[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 96 (Thursday, June 16, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4277-S4285]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            COMPREHENSIVE ADDICTION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2016

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask that the Chair lay before the 
Senate the House message accompanying S. 524.
  The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message 
from the House of Representatives:

       Resolved, That the House insist upon its amendments to the 
     bill (S. 524) entitled ``An Act to authorize the Attorney 
     General to award grants to address the national epidemics of 
     prescription opioid abuse and heroin use,'' and ask a 
     conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses thereon.


                            Compound Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move that the Senate disagree to 
the amendments of the House, agree to the request by the House for a 
conference, and the Presiding Officer appoint the following conferees: 
Senators Grassley, Alexander, Hatch, Sessions, Leahy, Murray, and 
Wyden.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is now pending.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     disagree to the House amendments, agree to the request from 
     the House for a conference, and the Presiding Officer appoint 
     the following conferees: Senators Grassley, Alexander, Hatch, 
     Sessions, Leahy, Murray, and Wyden with respect to S. 524, a 
     bill to authorize the Attorney General and Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services to award grants to address the 
     national epidemics of prescription opioid abuse and heroin 
     use, and to provide for the establishment of an inter-agency 
     task force to review, modify, and update best practices for 
     pain management and prescribing pain medication, and for 
     other purposes.
         John McCain, John Cornyn, Marco Rubio, Deb Fischer, Rob 
           Portman, Roger F. Wicker, Richard Burr, Joni Ernst, 
           David Vitter, James M. Inhofe, Dean Heller, Pat 
           Roberts, Lamar Alexander, Ron Johnson, Tom Cotton, Thom 
           Tillis, Mitch McConnell.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXVIII, there will now be up 
to 2 hours of debate equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I wish to start by commending the 
majority leader who just came to the floor and offered a motion to go 
to conference on CARA, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 
2016. This is an incredibly important piece of legislation because it 
will allow the U.S. Congress to be a better partner in fighting against 
this heroin and prescription drug epidemic that is seizing our 
communities.
  This is a big step today because it says we are going to send a few 
Senators over to work with the House to come up with a consensus bill 
between CARA, which passed in this body on March 10, by the way, by a 
94-to-1 vote. That never happens around here, and it happened because 
after 2\1/2\ weeks of debate on the floor, everybody realized this is 
an issue that had to be addressed and that the legislation we came up 
with was the sensible and responsible way to do it.
  It was legislation we developed over a 3-year period. Senator 
Whitehouse and I were the leads on it. We had five conferences here in 
Washington, bringing experts in from around the country. We took the 
best ideas, regardless of where they came from, and came up with a way 
to deal with the prevention and education aspect of this, to prevent 
people from getting into the funnel of addiction in the first place, 
but then, for those who are addicted, to treat addiction like the 
disease that it is, to get them into the treatment and recovery 
services that they need, as well as to help our law enforcement; 
specifically, to help our law enforcement with regard to Narcan, which 
is naloxone, which helps to stop the overdose deaths. We also help to 
get prescription drugs off of people's shelves and to avoid this issue 
of people getting into the issue of opioid addiction, sometimes 
inadvertently, through prescription drug overprescribing.
  This is a bill that actually addresses the problem in a responsible 
way. It is comprehensive.
  The House then passed its own legislation. They passed 18 separate 
bills, smaller bills, not as comprehensive but which included some good 
ideas that were not in the Senate bill; one, for instance, raising the 
cap on doctors who are treating people with Suboxone. Some of those 
ideas should be incorporated as well, but the point is, we have to move 
and move quickly.
  If we think about this, since the Senate passed its legislation, 
which was on March 10, we have unfortunately seen roughly 129 people a 
day lose their lives to overdoses. So many thousands of Americans have 
lost their lives even since March 10. This legislation takes the right 
step to address that problem and not to address just those who have 
overdosed and died but those who are casualties of this epidemic, who 
have therefore lost their job, lost their family, lost their ability to 
be able to function.
  As I talk to recovering addicts around my State of Ohio, I hear the 
same thing again and again: The drugs become everything, and this does 
cause families to be torn apart. It does cause crime. When I talk to 
prosecutors in my State, they tell me that most of the crime--in one 
county, recently a county prosecutor told me that 80 percent of the 
crime is due to this heroin and prescription drug epidemic. So this is 
one we must address for so many reasons, and we must address it right 
away.
  I am pleased we are finally appointing conferees. I hope the other 
side will not consider blocking this because we need to move on with 
this to get this legislation to the President's desk. We have been 
talking with the House about their legislation that was passed 
subsequent to our legislation and talking about how to make some of 
these compromises to be able to come up with a consensus bill. I think 
we are very close. Again, I think there are some ideas in the House 
bill we should incorporate, and I think there are some ideas in the 
Senate bill that must be included in the House bill that are not 
included now. I think one is with regard to recovery services.
  We know that the best evidence-based treatment and recovery can make 
a difference in turning people's lives around, and therefore we do 
support recovery services. For those in the field, they will tell us it 
is not just about the medication-assisted treatment, it is that longer 
term recovery that creates the success we are all looking for.
  Then, on the prevention side, we have focused more specifically on a 
national awareness campaign to get people again focused on this issue 
of the link between prescription drugs and the dangers there that are 
narcotic prescription drugs and the opioid addiction issue. I can't 
tell you how sad it is to talk to parents back home who have lost a 
child because that child started on prescription drugs. In two cases, I 
can tell you about parents who have come to talk to me--one testified 
at a hearing that we had back in Cleveland, OH--two cases where the 
teenager went in to get a wisdom tooth extracted and was given 
painkillers--prescription drugs--and from that became addicted and from 
that went to heroin and from that, sadly, had an overdose and died.
  So I think this awareness is incredibly important because most people 
don't realize that four out of five heroin addicts in Ohio started on 
prescription drugs. That awareness alone will save so many lives and 
create the opportunity for us to keep people out of that funnel of 
addiction in the first

[[Page S4278]]

place. The grip of addiction is so strong that once you are in it, it 
is a huge challenge, but it is one that can be overcome, again with the 
right kind of treatment and the right kind of recovery.
  Again, I am pleased that the majority leader came to the floor today 
to actually begin this process of the formal conference, to get this 
bill to the President's desk and, more importantly, to get this bill 
out to our communities so it can begin to help and it can begin to turn 
the tide.
  It is not getting better. I wish I could say it was. When I talk to 
people who are staffing the hotlines back home, they tell me, 
unfortunately, there are more calls coming in. When I talk to people in 
our hospitals, they tell me, unfortunately, there are more babies born 
with addiction who are showing up in neonatal units. There has been a 
750-percent increase in my State of Ohio in babies born with addiction 
just in the last dozen years.
  Unfortunately, when I talk to people about the emergency room--I 
talked to an emergency room nurse last weekend when I was in Cleveland. 
I was at a festival talking to people, and an emergency room nurse came 
up to me. I heard the same thing I have heard many times, which is you 
have to do something about this issue. More and more people are coming 
to our emergency rooms seeking help.
  Of course, it is creating an issue in terms of jobs and employment 
because people who are addicted often are not able to work, cannot hold 
down a job, and cannot pass a drug test. So it is affecting our economy 
in so many ways, and of course affecting our families. Ultimately, it 
is about individuals not being able to pursue their God-given purpose 
in life because these drugs are getting them off track.
  CARA passed in the Senate by a 94-to-1 vote, as I said. So there is 
common ground here among Republicans and Democrats alike. This is not a 
partisan issue. It never has been. From the start, over the last few 
years we have worked together. In fact, we worked with the House, not 
just bipartisan but bicameral, and put together legislation both 
Chambers could support. There were about 129 House Members who were 
cosponsors of the legislation that passed the Senate. Initially, we 
took ideas from the House and the Senate, and this is why I am a little 
frustrated, frankly, that we haven't made more progress already. Now is 
the time to move. Let's get this done before July 4. Let's get it done 
next week. Let's get it to the President and to our communities. There 
is no reason for us to wait. With this step today, of the formal naming 
of the conferees, there is no reason for us not to move forward with 
this and move forward with it in a way that shows we can work together 
as a House and Senate to solve these problems.
  Some have said: Well, there might be some other ideas that will come 
up. That is fine. I hope there will be lots of new ideas that will come 
up because there is no silver bullet, but we know this legislation will 
help. We know it is comprehensive. We know it is well-thought-out. We 
know it is based on best practices. Let's move forward with this now 
because it is urgent.
  One American every 12 minutes loses his or her life to overdoses. 
Since CARA passed, this means more than 11,000 Americans have died of 
overdoses. So since March 10, when this legislation passed on the 
Senate floor, 11,000 Americans lost their lives. Again, it doesn't 
include the hundreds of thousands more who are affected in some 
fundamental ways.
  People back home get this. When I was on a tele-townhall meeting 
recently, one of my constituents called in, and he started talking 
about the CARA legislation and the importance of more funding for 
evidence-based treatment that works. There was something about the way 
he was describing it, and I could tell this was personal. So I said: 
Sir, can you tell us why you know so much about this and why you are so 
interested?
  There was a pause. I knew what was coming because I heard it too many 
times before. He explained that he had lost his daughter. She had been 
in and out of treatment programs, and relapsed. She had been in prison 
and out. She had finally decided that she was ready, that she wanted to 
accept a treatment program to be able to turn her life around. She was 
in a position to do so. They took her to a treatment center to get 
treatment, and there was a waiting list. During the time she was on 
that waiting list--I believe it was 14 days--was when they found her. 
She had overdosed. His point was very simple. You can imagine the 
emotion on the call.
  His point was very simple. When someone is ready to seek treatment, 
we need to have treatment available for them. We are told that eight 
out of ten heroin addicts--nine out of ten overall--are not seeking 
treatment who need it. Some of that is because of the stigma associated 
with addiction. We need to wipe that stigma away to get people into 
treatment. Some of it is because there is not the availability of 
treatment in some parts of Ohio. In some parts of Ohio, in some of our 
rural areas, there literally is no effective treatment available. In 
other areas, in some of our urban areas, where there is good treatment 
available and some amazing places that are doing incredible work, they 
do have a waiting list at some of them. We also have a waiting list 
with regard to some of the longer term recovery centers and residential 
centers in Ohio. That again is helped by this legislation. We also have 
difficulty with some of our detox centers in some areas of Ohio. There 
is not enough room in the detox center so the police don't know where 
to take people to get them started in this process.
  We hear stories constantly back home in Ohio about this issue 
because, sadly, we are one of the States that is hardest hit. We are in 
the top five in the country in overdoses, and in fentanyl overdoses we 
may be No. 1. Fentanyl, by the way, is a synthetic form of heroin.
  People ask: Is it about prescription drugs or heroin? It is about the 
drugs. If it is not heroin, it may be fentanyl. If it is not fentanyl, 
next year it may be something else. It may go back to methamphetamines. 
It may be about cocaine. It is about the drugs, and we can't take our 
eye off of this issue because when we think we solve one problem 
another problem will crop up.
  Fentanyl is produced synthetically. It is usually in the mail, and it 
is mailed mostly from Ohio. From our experience, it is coming from 
China to the United States. It is made by chemists who don't care about 
our kids or our citizens, because they are making this deadly poison. 
Sometimes it is mixed with heroin. Sometimes it is put into a pill form 
to try to indicate that it might be a prescription drug pill that 
people might think is more safe, which it is obviously not. This 
fentanyl is causing more deaths in my hometown of Cincinnati and 
Cleveland, OH, than heroin these days.
  We hear stories such as the story of Nicholas Dicillo of Cleveland, 
OH. Nicholas was a bright young man, a gifted musician. He had a full 
scholarship to Northwestern University. His father died of a heroin 
overdose when he was a child. Two decades later, sadly, Nick became a 
heroin addict himself after experimenting with it with some friends. It 
was an experiment, and he got addicted. I hope people who are listening 
today understand this is something that cannot be played with. You are 
playing with fire.
  He soon realized that he had made a tragic mistake. He said: ``Heroin 
took me to the depths of hell.'' That was his quote.
  Then his mother Celeste died of a heroin overdose in January. 
Nicholas was the one who found her body. That heartbreaking experience 
motivated Nick to get clean. He made a promise to himself that he would 
not suffer that same fate, the fate of both of his parents. After his 
mother died, he was homeless. He tried quitting cold turkey. That 
didn't work. He wasn't able to do it. Most heroin prescription drug 
addicts are not. He sought help, he sought treatment, and he was clean 
for 2 months.

       I am just starting to like myself again. I have a whole lot 
     more life to live. I have a whole lot more I want to do. I 
     don't want to become another statistic.

  But then, sadly, he relapsed. He overdosed. He was found dead with a 
needle in his arm on May 4 in west Cleveland, OH. Memorial services are 
being held for him in Cleveland this week.
  That is what is happening in northeast Ohio. In southwest Ohio, a 
woman

[[Page S4279]]

arrested by the Cincinnati Police pled guilty last week to repeatedly 
trafficking her own 11-year-old old daughter to her 42-year-old drug 
dealer in exchange for heroin. Sadly, she even gave this girl--her 11-
year-old daughter--heroin.
  You get the picture. This is not in one ZIP Code. This is not in one 
community. It knows no ZIP Code. It is in our rural areas, in our 
suburban areas, and in our inner cities. It is affecting every person 
regardless of their station in life, regardless of their background. No 
one is immune from it, and no one is unaffected by it. Ohioans know 
this is happening and they are taking action. That is positive. Terri 
Thompson, of Bluffton, OH, has founded a group called Ohio Moms Against 
Heroin, and I commend her for it. She has seven kids, by the way, and 
five of them have been addicted to heroin at one point or another over 
the past 20 years. They are from a middle-class Ohio home. One son went 
to prison. Over the next year, 12 of his peers died of heroin 
overdoses. Terri's youngest daughter--a cheerleader, a soccer player, 
and a talented piano player--made the mistake of trying heroin with her 
boyfriend. She became addicted. One of her brothers who got treatment 
and is now leading a productive life, is a small business owner. He 
encouraged her to get treatment, too, as he had gotten. She did, and 
now she is living a sober, clean, and a productive life.
  Seven hundred Ohio moms have now joined Terri's group. We already 
know they have been saving people. They tell me a story about one woman 
who contacted the group when she needed treatment. Terri personally 
picked her up and drove her to detox and the woman has been clean for 3 
months and is now back on track. On June 18, Terri and dozens of other 
moms will be rallying and marching in Findlay, OH, to educate people 
that addiction is a disease and it needs to be treated. Again, I 
commend her. I want to thank Terri and all those involved in this body. 
She is a brave woman who is channeling her grief toward something 
constructive, and that is helping others to avoid this disease.
  In my hometown of Cincinnati, the Center for Addiction Treatment, 
also known as the CAT House, has announced a $5.7 million capital 
campaign to construct a new 17,000-square foot building to address the 
opioid epidemic. This will triple their capacity to be able to treat 
more patients. They will be able to treat about 6,000 patients. They do 
great work, and they have had great success. Construction has already 
begun. It is expected to be completed within a year.
  I want to thank everyone who has made that possible, including the 
folks at the CAT House, but also the State of Ohio, the city of 
Cincinnati, the Deaconess Health Associations Foundation, and Bethesda, 
Inc.
  The University of Cincinnati former law school dean emeritus, Joe 
Tomain, who is a friend of mine, has been speaking out about this 
epidemic, writing in the Cincinnati Enquirer: ``There is no more urgent 
need in our community than to address this drug scourge.'' I think he 
is right. I want to thank him for doing his part in helping to lend his 
voice to those who don't have a voice.
  I know the scope of this epidemic can sometimes feel overwhelming. I 
know the way we talked about it today, it has to be frustrating to 
everybody hearing it. What are the solutions? How can we get at this? 
But we know there is hope. We know that prevention can work. It is the 
right kind of prevention, if it is focused and targeted. We know that 
treatment and recovery can work. I have given you examples of that. 
Again, it has to be evidence-based. It has to be stuff that we are 
funding here because it works, not because we want to throw more money 
at a problem.
  Reggie Gant, of Columbus, OH, was a married father of three who had a 
good job working at a paint company. He tore his rotator cuff. He was 
in pain. His doctor prescribed Percocet for his pain. He became 
addicted. When his doctor stopped filling the prescription, he started 
buying off of other people in the doctor's waiting room. When the pills 
weren't available or were too expensive, which is often the problem for 
these prescription drug addicts who turn to heroin, he switched to 
heroin. It was less expensive. It was more available. He was trapped in 
the funnel of addiction, and the drug became everything. He lost his 
relationship with his wife and his kids. He started stealing from his 
workplace. ``I did things I never thought I would do in a million 
years,'' he said.
  As I said earlier, the drugs are everything. But he got treatment, 
spending 40 days at an inpatient facility. He has been clean for 6 
months. He is getting help from the Lima Urban Minority Alcoholism and 
Drug Abuse Outreach Program. He is beating this because he was able to 
step forward and get into treatment. It was there for him. People can 
beat this, and they do every day.
  Experts tell us 9 out of 10 of those who need treatment aren't 
getting it. As I said earlier, some of that is because of the stigma, 
and some of that is because of lack of access to facilities in their 
communities. This House effort that was undertaken with 18 separate 
bills combined with the Senate bill, the Comprehensive Addiction and 
Recovery Act, or CARA, will make a difference. It will provide more 
help to the type of treatment programs and recovery efforts that 
actually work.
  If we can get this comprehensive bill to the President, we can help 
more people who are struggling to get treatment. We can help give them 
more hope. It is time to act and act quickly to find common ground 
before we lose more of our fellow Americans. Let's get this 
comprehensive bill into law and begin to help those millions of our 
fellow citizens who are struggling with this epidemic.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I yield back my time.
  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. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Radical Islamic Terrorism

  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, our Nation is at war. Five days ago, we 
saw a horrific terror attack in Orlando, FL. From September 11 to the 
Boston Marathon, from Fort Hood to Chattanooga, from San Bernardino to 
this attack in Orlando, radical Islamic terrorism has declared jihad on 
America. As the facts have unfolded, they now indicate that the Orlando 
terrorist had pledged his allegiance to ISIS in the process of 
murdering 49 and wounding more than 50 at a nightclub.
  All of our hearts go out to those who were murdered. To the families 
of those who were victims and who are grieving, we stand in solidarity, 
we lift them up in prayer at this horrific act of terrorism. But it is 
also a time for action. We need a Commander in Chief who will speak the 
truth, who will address the enemy we face, who will unleash the full 
force and fury of the American military on defeating ISIS and defeating 
radical Islamic terrorists.
  In the wake of the attack, many of us predicted what would unfold, 
and it was, sadly, the same political tale we have seen over and over 
again. Many of us predicted that Democrats would, as a matter of rigid 
partisan ideology, refuse even to say the words ``radical Islamic 
terrorist''; that they would suggest this attack was yet another 
isolated incident, one lone criminal, not connected to any global 
ideology, not connected to any global jihad; and that, even worse, they 
would try to use it as an excuse to go after the Second Amendment 
rights of law-abiding citizens. I wish, when we predicted that, that we 
had been proven incorrect. But this week played out all too 
predictably.
  Yesterday we saw a political show on the Senate floor, with Democrat 
after Democrat standing for hours, incensed not at ISIS, incensed not 
at radical Islamic terrorism, but incensed that Americans have a right 
to keep and bear arms. This is political distraction. This is political 
gamesmanship. I think the American people find it ridiculous that in 
response to an ISIS terror attack, the Democrats go on high dudgeon 
that we have to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding 
citizens. This is not a gun control issue. This is a terrorism issue. 
And it is nothing less than political gamesmanship for them to try to 
shift to their favorite hobbyhorse of taking away the Bill of Rights 
from law-abiding citizens.

[[Page S4280]]

  I have spent years defending the Second Amendment--the right to keep 
and bear arms--the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and I, along 
with the Presiding Officer, along with a great many Members of this 
Chamber, am committed to defending the constitutional rights of every 
American. You don't defeat terrorism by taking away our guns; you 
defeat terrorism by using our guns. This body should not be engaged in 
a political circus trying to restrict the Second Amendment. Instead, we 
should be focusing on the problem at hand.
  Why did we see yesterday's series of speeches? Because Senate 
Democrats have an election coming up in November, and they don't want 
to talk about the real issue. Let's talk about ISIS. Let's talk about 
radical Islamic terrorism. Let's talk about the failures of the last 7 
years of this administration to keep this country safe.
  In response to my criticism and that of many others, President Obama 
gave a press conference where he said, echoing the words of Hillary 
Clinton: What difference does it make if we call it radical Islamic 
terrorism? Well, Mr. President, it makes a world of difference because 
the failure to address the enemy impacts every action taken to fight 
that enemy.
  I want to talk in particular about three areas where this 
administration and the Senate Democrats' refusal to confront radical 
Islamic terrorism has made America less safe and what we need to do 
about it. Let's start with prevention. Over and over again we have seen 
the Obama administration having ample information to stop a terrorist 
attack. Yet, because of the political correctness, because of the 
ideology of this administration that will not even say the word 
``jihad,'' will not even say the words ``radical Islamic terrorism,'' 
they look the other way, and the attacks go forward.
  In my home State of Texas, Fort Hood, Nidal Hasan--the Obama 
administration knew that Nidal Hasan had been in communication with the 
radical Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. The Obama administration knew 
that Nidal Hasan had asked al-Awlaki about the permissibility of waging 
jihad against his fellow soldiers. All of that was known beforehand, 
yet they did nothing. They did nothing. And on that fateful day, Nidal 
Hasan murdered 14 innocent souls, yelling ``Allahu Akbar'' as he pulled 
the trigger. Yet, just to underscore the blindness of this 
administration even after the terror attack, the administration 
insisted on characterizing that terror attack as ``workplace 
violence.'' That is nothing short of delusion, and it is a delusion 
that cost 14 lives.
  If we know of a U.S. servicemember who is communicating with a 
radical Islamic cleric and asking about waging jihad against his fellow 
soldiers, MPs should show up at that individual's door within minutes. 
And if we didn't have an administration that plunged its head in the 
sand like an ostrich and refused to acknowledge radical Islamic 
terrorism, Nidal Hasan would have been stopped before he carried out 
that horrific act of terrorism.
  Likewise, with the Boston bombing and the Tsarnaev brothers, Russia 
had informed the Obama administration they were connected with radical 
Islamic terrorism. We knew that. The FBI had gone and interviewed them. 
Yet, once again, they dropped the ball. They stopped monitoring them. 
They didn't even note when the elder Tsarnaev brother posted on YouTube 
a public call to jihad. Mind you, this did not require complicated 
surveillance. This was YouTube. Anyone with a computer who could type 
in ``Google'' could see this. Yet, because the administration will not 
acknowledge that we are fighting radical Islamic terrorism, they were 
not watching and monitoring the Tsarnaev brothers. So they called for 
public jihad and then carried out that public jihad with pressure 
cookers at the Boston Marathon--yet another example where we knew about 
the individual beforehand, and if we had focused prevention on the 
problem, we could have stopped it.
  A third example was San Bernardino, that horrific terror attack. Once 
again, we had ample information about the individuals in question. The 
female terrorist who came to San Bernardino had given the 
administration a fake address in Pakistan. Yet the so-called vetting 
that this administration tells us they do had failed to discover that 
it was a fake address. She had made calls for jihad; yet the 
administration failed to discover that. In San Bernardino, we saw yet 
another horrific terror attack.
  And how about Orlando? Let's talk about what the facts are in 
Orlando. Now, we are only 5 days in. The facts will develop further as 
they are more fully developed, but here is what has been publicly 
reported.
  What has been publicly reported is that Omar Mateen was interviewed 
not once, not twice, but three times by the FBI in 2013 and 2014. One 
of the reasons he was interviewed by the FBI was that he was talking in 
his place of employment, which, ironically and shockingly enough, was a 
contractor to the Department of Homeland Security, and he was talking 
about being connected to terrorist organizations, including the Boston 
bombers. To any rational person, that is a big red flag. Yet it has 
also been reported that his coworkers were so afraid to say anything 
because they didn't want to be labeled as somehow anti-Muslim by 
speaking out about someone claiming to be connected to radical Islamic 
terrorists.
  We also know that when he was questioned by the FBI in 2004, 
according to public reports, it was because he was believed to have 
been connected to and knew Moner Mohammad Abusalha, who traveled to 
Syria to join the terrorist organization al-Nusra Front and who became 
the first known American suicide bomber in the Syrian conflict. That is 
yet another big red flag. If you are palling around with al-Nusra 
suicide bombers, that ought to be a real flag. If the administration is 
focused on radical Islamic terrorism, this is an individual we ought to 
be watching.
  We know that Mateen, as it has been reported, traveled to Mecca in 
Saudi Arabia for 10 days on March 2011 and for 8 days in March 2012. 
And we also have indications that the FBI may have been aware that he 
was a follower of the Islamist educational Web site run by radical 
Imams. Not only that, but his father has posted online videos 
expressing not only sympathy but arguably support for the Taliban. All 
of that is what the Obama administration knew. Yet by Sunday morning 
they were no longer watching Omar Mateen. They were no longer watching 
Omar Mateen. They were not monitoring him, and he was able to go in and 
commit a horrific act of murder.
  The question that every Member of this body should be asking is, Why 
is the ball being dropped over and over and over again? It is not once. 
It is not twice. It is a pattern. It is a pattern of failing to connect 
the dots. I would suggest it is directly connected to President Obama 
and this administration's refusal to acknowledge what it is we are 
fighting. If you direct the prevention efforts to stopping radical 
Islamic terrorism--we had all the information we had on Mateen to keep 
a very close eye on him. Yet if that is not what you are fighting, then 
you close the investigation and yet another attack goes forward.
  I would suggest that this willful blindness is one of the reasons we 
saw the circus yesterday on the Senate floor. Senate Democrats should 
be asking these questions, yet we don't hear them asking those 
questions. Instead, they want to shift this to gun control. They want 
to shift this to putting the Federal Government in charge of approving 
every firearms transaction between law-abiding citizens in America. 
Mind you, that would not have prevented this attack. Mind you, it was 
not directed at the evil of this attack. Mind you, it ignores the 
global jihad we are facing, but it is a convenient political dodge. We 
need serious leadership focused on keeping this country safe.
  A second component of keeping this country safe is defeating ISIS--
utterly and completely defeating ISIS.
  In yesterday's circus, when calling for taking away your and my 
constitutional rights, how often did Senate Democrats say: Let's 
utterly destroy ISIS. Not with the pinprick attacks we are seeing, not 
with the photo-op foreign policy of this administration--a failed 
effort that leaves the terrorists laughing at us--but instead, using 
overwhelming airpower; instead, using the concerted power of the U.S. 
military, with rules of engagement that allow us to fight and win. 
Right now, sending our service men and women into combat with rules of 
engagement

[[Page S4281]]

tying their hands behind their backs is wrong, it is immoral, and it is 
not accomplishing the task.
  Do you want a response to the Orlando attacks? President Obama and 
Vice President Biden are going down. They will no doubt give a self-
righteous speech about gun control, trying to strip away the rights of 
law-abiding Americans. How about they stand up and have the President 
pledge that ISIS will be driven from the face of the Earth? Do you want 
to see a response to murdering innocent Americans? If you declare war 
on America, you are signing your death warrant. That is the response of 
a Commander in Chief. That is the seriousness we need.
  A third component of focusing on the enemy is that we should focus on 
keeping us safe--in particular, passing two pieces of legislation, both 
of which I introduced, the first of which is the Expatriate Terrorist 
Act. This is legislation which provides that if any American citizen 
goes and takes up arms and joins ISIS, joins a radical Islamic 
terrorist group, that he or she forfeits their U.S. citizenship. So you 
do not have American citizens coming back to America with U.S. 
passports to wage jihad on America. We have seen Americans such as Jose 
Padilla, Anwar al-Awlaki, and Faisal Shahzad, just to name a few, who 
have abandoned their country and joined with the terrorists in waging 
war against us. Just this week, the CIA Director testified to the 
Senate that more are coming; ISIS intends to send individuals back here 
to wage jihad.
  Rather than engaging in political showmanship, trying to gain 
partisan advantage in the November election, how about we come together 
and say: If you join ISIS, you are not using a U.S. passport to come 
back here and murder American citizens. That ought to be a unanimous 
agreement if we were focused on keeping this country safe.
  Likewise, let's talk about the problem of refugees. What are the 
consequences of the willful blindness of this administration that 
President Obama, in the face of this terror attack, says that he will 
admit some 10,000 Syrian Muslim refugees, despite the fact that the FBI 
Director has told Congress he cannot possibly vet them to determine if 
they are terrorists?
  Here is what FBI Director Comey said:

       We can only query against that which we have collected. And 
     so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in 
     a way that would get their identity or their interest 
     reflected in our database, we can query our database until 
     the cows come home, but there will be nothing to show up 
     because we have no record of them.

  This is an FBI Director who was appointed by President Obama who is 
telling the administration they cannot vet these refugees. Yet what 
does the administration say? What does Hillary Clinton say? What do the 
Senate Democrats say? Let the refugees in, even though ISIS is telling 
us they are going to use those refugees to send terrorists here to come 
and murder us. This transcends mere partisan disagreement; this is 
lunacy.
  We know the Paris attack was carried out in part by people who came 
in using the refugee program, taking advantage of the refugee program. 
Indeed, earlier this year, on January 6, 2016, Omar Faraj Saeed Al 
Hardan, a Palestinian born in Iraq who entered the United States as a 
refugee in 2009, was charged with attempting to provide support to 
ISIS. He wanted to set off bombs using cell phone detonators at two 
malls in my hometown of Houston, TX. This is a refugee who came from 
Iraq. Yet, do you hear the administration saying: This is a dangerous 
world. Jihadists are attempting to kill us. We have to keep us safe. 
They don't say that.
  The legislation I have introduced, which I would urge this body to 
take up, would impose a 3-year moratorium on refugees coming from any 
nation where ISIS or Al Qaeda or radical Islamic terrorists control a 
substantial portion of the territory. We can help with humanitarian 
efforts. We can help resettling refugees in majority Muslim countries 
in the Middle East. America is a compassionate country that has given 
more than 10 times as much money as any country on Earth to caring for 
refugees. But being compassionate doesn't mean we are suicidal. It 
doesn't mean we invite to America, we invite to our homes people who 
the FBI cannot tell us if they are terrorists or not.
  What should this Senate be doing? We shouldn't be engaging in a 
sideshow of gun control. By the way, I will say on behalf of a lot of 
American citizens, in the wake of this terror attack, it is offensive. 
I sat in that chair and presided yesterday over some of the show. It 
was offensive to see Democrat after Democrat prattling on about the 
NRA. It wasn't the NRA that murdered 49 people in Orlando. It wasn't 
the NRA that set up pressure cookers in the Boston bombing. It wasn't 
the NRA that murdered 14 innocent souls at Fort Hood. It is offensive 
to play political games with the constitutional rights of American 
citizens instead of getting serious about keeping this country safe.
  I would urge this body to take up both pieces of legislation--the 
Expatriate Terrorist Act to prevent terrorists from using U.S. 
passports to come back to America and TRIPA to prevent refugees from 
countries with majority control, major control from ISIS or Al Qaeda 
from coming in, ISIS terrorists as refugees. Those would be commonsense 
steps. The overwhelming majority of Americans would agree. Yet, in this 
politicized environment, that is not what our friends on the other side 
of the aisle want to talk about. Until we get serious about defeating 
radical Islamic terrorists, we will continue to lose innocents.
  I would note one aspect of the attack on Sunday morning. It was 
widely reported that it was at a gay bar. There are a great many 
Democrats who are fond of calling themselves champions of the LGBT 
community. I would suggest there is no more important issue to champion 
in that regard than protecting Americans from murder by a vicious 
ideology that systematically murders homosexuals, that throws them off 
buildings, that buries them under rocks. The regime in Iran, now 
supported by billions of dollars of American taxpayer dollars at the 
behest of President Obama, murders homosexuals regularly.
  I will confess, some in the press pool were a little bit puzzled: 
Well, how can a Republican be speaking out against this? Let me be very 
clear. I am against murder. I am against murder of any American. Nobody 
has a right to murder anybody because they differ in faith, because 
they differ in sexual orientation, because they differ in any respect. 
We are a nation founded on protecting the rights of everyone to live 
according to their conscience, according to their faith. This murder in 
Orlando was not random; it was part of a global jihad, an ideology, an 
Islamist ideology that commands its adherents to murder or forcibly 
convert the infidel, by whom they mean every one of us.
  This body should not be engaged in political games. We should be 
focused on the threat and keeping America safe and defeating radical 
Islamic terrorists.
  As we remember the victims of this latest terror attack, the greatest 
memorial we can give to them is to redouble ourselves to a seriousness 
of purpose to prevent the next terror attack from taking innocent 
American lives. I hope that is what this body does. I hope we do so in 
a bipartisan manner.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am a proud cosponsor of the 
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, and I am glad that this 
important bill is now going to be moving to conference. I am glad that 
as the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, I will be a 
conferee.
  Beyond the idea of being a conferee, it is urgent that we find 
comprehensive and real solutions to the epidemic of heroin and 
prescription opioid abuse. I am in Vermont many times a month. I hear 
from people I know and from some I do not know. They are in the grocery 
stores, on the street, even coming out of church on Sunday. They are 
telling me of their concerns either within their own family or in their 
own neighborhood with the problems of opioid abuse. Communities 
throughout the Nation are grappling with this issue, whether they are 
in urban areas or rural areas or a State such as the Presiding Officer 
and I represent that has a mixture of both urban and rural.
  I think the Federal Government has to do its part to provide the 
support

[[Page S4282]]

necessary to sustain those efforts. It means real money. For rural 
communities, which are predominantly the communities in my home State 
of Vermont, it means better access to the opioid antidote Naloxone, 
which saves lives. I have held hearings throughout Vermont, and I have 
heard from not only the police but physicians, the faith community, 
parents, teachers, and others that Naloxone can save lives.
  It is really not a question of whether there is a heroin-opioid 
epidemic; the question is how quickly we can respond. We have to act 
now. The American people expect us to, and that is an expectation they 
are justified to have. So let us fulfill the expectation.
  I support the efforts by my neighbor from New Hampshire, Senator 
Shaheen, and I support her motion to instruct conferees to provide 
funding for State and local efforts to combat the opioid epidemic.
  I also support my fellow New Englander, Senator Whitehouse, in his 
motion to instruct conferees to address the needs of rural communities. 
I come from a State of 625,000 people--625,000 very special people. It 
is very rural. We need the help. I support Senator Whitehouse in this.
  I see other Senators on the floor, so I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                              Puerto Rico

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today to be a voice for the 
3\1/2\ million citizens living on the island of Puerto Rico. I rise so 
their concerns for themselves, their families, and their livelihoods 
will be heard--to ask that we improve House-passed legislation known as 
PROMESA. The word ``promesa'' in English would mean ``promise,'' but 
the only thing the House bill promises the people of Puerto Rico is 
years of subjugation at the hands of an anti-democratic control board.
  All of us in this Senate will soon be faced with an immediate and 
serious choice, one which will have profound consequences on the people 
of Puerto Rico for a generation. I have said from the beginning, in 
terms of the challenge Puerto Rico has--a $70 billion debt; pays one-
third of every dollar it receives toward paying interest, which is 
unsustainable for them and unsustainable for any governmental entity 
that would face that challenge; made tough, horrible decisions--closed 
schools, closed hospitals, reduced public safety--and still cannot meet 
the challenge. They need a clear path to restructuring. That is not a 
bailout. A bailout is when somebody has a debt, you bring them the 
money and say, OK, we are going take care of your debt, but that is not 
the case. Restructuring is about taking the debt you have and giving 
the wherewithal for that debt to be restructured in a way that is both 
sustainable and can take care of the obligations therein.

  It needs an oversight board that represents the people, the U.S. 
citizens of Puerto Rico, their needs and their concerns, and 
acknowledges and respects their Democratic rights as Americans, but, 
sadly, the legislation passed by the House last week falls far short of 
what we need on several fronts. Instead of offering a clear path to 
restructuring, it creates more obstacles. It creates a supermajority 5-
to-2 vote by an unelected control board to get to the possibility of 
restructuring that could derail the island's attempts to achieve 
sustainable debt payments. Without any authority to restructure its 
debt, all this legislation will do is take away the Democratic rights 
of 3\1/2\ million Americans and leave the future to wishful thinking 
and a prayer that the crisis will somehow be resolved. Even if the 
board did allow restructuring after a series of hurdles, it will come 
at a steep price, and that price is the right of self-governance.
  In return for being able to rework its debts, the people of Puerto 
Rico will be forced to relinquish their fundamental right to govern 
themselves and make their own decisions, the very same rights we fought 
to secure in a revolution 240 years ago.
  What I am saying shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who read the 
House Natural Resources Committee report, which was unequivocal when 
describing the vast powers this control board will exercise, which we 
will be voting on.
  In an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, it 
states: ``The board would have broad sovereign powers to effectively 
overrule decisions by Puerto Rico's legislature, governor and other 
public authorities.''
  Let me repeat that. They will have broad sovereign powers. Words have 
consequences and meaning in legislation and in law. They will have 
broad sovereign powers to effectively overrule decisions made by the 
elected government of the 3\1/2\ million U.S. citizens who call Puerto 
Rico their home.
  The Congressional Budget Office went on to say that the Board can 
``effectively nullify''--cancel, goodbye, hasta la vista--``any new 
laws or policies adopted by Puerto Rico that did not conform to 
requirements specified in the bill.'' So not only can the control board 
set budgets and fiscal policy, it also has the power to veto other 
laws. Essentially, this means that the Board combines--think of this--
the legislative powers of Congress with the veto powers of the 
Executive to form an omnipotent entity, the powers which are virtually 
unprecedented. We talk about checks and balances in our government as 
one of the creations by the Founders which was essential to a modern 
democracy. Well, we obliterate the checks and balances and the rights 
of the people of Puerto Rico by having an omnipotent entity, the powers 
of which are virtually unprecedented.
  As the bill's own author noted in the markup memo, and I quote, 
``[T]he Oversight Board may impose mandatory cuts on Puerto Rico's 
government and instrumentalities--a power far beyond that exercised by 
the Control Board established for the District of Columbia, when there 
was a control board, when the District of Columbia found itself in 
Fiscal Challenge.''
  The fact that the Puerto Rican people will have absolutely no say 
over who is appointed or what action this Board decides is blatant 
neocolonialism. Instead, their fate will be determined by seven 
unelected, unaccountable members of a so-called oversight board that 
will act as a virtual oligarchy and impose their unchecked will on the 
island. If the Board uses the superpowers in this bill to close 
schools, shutter more hospitals, cut senior citizens' pensions to the 
bone, if it decides to hold a fire sale and put Puerto Rico's natural 
wonders on the auction block to the highest bidder, if it puts balanced 
budgets ahead of the health, safety, and well-being of children and 
families similar to the control board travesty that unfolded in Flint, 
there will be nothing the people of Puerto Rico or their elected 
representatives can do to stop them.
  Of course the bill doesn't stop there. It also provides an exception 
to the Federal minimum wage for younger workers, and it exempts the 
island from recently finalized overtime protections. At a time when we 
are working to increase workers' wages, the people in the country have 
said through this election process: My wages are stagnant, and I feel I 
can't meet the challenges of myself and my family, PROMESA goes in the 
opposite direction, and it actually cuts workers' wages. It amazes me 
that the solution to get Puerto Rico's economy growing again is to 
ensure that workers make even less money. The island consists of 3\1/2\ 
million U.S. citizens, 40 percent of which are below the Federal 
poverty level, and now we are going to cut their wages. Lowering 
people's wages is not a pro-growth strategy. What it is, is a pro-
migration strategy. All it will do is intensify outmigration to the 
mainland, where people who are U.S. citizens and happen to live in 
Puerto Rico are eligible for a higher minimum wage here, where they 
would have commonsense overtime protections, are eligible for full 
Medicare, Medicaid reimbursement, are eligible for the child tax credit 
as they try to raise their child and realize their hopes and dreams and 
aspirations, are eligible for the earned-income tax credit--all they 
have to do is take one flight to the United States. Yet we somehow 
think that a policy that subjugates these 3\1/2\ million citizens and 
takes away essential rights they have as American citizens is going to 
be a good fiscal policy for us as well.
  Every time I talk about my brothers and sisters in Puerto Rico, I 
like to remind my colleagues in this Chamber and in the other that they 
have fought on behalf of America since World War

[[Page S4283]]

I. They have fought in World War II, the Korean war, Vietnam, Desert 
Storm, Desert Shield, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War on Terror. As a 
matter of fact, if you go and visit the Vietnam Memorial as it 
commemorates its 50th anniversary, you will find a disproportionately 
high number of Puerto Rican names etched in that solemn black stone as 
compared to the rest of the American population.
  I remember being in the Visitor Center when the Speaker of the House 
had a celebration of the 65th Infantry Division, an all-Puerto Rican 
division, one of the most highly decorated in U.S. history, known as 
the Borinqueneers. They received the Congressional Gold Medal, the 
highest honor Congress gives any citizen.
  We talked about their enormous contributions, their sacrifices on 
behalf of the Nation. These men and women--many of whom gave their 
lives--still serve so we can remain the land of the free. They will go 
back home to where their freedom and their right to self-governance 
will be stripped. These heroes deserve the same rights and respect as 
U.S. citizens in New Jersey, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Utah, or 
any other State in the Nation, but what this bill tells the people of 
Puerto Rico is this: Though you may be good enough to wear the uniform 
of your country, you may be good enough to fight and die to defend the 
United States, you are not good enough to make your own decisions, 
govern yourself, and have a voice in your own future.
  I am not advocating to completely remove all oversight powers--to the 
contrary. I support helping Puerto Rico make informed, prudent 
decisions that put it on the path to economic growth and solvency. 
Despite its name, the oversight board envisioned by this bill doesn't 
simply oversee, it directs and commands. It doesn't assist. It 
absolutely controls potentially every significant public policy 
decision that affects those 3\1/2\ million U.S. citizens.
  The Senate has an opportunity to change that situation. We have a 
chance to improve this bill and strike the right balance. I want the 
opportunity to offer a number of targeted, commonsense amendments to 
restore a proper balance and ensure the people of Puerto Rico have a 
say in their future and to temper the powers of the control board and 
give the people of Puerto Rico more of a say as to who is on the Board 
that is going to determine their future for quite some time.
  I know, as all of us do, that success is never guaranteed, but at the 
very least, the people of Puerto Rico deserve a thorough and thoughtful 
debate on the Senate floor.
  I do not take lightly, nor should my colleagues, a decision to 
infringe upon the Democratic rights of the 3\1/2\ million U.S. citizens 
in Puerto Rico. Those 3\1/2\ million American citizens living in Puerto 
Rico and their 5 million family members living in our States and our 
districts deserve more than the Senate holding its nose to improve an 
inferior solution.
  I am pleased to say that this sentiment has some bipartisan support. 
I sent a letter, with Senator Wicker, to Senate leadership asking for a 
full and thorough debate. I hope we do not get jammed at the final 
moment as an attempt to push an undemocratic bill through the Senate by 
waiting until the very end of this session as a tactical maneuver to 
avoid a thoughtful debate and an opportunity for amendments.
  I took Majority Leader McConnell at his word when he said: ``We need 
to open up the legislative process in a way that allows more amendments 
from both sides.'' I am hopeful he will honor that commitment.
  Like some of my colleagues, I was once a Member of the House of 
Representatives, and I have enormous respect for that Chamber, but I 
didn't get elected to the Senate to abdicate my responsibility and 
simply rubberstamp whatever bills come over from the House of 
Representatives. I would hope we would immediately call up this bill 
for debate and do what we were elected to do--fix problems and make the 
lives of the American people better.
  Just because these 3\1/2\ million citizens are Puerto Rican, they are 
no less a citizen than you or the Presiding Officer or my colleagues 
who are on the floor or those who get to serve in this institution. 
They deserve better. They deserve better than to be jammed with an 
undemocratic process that will affect their lives in ways far beyond 
anybody in this Chamber would be willing to accept.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum call be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
and notwithstanding the adoption of the compound motion to go to 
conference on S. 524, that Senator Shaheen and Senator Whitehouse or 
their designees be recognized to each offer a motion to instruct 
conferees and that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided on the 
motions, and that following the use or yielding back of that time, the 
Senate vote on the motions to instruct conferees with no intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I understand that prior to the cloture 
vote, the Democratic side still had some time. I yield back that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     disagree to the House amendments, agree to the request from 
     the House for a conference, and the Presiding Officer appoint 
     the following conferees: Senators Grassley, Alexander, Hatch, 
     Sessions, Leahy, Murray, and Wyden with respect to S. 524, a 
     bill to authorize the Attorney General and Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services to award grants to address the 
     national epidemics of prescription opioid abuse and heroin 
     use, and to provide for the establishment of an inter-agency 
     task force to review, modify, and update best practices for 
     pain management and prescribing pain medication, and for 
     other purposes.
         John McCain, John Cornyn, Marco Rubio, Deb Fischer, Rob 
           Portman, Roger F. Wicker, Richard Burr, Joni Ernst, 
           David Vitter, James M. Inhofe, Dean Heller, Pat 
           Roberts, Lamar Alexander, Ron Johnson, Tom Cotton, Thom 
           Tillis, Mitch McConnell.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to disagree to the House amendments, agree to the request by the 
House for a conference, and to appoint conferees with respect to S. 
524, a bill to authorize the Attorney General to award grants to 
address the national epidemics of prescription opioid abuse and heroin 
use, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), and the Senator from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 95, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 100 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats

[[Page S4284]]


     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Lee
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Boxer
     Nelson
     Rubio
     Sanders
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 95, the nays are 1.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The question occurs on agreeing to the compound motion to go to 
conference on S. 524.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I have a motion to instruct the 
conferees at the desk, which I ask the clerk to report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mrs. Shaheen] moves that 
     the managers on the part of the Senate at the conference 
     on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on S. 524 (the 
     Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016) be 
     instructed to insist that the final conference report 
     include funding for prevention, treatment, and recovery 
     associated with state and local efforts needed to combat 
     the national heroin and opioid epidemic.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes equally divided for 
debate.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, the opioid crisis is a national public 
health emergency, and it is long past time that Congress treat it like 
one. It is shattering families and communities, especially in New 
Hampshire but also all across this country. In New Hampshire, we are 
losing a person a day to drug overdoses.
  The CARA bill is a good bill. I cosponsored it. I think it is 
important. But without real dollars, it is the equivalent of offering a 
life preserver with no air in it.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this motion to instruct and 
support real funding in this bill.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the next 
vote, the Whitehouse vote, can go by a voice vote--sorry about that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate in opposition to the Senator's 
motion?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The yeas and nays have been previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Nelson), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 101 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--29

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Hatch
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     Perdue
     Risch
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tillis
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Boxer
     Leahy
     Nelson
     Rubio
     Sanders
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I have a motion to instruct conferees 
at the desk, which I ask the clerk to report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Whitehouse] moves that 
     the managers on the part of the Senate at the conference 
     on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House 
     amendments to the bill S. 524 (the Comprehensive Addiction 
     and Recovery Act of 2016) be instructed--
         (1) to reject proposals that would replace the individual 
     prevention, treatment, law enforcement, and recovery programs 
     authorized in S. 524, including the incentive grant program 
     authorized in section 601, with a single grant program with 
     multiple allowable uses;
         (2) to insist that the final conference report include 
     authorizations explicitly designated for grants to States, 
     and in the case of States that do not have prescription drug 
     monitoring programs, units of local government that do have 
     such programs, to strengthen the use of and make improvements 
     to prescription drug monitoring programs;
         (3) to insist that the final conference report address 
     the unique needs of rural communities, which are among the 
     hardest hit by opioid abuse in the United States and are 
     often in the most dire need of improved emergency services 
     and more accessible treatment infrastructure;
         (4) to insist that the final conference report authorize 
     those provisions of S. 1641 that were approved by the 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate; and
         (5) to insist that the final conference report include 
     the provisions of S. 1455 as reported by the Committee on 
     Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate.

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Colleagues, this motion to instruct has bipartisan 
support from the authors of CARA. It reflects the bipartisan work that 
was done on CARA, and we hope that this motion to instruct will get a 
strong bipartisan vote.
  This motion supports the bipartisan Senate work on the CARA bill that 
passed this body 94 to 1. It supports the bipartisan language worked 
out between Senator Blunt and Senator McCaskill on the Missouri county 
prescription drug management program issue. It supports a focus on the 
rural communities for which opioid has been a plague, which is a 
bipartisan concern. It supports the passed bipartisan version of the 
veterans opioids measure from the Senate Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs. And it supports the Senate HELP Committee's passed bipartisan 
version of the bipartisan TREAT Act.
  If we can pull together as a Senate, we can have a really great bill. 
Please send the conferees a strong bipartisan vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I concur in the comments of my colleague. 
This is the CARA legislation which passed here on a 94-to-1 vote. This 
is simply a motion saying we support what we have already passed. I 
urge my colleagues to support it.

[[Page S4285]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Nelson), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily 
absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 24, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 102 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--24

     Barrasso
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Flake
     Gardner
     Heller
     Lankford
     Lee
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Toomey
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Boxer
     Inhofe
     Leahy
     Nelson
     Rubio
     Sanders
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________