[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 29, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4705-S4710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 524, 
H.R. 5293.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 524, H.R. 5293, a bill 
     making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other 
     purposes.


                             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 senior assistant 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 
     proceed to Calendar No. 524, H.R. 5293, an act making 
     appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Tom Cotton, Shelley Moore Capito, Mike 
           Crapo, Thad Cochran, Jerry Moran, Richard C. Shelby, 
           John Hoeven, Lamar Alexander, Orrin G. Hatch, Daniel 
           Coats, Pat Roberts, John Barrasso, Bill Cassidy, John 
           Thune, John Boozman, John Cornyn.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum 
calls for these cloture motions be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


           Funeral of Frederick Charles ``Bulldog'' Becker IV

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last week I had the opportunity to pay 
tribute to a gentleman by the name of Fred Becker. We knew him lovingly 
and affectionately as ``Bulldog.'' He was a veteran and a veterans 
activist. He passed away on June 11.
  This past Friday, Bulldog's remains were interred at Fort Richardson 
in Anchorage. He occupied a very special place in my heart, so it was 
important that I be there to attend those services. It was really quite 
a spectacle. Bulldog was a leader of several veterans motorcycle 
groups. So there were more than 100 of his fellow veterans--all on 
bikes--who accompanied the remains to the final resting place there at 
Fort Richardson Cemetery. But if that were not special enough, in and 
of itself, there were several hundred airmen and soldiers--some say 
400--that were lined up once you went through the gates there on Fort 
Richardson. About every 10 feet, there was an airman or a soldier for 
almost 2 miles into where the ceremony was. These individuals were 
there to pay tribute to a man who every day--every day--worked to show 
respect to other veterans and worked to ensure that the service and the 
sacrifice of those veterans would never be forgotten.
  So at every ceremony--whether it was Veterans Day or Memorial Day or 
a salute to the military or to the change of command and at every 
retirement--Bulldog was there. So it was so inspiring to be there and 
to see the tribute paid to this amazing man.
  It was Col. Brian Bruckbauer, who is the commander of the 673rd Air 
Base Wing at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, who organized this 
extraordinary tribute, and I would like to take this opportunity to 
express my appreciation to Colonel Bruckbauer, his fellow leaders at 
JBER, and the soldiers and airmen who came out on Friday afternoon.


                   Celebrating Talkeetna's Centennial

  Mr. President, coming up this next week, on July 4, the historic 
community of Talkeetna, AK, which sits just at the base of Denali, will 
celebrate the 100th anniversary of its founding. Talkeetna sits at the 
confluence of three glacially fed rivers. Originally settled by the 
Dena'ina people, it was an important location for fishing and hunting. 
The name Talkeetna derives from a Dena'ina word which means ``river of 
plenty.''
  The gold rush of 1896 brought prospectors to the area. In 1905, gold 
was discovered in the Yentna-Cache Creek mining district to the west of 
town. Sternwheeler riverboats traveling up the Susitna River docked at 
Talkeetna, establishing the town as a supply center for the local 
mining districts.
  Then came the Alaska Railroad. In 1914, President Wilson signed a law 
enabling the construction of the railroad from Seward to Fairbanks. 
Talkeetna was then designated as the district headquarters for railroad 
construction, increasing its population by about 400 people at the 
outset. Then, that grew to 1,000 people at the peak of construction. In 
December of 1916, the Talkeetna Post Office was opened, which really 
established it.

[[Page S4706]]

  By 1923, railroad construction was complete and the population of 
Talkeetna dropped to only a few dozen people. But the few dozen that 
stayed were determined to make a go of it. Talkeetna remained a mining 
supply hub. The railroad deposited a sufficient number of gold miners 
to support local mining supply businesses.
  Fast forward to the 1960s. In 1963, astronomers declared Talkeetna 
the best place in the United States to see the total solar eclipse. 
That brought about 2,000 people into town. The visitors then boarded 
the train to see what was then called ``Mt. McKinley.''
  In 1964, a spur road was constructed connecting Talkeetna to the 
newly built Parks Highway, which is the artery connecting Anchorage and 
Fairbanks to Denali National Park. Suddenly, Talkeetna was open to road 
access. The State of Alaska then sold land for market value to those 
who wanted to settle in the area. Those who settled in Talkeetna found 
a steadily growing visitor industry awaiting them. Talkeetna has become 
a destination for mountaineers from around the world. Today, 1,100 to 
1,250 people attempt to climb the mountain each year.
  The first stop for adventurers planning to climb is the National Park 
Service's Talkeetna ranger station. The ranger station is named for 
Walter Harper, who was an Athabascan Indian, and he was the first 
person to reach the summit of Denali--20,310 feet up. The second stop 
is one of the many air taxi services that call Talkeetna home for a 
ride up to the base camp.
  While the climbing season may be short--basically late April to early 
July--the visitor season continues through Labor Day. Talkeetna is a 
popular stop for cruise tour and independent visitors traveling the 
Parks Highway en route to Denali National Park.
  But Talkeetna is no ``glitter gulch,'' as we in Alaska sometimes say. 
It is a thriving year-round community numbering some 876 people, with 
an active arts community, its own public radio station, and a 
quirkiness that is perhaps unique to Talkeetna. There are probably not 
too many towns that can actually boast that their mayor is a cat--a 
cat.
  OK, Stubbs is the honorary mayor of Talkeetna. He is not really and 
truly the official mayor. He is the honorary mayor. He was elected back 
in 1997. Stubbs has had that position for all 19 years of his life. He 
is quite well-known and has quite the notoriety. Stubbs greets visitors 
at Nagley's Store. Nagley's was founded in 1921. It is one of 
Talkeetna's original businesses and is listed on the National Register 
of Historic Places. It is part of a historic district that runs roughly 
2 blocks by 3 blocks.
  Visitors who choose to spend this Independence Day in Talkeetna will 
be treated to a rich hometown experience amidst the splendor of one of 
Alaska's most picturesque and interesting places. I am told Talkeetna's 
centennial celebration will provide visitors an opportunity to enjoy 
the town as the locals do.
  I was hoping to make it up to Talkeetna. I am probably not going to 
be able to do so. But I might be able to make the run from Wasilla, AK, 
to attend the moose-dropping event at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. It is 
an annual tradition on the Fourth of July, where we take a collection 
of moose droppings, drop them, and bet on them. So we have an 
interesting mayor, and we have interesting festivals, but it is the 
heart of gold that comes from the people in this beautifully 
picturesque and, again, amazing place. It is a great honor to celebrate 
Talkeetna's Centennial today in the Senate.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I also want to congratulate the people of 
Talkeetna. I wish I could go myself to the moose-dropping thing, and I 
want to see that before I die.
  Mr. President, I thank Senator Whitehouse for giving me this time.


                          College World Series

  Mr. President, in 3 minutes, the final game of the championship round 
of the College World Series takes place. Coastal Carolina is playing 
the University of Arizona.
  Coastal Carolina is a relatively small school in Myrtle Beach. Dustin 
Johnson is a graduate and won the U.S. Open. But if you have been 
watching the College World Series, this baseball team is inspiring. 
Arizona and Coastal Carolina have had two great games. Tonight is the 
rubber match, winner takes all. I don't know what is going to happen. 
If Coastal Carolina falls short, we have won in every way we could win. 
It has been the most exciting World Series I can remember: South 
Carolina won back-to-back world championships.
  Coastal Carolina, I know everybody in South Carolina is very proud, 
all the fans are very excited, and the best pitchers are on the mound 
tonight. So go Chanticleers. I am going to go home and watch the 
baseball game.
  I thank Senator Whitehouse for letting me say that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I was delighted to let Senator Graham 
celebrate an achievement by his home State university. I was pleased to 
yield him the time.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. President, I am here, as the Presiding Officer knows, for the 
142nd time to urge Congress to wake up to the threat of climate change. 
We are asleep at the wheel in Congress, heading toward climate 
catastrophe.
  Of course, outside this Chamber there is broad support for 
responsible climate action from the American people and from every 
major scientific society. Indeed, 31 of them just sent us a letter this 
week, reminding us to get off our duffs and pay attention to the 
science. Virtually every one of our home State universities, our 
National Laboratories, NASA, NOAA, and the military, national security, 
and intelligence leadership of our country--if they are all wrong, that 
is one heck of a hoax.
  Frustratingly, Congress is still fogged in by a decades-long, 
purposeful campaign of deliberate misinformation from the fossil fuel 
industry and its allies. And since Citizens United, that misinformation 
campaign is backed up by unprecedented special interest political 
artillery.
  Outside the fossil fuel industry, there is of course broad support 
for action on climate change across corporate America. Leading 
businesses and executives vocally supported President Obama on the 
Paris Agreement. Many are committed to getting onto a sustainable 
energy path. More than 150 major American firms signed the American 
Business Act on Climate Pledge. Many are pushing their commitment 
outside of their corporate walls through their supply chains, but 
against these Americans corporate efforts on climate stand two major 
forces that claim to represent American business: the Wall Street 
Journal editorial page and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  The Wall Street Journal editorial page claims to speak for the 
business community, small business owners, and industry titans alike, 
but it is way off base from the business community's commitment to 
addressing climate change. Its editorial page is constantly wrong about 
climate change, from misstating the science of climate change, to 
misstating the costs versus benefits of climate action, to misstating 
the law when carrying the industry's water to oppose civil 
investigations into whether the industry climate denial scheme amounts 
to fraud.
  It is not new. The Journal has a well-worn playbook for defending 
polluting industries. Look at its commentaries over time on acid rain, 
on the ozone layer, and of course now on climate change. It is always 
wrong, and worse, there is a pattern, a formula: Deny the science, 
question the motives of those calling for change, exaggerate the costs 
of taking action, and, above all, protect the polluting industry.
  I have said all of this before, but now there is a study that 
quantifies it. Climate Nexus's recent analysis of the Wall Street 
Journal's editorial page shows ``a consistent pattern that 
overwhelmingly ignores the science, champions doubt and denial of both 
the science and effectiveness of action, and leaves readers misinformed 
about the consensus of science and of the risks of the threat.'' The 
analysis finds the opinion section has ``done its readers a disservice 
by consistently ignoring or ridiculing the scientific consensus on the 
reality and urgency of climate change.''

[[Page S4707]]

  The editorial page's bias, which is out of sync with virtually every 
single major scientific body, ``cannot help but hinder its readers' 
ability to make accurate assessments of the risk climate change poses 
to their businesses.''
  Specifically, Climate Nexus's analysis found that of 201 editorials 
relating to climate science or policy dating back to 1997, not one 
explicitly acknowledges that fossil fuels cause climate change. Of the 
279 op-eds published since 1995, 40 reflect mainstream climate science, 
a paltry 14 percent. And of 122 columns published since 1997, just 4 
accept as fact that fossil fuels cause climate change or endorse a 
policy to reduce emissions--out of 122 columns, 4. It is laughable.
  Between April 2015 and May 2016, when global heat records were 
falling with regularity, the Journal published 100 climate-related op-
eds, columns, and editorials. Only 4 op-eds provided information 
reflecting mainstream climate science, and 96 pieces in the Journal's 
opinion section failed to acknowledge the link between human activity 
and climate change. Even ExxonMobil and Charles Koch admit that link. 
Last January, for example, the page called recent extreme weather 
``business as usual,'' while clinging to the bogus ``hiatus'' argument 
that global temperature increases had halted.
  The Climate Nexus report illuminates a series of advertisements that 
have been placed--where? On the Wall Street Journal editorial page, 
calling attention to this preposterous bias.
  The first one reads: ``Exxon's CEO Says Fossil Fuels Are Raising 
Temperatures and Sea Levels. Why won't the Wall Street Journal?'' The 
copy below goes on to say ExxonMobil has called for a carbon price, and 
they have.

       The CEOs of BP, Shell, Total, Statoil, BG Group and ENI 
     call climate change ``a critical challenge for our world'' 
     and have also called for a price on carbon.
       It is time for the editorial board of the WSJ to become 
     part of the solution on climate change.

  The next one says: ``Carbon Dioxide Traps Heat on Earth.'' It goes on 
to say:

       This isn't controversial. The head of Exxon Mobil and most 
     major oil companies agree, along with every scientific 
     academy in the world.

  Again, a fact.
  The next one: ``The Earth Has Warmed. And We Did It.'' It goes on to 
say:

       [W]e've known for more than a century that adding more 
     heat-trapping carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from fossil 
     fuels would warm the planet.

  And we have known that. We have known that since Abraham Lincoln was 
President.

       So it's not surprising that the planet keeps getting warmer 
     (although you may not have seen this fact on this page).

  And, of course, ``Despite what you may have heard, there has been no 
`pause.' ''
  All of that is solid, clear science.
  The next ad: ``What Goes Up Doesn't Come Down. CO2 
Emissions Stay in the Atmosphere for Centuries.'' And they do one other 
thing that this advertisement mentions as well: The CO2 
emissions, when they are in the atmosphere above the oceans, react 
chemically with the oceans. This is a reaction that you can replicate 
in a high school chemistry lab. This is not debatable, negotiable 
science. This is known, established science. It says oceans are 
acidifying as a result, and they are. We measure that, and we are 
measuring the fastest increase in acidification in the ocean in 50 
million years.
  The one that follows: ``Your Assets are at Risk. Beware the Carbon 
Bubble.''

       If you thought the housing bubble and crash of 2008 were 
     bad, consider the carbon bubble: A ticking time-bomb for 
     fossil fuel company investors.
       This is why so many conservative economists want to put a 
     ``price'' on carbon to speed the clean energy transition 
     while allowing the markets to cushion and adjust.

  Of course that is true. Every single conservative or Republican who 
has fought the climate change problem through to the solution has come 
to the same solution, which is a revenue-neutral price on carbon.
  Here we go, the most recent ad: ``The Free Market Solution to Climate 
Change.''

       The CEOs of oil giants Exxon, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, 
     Statoil, Total, Eni, and BG Group have all called for carbon 
     pricing. So have the leaders of [many countries around the 
     world].
       Wall Street Journal columnist Holman W. Jenkins calls a 
     revenue-neutral carbon tax ``our first-best policy, rewarding 
     innovations by which humans would satisfy their energy needs 
     while releasing less carbon into the atmosphere.''

  Those are the advertisements that have been put on the Wall Street 
Journal editorial page. Unfortunately, it takes people paying for space 
on the Wall Street Journal editorial page to get the truth about 
climate change told on the Wall Street Journal editorial page. These 
are straightforward, broadly accepted statements of the science of 
climate change.
  So if the Wall Street Journal editorial page isn't acknowledging the 
views of credentialed experts, whom is it representing? Back to the 
Climate Nexus report, and I quote:

       [T]he Wall Street Journal consistently highlights voices of 
     those with vested interests in fossil fuels . . . presenting 
     only the dismissive side of the climate discussion. . . . 
     [T]hat undermines a reader's ability to effectively evaluate 
     climate risk, objectively assess potential solutions, and 
     balance the two.

  The report calls the short shrift given to climate change ``a failure 
of journalistic responsibility.'' Look at its commentary on acid rain, 
on the ozone layer, and on climate change--always the same, always 
wrong. You have to wonder what service the Wall Street Journal 
editorial page is providing to its readership, since its record seems 
to rule out truth or balance or factuality. Maybe the short answer is 
that the service the Wall Street Journal editorial page is providing 
isn't a service to its readership.

  Let's turn to the other miscreant. You might wonder as well what 
service the U.S. Chamber of Commerce provides to its members who have 
responsible climate change policies. The U.S. Chamber is the largest 
lobbying organization in the country, and its power in Congress is 
fully dedicated to stopping any serious climate legislation. Everybody 
here sees the Chamber's hostility to climate legislation everywhere.
  My and Senator Warren's offices recently took a look at the lobbying 
positions of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce compared with the positions 
of its own board members. With Senators Boxer, Sanders, Brown, Merkley, 
Blumenthal, and Markey, we released a report on our findings. Not one 
of the 108 Chamber board members we contacted would endorse the U.S. 
Chamber's lobbying on climate change--not one. Our investigation found 
that roughly half of the companies represented on the Chamber's board 
actually have strong pro-climate action positions, which contrast 
sharply with the Chamber's lobbying activities.
  We also found the Chamber's decisionmaking about these policies to be 
awfully murky. The Chamber describes its board as its ``principal 
governing and policymaking body,'' but not one Chamber board member 
asserted that they were fully aware of and able to provide their input 
and views to the Chamber regarding its actions on climate. There was no 
sign of a board vote or any formal input. One company indicated it was 
``not advised of any campaigns'' and was ``not aware of any processes'' 
to lobby against climate action by the Chamber of Commerce. Another 
company reported that ``the issues raised . . . have not been discussed 
during the short time [it has] been a member of the organization.''
  The Chamber has aggressively lobbied for climate policies that are 
directly at odds with science, public health, public opinion, and--with 
the results of this recent research, it turns out--with most of its own 
board members. Again, the question comes, whom are they serving?
  The Center for Responsive Politics--a nonprofit, nonpartisan research 
group that tracks money spent on elections and lobbying--found that in 
2015 alone, the Chamber spent roughly $85 million on lobbying efforts. 
That is more than twice the amount spent by the second highest lobbying 
spending organization.
  Think for a moment of the progress we could make here if the 
Chamber's lobbying muscle actually aligned with the positions of the 
businesses the U.S. Chamber of Commerce purports to represent. We don't 
see that. Instead, we see the bullying menace of the fossil fuel 
industry holding sway in these

[[Page S4708]]

Halls. It appears to have captured the Chamber. It appears to control 
the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
  On the other side, there is virtually zero corporate lobbying effort 
for a good bipartisan climate bill. The result here is not surprising. 
Indeed, it is quite predictable when all the artillery is on one side 
of a fight--all the artillery on the side of the fossil fuel industry. 
The result is that Members of Congress who know better are afraid to 
act.
  Too many good companies are AWOL on climate change in Congress. Too 
many have farmed out their lobbying to groups like the Chamber of 
Commerce that actually oppose their corporate climate policies. Too 
many will not speak up or answer back when the Wall Street Journal 
editorial page purports to speak for them but emits only polluter 
nonsense.
  Duty calls. Duty matters. It is time for private sector leaders to 
step up and tell Congress that those twin appendages of the fossil fuel 
industry do not represent corporate America on climate change. There is 
a change that could not come too soon.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise tonight to talk about an issue 
that is facing every single State represented in this Chamber and every 
community in America. Over the past week, we have talked about the 
potential Zika epidemic and the need for us to address that, and I 
agree, but there is another epidemic that is already here, and that is 
this issue of prescription drugs and heroin and the addiction that 
follows.
  Far too many overdoses are occurring in our communities. There are 
people who are losing their lives. There are casualties beyond the 
overdose deaths. There are people who have seen their families broken 
apart because of the addiction, and because the drug becomes 
everything, they are unable to go to work.
  We have seen the devastation in our communities in terms of the crime 
and violence connected with the drug trade, and we have seen, 
unfortunately, babies increasingly born with addiction. These babies 
are in every neonatal unit in America. I know these babies are in every 
one of the hospitals in my home State of Ohio. There has been a 750-
percent increase in the number of these babies in the State of Ohio in 
the last dozen years.
  It has gotten to the point where deaths from overdoses from heroin 
and prescription drugs, opioids, now exceed the deaths from auto 
accidents. It is the No. 1 cause of accidental deaths in my home State 
of Ohio. Based on the latest data I have seen, I believe that is now 
true for our entire country. Ohio has been particularly hard hit. We 
are probably in the top five based on all the data I have seen. My 
State is probably No. 1 in the country in terms of a particular kind of 
overdose, a synthetic form of heroin called fentanyl. It is 
devastating. On average, 129 people die every day from these overdoses.
  That is why this Senate, over the last 3 years, has worked hard to 
pull together legislation that addresses this issue. It specifically 
says: Let's figure out smarter and better ways to have better 
education, prevention, treatment, and recovery to help our law 
enforcement be able to deal with this problem.
  We worked with 130 groups around the country, all of whom have now 
endorsed the legislation we spent 3 years putting together. We had five 
conferences here in Washington. We brought in experts from around the 
country. We didn't do it in a bipartisan way; we did it in a 
nonpartisan way. In other words, we didn't care who had the idea--
Democrat, Republican, Independent. It didn't matter. What mattered was 
whether it was a good idea and whether it would help to address this 
growing epidemic we are facing in our States and around the country.
  That legislation passed the U.S. Senate. It was on the floor for 
about 2\1/2\ weeks. There was a long debate, but at the end of that 
debate, after people became familiar with this issue--some of whom were 
already very familiar with this issue; some of whom, frankly, were not 
in this Chamber--many of them would go home and talk about this 
legislation. They learned more about it from their communities, their 
schools, and their firehouses. When they came back, after 2\1/2\ weeks 
of debate, the vote for this legislation called the Comprehensive 
Addiction and Recovery Act, otherwise known as CARA, was not close; it 
was 94 to 1. That never happens around this place. It happened because 
we took our time, did it right, and focused on evidence-based 
treatment, recovery, and prevention--stuff that actually works to 
improve what we are doing and that was also responsible. This 
legislation also passed because it is such a big issue in every State 
and every community.
  It has been 110 days since the Senate passed CARA. By the way, 
earlier I said that 129 people, on average, are dying every day of 
overdoses. That means that in those 110 days since the Senate passed 
the legislation, over 13,000 of our fellow Americans have succumbed and 
died from an overdose of opioids. Think about that. Think of those 
numbers.
  Why isn't it done yet? It is not done yet because the House needed to 
move through its own process. I totally understand that. You should 
know that the House was part of the process for the last 3 years. This 
was not just bipartisan; it was bicameral. In other words, both the 
House and Senate were involved. We had 130 cosponsors of the CARA 
legislation in the House, but the House wanted to go through their own 
process, and they did. They came up with 18 separate bills rather than 
1 more comprehensive bill. We are now in the process of putting those 
together. We have 18 bills from the House and 1 from the Senate.
  The conference committee has been named. Today I am happy to announce 
that the conference is actually going to meet on Wednesday of next 
week. They are going to vote on the final product. After having talked 
to a number of members of the conference committee today and over the 
past several weeks, I think it is going to be a very positive product. 
It will be very similar to the Senate bill in terms of being 
comprehensive, but it also picks up a number of good items that the 
House added. There is one that I particularly like. It would raise the 
cap on how many people can be treated with Suboxone, which is one of 
the ways to have medicated-assisted treatment, and in particular at the 
treatment center, which is a good change.
  We do believe that the provisions we included in CARA over here are 
necessary because it is comprehensive and does include prevention and 
education. We think some of our prevention programs, which are not in 
the House, are necessary. We think that particularly on the treatment 
and recovery side--especially on the recovery side--there are some 
things that need to be added.
  I get very good reports as to the progress of that conference, and I 
believe it will be something that I can not only support but 
enthusiastically support if they can stick to the blueprint they have 
worked on. Again, that bill will be next week. That is a positive sign.
  This is the 11th time I have come to the floor of the Senate to urge 
them to act. We have been in session for 11 weeks since the bill 
passed. Every single week, I have come to the floor to talk about this, 
and I have the best report yet in the sense that we are moving forward.
  This week I sent a letter, along with my colleagues, Senator 
Whitehouse, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Ayotte. This letter went to 
the conference committee to insist that the legislation be, in fact, 
comprehensive, and I believe from what I am hearing that it will be--
the prevention grants, the Opiate Awareness Campaign, the law 
enforcement task forces, the education grants to educate those who are 
behind bars. There were other great ideas that came from both sides of 
the aisle that should be included.
  I must say tonight, though, that I am hearing some other troubling 
reports, and these have now become public, so I am going to talk about 
them.

  The Senate passed this bill 94 to 1. It is an emergency and an 
epidemic in our

[[Page S4709]]

communities. There are 130 anti-drug groups from across the country who 
have endorsed this legislation. Everybody is together on this, and we 
worked hard to make it inclusive. Again, 13,000 Americans have died 
from overdoses since this legislation passed the Senate. Despite all of 
that, there are press reports that say the White House is encouraging 
us to delay. I hope that is not true, but here is the first report that 
I will tell you about.
  National Public Radio talks about a White House meeting with some 
Democratic Members of Congress about potentially stalling CARA. One 
White House legislative aide is quoted as saying: ``We need to slow 
down the conference enough so that the White House can bring it back to 
the American people. We need help in slowing it down.'' The piece went 
on to say that ``Democratic members of Congress were asked to come to 
this meeting and they were eager to help slow it down.''
  Slow it down? Are you kidding? Slow it down? We should have sped it 
up, and we certainly can't stop now. The Senate is only in session for 
2 more weeks, and then it goes out of session for the conventions and 
the August recess. We should have already done it. Let's not slow it 
down; let's speed it up.
  I will tell you something else that I learned today, which I found 
amazing, and I hope the way I am looking at it or the way I am reading 
about it is not accurate. The drug czar for the United States of 
America is Michael Botticelli. He has testified in favor of this 
legislation and came to three of our five conferences and testified in 
favor of it. We took his ideas and input, which were very helpful. He 
came to the hearing in the Judiciary Committee and, in response to a 
question from Senator Whitehouse, a leading Democrat on that committee 
and coauthor of this legislation, said he thought this was a good bill 
and that it was important that it be comprehensive. He also went to New 
Hampshire for a hearing and said he supported the legislation in front 
of Senator Shaheen and Senator Ayotte. He was supposed to come to Ohio 
but at the last minute decided he could not attend our hearing in Ohio.
  I was told that yesterday he held a press briefing with Ohio 
reporters. I have been trying to reach him today unsuccessfully, but 
apparently he thought it was necessary to go to Ohio reporters to talk 
about this issue. Among those on the call, by the way, was at least one 
Democratic local official. Maybe there were a few. I am not sure 
because I wasn't told about the call to Ohio. I am from Ohio. I am the 
coauthor of the bill. In that call, he said things that led the 
reporters to believe that he thought CARA did not go far enough and 
that it wasn't the appropriate response to this epidemic.
  Look, I understand there is an election every 2 years here in 
America, and that is fine, but I have known every single drug czar 
since the first one, Bill Bennett. I have worked with every single one 
of them. Many of them have remained close friends. General McCaffrey 
was the drug czar for Bill Clinton when I authored a few pieces of 
legislation, such as the drug-free media campaign legislation, the 
Drug-Free Workplace Act, the Drug-Free Communities Support Program, 
which has generated over $1.3 billion of Federal dollars--matching 
funds. It helps to bond more than 2,000 community coalitions, including 
a community coalition in my hometown that I founded over 20 years ago.
  I have been at this for a long time in terms of addressing this issue 
of drug addiction and drug abuse, and I worked with every single one of 
the drug czars. I have never seen them be partisan, ever.
  I am very disappointed to hear these press reports about the White 
House wanting to delay. I am now, of course, very disappointed to hear 
that the drug czar is out there saying negative things about the CARA 
legislation when he, in fact, was part of putting it together. He, in 
fact, testified in favor of it. I don't understand that. I don't get 
it.
  Let's put politics aside and actually get something done. Perhaps 
some of the parents who come to me and tell me about having lost a son 
or a daughter need to talk to some other Members of the Congress and of 
the administration who think this is somehow a political game. This is 
about saving lives. It is about saving people from ruining their lives. 
It is about helping people to be able to achieve their God-given 
purpose.
  Our legislation is incredibly important. I mentioned some of the 
specifics of it. It does have grant programs that we know work. It has 
evidence-based programs. It includes medication treatment that works 
better. We know there are a lot of relapses, and we are trying to get 
the money into things that actually work. But it is bigger than that. 
It is about changing our attitude about this issue here in the Senate 
and in the House of Representatives. I would think that anybody who 
follows this closely--certainly someone who is the head of the Office 
of National Drug Control Policy--would get that.
  This legislation begins to treat addiction like a disease that needs 
to be treated just like other diseases. Even if we didn't have $100 
million of new funding in here, even if we didn't have all of these new 
specific grant programs and things we know work, like veterans courts 
and drug courts and all the recovery grant money that goes out, 
including to high school and colleges for recovery groups that work, it 
would be significant just because it establishes this new approach, 
saying that addiction is not a moral failure, addiction is a disease. 
Through this, we hope to wipe away the stigma so people do come forward 
and get treatment. It will help families who won't talk about the 
disease feel comfortable in saying: You have a problem, and we are 
going to support you. We are going to get you into treatment so you can 
pull your life, your family, and communities back together. That is 
what this legislation is about.
  This is an authorization bill. It is not a spending bill. Everybody 
who follows this process knows that. Apparently the concern that has 
been raised is, well, there is not enough additional appropriated money 
in here. Well, this is not an appropriations bill.
  By the way, the Appropriations Committee, at the urging of those of 
us who coauthored this legislation, have increased the funding 
substantially this year, and they have made a commitment in the 
subcommittee and the full committee to have a 93-percent increase in 
funding for this next year.
  As I said, this authorizes about $100 million more every year going 
forward in our legislation as well, but frankly I think the 
appropriations ought to be greater than that. This is an emergency, but 
we are going down the right track there with these appropriations 
commitments that have been made. We need to be sure we have that 
commitment all the way to the final spending bills this year because we 
do need to have adequate funding, particularly to make sure everybody 
who wants treatment can get it.

  I had a tele-townhall meeting this week, where 25,000 people were on 
the call at one time. It was a big group of people. As usual, people 
talked about terrorism, they talked about jobs and the economy, but 
three different people called in on this drug abuse issue. Two of them 
were recovering addicts, one was a parent. They talked about the worth 
of the legislation, the importance of treatment, the importance for us 
to deal with this issue. They talked about the fact that this knows no 
ZIP Code, it is not an inner city problem, it is not a suburban 
problem; it is everywhere.
  I spoke to a woman named Leigh from Zanesville, OH. She told me she 
is now in recovery. She volunteers at prisons and told me that most of 
the prisoners there are also drug users. We talked about the CARA 
recovery provisions. They include critical resources to develop 
recovery and support services, individuals and families. We talked 
about the fact that in this legislation we have grants that can go to 
prisons to deal with this substance abuse issue in prison so when 
people get out, they have had the treatment to be able to get their 
lives back together and get out of that revolving door of the criminal 
justice system, where more than half of the people who get out are 
right back in again within a few years.
  I talked to a man named John from Grove City. He told me he lost his 
son on June 1, just a few weeks ago, to an overdose of heroin laced 
with synthetic drugs. I expressed my condolences to him and his family, 
but I also thanked him for calling and for his willingness,

[[Page S4710]]

in front of 25,000 people, to talk about this issue. He was very 
plainspoken. He said: My son was addicted to heroin for 5 years. ``It 
meant more to him than his family; it meant more to him than 
anything.''
  Unfortunately, there are fathers and mothers all over the State of 
Ohio who are experiencing what John had to experience with his son. He 
wants us to pass this legislation because he thinks it is going to 
help, and it will.
  I think those who are addicted, those families who are being affected 
by this have been very patient. They are looking for more help from 
Washington, and they deserve it. Washington is not going to solve this 
problem. It is going to be solved in our communities, in our families, 
and in our hearts. But Washington can help and be a better partner, 
take the existing funds we are spending and spend them more wisely to 
actually affect the number of people who get addicted in the first 
place with better prevention and through better education, and then for 
those who are addicted, better treatment and recovery; help them get 
back on their feet.
  Washington can help. That is what this legislation does. It is making 
Washington a better partner with State and local government and the 
nonprofits that are in the trenches doing the hard work every day.
  I hope these reports I am hearing about delay and these tactics that 
are being used, unbelievably, by the administration to somehow make it 
appear as though this legislation isn't what they said it was back when 
they helped put it together and when they testified in favor of it--I 
hope that is just a distraction, and I hope people understand the 
significance of getting this done and getting it done now. It is 
already past time. We can't wait.
  Again, people have been patient. It is now time for the U.S. Congress 
to face this issue, to address it through legislation that went through 
here with a 94-to-1 vote, to send it to the President for his signature 
and, more importantly, to send it to our communities around our country 
to begin to help turn the tide, save lives, and bring back hope.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                                 Russia

  Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern about 
troubling new developments in Russia. Russia's Parliament, the Federal 
Assembly, has just approved so-called antiterrorism legislation that 
actually criminalizes free speech and that attacks religious liberty. 
If President Putin signs this legislation into law in the coming weeks, 
it will be illegal for Christians to share their faith outside of the 
church building, as if faith is constrained by the four walls of a 
structure and belief by a single day of the week on the calendar.
  In some ways, sadly, this isn't a surprise. There is a lot that is 
wrong with Russia. We are witnessing a rising authoritarianism in a 
declining State--a rising authoritarianism in a declining State.
  Moscow routinely tramples on the rights of the press, tramples on 
assembly, speech, on dissent, and on national sovereignty. Ask the 
families of murdered journalists. Ask the student groups facing 
intimidation. Ask the political dissidents who fear imprisonment. Ask 
the Ukrainian people who fear being fully overrun.
  Why is this happening? Because Putin and his cronies think they can 
make Russia great again by hoarding wealth, by abusing power, and by 
crushing any and all dissent and opposition. They strike the pose of a 
strong man, but this is not real strength.
  True strength is rooted in virtue: selflessness and sacrifice on 
behalf of the weak and the oppressed. Mr. Putin is driven by cheap 
imitation and intimidation, more akin to bullying; vice masquerading as 
virtue.
  We know Russia's offenses are many and egregious. At the same time, 
Americans well understand it is not our national calling, nor is it 
within our power, to attempt to right every wrong in a broken world, 
but we should be clear about what is happening, as well as the fact 
that there is no easy fix. It is naive to hope Russia can be reformed 
with a reset button or with promises of future flexibility. Instead, we 
need to begin telling the truth about an increasingly aggressive actor 
on the global stage.
  Again, let me be explicit. The United States does not have a solemn 
obligation to try to make the entire world free, but we absolutely do 
have an obligation to speak on behalf of those who are made speechless 
in the dark corners of this globe.
  This Russian law would be an affront to free people everywhere, at 
home and abroad, who believe the rights of conscience--the rights of 
free speech and the freedom of religion and the freedom of assembly--
are pre-political.
  These freedoms do not ebb and flow with history. These freedoms do 
not rise and fall with the political fortunes of a despot. Governments 
do not give us these rights and governments cannot take these rights 
away. These rights of free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of 
assembly belong to every man, woman, and child because all of us are 
image-bearers of our Creator.
  I am speaking tonight because this new Russian legislation is 
emblematic of a growing destructive nationalism and of a thirst for 
power that cannot be ignored. Putin has a desire to squeeze down on 
civil society, on other venues for discussion and debate, and on other 
institutions outside of politics where human dignity can and should be 
expressed. He does this and he desires this not because he is strong 
but because he is weak.
  We in this body, without regard to political party and representing 
all 50 States, must be sober and clear-eyed about Russia. We must 
become more sober and clearer-eyed about its intimidations and about 
its hostilities and about its dangerous trajectory.
  We have a duty to be telling the truth early about where this may be 
headed.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

                          ____________________