Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2015--Motion to Proceed
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before I speak on a separate issue, I would like to address the issue raised by the Senator from Maine.
Her experience in Maine is exactly the same as my experience in Illinois. There is no town too small, no suburb too wealthy not to have been touched by heroin overdoses and deaths. It is interesting--the Senator may be encouraged to know that in one small town in downstate Illinois, when they were desperate when two or three teenagers died in 1 week in a small town, they heard about a program in Gloucester, MA, where the chief of police, reacting to what the Senator said earlier, realized that we just can't keep arresting addicts. It is not working.
He announced that if someone who was addicted came into the sheriff's office or the police department and reported their addiction, they wouldn't arrest them; they would take them to a treatment center immediately. The next day, 27 teenagers showed up in this small town in downstate Illinois. Then, of course, the challenge was where to take them. In rural areas, it is a long drive. Some of them were not in good shape for a drive. But they went into treatment.
What they told me after I visited the town was that something happened immediately: The jail was empty because the jail had been filled with petty criminals who had been stealing, burglarizing, trying to feed their habits. Now they were in rehab. So it made it a safer community and at least gave them a chance to straighten out their lives.
One of the amendments I am offering with your colleague from Maine is about treatment. We decided a number of years ago, for fear that we would be warehousing patients, to limit substance abuse treatment facilities under Medicaid to no more than 16 beds. Sixteen beds may work in a rural area; it certainly doesn't work in the city of Chicago. We are not expanding it dramatically, but we allow treatment facilities to have up to 40 beds for residential treatment for substance abuse. We don't want to go back into the bad old days of warehousing, but we certainly want to expand treatment because the problem you have seen and I have seen is growing.
As you noted, if we don't move quickly on treatment, we can't expect to turn it around. I thank the Senator for bringing this to our attention. The bill before us truly is a bipartisan bill, and it should be.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 1 week ago the Republican majority leader made an announcement that stunned a lot of observers on Capitol Hill. Senator McConnell said that the Senate Republicans would basically turn their backs on what I consider to be a constitutional responsibility and that they would refuse to consider the nomination to fill the vacancy of Justice Scalia, who recently passed away.
In article II, section 2 of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers established a very clear process for appointing Supreme Court Justices. Under the Constitution, the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court.'' That is the language of the Constitution. It is explicit.
The President has a constitutional obligation to send a Supreme Court nominee to the Senate, and the Senate has a constitutional obligation to consider the nominee. But the majority leader for the Republicans said last week that he would not give any consideration to a nominee sent by President Obama--not a hearing, not a vote--and then he went so far as to say he will not even meet with that nominee. This is a stunning abdication of the Senate's constitutional responsibility. All of us, as Senators, walk down this aisle, stand over to the side, raise our right hands, and swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and to bear true faith and allegiance to it. It is an oath each of us takes very seriously.
The majority leader has tried to justify his decision by noting that this is an election year. Well, it turns out it doesn't take much constitutional study to realize that the Constitution applies to election years as well as every other year. There is nothing in the Constitution that directs the President or the Senate to ignore their responsibility when there is a political Presidential campaign underway. I have searched the Constitution. There is no reference whatsoever to a Presidential campaign year absolving either the President or the Senate from their constitutional obligations.
One of the great ironies of the decision by the Senate Republican leadership was the way they reached it. Shortly after Justice Scalia passed away, Majority Leader McConnell issued a statement saying: ``The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice.'' Then last Tuesday he summoned the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to his office, and there he decided with them that they would deprive the American people of a chance to view a hearing on President Obama's nominee to fill the Scalia vacancy. This is an unprecedented obstruction of a Supreme Court nominee, and this decision to obstruct certainly wasn't made by the American people. It was a unilateral, partisan decision made by a handful of Senators behind closed doors. The Republican Senators didn't bring their decision out into the open, not to a hearing of the Judiciary Committee, which they chair; they did it quietly behind closed doors.
But the American people heard what happened. Last Friday a letter was sent to the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Human Rights and 81 other national organizations.
Hon. Charles Grassley, Chairman, Hon. Orrin Hatch, Hon. Jeff Sessions, Hon. Lindsey Graham, Hon. John Cornyn, Hon. Michael Lee, Hon. Ted Cruz, Hon. Jeff Flake, Hon. David Vitter, Hon. David Perdue, Hon. Thom Tillis, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators: We, the undersigned organizations, urge you to reconsider your unprecedented and destructive refusal to give fair consideration to any Supreme Court nomination until after the next President is sworn into office on January 20, 2017, as announced in your February 23rd letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Your letter claims that your refusal to hold a hearing on-- or to even meet with--any potential nominee is part and parcel to executing your ``constitutional authority to withhold consent on any nominee.'' This is a clear perversion of your constitutional duties as understood by almost every scholarly authority on the topic and by most Americans.
It is a dereliction of your constitutional duty to handcuff the Supreme Court for two terms. Your proposed course of action would cause a constitutional crisis that would shake the very foundation of our democracy.
We condemn this unprecedented overreach, and call on you to uphold the Constitution by giving fair consideration, including timely hearings and votes, to the next nominee to the Supreme Court.
Under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President shall nominate a Justice to the Supreme Court ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.'' This does not give a select few senators veto power over the President's role in selecting and nominating a candidate. The Senate's duty is to evaluate a nominee's fitness and qualifications, not to pick the President making the nomination.
Our legal system is based on the rule of law and requires stability and certainty. The course you have charted would mean that a new justice would not be confirmed until well into 2017 at the earliest. Shackling the court for two terms would undermine the rule of law, leave legal questions unresolved, and hamper the administration of justice across our nation.
Refusing to consider any nominee, without due evaluation of his or her merits, credentials, and experiences, is a direct repudiation of your constitutional duties.
We believe in upholding the Constitution. So should you. Sincerely,
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; Philip Randolph Institute; AFL-CIO; African American Ministers In Action; Alliance for Justice; American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity; American Association For Justice; American Family Voices; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; American Federation of Teachers; American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; Americans for Democratic Action (ADA); Americans United for Change; Andrew Goodman Foundation; Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum; Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF); Asian Americans Advancing Justice/AAJC; Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO (APALA); Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations (AAPCHO); Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
Bend the Arc Jewish Action; Center for American Progress; Center for Community Change; Center for Pan Asian Community Services, Inc. (CPACS); Coalition on Human Needs; Common Cause; Communications Workers of America; Constitutional Accountability Center; Defenders of Wildlife; Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund; Earthjustice; Equal Justice Society; Feminist Majority Foundation; Human Rights Campaign; International Association of Official Human Rights Agencies (IAOHRA); Iota Phi Lamda Sorority, Inc.; Japanese American Citizen League; Jewish Labor Committee; Korean American Resource & Cultural Center; Korean Resource Center.
Lambda Legal; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; League of Conservation Voters; League of United Latin American Citizens; MALDEF; Moveon.org Civic Action; NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; NAACP- National Voter Fund; NARAL Pro-Choice America; National Asian Pacific American Families Against Substance Abuse; National Association of Social Workers (NASW); National Black Justice Coalition; National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development; National Congress of American Indians; National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA); National Council of Jewish Women; National Education Association; National Employment Law Project; National Employment Lawyers Association.
National Fair Housing Alliance; National Korean American Service & Education Consortium; National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund; National Partnership for Women & Families; National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance; National Tongan American Society; National Urban League; National Women's Law Center; People For the American Way; Planned Parenthood Federation of America; PolicyLink; Project Vote; Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association; Service Employees International Union; Sierra Club; South Asian Bar Association of North America; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC); Southern Poverty Law Center; TASH; Union for Reform Judaism; United Auto Workers (UAW); Workmen's Circle.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. The letter described the Republicans' obstruction as ``a clear perversion of your constitutional duties as understood by almost every scholarly authority on the topic and by most Americans.'' The letter said that the Constitution ``does not give a select few Senators veto power over the President's role in selecting and nominating a candidate. The Senate's duty is to evaluate a nominee's fitness and qualifications, not to pick the President making the nomination.''
I agree with that statement. By unilaterally refusing to give any consideration to any nominee made by this President, Senate Republicans are trying to stop this President from fulfilling his constitutional responsibility to nominate and appoint Supreme Court Justices under article II, section 2. They did it in secret in a back room, behind closed doors. Why are they so afraid to give President Obama's nominee a fair hearing? Are they concerned that if the nominee is well qualified and they turn that person down, it will reflect poorly on the Senate Republicans?
The Senate Republican process of secrecy and obstruction is inconsistent with the Constitution. It does a disservice to the Supreme Court, to the President, and to the American people.
I raised a point last week which is worth returning to. The argument is made that the next President should pick the nominee to fill this vacancy. The argument is made that the American people, when they select the next President in November of this year--that we will be saying to the American people: You make the choice. You select the President. And then you will know the Supreme Court nominee.
Well, there may be some logic to that but for one thing: We have a President. He was elected in 2012 with a 5 million-vote majority. This is the fourth year of his Presidency.
When you listen to the Republicans argue, you would think, wait a minute, Barack Obama was not elected for 4 years, only for 3 years and 2 months. They argue at this point in time that this President does not have the constitutional authority or responsibility to fill the vacancy of Justice Scalia. The American people spoke. It wasn't all that close. By a margin of 5 million votes, they chose this President for 4 years, not for 3 years or 3 years and 2 months. He is the President, he has the authority of the Presidency, and he has that authority not given to him by God but by the American people. It is authority which should not be taken away by the Republican majority of the Senate.
Their argument, ``Wait for the next election''--do you know what that means? It means that if they have their way, if they fail to do their job, if they don't even have a hearing for President Obama's nominee, don't even bring it to a vote, and the vacancy continues on the Supreme Court, it will be historic. The last time we will have left a vacancy of this duration on the Supreme Court dates back to the Civil War. A nation at war with itself left a vacancy for more than a year on the Supreme Court. Now the Senate Republicans of 2016 want to leave a vacancy on the Supreme Court for over a year. There is no need for it, and the Constitution certainly makes it clear how this vacancy should be filled.
There is no secret that there is a political motive. The Senate Republicans hope Justice Scalia's seat will be filled by a person they choose. This is a political calculation they are willing to make, to take the heat for not following their constitutional responsibility in the hopes that a President Trump will pick someone to fill this vacancy or some other Republican President in the future. That is what they are counting on. That is political.
Politics shouldn't trump the Constitution. Nothing should trump the Constitution when it comes to governing the United States. Because it is an election year doesn't mean Senators can take a yearlong break and ignore their own oath of office.
It is time for the Senate Republicans to do their job. The President and the Senate must fulfill their constitutional responsibility in times of war, in economic depression, and even in an election year.
Last week Majority Leader McConnell reportedly told a group of House Republicans that there isn't ``a snowball's chance in hell'' that he would back down from his plan of obstruction. Nevertheless, today President Obama has invited Majority Leader McConnell to meet with him in the White House to discuss the Supreme Court vacancy. They have also invited the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley; the ranking Democrat, Senator Leahy; and the minority leader of the Senate, Senator Reid.
Why did the President offer this meeting? Because that is what always happens. When a President is about to consider filling such a historic vacancy, he brings together the leaders of the Senate to discuss his thought process and perhaps to solicit names from them of potential nominees. Even when we have disagreed in the past and have Presidents and Senators from different political parties, they still extended that courtesy to one another. President Obama is extending the majority leader that courtesy even if the majority leader has made it clear and publicly stated repeatedly that he will not even meet with, let alone consider, the President's nominee.
The President is setting a good example of what should be done in this circumstance where the President follows tradition and the Constitution. I am glad the President is taking this seriously. I know he is in the midst of a careful, deliberative process to choose a nominee. The President should select an outstanding person who has the qualifications, a commitment to justice, a deep respect for the role of the judiciary, and life experience that points toward integrity and good judgment.
The President is doing his job as the Constitution requires. My Republican colleagues in the Senate should do their job as well. They should honor the process established in the Constitution and give the President's nominee fair consideration, a hearing, and a vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source