quorum call:

mr. coats: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, today marks my 36th -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. coats: i'm sorry about that, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president, today marks the 36th edition

of my "waste of the week." for those who have been listening -- i'm not sure how many that is -- i've been down here for 36 weeks while the senate is in session addressing what has been documented as waste, fraud, and abuse. i took a major role when i first came back to the senate starting in 2011 to deal with the larger issue, the larger issue, of course, is our plunge into debt and deficit through deficit spending year after year after year. and despite numerous attempts, many of them bipartisan, all blocked by decisions made at 1600 pennsylvania avenue, we have not been able to put in place a reasonable plan -- or any plan whatsoever -- that would reduce our spending to a balanced budget and begin to chip away at this ever-deepening

cesspool of debt that is hurting our economy and laying a burden on future generations that will have enormous negative consequences. so given the fact that those larger efforts came to naught, i have decided to start chipping away from the other end of the spectrum -- the financial fiscal spectrum, and that is to identify waste, fraud, and abuse at that can easily be identified by this body, by our government here in terms of making it a much more efficient, effective federal government and not a waste of taxpayers dollars that these days are hard-earned and pretty scarce. and so this "waste of the week" deals with not as substantive issue as many of these. the 36th talks about a whole lang of issues here -- a whole

range of issues here that is taking a lot of taxpayer dollars out of the purses and waltz of our constituent -- wallets of our constituents, sent to washington and simply wasted. but every once in a while, i try to look into something that's so ridiculous that it catches the public's attention and ought to embarrass ever membe every membs body. because you can make some arguments about, well, perhaps the social security disability fund could be adjusted so that we wouldn't do this or wouldn't do that. or perhaps what you raised about the waste in terms of obamacare issues ... but i like to every fourth or fifth time down here, to throw out something where people say, are you kidding me? we are actually using our hard-earned tax dollars to do this? and i've been two or three or four of those issues.

i think the one that caught the most attention was the grant that went out for well into the hundreds of thousands of of dollars to determine whether or not a massage made you feel better after an expenditure of physical effort. now, i think there's probably no one in america that wouldn't conclude if they're asked that question that, yeah, that works. i'd rather -- i'd prefer that over not that at all. but this grant was used to determine that, and so rather than taking a human subject, the grant was used for mechanical massages on the backs of white rabbits. actually, these rabbits were from australia, i believe it was -- or was it new zealand? what difference does that make? anyway, the mechanical massages. then they looked at either the

grin on the rabbit's -- i don't know how he determined -- the rabbits couldn't turn around and say, yeah, that really feels good. but apparently they made some kind of conclusion. and they came to the conclusion that yes, it really works. now, look, i mean, that caught people's attention. but i think they ought to be outraged -- and a lot of people are outraged -- at the way we are spending their money. there are people trying to make the mortgage payment. there are people trying to get to the end of the week for the next payment to buy groceries or to set aside money for their kids to go to school, and we're using this -- so, anyway, here we are -- and this is one of those weeks where i want to bring forward yet another "can you really believe this is how the federal government is spending your money?" i'm told by my younger staff

that there's a new word called hanhangry. it means that if you are hungry, you tend to get a little bit disjointed and you're more angry than you were if you're not hungry. i suppose that's something easily we could prove by all of us. well, what is our disposition when we're angry? are we a little more tense? are we a little more quicker triggered in terms of getting upset with what someone may say to us, or something like that, a little more irritable? so this new generation has taken this condition called hangry -- hanger and turned it into hangry which means that you're hungry. so none other than the national science foundation said, well,

we better find out whether or not this is true. and so they issued a $331,000 grant for researchers to study whether or not hanger actually occurs. so if you get hungry, do you end up feeling hangry? i think i got that right. that was the question. so for $331,000, the researchers issued a grant for the study of married couples and they wanted to determine -- first of all they said, you want to get to the point where you're hungry and then to test whether or not you're hungry, at the came up with this idea. listen, you can't make this stuff up. they came up with the idea of giving each spouse a voodoo doll, and if they felt that they

were hangry because they were hungry, they said, take a pin and stick it into the voodoo doll. and at the end of the experiment, we'll see whether it's this wife or the husband that has the most pins stuck in their own voodoo doll. they each had their own voodoo doll. like i said, you can't make this stuff up. it only cost $331,000. so whenever their spouse made the other spouse angry, that other spouse grabbed their voodoo doll, grabbed a pin, and stuck it in. and the conclusion was that after a three-year study and $331,000 spent, yup, we proved it. hangry occurs when you're hungry. now, there's some pages here that are trying to hold back their laughter. i see a lot of smiles on the faces of the people in this

chamber saying, surely this can't be true? surely you made this up? surely you're just coming down here as a spoof to try to prove a point. this actually happened, folks. this actually happened. and the serious part of it is that the taxpayer paid for it. now, at a time when we're trying to repair roads and bridges, when we're trying to put money forward for health care research, when we're dealing with all kinds of terrorist issues and we want to make sure our national security is strong, when our military is underfunded, when we're trying to deal with the issues of the day, we are taking this money and, of all things, the national science foundation -- when you mention "national science foundation," people think, well, this is serious stuff. i don't know howmp of this stufi don't know ouch of this stuff they do, but there it is. we take the $331,000 and add it to our ever-growing accumulation of documented -- documented --

waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars and we now have risen to a position of $157 $157,591,000,000 and change. it's not small stuff. it adds up. and this is what your federal government is doing, and we wonder why the american people are frustrated? we wonder why they are angry? when they hear issues like this? i'm not trying to stoke that issue and make the american people more hangry. i'm sumly trying to expose -- i'm simply trying to exsuppose this so we will be so embarrassed with these kinds of things, people will come down to this chamber here and offer legislation to clean up some of this stuffer. we've already made some -- some of this stuff. we've already made some progress in terms of some other stuff. i've talked about that of about. with that, mada mr. president, a note yielding the floor. i've reserved the floo some timk

about something that is very serious. in the meantime, i will take this down and discuss an issue that i think has an impact on all of us, in particular our national security. last week neig nato's commander testified to the senate armed services committee about how he views the threats facing us today and what the most serious threats are to the united states. featured among them that he raised was the serious migration crisis that's destabilizing our european allies in particular. let me quote from the general. "europe faces the dawngtsing challenge of mass migration spurred by state instability and state collapse." "the influx of people is masking the movements of criminals, terrorists, and foreign fighters. within this mix, isis or isil is

spreading like a cancer, taking advantage of paths of least resistance, threatening european nations and our own nation with terrorist attacks." and each day as we watch on television or read in the papers, this migration crisis continues to grow and grow worse. efforts by the european union to stem the tide have failed to even slow down the flow of refugees and migrants. so these repeated failures now moving into its second year are threatening to break the european union apart. as each member country now resorts to a -- quote -- "fortress europe mentality enforced by national means." and these include new raiser-wire barriers along the external and internal e.u. borders. they encourage diversion of national policies on refugee

admissions that make almost a mockery of the e.u. policy consensus or even common efforts. the e.u. agreement on common borders described as the shangan agreement of 1985, has been considered the bedrock of european unity. if this fundamental agreement is crushed by the unsupportable weight of thousands -- hundreds of thousands -- of desperate migrants, how can the european union itself be saved? that's the question. many of our european friends are asking that question. i was recently in munich at a security conference where representatives from all the european nations were there. number-one topic. the flow of migration and the destabilization of europe and the unity of europe. nations not abiding by their earlier commitments to receive migrants. nations rising barriers and

building walls, whether they're razor walls or concrete walls around their borders. this is creating a major crisis in europe. political stability and social cohesion of individual european states are clearly under strain. street riots we've seen, police suppression, growing hostility between citizens and migrant groups are spreading like wildfire, extremist political groups are feeding on this chaos and further threatening democratic institutions even in germany, an extremist right wing basically facist party has grown support from zero a few years ago from 15% to 20% today taking over in many places as the third-largest party in germany. we all know that after key state elections this weekend, this may be growing. the latest e.u. effort to come to grips with this enormous problem is continuing at a

summit meeting this week in brussels with attendance by turkey. the draft agreement on the table shows how desperate the europeans have become. without discussing the detailed items here, it is sufficient to note that the central proposition under consideration is this. a convoluted system to send some migrant refugees from greece back to turkey in exchange for other migrants to be resettled directly from turkey to european countries. the united nations high commission for refugees and other refugee organizations have denounced this proposal as unworkable and illegal. some e.u. countries such as hahn gather have -- hundred -- hungary have promised to veto to scheme. i have to guess that even if it's accepted and enacted, it's unlikely to address meaningful, the real dimensions of this migration problem. something else clearly has to be

done. the numbers that are coming in show an expanding, emple expanding number -- ever expandg number of migrants seeking relief by taking treacherous routes, many of them guided by criminal elements into europe and the european resistance and the instability that all of that has provided. the draft e.u. turkey agreement does include a commitment to pursue another idea and that's what i want to talk about here this afternoon. i have long advocated this as hopefully a more workable solution, and that is to create conditions in and near syria that will permit people to remain there in humane conditions of relative safety near their home country within their own culture. to my knowledge, european leaders as a group have not before committed to pursue this

solution. but i have raised it with european leaders personally and the response has often included the caution that europe would not be willing to commit the resources necessary for such a solution. i agree that the resources required would be considerable and the political courage required would be even greater. but i have argued what is the alternative. until political leaders in europe and here as well as wellt creating safe areas near syria the political courage and vision to take it up will be absent. but now at last the europeans having failed at a number of other efforts to address this destabilizing problem, they're talking about it. it's always been clear to me that such a solution is far beyond the capacity for europe alone. it will require the united states and other cooperating powers to work with our european partners to create areas in and

near syria where syrians can find safety and humanitarian relief. as difficult as this task soundt has been done before. there's a precedent here. the manner in which the international community eventually came to deal successfully with bosnia war in the 1990's gives us a useful template for how we can approach the safe area task in syria. that template derived from our bosnia experience includes two essential proponents: the united nations security council and nato, north atlantic treaty organization. first, we're going to have to have a clear mandate from the u.n. security council creating u.n. designated safe areas. and secondly, the united nations security council would have to create a new u.n. protective force. unprofor is the term that was used in the balkans. in the balkan example, that

force was compromised of 40,000 troops from 42 contributing countries. in syria i would suggest that such a force would include most nato countries and especially neighboring islamic countries. russia also should be pressed to participate. nato could take on primary planning and organization tasks. when i discussed this proposal with europeans, the first response has been that no one is willing to put troops in the field to fight this war. it's important to emphasize that this unprofor would not be in syria to fight the war. rather, it would exist to protect the designated safe areas. the force would have policing functions intended to protect and secure the borders and keep radical elements out or under control. and that was the model that was put in place in the balkans. it succeeded. there were some glitches. there were some problems, but it

succeeded. third, it's obvious that safe areas in syria would require rigidly enforced no-fly zone authorized by the unsc. mr. president, having provided in a number of times, when the clerk turns and discusses the time frame, i might ask am i p under a time limitation? and if not, i would like to ask unanimous consent to extend that for just a few moments. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president, as i said, it's obvious that safe areas in syria would require rigidly enforced no-fly zones authorized by the united nations security council. i suggested that with its planning and leadership capabilities and massive resources, nato should take on that job as it did in the balkans. in this role too, nato must work creatively to bring the regional powers in a broad coordinated effort under nato leadership. and fourth, as in bosnia, the u.n. must mobilize a massive

relief effort within syria led by the unhch and similar humanitarian organizations. the international community must be willing to pay for this important humanitarian effort. we should call for major contributions from the regional states, european countries and other traditional donor countries long committed to the humanitarian crisis. dealing with so many refugees in safe, humane conditions will be expensive, yes, but it cannot be more expensive than the costs already being borne by those designation countries burdened with uncontrolled migration. in the current discussions with turkey, the e.u. has offered circumstance billion yew rose to help them deal with refugees and turkey reportedly reportedly demanded as many as 20 billion. with such sums being discussed, and this almost certainly are underestimates, the costs for dealing with these desperate

people humanely in conditions of safely near their homeland are easily justified. far vaster costs would be incurred if this problem is not dealt with effectively. for example, the collapse of the schengen system and reenforcement of the borders in europe, a process underway could cost as much as 1.4 trillion euros. this is the cost in reduced economic output for the region, not including the cost for infrastructure and personnel if the schengen system is abandoned. in returning to where i began, mr. president, the extra security gained by such a solution is beyond price. i strongly believe the time has now come for us to press vigorously for this safe area solution to the migrant crisis. the problem is growing far worse with each passing month. efforts to identify solutions have failed and the safe area

proposal may be the only one left standing. those who are discouraged by the admitted obstacles and great difficulties in pursuing a solution must simply be persuaded to take it up with creativity, determination, courage, and leadership. i've discussed this proposal directly with vice president biden, secretary of state kerry, supreme a lead commander and nato commander and other leaders. the vice president agrees that the bosnia precedent could be a useful guide. the general agrees that there are sufficient resources if there is sufficient political will. the european leaders i've spoken with agree that no other alternative is visible at this time. that they included this idea in the negotiations with turkey is a positive sign. i p intend to keep these discussions going in coming days. in conclusion, i am under no illusions about how difficult this task would be for either us or our allies.

it's an enormous undertaking even when it does not address the underlying conflict in syria, which is so far defied all of our best efforts. it is something that we must pursue. however, the continuing flow of millions of refugees and migrants is completely unsustainable, posing serious threats to our iran friends and ultimately to all of us. and so, mr. president, i will continue to press for this and talk to european leaders and others in our country to see this as a necessary and viable and doable solution to a crisis situation that is having enormous impacts on the stability of europe and even on the united states in terms of this humanitarian crisis. with that, i thank my colleague for his patience in my concluding this and will yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i'm here now for the 130th in

my time to wake up series urging us to wake up to the threat of climate change here. time and time again peer-reviewed science demonstrates that carbon pollution from burning fossil fuels is causing unprecedented climate and oceanic changes. we see the effects already in our farms, our forests and our fisheries. yet, the republican-controlled congress continues to hit the snooze button every time an alarm goes off. every major scientific society in our country upon examining the data says climate change is real and it's caused by our carbon pollution. so do all of our national laboratories. so do our leading home state universities. the presiding officer is from nebraska, so let me read what the university of nebraska says on its web site.

climate change poses significant risks to nebraska's economy, environment, and citizens. end quote. another quote, "the magnitude and rapidity of the projected changes in climate are unprecedented. the fundamental science of climate change is settled and the stakes of the climate crisis loom large. in poll after poll, americans demonstrate they understand the connection between climate change and the role humans play in affecting climate. a recent poll shows 64% of americans support enacting policies to address climate change. 78% of americans think the federal government should curb the release of greenhouse gases. in spite of the overwhelming science demonstrating climate change is real and the growing awareness and determination of the american public to do something about it, congress continues to prevaricate.

the reason is simple: the power and threats of the fossil fuel industry. but is this strategy, the fossil fuel industry strategy of obstruction and denial, actually self-injurious? let's look at coal. the coal industry, long-term provider of inexpensive yet dirty energy, is in economic decline. between 2008 and 2014, coal production and consumption have decreased by 15% and 18% respectively. analysis by the u.s. energy information administration suggests 2015 u.s. coal production was likely down a further 10%, the lowest level since 1986.

coal is losing its share of the electricity market to natural gas and to wind power. from 2002 to 2012, net generation from coal declined by 22%, and coal-fired electricity which just 15 years ago constituted 50% of the electricity on the grid now makes up only 33% roughly and falling. gas-fired power plants generated more energy than coal. in seven of the 12 months of 2015. prior to 2015, gas-fired electricity generation never exceeded coal. the top four u.s. coal companies, peabodyy energy, arch coal, cloud peak energy and alpha natural resources proudly produced less than half the volume of domestic coal in the country. in the past five years, all four

companies' stock prices have crashed. according to a recent report from the cannon center, a libertarian-leaning think tank, the combined total revenue of these top producers between 2010 and 2014 declined by approximately 18%. wall street giant goldman sachs recently delivered more bad news for the global coal market. according to its analysis, and i'll quote, -- "the industry does not require new investment, given the ability of existing assets to satisfy flat demand, so prices will remain under pressure as the deflationary cycle continues." the coal industry seems divorced from this reality. consider what peabody c.e.o. gregory royce argued in his 2014 annual report. "thermal coal consumption from the u.s. regions is likely to

increase 50 million to 70 million tons over the next three years as natural gas prices recover, demand from other regions is displaced and expected coal plant retirements is offset by higher plant utilization rates. well, the energy information administration disagrees, projecting thermal coal demand growth of just four million tons between 2012-2018. and remember this was peabody energy c.e.o. speaking. last week, wyoming's "star tribune" reported peabody energy senior lenders are recommending america's largest coal company file for bankruptcy. as arch coal, the second largest coal miner in the u.s., did in january. patriot coal corporation, walter energy and alpha natural resources have also all filed for bankruptcy in the past year.

the fossil fuel strategy of political obstruction for coal is looking more and more like economic suicide. in some corners, light is dawning. appalachian power president and c.e.o. charles patton told a meeting of energy executives last fall that coal is losing a long-term contest with natural gas and renewables. he said this -- "if we believe we can just change administrations and this issue is going to go away, we're making a terrible mistake." well, what if there is an answer to this terrible mistake that is also an answer to climate change? what if we could reduce the amount of carbon pollution we dump into the atmosphere and oceans while helping communities to transition from coal-based economies to clean energy ones,

helping coal miners. more and more, conservative and libertarian economists are making the case that the ailing coal industry should embrace a fee on carbon. the idea is simple. you levy a price on a thing you don't want, carbon pollution, and you use the revenue to pay for things you do want. greg eppe, chief economics commentator for "the wall street journal" wrote the most reliable way to limit the burning of fossil fuels is to alter market signals so as to divert demand toward cleaner sources of energy or conservation. we know how to do that -- put a price on carbon dioxide missions by attacks or via tradable emissions louances in a

cap-and-trade system. both incentivize the market to find the least economically harmful way to reduce emissions. dr. aparma masseu conducted an analysis with a colleague from the brookings institution, showing that a carbon fee could reduce emissions and shore up the country's fiscal outlook and play an important role in broader tax reform. dr. mateur points out, the fact that we understand better the burden of a carbon tax and how to offset it for low-income households should make us more likely to adopt this policy, not less so. in fact, even the fossil fuel industry knows a carbon tax is an effective mechanism to help shift toward a lower carbon energy future. six of the world's major oil and gas companies, including b.p. group and royal dutch shell, wrote the united nations last summer, saying that they could take faster climate action if governments work together to put a proper price on the

environmental and economic harms of greenhouse gas emissions. here's what they said -- "we need governments across the world to provide us with clear, stable, long-term ambitious policy frameworks. we believe that a price on carbon should be a key element of these frameworks. harvard professor n. gregory mankew was chair of the council for economic advisors for president george w. bush, and he served as economic advisor to republican presidential nominee mitt romney. he agrees -- quote -- "the best way to curb carbon emissions is to put a price on carbon." with a robust price on carbon, congress could help coal mining companies. help coal mine workers, and help states and communities with

significant coal mining activity. a carbon fee could be used to help coal companies by supplanting current taxes and fees and funding carbon capture for existing operating coal plants. a carbon fee could help coal workers by retraining them for high-paying jobs and providing pension and health care security not available from bankrupted employers. a carbon fee can provide assistance to coal mining communities, help them transition through all the challenges i have described. a report by david bookbinder and david bailey of the nasgannon center says this -- "the coal industry is facing terminal decline and -- decline, an unfettered chaotic decline of

the coal industry would create major economic and social issues such as a multitude of unfunded liabilities, particularly for coal-dependent states. they point out that there is a way to solve these problems. quote -- "compensation for the losers from government policy action is an important conservative principle. it is in this spirit that i introduced, along with senator schatz, the american opportunity carbon sea act of -- carbon fee act of last year. i call it a carbon fee because none of the revenues would go to fund big government. the bill is a simple proposal to cut emissions while raising over $2 trillion in revenue, all of which would be returned to the american people. no bigger government. in addition to slashing the corporate tax rate which the revenues would let us do and providing families with tax

credits beginning at $1,000 per couple, which the revenues would also allow us to do, the bill would provide $20 billion of flexible annual funding back to the people through their states to be used to help them through this inevitable transition, this inevitable transition. in coal-heavy states, this money could make the difference for communities that have been reliant on coal jobs. arthur laffer, economic advisor to president reagan, called our bill a game changer. he said of my proposal i applaud senator whitehouse's efforts to reduce carbon emissions while simultaneously offsetting through pro growth marginal tax rate decreases the harm done to the economy by the carbon tax. i introduced my bill to start a

conversation with republicans on how best to design a carbon fee to help the economy. i would welcome the opportunity to sit down with any colleague to discuss ways to improve our proposal. the coal industry in particular has a clear choice. either keep fighting climate action, keep obstructing, keep your head in the sand, continue to be truck length and obtuse until they crash into more bankruptcies in that unfettered, chaotic decline the center predicts or they could embrace a carbon fee and use it to provide for coal communities, to provide for coal workers, to provide for

carbon recovery and to provide for retirees burdened with unfunded pension obligations. mr. president, i have put a ladder into the water, and i urge the coal industry before it goes under to grab hold. i yield the floor.

mr. peters: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: mr. president, our nation's founders fought the british empire to create an independent nation governed by laws. they fought so that their children could be free from the callous fiats of a monarchy on the other side of the ocean. our founders learned from the excesses and mistakes of european powers and came together to design a new system of government. a carefully balanced system, one of distributed powers and responsibilities, checks and balances. american school children learned about the three co-equal branches of government and the unique roles that they play in maintaining that carefully crafted balance of power. a strong, independent and fully functioning judiciary is inseparable from a peelt american democracy. our founders wisely reached

consensus to create our system wherein the president designates judicial nominees and the senate provides advice and consent. this prevents undue influence or control by either the white house or the congress over the supreme court. simply put, the senate has a constitutional duty to provide timely consideration of any president's supreme court nominees. today i'd like to focus on three distinct and complementary reasons why we must fulfill this obligation. first, we should examine the ample historical records available to determine the intent of our nation's founders. second, we should look at the actual text of the constitution and the plain meaning of the words in the document we all agree represents the highest law in the land. finally, we can look at the senate's track record and traditions when it comes to considering supreme court

nominees. as senators, we raise our hand and take a solemn oath to defend the constitution of the united states and faithfully discharge the duties of our office. what are the core constitutionally mandated duties of serving as a united states senator is to advise and consent on supreme court nominees, and it is not one that we can take lightly. mr. president, we are fortunate that many of our nation's forefathers were prolific writers who left us reams of documents that now help us understand the debates and the discussions that led to our current system of government. our nation's fourth president and the youngest member of the constitutional convention, james madison, kept a record of the debates that occurred during those formative months of our nation in the summer of 1787. i urge my colleagues to revisit this record as they consider how to proceed with our nation's

next supreme court nominee. on june 4, 1787, james wilson of pennsylvania, a signatory of the declares of independence and a member of the continental congress, argued that justices should be appointed by the executive branch alone and strongly opposed appointments made by the federal legislature. madison disliked the appointment of judges by the legislature but also wasn't satisfied with a unilateral executive appointment. he ultimately suggested that judicial appointments should be made by the senate. this issue of judicial appointments was debated vigorously and continued over multiple sessions as delegates traded proposals. charles pickney of south carolina and roger sherman of connecticut opposed wilson and pushed for the legislative appointment of justices. madison, however, moved us closer to our present system by

suggesting that only the senate should have the power to appoint justices to the supreme court and not the house of representatives. nathaniel gorham, a gel gatt from massachusetts -- delegate from massachusetts first introduced the concept of appointment by the president with the advice and consent of the senate. this approach resolved the concerns of delegates who believed unilateral presidential appointments bordered on monarchy while also addressing the concern that legislative appointments were simply too vulnerable to the fleeting parochial interests that may dominate the discussion on any given day. months later on september 7, 1787, the delegates unanimously agreed on the final language that governs the nomination of confirmation of supreme court justices to this day. our founders focus on the appointment and confirmation of the supreme court justices was not an academic exercise, nor was it an intergovernmental turf

war. it was deliberative process with a clear goal, a strong and independent judiciary. alexander hamilton probably the most prolific of our founders when it comes to the written word directly addressed the independence of the judiciary in the "federalist papers." he argued and i quote -- "liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments." hamilton was concerned that a supreme court too heavily influenced by congress or the white house would not adequately protect the rights and freedoms of the american people. he wrote that an independent judiciary and i quote again, "will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution because it will be the least in a capacity to annoy or injure them." tying the hands of the supreme

court by keeping an empty seat on the nine-member bench amounts to a union between the departments that hamilton has warned us about. refusing to even consider a supreme court nominee strengthens the senate to the detriment of the executive and judicial branches, throws off a carefully crafted balance of power, and contravenes our founders' intent. some legal scholars, senators and members of the judiciary argue that intent is irrelevant and that we should strictly construe the words on the page. let's look at the plain meaning of the constitutional text. article 3, section 1 states that the judicial power of the united states shall be vested in one supreme court and in such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordained and establish. while lower courts could be established by congress, the supreme court resolves issues

between and among the states. it is the highest court in the land, a court of finality. the constitution specifically addresses the appointment of justices to the supreme court. article 2, section 2 states that the president, and i quote, "shall nominate -- and i repeat -- shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the senate shall -- and i repeat -- shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and counsels, judges of the supreme court." "shall "is not a word that is considered ambiguous. its meaning hasn't evolved over time. it's not open for interpretation. it's not permissive in nature. it is instructive. and it is clear. there are many modern day issues that we face that our founders could never have imagined. we'll grapple with novel constitutional questions for as long as this nation exists. but the question of how supreme court justices are appointed is

something our founders debated, decided, and they enshrined in the constitution. the president is required to nominate a justice and the senate has the job of confirming or rejecting that appointment. if the senate attempts to undermine the president's constitutional responsibility to nominate a justice and this body fails to provide advice and consent on that nomination, we have then abdicated one of the senate's most important and sacred constitutional obligations. mr. president, the senate has a long-standing tradition of swiftly considering and confirming judicial nominees. presidents and the senate have historically taken their responsibility to fill the supreme court very seriously, even when they were at odds over who that nominee may have been. i am surprised and also disappointed that so many of my

colleagues seem to be ignoring their constitutional obligations in a stark departure from the history of the u.s. senate. according to the nonpartisan congressional research service, since the judiciary committee's creation 200 years ago, they have typically reported supreme court nominations that were opposed by a committee majority to allow the full senate to make the final decision on whether the nominee should be confirmed. let me repeat this very important fact. even if a nominee was opposed in committee, their nomination was still brought to the floor of the senate for a vote. let's also consider recent history. since 1975 the time from a president's formal nomination to hearing has averaged just 42 days. the time from a nomination to committee vote has averaged 57

days. the time from a nomination to floor vote has averaged 70 days. the current vacancy that we are dealing with occurred 269 days before the 2016 election and with 342 days remaining in president obama's term in office. without doing whole lot of math, it's safe to say that there's more than enough time to nominate, consider, and confirm a supreme court justice before the november election if we move at a deliberate, average pace on par with what has existed for over four decades. if the senate waits for a new administration before even considering a nominee, we will be approaching a full year with an empty seat on the highest court in the land. not since the american civil war has the senate taken longer than a year to fill a supreme court vacancy. there's a reason that presidents

and senate work together and historically do not drag out supreme court confirmations. an eight-member supreme court simply cannot fully do its job. the cases in which the supreme court relies on having all nine justices to break a deadlock are often those that are most contested. they involve timely, novel legal issues and resolve splits between federal circuit courts. legal scholar justin pedo recently cited chief justice william rhenquist regarding situations where the court of appeals had arrived at different conclusions about the resolution of legal issues. rhenquist said, and i quote, " "affirmants of each conflicting results would lay down one rule in athens and another in rome with a vengeance. over 30 constitutional law scholars recently echo that

sentiment writing it and i quote, "a vacancy on the court for a year and a half likely would mean many instances where the court could not resolve a split among the circuits. there would be very -- a very undesirable result that the same federal law would differ in meaning in various parts of our country. and federal law is just that. it's federal. we cannot have one interpretation of federal law in michigan, ohio, and kentucky and a whole different interpretation of law in wisconsin, illinois, and indiana. previous presidents have weighed in on the importance of a fully operational court. president reagan, and i quote president reagan. he said every day that passes with a supreme court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body. i know many of my colleagues here in the senate revere president reagan and i would

like to repeat his importance -- his important words that have so much relevance to what we are debating here today. and i quote again. he said "every day that passes with a supreme court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body." in fact, president reagan was able to make a supreme court appointment in his final year in office. the senate fulfilled its duties by providing timely consideration of that nominee justice anthony kennedy. forcing the courts of last resort empowers courts and weakens the supreme court in a way that was never intended by the framers of the united states constitution. mr. president, i would remind my colleagues that the constitution allows congress to decide how to organize the lower courts, but the constitution requires -- it

requires the advice and consent of the senate for confirmation of supreme court justices. we must do our job so that the supreme court can do theirs. the american people have elected president obama to office twice, and he has a constitutional obligation and clear authority to nominate a candidate to succeed justice scalia on the supreme court. the senate has previously confirmed six supreme court nominees in presidential election years, including most recently under president reagan. there is no reason we should not consider any nominee put forward by the president with a fair hearing and a vote. each and every member of this body has the responsibility to thoroughly scrutinize and decide whether or not to confirm the president's nominee. i ran for the united states senate because of my desire to serve the people of the state of

michigan. i took an oath as did every member of this body swearing to defend the constitution and faithfully discharge the duties of our office. the senate must honor the thoughtfulness of our country's forefathers and respect the independence of each of the branches of our nation's government. we must also respect the united states constitution. the rule of the -- the role of the supreme court is simply too important for our democracy for the senate to ignore the constitution and wait nearly a year to do its job. members of this body must fulfill their obligations. the members of this body must honor their duty and uphold their constitutional oath and the members of this body must fully consider and evaluate the qualifications of any nominee the president submits. i look forward to my -- to doing my own thorough review of the president's nominee and working with my colleagues to fulfill

our essential constitutional duties. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. alexander alexander and i -- mr. alexander: and i ask consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: last year the law everybody wanted to fix was named no child left behind. despite many different opinions and many different political attitudes, we got it done. i give great credit to the senator from washington, senator

patty murray, and to the members of the, of our education committee, 22 senators of widely divergent political views, for their willingness to do that. you know, i often say that if all you want to do is announce your opinion, you can do that at home. you can stand on a street corner and preach or you can get your own radio program. but if you want to be a united states senator after you announce your opinion, you're supposed to get a result. and that means work with other people to identify common areas of interest and see if you can. and we were able to do that with the bill that fixed no child left behind. not only did we reach a consensus that needed to be fixed, we reached a consensus on how to fix it. the president signed it on december 10. he called it a christmas miracle. it passed broadly in this body, and it had the effect of reversing the trend toward a national school board, of

repealing the common core mandate, and of, according to "the wall street journal," being the largest devolution of power from washington to patrol -- control of local schools in 25 years. so it was a significant bill. and i would argue that no p bill that the congress enacted last year was more important. this year, mr. president, i would suggest that if we are successful that the most important bill that passes this body will be a bill to advance biomedical research, a companion bill to the 21st century bill the house of representatives already passed. that is because this is the opportunity that everybody wants us to take. it's the opportunity to take advantage of the tremendous advances in scientific discovery that have created an environment where we have opportunities to help virtually every american

with our help. we are able to cure some cancers instead of just treat cancers. children with cystic fibrosis are beginning to be actually cured of their disease, a disease that was completely debilitating. remarkable advances are being made because of genomic research. we have exceptionally talented people in charge of the agencies dealing with this. for example, dr. francis collins with the national institutes of health and then recently confirmed dr. califf at the food and drug administration. so, this is the best opportunity we have to make a mark in the senate this year to help virtually every american, and we've got some catching up to do. it's rare that i would admit that the house of representatives is ahead of us, but they are. they call their bill the 21st cures bill. we have a common objective. that is to get cures and drugs and treatments through the

regulatory process and the investment process more rapidly and into the medicine cabinets and the doctors' offices so they can help people. they finished their work last year. the president has taken the lead. he's called for the precision medicine initiative. it's one of his major initiatives. i talked with him about it last year. i said, mr. president, we will help you do that, and the way to do that is through our biomedical innovation initiative. what he wants to do to begin with is to get a million genome sequenceed so that when the senator from arizona is sick -- which he rarely is, he's in such good health -- or i'm sick, you prescribe -- the doctor may prescribe medicine that fits our own individual genome and not just a medicine that is in effect one size fits all.

that's just part of the excitement of -- of precision medicine. and then more recently, the president's announced a cancer moon shot to try to take further advances in -- in that. and there is additional interests on both sides of the aisle of a surge of new funding for the national institutes of health, possibly including mandatory funding if it's properly done, which means replacing other mandatory funding. there is bipartisan interest in that. but, mr. president, none of that will happen unless we move through our committee and onto the floor and to a conference with the house and onto the president's desk our biomedical -- our biomedical research bill, our companion bill to the 21st century cures. the only way to get support for the president's precision

medicine initiative, the only way to get the cancer moonshot, the only way to get a surge of funding that may include mandatory funding for the n.i.h. is to pass this bill. let's be blunt about it. the good news is we're making good progress, we're making good progress. i want to report to the senate that this morning we had our second markup, the second meeting of our full committee where we discussed the measures we have been working on for more than a year for our biomedical innovation bill. we have come up with 50 bipartisan proposals that members have been working on to get patients access to more drugs, cures and treatments in a safe and effective way. we've held ten bipartisan hearings on our innovation project. six of those ten hearings have been on electronic health care records systems. now, that program we found was in a ditch. the taxpayers who spent $30 billion on it to try to draw into it doctors and hospitals to

use electronic medical records so that you could take -- so you know what your records are and the doctors could prescribe and diagnose more easily. the problem was it wasn't done very well. stage one was helpful. most of the hospitals and doctors said to me. stage two was difficult. and stage three in their words was terrifying. precision medicine will not work unless we have an interoperable electronic health care records system that has as its goal, simplifying what happens in the doctor's office or the patient's bedroom in such a way, both with devices and with data so that people can make sense of it. it will improve the practice of medicine. it will reduce the huge amount of time that doctors are spending on documentation. some doctors say they spent 40% or 50% of their time doing that. if they're doing that, either

they are doing something wrong or the government's doing something wrong, and my guess is we are. that's my guess. so we set out this year to make several steps to change that. the administration -- and i will give them credit -- have gotten the message as well, and they, including dr. salvo and secretary burwell and andy slavic, head of c.m.s., have made a priority of taking this electronic medical system and getting it back on track so the doctors and physicians will see it as an opportunity and not as a burden. we have several steps in our legislation that will help make electronic medical records work better. they include giving agencies more flexibility for alliances like the vanderbilt-google partnership that was announced the other day. they include dealing with the privacy issues that occur when

you get a million genomes sequenced. they include with encouraging interoperability and data sharing that is essential to doing this. so we're all working together to do that, but it will be necessary to pass our bill for electronic medical records to move for rapidly, and it will be necessary for electronic medical records systems to work if the president's precision medicine initiative is to work. last month, we had a markup in our committee where we considered 15 of our bipartisan proposals in seven bills. we passed them all. the bills will mean better pacemakers for americans with heart conditions, better rehabilitation for stroke victims, more young researchers entering the medical field, better access for doctors to their patients' medical records, as i just described. and if you are the parents of a child suffering from a rare disease like cystic fibrosis, the bill from senators bennet, warren, burr and hatch increases the chance that researchers will

find a treatment or cure for your child's disease. that was the good work of the committee last month. today we met all morning, and we considered seven more bills, about 15 more proposals were incorporated in those bills. each of those bills, the senators feel, is an important step forward. for example, senators casey, isakson, brown and kirk offered a bill which was passed to create drugs to treat or cure rare diseases in children. burr, bennet, hatch and donnelly proposed and it was passed to create a new system for breakthrough devices that's similar to the breakthrough for drugs that senator burr and senator bennet and others worked on in 2012 and that has showed such promise and such results. everyone is pleasantly -- i wouldn't say surprised but may be surprised by how many new

drugs have been approved by the f.d.a. using the breakthrough process from 2012. we hope the same will be true with the breakthrough for devices. then senators bennet and hatch offered a bill that will remove the uncertainty and the definition of medical devices that was adopted in 1976. most people didn't even know what software was in 1976. senator burr, casey, isakson and roberts had a bill to spur the development to save the lives of victims of bioterror. senator isakson, casey, donnelly and roberts offered a bill to be prevent the promising new field of combination products from getting caught in red tape at the f.d.a. i mean by combination products, devices and drugs together. then a bill from senators wicker, klobuchar, bennet, collins and franken would increase the say patients would have in the f.d.a. approval

process about treatments received in a clinical trial. then franken, nelson, isakson, brown had a bill to encourage companies to develop a treatment cure or vaccine for the zika virus. these were all adopted, but for these to become law, we have to pass our bill. we have to bring it to the floor this year and we have to do it in a bipartisan way and pass ou. the three markups, our third one will be in april. we'll consider 50 proposals. every single one of them has bipartisan support. there are two or three areas where we have a difference of opinion. i'm glad to see the senator fros here because one of the areas that we discussed this morning is one where he has been very important, and that is to have a surge of funding, additional funding for the national institutes of health. a number of us were very proud of the work that senator murray, senator blunt and senator durbin

and others did to make sure that we had $2 billion more in the regular appropriations last year for the national institutes of health. very important. a number of us believed that it would be appropriate in connection with this innovation legislation to have a surge of additional funding for specific projects at the national institutes of health but not at the expense of a steady increase in the regular discretionary funding. there are a variety of reasons for that. i won't go into them all today because the senator from illinois may want to speak, but if we're talking about mandatory funding, mandatory funding is already out of control, and the president's new budget has $682 billion of mandatory funding in it. it also has new taxes to pay for it, which congress isn't going to adopt. the more responsible proposal would be to reduce mandatory funding by $682 billion, but in

any event if we have any mandatory funding, it needs to replace other mandatory funding. and we don't want to create a situation where anyone gets the idea that mandatory funding is a substitute for steady increases in discretionary funding, which has happened before, as senator blunt pointed out this week in our appropriations hearing when the congress put in mandatory funding for community health centers and national health service corps and the discretionary funds started to dry up. so we have different proposals for how to deal with this. democratic senators on our committee have recommended $50 billion over the next ten years. i have recommended an n.i.h. innovation fund which would create a surge of funding for high priority initiatives at n.i.h. including the president's precision medicine initiative, the cancer moonshot brain initiative, big biothink awards,

young investigator corps. it would be in addition to discretionary funds, not a replacement for them. so, mr. president, my hope is that senator murray and i and our committee can work together over the next two or three weeks and complete our work on our biomedical research legislation and our -- by our markup on april 6. i hope that we can come to the floor and present to senator mcconnell, the majority leader , along with that a consensus, bipartisan consensus for additional surge of funding including mandatory funding for -- for medical research in the areas that i have suggested. i have said that we'll need to replace other mandatory funding in order to be considered. i hope that we can work that way in the committee, and i hope the senate will look forward to receiving it. i will conclude by simply saying that last year i believe no bill was more important that we

worked on in the senate than the bill to fix no child left behind. it affected 50 million children, 3.5 million teachers and 100,000 public schools. and the only reason it happened was because we had senators of very different backgrounds and attitudes and political differences who agreed that a result was more important. same here. the opportunity everybody wants us to take this year is to take advantage of this magnificent scientific revolution and encourage the research and the other steps we need to take to move treatments and cures and drugs into the medicine cabinets and the doctor's office more rapidly in a safe and effective way. i believe we can do that. i hope our work is finished by early april. i hope it is bipartisan, and i look forward to the opportunity of being able to say later this year that the most important bill that the senate worked on with the house and the president is this 21st century cures idea. the house has done its job. the president is out front.

we need to catch up. i'm convinced we can. i thank the president. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i'm happy to follow my friend and colleague from tennessee. senator alexander has spelled out an exciting possibility, and i know that it won't be easy. it's a heavy political lift. but what he's talking about is coming up with a dramatic commitment of funds for medical research for the next eight, nine or ten years over and above the ordinary budget of the national institutes of health. we've sat down and talked about this several times, and i wholeheartedly endorse not only his concept but also when he gets down to specifics. some of the things that he wants to focus on, the moonshot at cancer, for example, is one that of course the president, the vice president, the vast majority of americans would endorse that because there isn't a single one of us who hasn't been touched by the threat or the actual disease of cancer among our families and friends.

i won't go through the entire list, but whether we're dealing with issues involving the brain, alzheimer's, parkinson's, neurological issues, there are so many needs there, and i wholeheartedly endorse what he's setting out to do. on a bipartisan basis, i will work with him and senator murray and senator blunt, senator lindsey graham. we all share these feelings that this is something that will be a legacy item for this united states senate. i thank you for your leadership on this and your cooperation in building up the budget for the national institutes of research -- national institutes of health research this year. $2 billion will make a difference. i thank the senator for being on the floor. i'd like to address a couple of issues here, if i can. the contaminated water crisis in flint, michigan, is a wake-up call across america. we have to have protections in place when it comes to lead contamination. my heart goes out to the people of flint, michigan. dealing with the consequences of

this preventable man made crisis. the senate needs to do something to help the people of flint. we must also recognize that children across america r&b poisoned every day by lead, and we need to do something about it to protect these families. "chicago tribune" reporter michael hawthorne recently authored some articles on this issue revealing hundreds of cases of childhood lead poisoning stemming from different sources than flint, lead poisoning due to lead-based paint in federally subsidized housing. that's right, mr. president, housing we own as taxpayers, housing we manage as a federal government, and housing which is dangerous to the children that are living there. exposure to high levels of lead or lead poisoning can be devastating to a child causing irreparable damage. and because the children who live in this housing are from

low-income families, many minority families, lead poisoning can further trap these kids in the cycles of poverty and violence and inequality. families are often stuck at homes even after the lead is discovered with no place else to government that's why we introduced the lead safe housing act by reducing the threat of lead exposure and lead poisoning -- poisoning. congressional representatives eet ellison, mike quigley from my state of illinois have introduced companion legislation in the house. since the enactment of federal-lead policies in the early 1990's. lead poisoning rates have fallen. this is a big success story. however, the risk of lead poisoning from lead-based paint hazards found in homes continues to threaten kids who are living in housing built many times before 1978. this is especially true in

illinois. but it's a problem in cleveed will, buffalo, pittsburgh, baltimore and many other cities. h.u.d. regulations are outdated, ineffective and based on old scientific discoveries that haven't been updated. under current h.u.d. regulations, a landlord is not required to remediate a home, make it safe, where lead-base paint hazards have been found until a child's blood lead level -- blood lead level is 20 micrograms of lead per deciliter that's standard from h.u.d. -- that standard from h.u.d. is four times the standard of the centers for disease control. when i asked secretary castro of housing and urban development, now why would we have such a disparity this why would you allow lead contamination of a child four times the level of what the center for disease control says is acceptable? he said i have no answer and we're going to change it.

it's just wrong. i salute him for acknowledging that. and i hope to help him in any way i can to change this regulation. also we need better inspections. the inspections before a home qualifies to be part of the federal program are cursory, visual inspections. there's no way you can discover the presence of lead that may be dangerous to the occupants of that home or to the kids unless you have a much more thorough inspection. and in addition to that, once we've discovered there's lead in a residence, we've got to find another place for that family to live unless that lead can be remediated quickly. no one knows this better than lunise walker. she moved out of public housing in 2012 and into a home with a housing choice voucher. what an opportunity for her family, a new home. but less than five months after she and her family moved in, her 4-year-old daughter, 4 years old, was diagnosed with lead poisoning.

she was aware of the dangers of lead to kids. she asked the chicago housing authority for permission to move. they said no. why? because her daughter's blood lead level hadn't met the h.u.d. standard. it met the cdc standard which was one-fourth but hadn't met the h.u.d. standard. so despite her daughter having a blood lead level twice of what the cdc considers to be dangerous, they would move -- they wouldn't move her out of her house so she stayed. and within the next year, another child in the house was diagnosed with lead poisoning, too. and then another one. before she moved out, all nine of lunise's children had elevated blood lead levels. even so she only received permission to move after legal advocates intervened. this could have been avoided for the home had been properly inspected. sadly, this isn't an isolated

incident. since 2012 in chicago alone, at least 180 kids in section 8 housing have fallen victim to this mismatch in the blood level standards. after hearing lunise's story the chicago housing authority said it would voluntarily recognize the c. d.c. guidelines even though h.u.d. didn't require to. that's a good step. however, families all across america need the same relief that will come when h.u.d. standards are changed. that's what this bill is all about. i commit it to my colleagues and hope they will look at it carefully in an effort to make sure public housing is safe. what did we learn in flint, michigan? we think 9,000 children were exposed to the lead in that water that has had an impact on them, for some brain damage that cannot be reversed. who will answer for that? the poisoning of 9,000 children. how can we answer to the next

generation that faces this hazard if we don't take this important step? mr. president, i ask this statement be made a separate part in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. we have a bill before us on the floor to deal with opioids and the heroin crisis. it's a crisis that hit illinois and hit it hard. across illinois we've suffered from 1,700 drug overdose deaths in 2014, a 30% increase over 2010. 40% were associated with heroin. last october in chicago, in a weekend we had 74 people die from fentanyl-laced heroin overdoses. in 72 hours 74 people. the chicago metro area ranked first in the country sadly for the total number of emergency department heroin visits, higher than new york with three times population. the epidemic demands our attention. we need a comprehensive

solution. first, look at pharma. flooding america with provideds, hydrocodone, similar products. in the last year there was a calculation, there were some 14 billion opioid pills manufactured by pharmaceutical companies in america. that's enough to give every adult -- every adult person in america a one-month prescription of opioids. well, naturally, everyone doesn't need it but they keep generating these volumes because the demand is there, not for medicinal purposes, sadly, but for narcotic purposes. so the pharmaceutical industry has a responsibility. and doctors have a responsibility. those pills don't move from the pharmaceutical companies to the end user except with a doctor and a pharmacy in most instance instances. many doctors are too loose in their prescriptions when it comes to painkillers and they

describe too many pills. i guess somebody makes more money that way or maybe a doctor isn't bothered on weekends that way but sadly it puts in circulation a lot of pills that aren't really needed for people suffering from pain. some pharmacies know exactly what's going on as people walk in with script after script for these opioids. they fill them without a question and many states don't have laws, local laws to monitor these sales. then comes the devastation of opioid addiction followed on with heroin addiction. i've seen it across my state. there isn't a city too small or a suburb too wealthy or any corner of my state that hasn't been touched by this crisis. it's everywhere. and many of the kids that i've seen at these round tables who survived it and tell their heroic stories of coming back from heroin addiction, you look in their eyes and think, i would never have picked that kid out of a high school class as a heroin addict. some of them have been addicts

for years before they finally, finally get the treatment that they need. this bill before us is a step in the right direction. it requires establishing federal interagency task force to develop best practices for pain management and pain medication prescribing, a national drug awareness campaign on the risks of opioid abuse, grants to state, local, nonprofits to address opioid abuse and fund treatment alternatives. let me just say as well, one of the things that has helped is the fact that years ago here in the united states senate, two of my colleagues who no longer serve really did something historic. one was paul wellstone of minnesota who passed away in an airplane crash and the other pete today minute chi, -- deminici, they helped -- one

mental health counseling and the other substance abuse treatment. we built that into owe bam pla care. if you -- obamacare. if you buy a health insurance policy, it covers substance abuse treatment as well as mental health counseling. luckily for many of the feamtion when their kids -- families when their kids end up being addicted, they can turn to their health shurns and their health insurance -- insurance and their health insurance can help pay substance abuse treatment. we need other sources for attempt when it comes to medicaid. for those who say they want to repeal obamacare and get rid of it, that's another provision. really? you want to get rid of the requirement that health insurance policies in america cover mental health counseling and substance abuse treatment? i think it's important that we have it. i'm not sure what we would do without it. i see my senator from oklahoma is here. the second comment i would make relates to the supreme court vacancy. mr. president, i ask that it be placed in a separate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: a group of

historians and scholars sent a letter to president obama recently about the supreme court vacancy occasioned by the death of justice antonin scalia. among those signing were robert dallack, david kennedy, thomas mann, jeff stone and numerous others. the letter provides a helpful historical perspective on the decision by the senate republican majority to refuse, to refuse any nominee to fill this vacancy, a hearing before the united states senate, something that has never happened in the history of the united states senate. the senate republicans have said keep that scalia vacancy right where it is. a 4-4 supreme court for at least a year or longer. we haven't had a vacancy on the supreme court for over a year since the civil war tore this nation apart over 150 years ago. this letter that has been sent to the president and will be shared here makes it clear that

the actions that are being called for by the republican majority are unprecedented, unprecedented. they never happened. the fact that they would refuse to have a hearing for a nominee to fill the scalia vacancy, a vote on that nominee, you only have to go back to 1988, not that long ago, when president ronald reagan, republican outgoing president in the last year of his presidency sent a name to the united states senate , then in control by a democratic majority to fill a vacancy on the supreme court. did the democrats in the senate in 1988 say to president reagan, oh, you're a lame duck, you're going to be gone in a year, we'll wait till after the election? no. they said the constitution requires you, president reagan, to send us a name and it requires us to advise and consent and they did. they had a hearing and they had a vote, and anthony kennedy, a ronald reagan appointee to the supreme court was sent to the

supreme court by president ronald reagan with the support of a democratic senate majority. that's consistent with the constitution. i hope that we can return to that and i hope that future generations will judge that this seen nat under the control -- senate under the control of the senate majority party is going to live by the words of our constitution. i ask that my entire statement be made part of the record and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a erd 'of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged and the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 376.

the clerk: designating the first week of april, 2016 as national asbestos awareness month -- week. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask the resolution be agreed to the preamble be agreed to and the motions considered be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i now ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 395 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senate resolution 395 supporting the designation of march 2016 as national colorectal cancer awareness month. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to,

and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn till 9:30 a.m. thursday, march 10. following the frairnlg, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. fourth following leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business till 11:15 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. further, following morning business, the senate resume consideration of s. 524, further, that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, all postcloture time on s. 524 expire at 11:30 a.m. following morning business, the time until 130