthor senator whitehouse and others grow with that -- agree with that because it ensures more federal resources are going to be devoted to evidence-based education, treatment and recovery programs that actually work, that we know actually work, it's not just throwing money at the problem, this is actually legislation we know works to address the problem based on all the background that i just mentioned about getting all the expertise. again, these groups out there who are in the trenches every day working this issue are the ones who will tell you why it's going to work, but what they will say is it's going to help these young mothers battling addiction. it's going to help those veterans who return home from duty who desperately need our help. it will help young people make the right decision. it's going to help that teenager who's struggling with drug abuse. it's going to help in terms of dealing with this problem we have right now where people can't get treatment because there is not access to treatment. it will help we get prescription drugs off the bathroom shelves so they're not being used to get people addicted to opiates and

then moving to heroin. it's going to be helpful to ensure that we have a drug monitoring program nationally so we know who's getting overprescribed and who's not. these are changes in law that are part of this legislation. again i want to thank the experts in the obama administration who deal with this issue every day and strongly support cara. a january 27, 2016, so at the end of january, this year, the judiciary committee held a hearing on our bill. i was able to testify as well as others, including experts. here's what some of the leading administration experts said. first, michael botticelli, again a guy whoeu think has been a very effective director of the office of national drug control policy at the white house. here's his sweet. there's clear evidence that a comprehensive response looking at multidimensional aspects that are embedded in the cara act are tremendously important. we need to know -- we know we need to do more. and i think that all of those components put forward in this bill are critically important to make headway in terms of this epidemic. that's the director of ondcp.

here's from dr. nora vokall. she's director of the administration's national institute on drug abuse. and a real expert. she said, and i quote, we support the comprehensive program delineated and it's one of the strategies to address the problem. here's miss kanup, the acting administration aorg of samhsa, the substance abuse and mental health services administration. she said, at samhsa we're so excited to be able to implement programs like the medication assistant treatment and cara, prescription drug and opiate addiction which congress appropriated in 2015 and another increase in 2016 which is very similar to some of the programs you describe in the cara act. thank you, senator whitehouse for your leadership on it issue and continued support of our mission. we believe the public health approach of the cara act is vitally important to moving forward on this issue, end quote. here's mr. millenone. he's the deputy assistant

administrator, office of diversion control and he said and i quote, i'm happy to work with you or anyone on this legislation. it will help -- that will help with this epidemic. i'm thankful again for these experts in the obama administration who have put politics aside to work to support cara. they've helped us to come up with better legislation and they support it because they know it will help promote education and prevention so we can stop drug abuse before it begins, they support cara because she know it helps with treatment and recovery and will help reduce overdoses and save lives. they know it will help our veterans and women and babies. they support cara because they know there are more than 130 national groups out there who understand the importance of this bill and support it, including the national association of addiction treatment providers, faces and voices of recovery, children's health, children's hospital association, the partnership for drug free kids, fraternal order of police and i thank play law enforcement for stepping up on this, the national district attorneys association and the major county sheriff's

association. i understand, madam president, that some folks in washington like to play politics with everything around here. but politics has never been part of this bill. it's been inclusive from the start. and it's been bipartisan from the start. we're here to help those suffer tpr-g addiction and to save -- suffering if addiction and to save lives. that's what this measure will do. let's get on it and pass this legislation so we can get it to the president's desk for signature and it can begin to help. i yield back. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leered kpwhoeud i ask unanimous consent that -- mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent to call up the amendment and the senate vote in relation to the amendment number 3420 and that there be no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment prior to the votes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. a senator: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. a senator: madam president, last thursday i was here on the floor honoring the victims of the mass shooting in kalamazoo, michigan, another shooting spree. six -- that left six people dead and two others injured. on the very same day another shooting spree broke out in kansas that photographer changed another town, another community in this country like the change that has overcome sandy hook, connecticut since the fateful day in december, 2012. this was a shooting spree in kansas that spans several miles in nearly 30 minutes. three people were killed, 14 were wounded in two locations as well as the kansas workplace. the gunman had multiple felony convictions which prohibited from buying a firearm but he used his former girlfriend as a

straw purchaser to buy yet another military style sell my automatic weapon that he used in the shootings. sounds a lot like men of the other shootings i talked about on the floor today. as has been the case, i try to come down to the floor seemingly every week to tell the stories of who these victims are because the numbers don't seem to be moving. 31,000 a year, 2600 a month, 86 a day being killed by guns in this country. so instead my hope is that learning who these people are, learning the ripples of tragedy that unfolded after a family member is killed by guns, maybe that psychology, that connection to the emotion of these shootings might move my colleagues to do something. anything at this point to address this epidemic. brian was 44 years old when he was killed in a shooting, one of three people who were killed at

his workplace shooting in heston, kansas. brian was remembered by his coworker as a very outgoing guy who was always telling jokes, always fun to be around. he had a biting sense of humor. he rooted for the pittsburgh steelers. he wore pittsburgh steelers paraphernalia and gear to work almost every day. he would drop whatever he was doing in order to help his friends who were in need. another friend remembers that brian was a little rough around the edges at times he said but he was the kind of soul who was always there to help. he was a big teddy bear once you got to know him. his friends said he was a recovering addict who had been clean and sober for many years and was instrumental in helping a lot of others overcome addiction. renee benjamin was 30 years old when she was killed. her friends said she's smart. she's beautiful. she was dedicated to excel, that company. she loved that job. she loved the people. i remember the way she loved people. if you ever saw someone smile

from the inside out, she was an inside out person, one of her friends remembered. another friend said -- quote -- "she was a person who always gave her all whatever she did and whoever she loved. she was so smart but she was kind of shy about it. she was so funny, so beautiful. she was my best friend. we shared everything. we shared a life. and she wanted -- all she wanted was love and to be loved." and josh hiking by who was just -- higby who was just a year older, 31. he was a hard-working man. he loved to fish and spend time with his fiance and his 4-yard son. his old -- 4-year-old son. his older brother said josh was mr. fix-it. he loved anything automotive. he was a car guy. he liked to work with his hands. his sister in law said he was taught to be very loving and a kind man. he had this son that he adored, that he took care of and josh would give the shirt off his

back and work long, hard hours to take care of his family. and we pay a lot of attention to these victims of mass shootings because they tend to make the news. you see them on tv but every single day there are 86 people that are being killed by guns. a lot of them suicides but many of them homicides all across this country. they don't make the national news. andre lamont o'neal jr. died earlier this year in louisville, ken ken. andre was 8 years old and his baby-sitter was grilling. well, she also had a gun in her pocket. she had slippery fingers and when he -- the baby-sitter was a he. he attempted to remove the gun from his pocket and it accidentally fired. it struck andre's arm and his chest. his baby-sitter panicked and apparently put andre in a car and took him to a nearby hospital but it was too late.

andre's father, as you can imagine, was overwhelmed. quote -- "he was a good little boy" he told reporters. few weeks later, nicklaus hawkins, 19 years old, in winfield, alabama, told his mother someone was trying to kill him. that was the last time anybody heard from nicklaus. four days later his body was found shot to death. he left high school because of bullying and he had been two weeks away from completing his g.e.d. he inteded to go cosmetology or related field. he loved to write, dance, play guitar. he was good with hair and makeup as described as very funny and quirky. he had a bubbly personality. his friends said he often stole the show. 86 people die every day in this country. you don't hear about all of them because this is just kind of become the wall paper of american news. shootings have become routine,

but this doesn't happen anywhere else in the world. and i just want to finish by talking a little bit about this unfortunate tragic american exceptionalism. america has 4.4% of the world's population but we have 42% of the civilian-owned guns in the world. 4% of the population but nearly half of all of the guns in this country. now, it used to be that about half of americans owned guns. today only about a third of americans own guns but a small number of americans own a lot of weapons. and there are more high powered guns like the one that was used in kansas than ever before. so why does this matter? well, it's because the united states also has more gun deaths than any other nation in the developed world, and it's not even close. here's

the figures of homicides by firearm per 1 million people. australia, new zealand, germany at less than 2 million. in the united states, it's 29 29.million. there's no other country in the world that comes closer to the united states when it comes to the number of who homicides in s country. and this isn't aggregate numbers. this is per 1 million people. and the reason that i show you these two charts is that when you put it together, it tells a pretty interesting and simple story. here's your chart correlating guns per 100 people and gun-related deaths per 100,000 people. all right? here's your line of correlation. it's a pretty simple story, with a handful of outliers like argentina and cypress, the story is, the more guns that you have in a country, the more gun

homicides are going to occur. and here's the united states, on the line but an outliier simply in terms of the number of guns and number of deaths, but simply an extrapolation of a story that all of our other first world competitors could tell by themselves. this rebuts this ridiculous mythology that has been proffered by the drug industry in which they tell us if you have more guns, you're going to be safer. the solution to the tragedy in sandy hook was just that they didn't have enough firearms. if all the teachers would have had helped, that shooter would have been killed. the best way to stop an intruder from attacking you is to arm yourself. the evidence tells us that the more guns in a community, the more people get killed. i'll show at another time this same chr chart on a state-by-ste basis, and it'll tell you the

exact same story. you are more likely to be the victim of gun violence if you have a gun in your house than if you don't have a gun in your house. now, the second amendment is an incredibly important, vital, intory gallon piece of the -- --integral piece of the constitution. i honor people's decision to buy a gun in order to protect themselves. some people live in very violent choices. there are millions of americans who own weapons mured to hunt, in order to shoot for sport, a past pasttime that they enjoy ad have the right to. but they should purchase those weapons with the understanding that there is no data that tells them that they are safer with a weapon in their home. there is no data that suggests that the more guns you have in a particular place, the less likely there are to be homicides and gunning deaths p. that's exactly the -- and gun

deaths. that's exactly the opposite. every single day already 86 people killed in this country from gunges, mr. president. -- from guns, mr. president u2,-6r 00 a month, 30,000 a year. another mass shooting in kansas, another one in kalamazoo. my entire point is to just say at some point we have to recognize that our silence has become complicity in these murders. if we're not willing to forge political consensus this session on legislation that changes gun laws, let's at least make a commitment to fix our mental health system. let's make sure law enforcement has the re the resources need. let's make straw purchasing illegal so that the method that the shooter in kansas th got the gun has consequences at the state level as well as the federal level. let's do something to honor the thousands of victims that mount by the day. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: mr. president, i begin by calling attention of to a private iranian airline designated by the united states department of treasury for its support for terrorism and funn funneling of weapons to hezbollah and to the assad regime in syria. this airline continues to operate and even expand it's international business network, despite tough words from the administration. but this kind of tough language is insufficient. the time to impose sanctions on mahan air is now. the time to impose sanctions on mahan air is clearly now. and i have called on the administration in a letter that i helped to lead, joined by a number of my colleagues, in late

february -- february 29 to the secretary of the treasury. and sanctions might be forthcoming against this airline if this body were to approve adam szubin to be under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, but so far we have failed to do so. his confirmation has been blocked. i regret it. whroarnts whether or not, he's , sanctions should be imposed on this airline. mahan air relies on a host of local partners who provide financial and other sferses for- and other services for it to maintain this robust international network. taking action on mahan air will end actions by mahan a irthat are against international law, support terrorisms and the fu

funneling of weapons to some terrorist groups at that can do harm to the united states as well as to our allies and partners abroad. i also want to talk about the comprehensive addiction and recovery act. hopefully we will vote today in support of it. ate great bipartisan bill. i'm privileged to have worked on it as a member of the judiciary committee, and i thank all of the members of that committee and others -- most especially senator whitehouse and senator leahy -- for incorporating provisions that i have helped to author in this bill. we've heard from our colleagues around the country about the public health crisis that we face today. it is more than a crisis.

it's a hurricane, almost like a public health hurricane, a natural disaster that requires us to act now. abuse and addiction are crippling our communities, shattering our families, carrying enormous financial and human costs. and the overdose deaths have steadily increased. they now surpass automobile accidents as the leading cause of injury-related death for americans between the age of 25 and 64. the united states consumes over 80% of prescription opioids, even though we make up only 4.6% of the world's population. in connecticut, i have held round tables across our state, and i hear again and again the tragic stories of young people who begin taking powerful painkillers when they break a

leg or a wrist in a sports injury or they have wisdom teeth removed, and they receive a prescription for 30 days. they only need three days' worth of painkillers, if they need them at all. but the overprescription and the abuse at that results from it often lead to addiction. and the gateway to addiction are these powerful painkillers that provide the beginnings of the problem. one university counselor wrote me recently when i began this position 14 years ago, it was extremely uncommon to be working with a student who abused a substance besides alcohol. today i have a recovery house and a program full of students battling addiction from prescription opioids." i've heard from mother others ad

families, from teachers and counselors who have struggled to find quality abuse treatment programs and behavioral health services for their loved one. one mother wrote to me about her two sons. eight years ago who oldest son died from a heroin overdose after a prescription program released him early and her younger son continues to struggle with addiction but was recently told by his insurance company that he lacked a long enough history of substance abuse to qualify for inpatient treatment. we must address these problems, and it is multifaceted. supporting law enforcement is part of the solution, with resources and with other measures that will enable interdiction of the supplies of

heroin and cracking down on the illicit supplies of painkillers. but law enforcement have told me, as a former colleague, that we're not going to arrest our way out of this problem. the jails and prisons alone do not provide a solution, and there is a fleed for more treatment -- a need for more treatment and services. i hear that point again and again and again, but that source of solutions alone will not be a pan sighia. there is no -- a panacea. there is no one solution. education for our doctors and providers and prescribers is part of what is needed. again, alone no single solution is sufficient. i want to thank the bill sponsors for incorporating a

provision that i wrote with senator coats, the expanding access to prescription drug monitoring access act. this provision would allow nurse practitioners and physician assistants to access the information they need; specifically, they would be able to access state prescription drug monitoring programs to consult a patient's prescription opioid history and determine if that patient has a history of addiction or is receiving multiple prescriptions from multiple sources. it's crit challengit's criticale the key role of nurse practitioners and physician assistants. and i propose a number of amendments that attack other elements of this problem. i am going to continue to advocate for them, whether they're in the fin final packagr

not vmentz som. some of them may well be. i will continue the effort to make them real a dopt them as law -- to make them real and adopt them a law. we've heard that many struggling with addiction start by abusing those prescription drugs after receiving a legitimate prescription, and that's why senator markey and i have introduced an amendment, number 3382, that would cut down on overprescribing of opioids by requiring providers when they apply for license from the d.e.a. to prescribe these controlled substances to first complete education programs so that they are encouraged to adopt responsible prescribing practices. and those practices can be as simple as keeping track and

scrutinizing the use of these painkillers. every licensee, every provider, every nurse practitioner, everyone writing out a slip of paper that enables somebody to purchase these powerful prescription painkillers would have to take a course and complete this training. in blumenthal number 3327, a separate measure that i am proposing as ranking member of the veterans' affairs committee, there would be better access to naloxone, known as narcan, by veterans. we've seen how naloxone or narcan is a life safer. it can bring people back from death. there should be more of it available on the streets of

connecticut and in neighborhoods and communities across the country. it is insufficiently available. it has skyrocketed in price, and there have been shortages. but i've seen how the opioid epidemic has affected tuckl tucs affected our veteran veterans. we've moved to address that problem. in wisconsin, and with senator baldwin, we have worked to craft legislation that will help contain and cut that abusive prescription of opioids. i believe that this measure will give information to veterans that they need and tools they need also to prevent death in case of an overdose. much of the work of the veterans' affairs committee has focused on the opioid epidemic.

and in the jason simakowski act that we're working to pass into law. but safe prescribing of opioids is vital because many veterans, even when legitimately prescribed, have serious pain issues that can lead to abuse once those issues are addressed. and so i have filed this amendment that would eliminate the requirement that veterans' co-pay pay a co-pay for nalaxone kits and for education for providers as to how to use them. in other words, the providers would provide education along with providing the prescription as to how to use the narcan kits that veterans could receive without any co-pay.

nalaxone is necessary for those first responders, and the underlying bill includes provisions that would help to provide it. but this measure would focus particularly on veterans where the need is great and growing greater. i want to point out that the cost of this measure would be less than $100,000 per year. the savings in dollars long term would vastly exceed that amount. and the savings in lives more than justify it, even without the savings in dollars. we're talking here about the ability to save veterans' lives. we have an obligation to leave no veteran behind, to keep faith with our veterans, to make sure that a minimal amount of spending will enable saving of

lives. i appreciate, again, the work of my colleagues in crafting this bill. i hope we will move forward in passing it and that the amendments that i have suggested will be adopted to strengthen even further. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: mr. president, it's now been be seven months since the united states had an ambassador to mexico. mexico, as we all know, is our third largest trading partner. bilateral trade totals more than

a half trillion dollars. more than $1 billion in two-way -- in two-way trade or exchange between the u.s. and mexico every day. border states obviously enjoy a close relationship, robust trade with mexico, my home state of arizona exports about $9.2 billion in goods every year. arizona has expanded its trade relationship with mexico by reopening a trade office in mexico city. mexico has reciprocated by opening an office in arizona. yet, for more than half a year, we have not had a representative in place with the mexican government to deal with the mexican ghoft on issues of mutual cooperation, issues of importance and of concern. the bilateral economic relationship between the u.s. and mexico is not the only issue of importance, obviously,

between our two countries. transportation issues, security threats, natural resource management, environmental issues, these are just a few of the fronts on which we can cooperate with mexico, and such cooperation requires a close partnership between our countries. the longer we go without an ambassador there, the more this partnership suffers. now, the relationship between the united states and mexico has historically been important and previous administrations have acknowledged this by appointing top-notch candidates to serve as our envoy to mexico. the current nominee to serve as ambassador to mexico is no exception to this historical trend. as a career member of the senior executive service, roberta jacobsen has spent more than three decades working on latin american policy for presidents on both sides of the aisle. she is obviously fluent in spanish. she has earned the respect of her colleagues.

i have worked personally with roberta jacobson, and i can attest to her professionalism and her experience. she was reported out of the foreign relations committee by a vote of 12-7 in november. yet, the post with mexico city remains open three months later. mr. president, our relationship with mexico is far too important to let this post go vacant any longer, particularly when we have a qualified candidate who has been vetted by the foreign relations committee, reported to the senate with the majority -- with a majority of its members. i urge the senate to take up this matter expeditiously. i would yield back and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: are we in morning business right now? the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. politburo manchin: i ask to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: i call up my amendment 3420. the clerk: the senator from west virginia, mr. manchin, proposes amendment numbered 3420 to amendment numbered 3378. mr. manchin: mr. president, i would like to explain the amendment having been read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: i rise today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment 3420. it's to the comprehensive addiction and recovery act of 2015. as my colleagues know, our country is facing a prescription drug epidemic. every one of us in our states, all 50 of us, are having that problem, and it's a horrific problem. the cara act that we are about -- that we are working on and we're about to pass, it's a good start to addressing this crisis, which is why i'm a proud cosponsor of it. my amendment simply does what you would think common sense

would already prevail. my amendment improves the bill by helping those on the front lines of this terrible epidemic provide their communities with the information they need to help stop the spread of opioid addiction and help people seek treatment. it will better enable us to educate individuals about the dangers of opiate abuse, practices to help prevent opiate abuse, including the safe disposal of unused medication and how to detect the early warning signs of addiction. this amendment will help us save lives by raising awareness about the dangers of prescription opiate medications to prevent opiate addiction in the first place and ensuring that loved ones know how to help when a friend or family member becomes addicted. we have over two million americans that are addicted to opiates. many of these individuals began the road to addiction with a seemingly innocent prescription and little or no warning about the danger from their physicians.

or it began when a friend offered a pill that they thought couldn't be that dangerous because it was prescribed by their doctor. there is simply too little understanding about the dangers of these drugs. too many people get sucked into opiate addiction because they don't understand the risks. likewise, the people close to them don't recognize the signs of addiction. the presiding officer: all time for debate has expired. mr. manchin: if i could have half a minute to finish? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: or know how to assess the resources to help their loved ones. i want to thank senator murray, senator alexander, senator grassley, all of the people who have helped me on this in considering this bipartisan amendment with a bipartisan piece of legislation. mr. president, if we want to -- if we want to stop opiate addiction, we ought to start by preventing it, and that preventing it starts with information and education that people do not have today. this helps every one of us in all parts of this great country. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the question occurs on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: