[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.
____________________