[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 37 (Tuesday, March 8, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1332-S1341]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      COMPREHENSIVE ADDICTION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2015--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today the Senate continues to work on 
legislation that addresses the heroin epidemic affecting our 
communities all over the country. Every State represented by a Senator 
in this Chamber is affected by it. I am pleased to see that yesterday 
we had a strong vote on an important step forward to consider more 
amendments, with the hope we will consider them today or tomorrow and 
then have a vote on this legislation before the end of the week and 
send it over to the House of Representatives, where there is similar 
legislation, a companion bill that has already been drafted and is also 
bipartisan.
  I thank Sheldon Whitehouse, who is on the floor now, my coauthor, and 
also Senators Amy Klobuchar, Kelly Ayotte, and the 42 other bipartisan 
coauthors of our legislation. This is bipartisan, but it is also 
comprehensive and evidence based. It is not just supported by a lot of 
Senators, but it is also supported by a lot of groups. That is very 
important.
  Over the past few years, Senator Whitehouse and I have worked with 
groups around the country and in our own States to come up with the 
right answers; in other words, evidence-based solutions to prevention 
and education to help people not make the mistake and get into the 
funnel of addiction but also, once those people are addicted, to help 
them more with better treatment, better recovery, and to ensure we are 
treating addiction like a disease, which it is. We are also helping law 
enforcement and helping to keep prescription drugs off the bathroom 
shelves and helping to monitor people's prescription drug use because a 
lot of this comes from the overprescribing of prescription drugs for 
pain medication.
  I am pleased to see we are making progress, and I want to talk about 
one specific issue that is included in the legislation but which we 
have yet to talk about, at least at length on the floor.
  Over the last few years, we have had five forums in Washington, DC, 
to talk about issues related to addiction. Some have been with regard 
to the science of addiction, some about our youth, some about 
prevention, and some about better treatment options, but we had one 
that was particularly interesting, I thought. It was about a very 
special issue; that is, how to treat substance abuse impacting our 
veterans and servicemembers and how to prevent our veterans and 
servicemembers from becoming subject to this addiction.
  In the legislation we are considering on the floor, we focus on this 
issue. This came out of the expert testimony we had and the work that 
has been done around the country on this issue. CARA allows veterans 
who were discharged for a substance abuse disorder to use drug courts 
as they recover.
  Too often our men and women come home from serving our country with 
untreated trauma and PTSD, which often manifests itself in an 
addiction. We know from the research that has been done that more than 
20 percent of veterans with PTSD also suffer from an addiction or 
dependence on drugs like heroin or a dependence on alcohol. So post-
traumatic stress disorder is related very much to this addiction issue.
  A few weeks ago, I was in Columbus, OH, and met with our veterans 
court there. We had a roundtable discussion with some of the veterans 
who had been through it. It was actually a very inspiring experience 
hearing from veterans, many of whom had been serving

[[Page S1333]]

our military in combat roles and had come home, gotten into some 
trouble. They were in and out of the court system, and then they found 
these veterans courts. These courts actually helped divert these 
veterans from prison, into treatment, and then into a support network 
with other veterans.
  For veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, going to 
jail can be a major hurdle in their recovery. Yet for many who turn to 
drugs and alcohol in an attempt to self-medicate, that is exactly where 
they end up.
  Ryan is a combat veteran. He served in Iraq. He had a distinguished 
career. He got home and found himself in a situation where he had 
trouble readjusting to life back at home outside of the military. He 
got into some trouble and ended up in jail. That didn't work for him. 
His quote was this:

       You send me to jail and all you're doing is sending me back 
     to the jungle. All those coping skills I've learned, they go 
     out the window. I'm the type of person that you put me in 
     there and all hell breaks loose.

  That is Ryan. Fortunately for Ryan, he was able to participate in a 
veterans treatment court and get on the path to recovery. I am very 
proud of him today. He is a student at a major university in Ohio and 
about to graduate. He has his life back together and his family back 
together. Again, it was an inspirational story because he has taken it 
upon himself to focus on his addiction and get the help he needed 
through this veterans court.
  There are 17 veterans treatment courts in the State of Ohio. The 
program Ryan went through is a 2-year program that offers mental health 
and substance abuse treatment to veterans as an alternative to 
incarceration. These veterans also have to make regular court 
appearances, so it is not as though they are not connected to the 
criminal justice system. They are. They know if they test positive for 
drugs, they will end up back in that system. They are subject to random 
drug testing.
  As Ryan and the other veterans I talked to told me that day in 
Columbus, OH, this combination of accountability and support--
accountability and support--was the right combination for them to get 
back on the right track. It made a difference for them in getting their 
lives back together, their families back together, and to once again be 
contributing to their country.
  CARA will expand veterans treatment courts and will also ensure 
veterans who are discharged for substance abuse issues are also 
eligible to go through these programs. This is a critical change that 
will help allow more veterans to get the help they need and again get 
at the root cause of their addiction.
  CARA--the legislation we are considering right now--has the support, 
as I said, of a lot of groups--130 national stakeholders in public 
health, law enforcement, criminal justice and drug policy fields, 
doctors, nurses, and others working in the trenches on prevention and 
treatment. It is designed to fight prescription drug opioid abuse and 
heroin use holistically, from expanding prevention to supporting 
recovery.
  In addition to the specific provisions I discussed that help our 
veterans, CARA also expands prevention and educational efforts to 
prevent prescription opioid abuse and the use of heroin. It increases 
drug disposal sites to keep medications out of the hands of young 
people. It helps with regard to drug monitoring to know when people are 
being prescribed drugs, even if they cross State lines, by having an 
interstate drug monitoring system.

  The legislation also authorizes law enforcement task forces in some 
of our toughest areas around the country to combat heroin and 
methamphetamine and expands the availability of the overdose reversal 
drug naloxone--really a miracle drug--so that our law enforcement 
agencies and other first responders--our firefighters--have the 
training for using this drug but also have access to it.
  In the criminal justice system, CARA will help to promptly identify 
and treat individuals suffering from substance abuse disorders and 
expand these diversion efforts and these education efforts to give 
these people a second chance.
  CARA also authorizes resources to expand treatment, including 
medication-assisted treatment, based on the evidence that it supports 
what has worked around the country. So we are trying to hold up some of 
the best treatment programs in the country where there has been success 
on a very tough issue, which is taking people through this process of 
getting back on their feet and recovered.
  CARA supports those recovery programs that are strictly focused on 
youth and building communities of recovery, including at our colleges 
and universities. It also creates a national task force on recovery to 
improve ways to address the collateral consequences imposed by 
addiction.
  So this is a comprehensive bill that will help to reverse this tide. 
Again, this is something that is affecting us all. The numbers are 
overwhelming. In the United States of America today, there will be 
about 20 people who will die from overdoses. In Ohio, this happens 
every week. About 25 people are now dying from overdoses, but that is 
just part of the problem. Many are not dying from the overdose. 
Naloxone is working in many cases, for instance. Others aren't 
overdosing. Yet their lives are ruined, their families are torn apart, 
and the communities are bearing the brunt of it. Many more crimes are 
being committed. I was with a prosecutor in Ohio last weekend, and he 
told me 80 percent of the crime in his county is related now to this 
issue of heroin and prescription drug abuse.
  We need to pass this bill and get it signed into law so it can help 
reverse this tide, help our State and local governments and our 
nonprofits that are doing a great job trying to address this issue, and 
help individuals who are suffering from this addiction, which is a 
disease, to get the treatment they need and the recovery efforts that 
are needed to truly make a difference. This is an epidemic. It has now 
reached that kind of level--this kind of crisis level.
  I am hopeful we will again have a series of amendments that can be 
included and voted on in the next 24 hours; that we can move forward 
with this legislation and get a strong vote. We can then send it over 
to the House with a strong message that it is time for us to do what we 
can to address this issue and make a difference in the lives of our 
constituents.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to complete these remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Constitution is the primary way the 
American people set rules for government. America's Founders made sure 
those were also written down so that as the Supreme Court said more 
than two centuries ago, they may be neither mistaken nor forgotten.
  The U.S. Constitution is one of the shortest and currently the oldest 
national charter in the world, but while public officials, including 
every Member of this body, swear an oath to support and defend the 
Constitution, it appears some are paying very little attention to it.
  One of the most popular slogans in the debate over filling the 
vacancy left by the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is 
``Do your job.''
  Never have so few words been so misleading for so many. Those who use 
this slogan insist that the Senate's job is to conduct the confirmation 
process, including hearings and confirmation votes, in a certain way 
whenever the President makes a nomination. In other words, the Senate 
should be at the President's beck and call, configuring the 
confirmation process around a particular timeline that he prefers.
  There is some irony here, Mr. President. A few years ago, President 
Obama wanted to stall certain members of the National Labor Relations 
Board. The Senate was unlikely to confirm his nominee so the President 
bypassed the Senate altogether and made so-called recess appointments. 
The Supreme Court eventually, and unanimously, ruled those appointments 
were unconstitutional.
  Now that the President intends to send a nominee to the Senate, he 
feels he can dictate how the Senate evaluates that nominee. The 
President would, no doubt, be the first to say the Senate cannot tell 
him whom to nominate but apparently feels he can insist

[[Page S1334]]

on whatever Senate confirmation process that will suit his purpose.
  Colleagues on the other side of the aisle insist the Constitution 
requires timely hearings and prompt floor votes for every nominee. I 
don't know what Constitution they are using because the real one says 
nothing of the kind. The real Constitution gives to the President the 
power to nominate and to the Senate the separate power of advice and 
consent, leaving to each the judgment of how to exercise their 
respective power.

  Actually, I should say that my Democratic colleagues are currently 
insisting that the Constitution requires timely hearings and votes, 
because they were singing a very different tune only a few years ago.
  The minority leader, the minority whip, and the Judiciary Committee 
ranking member each voted dozens of times to deny any confirmation vote 
whatsoever for President George W. Bush's judicial nominees--dozens of 
times. Were they voting to defy the Constitution then, or are they 
referring to a made-up, fictional Constitution now?
  When they served in this body, Vice President Biden and former 
Secretary Hillary Clinton voted, respectively, 29 and 24 times to deny 
the very confirmation votes they now say the Constitution itself 
requires. The shape-shifting Constitution they use apparently means 
whatever then suits their political objectives. A coincidence, I am 
sure, but a very convenient coincidence.
  The President himself, when he was a Senator, tried to deny 
confirmation votes to multiple nominees, including Supreme Court 
Justice Samuel Alito. While President Obama recently said he now 
regrets voting to filibuster Justice Alito, he did not explain why it 
took him 3,670 days to reach that conclusion. Cynics might even suggest 
that his desire now to appoint another Supreme Court Justice may have 
contributed in some small way to this epiphany.
  So when Democrats in this body and their equally confused liberal 
allies call on the Senate to do its job, they really mean that the 
Senate should do what they want. I, too, want the Senate to do its job, 
but I don't find our job description in anyone's political agenda. The 
Senate's job is to determine the best way to exercise its advice and 
consent power in each particular situation, and the Senate has done so 
in different ways, at different times, under different circumstances.
  When he was Judiciary Committee chairman in the 107th and 110th 
Congress, for example, the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. 
Leahy, denied a hearing to nearly 60 judicial nominees. Yet those are 
the hearings he now says the Constitution requires. I don't think he 
can have it both ways.
  On May 19, 2005, the minority leader said that nowhere in the 
Constitution does it say the Senate must vote on Presidential nominees. 
He called that notion rewriting the Constitution and reinventing 
history. Today, he says the opposite: that the Constitution actually 
does require a vote. Was he wrong in 2005, or is he, in his own words, 
rewriting the Constitution and reinventing history today?
  No, Mr. President, the Constitution does not dictate how the Senate 
must exercise its power of advice and consent; the Constitution leaves 
that up to us in each situation.
  The Senate has never allowed a term-limited President to fill a 
Supreme Court vacancy that opened up this late in his term. In fact, 
this vacancy is only the third in the last century to occur after 
Presidential election voting has started. In 1956 and 1968, the Senate 
did not confirm the nominee until after the next inauguration.
  As a member of the Judiciary Committee for 39 years and a chairman 
for 8 of those years--I am now in my 40th year--I have watched the 
judicial confirmation process disintegrate. Conservatives and liberals 
have very different views about the kinds of judges America needs. 
Several Supreme Court nominees in the last few decades have been 
subject to intense, confrontational campaigns. In addition, the current 
Presidential election cycle is already more hostile and divisive than 
in the past. These are among the circumstances we face today and must 
consider when deciding how to exercise our power of advice and consent. 
It would be irresponsible to follow a process suitable for a different 
situation or, worse, a process designed only to produce a desirable 
political outcome.
  Combining a high-stakes confirmation fight with a no-holds-barred 
Presidential campaign will produce a storm that will do more harm than 
good. The better course would be to defer the appointment process until 
the next President takes office and let the people make this 
determination. We are not without guidance in making this decision. In 
June 1992, then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Biden argued that 
if a Supreme Court vacancy occurred in that Presidential election year, 
the appointment process should be deferred until the election season 
was over. By combining an increasingly divisive appointment process and 
a Presidential election that is already underway, he said, ``partisan 
bickering and political posturing'' would overwhelm the serious debate 
necessary to make such an important decision. He could have been 
talking about 2016 instead of 1992.
  This vacancy also presents the American people with a rare 
opportunity to address the direction of the judiciary. The percentage 
of Americans concerned about that direction has risen steadily for 
years, and while voters do not appoint judges, they do elect the 
President who nominates and the Senate that gives advice and consent.
  Elections, after all, have consequences. The 2012 election had 
consequences for the President's power to nominate, and the 2014 
election had consequences for the Senate's power of advice and consent. 
With this Supreme Court vacancy on the table, the 2016 election can 
similarly have consequences for the American people's voice on this 
important issue. Deferring the appointment process also minimizes 
partisanship and maximizes fairness.
  No one knows the party of the next President, the makeup of the next 
Senate, or the identity of the nominee the Senate will eventually 
consider. Choosing the appropriate process for the current 
circumstances, rather than for partisan advantage, can prevent a 
nominee from being perceived as a political pawn.
  The Constitution leaves nominations to the President and leaves 
advice and consent to the Senate. That division of responsibility is 
written down for all to see and, hopefully, for none to forget.
  Deferring the process for filling the Scalia vacancy until the next 
President takes office and leaving it up to the American people is the 
best approach for the Senate, the judiciary, and the country.
  Before I close, I have to say a word about the disgraceful attacks on 
my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I 
have served with him on the Finance Committee for nearly 25 years and 
on the Judiciary Committee for 35 years. I have served 40 years on the 
Judiciary Committee but 35 of them have been served with Senator 
Grassley. If anyone knows his own mind, it is Senator Chuck Grassley. 
He has served on the Judiciary Committee longer than all but four 
Senators in the committee's history. No one is more dedicated to the 
Judiciary Committee and to the Senate than Chuck Grassley is.
  Each of us is entitled to our own opinions or positions on issues 
that come before this body, even controversial ones. Each of us can 
feel as strongly as we want about those issues. But I want to 
categorically reject the notion that a difference of opinion means that 
someone such as Senator Grassley is compromising the integrity or 
independence of the Judiciary Committee. That comes very close to 
impugning his character, and that sort of attack is beneath the dignity 
of this body because everybody in this body knows that Chuck Grassley 
is a man of great character, great honesty, great service, hard work, 
and cares for this wonderful country.
  It is irritating to me to see the personal attacks that have been 
made. I don't think we should be personally attacking each other. We 
can find fault with each other. We can criticize each other on the 
issues. We can differ with each other. We can be politically different 
from each other, as we are. But to personally attack somebody with the 
prestige of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee is beneath the 
dignity of this body, and it is beneath the

[[Page S1335]]

dignity of the attackers. It really bothers me.
  We have had wide differences of opinion on the Judiciary Committee. 
Let's face it: It is a tough committee. It is a very partisan 
committee. The Democrats on that side in the committee are extremely 
partisan, and the Republicans on our side of the committee are 
extremely partisan too. That is not necessarily bad as long as people 
are honest and people respect the opinions of others.
  We can have downright bitter battles and bitter exchanges, but we 
don't have to malign each other in doing that. It is a tough committee. 
These are tough issues the Judiciary Committee handles. I know, I was 
chairman of this committee. I have to say it is a wonderful committee, 
and it is probably good that it is a diverse committee where you have a 
lot of liberal Democrats on one side and you have a lot of conservative 
Republicans on the other. We can bat up against each other, and 
sometimes we even come up with very good legislation.
  Most of the time, everybody on that committee is concerned about 
having the best judges we can possibly get. Even though there have been 
some pains between various members of the committee from time to time--
this naturally occurs when you have people who feel very deeply about 
these subjects--there is still no excuse for maligning the current 
chairman of this committee, Charles Grassley.
  I don't think you are winning a debate when you challenge somebody as 
a person of the highest integrity that this body has to offer. Senator 
Grassley is one of those persons. There are others here too. I hope I 
am one. The fact is, Chuck Grassley is one of the best people we have 
in the Senate, he is one of the most noble people in the Senate, and he 
is one of the most honest people in the Senate. He is one of the people 
who are more at ease around the common people in this country and in 
the State of Iowa than many of us in the Senate, and he is a person of 
dignity and capacity. He is also a person who doesn't forget, and I 
would prefer to have people treat him with dignity so that he can 
forget.
  All I can say is that there is not a better person on the committee 
than Chuck Grassley, and I call on my colleagues on the other side to 
be gentlemen and to treat him with the respect he certainly deserves. 
The fact that they disagree with his position on the Supreme Court 
right now is irrelevant in some ways when it comes to characterizing 
him as somebody less than who he is.
  That committee is a committee of deep feelings on both sides, and 
thank God it is because that is what makes it a great committee. That 
is what makes it so people really want to be on it. We have really good 
debates in that committee, and we have really good people on both 
sides, not the least of whom is Chuck Grassley, and I want him treated 
with dignity and respect. I want people to know that he doesn't take 
positions he doesn't believe in. There are some who do in this body, 
but he doesn't.
  I expect people in this body to show the proper decorum, to show 
friendship even when we have deep differences. Show respect for 
somebody who certainly deserves it. I hope we don't have any more of 
this idle chatter that can destroy any kind of rapport we have in the 
Senate, and that goes for both sides. Senator Grassley is being 
maligned unfairly, and I don't like it and neither would anybody else 
who has any brains or any thought about what is decent and honorable.

  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I rise today to share my support for the 
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2015.
  This legislation, of course, that we have been debating for well over 
a week now aims to address the growing drug addiction crisis facing our 
country by not only promoting prevention and education, but by 
increasing efforts to improve treatment and recovery for those who have 
fallen to this growing epidemic.
  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that from 2002 
to 2013, the number of heroin-related overdose deaths nearly 
quadrupled, with approximately 8,200 deaths in 2013. The CDC 
furthermore found that 44 people die every day due to prescription drug 
overdoses.
  The National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates that the abuse of 
alcohol, illegal drugs, and tobacco costs the United States roughly 
$700 billion every year because of increased criminal activity, loss of 
employment, and health care costs associated with drug use.
  Colorado, unfortunately, is no exception to the increase in drug 
overdose deaths. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports 
that drug overdose deaths in Colorado have risen in every single county 
except for one over the last 12 years. The Colorado Health Institute 
found that Colorado's 2014 rate of 16.3 drug-related deaths per 100,000 
people exceeded the U.S. average of 14.7 deaths per 100,000 people. 
This same study by the Colorado Health Institute found that drug 
overdose deaths climbed 68 percent in Colorado between 2002 and 2014--a 
68-percent increase in drug overdose deaths in 12 years.
  The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism found that 
nearly 23 million adults in the United States have struggled with drug 
use. However, the National Institutes of Health found that only 10 
percent of U.S. adults who need treatment are receiving it. So only 2.3 
million people out of the 23 million they have identified with some 
kind of a drug use problem--only 10 percent, 2.3 million out of the 23 
million--are receiving some kind of treatment.
  So what are we going to do to move forward from here? We are on an 
unsustainable path when it comes to addiction and when it comes to its 
treatment.
  It is imperative that States are empowered with the resources needed 
to address the unique needs of each individual State, and the 
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act does just that. The bill 
leaves behind the idea that the one-size-fits-all program out of 
Washington, DC, can fix everything. It encourages States to develop 
their own strategies because what works in Colorado may not work in New 
Jersey and what works in New York may not work in Texas or California.
  It encourages these strategies to prevent, treat, and reduce the 
growing addiction epidemic by, No. 1, creating an interagency task 
force to develop best practices for prescribing pain medication and 
pain management. The CDC found in a National Survey on Drug Use and 
Health conducted from 2011 to 2013 that individuals addicted to opiate 
painkillers are 40 times more likely to be addicted to heroin. The 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that in 2012, health 
care providers wrote 259 million prescriptions for opioid pain 
relievers. That is nearly one bottle of pills for every single 
American--certainly every single American adult.
  It is absolutely imperative that best practices are established to 
ensure health professionals are being trained properly to identify 
patients who require prescription pain relievers for chronic pain 
management and those who do not, in an effort to treat this system and 
to better identify.
  The consequences of this addiction, we have seen in our communities, 
are devastating to individuals and their families. It is vital that 
States establish best practices to minimize the devastating effects 
that our communities have seen and our families have seen.
  No. 2, this bill expands disposal sites for unwanted prescription 
medications. Community pharmaceutical drug take-back programs, as they 
are called, allow individuals to dispose of unwanted or expired 
medications in a safe and responsible way. Many households in our 
country don't safely and securely store unused pharmaceutical 
medications, leaving open the door for abuse by teenagers and young 
adults who might find the prescription drugs, the unused or expired 
pharmaceuticals--they might find them in the household.
  According to the CDC, the abuse of prescription drugs has become the 
second leading cause of death among individuals between the ages of 25 
to 64.

[[Page S1336]]

Furthermore, the abuse is strongly linked to heroin addiction.
  According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, four out of five 
new heroin users started with prescription medications. Unfortunately, 
the vast majority of medication take-back programs in Colorado are in 
the Denver metro area, but we are not simply dealing with a metro 
problem. Getting unused drugs out of the communities eliminates the 
potential for misuse and decreases drastically the potential for 
addiction. The expansion of these programs is a step in the right 
direction to reduce the accessibility of dangerous prescription 
medication, especially in rural Colorado.
  Third, this legislation also aims to identify and to treat 
incarcerated individuals who suffer from addiction by implementing 
medication-assisted treatment programs for use by criminal justice 
agencies. Statistics show that imprisonment has a small impact on 
future drug use when addiction goes untreated. The National Association 
of Drug Court Professionals found that 95 percent of those who 
committed drug-related crimes returned to drug abuse after release from 
prison. We know that addiction is treatable, and it is important that 
these individuals have access to addiction and recovery services so 
that they don't continue to cycle in and out of our Nation's prisons.
  I would like to share a success story from an adult recovery program 
in the Denver area about a young woman who went to a treatment facility 
to turn her life around. I am not using her real name.
  Sarah was admitted to our program in Denver in September of 2015. 
Outside of the first week, she has been clean and sober. Sarah found a 
job and has received positive performance reports, and she also 
received a raise at the place of employment she sought out after 
treatment. She has begun to do additional volunteer work in her spare 
time as a way to give back to her community that took care of her 
through these programs. She has reconnected with her family. 
Remembering every holiday since she started this program, Sarah reports 
that it is the first time she can remember being sober for that 
holiday. She reports that she is loving her life and that there is no 
turning back for her.
  This bill will create more of these success stories to help people 
get back on their feet, to reconnect with their families, to engage in 
community service, and to receive raises at work because they do a good 
job when they make sure their addiction is broken.
  Fourth, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act takes a step in 
the right direction by strengthening prescription drug monitoring 
programs aimed to identify and treat drug-seeking individuals. State 
electronic databases that collect data on substances dispensed 
throughout the State have been incredibly effective in tracking the 
movement of prescription opiates throughout the country. Utilizing 
these programs allows States to identify drug diversion, prescription 
drug fraud, doctor shopping, and forgery. Prescription drug monitoring 
programs also identify drug-seeking individuals more easily to get them 
into treatment facilities so they can receive the care they need, just 
as Sarah did in Denver. Tracking and minimizing drug diversion is 
absolutely vital, and this legislation takes a step in the right 
direction to strengthen this policy.
  As we talk about this legislation, I think it is important that we 
have these stories that have been told on the Senate floor about what 
has happened to friends and family members, about drug overdose and 
opioid abuse, about heroin addiction, the fact that we had doctor 
shopping, and the fact that we had forgery of prescriptions or perhaps 
unused drugs sitting around somebody's house without a take-back 
program. Improper ways to dispose of it mean that teenagers and young 
adults are getting their hands on it. We recognize in these stories 
that it is not just the metro area, not just our urban centers that are 
facing these challenges. In fact, it was recently reported in the 
Denver Post under this headline: ``Drug overdose deaths hit record 
levels in rural southern Colorado.'' There is a comment from the San 
Luis Valley Behavioral Health Group. The San Luis Valley is in 
southwestern Colorado, in the Western Slope of Colorado.
  ``We are getting more referrals for heroin, along with prescription 
drug abuse,'' said Kristina Daniel, chief operating officer of the San 
Luis Valley Behavioral Health Group. ``We have a need for services in 
our area for sure.''
  Among Colorado counties, the most striking increase in drug deaths 
occurred in Baca County in the southeast part of the State, an 
agriculture community bordering the Presiding Officer's home State of 
Oklahoma. They are talking about the death rate having quintupled in 12 
years. This is a small rural community bordering both Kansas and 
Oklahoma in the corner of our State--a rural community that has seen 
its death rates quintuple in 12 years. The amount of hardship that has 
been placed on families and friends is unimaginable and unacceptable. 
With this legislation we can help work through these challenges to 
overcome them and to start putting an end to the tragedies that we have 
talked about now for this past week, because this is an epidemic in our 
country. Drug overdose and heroin opioid abuse don't discriminate 
against race, gender, or economic status. It has hit some of the most 
unsuspecting in our country.
  I am proud to join my colleagues to support this broadly bipartisan 
legislation. I heard overwhelming support from my constituency in 
Colorado. Everyone from local law enforcement, families, victims of 
addiction, recovery specialists, and mental health providers have 
joined together to voice their support.
  I would like to commend my colleagues Senators Portman and Ayotte for 
their extensive efforts to advocate on behalf of those who do not have 
a voice. I am proud to join my colleagues, and I urge the Senate to 
support this legislation.


                    Honoring Corporal Nate Carrigan

  Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of Corporal Nate 
Carrigan and the work of Master Patrol Deputy Kolby Martin and Captain 
Mark Hancock of the Park County Sheriff's Office.
  On the morning of February 24, while serving an eviction notice, the 
resident of the home they were serving the eviction notice to opened 
fire on the officers. Master Patrol Deputy Martin and Captain Hancock 
suffered injuries from the exchange and Corporal Carrigan tragically 
lost his life. Combined, these three men had served the citizens of 
Park County for over 35 years.
  Corporal Carrigan was a pillar of the Park County community. His work 
led to the successful conclusion of many cases during his time with the 
sheriff's office. Park County was always home for him, growing up among 
the green hills and blue skies of Colorado, where he took on the role 
of serving his community.
  As a teenager, he was a wrestler and the catcher for the Platte 
Canyon High School baseball team. Twenty years later he was coaching 
the same baseball team he had played on, and he was the assistant coach 
for the high school football team. It was the future of his community 
that he cared so deeply for and that he stood ready on that thin blue 
line to protect.
  Residents of this small town recognize the value and importance of a 
close-knit community. It provides a source of comfort and strength 
during a difficult time such as this. In this quiet mountain town, 
colleagues, store owners, and schoolmates are often friends and 
neighbors as well. They come together to lift one another up as they 
honor a member who has fallen in service. It is a place where those 
surrounding you naturally feel like family.
  The officers who were dispatched with Corporal Carrigan were not only 
coworkers but friends and even coaches of the very same sporting teams. 
This loss reminds us of the difficult and dangerous situations that our 
first responders are placed into each and every day.
  My deepest sympathy is with those at the Park County Sheriff's Office 
who not only lost a team member but a comrade as well and to Corporal 
Carrigan's loved ones who are mourning the loss of a friend and family 
member so near and dear to their hearts. We honor law enforcement, who, 
in the spirit of selfless sacrifice, honor their communities through 
their service. Their work to protect our State never finishes, their 
bravery never waivers, and our gratitude will never cease.

[[Page S1337]]

  This is the second time in a week that I have come down to the floor 
and mourned the loss of a brave law enforcement officer in Colorado, 
and I pray that we never have to do this again.
  Our prayers go to Corporal Carrigan's family.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I wish to speak for 5 to 10 minutes 
about an important matter, and so I appreciate being recognized.
  Madam President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is postcloture on the substitute 
amendment to the CARA bill.
  Mr. WICKER. We will let the time run on that issue.


                          Alzheimer's Disease

  Madam President, at this point I wish to talk about Alzheimer's and 
an opportunity that we have to cure this most serious disease. We could 
find a cure for Alzheimer's, Madam President and my colleagues, and we 
could do it through American ingenuity.
  No obstacle has ever been too great for American ingenuity. We have 
defied seemingly impossible odds in the past. We have eradicated polio 
from the entire North American Continent and from most of the globe. We 
have mapped the human genome. We have been to the Moon. We are going to 
send somebody to Mars. We can conquer Alzheimer's.
  Alzheimer's was first discovered more than a century ago. When you 
think about it, we only began human flight about 100 years ago. Think 
of what we have done in human flight. It just boggles the imagination.
  We need to cure Alzheimer's here at the beginning of the second 
century of this disease. We have made progress in understanding the 
disease. Yet we still do not know how to stop it. We don't know how to 
slow it, and we certainly don't know how to prevent it from happening.
  Alzheimer's continues to cause profound human suffering. It affects 5 
million Americans who have the disease, but not only them. It takes a 
toll on family and friends forced to watch their loved ones slip away. 
I could tell you from personal experience I know what I am talking 
about.
  Last month Time magazine featured Alzheimer's on the cover: ``A 
radical new drug could change old age,'' ``The Longevity Issue.'' There 
is an article in here entitled ``Alzheimer's from a New Angle.'' I 
think we need a new angle to address Alzheimer's in using innovative 
drug trials, as the magazine indicates, but also in a new angle 
concerning the use of prize competitions. I propose that Congress 
should look at Alzheimer's from the angle of using the XPRIZE 
Foundation and using a suggestion that has been endorsed by a number of 
organizations that have thought long and hard about this.
  I introduced the EUREKA Act last fall as a way to reinvigorate the 
fight against Alzheimer's and related dementias. EUREKA stands for 
Ensuring Useful Research Expenditures is Key for Alzheimer's--EUREKA. 
We have found it, and we can find a cure for Alzheimer's. This bill 
could be the beginning of finding a cure.
  Finding a cure is our ultimate goal, but it will take steps to get 
there. My bill would create prize competitions to reward breakthroughs 
in Alzheimer's research. I want to assure my colleagues who are very 
interested in NIH funding that EUREKA would not be a substitute for any 
dollars that are going to current research funding for Alzheimer's. 
That would continue, it ought to continue, and we ought to do whatever 
we can to expand that.
  EUREKA would be in addition to what we are doing at the National 
Institutes of Health. Prizes would be awarded for a number of 
advancements, perhaps drug treatments to early detection methods. The 
best part is there would be nothing for us to lose because with a prize 
competition you pay only for success. Without success, the American 
taxpayer pays nothing when it comes to the EUREKA bill.
  I am grateful for the bipartisan support that my bill has already 
received in the Senate. Thirty-five of our colleagues have sponsored 
the bill. I believe by the end of the day I will be able to announce 
36. I hope even more will lend their support. Alzheimer's is certainly 
not a partisan issue. It is a national issue and one of the great 
challenges of our time, not only from a human standpoint but from a 
budget standpoint.
  Alzheimer's is a major spending issue. It is responsible for $226 
billion a year. The estimates are that by the year 2050, those costs 
will be $1 trillion per year. We have a $19 trillion debt right now. 
Think of the additional debt that will be piled up unless we tackle 
this issue and get to a cure. Think of the savings. Think of the other 
areas we would be able to address if we didn't spend so much of our 
Medicaid budget on Alzheimer's patients, so much of our Medicare budget 
on Alzheimer's patients.
  Experts say $2 billion in research funding is needed to prevent and 
treat Alzheimer's by the year 2025. This remains the goal of the 
Alzheimer's plan, and it remains my goal, but that is a much higher 
number than we can afford at the NIH level right now.
  However, by fostering public-private partnerships, as the EUREKA bill 
would do, we could build on current resources in new and exciting ways. 
These partnerships would help unleash the power of American innovation 
and the power of American competition to encourage people from 
different backgrounds and sectors to work together in pursuit of a 
life-changing discovery. This could work. Prize competitions have 
worked in the past. When Charles Lindbergh achieved a nonstop flight 
between New York and Paris, he won a $25,000 prize and helped inspire 
the aviation industry that we know today.
  Another example of success in this concept is the XPRIZE. The 
competition is currently sponsored by the XPRIZE Foundation. The XPRIZE 
Foundation has been promoting technological breakthroughs for more than 
two decades. In 2004 it offered $10 million for the first reusable 
manned spacecraft. This XPRIZE competition generated $100 million in 
investments by competitors. A $10 million prize generated $100 million 
in investments by competitors. In 2011, a skimmer that accelerates the 
cleanup of oilspills was awarded a $1 million XPRIZE.
  So this can work and it will work if we give it a chance. The bottom 
line is that we need America's best and brightest minds working on 
Alzheimer's right away. We need a way to reward success. Deaths from 
Alzheimer's are on the rise. Its costs already exceed those for cancer 
and heart disease. Think about that. The costs for Alzheimer's per year 
exceeds the cost for heart disease and cancer put together. So we need 
to put our emphasis where the need is.
  I thank all of the organizations that have come together and endorsed 
this concept. I thank my friends at the XPRIZE Foundation. They stood 
with me last fall and endorsed this concept. This legislation was 
designed with the help of the XPRIZE Foundation, in consultation with 
the XPRIZE Foundation, and they know what they are talking about. I 
thank the foundation for doing that.
  I also thank the following organizations that have endorsed this 
concept and specifically endorsed the EUREKA bill: a group called 
UsAgainstAlzheimer's, the Alzheimer's Association, the Alzheimer's 
Foundation of America, the BrightFocus Foundation, the MIND Center at 
the University of Mississippi Medical Center in my capital city of 
Jackson, and also a group called Leaders Engaged on Alzheimer's 
Disease. They all agree that by unleashing this--the concept of a prize 
competition--we can cure Alzheimer's disease and I hope we will try. 
This bill is generating support and dialogue for finally putting an end 
to this devastating disease.
  Let's pass this bipartisan legislation.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, as we consider the CARA bill on the 
floor at this time--the bill that deals with the opioid epidemic in our 
country--I

[[Page S1338]]

thought it might be useful to bring a few statistics forward so we can 
consider the nature of the epidemic we are dealing with.
  In 2014, 29,267 people died from prescription opioid and heroin 
overdoses in our country, with 10,574 of those people dying from 
heroin. That is a 28-percent increase from 2013. Can I say that again? 
There was a 28-percent increase in heroin deaths in our country in 1 
year. That is the trendline we are talking about with this epidemic.
  Deaths from synthetic opioids like fentanyl increased 79 percent from 
2013 to 2014. Can I say that again? A synthetic opioid, fentanyl, had 
an increase of 79 percent in deaths from 2013 to 2014.
  Here is another statistic: Today's young White adults age 25 to 34 
are experiencing the highest death rates since the Vietnam war. Can I 
say that again? White adults between the ages of 25 and 34 are 
experiencing the highest death rates since the Vietnam war.
  In 2014, an estimated 1.9 million people had an opioid use disorder 
related to prescription pain relievers and an estimated 586,000 had an 
opioid use disorder related to heroin use.
  This is the profile of the epidemic we have in our country right now.
  In the 5-year period between 2008 and 2013, overdose deaths from 
prescription painkillers and heroin combined increased 37 percent.
  In 2010, enough opioid painkillers were sold to medicate every 
American adult with a typical dose of hydrocodone every 4 hours for 1 
month.
  In 2012, health care providers wrote 259 million prescriptions for 
opioid painkillers--enough for every American adult in our country to 
have a bottle of opioid painkillers in 2012. Can I say that again? 
Enough of these opioid painkillers were prescribed so that every adult 
could have a bottle on their shelf in 2012.
  Pick a number of how many 10-milligram opioid painkillers were 
approved by the Drug Enforcement Agency in the year 2014. Just pick a 
number in your brain of how many pills were authorized to be 
manufactured in our country in 2014. Just pick a number in your brain 
of 10-milligram pills, of opioids. Here is the answer. You were wrong. 
The number is 14 billion 10 milligram-equivalent pills that were 
authorized to be manufactured in our country by the Federal 
Government--by the Drug Enforcement Agency--in the year 2014.
  Again, all this is part of the recipe. Stir well, ignore it for about 
15 years, and let our country finally recognize that there is an 
epidemic in their house, on their street, with their relative, with 
their friend that should never have happened because we know what the 
cause of this issue is.
  This unparalleled rise in overdose deaths in the United States 
parallels a fourfold increase from 1999 to 2010 in the sale of opioid 
painkillers. We know there has been a tripling in the number of 
overdose deaths from 1999 to 2012 in our country, but we also know 
this: America is only 5 percent of the world's population, and yet we 
now consume 80 percent of all of the opioid painkillers on the planet.
  Again, this is not some big puzzle in terms of what has caused this 
problem. This is all very simple, easy-to-understand stuff that 
ordinary families have been grappling with, especially over the last 10 
years, beginning with their understanding that OxyContin and Percocet 
and all these other drugs that are allegedly ``abuse-deterrent'' in 
fact, when they are swallowed pursuant to a prescription, if done on an 
extended basis, can cause an addiction that is worse than the 
underlying problem of the individual taking these painkillers.
  Roughly 480,000 emergency room visits in 2011 were attributable to 
the misuse and abuse of opioid painkillers in our country--488,000 
emergency room visits on that one issue.
  The prescription painkiller epidemic is killing more women than ever 
before, and it is estimated that about 18 women die every day from a 
prescription painkiller overdose.
  The numbers are staggering.
  We should create a requirement that if the DEA is going to license 
physicians to prescribe opioids--and every physician in America must go 
to the DEA to get a license--if they are going to be allowed to 
prescribe, the physician must prove he or she has been educated to do 
so.
  Two years ago, the FDA authorized their voluntary education program 
for physicians. Pick a number in your mind of what percentage of all 
physicians in America have taken advantage of a voluntary education 
program for opioids. You are wrong, whatever number you just picked. 
Only 12 percent of all physicians have actually taken the voluntary 
education program.
  The FDA continues to authorize new opioids on the market without even 
having an expert advisory panel to deal with the issue, even as the DEA 
continues to authorize 14 billion 10-milligram pills per year.
  This issue is one that we have to deal with. We should have physician 
education. We should have tighter standards for what the FDA does in 
allowing for new drugs to go out on the market. We have to ensure that 
they are safe, and we have to ensure there is a proper understanding of 
their abuse potential. We have to have a day of reckoning with the 
costs of all of this.
  We have to make sure that the funding level is there for families who 
are already suffering. We have to provide the help for them. We just 
have to. This is an epidemic that was largely created at the Federal 
level, largely created by physicians and pharmaceutical companies. It 
is time for us to finally begin to provide the help these families so 
desperately need.
  Here is what I know most: It will not even be those who have the 
problem right now, although those families will get the help they need; 
it is all the families who will never need the help because we did put 
the right recipe on the books. We did put the right prevention measures 
on the books. We did put the preventative measures on the books so that 
their families never even knew this day arrived in their history.
  I hope as we go through this whole process that we can keep those 
thoughts in mind. That is what we can do from the Federal Government. 
We should strive to do this. We should try our best to stand up and 
provide the help that these families need at the local level.
  Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I am in strong support of the 
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act and its supplemental funding 
amendment. I have to say I wish we weren't in this position today. I 
wish we didn't have a persistent and growing drug epidemic in this 
country that is ravaging our communities and tearing apart our 
families.
  The issue of opioid abuse and heroin addiction is not a Republican or 
Democratic issue. It is an American issue. It touches every corner of 
our society: wealthy, middle class, and poor; rural, urban, and 
suburban; moms, dads, children, and grandchildren; our friends and our 
neighbors.
  It is devastating that today more Americans are dying from drug 
overdoses than from car accidents. In looking at the facts, there are 
two things we can point our finger to: prescription opioid painkillers 
and heroin. Prescription opioids are increasingly to blame for overdose 
deaths. These drugs include hydrocodone, oxycodone, and morphine, to 
name a few. Their numbers are hard to believe--in 2014, 6.5 million 
Americans over the age of 12 abused controlled substance medications. 
The second factor, heroin, is even worse in what it has done to our 
Nation. Heroin use has increased 79 percent nationwide in just 5 years.
  These two factors are connected. When people are injured and 
prescribed painkillers, what is given as help for pain can easily 
become an addiction. These painkillers are frequently and liberally 
distributed by medical practitioners for all kinds of issues--acute 
pain, PTSD, recovery from surgery, recovery from accidents, the list 
goes on.
  However, when those prescriptions run out but the addiction has 
already set in, people turn to heroin for their fix. Why heroin? Heroin 
provides similar effects to the drugs they are already taking, is 
highly addictive, and readily available on the street. It is also 
incredibly inexpensive--$10 or less for a hit. When you have something 
like that at your disposal, it is not hard to see how people can 
continue their addictions to the point of dying.
  Every day, 120 Americans are dying as a result of drug overdoses. It 
is time to take a hard look at what we can do to fight back and stop 
these drugs from

[[Page S1339]]

taking over our communities. I look to my home State as a prime 
example.
  In my home State, we recognize that heroin and opioid abuse are 
serious problems that must be addressed. In recent years, deaths from 
heroin have risen 88 percent. In 2014 alone in Maryland, we had 578 
heroin-related deaths and 1,070 drug-overdose deaths. This problem 
reaches to the far ends of my State.
  I met a woman on the Eastern Shore of Maryland who lost everything 
when one of her family members became addicted to opioids. He resorted 
to stealing from his family and their family store, and they ended up 
declaring for bankruptcy because of his addiction and the consequences 
of it. They lost everything due to one member's addiction, and I can't 
imagine the strength it took to try to put their family back together 
after all that.
  We have all heard stories of friends, neighbors, and family that have 
faced addiction. Some have lost that battle; some have made it to 
recovery and continue to fight every day. There are examples everywhere 
in our community of both those who have lost their fight and those who, 
with the help of family and community, have put their lives back 
together.
  When thinking of this problem in Maryland, many people's minds go 
directly to Baltimore. I can understand why--Baltimore was once 
characterized as the ``heroin capital'' of the U.S. It, too, has 
battled this problem for too many years, with insufficient results to 
show. In 2014 alone in Baltimore, 303 people died from drug and alcohol 
overdose. That is more than the number of people who died from 
homicide.
  Today in Baltimore, we have 60,000 people addicted to opioids. That 
is 1 in every 10 residents of the city. Baltimore has the highest rate 
of heroin addiction in the country and many more who are abusing 
prescription opioid medication. While people like Dr. Leana Wen, the 
director of the Baltimore City Department of Health, have been actively 
taking steps to turn the tide, there are many more out there who would 
see this problem continue so they can profit off of it.
  But this problem is not just about Baltimore, nor is it just about 
drug addiction. Widespread addiction leads to other problems in 
society. Addicts commit crime to get money in order to get drugs, like 
theft and fraud. Gangs are trafficking and selling these drugs to those 
who haven't been able to quit. The worst of our society is brought out 
because of these drugs and their effects, and those effects are being 
seen in every corner of my State and every level of society.
  As I have traveled around Maryland meeting with county executives, 
every single one talked about the problem of heroin and opioid abuse. 
Both Republicans and Democrats have told me time and time again, they 
can't solve this problem themselves. They have asked me to help. They 
need multiple resources to fight. They need everyone standing up 
saying, ``enough is enough.'' It is time to take back our communities, 
and we can start with this bill and its supplemental funding.
  This bill does five things that I think will really help us start 
going in a more positive direction. First, it expands prevention and 
educational efforts to prevent opioid abuse and promote treatment and 
recovery. Second, it expands the availability of lifesaving options to 
provide for first responders and law enforcement to save lives and 
reverse overdoses. Third, the bill expands the resources to treat those 
already in prison who are suffering from addiction and look at 
alternatives to incarceration for those arrested with substance abuse 
issues. Fourth, it strengthens programs to monitor prescription drugs 
to cut down their widespread misuse and expands disposal sites for 
unwanted medication to keep it out of the hands of our children. Last, 
it creates an interagency task force with experts in all fields to look 
at the best practices for prescribing painkillers.
  I would like to add that I also support the Shaheen supplemental 
funding amendment. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act is the 
authorizing bill here. It makes the promises for services to help 
Americans in need through education, prevention, and treatment across 
geographical and economic lines. The Shaheen supplemental amendment is 
the appropriations that cuts the check for the services. It is tailored 
to the bill, providing $240 million to the Department of Justice and 
$360 million to the Department of Health and Human Services. Both the 
bill and its amendment are needed to get help to Americans and to 
Marylanders who don't have the resources to solve these problems on 
their own.
  We can't enforce our way out of this, and this bill recognizes that. 
We must look at it from the standpoint of addiction and mental health 
services as well. The impact that addiction has had on our society has 
created an urgent and desperate situation. Both this bill and its 
funding need to be passed immediately.
  As chair and vice-chair of the Appropriations Committee, I have 
fought very hard to get funding in the Federal checkbook to help combat 
this epidemic. Through a bipartisan effort in the fiscal year 2016 
omnibus, we were able to secure record funds to combat drug abuse and 
provide services to Americans.
  As vice chair of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee, 
cracking down was a priority in the omnibus bill. We provided $2.45 
billion for the Drug Enforcement Agency, who targets and dismantles 
criminal narcotics activities and regulates and combats prescription 
drug abuse. This was a $52 million increase over fiscal year 2015.
  The Department of Justice received $7 million for anti-heroin task 
forces, $12 million for residential drug treatment grants, $13 million 
for prescription drug monitoring grants, and $42 million for drug 
courts.
  Additionally, we were able to allocate significant funds for 
treatment and recovery of substance abuse disorders, including 
instituting some new programs. Funds include: $70 million for the CDC 
Prescription Drug Overdose Prevention program, more than triple the 
Fiscal Year 15 level; $12 million for new Substance Abuse & Mental 
Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, grants to equip first 
responders with overdose-prevention drugs; $5.6 million for new CDC 
funding for heroin surveillance; $10 million for new SAMHSA funding to 
promote prevention strategies; and $25 million for SAMHSA medication-
assisted treatment programs.
  We recognize that our veterans can suffer more than most in opioid 
abuse, whether from injuries sustained in combat or mental health 
issues when they return. In further protecting our veterans, we added 
reforms at the Veterans Administration. These include adopting the CDC 
guidelines for safe opioid prescriptions for chronic pain, protections 
against double-prescribing, establishing a working group focused on 
opioid therapy, ensuring all facilities are prepared with opioid 
blocking drugs, and providing training to all employees that prescribe 
controlled substances.
  Lastly, we required a multiagency report on heroin from the 
Department of Justice and 25 other Federal agencies. This report 
included recommendations and best practices for combating this crisis 
in our country. These experts said that there is hope to mitigate the 
issue, but that law enforcement and public health must work together to 
educate and intervene with effective treatments. They gave us a road 
map to take action, and several of their recommendations can be found 
in this bill.
  The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act is a first step toward 
stemming the tide of the harm that opioids and heroin have wreaked on 
our country. Along with the appropriations supplemental from Senator 
Shaheen, it will provide immediate action and a comprehensive response. 
Unfortunately, my colleagues voted against this amendment, meaning we 
have to wait another day to put money for these expanded services in 
the Federal checkbook.
  This bill recognizes that the problem won't be solved just by the 
Federal Government or local governments acting alone. We must come 
together with a multipronged solution working on all levels of 
government and including our allies in the public and private sector.
  We all share the same goal in this instance. We must do more and do 
better to reduce prescription drug abuse, to help those struggling with 
addiction, to keep heroin and opioids out of the hands of children, to 
stop those who are trafficking and selling these dangerous drugs, and 
to better train and

[[Page S1340]]

equip those on the front lines of this battle to save lives. I urge the 
adoption of this bill and I pledge to do my best to provide the Federal 
funding needed in the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2017.


                            Vote Explanation

  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I was necessarily absent for yesterday's 
vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Grassley-Leahy amendment 
No. 3378 to S. 524, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Bill. I 
would have voted yea.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I was necessarily absent for 
yesterday's cloture vote on the Grassley-Leahy amendment No. 3378 in 
the nature of a substitute to S. 524, the Comprehensive Addiction and 
Recovery Act of 2015. I would have voted yea.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          TRIBUTE TO ZAK BAIG

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise today with enormous pride, but 
also real sadness, to honor one of my most talented and longest serving 
staff members, Zak Baig, as he departs the Senate and starts an 
exciting new career.
  Zak has worked his way up the ranks in my office. He started working 
for me on the House side and in the process has filled almost every 
role in sight, starting with chief bottle washer and going up from 
there. He actually started in 2001, shortly after I was elected to the 
U.S. House, as an intern back in Hammond, LA. He did a great job there.
  In 2002, he was an intern in DC and showed even greater progress and 
promise, and then he came on full time as a legislative correspondent 
at the end of 2002.
  In 2004, I ran for the U.S. Senate. It was a big undertaking and an 
enormous challenge to take on a statewide campaign. Zak moved onto the 
campaign side and was in charge of the grassroots effort, which was 
enormously important and helped lead to our success. He truly helped 
guide us to victory that year.
  After that, as we started working in the Senate, he became an 
integral member of the Senate staff. In those first 3 years, he served 
as our projects director and then in 2008 became legislative director.
  In 2013, Zak served as a Republican staff director for the EPW 
Committee, while I was the ranking Republican.
  In 2015, after we took the majority and I became chair of the Small 
Business Committee, Zak became the full staff director there, as well 
as acting chief of staff for a period of time.
  As I said, he has absolutely worked his way up the ranks and merited 
each and every step of the way, doing a better and better job as he 
progressed. You can tell that in his body of work, which is very 
impressive and which, of course, I benefited from.
  At the EPW Committee, as a Republican staff director, Zak helped 
navigate the legislative waters and shepherd through some major 
infrastructure legislation in the Senate.
  At the staff level, he was able to lead the negotiations of the Water 
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, starting from drafting 
bipartisan legislation with Senator Barbara Boxer and her staff--the 
chair of the committee--to negotiating with the House of 
Representatives in conference, to ultimately getting the bill signed 
into law. It was a major legislative accomplishment. Shortly after 
that, he turned around and helped do the same thing with the highway 
bill reauthorization.
  Under his leadership, we also conducted some really important 
oversight of the administration, particularly the EPA, the Department 
of Transportation, and other agencies under the jurisdiction of the EPW 
Committee. When we moved to the majority and chairmanship of the Small 
Business Committee, Zak served as staff director, just as, if not more, 
effectively. He helped lead the way as we passed 22 bipartisan bills 
out of the committee in just 1 year, 8 of which have become law. To put 
that in some perspective, our predecessor on the committee only passed 
10 bills out of the committee over 5 years. So it really was making the 
committee work in an effective, bipartisan way--as it should. And just 
in general, in the office Zak was behind a lot of our major efforts and 
achievements and was always effective at whatever he put his mind to.
  A lot of that success is directly attributed to his never-ending 
energy, his drive to see things through from start to finish, and, 
maybe even more importantly, his personality, his attitude, his sense 
of humor, his being able to do tough things and always getting along 
with those he was occasionally battling with because he always did it 
with a smile and a friendly attitude, and he probably had a friendly 
joke or two mixed in.
  It is at that personal level that I am most saddened to say goodbye 
to Zak--at least working with him day to day professionally--although 
we will obviously keep in close touch.
  I have been honored to have been a mentor to so many younger folks 
who have worked in the Senate office. I have been honored to mentor Zak 
through the years, and it really has been a personal privilege and 
honor. Through those years, I have literally seen him grow up from a 
young student--a boy, really--to a consummate professional, a wonderful 
husband, and a great father. I like to think I had a little bit to do 
with that as well, because Zak met his wonderful wife Wendy when they 
both worked for me in the Senate office. In fact, their marriage is one 
of four that came out of our Senate office, which, as I look back at my 
service in the Senate, is probably the statistic and fact I will be 
most proud of--the young people I helped mentor and served with and 
those marriages that directly came out of the office.
  In that sense--through that mentoring and through those years--I 
gained not just a great staff leader but a true and dedicated friend, 
and for that I will always be grateful. It is at that personal level 
that I will think back about fights, struggles, work, challenges, and a 
lot of jokes and fun we had along the way.
  In that spirit, I want to leave Zak with three parting gifts. One has 
to do with a day when I carried something with me from committee 
hearing to floor activity and then to actually giving a speech on the 
floor with it next to me. It is a funny photograph which will not be 
described in more detail. It is perfectly PG-rated, but it is an inside 
joke. After that day, Zak got a hold of that framed photograph, and I 
think it has been completely destroyed. But there was a file of the 
originals involved, and so I will hand that to him as a parting gift as 
part of the inside joke.
  On another occasion, commemorating his enormous devotion to Syracuse 
sports--he went to Syracuse as an undergraduate--a prized basketball of 
his was hijacked. This was a basketball signed by Coach Jim Boeheim 
after their national championship season in 2003. It was hijacked and 
moved locations. It sent ransom notes from all around the country for 
quite a protracted period before Zak got it back.
  I was going to have the basketball with me to help tell the story 
today only to find out that it has been hijacked again. So my second 
parting gift to Zak is to get in contact with the abductors and return 
the prized basketball for yet a second time.
  The third, and probably the most important parting gift, is to give 
Zak the true credit he deserves. One fight I took on in the last 
several years is to have Members and staff health care handled 
appropriately as was intended under ObamaCare--the so-called Washington 
exemption of ObamaCare--ending that. I just want to give Zak full and 
public credit that that crusade and idea was really his and his alone--
not. I just wanted to give him one last heart attack, thinking for a 
split second that his promising lobbying career had just ended before 
it even began.
  I know that Zak's Senate peers and our constituents in Louisiana will 
miss his tireless service, but no one will miss that and his 
camaraderie, good humor, and friendship more than my

[[Page S1341]]

wife Wendy and our four children. We have all become very close with 
him and his wife Wendy and their two sons. We also know his parents 
very well and are friends with them back home in Louisiana. We wish 
them all the best.
  I know Zak's greatest achievements are ahead of him, not behind, and 
I can tell him to count me in as a cheerleader and fan as he takes on 
those new challenges.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________