[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.
____________________