[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.
____________________