[applause] >> the u.s. senate returning from a week-long presents a recess, beginning with the annual meeting of president washington's farewell address. this is live coverage of the u.s. senate. senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. our father in heaven, your counsel stands firm and sure. fashion the hearts of our lawmakers so that they desire to do your will. today, as we remember george washington's farewell address, may we not forget that our
nation is not strong merely because of military might but that integrity and righteousness are also critical to national security. lord, keep our senators from forgetting your promise to surround the righteous with the shield of your divine favor. help us all to continue to find hope in your loving kindness, for we trust in your holy name. may we take refuge in the unfolding of your loving providence. and, lord, thank you for the life and integrity of justice
antonin scalia. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the president pro tempore: pleae join me in reciting the pledge f allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. pursuant to the order of the senate of january 24, 1901, the
senator from delaware, mr. coons, will now read washington's farewell address. mr. coons: washington's farewell address. to the peement of the united states. friends and fellow citizens: the period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the united states being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that i should now apprise you of the resolution i have formed to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made. i beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the
considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, i am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both. the acceptance of and continuance hitherto in the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. i constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which i was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which i had been reluctantly drawn. the strength of my inclination to do this previous to the last election had even led to the preparation of an address to
declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then-perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea. i rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country you will not disapprove my determination to retire. the impressions with which i first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. in the discharge of this trust, i will only say that i have, with good intentions, contributed toward the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my
qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services they were temporary, i have the consolation to believe that while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it. in looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my political life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which i owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities i have thence enjoyed of manifesting my
inviolable attachment by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. if benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead -- amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which, not infrequently, want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism -- the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts and a guaranty of the plans by which they were effected. profoundly penetrated with this idea, i shall carry it with me to my grave as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union
and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these states, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to then the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it. here, perhaps, i ought to stop. but a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation and to recommend to your frequent review some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and
which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. these will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. nor can i forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion. interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment. the unity of government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. it is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very
liberty which you so highly prize. but as it is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth -- as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed -- it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that
it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts. for this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. citizens -- by birth or choice -- of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. the name of american, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. with slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. you have, in a common cause, fought and triumphed together. the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers,
sufferings, and successes. but these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole. the north, in an unrestrained intercourse with the south, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. the south, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the same agency of the north, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the north, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes in different ways to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the
protection of a maritime strength to which itself is unequally adapted. the east, in a like intercourse with the west, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water will more and more find, a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad or manufactures at home. the west derives from the east supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the atlantic side of the union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. any other tenure by which the west can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious. while, then, every part of our
country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations, and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.
in this sense, it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other. these considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind and exhibit the continuance of the union as a primary object of patriotic desire. is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? let experience solve it. to listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. we are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. it is well worth a fair and full experiment. with such powerful and obvious motives to union affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its
impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who, in any quarter, may endeavor to weaken its hands. in contemplating the causes which may disturb our union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations -- northern and southern, atlantic and western -- whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. one of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. you cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.
the inhabitants of our western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head. they have seen in the negotiation by the executive and in the unanimous ratification by the senate of the treaty with spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event throughout the united states, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the general government and in the atlantic states unfriendly to their interests in regard to the mississippi. they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties -- that with great britain and that with spain -- which secure to them everything they could desire in respect to our foreign relations toward confirming their prosperity. will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the union by which they were procured? will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisors, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?
to the efficacy and permanency of your union, a government for the whole is indispensable. no alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute. they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay by the adoption of a constitution of government, better calculated than your former, for an intimate union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. this government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support.
respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. the basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. but the constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. the very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. all obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal
tendency. they serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests. however combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines
which have lifted them to unjust dominion. toward the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. one method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system and, thus, to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. in all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypothesis and
opinion exposes to perpetual change from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. it is, indeed, little else than a name where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. i have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. let me now take a more
comprehensive view and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. this spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. it exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy. the alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. but this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. the disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an
individual; and, sooner or later, the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purpose of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty. without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. it serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. it agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. thus, the policy and the will
of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. there is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. this, within certain limits, is probably true; and in governments of a monarchial cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. but in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. from their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. a fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming,
it should consume. it is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. the spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and, thus, to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. a just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. the necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under
our own eyes. to preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. if, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the constitution designates. but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. the precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield. of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. in vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and
citizens. the mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. a volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? and let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. it is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. the rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every
species of free government. who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. in proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened. as a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. one method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding, likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which
unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. the execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives; but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. to facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that toward the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties) ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.
observe good faith and justice toward all nations. cultivate peace and harmony with all. religion and morality enjoin this conduct. and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? it will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? can it be that providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? the experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
in the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them, just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. the nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is, in some degree, a slave. it is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. the nation prompted by ill will and resentment sometimes impels
to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. the government sometimes participates in the national propensity and adopts through passion what reason would reject. at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. the peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim. so, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. it leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of
privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. as avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. how many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts
of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! such an attachment of a small or weak toward a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (i conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. but that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided instead of a defense against it. excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side and serve to veil and even second the arts
of influence on the other. real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests. the great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. so far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. here let us stop. europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none or a very remote relation. hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of
her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. if we remain one people under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? why, by interweaving our
destiny with that of any part of europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of european ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? it is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, i mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. i hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. i repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. but, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary
emergencies. harmony and a liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. but even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be, from time to time, abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay
with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. there can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. it is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. in offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, i dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression i could wish -- that they will control the usual current of the passions or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. but if i may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial
benefit, some occasional good -- that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism -- this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated. how far in the discharge of my official duties i have been guided by the principles which have been delineated the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. to myself, the assurance of my own conscience is that i have at least believed myself to be guided by them. in relation to the still-subsisting war in europe, my proclamation of the 22nd of april, 1793, is the index to my plan. sanctioned by your approving voice and by that of your representatives in both houses of congress, the spirit of that measure has continually
governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it. after deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights i could obtain, i was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. having taken it, i determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it with moderation, perseverance, and firmness. the considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. i will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all. the duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and
humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity toward other nations. the inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. with me, a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions and to progress, without interruption, to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes. though in reviewing the incidents of my administration i am unconscious of intentional error, i am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that i may have committed many errors. whatever they may be, i fervently beseech the almighty to avert or mitigate the evils
to which they may tend. i shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence and that, after 45 years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest. relying on its kindness in this, as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love toward it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, i anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which i promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking in the midst of my fellow citizens the benign influence of good laws under a free government -- the ever-favorite object of my
mr. mcconnell: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings your honor the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i now ask consent that the senate observe a moment of silence in memory of justice antonin scalia. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: madam president, i'd like to say a few words about a towering figure of the supreme court who will be missed by many.
antonin scalia was literally one of a kind. in the evenings he loved nothing more than a night at the opera house. during the day, he often starred in an opus of his own. for most weamps o watchers of t, even many of scalia's most ardent critics, the work he performed was brilliant, entertaining and unmissable. words had meaning to him. he used them to dissect and refute to amuse and beguile, to challenge and persuade. and even when his arguments didn't carry the day, his dissents often gathered the most attention anyway. president obama said that justice scalia will be remembered as one of the most consequential judges and thinkers to serving on the supreme court -- to serve on the supreme court. i certainly agree.
it's amazing that someone who never served as chief justice could make such an indelible imcimpact on our country. he is in my view in the league with oliver wendell holmes, louis brandeis, and joh john marshall harlan as perhaps the most significant associate justices ever. i first met him when we both served in the ford administration's justice department. i was fortunate as a young man to be invited to staff meetings that featured some of the most influential conservative judicial minds of the time. robert bork was there. he was the solicitor general. larry silberman was there. he was the deputy attorney general. and everyone in the department agreed on two things: one, antonin scalia was the funniest lawyer on the staff
and, two, he was the brightest. scalia was usually the smartest guy in whatever room he chose to walk into. of course, he didn't need to tell you he was the smartest. you just knew it. i came back to washington a few years later as a senator on the judiciary committee, serving there when scalia was nominated to the supreme court. his views on the court were strong and they were clear. some tried to characterize his judicial conservatism as something it was not. it was not political conservatism. scalia's aim was to follow the constitution wherever it took him, even if he disagreed politically with the outcome. we saw that when he voted to uphold the constitutional right of protesters to burn the american flag.
he upheld their right to do that. "if it was up to me, i would have thrown this bearded scandal-wearing flagburner into jail." but he said, it was not up to me. it was up to the constitution. if you had to pick one freedom that is the most essential to functioning of a democracy, it was freedom of speech. scalia once said. he went on, "because democracy means persuading one another and then ultimately voting." you can't run such a system if there's a muzzling of one point of view," he continued. "so it is a fundamental freedom in a democracy, much more necessary in a democracy than any other system of government. i guess you can run an effective monarchy without freedom of speech," he said. "i don't think you can run an effective democracy without it."
so justice scalia defended the first amendment rights of those who would express themselves by burning our flag, just as he defended the first amendment rights of americans who wish to express themselves by participating in change-making process of our democracy. the right to speak one's mind, the right toassociate freedom, the rights of citizens, groups, and candidates to participate in the political process. numerous cases involving these kinds of essential first-amendment principles came before the court during his tenure. i filed nearly a dozen amicus cura-- adozen amicus curiae pre. and i was the lead counsel that. these may not always be popular with some politicians who'd rather enjoy the timing of speech that critical of them.
but scalia recognized that protecting the citizenry from efforts by the government to control their speech about issues of public concern was the very purpose of the first amendment. he knew that such speech, political speech, lay at its very core. it is a constitutional outlook shared by many, including members of an organization like the federalist society. you could always count on him attending the society's annual dinner. one of his sons, paul, -- one of his five sons, paul, of course, was a priest, and he always gave an opening prayer. and this is what fiscal scale said about that. "if an old-fashioned catholic family with five sons, you don't get one priest out of it, you're in big trouble." the other four were very happy
when paul announced that he was going to take one for the team. that's the thing about antonin scalia. his opinions could bite. his wit could be cutting, but his good humor walls in abundant supply. one study from 2005 concluded decisively, or as decisively as one can be, that scalia was the funniest justice on the court. he was also careful not to confuse the philosophical with the personal. i attack ideas, i don't attack people, he said. "if you can't separate the two, you've got to ghet another day job." these qualities endeared him to many who thought verily than he did. most famously his fill so cal opposite on the supreme court, ruth bader ginsburg. their friendship began after ginsburg heard him speak at a law conference. and here's what she said.
she said, "i disagreed with who is of what he said rchght" she recalled. "but i loved the way he said it." scalia phut this way. she likes opera, and she's very nice person. what's not to like? well, he continued, "except her views of the law." ginsburg called him nino. scalia referred to the pair as "the oppose couple." they vacationed together, they rode he will faints, they parasailed. and a few months ago their relationship was captured in the perfect medium -- opera, their shared love. scalia-ginsburg, a gentle parody of oppos oppose operatic vmentze other than ginsburg or the
actress faintly resembling her who comes crashing through the ceiling to save him. it is the kind of show that was larger than life. and so was nino scalia. he leaves behind nine children and a wife who loved him dearly. maureen. maureen would sometimes tees her husband that she had her pick of souters and could just as well have married any of them, but she didn't. he would remind her, "because they were wishy hch washy and she would have been bored." whatever my faults are, scalia once said, "i'm not wishy-washy." far from wishy-washy, anything but boring, scalia was an articulate champion of the constitution. he was a personality unto
mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: we were all shocked by the sudden passing of supreme court antonin scalia. justice scalia and i had our differences. there is no doubt about his intelligence or dedication to country. i offer my condolences to the entire scalia family who laid to rest a dwoafted husband, father, grandfather this weekend. i watched the funeral from nevada. i was deeply impressed with justice scalia's son, reverend paul scalia, and the moving eulogy he gave his father. it was really quite remarkable. but now, madam president, our president, president obama, must nominate a qualified individual to the supreme court, and once
the president has sent a nominee to the senate, it's our responsibility to act. unfortunately, it appears that the republican leader an his colleagues have no intention of filling this important vacancy. the republican leader has repeatedly declared himself to be the proud guardian of gridlock. that's a quote. and he's lived up to that moniker. and that's an understatement. in recent years the republican leader and republican senators have done everything possible to grind the will of government to a halt. but now we're seeing something from the republican leader that is far worse than his usual brand of obstruction. we're seeing an unprecedented attempt to hold hostage an entire branch of government. the damage already done to the legislative branch has been written about. the last seven years, the republicans have done everything they can to stop obama's legislative ability to move
forward. as leader of this democracy, it's too bad that president obama has had to put up with what he's had to put up with, this obstruction of everything dealing with the legislature. the statement the republican leader issued less than an hour after justice scalia's death announcement argued that starting now any president should be denied the right to fill a supreme court vacancy in a president denying election year. think about that. this is a foolish gambit. one, deny president obama his constitutional right to appoint nominees to the supreme court. this is a full-blown effort to delegitimize president obama, the presidency and undermine our system of checks and balances, which is integral to our constitution. i can find no limits in the president's legal authority to nominate supreme court justices during an election year in our constitution. i find no mention of a
three-year presidency in our constitution. i do find in the constitution article 2, section 2, which clearly provides president obama with the legal authority -- actually, the legal obligation to nominate justices to the supreme court contingent of course on the advice and consent of the senate. this is how our system of government has operated for more than 200 years. this is essential to the basic functioning of our coequal branches of government. what the republican leader is suggesting is inconsistent with the constitution. our founding fathers constructed the american democracy only deeming certain assumptions of us in the future. they expect us to be rational. they expect us to operate in good faith. they expect this government to be effective. the republican leader's proposal is none of those things. it is instead an attempt to nullify what james madison and other constitutional architects
envisioned. the founding fathers never intended the senate to run out the clock on its is constitutional duties subverting the president's authority and leaving the judiciary in limbo. they never envisioned the level of cynicism we see exhibited by today's republican party, a republican party that so loathes this president it is willing to render useless our government system of checks and balances. senate republicans would have the american people believe that it is a long held practice to deny the president the right to fill a supreme court vacancy. this is simply not true. i've heard several of my republican l colleagues repeat this in public statements. it grieves me to say it, but the fact is when republicans repeat this statement they're clearly spreading a falsehood. it's not true. i have enormous respect for my republican friends, but repeatedly skirting the truth is
beneath the dignity of their office. according to amy howell, san expert on supreme court proceedings and editor of the scotus, supreme court of the united states blog, there is no such precedent. she writes -- and i quote -- "historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the -- i'm sorry. i'll start over. the historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. there is not one shred of evidence in the last 116 years to back the republicans' claims. democrats never stopped the republicans from a supreme court nominee receiving a hearing or getting a vote on confirmation. never. never, never. let's talk about precedent. in 1988, an election year, the
senate confirmed a supreme court nominee. more than one. that year a democratic senate confirmed president ronald reagan's nomination of justice anthony kennedy in the final year of his administration. i voted to confirm justice kennedy's nomination. i did my friend, the current chairman of the judiciary committee, senator grassley. i think it's well that the presiding officer is the junior senator from iowa. i hope she would listen to what senator grassley said time and time again. senator grassley had no trouble supporting justice kennedy's nomination then not withstanding the fact it was president reagan's last year in office. since that time the senior senator from iowa has been on record inning with defending the president's right to put forward nominee. senator grassley said in 2008
the reality is that the senate never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a presidential term. gray with senator grassley, or at least i agreed with him. frankly, i'm not sure where the senior senator from iowa stands now. he issues a statement, contradictory statements it seems every day on this one issue. another person who voted to confirm justice kennedy in 1988 was the first term senator from ken -- kentucky, senator mcconnell. 40 years ago the republican leader was consistent in asserting the senate has a duty to consider the supreme court's presidential nominations. as a law student, he wrote in 1970, even though the senate has at various times made purely political decisions in regard to nominees, it could not be successfully argus argued it isn
acceptable practice. it might be suggested that a constitutional amendment be introduced giving to the senate rather than the president the right to nominate supreme court justices. close quote. my friend, the republican leader, carried that belief with him into public service. as a freshman senator in 1986 in the judiciary committee hearing he said the constitutional duty is to provide advice and consent, not to substitute our judgment for reasonable views for a nominee to hold. again, in 1999 -- 1990, the senator from kentucky said it is clear our role of government should not be politicized. in 2005, the senator from kentucky reaffirmed his stance stating -- and i quote -- "our job is to act to that nomination in a respectful and dignified
way, give that person an up-or-down vote as all nominees who have majority support have gotten throughout the history of the country. it is not our job to determine who ought to be picked." close quote. and finally, just six years ago the republican leader put it in as simplest terms possible -- and i quote -- "americans expect politics to end at the courtroom door." close quote. these are just a few examples, but there are pages, pages of similar quotes from the republican leader spanning four decades on this subject. unfortunately he seems to no longer believe that politics ends at the courtroom door. he and his party want to undermine the presidency of this president, barack obama. senate republicans would upend our nation's system of checks and balances rather than afford president obama the same constitutional authority that other presidents enjoyed. madam president, throughout the
news today, it's said by all the republican think tanks, or most of them or a lot of them, that it's more important for the republicans to make sure obama does not get a supreme court nominee on the floor of the senate then it is for them to be in the majority of the senate. a few minutes the junior senator from delaware was here on the senate floor reading george washington's farewell address. he did a remarkable job. this man who was national debate champion twice did really a good job. in his address, president washington warned of the partisan party politics the republicans are now employing. he warned of their negative influence on our government and he said -- this is george washington i'm quoting -- all obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations of associations under whatever
plausible character with a real design to direct, control, counteract the law that regular deliberation and action of constitutional authorities are destructive to this fundamental principal -- principle. they serve to give it an extraordinary force to put in the place of a delegated will of the nation the will of a party." close quote. the american people are watching. they're watching republicans obstructing on this issue in direct contravention with the belief of president george washington. the vast majority of americans are wondering how a republican can say they're sending us back to work. we hear that all the time from my friend the republican. while at the same time denying a vote on a nominee that has not even been named yet. i say to my friends across the aisle, for the good of the country, don't do this. i hope my republican colleagues will heed the counsel offered by the senior senator from iowa, the chairman of the judiciary committee, a few short years ago
when he said, another quote by senator charles grassley, "the supreme court isn't the forum to fight any election. it is the time to perform one of our most constitutional duties to decide whether our nominee is qualified to serve on the nation's highest court." close quote. elections come and go but the centerpiece of democracy, the united states constitution, should forever remain our foundation. so my senate colleagues, my senate republican colleagues, do not manipulate our nearly perfect form of government never to appease a radical minority. would the chair announce the business of the day? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 5:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: am i correct,
it's my understanding that i can have 40 minutes at this point? or if i don't have, i ask unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i rise today to pay tribute to associate justice scalia of the supreme court. his recent death is a tremendous loss to the court and the nation of the -- and the nation. since his death, a wide range of commentators, even many who disagreed with him on judicial philosophy, have hailed him as one of the greatest supreme court justices of our history. justice scalia was a tireless defender of constitutional freedom in so many cases when the court was divided, he sided with litigants who raised claims under the bill of rights this was the manifestation of his view that the constitution should be interpreted according
to the text and as it was originally understood. the framers believed that the constitution was adopted to protect individual liberty and, of course, so did justice scalia. he was a strong believer in free speech and freedom of religion. he upheld many claims of constitutional rights by criminal defendants, including search and seizure, jury trials, and the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against them. justice scalia's memorable opinions also recognize the importance the framers placed on the constitution's checks and balances to safeguard individual liberty. their preferred protection of freedom was not through litigation in the courts imperfect after-the-fact redress for liberty deprived. justice scalia zealously protected the prerogatives of
each branch of government and the division of powers between federal and state authorities so that none would be so strong as to pose a danger to freedom. so at this point i will ask consent to place a more extensive remark honoring justice scalia in the record, madam president. and i would like to use the rest of my time on another subject. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: madam president, we find ourselves in a very unusual situation. we're in a presidential election year. the campaign for our next commander in chief is in full swing. voting has begun. some candidates for president have dropped out of the race after disappointing finishes in the primaries. republicans hold the gavels in
the united states senate, and a term-limited democrat in the twilight of his presidency occupies the white house. it's within this context that our nation has lost one of the greatest legal minds ever to serve the court. justice scalia's death marks the first time a sitting supreme court justice has passed away in a presidential election year in 100 years. and it's the first time a sitting supreme court justice passed away in a presidential election year during divided government since 1888. as my colleagues and i grapple with how the senate judiciary committee should approach this set of circumstances, we seek guidance and wisdom from a number of sources. these include history, practice,
and common sense. and, yes, we look to what former committee chairmen have had to say on the subject. in reviewing this history, i am reminded of remarks a former chairman delivered during an election year. that former chairman tackled this problem and he described what should happen if a supreme court vacancy arises during a presidential election year. in fact, this chairman's guidance is particularly instructive because he delivered his remarks in a presidential election year during a time of divided government. the presidential election year was 1992. we had no supreme court vacancy, no justice had passed away
unexpectedly. no justice had announced his or her intention to retire. rather, it was the fear of an unexpected resignation that drove this former chairman of the senate to the senate floor one day before the end of the court's term. near the beginning of his lengthy remarks, this chairman, who was and remains my friend, noted another speech he delivered several years prior on the advice and consent clause. that speech from july, 1987, was titled -- quote -- the right and duty of the senate to protect the integrity of the supreme court, end of quote. this chairman delivered those remarks in 1987 as the senate embarked on one of its saddest episodes, the unfair and the
ugly treatment of an exceptional jurist, judge robert bork. i don't reference that episode to open old wounds, only to provide context, because it was in that speech during the debate that this former chairman defended the senate's constitutional role in the appointment process. it was there in that speech during that debate in 1987 that this former chairman reached back to an early debate from an especially warm summer in philadelphia 200 years prior. he reached back to the constitutional convention because it was then and there that individuals like rutledge of south carolina, wilson of pennsylvania, gorham of massachusetts and of course the father of the constitution madison of virginia.
they debated how our young nation's judges were going to be appointed. it was his examination of the debate in 1787 that led this former chairman to declare 200 years later nearly to the day -- quote -- "article 2, section 2 of the constitution clearly states that the president shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the senate shall appoint judges to the supreme court. i will argue that the framers intended the senate to take the broadest view of its constitutional responsibility. i will argue that the senate historically has taken such a view." end of quote. now, that discussion on the advice and consent clause transpired in 17 -- or 1987, but
as i said, it was during a presidential election year in 1992 that my friend, this former chairman, took to this very floor. why did he begin his remarks in 1992 by reference to an early speech on the advice and consent clause? i will say it wasn't only because senators sometimes like to quote wise words they once spoke. my friend referenced his own remarks on the advice and consent clause because he wanted to remind his colleagues in this senate of this senate's constitutional authority to provide or withhold consent as circumstances might require. and he wanted to remind his colleagues of the senate's constitutional authority before he addressed the real reason he rose to speak in 1992.
the prospects of a supreme court vacancy in a presidential election year. after discussing the confirmation debates that had not occurred in presidential election years, my friend turned to some of those that had occurred. quote -- "some of our nation's most bitter and heated confirmation fights have come in presidential election years. the bruceing confirmation fight for roger tinay's -- tawney's nomination 1836, the senate's refusal to confirm four nominations by president tyler in 1844, the single vote rejections of nominees badger and black by lame-duck presidents filmore and buchanan in the mid 19th century and the narrow approval of justices lamar and fuller in 1888 are
just some of the examples of these fights in the 19th century." end of quote. now, this former chairman continued -- quote -- "overall while only one in four supreme court nominations has been the subject of significant opposition, the figure rises to one out of two when such nominations are acted on in a presidential election year." end of quote. this former chairman then outlined some additional history of supreme court nominations in presidential election years. he emphasized that in four vacancies that arose during a presidential election year, the president exercised restraint and withheld from making a nomination until after the election. one of those presidents was
abraham lincoln. ironically, like president obama, our 16th president, he was a lawyer and he called illinois home. but unlike our current president, abraham lincoln didn't feel compelled to submit a nomination before the people had spoken in november of 18464. event -- of 1864. eventually my friend got to the heart of the matter during -- talking about election year 1992. quote -- "should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the democratic convention and weeks before the republican convention meets a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all.
senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee and to the senate itself." my friend went on to say -- quote -- "it is my view that if a supreme court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks or resigns at the end of a summer, president bush should not consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors -- no. i said that wrong, so let me start the quote over. "it is my view that if a supreme court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks or resigns at the end of the summer, president bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the november
election is completed." and what is the senate to do if a president ignores history, ignores good sense and ignores the people and submits a nominee under these circumstances? here again my good friend, the former chairman, had an answer. quote -- "it is my view that if the president goes the way of presidents fillmore and johnson and presses an election year nomination, the senate judiciary committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. -- is over." end of quote. but what of the likely criticism that will be lobbed at the judiciary committee and at the entire senate if it were to
choose this path of not holding a hearing. my friend, the former chairman, continued -- quote -- "i am sure, mr. president, having uttered these words, some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save the seat on the court in the hopes that a democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention, mr. president. if that were the course to choose in the senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election." end of quote. continuing to quote, though -- "instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, action on a supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is
over. that is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. otherwise, it seems to me, mr. president, we will be in deep trouble as an institution." end of quote. but won't that impact the court? can it function with eight members for some time? won't it create --quote, unquote -- crisis? not remotely. my friend considered this issue as well and appropriately dismissed it. so i support again, others may threat that this approach will leave the court with only eight members for some time, but as i see it, mr. president, the costs of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the justices 4-4 are
quite minor compared to the costs that a nominee, the president, the senate and the nation would have to pay for what assuredly would be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated -- no matter how good a person is nominated by the president if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks." end of quote. and the next several weeks refers to sometime between june and november of 1992. so i want to read this part again -- "others may threat that this approach will leave the court with only eight members for some time, but the costs of such a result with quite minor compared to the costs that a nominee, the president, the senate and the nation would have
to pay for what assuredly would be a bitter fight no matter how good a person is nominated by the president. now, that is very well said. this former chairman is eloquent , or i happen to be very plain spoken. i put it this way. it's the principle that matters, not the person. my friend concluded this section of his remarks this way. quote -- "in the end, this may be the only course of action that historical practice and practical realism can sustain." well, i think probably everybody kind of knows that these are the biden rules. the biden rules recognize --
quote -- "the framers intended the senate to take the broadest view of its constitutional responsibility. the biden rules recognize the wisdom of those presidents, including another lawyer and former state lawmaker from illinois who exercised restraint by not submitting a supreme court nomination before the people had spoken. the biden rules recognize the court can operate smoothly with eight members for some time and -- quote -- the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the justices 4-4 are quite minor compared to the costs that a nominee, the president, the senate and the nation would have to pay for what assuredly would be a bitter fight." end of quote. the biden rules recognize that
under these circumstances -- quote -- "the president should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the november election is completed. the president that he's referring to there is president george h.w. bush. the biden rules recognize that under these circumstances -- quote -- it does not matter how good a person is nominated by the president." end of quote. the biden rules recognize that, -- quote -- "once the political season is under way, action on a supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. that is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process." end of quote. the biden rules recognize that
-- quote -- "senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee or to the senate itself, end of quote. the biden rules recognize under these circumstances -- quote -- "the senate judiciary committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over." end of quote. madam president, vice president biden is a friend, as i've said three or four times during my remarks, and i say it with the utmost sincerity. i served with him in this body and on the judiciary committee for nearly the 30 years that he served. i served with him in this body
and on the judiciary committee for nearly 30 years. he is honorable, he is sincere, he is loyal to the president he now serves, because i know these things about him, i can say with confidence that he will enthusiastically support the president and any nominee he submits to the senate. but i also know this about vice president biden: you h he may serve as vice president, but he remains a united states senator. that's why when he rose to speak in this senate chamber for the last time, he shared this with his colleagues. quote -- "i may be resigning from the senate today, but i will always be a senate name, except for the title of'father' there is no title, including
vice president, there is no title i am more proud to wear than that of the united states senate." in the president of the united states insists on submitting a nominee under these circumstances, senator biden, my friend from delaware, the man who sat at a desk across the aisle and at the back of had chamber for more than 35 years, knows what the senate should do. and i believe in his heart of hearts, he understands why this senate must do what he said it must do in 1992. i yield the floor and give back the balance of my time. mr. markey: madam president? the presiding
officer: the senator massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, madam president. madam president, today we are about to begin consideration of the nomination of dr. robert
califf to lead the food and drug administration. this is an historic time at that agency. it has a record which is not enviable in terms of the way in which it has been dealing with the opioid prescription drug epidemic in our country. i want to give just a very brief history of what has been happening on that issue. back 20 years ago the f.d.a. was asked to approve oxycontin, which is just
a shortened form of saying oxycodone continuously going into the bloo bloodstreamf americans. purdue farm markpurdue phrma ret
this would be a safer way of having prescription opioids go into the american medical system. nothing could have been further from the truth, because oxycodone, the material inside of oxycontin, is molecularly very, very similar to heroin. so when you have a bottle of oxycontin, oxycodone continuously in your tablet, you're talking about having a bottle in your medicine cabinet that's very close to being heroin. now, if someone said to you that your child, your family member is now taking something that's very close to heroin, that would have a profound impact on you.
but that's never quite explained to the american public, and that's something that was not understood at the time because purdue pharmaceutical company was representing that it's safe to take oxycontin. well, it turned out that was not the case. today we have an epidemic in the united states. more than 30,000 people in 2014 died from this prescription drug heroin epidemic, which is ravage ago our country. this is a dramatic increase from 1996 when we really didn't even talk about it in our country. more than 30,000 people died in 2014. the number most likely much higher last year. the number most likely will be
even higher this year as well. here's the story. 80% of all people who are dying in the united states from heroin overdoses started on prescription opioids. can i say that again? 80% of all people in our country who died in 2014 from heroin overdoses started on prescription opioid painkillers. so the pathway into this heroin epidemic is quite clear. it is the food and drug administration approving these new prescription opioid pills without the proper safeguards having been put in place to ensure that it doesn't make the problem worse rather than making the problem improve. so that's why this debate on
dr. robert califf is so important. because the food and drug administration is saying they will not impanel expert advisory panels to review the approval of each one of the new prescription opiates that are in the pipeline right now over at the f.d.a. what's the evidence that that causes big problems? well, back in 2012, the f.d.a. had to consider zohydro. zohydro was a new prescription pain opioid. they impaled a improve of advisors to look at the drug. by 11-2, the expert advisory panel said "no, do not approve this new drug unless we establish a whole new system --
standard in america for addiction, for abuse, for diversion of these drugs; don't do it." the f.d.a. ignored -- ignored the advisory panel and approved zohydro with experts all across america attacking the f.d.a. for not understanding how fundamental the culture in our country had changed since 1996 with the first approval of oxycontin. then, moving forward, the f.d.a. decided that it would not impanel expert advisory panels at all, because they now most likely that they would vote "no." and so on new drugs like high hyzingla, it was said by those
companies that there were abuse deterrents that are inside of those new opioids. well, what wa what does that me? well, abuse deterrence is basically going to the issue of whether or not that new pill, that new drug can be crushed, can be used for purposes other than what it's intended, which is to be a painkiller. however, if the individual just continues to take the pills in the bottle as they're prescribed and they do it on a continuous basis, they run still a high risk of becoming addicted, of becoming addicted. and so the warning went up from all of these outside groups that expert advisory panels were needed. the f.d.a. ignored them. then we hit august -- august of 2015.
and believe it or not, purdue pharma wanted to get approval for 11-16-year-olds to get oxycontin. remember, this is a heroin equivalent. this would go to 11-16 yierlds. and what they decided to do was to not have any advisory panel at all on that issue in august of 2015. now, this despite the fact that it was controversial, that it had tremendous social gact impacimpact in our society, andt the f.d.a.'s own guidance says that advisory panels -- expert advisory panels are needed on drugs of that nature when pediatric dosing, child prescribing is in question. the f.d.a. just ignored it. then when i put my hold on dr. califf's nomination, senator manchin put his hold on, we're
raising this issue. we're saying to the f.d.a., we need advisory panels. we need a change of culture at the f.d.a. this just can't continue. the f.d.a. said they will look at it. the f.d.a. said they would study it. and then the f.d.a. announce twad weeks ago, no -- announced two weeks ago, no advisory panels for any of the new opioids which are in the pipeline over at the f.d.a. because they are -- quote, unquote -- "abuse deterrent." it is a contradiction in terms. it is like jumbo shrimp. there is no such thing as abuse deterrent inside of a bottle of pills that have the same molecular constitution as heroin, especially if we're talking about giving it to kids 11 to 16 in our society.
and, by the way, if you want to know why there's been a snick the number of breaking and enterings in people's homes with people looking for these bottles of picialtion i'll tell you why. each one of the pills could be worth upwards of $80 apiece on the streets of america. hear that number? so a bottle of 60 with 80 milligrams is worth between $4,000 and $5,000 on the streets of america. that's why when they break in your house they don't take the tv. they're looking for that boflt medicine much that's how much it's worth. that's how much they can sell it for. so when do we begin to get real about the fact that it's a bottle of heroin-equivalent in people's homes and that ultimately when all their prescriptions are finished off and they get-out-the-vote it anymore from their -- get it anymore from their doctor, they
end up with heroin for $5 a bag on the streets of america and it doesn't make any difference which community you're talking about. it can be boston, it can be west virginia, it can be enkentucky, it can be california. it's all the same story, the same pathway in for 80% of all those who overdose on heroin in our society. they're still looking for that heroin-like experience. so we have a imig issue here that the f.d.a. is not responding to, which is why i don't believe that dr. califf should be confirmed until we have a change at the f.d.a. and they are not going do to. we have to make sure that they understand that it is a coalition of formceutical companies and physicians which have -- of pharmaceutical
companies and significances which have caused this. we have a vietnam-equivalent number of people dying every year inside the united states on an issue created largely by the pharmaceutical and physician community in our society. so when do we start getting real about it? when do we start having a reality check that while we are 5% of the world's population here in the united states we consume 80% of all of the prescription painkillers in the world. 5% of the population, 80% of all prescription opioid pills. mix well, wait 20 years, a pandemic has broken out across our country. the f.d.a. has a responsibility to ensure that we put the protections in place. the warnings are there, that the
dosage is correct, that the preventive measures are used to reduce dramatically the number of families who are going to be devastated by this issue. when people have back pains, when people have issues other than the most serious life threatening, we have to begin to discuss how long we want these people to be on something that has the same molecular constitution as heroin. it's a big issue. lower back pain, broken legs. there's perhaps a greater danger from the prescribing than there is from the actual underlying injury in terms of long-term consequences for these families. we've got to have this discussion in our country. we've got to have the kind of discussion that says that heroin
overdoses in our country have quadrupled in the last 14 years. quadrupled, and 80% of it started with prescription opioids. we have to have this discussion. dr. califf has been nominated as the new head of the f.d.a. they're not going to change business as usual at the f.d.a. they're not going to do it. they've already announced it. they don't want to hear from experts. their slogan at the f.d.a. is no experts need apply to come in and give advice to the pharmaceutical companies and to the f.d.a. no warnings needed from anyone with regard to what this industry has been doing to our country and what the f.d.a. has been approving. so this issue is one that absolutely is at the top of the
list of the things that we have to deal with in our country. last year the drug enforcement agency, the agency that actually approves how much of this opioid painkiller can be sold in america, and the way the system works is individual companies go to the drug enforcement agency. they tell them how much they want to have approved, and then the d.e.a. never tells the rest of the world how much they allowed each company to in fact manufacture in terms of this new pain -- in terms of the painkiller, the opioid. they give an aggregate number but they never tell you how much each company got approved. so what i would like people to do in their minds right now is just to think for a moment how many prescription opioid pain pills equivalent in oxycodone,
other opioids were approved by the drug enforcement agency. just pick a number. how many pills total? got a number in your head? i'm going to give you the answer. 14 billion. can i repeat that? 14 billion prescription opioid pills were approved for a country of 300 million. that's a bottle for every single adult. a bottle. again i tell you with the material that has the molecular equivalency of heroin inside the cabinets of people inside of the united states of america. this just has to stop. it has to end. i understand it's a good business model for the companies that are manufacturing these things. but it's not good for america. it's not good for the families of our country. and the f.d.a. has to stop. and that's why senator manchin and senator blumenthal, others who are going to be speaking on this issue, we don't think that
dr. califf should be approved until they change business as usual, until they make a commitment that they're going to change business as usual at the food and drug administration. they're supposed to be the guardian of our public health. they're supposed to be the arbiters of what is safe for americans to consume. but they have not been doing the job. and i'm not talking about 1996 anymore. i'm talking about 2015 and 2016. i'm talking about right now when the evidence of this national tragedy is manifesting itself in every community in our country. the least the senate should be able to say is it tried, it really tried to deal with this issue that's been created by the pharmaceutical and the physician community. and it won't be enough just to say that we're going to
authorize $1.1 billion for treatment, although treatment we need. treatment we need because there are millions of people who are going to need it in our society. but we've got to go back to the root cause of this problem, this flood of drugs that have gone into the society. the lack of prescribing education. physicians have to undergo. the f.d.a. indicates that only 10% of physicians in america voluntarily even get educated with regard to what are the consequences of having a bottle of molecularly similar heroin pills to be put inside the cabinets of americans. 10% of physicians. that's just plain wrong, ladies and gentlemen. we have to make sure that the education is there for the physicians who need it. we have to make sure that the pharmaceutical companies do not get the permission to be able to get these new pills approved
until there's a new standard for abuse, a new standard for addiction, a new standard for the diversion of these pills, a new standard for what abuse deterrent means. because right now, again, it's a contradiction in terms. you can still get addicted by taking an oxy or a perk set over and over again day by day. you're going to get just as addicted. it's not abuse deterrent if that's how you're going to be taking it. you still wind up with the same problem. so we need to get real here. there is no bigger issue in our country. there is no more profound change that's taking place on the streets of our country. when it increases by fourfold in just 14 years, what's on the horizon for our society that we don't just put an end to it? so working with other senators, i intend on continuing this effort to explain to other members this problem.
and i could not have a better partner than the senator from connecticut, senator blumenthal, who as attorney general in the state of connecticut and now has a senator has focused laser like on this issue. we're both committed to make sure that education of physicians becomes an indispensable part of the remedy, the r.x., that we in the senate put on the books so that at a minimum that education is made mandatory for every physician who is going to be handing out these pills to otherwise unsuspecting americans. and i'll just finish this way. one parent came up to me and they said, you know, when a doctor says to you that these pills for your family member are good, you're not going to second-guess a physician. you're not going to second-guess him. you're going to assume that because the physician gave them to you, they must be good. and now this man said to me that
his wife and he, they look back and say should we have known more? should we have done something different? should we have tried to protect that other family member? no, it should be the f.d.a. it should be the d.e.a. it should be the physicians. it should be prescribers. they are the ones that should have had responsibility, not the guilt they're giving to families all across the country that they should have known more. no, ladies and gentlemen, this is the time for us on this issue. let me yield to the great senator from the state of connecticut, senator blumenthal.
mr. blumenthal: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, madam president. i am so honored to follow my great friend and very eloquent advocate of massachusetts, senator markey, who said much more powerfully than i can our reasons for opposing dr. robert califf as the nominee for head of the f.d.a., and to say it very simply, this agency really needs drastic reform. it needs an overhaul in the way that it approves these powerful pain-killing substances that can
be a gateway to addiction, whether to opiates or to heroin. i'm proud to stand here with senator markey, senator manchin and others who feel that more must be done, that our nation is lagging in addressing an epidemic, truly a public health hurricane that is sweeping connecticut and our country. i have done round tables around my state that are among the most moving public experiences of my service in the senate and indeed my time as attorney general for 20 years on any public issue. and it's an issue that concerns iowa as well as every other state in the country. it's an issue that should bring
us together on a bipartisan basis to address this true public health crisis. and my reason for opposing dr. califf is very simply the failure of the f.d.a. to recognize its own shortcomings and the prospect that there will be no change in the way that the f.d.a. is responding or failing to respond to this crisis if he is confirmed. all that we can see ahead with his confirmation is more of the same. that is unacceptable. the f.d.a. must be part of the solution or it will continue to be part of the problem. there is no question that the solution to this problem has to be multifaceted. i have seen in the round tables that i held around our state and
in my conversations with the experts in this field and in the meetings that i've conducted with public health officials around the state and with recovering addicts and their families, law enforcement as well as public officials that there is no single solution. there is no one size fits all for recovering addicts, for communities, for different parts of the country. there has to be an emphasis on law enforcement because cutting off the supply has to be an objective, and law enforcement needs and deserves more support from this nation and from the congress. there has to be an emphasis on treatment and services. we're not going to arrest our way or jail our way out of this public health crisis.
nor is treatment alone a sufficient solution. part of the solution has to be more action from the f.d.a. to oversee and scrutinize and stop the pipeline of painkillers and opioids that are continuing to deluge our community. the urgency of this crisis is clear. in 2015, my state had more than 700 prescriptions leading to overdose deaths. these overdoses fatal, are also avoidable. the number of opioid-related deaths around the nation has skyrocketed. and behind every one of these heart broken families and
communities is a realization that more must be done. we depend on the f.d.a. to deal with these kinds of problems. the american people rely on this agency to implement a strong regulatory approach to protect them. and unfortunately, the f.d.a. has utterly and abjectly failed to protect the american people against the epidemic of opioid overuse. the f.d.a. has a troubling history in this area, and i'm well familiar with it because i highlighted it when i was the attorney general of our state, asking for stronger warnings to patients and consumers, asking for better oversight of
oxycodone and related medicine, asking for better supervision and education of the prescribers. and i asked in letters and petitions and in legal action. in effect, the f.d.a. has fueled this crisis by approving too many drugs with too little analysis. tobacco often, it has failed to use an advisory committee when approving a new opioid painkiller. it has demonstrated a troubling preference for speed over safety. it has expediteed consideration at the risk of public health. it is essential to have an independent panel of experts to review and advise the agency on its approval of any opioid pain
killer, giving the public a chance to provide input before a product comes to market, but unfortunately in addition to instances where no advisory committee has been convened, the f.d.a. has simply approved new drugs over committees' objection. this failure to listen to warnings from experts harms public health and safety and confidence and credibility of this agency. one example which some of my colleagues may remember concerns the f.d.a.'s approval of the drug zohydro. this high-dose, extremely potent opioid which lacks deterrent abuse properties, was approved in 2013, despite strong objections from a scientific advisory panel that approved it. that panel voted 11-2 against
approving the drug. the questionable oversight tactics the f.d.a. has employed so far leave me with serious doubts about its ability to implement its recently released action plan. in this plan, the agency committed to convening advisory committees when approving any opioid pain killer that is not abuse deterrent. this approach is very simply insufficient. we've seen how dangerous opioids can be. all opioids, whether or not they are classified as abuse deterrent, should be reviewed by an independent advisory committee, and even if an opioid is classified as abuse deterrent, that doesn't mean it cannot be abused or that an advisory committee shouldn't be consulted. the f.d.a. itself recognizes
that abuse deterrent technology is in its infancy and independent advice is therefore essential. unfortunately, instances where the f.d.a. has failed to listen to its advisory committees are not limited to the context of drug approvals in 2012. the agency recognized that opioids could lead to a number of dangerous outcomes, addiction, accidental overdose and death. so in response, the f.d.a. implemented a risk-management strategy for extended release opioids, including requiring education for prescribers on safe prescription practices and potential for abuse and addiction. two years have passed. two years since the first of these trainings was made available, but the f.d.a. has yet to release information
showing how many prescribers have been trained and educated on responsible prescribing practices. the f.d.a. has ignored my calls for this information to be released. and the f.d.a. has ignored the recommendation from two advisory committees that a similar strategy should be used for immediate release opioids as well, a crucial issue, given that 91% of all opioids prescribed are in this category. i urge my colleagues to join with me in sending a signal to the f.d.a. that more effective scrutiny and action are vitally important. the f.d.a. has failed to take this crisis seriously. until it does, it is failing the american people, and a new f.d.a. head must indicate there will be a sea change, a
fundamental overhaul in the way the f.d.a. oversees and protects the american people. and i'd like to highlight as well the crucial importance of finalizing the deeming rule which is necessary to ensure the agency's authority over all tobacco products also pertaining to addiction, the drug is nicotine, and that is essential to ensure that not only cigarettes but also e-cigarettes, companies that make them cannot market to children and to people who may be led to addiction to that drug. i am determined that the nation do better in addressing this urgent crisis, a public health hurricane sweeping this country, as disastrous as any physical
crisis of tornadoes or floods may be in destroying lives and jeopardizing our national security. i am pleased to yield back to my colleague, senator markey, and to be joined by my great friend and colleague, senator joe manchin of west virginia. mr. markey: i thank the senator from connecticut. and we intend on continuing this battle right through this entire confirmation process and beyond. unless we stop now, f.d.a. is not going to stand for food and drug administration. it's going to stand for fostering drug addiction. that's what it's been doing. it's got to change the way it does business. it has to respond to this addiction and abuse crisis in our country. it has to be the cop on the beat. it has to understand their
responsibility to not allowing for this flood of drugs to go into our society, and we have to begin the battle now. so i urge all members to vote no on this nomination, not directed personally at dr. califf but directed at an agency which has allowed this flood of drugs into our society without putting the proper protections in place. now, mr. president, i would like to yield to the great senator from west virginia who has dedicated his career as governor and as senator to being a leader on this issue. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president, first of all i want to say to my colleagues, senator markey from massachusetts and senator blumenthal from connecticut, this doesn't have a partisan home. this is not a democrat or republican issue. this is -- this is an epidemic that's devastating our entire country. it doesn't matter whether you come from afluency or social economically challenged, rich or
poor, it makes no difference. what side of the track you're on makes no difference. this is something that hits us all. if you're just thinking if you're talking to your community's law enforcement, they will tell you 80% of all crimes are drug related. look at the costs, look at the economy, look at the devastation to the lives it's taking. we're expected to confirm the president's nominee for commissioner to the f.d.a., dr. robert califf. let me say about our president, president barack obama. i think he has taken this seriously, he has come to the state of west virginia. i'm very appreciative of that. he has seen firsthand the devastation it's taken to all aspects of life in west virginia. we're a state that's hit as hard if not harder than any other state. it's a number-one killer in my state. i have more people dying by legal prescription drug abuse than any other cause. so the president came there and he saw that. i'm just asking the president to make that major commitment so let's have a cultural change by
giving us somebody that will shake it up from the top. and i believe dr. califf is a good man, i really do. he is a qualified man. i met dr. califf and spoke to him. i directly asked him, i said dra culture where basically the large pharmaceutical industry that supplies these types of products to the market and expects the f.d.a. to approve them are the people that have supported you for the last 20 years. it's just human nature. that's hard to change and it's hard to say no to. so with that being said, i said we need a cultural change. i think he understands that and respects my position. i respect his. i just think he's the wrong person at this time of need for the position that we need to shake it up. he's going to continue to serve as deputy commissioner of the f.d.a.'s office of medical products and tobacco, but the commissioner of the agency must be someone willing to lead in a different direction. with 51, 51 americans dying
every day to an opioid overdose, the f.d.a. now more than ever needs a commissioner championed and committed to changing the way this agency handles opiates. as i've said many times before, my state of west virginia has been hit the hardest. drug overdose deaths have soared by more than 700% since 1999. we lost 600 west virginians to opioids last year alone. that's not the only problem in west virginia. since 1999, we have lost almost 200,000 americans to prescription opioid abuse. i'm here today to urge all of my colleagues that before you take your vote today, i want you to think. think about the citizens of your state who are suffering from prescription drug abuse. think about all of those that you know who have lost a loved one due to this epidemic. each and every one of us here knows someone whose life has been wrecked by illegal prescription drug addiction. there is not a person -- this is a silent killer. there is not a person that i
know in any community, in any group, in any setting that i can't look at and say there's not one of new this room that doesn't know somebody in your immediate family or extended family or friends that hasn't been affected. that's how rampant this is. but it's one that we don't speak about much. we are kind of concerned. it could be our son, it could be a brother or sister. could be a mother or father or aunt or uncle. we don't want to talk about it. we're afraid it's been stereotyped. but we need a cultural change. as the agencies overseeing the approval of these addicted drugs, the f.d.a. plays a critical role in this epidemic. and as my dear friend from massachusetts, as senator markey has said, the f.d.a. might have to change what it stands for. and it really has. it's fostered this drug addiction more than any other agency. when you think that it's being produced legally, it's being approved by the federal government in a legal way, it's being prescribed in legal ways
and we have the most -- the most addicted nation on earth. 5% of the population that lives in this great country of ours called the united states of america. over 80% of the opiates consumed in the world are consumed by 5% of the world's population. something is wrong. something is wrong. everyone should be concerned about this. i tell -- i'll tell your children and grandchildren, mr. president, every day when i speak in schools, you don't have to worry about another country overtaking us by the military. we have the greatest military the world has ever known. we've the strongest economy. we're the only ones that can correct the mistakes we have made in our economy because it's so strong. they don't think they have to take you on the military or worried about overtaking their economy. they will sit back and wait until we become so addicted we can't function. this is what we're dealing with. this is why it's of such importance. the agency has been so calloused about their approach to this
epidemic. as a matter of fact, time and time again, they have failed to consider the public health. you would assume that if the food and drug administration makes a decision that something is good and consumable, that they would have looked at the effects it has on the public, the health and well-being of the citizens of this great nation. it has actively stood in the way of efforts to address the the opiate abuse epidemic. for years, the f.d.a. delayed before finally agreeing to reschedule hydrocodone. when i first came to the senate in late 2010, early 2011, i said my goodness, we have vicodin and lorotab, the most prescribed opiates yoidz on the market. oxycontin had already been moved to schedule two. vic din and lorotab was schedule
three. it took us three years to get the f.d.a. to move, to reschedule vicodin and lorotab and all opiates to a schedule two. it took three years. their own advisory committee recommended that it be rescheduled. that means you can only give out 30 days supply at one time without seeing a doctor's visit. under schedule three, they can give out 90 days and continue to call it in without seeing a doctor. they were putting this stuff out like they were m & m's. so that changed. we finally got that done. but it took forever to get it done. we never could understand why. but let me tell you to add insult to injury. but since that change went into effect, we've seen a number of prescriptions for hydrocodone products fall by 22%, mr. president. we knew it worked because they were overprescribing it. so 22%. that's 26 million fewer prescriptions and 1.1 billion
fewer pills on the market. that's how much just that one change, it took three years, should have been done in three weeks, took three years because the f.d.a. stalled their decisionmaking. then after finally making the important step, after three years, the next day -- you the next day that that was done, mr. president, the f.d.a. approved the dangerous drug called zohydro. the next day after three years waiting to get all opiates to a schedule 2, they come out and recommended zohydro and approved it even when their own spertds -- even when their own experts, their own advisory committee made up of experts, recommended 11-2 against bringing this most powerful regional drug on the -- lethal drug on the market. this drug has ten times the most of hydrocodone. just recently the f.d.a.
approved the use of oxycontin for the use of children 11 years of age. can you believe that? they did that without having any experts, any advisory committe committee's consent or recommendation. this decision means that phrma is now legally allowed to advertise oxycontin to pediatricians under certain circumstances. we have seen the df stating impact. and we have years of evidence that shows that drug use at an early age makes a child more likely to abuse drugs later in life. these illustratiothese illustras of the deadly epidemic. while i recently accepted the agency's decision to fine lily start listening to the advice of its expert advisory committee, they have just decided now they're going to start listening to their advisory committees novment way have they committed to taking basically the recommendations. they're just going to listen. you might say it is a step in the right direction for them finally listening but basically
taking the advice of experts and not acting on it is absolutely, i think, meaningless. the change at the f.d.a. needs to be fundamental and it needs to come from the top. we need a leader who changes the current way of thinking, unless a major cultural change is implemented at the f.d.a., similar instances will occur under the future. meanwhile, our nation's opiate epidemic only continues to worsen and our friends and families are further torn "part" by the impact of addiction. if dr. califf is confirmed today, i do not feel confidence that this -- i don't feel confident that this culture change is going to take place. he has such close financial ties with the pharmaceutical industry. he received money through his university salary and consulting fees from 26 pharma companies, including opiate manufacturers. in the past, dr. califf has actually described the f.d.a. regulation as a barriers, not a safeguard for public health but
a barrier. mr. president, i believe that the f.d.a. needs new leadership, new focus, and a new culture. dr. califf' califf's past involt with the pharmaceutical industry shows he will not be the person to do that. he will not have the impact or leadership capabilities that the nation needs to stem the tide of the opiate crisis. i believe that the f.d.a. must break its cozy relationship with the pharmaceutical industry and instead start a relationship with the millions of americans impacted by prescription drug abuse. it is because of this belief that i am urging my colleagues to vote against the confirmation of dr. califf. mr. president, my office has been absolutely flooded with stories from west virginians and americans who want their voices heard. i'm going to read just a couple of letters because i think it is important to know the impact of these letters. i want you to absolutely hear -- and i know every state has been impacted the way my state has. this is susan's story. "my name is susan. i am from west virginia, and i
am the mother of three children ages 20, 16, and 14. my oldest son's names is zach. zach isan addict. he grew up in a small town with his mother, father, brother, a sisters, played sports throughout his childhood including baseball, wrestling and basketball. he went to church with his frandz parents and wanted to be a preacher until the age of 11 or 12. my husband and i divorced when zach was 13 are and he deeply affected zach. we moved to a new town where zach and his brother and sister started into a new school system. around the age of 15 and 16, zach started self-medicating with nerve pills. the presiding officer: i hate to interrupt the senator, but his time has expired. mr. manchin: i didn't think there was a time barrier on it. i ask to continue at least this letter. finish this letter. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. alexander: mr. president, the senator from washington, reserving the right to object, the senator from washington has five minutes to go.
i have ten minutes to go, and the vote is at 5:30. so i guess i would ask through the chair what the senator from west virginia -- man if i could jusmr. manchin: t finish this letter. i'll come back. i have many more. mrs. murray: i i ask that i be allowed six minutes and the senator from tennessee allowed ten following these remarks. the presiding officer: is there objection to the senator from west virginia's request? without objection. mr. manchin: around the age of 15 or 1-6rbgs zach started self-medicating smoking pot and drinking. zach did his first stint in rehab at age 16. went to florida for a rehab facility because they were able to arrange everything including his flight before he even got a call back from any facility in our state. he was in treatment 60 days and returned home. he was clean for several months, then started using again. zach graduated to using pain
pills. from there he started shooting up in pain pills. a child who had a horrific fear of needless was now injecting opiates. zach was robbing people and living house to house on the streets. then when he figured out heroin was more accessible and cheaper, this became his new drug of choice. zach was arrested and given the choice to go to rehab again. completed another two trips to rehab, one being 60 to 90 days and another being around 30. he came home, relapsed, went to jail for four months due to are failed drug tests. he spent four amongsts in region jail without receiving any help without substance abuse. when he was released from jail, he was very lost, didn't know what to do with his life. he was clean. several months before lapsed again. zach is now in a peer recovery program in west virginia, 20 years old and on his fourth stint in rehab. he is fighting for his life and this program along with about 20 other men. he has lost close to 20 people
in his life diewf due to overdoses. being a mother to an addict is a nightmare. when zach was a juvenile, i was told by treatment providers that insurance companies did not consider substantial abuse in children a life-threatening disorder. i had to running up in the house and handcuff him and take him to the hospital. i had c.p.s. called on me for having my intoxicated son handcuffed because i wasn't a police officer. i had mental hygiene warrants lost. my son was released by a hospital at moderate risk to suicide because of that treatment centers wonk consider admitting him to their prasm i was told by hospital staff that if i had a medical card ands instead of private insurance or any of my children was a ward of the state, he could get him more help. i contemplated quitting my job in order to get a medical card for my son. i had been asked by rehab to take out loans in order to get my son help. i have had to borrow thousands of dollars in order to get my
son into treatment. i have driven my child to hospitals while he has -- while he is noding in and out. and i was crying so hard i couldn't seevment i have stayed up for 2 4 hours in a row wampg my son detox. i have followed blangses for files transferring him to facilities. i have missed christmases, thanks givings and birthdays. i have gong months and months without a good night's sleep. i would cringe every time there was a phone ring and a knock on the door. no mother should wait for that phone call. i have also had to sit my two children down and explain to them that i don't love them any less than i do their brother. i have to tell them i have to dedicate more time to zach because i know the tbof them will be okay. but i have to try and keep their brother alive. you see, this epidemic is not affecting the person who is the addict. it is destroying families and communities. siblings are forgottening. marriages and relationships are destroyed. entire families are getting ptsd. time is an all-time high.
the list goes on and ofnlt the whole system is broken, mr. president, when it comes to treating mental illness ans addiction. until geat the money to fund treatment and more treatment centers, this epidemic will continue to get worse. i am finishing right now. if my child had cancer or any other chronic disease, i would be able to get immediate treatment. he would be able to get good treevment addiction a disease that may start with a poor choice but is ultimately a disease. until we are able to provide adequate treatment needed to those suffering, we will continue to lose a generation of people. i pray that no one else has to experience the pain my family and my son has experienced. unfortunately, this disease has entered into every community, every neighborhood and most families. it is just a shame that we live in the greatest nation in the world and that is our reality. mr. president, i want to thank you and thank you my colleagues for allowing me that. i just feel very concerned about where our country is going and the role the f.d.a. plays and we need a cultural change. thank you, mr. president.
mrs. murray: mr. president, i want to start by expressing my appreciation to dr. califf for accepting this nomination and continuing to offer his expertise and service of families and communities nationwide. i am glad this evening to have the opportunity to talk about the progress the f.d.a. has made in recent years, the challenges that lie ahead and why i believe dr. califf has the necessary leadership background and experience to guide the f.d.a. at this very important time. mr. president, the f.d.a. oversees a quarter of all the goods cold in the united states, including more than a doctoral dollars in medical devices, cosmetics and supplements. so the f.d.a. has a very critical responsibility to support health and well-income this kufnlt i am pleased, mr. president, that in recent years important progress has been made to imriewrve f.d.a.'s services for patients and families, from approving the highest number of new drugs and
biologics in 201420 making progress towards a 21st century food safety system as the food safety modernization act is implemented. these are important steps that have no doubt made a difference for families. but the f.d.a. still faces significant challenges as we look ahead. as i have discussed with dr. kay lirvetion the f.d.a. must continue to encourage the development of safe, effective cures and treatments for the chronic illnesses that impact far too many families across the country. the agencies should prioritize tackling the threat of antibiotic resistant- infections like the ones linked to the congress tam nateed medical devices in my state and should ensure that patients can always trust the medical devices used in their care are safe and effective, including by building a robust post mrkting surveillance system for devices. the food should continue to
strengthen its generic drug and biosimilar programs and needs to play a role in ensuring all patients and families have access to the prescription drugs they need. in addition, mr. president, our country faces urgent public health challenges that the f.d.a. must help to address. to name a few, we need to move forward on making sure families have access to nutritional information on ensuring our food supply is both safe and healthy. woondz to put all the agency tools to work to stop tobacco companies from targeting our children, and we need to tackle the epidemic of opioid abuse that is ending and ruining lives nationwide. i was pleased to see that the f.d.a. put forward an action plan to help protect our communities from that crisis, and i look forward to working together with all of our colleagues to address that area. another critical priority is ensuring the f.d.a. always puts science over politics. as some on the floor today will remember, several of my
colleagues fought long and hard to ensure that medical expertise, not ideology, governed decision making on the sale of plan b over the counter. women and families have to be able to trust the f.d.a. to not play politics with their health. mr. president, after careful consideration and review, i am confident that dr. califf would contribute leadership and expertise as we work to tackle all of these challenges. he is a strong nominee for the role of f.d.a. commissioner. he has an impressive history of leadership and management experience, especially at duke university, where he led one of our largest academic clinical research organizations. he would bring to this new role a record of advancing medical breakthroughs on challenging illnesses through clinical trials and working to translate n.i.h. lab discoveries into useable medical treatments for patients. and our review of his record
demonstrates a long-standing commitment to transparency in relationships with industry and work toning sure academic integrity. dr. califf has made clear he will continue to uphold these values and prioritize a strong independent f.d.a. as commissioner. and his nomination received letters of support from 128 different physicians and patient organizations as well as the strong bipartisan support of the members of our help committee. mr. president, i have approached this nomination, focused on the best interests of families and communities in my state and across the country and in making sure the f.d.a. puts them first in all its work. and i believe dr. califf would be a valuable partner in this effort as f.d.a. commissioner. so i encourage all of our colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination and i look forward to working with all of us to strengthen health and well-being for the families and
communities we serve. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the snrr tennessee. mr. alexander: for the information of senators, the vote will be in about 10 minutes following our -- following my remarks. and i want to make my remarks because of the importance of this nomination. i join the senator from are washington state in urging our colleagues to end the debate on the nomination of dr. califf and then tomorrow to vote for him. this is -- we're very fortunate to have a man of this distinction accept this position. i congratulate the president for his nomination, and i note, as the senator from washington said, that his nomination has been widely applauded across this country and received strong bipartisan support in our committee after an intense investigation. i would like to include in the record following my remarks a list of the following 118
organizations who have submitted letters in support of dr. califf's nomination to our committee. the list does not include press releases or other statements of support that were not submitted to the committee. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. alexander: dr. califf will be in charge of the food and drug administration. that agency is responsible for the safety and effectiveness of our nation's medicines, devices and other medical products in protecting our country's food supply. it is not too much to say that this job affects virtually every single american. it is a huge job. the f.d.a. affects nearly every single american and regulates about a quarter of all consumer spending in the united states of about $4 trillion annually. it's responsible for product areas as diverse as prescription drugs for humans as well as for animals. for medical devices, for bayh logic -- for biologics, food and tobacco. to accomplish this the f.d.a.
employs 15,700 full-time employees worldwide with an annual total budget of $4.5 billion from funds appropriated by the congress and user fees paid by the industries it regulates. managing an enterprise of this size is no small undertaking. it requires strong leadership and a steady hand. last year on september 17, the president nominated dr. califf. my staff and i reviewed the nomination carefully. i found him to be well qualified to take charge of the f.d.a. he is one of the nation's leading cardiologists. he was a professor at one of the nation's top medical schools for over 30 years. he's an expert on clinical research. he's been recognized by the institute of scientific information as one of the top ten most cited authors with more than 1,200 peer-reviewed publications. he has managed large organizations, including the duke clinical research institute as a founding director.
in his current position as f.d.a.'s medical commissioner for medical products and tobacco in which he oversees the regulation of products including human drugs, -- biological drugs. he has conducted scores of clinical trials and advised in research on some of the nation's leading fiewrmt -- fiewrmt -- pharmaceutical companies. before the president even announced his nomination, there was an extensive vetting by the white house and the f.b.i. he submitted paperwork to the office of government ethics which carefully reviewed that information looking for conflicts of interest. the form he submitted in public is public. it includes every source of income over $200, every asset worth more than $1,000, every potential conflict that the office of government ethics determined would require a recusal.
before our committee held a hearing, dr. califf answered 37 pages of questions from the bipartisan leadership of the committee, including confidential questions on financial information. he responded to written follow-up questions. his responses included over 3,000 pages of articles and lectures my staff and senator murray's staff reviewed and any member of the senate could review. on november 17 the help committee held a hearing on his nominations. he provided testimony, took questions. afterwards he answered 100 pages of written questions. throughout this response we've carefully reviewed everything submitted and have not found anything that would call into doubt dr. califf's ability to lead the f.d.a. fairly, ably and impartially. i'm pleased to support his nomination. i'm pleased the full senate now will have an opportunity to vote on that nomination in a prompt way. dr. califf's nomination comes at an important time for the f.d.a. the f.d.a. for the past year has been operating without a confirmed commissioner. there are important issues there
and it needs a confirmed commissioner to provide the leadership that will carry the agency into the future. one issue that's been on many of our minds is how to make sure that american patients have access to affordable drugs. the f.d.a.'s job of course is not to set drug prices. and i'm pleased dr. califf agreed at his confirmation hearing that he understands the f.d.a.'s role is to make sure that drugs are safe and effective, not to regulate their price. but the f.d.a. can help lower drug prices by approving generic drugs and other products as quickly as it possibly can. so there's more choice and competition in the market but thousands of applications for generic drugs sitting at the f.d.a. are waiting approval. addressing this backlog and reviewing new applications as expeditiously as possible will allow lower drug costs to be available to patients. i'm confident the f.d.a. can improve its performance. just last month our committee held a hearing on this issue and
the f.d.a. was optimistic about making progress. we also need to confirm a commissioner who can guide the agency to make sure it keeps pace with medical innovation. there has never been a more exciting time in medical research than today. we know more about biology and medicine than ever before and knowledge is being applied in innovative ways. we're talking about actually curing, not just treating cancers. we're using 3-d printing to help doctors replace knees. and in one case the f.d.a.'s approved a drug to treat epilepsy that is made by 3-d printing. the president has announced a precision medicine initiative designed to promote personalized treatment and take into account an individual's genes, environment and lifestyle. these are exciting developments. but first the f.d.a. needs to make sure that regulation is appropriate. too much regulation could reduce investment. not enough regulation could lead patients to getting therapies that are not safe and effective.
and at the same time the f.d.a. will need to make sure that its policies and its procedures, many of which were adopted decades ago, are capable of addressing the technologies of today and tomorrow. second, as we continue to make medical advances, the f.d.a. will need to keep up with the science or rely on expertise outside f.d.a. when appropriate. doing that would require a leader who can manage a large and complex organization, not just on big policies that make headlines, but on day-to-day matters like hiring and training scientists on the core mission, and integrating information technology. medical products take more time and money to discover, develop and reach american patients than ever before. we hear stories about drugs and devices that are available to patients outside the u.s. before they become available here. often because it's difficult for manufacturers to navigate the f.d.a.'s often unclear approval requirements. it often takes over a decade to develop a drug that gains
marketing approval in the u.s. according to one recent study, the costs have tripled in the last ten years. senator murray and i are working with our colleagues on our committee on bipartisan legislation to help get safe cutting-edge drugs, medical devices and treatments into american medicine cabinets and doctors' offices more quickly. we held a markup on february 9 at which we approved seven important bills. with bipartisan support that will help manufacturers and the f.d.a. to get innovative treatments to patients more quickly. i will include more about these in the record, if i may ask consent to do that. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: they are all bipartisan bills. senator bennet, warren and hatch have a bill helping children with cystic fibrosis. senator burr and franken offered a bill that will help millions who need a medical device such as a pacemaker to have that more
rapidly. senator baldwin and collins offered a bill which we approved that will help the national institutes of health create opportunities for new funding. senators kirk and bennet, hatch, murkowski, isakson, collins offered legislation that we approved that would help americans with disabilities and chronic diseases, perhaps a stroke, for example, relearn skills. isakson and murphy offered another piece of legislation. senator murray herself offered an important bill on preventing super bugs and protecting patients act affected by an incident in her state of washington. senator murray and i offered legislation that our committee has worked together on to try to improve information technology which is essential to any of the advances that we make. we'll be taking up more of these proposals in march and in april. so, mr. president, the next f.d.a. commissioner will have a lot of work to do both to
implement the legislation that we're passing and to take the existing authority and make sure that we help patients as best we can. he will be, as i said, dealing with one quarter of the consumer spending in the united states and affecting virtually every american. he is the right person for this job. i strongly encourage my colleagues to vote for dr. califf, first today to end debate on the nomination, and tomorrow once that's ended, to confirm him in this important position. i thank the president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we the we, the undersigned senators we, the undersigned senators in in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of robert mick -- mckinnon califf. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived.
the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of robert mckinnon califf of south carolina to be commissioner of food and drug's department of health and human services shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will now call the roll. vote:
senators voted? does any senator wish to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 80, the nays are 6. the motion to invoke cloture is accepted. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i request that i be able to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senate will be in order. mr. nelson: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: we all know how our senior citizens have been the victims of spoofing. while that's happening to a lot of our fellow citizens, no matter what the age is, because fraudulent and abusive phone scams are plaguing thousands of americans each year.
these deceitful practices are causing very serious harm to victims by fake messages coming across, often that cause the receiver to respond with some kind of financial transaction or the giving up of a credit card number. the commerce committee and the aging committee have explored the impact of these scans, and by one account consumers continue to lose millions of dollars each year to fraudulent phone scams, many of which originate in other countries. the impact of these scams are very real to the consumers who suffer. for example, one poor soul took
his life earlier this year after spending thousands in a vain attempt to collect on his winnings in what he thought was a jamaican lottery, winnings that were nonexistent because it was all a scam. well, a lot of us think that we have trained ourselves to ignore phone calls and text messages from numbers that pop up that we don't recognize, but this is also where the sophisticated scammer enters, because now scammers impersonate government institutions' numbers, and they promote fraudulent lottery schemes, and they tailor their calls to individuals in order to
coerce victims in a paying large sums of money just like the victim that i mentioned earlier this year. and so they use spoofing technology to manipulate the caller i.d. information, and they trick consumers into believing that the calls are local or they come from trusted institutions. a few years ago, this senator introduced the truth in caller i.d. act to prohibit i.d. spoofing when it is used to defraud or harm consumers, and this law provided important tools for law enforcement to go after these criminals and crack down on the phone scams. and so that legislation was passed, it was signed into law,
it was a huge win for consumers and the first step toward ending these abusive practices. but technology is passing us by. as the technologies evolve, the law directed the federal communications commission to prepare a report to congress outlining additional tools that are going to be needed for different kinds of spoofing practices because of new technologies. the f.c.c. a few years ago provided its recommendations to congress on how to update the law to keep pace with technology and the use of it by criminals. and so senator fischer and i have filed a bill today that responds to the f.a.a. reports, recommendations and their requests, and it builds on the
2010 act on phone scams to keep up with the new kind of spoofing, because they are now much more sophisticated and we need to make sure that there are the consumer protections and the tools for law enforcement to keep up, and that's why this legislation that we have filed today is important. it's called the spoofing prevention act of 2016. it would extend the current prohibition in law on caller i.d. spoofing, extend that to tax messages, and it would extend it to calls coming from outside the united states, and from all forms of voice over the internet protocol services.
and this bill additionally for the first time would ensure consumers to have access to the information to go after these criminals in a centralized location on current technologies available to protect them against this sophisticated type of criminal, and it does so by directing the f.c.c. to publish and regularly update a report on existing tools. and the act also directs the government accountability office to conduct a report to assess government and private sector work being done to curb this spoofing, as well as what new measures included technological solutions can be taken to prevent this. so i urge our colleagues to join
senator fischer and me in supporting this act to try to give some protection in this age of digital technology, of rapidly advancing technology to help protect those poor consumers who are getting fooled. in other words, they're getting spoofed. i also want to thank senator klobuchar and senator donnelly for their work in combating spoofing. we're going to continue to work on this. and, mr. president, this senator is going to press the federal communications commission to continue to use its full authority under the truth in caller i.d. act to stop these scams, including a consideration of technical solutions like the call authentication to protect
consumers. i would ask consent that these remarks and the spoofing prevention act of 2016 be printed in the "congressional record." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: cloture having been invoked, the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department department of health and human services, robert mckinnon califf of south carolina to be commissioner of food and drugs.
the presiding officer: the senate majority leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i recently joined my good friend from iowa, the chairman of the judiciary committee, in writing an opinion piece. we expressed our joint view at the deaths of justice scalia represent a significant loss for our country, and that while finding the right person to take the seat he occupied will clearly be a monumental task, it's one we think the american people are more than well equipped to handle. some disagree and would rather the senate simply rush through yet another lifetime appointment for a president who is on his way out the door. of course it's within the
president's authority to nominate a successor, even in this very rare circumstance. remember that the senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888. almost 130 years ago. but we also know that article 2, section 2 of the constitution grants the senate the right to withhold its consent as it deems necessary. it's clear that concern over confirming supreme court nominations made near the end of a presidential term is not new. given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, the chairman of the judiciary committee and i believe that it is today the american people who are best
positioned to help make this important decision rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most recent national election. now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the committee on environment and public works be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 890 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 890, an act to revise the boundaries of certain john h. chafee coastal barrier resources systems unit in florida. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a
third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask being in a knack the committee on veterans' affairs be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 3262 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3262, an act to provide for the conveyance of land at the iliana health care system of the department of veterans' affairs in danville, illinois. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i now ask unanimous consent the committee on veterans' affairs be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 4437 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4437, an act to extend the deadline for the submittal of the final report
required by the commission on care. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on veterans' affairs be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 4056 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4056, an act to direct the secretary of veterans' affairs to convey to the florida department of veterans' affairs on right, title and interest of the united states to the property known as the community living center, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i now ask unanimous consent the committee on banking, housing and urban affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 2234
and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 2234, a bill to award the congressional gold medal collectively to the members of the office of strategic services, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i now ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of s. res. 371 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 371, congratulating the denver broncos for winning super bowl l. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until
10:00 a.m. tomorrow, tuesday, february 23. following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. further, that following leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of the califf nomination postcloture. further, that the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for weekly conference meetings. finally, that all time during the recess and adjournment of the senate count postcloture on the nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding
mr. mcconnell: madam president, i'd like to say a few words about a towering figure of the supreme court who will be missed by many. antonin scalia was literally one of a kind. in the evenings he loved nothing more than a night at the opera house. during the day, he often starred in an opus of his own.
for most weamps o watchers of t, even many of scalia's most ardent critics, the work he performed was brilliant, entertaining and unmissable. words had meaning to him. he used them to dissect and refute to amuse and beguile, to challenge >> >> president obama said justice scalia will be remembered as one of the mostzing consequential judges to ever serve on the supreme court. s i certainly agree. it is amazing someone who neverpact served as chief is justice could make such an indelible impact on our country.nd j
he is in my view with oliver wendell holmes, louis brandeis and john marshall the most significant associate justices of for. i was fortunate as a union with those influential mullions of the time. the solicitor general was there. eve and the deputy attorneycali general and everyone in the department agreed on to things. one, it didn't scalia was the funniest lawyer on staff and number to cover the bride is.
and pete was light up whatever room he chose to walk into. he didn't tell you to just knew yet the -- space i came back is a senator on the judiciary committee serving when he was nominated to the supreme court. his views on the court were strong in and clear. said it was not political conservatism. david if he disagreed politically. and to uphold the constitutional right to uphold the right to do that and this is what he said. if it is up to me i would have had this scandal flag
burner into jail but it is not to be. "this is it" the constitution did you pick one freedom that is the most essential of the functioning of a democracy is freedom of speech to. scalia once said that means persuading one another then ultimately voting. you cannot run such a system from 1.of view so it is a fundamental freedom much more necessary india other system of government. you could run a and effective monarchy cannot effective democracy without a. so justice scalia defended those rights by diverting overfly for those that wish
to express themselves in the change making process of our democracy. the right to speak one's mind is and i filed nearly a dozen priests in related to the supreme court cases and receive years. but those core first amendment freedoms that would control the amount bet is critical of them. with efforts to control their speech of the issues of public concern for the
first amendment. it is a constitutional i look like the federalist society one of his sons was a priest and always gave them an opening prayer. this is what scalia said if an old-fashioned man with five seconds if you don't get one priest you are in trouble. [laughter] and he said he would take one for the team. that is the think about justice scalia his opinions
could bite his wit could be cutting but his humor was an abundance supply. to conclude decisively as one can be that he was the funniest justice of the court and also careful not to confuse the philosophical with the personal. this you can separate the two you have another day job. in the philosophical thoughts on the court was justice ginsberg their friendship began after she heard him speak analog conference in here's what she said. i disagree with most of what he said but i loved the way he said a.
she likes opera what is not to like? they were referred as "the odd couple" vacationed together and road elephants it did parasailing in their relationship was captured in the perfect medium of opera to their share of love. scalia in ginsberg the premier and last summer in scalia is in prison for excessive dissenting and ginsburg of the actress faintly resembling her comes crashing through to save her.
it is the kind of show that is larger than life he leaves behind nine children into a wife who loved him dearly. laureen but sometimes tease her as she had her pick of sanders thank could have buried any of them but she didn't he would render because they were when she washy in she would have been bored whenever i faults are i am not wish to washy anything but boring he was articulate kid bin of the constitution. his passing is a significant loss for the court in for
our to injury. we remember him today with a large and loving family he leaves behind. our country will not soon forget him. >> we were shocked with the sudden passing of justice scalia. we had our differences with the dedication to country i offer my a condolences to the entire family i watched the fuel from nevada and his sullen gave the eulogy was quite remarkable.
but now madame president the president must nominate a qualified individual to the supreme court it is our responsibility to act. that there is no intention to fill this vacancy. to be the crown guardian of gridlock and that is the understatement. in in recent years they have done everything power to bring the government to a halt though we're seeing something that is far lurk -- far worse the unprecedented attempt with entire breach of government
and what has been written about the last seven years to have the legislative ability to move forward. as leader of this democracy it is too bad the president has had to put up with this obstruction even through the legislature. and they argued any president should be denied the right in a presidential election year. that is a foolish gambit it is a full blown effort to undermine the basic system of checks and balances i can
find no limits to nominate three the election-year in the constitution i do find article two and section two that clearly provides the president of legal authority actually the legal obligations and to name a justice for the supreme court. it has operated for more than to madrid years it is the basic function for their branches of government but what they're suggesting the founding fathers construct democracy with only certain assumptions then expect us to be rational in to be
effective instead it is an attempt to nullify what the other architects envisioned the founding of others never intended to read out the clock cause is that the constitution never envisioned in that it is so low to have the useless checks and balances system. without long-held practice to fill the supreme court vacancy this is simply not true. i have heard my colleagues repeat this but the fact is when republicans repeat the
statement it is not true. i have enormous respect for a republican friends according to an expert the supreme court proceedings from the united states there is no such president. the historical record is now revealed any instance of the president's failing to nominate. i'm sorry i will start over. the historical record has no instance since 1900 the president failing to nominate or confirm the nominee during the election year because of an impending election not one shred of evidence to back those claims. democrats to make that go on
the confirmation never, never. let's talk about president. since 1988 the senate confirmed a supreme court nominee. that year the democratic senate confirmed ronald reagan's nomination in the final year of his administration. i voted for kennedy that was not an issue and so did senator grassley. even the jewish senator from iowa of which there will listen to iowans have said time and time again. they had no problem to support the nomination then during his last year in office meet while defending the right to put forward
nominees as grassley said never stopped confirming those nominees. the reality the senate has never stopped confirming judicial the -- nominees. i agree with senator grassley. but now i'm not sure where he stands. this is a contradictory statement to another person was from senator recall effect 40 years ago he was consistent to consider the supreme court nomination and he wrote in 1970 even though
they make political decisions it could not be argued that it is an acceptable practice if political matters were relevant mib suggested a constitutional amendment may be considered to nominate supreme court justice in my friend as a freshman senator in 76 said under the constitution not to subject our judgment'' end-1990 it is clear from our form of government from the judicial nomination in and in 2005
from the stadium is respectfully and a dignified way all nominees with majority support it is not our job to determine and finally just six years ago americans expect politics to end at the courtroom door. these are just a few examples but there are pages spending for decades on the subject. he and his party would undermine the presidency of barack obama. rather then afford to save
the authority that the previous successors and joined. madam president, today it has been said with those think tanks it is more important for republicans to make sure he does not have a supreme court nominee. think about that. does not and i am saying but what they're saying. the junior senator was your doing a remarkable job and is in his address he wanted the negative influence in
this is george washington i am quoting. under whenever plausible character designed to counteract all the liberation destructive of the fundamental principle to serve to organize the faction to put in the place the will of a party. ''. curve but the american people watching with the belief of president george washington we hear that all the time what the same time to deny the vote on the nominee. i told my friends across the aisle for the good of the
country don't do this. i hope they will keep the council from the senior senator from iowa just a few short years ago from senator charles grassley that if they're qualified to serve on the nation's highest court''. elections come and go that they should forever remain our foundation so my senate colleagues to not manipulate are nearly perfect form of government for the minority.
stick i respect he is looking at the fact to his great credit fostering competition in a lockout one of the real centers of pay television industry and in understand why he is doing that and i suppose as a consumer myself to say who is the new gate keeper? amazon? or google so then the question i have is right now we have tough negotiations with satellite or a dish or direct tv or comcast cable or time warner. every transmission consent happens all the time and
99.9% and without a difficulty but you pay for the content so vico's to the set top box with the gatekeeper is what about my copyrighted material? will they sell ads in do they have no responsibility that they will take from broadcasters for nothing? "wash" continues. host: karine jean pierre joins us with five days to go until saturday's south carolina primary. wife. >> joining us now with five days to go in the primary after hillary clinton's wind
the strategists has worked lois three campaigns with different cycles but what is taking place this morning? >> first of all, this has been a crazy and unpredictable in save cycle of both sides. this saturday what happened in nevada was a huge for the clinton campaign nevada is the first racially diverse state of the contest there is also nine-point 1% african-american voters in she was able to get over 70 percent of the african-american voters to vote for her that is important heading into south carolina. it is definitely get out the vote to focus with super
tuesday and south carolina but certainly it was a great win for hillary clinton to slow down that momentum for bernie sanders unfortunately but he did better than she did with latinos he just to get the turnout that he needed to do well against her but to serve as the cycle in 2012 serving as the battleground state for the reelection campaign with gsa ground game what is that? >> the team that you have on the ground working with
volunteers pushing people to get to the poll. is as simple as that and they have a great scorer of field operatives and that is it. the laws on the ground than do our your word demographics and also get a sense of the swing voters in those who are undecided soon do your persuading messaging to push out the message this is why i am running then you get to the get out the vote. >> what is the effective way to do that? phone calls or knocking on doors? >> i don't think one is more effective than the other but you need to understand the
demographic of the state with the democratic primary so they have to figure out that core group of people to the electorate. is whether those programs to link page faults? what have the barbershop and beauty salon program said you got to talk to the people in gsp creative is it going to the african-american churches but building that ground game teefive your voters and food you need to persuade and had you get out the vote
>> one caller said bernie sanders needs to get on black radio in south carolina he is not doing a good enough job. , lead you assess his campaign? but they definitely have spent more money to have more than hillary and a lot more then she has to have that big ground operation in radio is important it is one way to get information i don't have any idea but that is important to all for most likely will go and vote on saturday. >> working on several presidential campaigns for
the next 40 minutes we're looking ahead to their primary and also looking at those lessons. middleton is calling good morning. >> i have then a democrat for 55 years. i was starting out neutral lead we started the campaign running for president the more hillary talks to not really come now to tell the truth about the money she gets from everybody she turns me off. i am discouraged with the whole party. even in my state senators i'd like them any more.
they are not for me. you can tell she is for big business. you put these people on line in they brag about these people but i have been 55 years a democrat. >> below is the last candidate that was for you? >> nobody now. >> to is somebody that you trusted? >> the only a blind them wrote me a personal letter. >> now he is gone because we have republicans and there. >> talking about the lack of trust with hillary clinton and her funding sources have given issue is this to her.
>> it is an issue she will have to deal with it going into the general election especially with that delegation process but she does have a smart team and they will have to work through that but we do see that in time and time again she loses to bernie sanders of the time with trust. >> so that'd say field strategy like the original maliki campaign? to sanders and clinton represent strategies or do they do the same things. >> give is the forum -- the phone calls have you will talk can connect technology plays a big role and also
get the sense where the need to caucus and just to connect with them. technology is important tool. teefour. . . republicans. good morning. caller: i would like to ask the lady you have on the program today, what is hillary go to do for the black voters that obama has not done? apparently obama has not done much. i think hillary is very trusted amongst the african-american community. they know her. she has 25 years of being out
there. the first lady of arkansas, also she has a long- track record that i think -- the-americans president has done a lot for the african-american community and will continue to do so as he finishes up the last seven or eight months. i disagree with that point. i think there is a relationship there, and understanding, a reputation that she has with the community that people respect. she is going to have to work for it, most definitely. host: what is that built on? what are the examples she points to on the campaign trail and says this is where this relationship came from? guest: i think it is basically senator inrk as u.s. really focusing on what she did for the community in new york when it came to african-americans.
her support behind bill clinton when he was president. you have seen her go out getting unfortunatelyrom the young people who were killed in illinois and also in florida. clearly she is resonating with folks. they see her as someone who can help fix the criminal justice system and move that forward. host: so the headlines from some of the newspapers in south carolina ahead and saturday possible try merry -- saturday possible primary. sanders holds a rally in greenville ahead of saturday's primary as clinton campaign host events in north charleston. we are talking about the democratic primary coming up. taking questions and comments with democratic strategist karine jean pierre. kathleen is in california.
good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. martin luther king talked about two america's, black america and white america. we are still two america's. the question is -- lack of americans have been voting democrat consistently for 60 years. what do we have to show for it? we all must than one half of 1% ,f the wealth in the country which is what we owned 150 years ago. democrats want to make 12 million illegals legal. that adversely impacts economically black america. why would it be to black america's interest to have 12 million illegals legal? , you say obama has done something for black america. i don't see it.
i know gays got gay marriage. act andgot the dreamers driver's licenses. toma made an executive order give 5 million illegals legal status. jewish americans get israeli protection. tell me exactly what do black americans get? t. host: before you jump in, more on your background. served as the regional political director for the white house office of political affairs. served in the obama administration, not just on those campaigns. guest: on the question of the 11 million new americans that are here, i think it is important to bring them into the fold. it is important to bring them out of the shadows. it does help the economy as a whole. it helps everyone.
i think it is really important. this is why this election is tremendously important when you have someone on the republican side who is talking about building a wall, getting rid of all the 11 million people who other --and saying making other vile comments. you.'t convince it sounds like you have pretty much made up your decision on what has happened in the last eight years and where we are. clearly the history of african-american voters in the united states. it is important to go out and vote. at the end of the day it is important to exercise our right to vote. we have two candidates in the race. it is not just senator clinton -- secretary clinton. we have senator sanders. if you are on the other side you have an option as well. it is important to get out there. host: what does the obama administration think its legacy is going to be specifically with the black community 20 years
from now? guest: i think that the president and the administration has tried very hard to really bring back the black community in different ways whether it is helping small businesses, getting them on their feet and making sure there is representational that level. also bringing and services that help the community that is in need. host: from the washington post, looking at demographics ahead of the primaries that are coming up, black voters will take center stage in south carolina were history suggests they will make up a majority of democrats voting on saturday. for super tuesday, black voters are excited to be a majority in the georgia primary and approaching a third of voters in virginia and tennessee. tennessee. line for republicans. philip, good morning.
caller: thanks for taking my call. i know there are millions and millions of people on government assistance in our country. the you think that these people that are on any type of government assistance should get a drugs screen every month if they are getting government assistance? i believe if we did do this a lot of people would not get government assistance anymore because a lot of them are on drugs and that we get our country out of deficit i believe and keep a lot of the money that should be given back to our country. what do you think? host: as you are answering, talk about how this issue is playing in the democratic primaries as something the candidates are talking to. guest: they are talking about criminal justice reform which is really important in the community of african-americans as we go into south carolina. people are talking about the economy and worried about jobs and taking care of their
families for sure. that has been addressed by both candidates. inequality has been a major talking point for both sides, both candidates. that has been something that is really important and talk about. robert, line for democrats. good morning. karine.good morning, guest: good morning. caller: i would like to ask a question. if bernie sanders does not win and hillary clinton wins the nomination, doesn't that mean wall street wins again? guest: i don't believe that is true, robert. i don't think so. host: is that the image hillary clinton as the fight? guest: it is the image she has to fight. when she first started out, her
messaging was different in the sense that it was much more moderate, more general election speak and bernie sanders, one of the things that he did, he talked to the base, the liberal progressive base. he also had 30 years of experience of being that independent speaking against the establishment. what ended up happening is, by him really being on message for the last couple of months and sticking through it, you saw him rise and you saw what happened in iowa and new hampshire. leftas been forced to her and has been talking much more about the issues that the base , otherbout, big banks progressive liberal issues that are out there. it is something she needs to deal with anything she has. her messaging has been great especially after the very last debate where she hit sanders
hard for being -- calling him a single issue candidate. i think she is getting there. i think she has a message that is starting to coalesce and i think it is going to resonate as she moves forward. i believe she is going to win south carolina and super tuesday states. a couple of southern states that i think she will do well. host: what is the must win for bernie sanders looking at the calendar? iest: i think south carolina think she is going to win but i think will be interesting for him will be to see how close he gets to her. there is something there to look at the numbers. that will be interesting to see. you have oklahoma. that was a state hillary won last time. vermont, massachusetts our states that he is doing well in.
there are states out there that he will probably do well in. i do not know if it is enough. he would have to do so well because it is going to be about the delegates. democrats have to get 2383 delegates. hillary has about 500 to. bernie has about 70. at this point it is going to be about the delegate game and he would have to blow it out of the water in states in order to catch up to her. -- to me, thato is what is to watch. --t: the 502 number includes exley what a superdelegate is an respond to boring file clerk on twitter. isn't the primary essentially rigged? guest: the superdelegates are small percentage of the overall delegate number. a little over super -- a little
over 700 superdelegates. they are unpledged delegates because the delegates they are getting in the states are pledged. these are unpledged delegates and they can decide if they want to stay with one person or move over in 2008. hillary clinton won the popular vote. over one million people came out to vote for her in the primary. was008, obama, his team very smart and they knew about the delegates and they played that game very well. it was phenomenal to watch. superdelegates, also pledged party leaders and elected officials. he is going to have to do well in these primaries. it is a small percentage of the overall. up on59 delegates saturday at the south carolina primary. and then we get into super
tuesday were georgia, massachusetts, minnesota, vermont, virginia, and wyoming all vote. four days later on saturday, it goes to kentucky, kansas, brassica louisiana for the democrats. maine is having its republican primary as well. the calendar getting very busy in the road ahead. we are looking down the road on the democratic path in this segment with karine jean pierre, a democratic strategist. greg is in arizona, line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. all i want to say is, the reallycans seem to be dealing with illegal immigrants and the problems of that. the democrats are not really addressing that. i just want to say, i have "illegalth several immigrants." good people, hard workers.
that is all i want to say. just really good people. that is my overall experience. host: do you know who you are going to be voting for any election? caller: i'm still deciding. libertarian but right now i am thinking about sanders. i am an immigrant. my parents came from haiti. we came over about 30 or so years ago. so that resonates with me, new americans. both clinton and sanders has been really pushed to talk about new americans, the 11 million we keep talking about. they have to because just like we just talked about in nevada,
40% of that population were latino hispanics. we are about to go into texas and other states across the border in the primary. you have to talk about that issue. , -- youalk immigration have to talk about immigration and i think they both have. >> i think it is an important issue in the democratic party. it is going to be the forefront and will continue to be the forefront. >> where's the line that will separate clinton expanders on that issue? >> guest: they go back and forth on it. one person didn't opera bill in 2007, i don't know the specifics of the details of that but i know they tend to go back and forth on that issue. i wanted to say in march we will have 28 states in march and 56% of those delegates will be out there.
>> host: in the month coming up. >> guest: justin march alone. >> host: on march 2256% and on the 26 of march alaska, hawaii, and, and washington to hold their primary. >> guest: and that's why people keep talking about the super tuesday. >> caller: just a few things i want to say. i believe children who are in their 40s are moving up into the middle class. now you have have sanders who want to take what they worked for and spread it out around the country. this is a guy guy who have leached off taxpayers for 40 years. now he wants to take for my kids who have worked hard and just give it to everybody else. the worst thing that is going to happen is if one of those democrats get into office. thank you.
>> host: if you are advising the sanders campaign, what is the response. >> guest: that is a critique they have gotten is that a lot of their issues are impossible. they are possible to do if he does become president. both chambers are republican as we know it will be impossible to get done. if i were them i would work on, what would it cost to do these different things that he wants to do? how much would it cost the american people to subside the angst around the proposal of the impossible. also lay lay out how you perceive to get this done. that's the thing, his message has resonated with independents and progressives and it has done a good job there. there is going to be the
question of if he looks to continue toward the general election, he has to talk through that as well. >> host: you work for the o'malley campaign, you interested in getting back out on the campaign trail. >> guest: not at all. maybe in the general election i will help out the democratic nominee but nothing right now. i have a 20 month old time eyes away from her from eight or nine months so i'm going to focus on that. i teach at at columbia university, campaign management some doing that. i will just take it easy and enjoy my life. >> host: how does one teach campaign management? spee2 it is difficult to teach campaign management. in order to get the experience you really have to do it. just go out and volunteer and work on a campaign. get the basics. in my class it is basically talking about messaging and polling. the fundamental component of a
campaign and what you need in raising money. so it is very much the basic. >> host: can one get a bachelors and campaign management? >> guest: you might be able to get some sort of masters now but i think after 2008 there is been an influx in folks having interesting campaign management and campaign politics as a whole. >> host: we have about 15 minutes. we evident call from minnesota. >> caller: this is paul. i want to tell you one thing, i am proud you are working for the democratic party. i will vote democratic, whichever one whichever one gets it. i wish they would hold their official vote to the last and then do the popular vote and i
give amount. >> host: anything they should not advertise who they are supporting? >> caller: they should not advertise until the people vote and then they can support whichever that one they want. the thing of it is i pray to god that we want to take our country back. this president has done a wonderful job here and i'm so proud of him. i hope we get another democrat in there to carry on what he has done. i think any sanders, if you you listen to him you'll find out that he says you can take the revolution with him. i really love him and i think you for your time. >> host: that superdelegate system does not need to be revamped qwest market special after bernie sanders big win in new hampshire and they coming out with the same number of delegates. >> guest: that's a good question. i am not sure.
you can argue both sides and say it is time that we revisit and time to revisit a lot of things in politics. maybe it's time to revise the superdelegate program that we have going on. i'm curious to see how it all turns out. sanders has an up hill climb because of that. >> host: harrisburg, pennsylvania is up next. >> caller: good morning. i have one question and it has been bugging me for over a year. maybe a little bit over or a little bit before a years up. i was up one evening and i didn't want to go to bed at this is a very good question for her, so i was looking at the tv and came across the history channel or discovery channel i can't remember which one it was. it was a documentary about bill clinton. i was very disgusted and
thoroughly horrified when i heard what they said about him contacting the drug cartel in south america to bring them up to get control of the black people. you as a black woman and a black person, how can you tell me that you can vote for somebody that is related to that person that was in the white house with that person? how can you vote for that person? >> host: do you want to jump in here. >> guest: that is unclear to me, the history of that. i'm. i'm not sure what she was talking about. look i have not say that i who i was voting for. we still still have two candidates in the race. i go back to say, this is the opportunity to pick your canada and make sure that they get to them.
i cannot speak to what the callers talking about on fortunately. spee1 looking ahead to south carolina this weekend and the democratic primary there, here's one from usa today. clinton turned black youth voters will be key. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to know if hillary has the american -- african americans who understand her and black lives matter, how can she support planned parenthood who, since 1973 have killed 16 million african-american babies? that's my question. >> host: okay if you want to put on your strategist happen again. >> guest: i don't know if that is true. i think the hillary could campaign is doing what they need to do. i think supporting planned parenthood does not affect her
vote with african-americans, if anything planned parenthood has done a really good job, great job and really helping out communities and women that are in need all across the board. so i do not agree with that statement at all. i think she's doing what she needs to do. you read the article that has her focusing on the black youth, that that is going to be important. that is a tough corps of people to get involved in. we know that she will have the 50 and older crowd for sure. at least in the african-american community because they know her, they know the clintons, so that is going to be a slamdunk for her. but the black youth will be a challenge. >> host: you münchen technology being a key part of the process of putting together a good game. there's a story about bernie
sanders, army of coders, inside the volunteer tech movement to drive the insurgent campaign. in that piece the story notes that 2016 could very well go down as the year of the act and nobody has been a bigger beneficiary than sanders. can you assess that a spect of the sanders campaign. >> guest: you very much see that in the same article they talk about bernie sanders.org that has 2,000,000 unique viewers, that is, that is amazing. he has probably over 1000 techie who are given up their time for free to help them out. >> host: it's amazing that 2 million, what's an average? what's one that you have seen. >> guest: certainly not 2,000,000. i'm trying i'm trying to think what would be the average. i don't know what the average will be but 2 million is a high number.
that's an impressive number. also on the donor side he actually has 2 million grassroot donors as well. he only accepts no more than $1000 and he has this amazing base of grassroot money coming in as well. the tech world has been tremendously great for him. you see it in his campaign in these different apps that have come out in support of bernie sanders. it remains to be seen if that will help him or hurt him. they are all doing it independently of each other but there's a lot of interesting tech savvy persons out there who are putting together some great apps on behalf of bernie sanders, for free on their own dime. >> host: on return on investment how much a campaigns be moving their budget towards all of these apps that are coming out? are they driving up the numbers or is it more the old-school knock on the door and have a conversation? >> guest: it's a great way to
help capture everything. move things faster. we are not just talking about the technology, the data driven component, there's a social media component as well. in april 2008 twitter had just started and no one was really using it. now it it has exploded. there's a social media facebook, chat snap, snap chat and other social media component as well that going to the data driven pieces. when it comes to technology, silicon valley silicon valley and having access to that money is power. you need to have the money in order to get the technology. looking at 2008 when obama when obama gave in 282,012, if you are campaign you say you know what you're going to put some sort of money towards that because it has been successful over the last years. >> host: okay a line from
california. >> caller: okay we are not a socialist country, the republicans want sanders to win because they can beat him, he is not a democrat. as was the immigrants, i've been here a long time hired by corporation company because it is hard work, it is backbreaking work not done by americans they don't want to do backbreaking work. so they came with visas and allow from around the world are here with lisa and the largest population is not latinos, it is asians who are here. people just do not know all this information and they blame everything on the port latinos who work so hard. they just love this country and they help the country a lot. people need need to get educated and know the facts.
sanders is a socialist, we are not a socialist country, that is that is what i want to say. >> host: on that label socialist how much is that going to play if bernie sanders becomes the residential nominee in the general election? >> guest: for him be in a socialist has him because he is getting a core group of people are independents, who don't normally vote or are not as engaged, or a group of people who are not engaged normally who are. now looking at bernie sanders it's been very helpful to him. it's been tremendous for him. if he makes it to the general election, will that hurt him? most definitely. >> c-span's washington journal, live everyday with news and policy issues that impact you. join impact you. join us tomorrow morning when former nsa attorney in general
susan hennessey will be with us. we'll talk talk about apples fight of the fbi over encryption. robert daly will talk about surface-to-air missiles and the state of china's economy. be sure to watch c-span "washington journal" beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow. join the discussion. >> on the sonic communicators, conversation with the head of the national socialization of broadcasters. former senator gordon smith. the united kingdom votes on june 23 to decide whether they should remain a member of the european member union. remarks from the homeland security jay johnson will be later. >> c-span, created by marcus cable companies, 35 years ago and brought he is a public service by your local cable or satellite provider.