enormous dark mark on the integrity of the court to take someone who misled the senate, democrats and republicans, about numerous topics. we had just in those three issues that i mentioned deception, issues related did he receive stolen documents. he did. he said he didn't. was he involved in the proceedings for certain nominees. he said he wasn't but he was. was he involved in the conversations over torture. he said he wasn't but he was. and that's just with the limited information that we have. and then we have the hearing, the hearing in which he said things like his friends who were at the gathering with dr. ford refuted her story. straight out lie. not a one of them refuted his story. they said they didn't remember. they said they didn't know. they certainly didn't refute. that's a lie. he said she wasn't in the same social circle but we know she

was. she dated his good friend. he said when asked did he find certain things like boofing and devil's triangle, he lied to the committee about what those terms meant. they meant things i won't discuss here but he was not honest with the committee. and the list then goes on and on. he said he wasn't aware of the story until he read it in the new yorker magazine. turns out, not true and in fact he intervened to try to, well, somebody damage that story before it was -- sabotage that story because it was ever printed. colleagues, there are times that we may have an individual who suits your judicial philosophy, but is totally unsuited to serve on the court. stand up for this institution, the senate, which has been unable to do its responsibility under the constitution to review

this man's whole record. stand up for the integrity of the committee process and the fact that we don't put people on the court who lie to this body. stand up for the vision of the united states of america, the vision of a we the people nation -- not government by and for the powerful. and yet that's exactly what his decisions stand for. stand up for the vision of a president and a republic instead of a vision of the king and the kingdom, which is what his view of presidential power turns into -- a president above and beyond the law. colleagues, do your job, and that means we do not vote until we have the documents to review his entire record. and when we vote, if he is still the nominee, we reject him because he lied, because he demonstrated intense partisanship, because he's angry under stress, because he threatened retaliation, because he is unsuited to serve on any court, let alone the supreme court of the united states of

america. mr. blunt: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, my colleague just talked about standing up for the senate, standing up for the values that traditionally have been our values. one of those principal values has been innocent until proven guilty, not innocent when you -- you just have that presume shoulden that that's where you are. what we've seen happen here in the last week is something that didn't need to happen, certainly in the way it happened. the hearing, the hours of questions, the picking through apart those answers at hereby sure. we've -- at leisure. you know what would have happened if we followed this process the right way. hard to do when a significant

majority of the committee says that they're against the nominee before he's -- has the hearing and several senators say they're against the nominee before he's even nominated, no matter who the nominee would be. but the normal background check that would have occurred, if the information that was available to the committee, to democrats and their staff, would have been turned over at the time, how would they have handled that? how would the f.b.i. have handled that on july 30 or august 30 or any other date? they would have handled that by going and talking to the people involved, dr. ford, judge kavanaugh would have been interviewed by the f.b.i. that would have been -- the people that they mentioned that the f.b.i. should also talk to would have been interviewed by the f.b.i. that would have been put in the file. the material could have been presented to the committee, as

it should have been. they could have pursued with judge kavanaugh's private hearing -- they were willing to talk about baseball tickets at the private hearing. they could have pursued in the private hearing, here's what's n this file. what do you have to say about that? dr. ford, as she said she wanted to be, would have been kept anonymous this that process. there would have been no reason, unless the committee would have decided to do what somebody on that committee did, to use her name, to bring this into a major public confrontation. this could have been handled in another way. her letter, her personal trauma could have been handled in a way that it wasn't. in fact, it could have have been handled more poorly or politically by some in the minority or their staff than it was. only after the hearing had ended, after the original hearings had ended, only after

it was obvious that judge kavanaugh, in my view it was obvious, had the votes to be confirmed, then suddenly these unverifiable charges were made public by the democrats on the committee and their staff. now, mr. president, i work hard to find agreement with my colleagues in the senate of both parties. i've been the principal republican sponsor or the principal republican cosponsor on legislation with all but four of the democrats of the senate. so i'm -- i do my best to find the areas we can agree on. and in fact this f.a.a. bill today that senator cantwell and i chair that subcommittee, senator thune and senator nelson chair the full committee, this the appropriations -- a lot of things have happened this year that haven't happened for a while because we've reached out to try to work together. but but we have -- but what we

have with this nomination is a new principle. i find the guilty-until-provennen-innocent conduct by some of our colleagues totally unacceptable. it is not who we are. it cannot become the new standard. i heard somebody say at a meeting this week, well, if these charges are out there, that person will always be impacted when there is a case before the court that might possibly involve those charges. that cannot be how we pursue the future. we cannot pursue the future thinking that if you're charged with something, you're somehow from that point on unable to do the job that you're imminently qualified for. we have a person here who has 300 court of appeals opinions on the most challenging court of appeals in the country. more than a dozen of those almost accepted word for word by

the supreme court. there is plenty to determine judicial temperament. there is plenty to determine whether a judge can do what the judge is supposed to do. now, unless later today somehow we see something that is highly unlikely, based on all the things already out there, i intend to vote for judge kavanaugh. i don't think he would have said, i categorically and unequivocally didn't do this or anything like it regarding the specific charge if he had. that was not necessary. you wouldn't have to say that about conduct over three decades ago. you could say all kinds of other things, but here is a lawyer whose legal capacity has never been challenged. he would not have had to make that unequivocal statement if there was any reason to be concerned about that statement.

he says he didn't do it. everybody else who was asked if they saw it happened who was mentioned said they didn't see it. i believe something traumatic did happen to dr. ford. i don't believe it involved judge kavanaugh. with the obvious specific three decades later memory of the person involved, you can actually believe -- without exception you can believe that both of them are telling the truth. i joined judge kavanaugh's daughter in praying for dr. ford and her family. and i also think we should all pray for judge kavanaugh and his family. this is an issue that got totally out of hand. it's an issue that got well beyond the bounds of what we believe in our country. it's an issue that we can't let begin to determine the future way we do these things.

otherwise anybody is subject -- you cannot have -- you cannot have guilty until provennen innocent. you cannot have guilty until nominated or innocent until nominated as the standard for the country. we cannot let this go forward that way. some relationships here and important ones to me and others are going to take a little while to restore. but we'll have to store them. -- to restore them. there aren't enough of us to walk away and say, we cannot possibly move forward working with you. i continue to work with my colleagues. but i also intend to continue to stand up for the fundamental values of fairness that this country has always held most dear. we need to do that this week with this nomination as well.

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i rise this week as well to speak about the nomination of judge kavanaugh, who was nominated 66 days ago today. -- he 86 days ago today. even before he was nominated, a number of members of this body said they would oppose the nomination not even knowing who or she might have been. but they would oppose the nomination to the supreme court. after the name was -- came out that evening, other members of the senate said i would oppose that. chuck schumer, the democrat minority leader, said he would oppose the nomination, he said, with everything that he had. you know, it used to be that we could just disregard language like this as empty rhetoric. not anymore.

now we know exactly what democrats had in mind from the very start. we have seen the kind of a smear campaign that they have been planning from the very beginning. but i've heard from people at home in wyoming -- what i've heard from people at home in wyoming is that they didn't think things could get any lower in washington, d.c., until they saw this. democrats have done everything under the sun to delay judge kavanaugh's nomination and to tarnish his reputation. it began with misrepresenting judge kavanaugh's sterling judicial record. well, that didn't work. then they unfairly complained that they didn't have enough documents by judge kavanaugh. when that didn't work, they shifted to surprise attacks on his character. the only thing that they've accomplished is to set a new low for how democrats treat people

in washington, d.c. there's a way we do things in the senate to make sure we can fairly and fully investigate nominees for important jobs. what we've seen is democrats have absolutely rejected this bipartisan tradition. they hid information for more than two months. then after judge kavanaugh had gone through four days of confirmation hearings, democrats leaked that information to the press, information that they had been sit something on and hiding from the american people, hiding from the republicans on the committee, hiding from the judge himself. this isn't the first time that we've seen democrats try to change the rules when it comes to judicial nominees. the democrats really do have a double standard. they do it time and time again. they want one set of rules for

when there's a democratic president and then a totally different set of rules for when there's a republican president. democrats have had for years something known as the biden rule. h. named after then senator biden and then vice president biden. this biden rule said you shouldn't confirm a supreme court nominee once the presidential election is in full swing. democrats wanted that rule in place when george bush was president. once president obama was in office, democrats wanted to pretend they had never said it, never heard of it, and it no longer applied. they wanted to totally -- theyens want add totally -- they want add totally different set of rules for considering a. then they had the reid nuclear option. that's when democrats decided and voted overwhelmingly to get rid of the filibuster for

confirming judges and other nominees. democrats set the rule when they were in the majority, when there was a democrat in the white house, and they wanted to confirm people that were nominated by president obama. as soon as a republican came into the white house, the democrats, who voted to change the rule, now complained when the rule that they changed was applied to them. the democrats have a double standard. and now what we see is the schumer rule. democrats took the normal process, the normal process for how we review nominees, and they threw it out the window. the democrats' new rule is this -- defeat the nominee no matter what. the democrats are willing to do whatever it takes to delay,

disrupt, intimidate, obstruct this republican nominee. the democrats haven't just thrown out the standards for how we do our work here. they have absolutely trampled on common human decency. it was bad enough when democrats were just trying to delay things. they demanded reams of paperwork. well, senators have been given access to 500,000 pages of records, a half a million pages of records from the judge's time as a judge and throughout his career in public service. now that's triple the amount of information that they've ever gotten about any other supreme court nominee. after judge kavanaugh's confirmation hearings, he responded to nearly 1,300 written questions from senators. that's more questions than we've had for every other supreme

court nominee in history combined. combined. judge kavanaugh has served on the circuit court during the district of columbia, the second-highest court of the land, for 12 years. he's written opinions in 300 cases. if anyone wants to know how he'll act as a judge, they should look at how he's already acted as a judge for the past dozen years. these are the documents that matter. these are the ones that tell you how he approaches being a judge. people can look at the 13 cases where the supreme court adopted judge kavanaugh's reasoning. that's how much respect other judges and justices have for his careful and compelling decisions. washington democrats don't seem to care about any of this. democrats got the documents that they asked for, so they just

changed their demands. now you can see how transparent democrats have been by looking at what they said last week. as late as last friday morning the democrats were saying that we should pause for a week. so senator schumer said senator feinstein, other members of the judiciary committee, they said let's pause for one week. as soon as the republicans said that we would do that, the democrats said not good enough. they said it doesn't matter what happens in that week. they're still voting no because it was never for them about finding the truth. for many it was never about even the name of the nominee, because they came out opposing him before his name was even placed in nomination by the president. this has always been about the

far-left wing of the democratic party doing as they have described it, whatever it takes to push their talking points. it's now all about the politics of personal destruction. don't seem to care much about what they do and how they damage people involved. don't care about the damage they're doing to the senate, the damage they're doing to the supreme court. the american people deserve better than this. it's time for the democrats to end their charade before they do more harm to the senate, to the supreme court, and to the united states of america. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. a senator: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: mr. president, this has the potential of being an historic week in america. the last ten days have been very troubling to me as a united states senator, as an individual citizen, husband, father, son. i'm very troubled today by the extreme measures that we see being made right now about a case that my colleagues across the aisle are trying to make today. i'm outraged actually. after a personal incident that involved my wife and myself this week, we have seen firsthand the length to which members of the other side of the aisle will go to distract us away from the truth. this body, the united states senate, has become nothing more

than a bully pulpit for someone's special cause when it should be a deliberative body. we should be finding the truth here. my democratic colleagues talk all the time about working in a bipartisan way. and yet when you get in the heat of the battle, nothing could be further from the truth. this is bigger than confirming judge kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. this is about civility in our country. people have died supporting our constitution and fighting for the freedoms that we have in this country. innocent until proven guilty, for goodness sake. but when that's not convenient with an argument that you're trying to make, it gets trashed. that's what we've seen this week in this body.

mr. president, this is about the common discourse in america. whoever said that we always had -- we don't. but whoever said you had to hate someone if you disagree with them? senate democrats have made it clear, they're willing to say or do anything to stop the president's agenda. which, by the way, is working. we're growing this economy at twice the rate that we achieved under president obama. we have over 331 nominees today, mr. president, waiting to be confirmed. the first time in history this has ever been done to this degree. one of my democratic colleagues called judge kavanaugh your worst nightmare. another called him a nominee who wants to pave the path of tyranny, mr. president. yet another said, this supreme court confirmation would mean the destruction of the constitution. seriously? that's irresponsible for somebody in this body.

that person said -- she said that before judge kavanaugh was even announced as a nominee. worst of all, another one of my democratic colleagues said, anyone who supports judge kavanaugh's nomination is complicit in the evil. i just don't understand that, mr. president. really? senate democrats want to be reasonable and work together? seriously? this rhetoric sounds anything but reasonable to me. in fact, i believe my democratic colleagues have gone one tick too far this time. when the paid activists who support you attack my wife, you have gone too far. the american people will know that on both sides. one of my -- and that didn't

start outside this body. it actually started in here. you are inciting this disrespect of our law. one of my democratic colleagues in this body has encouraged people to, and i quote, get in the face of some of those congresspeople. really? how does that move the cause of justice forward? the house minority leader wants to see uprisings all over the country. seriously? another member of the house said, and i'm quoting the entire quote here, they're not going to be able to go to a restaurant -- talking about republicans. they're not going to be able to stop at a gasoline station, she says. they're not going to be able to shop at a department store. the people are going to turn on them. they're going to protest. they're going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they're going to tell the president they can no longer hang with him.

the same member of the house also said, if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, department store, gasoline station, you get out and create a crowd. you push back on them and you tell them they're not welcome. this is america. but these are the tactics of the brown shirts in germany in the 1930's, mr. president. unacceptable. totally irresponsible. this is outrageous and unacceptable behavior for anyone, but much less a member of this body, a member of congress, and member of the united states senate. you've crossed a line. inciting dangerous behavior is not something that we should be about in this body. now, when it comes to judge kavanaugh in america, this country was built on a bedrock principle that we were trying to build here in america as opposed to what they lived with under different rule in europe, and that is this -- the presumption of innocence is

sacred. an individual here is innocent until proven guilty. that's part of what makes our country so exceptional, mr. president. unfortunately, senate democrats have become so far removed frommest going to the truth -- from getting to the truth that they will stop at nothing to delay this supreme court confirmation. that's all this week is about. it's another delay. any objective observer would agree that chairman grassley afforded both dr. ford and judge kavanaugh an equal opportunity to speak before the u.s. senate judiciary committee and to the american people. as a matter of fact, mr. president, this has been perpetrated on dr. ford by senate democrats. she wanted this to be confidential and this body could have done that. they could have done all the investigation confidentially. without dragging her name through the media or judge kavanaugh's.

you know, some people on the senate side -- the democratic side of the senate want america to believe that this is just a simple case of he said, she said, and it comes down who do you believe? well, it is a lot more than that, mr. president. it is not only she said, he said. it's a they said. the accuser in this case named three people who she said would corroborate her story. not only did they not corroborate her story, they actually corroborated his story. senate democrats were not satisfied even with that. they weren't satisfied that when the letter was leaked to the press, wasn't given to the committee, when it was leaked to the press some six weeks after it was received by senate democrats, six weeks, an investigation was started immediately, mr. president, by the committee, by the judiciary committee. oh, but wait. senate democrats chose not to

participate. how is that for looking for the truth? instead is what they did is wait until we had a hearing. and oh, we need another f.b.i. investigation that we knew would be totally redun tant of what had just been -- redundant of what had just been done by federal investigators employed by the senate judiciary committee. but we went ahead and agreed as a committee to do just what you wanted, and that's to allow a full and open f.b.i. investigation into this, which is nothing more than redundant of what had just been done in the prior couple weeks. judge kavanaugh that is had six -- six f.b.i. investigations. this is the seventh formal f.b.i. investigation. not only that the minute the committee saw dr. ford's letter, it immediately, as i said, went into detail with these outside federal investigators, without the help of senate democrats

part of that committee. when they met with judge kavanaugh weeks ago, she had been in position of this letter from dr. ford for several weeks and her staff had already recommended an to earn to dr. ford -- an attorney to dr. ford. the first meeting with dr. ford and judge kavanaugh, she didn't mention the letter one time. she held on to the letter for six weeks until it was leaked to the press. it is clear that this is all a well-orchestrated effort to cause delay and push this decision hopefully in their mind past the election. shame on any member of this body, republican or democrat, that puts self-interest and political interest before their constitutional responsibility. the committee has voted favorably to move judge brett kavanaugh's nomination forward. that means it comes to this floor. it is time too take a full vote

before this body, before the united states senate. we hope in the next few hours, next day to have this f.b.i. report and to put this sad saga to bed. it's time to put partisan politics and delays behind us. it's time to confirm judge brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court, and i want to say one more thing. it's time for this body to reread their oath of office, to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states to make sure that what we say in this body is the best and the very best america has to offer, to move our concerns forward. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, today the united states senate is going to vote on legislation that is representative of years of work that has been done to help address the opioid crisis. that vote will occur here in about a half an hour, and it's historic legislation. it's legislation that was put together by the house and senate on a bipartisan basis to answer some of the pleas and calls from our communities back home, pleas from people saying, can't you do more to help us reverse the tide of this opioid epidemic? i'd like to start by thanking and commending senator lamar alexander for putting together this legislation, taking the work from five different

committees of congress -- the help committee, judiciary committee, finance committee, banking committee, commerce committee -- putting those different legislative projects together along with projects that have come over from the house. 70 members of this body have contributed to this legislation. this legislation is important because, although congress has acted a couple of years ago, unfortunately, the problem has gotten worse, not better, and we've learned more. the last major legislation we passed here on the opiate legislation was about two years ago. by the way, during those two years i'm told that i have been on in floor 56 times talking about this issue, talking about how the legislation we passed is working or not working, talking about stories from back home, talking about the need to implement the legislation we passed in a more expeditious way because of this problem, talking about the urgency and talking about having the necessary funding. and here's the good news --

we have increased funding dramatically. in the two bills we passed in 2016, they're beginning to work. one is called the comprehensive addiction and recovery act that i coauthored with senator whitehouse. the other is called the cures legislation. both of them help. cara, the comprehensive addiction recovery act has grants to go to programs that work, that are evidence-based, to help on prevention and education, treatment, longer term recovery, to help our responders. the 21st century cures is grants that go directly to the federal government and then back to the programs that states work best for them. these funds that are unprecedented along with these two laws are helping. they're helping to make the federal government a better partner with state and local government, with nonprofits to combat this crisis. i've been all over my state to see how these programs are working and i've spoken on the floor a lot about the people i've met who have been helped,

some of the cases of hope, cases where somebody who stepped forward to take advantage of one of these programs and found the treatment that worked for him or her. i've also talked about the need for us to do more. that's why earlier this year, again on a bipartisan basis, we introduced care 2.0, to learn from what we are seeing back home, what is working and not working with the first legislation, and to move it forward. the legislation we're about to vote on this afternoon includes a number of provisions of care 2.0. and i appreciate that. and again i thank my colleagues for including those and the leadership for bringing this to the floor. it also includes some other legislation i think is really important. and, unfortunately, again we've got to do it. 72,000 -- that's the number of americans who died from opioid and other drug overdoses last year. that's in one year more people

have died than in the entire vietnam war. opioids was the number one cause of death. within opioids, the number-one cause of death was fentanyl, the synthetic form of opioids. even though we've made progress in the legislation i'm talking about, we have this record level of overdose deaths in my home state and in our country. i believe one major reason for this is that despite doing a better job on prevention and treatment and longer-term recovery, we've had this influx of a new, deadly drug. this is the fentanyl influx. it comes mostlloy from china. it comes mostly through our postal service. it is the number one killer right now in my state and probably the number one killer in the country in terms of drugs. in ohio there's been a 4,000% increase in the last five years in fentanyl overdoses and deaths. it's inexpensive, cheap. it's deadly. it's 50 times more powerful than heroin. a few specks of it can kill you.

because it's synthetic, there seems to be a limitless supply. we need to push back. one thing this legislation before us today does is it says, we're going to stop having our postal service be the conduit for this poison coming into our communities. it is about time. the legislation is very simple. it says that this loophole where you can send this deadly poison through the mail system is going to be closed because we're going to say that now the post office has to provide law enforcement the information in advance, electronically, that all the other private carriers already have to provide. we spent two years investigating this. one thing we found in our permanent subcommittee investigations was the dealers, the traffickers were saying if you send it through the postal service, delivery guaranteed because they don't have the screening in the postal service. we're going to have that screening now. the stop act is important. it will serve as a tourniquet stopping the flow of overdose deaths.

this is important because it pushes back on the supply, but that's not all we have to do. we have to do a better job in terms of getting people into treatment to be able to overcome their addiction. this legislation we're about to vote on does that as well. it includes a bipartisan proposal i introduced with a group of colleagues recently to expand america's access to treatment by lifting what's called the i.m.d. or institutions for mental disease exclusion. this is how it works. it's an outdated policy. it's a vestige of a policy from years ago to try to discourage institutional care which was well-meaning at the time. but this is what it does today. it says in a residential treatment setting -- and some of them are doing a great job -- you're limited to 16 beds if you want medicaid reimbursement. one of the most heart breaking things i do as a senator is talk to parents, families of loved ones of people who died who wanted to get into treatment but were turned away and told there is no more room for them.

i talked to a father and mother whose daughter went to treatment. they turned her away because there wasn't room. in the two weeks while she was on the waiting list, what happened? she used heroin. she overdose and she died. she was ready but they weren't ready for her. this legislation will help prevent that and allow more people to get the form of treatment that's right for them. significantly the final version that we'll vote on today agreed to by the house and senate is an improvement from the house-passed legislation because it now is covering any kind of substance abuse. not just opioids. not just cocaine. not just crystal meth. not just alcohol. but any kind of substance abuse. that's very important. all of them are problems in our community. crystal meth has increased in a lot of areas in ohio even as we've made progress grens -- against opioids. this legislation will ensure that once people get into treatment it is up to the high standards and the standards of

best care that we all want. it includes several provisions that we've been working on to do that. one is the national quality standards and best practices for recovery housing so people who are transitioning out of treatment into longer-term recovery have high-quality housing options that eliminate the gaps that so often occur in recovery. it also helps young people struggling with addiction by authorizing support programs for high schools and colleges. we've got some great examples of this in ohio spreading around the country. support groups and colleges and high schools to focus on people who are already addicted but also to act as a further encouragement for people who want to come and learn more about this for their prevention and education. it will help provide resources and care for some of the most vulnerable acted by this crisis. there's $60 million in this legislation for babies who are born addicted to this drug. these are babies who have neo natal abstinence syndrome.

they come out needing withdrawal themselves. they need more help. we don't know what the impact will be longer term but know hospitals across this country are being filled with babies, innocent babies who need our help. it also has the crib act included in this legislation. a bipartisan bill, i coauthored that will help newborns recovering. it allows reimbursement for these great organizations like bridget's path home in dayton, ohio, where people provide care to these kids whose parents are addicted. they aren't in foster care yet but they need this care in transition to be able to ensure their longer term success. finally it authorizes some really important programs. drug courts which are working to get people who are incarcerated into treatment. drug-free community prevention grants which are helping to push back in our high schools and middle schools and even elementary schools. high-intensity drug trafficking areas, grants which focus the federal government working more with state and local government

on drug interdiction. this opioid epidemic has gripped my state of ohio. we're among those states hardest hit. but every state in this chamber has been hit, and it's personal. it's personal for all of us because we've all heard the stories. on monday before i came here to vote at this chamber, i went to a funeral of a young man whose family i have known my entire life. his mom who i've known since i was born, was heartbroken talking about his opioid addiction and talking about everything they tried to do to get over this. we talked about it as a disease, which it is. this young man's life was cut way too short. i shared in their heartbreak, mourning his beautiful life cut short by addiction. i'm tired of reading about the tragedies like this one in the news, hearing it from friends and families and watching the devastation caused by opioids across my state.

we do need to do more to turn this tide. and i believe this legislation will help. in the midst of this opioid epidemic, we've got to do more to cut off the supply of these deadly drugs. that's done here. we need to do more to close the gaps that occur in treatment. that's part of this. we need to do more to catch those who fall through the cracks and help those gripped by addiction get into treatment and get on to lives of meaning and purpose, a life with purpose. to those i represent who are struggling with addiction, to those who have friends or loved ones who struggle or continue to struggle with addiction and to the millions of people in communities across this country who have been crippled by this crisis, this legislation is the turning point. it is a glimmer of hope. it's a glimmer of hope at the end of a dark tunnel. it won't solve all the problems. ultimately those problems are going to come from our communities, from our families, from within our own hearts. but this legislation will help allowing law enforcement to stop the flow of these deadly drugs, allowing people ready to turn their lives around to get

treatment and support and allowing our communities to begin to heal. i urge all my colleagues to support this legislation this afternoon. i yield back my time. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, one out of four women in this country have been a victim of sexual assault. this is an epidemic, and it tells me and i think the vast majority of the american people that we need a culture change in the way boys and men respond to women. last night the president of the united states, instead of understanding that we have to change our culture, instead of understanding that we have got

to make it easier for women who have been victims of sexual assault to come forward and tell their stories, got up on a podium in mississippi and mocked dr. ford, made fun of her. here is a woman who has come forward to do what she thought was right as an american citizen, understanding from day one that she would be attacked by political opponents. and the result of her having come forward was that she has received death threats. she's been separated from her children. she's had nazis protesting outside her house. that's what she has gone through. and the president's response to

her courage is to mock her, to make fun of her. now what kind of message does that send to women and men all over this country, women who are struggling to determine whether when they come forward they will be laughed at, they will be rejected. the president of the united states should lead this country in changing that type of culture, making it easier for women to come forward and tell their stories, making it clear to boys and men that in this country, that type of behavior is unacceptable. and yet we had a leader of our country, a president of the united states mocking this woman and i would hope that every member of this chamber,

regardless of your feelings about kavanaugh, come forward and express disgust and outrage at the behavior of president trump with regard to dr. ford. mr. president, a number of my republican colleagues have come forward, and they said, you know, at the very beginning of this process, well before the allegations of sexual assault or the veracity of mr. kavanaugh, there were people who were coming forward saying they were opposed to the nomination. i plead guilty, i was one of those people. and i announced my opposition to judge kavanaugh probably a day after trump made that nomination. and let me tell you exactly why i came out early against judge kavanaugh.

and the reason is that for years now there has been a hard right, 5-4 majority, on the supreme court who have time and time again made rulings that represented the wealthy and the powerful, rulings against the interest of working families, women, the environment, children, and the poor. and based on the statements that judge kavanaugh made over the years and based on his judicial rulings i had no doubt that if seated, kavanaugh would become part of that hard right majority. and i should tell you now based on the last hearing that took place before the judiciary committee, where we saw

mr. kavanaugh's politics come right out, my initial judgment turned out to be exactly right. if he is seated, he will be part of a hard right, a hard right that ruled on citizens united that billionaires in america have the right to undermine our democracy and spend as much money as they want to electing candidates who represent the wealthy and the powerful. and i fear that if kavanaugh is on the supreme court, he will take citizens united even further. we have a hard right on the supreme court by a 5-4 vote, that gutted the voting rights act. an act designed to protect minorities from discrimination in terms of their ability to

vote. and literally the day after that decision came down, you had republican governors and attorneys general all over this country working overtime shamefully, cowardly to make it harder for poor people, people of color, young people to vote. and i have no doubt that if mr. kavanaugh is seated, he will be part of that hard right philosophy. so i apologize to nobody for within one day of that nomination saying that i was opposed to it. now that's my view. obviously many of my republican colleagues, maybe some democrats, did not reach that conclusion. however, in the past three months, and especially in the past few weeks, we have heard

credible accusations of sexual assault by several women. these are charges that must be thoroughly and seriously investigated by the f.b.i. now if confirmed, judge kavanaugh will have a lifetime seat on the supreme court. a lifetime seat. and yet, we have the republican leader and other members saying we have to rush this process along. we have to give the f.b.i. just a few days in order to complete their investigation because my goodness, we have got to fill that empty seat on the supreme court. now how hypocritical is that? let me remind my colleagues that

less than two and a half short years ago, following the death of justice scalia, my republican colleagues simply refused to even consider president obama's nomination of merrick garland for a seat on the supreme court, and they left that seat open for for ten months until they got a republican president. so if you could wait for ten months to fill that empty seat, i think you can wait a few weeks more for us to do a thorough investigation of the charges of the allegations against judge kavanaugh. mr. president, we're dealing not only with judge kavanaugh's

right-wing political philosophy, we are dealing here not only with the serious allegations of sexual assault, which have to be thoroughly investigated, we're dealing with another very important issue, and that is the issue of veracity, whether or not judge kavanaugh was honest and truthful in terms of his responses to questions asked of him recently and years before when he came before the judiciary committee. and i have heard colleagues here say, i think rightfully, that regardless of philosophy, if somebody lies to a u.s. senate committee, that person should not be seated. so what we need right now, not in a few disappeared, we need a -- days period, we need an

investigation of not only the charges of sexual assault, but also issues of whether or not judge kavanaugh has been honest when he came before the judiciary committee. and let me give you just a few examples of what i mean that need to be explored. it is -- in his previous testimony before the committee, judge kavanaugh was asked more than 100 times if he knew about files stolen by republican staffers from judiciary committee democratic staff. he said he knew nothing. he didn't know anything about it. when he was in the -- when he was in the bush white house. he had e-mails released as part of these hearings show that these files were regularly shared with kavanaugh while he was on the bush white house

staff. in fact, one of the e-mails had the subject line spying. was judge kavanaugh telling the truth or was he lying? we've got to determine that. in 2006, judge kavanaugh told congress that he didn't know anything about the n.s.a. warrantless wiretapping program prior to it being reported by "the new york times." this year an e-mail revealed that while at the white house he might have been involved in some conversations about this program. was judge kavanaugh telling the truth in his response to the committee? in 2004, judge kavanaugh testified that the nomination of william pryor to the 11th circuit court, quote, was not one that i worked on personally, again, when he was in the bush white house.

documents now contradict that statement. newly released documents also call into question whether judge kavanaugh was truthful that the nomination of charles pickering, quote, was not one of the nominees i was primarily handling, end quote. was he telling the truth? and if he was not telling the truth on these issues, does that tell us something about the character of this man who wants to take a seat on the supreme court? 2006, judge kavanaugh testified, and i quote, i was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing the tension of combatants. end quote. new evidence released as part of these confirmation hearings contradicts that assertion. additionally -- now those are issues not dealing with the allegations of sexual assault, but in terms of the recent

allegations, judge kavanaugh repeatedly told the committee that he never drank to the point of where he didn't remember something. he also denied ever becoming aggressive when he drinks. this is not an issue of whether somebody drinks or not. millions of people drink. this is an issue of whether or not he was being honest in his responses. there have, as you know, been a number of reports from those people that judge kavanaugh attended high school with, attended college and law school with, that contradict his assertion about his drinking habits. judge kavanaugh, himself, in a 2001 e-mail referenced growing aggressiveness during a weekend vacation but that he didn't remember. again, the issue here is not drinking, the issue is veracity. was he telling the truth? on another issue judge kavanaugh

testified that he treated women as, quote, as friends and equals, and with dignity and respect. numerous entries in his school yearbook would steam to suggest -- seem to suggest otherwise. was judge kavanaugh's statement to the committee truthful? again, whether you like his philosophy or not, it is important for us to ascertain the veracity of his testimony. judge kavanaugh claimed that he and dr. ford did not travel in the same circles. dr. ford said that she dated chris garrett, referenced as a friend in his yearbook. in fact, she testified that kavanaugh introduced her to garrett. all four witnesses say it didn't happen, end quote and that witnesses, quote, refuted dr. ford's story. yet, one of the witnesses simply

said she didn't remember the party in question -- the party in question that took place decades ago but that, in fact, she believes dr. ford. kavanaugh testified that he had no connections to yale when in fact he was a legacy student whose father attended the school. kavanaugh said that he had no idea that his mentor and friend alex was sexually harassing his clerks and had a hostile work environment. it was such an open secret that law schools were warning applicants to stay away from kaczynski. kavanaugh claimed he was not on the infamous e-mail list, but refused to search his e-mails to double check. was judge kavanaugh telling the truth about his relationship with judge kaczynski?

mr. president, these are very, very serious issues. millions of americans are deeply involved and concerned about these issues -- issues not only about philosophy, issues about sexual harassment of women, issues about veracity. this is a question that we have got to get to the bottom of. we do not need artificial time limitations. let us do it right before we cast a vote on judge kavanaugh. and with that i yield the floor.

mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, earlier this year i heard from an elementary school principal in washington state about how the opioid crisis was hurting the kids in his school. students in his school were having trouble focusing in class as they dealt with the trauma of a family member's substance use at home and some were having a hard time understanding how best to help those students with their trauma. i also heard from a staff at a hospital about how they delivered so many babies to mothers struggling with opioid addiction, many deal with neonatal abstinence syndrome. and i have heard from countless other families in my home state of washington about how the opioid crisis has impacted their loved ones.

our communities have been crying out for action to address the root causes and ripple effects of the opioid crisis that has caused so much heartbreak for so many people, and today we are making an important step to answer that call. the legislation that we are passing today includes a wide set of policy solutions from both sides of the aisle to help tackle this problem from many different angles. many people helped craft this legislation and offered their own valuable insights, ideas, and solutions, and i am grateful to all of .they. and i -- all of them. i want to especially thank the committee leaders in both chambers to do so much to bring this soght, senators feinstein, senator hatch and grassley here in the senate and congressman palone and neil and nadler and bradley and goodlatte over in the house. i'm grateful to leader schumer and leader mcconnell and several others who were

particularly helpful in this process. and i want to thank senators heitkamp, donnelly, markey, manchin, mccast skill, baldwin, kaine, and so many more. i want to thank my staff and many other members of staff that worked on this as well. the bill we all krftd together r -- crafted together is a bipartisan. it is not what i would have written on my own or my colleagues would have written on their own. but it is full of commonsense solutions where we were able to find common yownd ground. ideas that respond to the effects that our communities are facing. it includes support for state effort to improve plans for safe care of children born to mothers battling substance use disorder like those at the hospital i visited. it ensures the health department is implementing strategies

already identified to protect moms and babies from the effects of opioid substance use. it includes provisions to develop a task force and grants to help support trauma informed care programs and increase access to mental health for children and -- mental health care for children and fair theams, including the -- families, including the ones the principal told me about and other ways to prevent opioid misuse from occurring in the first place. it includes provisions to address the economic and workforce impacts of the opioid crisis, like support and training to help the nearly one million people out of work as well as provisions to strengthen our behavioral health workforce so that patients and families can access the treatment they need. it continues meaningful grants that help states address the most pressing problems associated with substance use

disorders in their communities and makes those grants more flexible and available to our tribal communities who are suffering deeply with the impact of substance use disorders. it expands access to treatment services by making more providers eligible to prescribe medication assisted treatment, and it includes provisions to help the food and drug administration to address the crisis as well, like giving it new authority over packaging and disposal of opioids, as well as many other steps to help those on the front lines of this epidemic. i'm glad we could include so many voices in this discussion and that it led to a bill to offer so many ideas to address the different angles of this crisis, and i look forward to seeing this bill become law so it can start helping families and communities as we work to reach everybody impacted by this nationwide fight against opioid use disorder. this is an important bill.

it is an impactful step forward. it is not a final step by any means. the opioid crisis is ongoing and our effort to address it must be as well. so i'm going to keep listening to people in washington state about what they need to respond to this crisis and working with my colleagues in washington, d.c., to provide the resources and solutions that will help to make a difference. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and i yield the floor. mr. alexander: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i want to say to the senator from washington, i fully subscribe to her remarks. these the ranking democrat on the health committee and we o work together to produce results and i like to do it if we can and i think the american people do as well. i had a chance to come to the floor earlier this afternoon to thank senator murray and the other senators and their staff and the large number of people who made this bill possible, so

i won't repeat all of that. but i think it is worthwhile to stop and say that at a time of a contentious debate about the supreme court, the united states senate has found something that's equally important and really more important to hundreds of families across this country, maybe thousands in virtually every community. because the opioid epidemic is our most severe public health epidemic. we have worked together and we literally have unanimously agreed on this bill in the senate, all 100 of us. well, maybe not all 100 but almost all 100 of us, at least all 100 of us agreed to let it go forward and almost all 100 of us will vote for it. house of representatives was nearly as unanimous. we have a bipartisan sense of urgency to deal with this. senator mcconnell has called it landmark legislation. it's not the first step the senate and the house have taken. there was the cara act,

comprehensive addiction and recovery act. there's the 2 1s seen tur dwri -- 21st century cures act which senator murray and i worked on and presented to the congress which senator mcconnell called the most important piece of legislation in the last congress. there are the appropriations bills which have produced this year $8.5 billion for the opioid crisis when you combine the money appropriated in march and the money that is being approved this month. and then there are the provisions of this act. more than 70 senators have made contributions to it. senator murray listed many of them. senator portman's stop act to stop fentanyl from coming through the mail. the holy grail in my opinion, nonaddictive painkillers. mr. president, i ask for an extra 60 seconds to finish my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: authority for the f.d.a. to require manufacturers to sell smaller doses of

opioids. extending treatment for medicaid patients from 15 to 30 days and covering all substances. the treat act, senator markey, senator paul worked hard on this. i want to especially thank senator mcconnell and senator schumer for creating the environment so that we could put together the work of five different committees in the senate and eight different committees in the house of representatives. that rarely happens. it takes a good deal of restraint and goodwill. and the reason for it is because of this bipartisan urgency to deal with this problem. this is not a moonshot from washington. it is everything we can think of to do, more than 70 different proposals to support patients and support communities as they continue to fight our number one public health epidemic. i thank the president and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the motion to concur. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any senator in the chamber winnerring -- wishing to vote or change their vote?

if not, yeas are 98, the nays are one. the motion is agreed to. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that senators be allowed to present legislative items at the desk during today's session of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i come to the floor today to thank my colleagues, the chairman, senator alexander, and ranking member senator murray, for this important opioids legislation, part of which passed out of the senate finance committee as well, so i want to thank senators hatch and wyden, for their work on this comprehensive package. this important legislation which i think is the third in the bills that we passed with opioids.

it is ravaging communities, impacting families and we need to do all we can to help those on the front lines. that's why i've been from port anglias to spokane to talk about this issue and to try to provide the solutions that my law enforcement and community people want in this legislation. i'm so excited that the legislation will mean that there are more medically available beds to those addicted to opioids. this is something we heard about in every community in washington, the fact that those coming out of our jails addicted top opioids, basically had some modicum of an ability maybe to get off of opioids but then had to wait for weeks and weeks and weeks for treatment like in tacoma or spokane. and bumping that number up from 16 to 32 is a great start.

it means that funding will be available to state and local governments to treat opioid addiction, and it is important in the state of washington but we have -- because we have received money in the past. it means tools for law enforcement so they can help combat drug trafficking rings. specifically this legislation includes more than $4 million in tools to support our state in washington through the program which was fighting drug trafficking rings. in 2016, the seattle-based northwest intensity drug traffic area helped to dismantle 81 different drug trafficking organizations. this support and help for our law enforcement and our sheriffs to keep doing their job is incredibly important. i've heard from our sheriffs who played great roles in this, sheriff pastor in king county

and our other sheriffs have all done great works on this very important legislation. this legislation also includes stiffer penalties for those who illegally distribute opioids that have been flooding our communities. we have talked to so many people about this problem. i joined with our attorney general, bob ferguson, and 39 other attorneys general, in pushing legislation that myself and senator harris, of california, authored that basically said we're not doing a good enough job in tracking the distribution of these opioids, and we need to have stiffer fines and penalties for those who don't do their job in tracking the distribution of this drug. that is how our communities have been flooded and those attorneys general basically said, quote, please ensure that effective penalties hold manufacturers accountable and help stem the

diversion of this product. end quote. how did we get here? well, when congress passed the control substance act in 1970 to regulate highly addictive drugs, including prescriptions for opioids, they did so cause they were so addictive, and yet, congress said you must follow a network of laws to track these controlled substances. you need to know exactly where the manufacturers are distributing these drugs to who and how much. why did they want that? because they knew that they were so addictive, that if they got on the streets and flooded community and marketplaces, we would have a devastating impact. well, because the fine and penalties were so small, these manufacturers paid no mind to this provision of the law. despite the requirements large quantities of opioids flooded in communities, and because law enforcement didn't understand how much they were flooding their communities and didn't have the records, there was

little to track. so you had excessive shipments from manufacturers, in one example, a physician in everett, washington, wrote more than 10,000 prescriptions of opioids. this number of prescriptions was 26 times higher than the average prescriber in everett. i know that sounds suspicious, but the drug manufacturers deny even report the activity. the eda didn't have the -- d.e.a. didn't have the information and instead the physician continued and the manufacturer continued to distribute to them. why did this lack of reporting continue? it's because the fines currently in place for -- for failing to track distribution were so small they did not feel that they were a threat given the other aspects of the business. so current fines for failing to follow the federal law just weren't enough, and that is why we put new standards in place. i've traveled through our state

to talk about this and to talk about how our communities have been flooded with this drug. every time law enforcement and local communities said we needed new tools, tools to stop the distribution, tools to help our law enforcement break up rings and track the drugs, and new tools to help those who have been impacted by opioids. that is why we are bumping these fines up into the $500,000 per violation -- up to that amount. these penalties increase the chances that opioid manufacturers will think twice about not reporting this distribution, and in the case of everett, that manufacturer could have been find $900 million because of their activity. i guarantee you that is a deterrent if a manufacturer thinks they are going to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. i hope that they will take this serious. this legislation needs and will go to the president's desk. it's so important for our coun