[Pages S4879-S4886]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will 
report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Clifton 
L. Corker, of Tennessee, to be United States District Judge for the 
Eastern District of Tennessee.
  The Senator from New York.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1327

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that as in 
legislative session, the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 153, H.R. 1327; 
that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it has long 
been my feeling that we need to address our massive debt in this 
country. We have a $22 trillion debt. We are adding debt at about $1 
trillion a year. Therefore, any new spending that we are approaching, 
any new program that is going to have the longevity of 70 or 80 years 
should be offset by cutting spending that is less valuable. At the very 
least, we need to have this debate.
  I will be offering up an amendment if this bill should come to the 
floor, but until then, I will object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed that my 
colleague has just objected to the desperately needed and urgent bill 
for our 9/11 first responders--a bipartisan bill that just earned over 
400 votes in the U.S. House of Representatives and that has 73 
cosponsors in this Chamber.
  Enough of the political games. Our 
9/11 first responders and the entire Nation are watching to see if this 
body actually cares. Do we care about the men and women who answer the 
call of duty?
  When our country was attacked on 
9/11/2001, the entire world looked on in shock as many people 
rightfully sought to get away as quickly as they could. As those towers 
began to crumble, there was one group of men and women--our heroes, the 
bravest among us--who ran the opposite way. They ran toward danger. 
They raced up the towers. They went into harm's way to answer the call 
of duty.
  Then, in the days and weeks that followed and the months and months 
that followed, life slowly began to return to normal for the rest of 
the country, but at Ground Zero, nothing was normal. The pile kept 
burning. It was smoldering. You could smell it blocks and blocks away--
10 blocks, 20 blocks, 30 blocks away. Men and women kept going to that 
pile to do the very hard work of, first, trying to find survivors and 
then, of course, just trying to find remains and doing all the hard 
work of cleaning up. They dove in. They got to work. They wanted to 
help our country heal.
  Now more than 18 years have actually passed, and thousands of those 
men and women have actually died. Thousands more are getting sick. They 
are getting grueling, painful diseases, like cancer, and they are now 
dying. Why? Because they did the work at Ground Zero that we asked them 
to do, and it made them very sick--the air they breathed, the smoke, 
the burning metal, the crushed glass, the crushed electronics, the 
toxins they breathed in that the EPA told them was safe.
  These heroes have since had to quit their jobs and doing the jobs 
they love and providing for the families they love because they are too 
sick. They have had to give up their income. They have had to give up 
their dreams. They have had to give up their future. They have had to 
face the terrifying reality that they are actually going to die because 
of what they did on 9/11 and the months thereafter.
  If that wasn't a great enough burden, they had to use their most 
precious commodity, time--time away from their families, time away from 
their friends, and time away from their children, from their loved 
ones, and from their community. To do what? To come here. To come here 
to walk the Halls of Congress, to go to office after office, to ask 
that this body and this government stand by them in their greatest time 
of need, to ask for the basic compensation that they have earned and 
deserve, to ask for the healthcare that could actually keep them alive 
maybe another year longer and not have to go through bankruptcy, and to 
have to come here week after week, spending thousands of dollars of 
their own money, sacrificing the time and energy that they have left.
  I have seen first responders in wheelchairs, attached to oxygen 
tanks, spending their last moments here in Congress just asking that we 
do the right thing.
  Almost a decade ago, 9 years after the attacks, Congress finally 
listened. We passed a healthcare and compensation fund for the people 
who got sick because of 9/11, but that compensation fund was only 
designed to last for 5 years. You know how this place works. They 
wanted to make sure it worked right. They wanted to make sure every i 
was dotted and every t was crossed. They wanted to make sure there 
could be no fraud and no corruption. Well, of course, there wasn't. So 
it was limited. These first responders--many of them sick and some 
dying--had to come back again and again and again to spend more of 
their time walking these halls.
  Eventually, we passed another compensation bill, but, again, it was 
for another 5 years. Even though thousands of 9/11 first responders are 
sick and even more will become sick, they still had to come back, even 
though some of these diseases are lifetime diseases and more will die. 
And, now, sadly, the fund is running out.
  The 5 years aren't over yet, and the Federal Government is already 
having to tell these families who have gotten cancer and died since 9/
11 that we have actually run out of money for them, that the 
compensation they have earned and the need their families have will be 
cut by up to 70 percent.
  Once again, sick and dying first responders are being forced to come 
here to knock on our office doors to remind Members of Congress of what 
they did on that day and the weeks and months since, to tell them their 
personal stories of how painful it is to lose everything you love. 
First, it is your ability to work, then your ability to play with your 
kids, then your ability to eat, and then your ability to breathe.
  I believe we have a responsibility--a sacred responsibility--so that 
anyone in this Chamber who has any sense of decency, compassion, or 
patriotism would listen to our first responders and give them what they 
need: a permanent compensation program so that these men and women will 
never have to spend another moment in these hallways again.
  We could pass this bill right now, but, instead, my colleague has 
objected, asking people to come back over and over. Everyone loves to 
point fingers in this place, but there is nowhere else to point that 
finger today than this Chamber.
  The House has already passed the bill overwhelmingly 402 to 12. It is 
about as bipartisan as it gets. Shame on those 12 Members who voted no.
  The same bipartisan bill, the one I just called on my colleagues to 
pass already, has 73 cosponsors--73. When was the last time that 
happened?
  I want to say how grateful I am to my Republican colleague from 
Colorado, Senator Gardner, for leading this bipartisan bill with me. In 
these divided times, what other bill can you imagine would have so much 
support by both parties?
  Enough is enough. We should pass this bill today. We should have 
passed this bill today, and I hope we can pass this bill with no 
further delay.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague and 
friend, the Senator from New York, for the amazing work she has done to 
get this bill to this point. She has worked long and hard on this for 
years and years and years with compassion, dedication, intelligence, 
and persistence. The bill wouldn't be here today without her hard work. 
I thank her for that.
  I also want to thank--I know there are police and firefighters in the 
Gallery over here. I want to thank them

[[Page S4880]]

for coming. You are the people who got this done. You are the people 
who made this happen more than any of us and more than anyone else. The 
heroes of 21st century America have names like Zadroga and Pfeifer and 
Alvarez, for whom this bill is named--three of the thousands who rushed 
to the towers bravely and lost their lives because of their bravery and 
selflessness.
  I say to my friend from Kentucky: Throughout the history of America, 
when our young men and women or older men and women volunteered in the 
armed services and risked their lives for our freedom, we came back and 
gave them healthcare, and we are still working on making it better. Why 
are these people any different? They, too, risked their lives in a time 
of war and were hurt by it--by diseases they didn't even know they 
could get. How can we, for whatever reason, stop this bill from moving 
forward?
  We are going to have a defense bill on the appropriations floor. We 
are not going to offset it. It has pay raises for our soldiers. It has 
new equipment. We are not going to ask for an offset. Why this bill--
why is it different? It is not. This fund needs to be fully funded.
  I say to Leader McConnell, the House leadership, hardly people who 
aren't careful with the dollar--sometimes too careful--when Kevin 
McCarthy and Scalise, the Freedom Caucus leader, Mark Meadows, all 
voted for it, why are we holding this bill up? If we put it on the 
floor today, we could pass it, and it would be on the President's desk 
this week, and those brave people here and the many more who came would 
not have to come again. They should not have to come again.
  It is not that it will be a joyous day when this bill passes. They 
are going to have to return to nurturing their brothers and sisters who 
are sick and to worry if they might get sick from all the gunk that was 
in the air that poisoned their systems, their lungs, their digestive 
systems, their kidneys, and their livers.
  The bottom line is very simple. You can come up with 10,000 reasons 
not to do something, but you shouldn't come up with any reason not to 
do something noble and right.
  I urge my friend from Kentucky to withdraw his objection. I urge 
Senator McConnell, the leader, to put it on the floor now, and we can 
let these folks in the Gallery and so many others do what they need to 
do--help their families, help their friends, and make sure their health 
is given the best protection possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I thank Senator Schumer for being 
such an extraordinary advocate for the men and women who have served 
our Nation. This bill would never have gotten this far without his 
leadership, without his dedication, and without his absolute commitment 
to the men and women in the Gallery, as well as the men and women in 
all 50 States throughout this country.
  I thank Senator Schumer for never giving up on this bill and for 
always bringing it across the finish line when we need his skills and 
his leadership and his tenacity the most. I thank him, for the record, 
for his undying commitment to the men and women who serve this Nation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Government Waste

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, today is ``Washington Waste 
Wednesday.'' It is a new series I launched last week to highlight all 
of the ways Washington wastes taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, there 
are a lot of ways.
  My belief is that you, the American taxpayer, can spend your money 
better than Washington can. It is a novel concept here in DC. The way 
Washington spends your money is oftentimes an embarrassment.
  As Governor of Florida, my focus on responsible spending meant more 
money in the pockets of Florida families and more funding available to 
pay down State debt and invest in what mattered most to our families. 
We paid down $10 billion in State debt over my 8 years as Governor--
nearly one-third of total State debt. We cut taxes 100 times, giving 
more than $10 billion back to Florida families and job creators. And we 
have record funding for education, for the environment, and for 
transportation.
  But right now, our national debt is impossible to fathom, much less 
sustain. It is $22 trillion. Just let that sink in for a minute. We are 
already $22 trillion in the hole, but that doesn't stop the far-left 
Democrats from proposing more debt for this country.
  Medicare for All, which I like to call Medicare for None, would not 
only throw 150 million people off the private insurance they like, but 
it is projected to cost as much as $32 trillion over a decade. That is 
$32 trillion with a ``t.''
  The problem with our healthcare system is rising costs. It just costs 
too much. Prescription drugs cost too much. Hospital visits cost too 
much. ObamaCare drove up the cost of healthcare. That is obvious. Then 
the government tried to hide that cost by providing Federal subsidies 
to the tune of $737 billion in 2019--$737 billion in 2019 and $1.3 
trillion by 2029.
  Instead of providing subsidies and proposing more wasteful ideas, we 
should be focused on bringing down the cost of healthcare, which solves 
two problems. First, it will result in more people having healthcare 
coverage, and, second, it would ensure that health insurance results in 
actual healthcare.
  Reduce costs and you solve both of these problems, but solving 
problems is a novel concept in Washington. The Democrats in Washington 
just want to spend more money to solve every problem. On top of 
Medicare for All, the Democrats want a Green New Deal. The Green New 
Deal--I call it the Green Job Killer--would cost as much as $93 
trillion. These two proposals alone will cost more than $100 trillion. 
To put that in perspective, that is more than $300,000 for every man, 
woman, and child in the United States--$300,000. You wouldn't run a 
business like this, so why are Democrats proposing to run a country 
this way?
  We are turning this Nation around. Our economy is booming, and wages 
are rising. We can't go along with this dangerous socialist playbook. 
Higher taxes, more debt, and more regulation will reverse our success 
and bankrupt our country. These ideas are the craziest examples of 
Washington waste we have seen in a long time.
  Thankfully, the American people will not go along with socialism. We 
can cut the waste and cut the spending, but we have to be thoughtful. 
We have to propose real solutions, just as we did in Florida, to make 
Washington work for all American families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to once again 
give the facts about the Democrats' one-size-fits-all healthcare 
proposal, the legislation that many Democrats are referring to as 
Medicare for All.
  My focus today is what is going to happen to American patients if the 
government takes full control of our Nation's healthcare system. I 
speak as a doctor who practiced medicine for 24 years in Casper, WY. It 
is so interesting, as a doctor, to take a look at what is being 
proposed because I know the specifics of the impacts on the lives of 
patients, patients I have taken care of as part of my training and part 
of my practice in Wyoming, and as a doctor, I have personally studied 
what is happening to healthcare in other countries around the world.
  You have no doubt heard about the worsening crisis of care in 
England. There are doctor shortages, and, of course, there is rationing 
of care. British rationing has actually become the focus of a recent 
article in the magazine, The Economist. The article is entitled, ``The 
front line of England's NHS is being reinvented.'' It says, ``A 
shortage of family doctors leaves little choice but to try something 
new.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S4881]]

  


                          [From The Economist]

          The Front Line of England's NHS Is Being Reinvented


A shortage of family doctors leaves little choice but to try something 
                                  new

       The National Health Service is free, so it is also 
     rationed. Family doctors, known as general practitioners 
     (GPs), act as the first port of call for patients; friendly 
     gatekeepers to the rest of the service who refer people to 
     specialists only if needed. But in some parts of the country, 
     including St Austell on the Cornish coast, access to the 
     rationers is itself now rationed. ``You can't book an 
     appointment to see me here,'' explains Stewart Smith, a 39-
     year-old GP, one of a team in charge of an innovative new 
     medical centre. ``You go on a list and then we triage you.''
       It is an approach that will soon be familiar to more 
     patients. Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England, has 
     said that being a GP is arguably the most important job in 
     the country. There is, however, a severe shortage of them. 
     According to the Nuffield Trust, a think-tank, there are 58 
     GPs per 100,000 people, down from 66 in 2009--the first 
     sustained fall since the 1960s. Only half of patients say 
     they almost always see their preferred doctor, down from 65% 
     six years ago. The average consultation lasts just nine 
     minutes, among the quickest in the rich world.
       Although the NHS hopes to train and recruit new family 
     doctors, the gap won't be plugged any time soon. A new five-
     year contract to fund GP practices will eventually include 
     K891m ($1.1bn) a year for 20,000 extra clinical staff, such 
     as pharmacists and physiotherapists, with the first cash for 
     such roles arriving on July 1st. To access the money, 
     practices will have to form networks which, it is hoped, will 
     help them take advantage of economies of scale and do more to 
     prevent illnesses rather than merely treating them.
       When the four practices serving St Austell merged in 2015, 
     it was an opportunity to reconsider how they did things. The 
     GPs kept a diary, noting precisely what they got up to during 
     the day. It turned out that lots could be done by others: 
     administrators could take care of some communication with 
     hospitals, physios could see people with bad backs and 
     psychiatric nurses those with anxiety. So now they do. Only 
     patients with the most complicated or urgent problems make it 
     to a doctor. As a result, each GP is responsible for 3,800 
     locals, compared with an average of 2,000 in the rest of 
     Cornwall.
       Although few practices have made changes on the scale of St 
     Austell Healthcare, across England the number of clinical 
     staff other than GPs has grown by more than a third since 
     2015. The logic behind the introduction of these new roles is 
     compelling, says Ben Gershlick of the Health Foundation, 
     another think-tank. The NHS estimates that 30% of GPs' time 
     is spent on musculoskeletal problems, for instance, which 
     could often be handled by a physiotherapist. Another estimate 
     suggests 11% of their day is taken up by paperwork. Doctors 
     complain that they are overworked, and growing numbers retire 
     early. They are also expensive: the starting salary for a GP 
     is K57,655, whereas a physio costs around half as much.
       NHS leaders hope the new workers will help practices play a 
     more active role in their community, linking up with services 
     provided by local authorities and charities. Each network 
     will be responsible for a population of 30,000-50,000. The 
     plan is that they will use data analysis to intervene early 
     to prevent illness, and that practices will often share the 
     new staff with others in their network.
       Those that are further down the road sing the benefits of 
     the new approach. Caroline Taylor of the Beechwood Medical 
     Centre in Halifax says that new roles quickly show their 
     worth. Her practice took in a ``work wellness adviser'' 
     employed by the council. The adviser's goal was to help ten 
     people over the age of so with poor mental health back to 
     work in a year--a task which she completed in just six weeks. 
     In St Austell two pharmacists last year helped to cut more 
     than K140,000 from prescribing costs. Far fewer staff now 
     report that they are burnt out.
       Working in a team will nevertheless require a big shift in 
     mindset for many doctors, particularly those in surgeries 
     that have never before employed anyone else aside from the 
     odd nurse. One worry is that practices will end up doing what 
     they must to get the extra funding, but little more. There 
     are also more practical problems. Seven in ten GPs say their 
     practices are too cramped to provide new services, and it is 
     not clear where some of the extra staff will be hired from.
       Perhaps the biggest problem is that patients have grown 
     used to having a doctor on demand. Although those who no 
     longer have to queue for an appointment may be happy, others 
     might feel fobbed off if diverted to another clinician. A 
     study published last year by Charlotte Paddison of the 
     Nuffield Trust, and colleagues, in the British Medical 
     Journal found that patients had less trust in the care 
     provided by a nurse if they initially expected to see a 
     doctor. Patients who have a close relationship with their GP 
     tend to be more satisfied and enjoy better health outcomes 
     than others.
       But other evidence suggests that, for some conditions, 
     nurses provide care that is as good as or better than that 
     provided by GPs. The aim, says Nav Chana of the National 
     Association of Primary Care, which helped develop the new 
     approach, is therefore to use small teams of doctors and 
     other clinical staff to replicate the sort of relationship 
     with patients that used to be more common. Just parachuting 
     in ``a lot of people who look like doctors'' will not raise 
     standards, he warns.
       The shortage of GPs leaves the NHS with little choice but 
     to try something new. ``A lot of the world has either copied 
     or is trying to copy English primary care,'' in particular 
     its openness to all and the continuity of care that it 
     provides, says Dr. Chana. Keeping these strengths, while 
     changing how primary care works, is the task NHS officials 
     are now facing up to. Even if they succeed, it will take time 
     for the public to adjust. Having explained the benefits of 
     the new way of doing things, one GP pauses, before adding: 
     ``I should say, though, patients don't love it.''

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the story opens with a simple 
observation, and this is the first sentence: ``The national health 
service is free, so it is also rationed.''
  That is what we are seeing, and that is what people are living with 
every day in Britain. Under the guise of healthcare being free, they 
live in a world where healthcare is rationed.
  So how bad can that be? What would this mean with this one-size-fits-
all Medicare for All, which the Democrats are proposing?
  The Economist writes that in Britain today ``[o]nly patients with the 
most complicated or urgent problems make it to a doctor.'' Actually, 
today you need a doctor's referral to see a specialist in England. But 
now, in some parts of the country, a British bureaucrat must preapprove 
your visit to the family doctor, who will then make the referral to the 
specialist. I can't imagine people in our country tolerating that. So, 
ironically, ``access to the rationers is itself now rationed.'' 
According to the article, ``Only half of [British] patients say they 
almost always get to see their preferred doctor.'' So only half get to 
see the doctor they choose.

  Remember that old line--``If you like your healthcare, you can keep 
it. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.'' In Britain, 
only half get to see their doctor--if they get to see them, if they get 
to go through the rationer, who is a bureaucrat.
  What happens after you wade through all of this, wade through the 
morass of the bureaucrat and the family doctor to get to the 
specialist? What does the article say about when you actually get to 
see a doctor? The average consultation time, it says, is only 9 
minutes. It is 9 minutes on average. As a doctor, I can state that 9 
minutes is one of the shortest consults I have ever heard of. I cannot 
imagine 9 minutes--after waiting all of this time to see the doctor, 9 
minutes and then you are done, and they are on to the next patient, who 
has also been waiting and waiting and waiting to see the doctor.
  What does this tell us about what would happen in the United States 
to patients trying to see doctors if we followed this one-size-fits-
all, government-run healthcare program that Senator Sanders and so many 
of the Democrats are supporting? If we adopt a government-run, one-
size-fits-all healthcare system, which is what they are proposing, I 
would tell Americans to expect to pay more to wait longer for worse 
care. That is what we would see. To borrow the line from The Economist, 
bureaucrats will, as they say, reinvent what healthcare means for you.
  You may have seen the stories about the thousands of elderly patients 
right now going blind in Britain--going blind. Why are they going 
blind? Well, because the British health service is rationing eye 
surgery. The president of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists has 
said that the rationing is part of the government's cost-cutting in 
England, and people are going blind as a result. Thousands of elderly 
patients are desperately in need of eye surgery, but the bureaucrats 
who must approve it are denying the treatment. The number of denials 
has doubled in the last 2 years.
  According to the Royal College of Surgeons, a quarter of a million 
British patients have been waiting more than 6 months for planned 
medical treatment. That is happening in England today. The waiting 
times are getting longer.
  Now let's look at Canada. According to the New York Times, Senator 
Bernie Sanders likes the Canadian healthcare system because he says it 
is ``free.'' Of course, Senator Sanders

[[Page S4882]]

knows it is anything but free. After all, the healthcare proposal that 
Senator Sanders is proposing has a $32 trillion price tag. The Senator 
admits the plan hikes taxes on middle-class families. He said it in the 
debate the other night. The truth is, even doubling our taxes couldn't 
cover this huge cost. Yet a majority of Democrats in the House of 
Representatives--a majority--have cosponsored what Senator Sanders is 
proposing. A majority of the Democratic Senators running for President 
today have cosponsored Senator Sanders' one-size-fits-all proposal. 
Apparently Senator Sanders approves of the Canadian long wait times 
because he says wait times are not a problem. Well, maybe he should 
check with the Canadians to see if wait times are a problem, because 
patients in Canada typically wait 3 months for treatments and for 
certain treatments, much, much longer. In some ways, the Canadian 
healthcare system has been called trick-or-treat medicine because if 
you haven't gotten your care by the end of October, by Halloween, you 
will have to wait until next year because they will have run out of the 
money allotted for that procedure or that healthcare in that country in 
that year.
  As a doctor practicing in Wyoming, I have actually operated on people 
from Canada who came to the United States for care. It is free up in 
Canada, but they couldn't afford to wait for the free care they were 
going to get in Canada, so they came to the United States to pay for 
the care here.
  Still, that is what the Democrats are proposing--a one-size-fits-all 
approach. So people will pay more through their taxes to wait longer 
for care that will be worse care. Even the Congressional Budget Office 
people who looked at this in terms of funding, looked at what it would 
cost to do a Senator Sanders' style approach, said it would be 
expensive, complicated, and the delays would be not just in treatment 
but also in technology.
  Many Democratic candidates for President have also endorsed--
amazingly so--free healthcare for illegal immigrants. You saw the 
question being asked on the debate stage. Every one of the Democrats 
running for President was standing there and was asked: Which one of 
you would have in your healthcare plan free health insurance, free 
healthcare, for people in this country illegally? And every hand on the 
stage went up.
  When you take a look at what the proposal actually is--this Medicare 
for All, this one-size-fits-all approach--it actually takes health 
insurance away from 100 million people who get it through work and 
gives it to illegal immigrants. So 180 million American citizens will 
lose their on-the-job insurance while illegal immigrants will get it 
for free. That is the Democrats' Medicare for All proposal.
  The Congressional Research Service recently reported that the Sanders 
bill ends Medicare as well as on-the-job health insurance, and what we 
will be doing is entering into one expensive, new, government-run 
system.
  Still, the Democratic Senators who are running for President and the 
118 Democratic Members of the House support the Sanders' legislation. 
They have cosponsored it, saying: Let the Washington, DC, bureaucrats 
call the shots--unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats calling the shots 
as they ration your care. They will micromanage your care, and they 
will delay your care, delay your treatment--treatment that you urgently 
need. That is the difference. People will lose the freedom to see their 
own doctor. We have seen what has happened in England. Patients will 
wait months for treatment. Keep in mind--care delayed is often care 
denied, and if they finally get to see a physician, the amount of time 
in consultation will be incredibly short. That is why what is being 
proposed by the Democrats in this one-size-fits-all approach--a British 
plan, a Canadian plan--is completely unacceptable to American citizens.
  You don't need Democrats' phony promises of free care; what you need 
is to have the freedom to get the care you want and need from a doctor 
whom you choose at lower cost. That is why Republicans are going to 
continue to work on real reforms that improve patient care, that 
increase transparency, that lower the cost of care, and that lower the 
cost of what people pay out of their own pockets, without adding these 
incredibly longer wait times and the loss of the ability to make 
choices on your own. Why should we pay more to wait longer for worse 
care, which is what we are seeing with a one-size-fits-all approach? 
Let's make sure patients can get the care they need from the doctor 
they choose at lower costs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romney). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that 
Senators Alexander and Menendez be allowed to speak for 5 minutes each 
before the vote scheduled at 2 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   50th Anniversary of ``Apollo 11''

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, 50 years ago, the world was transfixed by 
a grainy, black-and-white image of Neil Armstrong descending a ladder, 
preparing to take humankind's first steps on the Moon. I was one of 
more than half a billion people--the largest television audience in 
history--glued to the TV screen on that day. I was actually in high 
school, and, like so many Texans at the time, I was totally engrossed 
in what was going on.
  Staring at the television, it was hard to imagine that hundreds of 
thousands of miles away, two brave Americans were sitting on the 
surface of the Moon while their comrade remained in lunar orbit up 
above. I didn't quite understand what this development would mean for 
the future; I just remember thinking at that moment how proud I was to 
be an American. I looked up to these three men, and I still do, and I 
marvel at their courage, their intelligence, and their patriotism, as 
well as that of the tens of thousands of Americans involved in getting 
them to the Moon in the first place.
  We now know that this lunar trio had quite a sense of humor. Michael 
Collins was once asked in an interview what he was thinking about in 
the moments leading up to the liftoff on July 16, 1969, and he joked, 
``I was thinking of per diem, you know, how many dollars per mile we'd 
be paid for this voyage.'' Upon the astronauts' return, we learned that 
when Buzz Aldrin stepped off the ladder, he told Armstrong he was being 
careful not to lock the door behind him. And when talking about the 
fact that most of the photos from the surface of the Moon were of 
Aldrin, Neil Armstrong joked, ``I have always said that Buzz was the 
far more photogenic of the crew.''
  While the first lunar landing meant many different things to people 
around the world, there is one thing that was abundantly clear: That 
date--July 20, 1969--established the United States as the world leader 
in human space exploration. It also put my hometown, the place of my 
birth, Houston, on the map as a hub for spaceflight innovation in the 
United States.
  We all remember the very first words uttered by Neil Armstrong after 
landing. He said, ``Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has 
landed.'' Of course, he was talking to the greatest minds of the 
generation, who were working at Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX. 
The men and women at Mission Control Center exercised full control over 
Apollo 11, from the launch at Kennedy Space Center, to landing on the 
Moon, to the splashdown in the Pacific Ocean.
  For more than 50 years now, the Johnson Space Center in Houston has 
been at the heart of America's space program. The success marked the 
turning point in space exploration, and folks across Texas are eager to 
celebrate this momentous anniversary. You can do like I have and visit 
Johnson Space Center yourself and see NASA's Mission Control from 
Apollo. It was redesigned to look exactly the way it did in 1969, down 
to the retro coffee cups and glass ashtrays. You can watch the Houston 
Astros take on Oakland while wearing Apollo 11 caps. Across the State, 
you can see special movie screenings, space-themed menus, and ``ask an 
astronaut'' events to educate our next generation of space travelers.
  To commemorate this historic mission in Washington, I introduced a 
bipartisan, bicameral resolution with my colleagues Senator Brown, 
Congressman Babin, and Congresswoman Horn last month. I thank my 
colleagues who supported this effort and urge my fellow Senators to 
join me in passing it this week. This resolution honors Apollo 11's 
three crew members--Buzz

[[Page S4883]]

Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, and Michael Collins--whose bravery and skill 
made this feat possible. In addition, it commends the work of the 
brilliant men and women who supported this mission on Earth, including 
mathematicians like Katherine Johnson and the astronauts who lost their 
lives in previous spaceflight missions.
  To ensure that America remains the leader in human spaceflight, this 
resolution also supports the continued leadership of the United States. 
With this in mind, earlier this year, I introduced a bill called 
Advancing Human Spaceflight Act with Senator Peters from Michigan to 
provide greater certainty and stability for our space program.
  This legislation will extend the authorization for the International 
Space Station through 2030 and launch the United States into a new era 
of space exploration.
  Our future astronauts need spacesuits with advanced capabilities 
beyond what current technology can do, so this bill will also direct 
NASA to develop the next-generation spacesuit for future exploration to 
the Moon, to Mars, and beyond.
  In order to make this dream a reality, this legislation will allow 
NASA to partner with private space innovators to ensure we have the 
best and brightest working to achieve these goals.
  In addition, this bill will, for the first time, codify human space 
settlement as a national goal. I believe this legislation will help set 
the stage to launch the United States into a new era of space 
exploration, and there is no better time than this momentous 
anniversary to recommit ourselves to American leadership in space.
  In the year since that first ``small step,'' we have watched goal 
after goal being set and then met. From the Viking 1 landing on Mars to 
the Voyager Program exploring the outer planets, to the International 
Space Station making human space habitation a reality, I have no doubt 
that the success of the Apollo 11 mission made each of these victories 
possible and paved the way for the future.
  For the 50th anniversary of the lunar landing, today we honor the 
brave and brilliant astronauts, physicists, engineers, mathematicians, 
and scientists of all kinds who made our Nation the first to touch down 
on lunar soil. We are grateful for their courage, their sacrifices, and 
their immeasurable contributions to our Nation's space program.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Remembering John Paul Stevens

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, yesterday marked the passing of a giant in 
American law. Justice John Paul Stevens passed away at the age of 99. I 
just bought his most recent book. The subtitle of it is ``My First 94 
Years.''
  Justice Stevens was a favorite, born and raised in the city of 
Chicago. He was a lifelong Cubs fan. He was in the crowd of Wrigley 
Field as a very young man in 1932, on October 1, during a World Series 
game, when Babe Ruth made the famous called shot--hitting a home run 
over the fence.
  He attended the University of Chicago and Northwestern School of Law. 
Naturally, he graduated at the top of his class. In between, he served 
as lieutenant commander of the U.S. Navy during World War II and was 
awarded the Bronze Star.
  After law school and a clerkship with Supreme Court Justice Wiley 
Rutledge, John Paul Stevens became an accomplished attorney in Chicago, 
leading to his nomination to the Seventh Circuit in 1970. In 1975, he 
was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Gerald Ford and 
confirmed by the Senate 98 to 0. Judge Stevens served on the Supreme 
Court for nearly 35 years, bringing to the Court his midwestern blend 
of brilliance, courtesy, and humility.
  He leaves behind an enormous legacy. He was committed to safeguarding 
the rights and liberties protected by the Constitution, and he 
cherished the importance of the Judiciary as an ``impartial guardian of 
the rule of law.'' Those were his words in his famous Bush v. Gore 
dissent, where he said that judging of the Court as an ``impartial 
guardian of the rule of law'' was at stake in that majority opinion.
  He was respectful at all times and respected by his colleagues at all 
times, and by litigants, and by the American people.
  When he retired in 2010, at the age of 90, he was the third longest 
tenured Justice in the history of the Supreme Court. He was the last 
living Justice to have served in World War II.
  I want to extend my sympathy to Justice Stevens' family, including 
his surviving daughters, Elizabeth and Susan, his 9 grandchildren and 
13 great-grandchildren.
  Today we bid farewell to a giant, and we thank Justice Stevens for 
his decades of service to this country and for his profound 
contribution to American law.


                            Opioid Epidemic

  Mr. President, years ago, there was a Senator from Wisconsin named 
William Proxmire. He used to come to the floor every month and give 
what he called his ``Golden Fleece Award'' for the worst example of 
Federal Government waste. Earlier this year, I launched a new series 
dedicated to that tradition with floor speeches that built off the 
Proxmire work, with a focus on the most extreme cases of the 
pharmaceutical industry's greed. It is known as the Pharma Fleece 
Award.
  I have highlighted price-gouging for lifesaving insulin, the patent 
abuses that extend monopoly control over pricing of drugs, and the 
billions of dollars' worth of medications that are thrown away each 
year deliberately due to the production of oversized, unnecessary drug 
vials.
  This month, I want to focus on the pharmaceutical industry's role in 
another national disgrace--the opioid epidemic. We are in the midst of 
the Nation's worst drug overdose epidemic in our history. There is no 
town too small, no suburb too wealthy to be spared the suffering and 
the deaths that have been wrought by this problem.
  Last year, 2,062 people in my home State of Illinois died from opioid 
overdose. There is culpability with nearly all the stakeholders, 
including the U.S. Government. There is no denying how this epidemic 
was ignited. For years, the pharmaceutical industry wildly 
mischaracterized the risk of opioids, falsely claiming they were less 
addictive and less harmful; that these painkillers should be prescribed 
for common aches and pains, even when the industry itself had 
information proving the dangers of such long-term use.
  In 2007, the manufacturer of OxyContin, Purdue Pharma, pleaded guilty 
to a felony charge of misbranding the drug by misrepresenting 
OxyContin's risks. This resulted in a modest fine as the company 
continued to flood the Nation with their deadly painkillers.
  New reporting this morning from the Washington Post found that Big 
Pharma saturated the country with 76 billion oxycodone and hydrocodone 
pills between 2006 and 2012. During a 6-year period, 76 billion pills 
were produced by pharma. One subsidiary company, Mallinckrodt, put 28 
billion opioid pills on the market during this time.
  Downstate in Illinois is a small rural county, Hardin County. It has 
fewer than 10 doctors who can prescribe controlled substances. The 
total population of the county is 4,300 people. It is one of the 
smallest, least populated counties in my State. In the year 2010, 
approximately 6 million hydrocodone pills and 1 million oxycodone pills 
were shipped to Hardin County and its surrounding communities. For 
4,300 people, they shipped 7 million pills. All of this data was 
actually captured and reported to a Federal agency, the Drug 
Enforcement Administration. They will come up again in my presentation. 
That means drug manufacturers knew about this obscene volume of pills 
being produced and sold; that drug distributors knew exactly where and 
how this was being transported, and law enforcement had its eyes on it 
all along.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the list of the top opioid distributors and manufacturers from 2006 to 
2012.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S4884]]



                TOP PILL MANUFACTURERS, 2006 THROUGH 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Percent of
            Manufacturer                 Number of Pills        Market
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SpecGx (Mallinckrodt)..............  29 billion............        37.70
Actavis Pharma.....................  26 billion............        34.50
Par Pharmaceutical (Endo)..........  12 billion............        15.70
Purdue Pharma......................  2.5 billion...........         3.30
Amneal Pharmaceuticals.............  2.3 billion...........         2.90
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA...........  690 million...........         0.90
KVK Tech...........................  580 million...........         0.80
West-Ward Pharmaceuticals (Hikma)..  380 million...........         0.50
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals........  370 million...........         0.50
Endo Pharmaceuticals...............  300 million...........         0.40
Ethex Corporation..................  290 million...........         0.40
AbbVie Inc.........................  250 million...........         0.30
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.  240 million...........         0.30
UCB, Inc...........................  180 million...........         0.20
Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.........  140 million...........         0.20
Cardinal Health....................  120 million...........         0.20
Dispensing Solutions Inc...........  95 million............         0.10
Golden State Medical Supply, Inc...  85 million............         0.10
Aphena Pharma Solutions--Tennessee,  74 million............         0.10
 LLC.
McKesson Corp......................  65 million............         0.10
Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc......  55 million............         0.1O
Forest Laboratories, Inc...........  47 million............         0.10
Bryant Ranch Prepack...............  37 million............         0.1O
Pfizer Laboratories Div Pfizer Inc.  31 million............         0.00
A-S Medication Solutions...........  28 million............         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                TOP PILL DISTRIBUTORS, 2006 THROUGH 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Percent of
            Distributor                  Number of Pills        Market
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corp......................  14 billion............        18.40
Walgreens..........................  13 billion............        16.50
Cardinal Health....................  11 billion............        14.00
AmerisourceBergen..................  9.0 billion...........        11.70
CVS................................  5.9 billion...........         7.70
Walmart............................  5.3 billion...........         6.90
Smith Drug Co......................  1.3 billion...........         1.80
Rite Aid...........................  1.3 billion...........         1.70
Kroger.............................  1.2 billion...........         1.60
H. D. Smith........................  1.1 billion...........         1.50
Anda, Inc..........................  1.1 billion...........         1.50
Kaiser Permanente..................  880 million...........         1.10
Morris & Dickson Co................  880 million...........         1.10
Thrifty Payless Inc................  870 million...........         1.10
Eckerd Corporation.................  780 million...........         1.00
Omnicare Distribution Center LLC...  700 million...........         0.90
Kinray Inc.........................  630 million...........         0.80
N C Mutual Wholesale Drug Co.......  550 million...........         0.70
Smith's Food & Drug Ctr's Inc......  500 million...........         0.70
The Harvard Drug Group.............  410 million...........         0.50
Advantage Logistics................  380 million...........         0.50
Value Drug Co......................  310 million...........         0.40
Publix Super Markets, Inc..........  280 million...........         0.40
River City Pharma..................  270 million...........         0.40
SAJ Distributors...................  270 million...........         0.40
HEB Grocery Company, LP............  240 million...........         0.30
Harco..............................  210 million...........         0.30
Valley Wholesale Drug Co...........  210 million...........         0.30
Associated Pharmacies Inc..........  190 million...........         0.30
Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co........  190 million...........         0.30
Qualitest Pharmaceuticals..........  180 million...........         0.20
Frank W Kerr Inc...................  170 million...........         0.20
KeySource Medical..................  160 million...........         0.20
Top Rx, Inc........................  160 million...........         0.20
American Drug Stores...............  150 million...........         0.20
American Sales Company.............  140 million...........         0.20
Longs Drug Store...................  130 million...........         0.20
Quest Pharmaceuticals Inc..........  120 million...........         0.20
Miami-Luken........................  120 million...........         0.10
Hy-Vee.............................  11O million...........         0.10
Pharmacy Buying Association........  110 million...........         0.10
Mc Queary Brothers.................  100 million...........         0.10
Meijer Distribution Inc #90........  100 million...........         0.10
Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc....  100 million...........         0.10
HBC Service Company................  93 million............         0.10
Par Pharmaceutical, Inc............  85 million............         0.10
Dakota Drug........................  79 million............         0.10
Dik Drug Co........................  78 million............         0.10
KPH Healthcare Services, Inc.......  76 million............         0.10
Albertsons LLC.....................  74 million............         0.10
Aphena Pharma Solutions............  71 million............         0.10
Sunrise Wholesale, Inc.............  66 million............         0.10
P J C Distributor Co Inc...........  65 million............         0.10
Wakefern Food Corporation..........  65 million............         0.10
Auburn Pharmaceutical..............  62 million............         0.10
Winn Dixie Logistics...............  58 million............         0.10
Southwood Pharmaceuticals Inc......  57 million............         0.10
Discount Drug Mart.................  54 million............         0.10
Dispensing Solutions...............  52 million............         0.10
Prescription Supply Inc............  51 million............         0.10
Murfreesboro Pharmaceutical........  47 million............         0.10
Burlington Drug Company............  46 million............         0.10
NuCare Pharmaceuticals.............  45 million............         0.10
DRx Pharmaceutical Consultants, Inc  40 million............         0.10
Bellco Drug Corp...................  39 million............         0.10
Bryant Ranch Prepack...............  37 million............         0.10
Schnucks Pharmacy Distribution Ctr.  37 million............         0.10
Drogueria Betances.................  36 million............         0.10
Bloodworth Wholesale Drugs.........  36 million............         0.10
Expert-Med.........................  35 million............         0.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. DURBIN. This opioid epidemic wasn't started by some runaway 
virus. They were decisions made by real people to flood America's towns 
and streets with ``a blizzard of prescriptions,'' as Richard Sackler of 
Purdue Pharma put it in his own words. In fact, the pharmaceutical 
industry in the United States produced 14 billion opioid pills in 2016 
alone--enough opioid pills for every adult in America to have a 3-week 
supply of opioids. Who would approve the production of 14 billion 
opioid pills in 1 year, 2016? It turned out it was your government. The 
Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States of America is 
responsible for determining and basically giving a license for the 
production of a specific amount of opioid pills allowed to be 
distributed to the market each year.
  It is the Drug Enforcement Administration--of all agencies--that 
establishes annual production quotas for opioids that are, effectively, 
the gatekeepers for pharma. Pharma, of course, wants to produce as much 
as possible in order to sell as much as possible. The Drug Enforcement 
Administration is supposed to draw the line. Yet, for all of these 
years, while we have faced this epidemic, our government--the Drug 
Enforcement Administration--has been increasing the production quotas 
each year for opioid pills.
  Between 1993 and 2015, the Drug Enforcement Administration allowed 
the production of oxycodone to increase in America 39 times--from 3\1/
2\ tons of opioids in 1993 to 151 tons of opioids in 2015. It is the 
same story for hydrocodone, which increased twelvefold, and for 
fentanyl, which increased twenty-fivefold.
  I pressed those in the Drug Enforcement Administration on this issue. 
I asked them how they could possibly approve of these ever-increasing 
quotas while America faced this epidemic. How did they reconcile their 
decision to flood America with these drugs at a time in which they were 
being abused and when addiction was leading to death all across our 
country?
  Last year, I passed bipartisan legislation. I and Senator John 
Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, gave those at the Drug 
Enforcement Administration more authority to set commonsense production 
levels. It is hard to believe we had to do that--to actually bring to 
their attention that they were authorizing the production of opioid 
pills for an America that was facing the worst opioid epidemic in its 
history.
  Previously, those at the Drug Enforcement Administration could only 
look at what pharma asked for when it determined quotas. In other 
words, they believed, officially, that they had statutory blinders by 
which they couldn't even consider the impact of pharma's annual request 
for production. So Senator Kennedy and I, on a bipartisan basis, 
changed the law to require the Drug Enforcement Administration to 
consider abuse, overdose deaths, and the impact on public health.
  Finally, between 2016 and 2019, the Drug Enforcement Administration 
has lowered opioid quotas by an average of 46 percent. No longer can 
Big Pharma get away with producing this sheer volume of painkillers. 
The Drug Enforcement Administration will soon be proposing its 2020 
quotas, and I will soon be sending it a letter and will urge it to use 
its new authority, which we put in this new law that I passed with 
Senator Kennedy, to continue reining in Big Pharma's insatiable demand.
  Think about that. While we are going through this opioid epidemic, 
pharma--made up of the people who make the pills--is coming to 
Washington, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, and is getting 
permission each year to produce billions of opioid pills to be sold in 
the United States--enough for every adult American to have a 3-week 
opioid prescription.
  Incidentally, 2 years ago, the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention sent out a notice to doctors. It read that only in the most 
extraordinary cases should one prescribe a drug to last for more than 3 
days--only in the most extraordinary cases. Then watch them carefully 
because, in a short period of time, addiction begins. Three days? 
Pharma was asking for a production of opioid pills so that each adult 
American could buy 3 weeks' worth of pills, and the Drug Enforcement 
Administration was complicit.
  To hold all stakeholders accountable, major legal challenges have 
been brought against the pharmaceutical industry for its role in 
deceptive promotion and all of the suffering and deaths that have 
resulted. Over 1,600 lawsuits from States, counties, cities, and 
victims have been consolidated into one Federal case in Cleveland, OH.
  This reminds me of another public health scourge we confronted when 
Americans suffered the consequences of misleading marketing and false 
information about the health risks of tobacco. It took the 1998 Tobacco 
Master Settlement Agreement to finally hold major manufacturers of 
tobacco responsible for their actions--that of cigarettes that hook 
adults and youth to lifetimes of addiction and death.
  That settlement was estimated to provide States with $246 billion 
over 25 years ago. Sadly, only a tiny fraction of that amount--only 8 
percent of the settlement--was actually dedicated to tobacco's 
prevention and cessation. Instead, $145 billion from the tobacco 
settlement has gone to fill State budgets and pet projects--roads, 
bridges, stadiums, even a tobacco museum.
  Should today's opioid litigation result in large monetary settlements 
from the pharmaceutical companies and their distributors, it will be 
essential that this funding be dedicated to legitimate public health 
efforts so as to respond to the current epidemic and prevent the next 
one.
  In the city of Chicago, near an area known as Greektown, there is a 
drug rehab facility that I have visited many

[[Page S4885]]

times. It is called Haymarket. It was started many years ago by a 
Catholic priest who took on a ministry that nobody else wanted. He was 
the one who prowled every night along skid row and helped those who 
were addicted to drugs and alcohol turn their lives around. He started 
this Haymarket House as a refuge for them in an attempt to get them 
some help in escaping their addictions and being rehabbed.
  Can you imagine what it is like today?
  Today, sadly, he is gone, but they continue the Haymarket House. 
Imagine what they face in trying to deal with a combination of 
addiction to drugs and alcohol and mental illness on top of it. They 
are dramatically understaffed. They don't have the necessary bed space 
for people who need a helping hand--for folks who realize they need a 
helping hand.
  Should there be a successful outcome of this Cleveland lawsuit, 
wouldn't it be best if some of the resources would be dedicated to 
places just like that all over the United States?
  I can tell you, in the city of Chicago, there are many more options 
than there are in the more sparsely populated downstate areas from 
which I hail. There are some counties in which people wait 6 months--
once they have realized their need for help--for any kind of treatment 
whatsoever, and then they have to travel great distances for that to 
happen.
  Senator Sherrod Brown and I recently wrote an opinion piece that was 
published in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. I confess publicly that I hope 
those who are party to this lawsuit in Cleveland will read it, which is 
where the consolidated court case is taking place. In it, we outlined 
what we thought should happen if we were to have any input in a 
settlement agreement.
  We need to make sure that the money is spent for addiction; 
treatment; medication; residential and community treatment services; 
mental health counseling, which is a necessary adjunct to this effort; 
building on a behavioral health workforce and naloxone distribution; 
and addressing childhood trauma, which is often the root of addiction.

  Wouldn't it be great if there were to be a settlement here that would 
be dedicated to ending this drug epidemic, turning lives around, and 
saving people from addiction and death?
  The diversion of tobacco's settlement money should be a cautionary 
tale that guides our efforts to heal from the opioid epidemic. If Big 
Pharma is held to account for fueling this crisis, its restitution 
should be devoted to helping our Nation heal.
  This chart shows the dramatic increase in the production of two of 
the most popular opioid products. I will never be able to explain how 
the agency of the U.S. Federal Government, which is dedicated to 
protecting us from drug crime and drug addiction, ended up authorizing 
these enormous quotas of the production of opioid pills. Yet we know 
what happened. In tiny Hardin County in southern Illinois, as well as 
on the streets of Chicago, they were flooded with opioid pills. When 
the opioid pills became too expensive, they turned to a cheaper 
alternative--heroin. Heroin was then being laced with fentanyl, and we 
have today this deadly epidemic that is almost out of control.
  I can't understand what pharma was thinking except for its just 
looking at the profits and the bottom line that would justify the 
production of that level of opioid pills into the United States of 
America. All I can promise is that a number of us--myself included--
will be holding the Drug Enforcement Administration accountable in 
order to make certain that this is not duplicated again in the years to 
come.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Nomination of Clifton L. Corker

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, within a few minutes, the Senate will 
be voting on President Trump's nomination of Cliff Corker to be the 
U.S. Federal District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee. I am 
here to strongly urge my colleagues to support Cliff Corker.
  Cliff Corker has the respect of the people who know him best. He was 
selected to serve as a magistrate judge by the district court judges of 
the Eastern District of Tennessee--a very high testament to his 
qualifications.
  When Cliff Corker was appointed magistrate judge, this is what he 
said:

       It's a tougher job to be the decision maker rather than the 
     advocate. There's so much more responsibility in making the 
     decision than advocating for the client because you really 
     want to see justice done.

  Prior to his nomination to be magistrate in 2015, Judge Corker had 
his own law firm in Johnston City, TN. He handled a wide range of 
cases, from civil litigation to capital murder.
  He graduated from James Madison University and received his J.D. from 
the William & Mary Law School.
  The American Bar Association rated Judge Corker as unanimously ``well 
qualified,'' the highest ranking a nominee can receive. I am sure that 
is because of his judicial and litigation experience.
  Judge Corker has big shoes to fill. He is taking over for Judge 
Ronnie Greer, a very well respected Tennessean, a friend of mine for 
many years, who has served as a judge in Tennessee's Eastern District 
for the last 15 years. Prior to that, he was a State senator in 
Tennessee.
  Cliff Corker demonstrates the qualities that I look for in a judge: 
good character, good temperament, high intelligence, respect for the 
law, and respect for those who come before the court.
  Tennessee is fortunate that President Trump chose to nominate such a 
well-qualified candidate.
  I urge my colleagues to support Judge Corker's nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Nomination of Lynda Blanchard

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I regret that I come to the floor to 
announce my opposition to one of President Trump's political nominees, 
Ms. Lynda Blanchard. To be honest, I cannot even believe that we are 
considering her nomination on the floor of the Senate.
  U.S. Ambassadors are supposed to represent the best of America to 
nations around the world, and I challenge my colleagues, Republican and 
Democrat alike, to look at this nominee's record and tell me with a 
straight face that Lynda Blanchard should represent the United States 
anywhere.
  Look, I have made a good-faith effort to work with this 
administration to confirm a number of well-qualified individuals to 
State Department positions that are vital to advancing America's 
interests around the world. I don't think anyone can deny that.
  But there are some nominees who just raise too many red flags, and I 
raised this to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a letter I sent in 
June of 2018, shortly after his confirmation.
  I explained that a number of nominees before the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee had demonstrated histories of questionable 
temperament and judgement, of questionable conduct, of #MeToo issues, 
just to mention a few, and I expressed my hope that we could work 
together to find qualified nominees to the U.S. Department of State. I 
am disappointed that that effort went unheeded.
  Ms. Blanchard has a history of using Facebook as a platform to post 
incendiary, false articles and disturbing statements. For example, she 
once shared an article titled ``The Clinton `Body Count' EXPANDS--5 
Mysterious DEATHS in the Last 6 Weeks,'' resurrecting the vicious lie 
and preposterous conspiracy theory that President Bill Clinton and 
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have systematically murdered 
political opponents and associates.
  Then, on election day of 2016, she posted on Facebook ``Make God our 
Father paint this country Red with the Blood of Jesus!''--
inappropriately using religion as a blunt instrument in a political 
campaign.
  She has also shared articles by the far-right Conservative Tribune, 
some of

[[Page S4886]]

which were taken down for failing to meet its ``editorial standards''--
quite literally, fake news.
  What is perhaps most disappointing to me is that 2\1/2\ years into 
the Trump administration, none of this is particularly new. We have had 
Trump diplomatic appointments call for putting political opponents in 
prison, such as Kyle McCarter, President Trump's Ambassador to Kenya, 
who tweeted on election night of 2016: ``Hillary for prison. No, 
really!''
  We have had Trump diplomatic appointments, already at their posts, 
make totally inappropriate and inflammatory forays into American 
politics, which is taboo for the Foreign Service, such as in June of 
this year, when Carla Sands, President Trump's Ambassador to Denmark, 
appeared to accuse former President Obama of an ``attempted coup d'etat 
in America''--the U.S. Ambassador in Denmark, June of 2019.
  And we have had Trump diplomatic appointments embarrass the country 
by making false claims and then failing to take responsibility for 
them.
  Pete Hoekstra, appointed by President Trump as Ambassador to the 
Netherlands, has claimed that there were ``no-go zones'' too dangerous 
to enter due to Muslim migration. When asked about these statements, 
Ambassador Hoekstra claimed they were ``fake news'' until he was 
confronted with footage of his own words.
  This is not normal. We cannot grow accustomed to this kind of 
disgraceful behavior. We cannot look at the poor behavior of already-
confirmed nominees and conclude that we should lower our standards when 
it comes to Ms. Blanchard's nomination.
  This is the U.S. Senate--supposedly, the world's greatest 
deliberative body. We should examine the fitness and qualifications of 
every single individual nominated to be the face of America in nations 
across the world. We should expect our Ambassadors to represent the 
United States with dignity, respect, and sound judgment, and we should 
remember that America's role as a leader of nations rests on our moral 
standards and greatest values.
  Something is wrong if we willingly confirm people to these positions 
who repeatedly spread fake news, baseless slander, and the most 
despicable of conspiracy mongering.
  For these reasons, I will be opposing the nomination of Lynda 
Blanchard and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________