[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 112 (Tuesday, July 12, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4955-S4962]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMPREHENSIVE ADDICTION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2016--CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 524,
which the clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
Conference report to accompany S. 524, a bill to authorize
the Attorney General to award grants to address the national
epidemics of prescription opioid abuse and heroin use.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12:30
p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees.
The Senator from Illinois.
Zika Virus Funding
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 5 months--5 months--that is how long it
has been since the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention formally asked the U.S. Congress to
respond to a public health emergency to combat the Zika virus--5
months.
In that time, we have seen the number of Americans infected with Zika
soar to 3,667. Of those, 599 are pregnant women. In Illinois, there are
26 confirmed cases of Zika--5 months. To date, seven infants have been
born with Zika-related birth defects in the United States. Five
pregnancies have ended because of Zika-related birth defects--5 months.
Last week, Utah health officials announced the first U.S. death related
to the Zika virus--5 months. In Puerto Rico, where this situation gets
worse by the day, officials reported a 1-week jump of 40 percent in the
number of pregnant women on the island diagnosed with Zika--5 months.
Three thousand, six hundred sixty-seven Americans to date are infected
with Zika that we know of, 599 pregnant women, 7 babies born with
severe birth defects, 5 ended because of the virus, and the first Zika-
related death--5 months since the President of the United States said
this was a public health crisis.
The Republican-controlled Congress has waited 5 months to respond to
this crisis, and now we are on the verge of leaving town for 7 more
weeks--until
[[Page S4956]]
September, after the conventions--and we will leave without providing
our Federal health agencies the money they urgently need to fight Zika.
By the time Congress returns, it will be 7 months since the President
asked Congress on an emergency basis to deal with this public health
crisis of Zika. Every single American should be disgusted by this, and
every single Member of Congress should be embarrassed.
What is perhaps most infuriating about this situation is that we have
a bipartisan Zika funding bill ready to go, and the President would
sign it tomorrow if he could. In May, the Senate passed a bill. I will
concede, it was 3 months after the President asked for it, but we did
pass a bill. We had 89 votes supporting a bill to provide $1.1 billion
to fight this public health disaster. It was less than the President
asked, but was a good-faith, bipartisan effort supporting mosquito
control programs, lab capacity, surveillance efforts, and maternal
health services. It wasn't the bill that Democrats would have written
or the President asked for. It wasn't really the bill that the
Republicans wanted to start with. It was a bipartisan, good-faith
compromise.
But what happened to that bill after it left the Senate? Instead of
that bipartisan bill moving through the House and quickly to the
President, it went into a conference committee, and that is when things
went terribly bad. Right before adjourning for the Fourth of July
recess, the House Republicans decided to take our bipartisan bill with
89 votes and load it up like a right-wing Christmas tree. They decided
to attack environmental protection by overturning the clean water
regulations. They decided to block money to women's health providers.
Most people remember when the Republicans were prepared to shut down
the government of the United States over the funding of Planned
Parenthood. Now, in this bill that they have sent back to us from
conference, they are prepared to shut down our response to this public
health crisis of the Zika virus in order to defund Planned Parenthood.
It also undermines the Affordable Care Act, which has been a
traditional whipping boy of the rightwing, and it raids Ebola funds.
They knew the Democrats wouldn't accept these riders. They made it as
disgusting and repugnant politically as it could be. They said:
Remember, we don't need Ebola funds. It turns out we do.
To this day, the CDC still has 80 disease specialists stationed in
West Africa. A few months ago, there was an Ebola cluster in Guinea. In
order to respond to that unexpected outbreak, the CDC had to vaccinate
1,700 people, track 20,000 people through surveillance, and open five
emergency operation centers in two different countries.
The Republicans say: Well, we will just take the money away from
Ebola, maybe things will work out fine in Africa.
The Republican bill proposes decimating our Ebola prevention funding
and diverting the resources. The majority leader and majority whip
claim the House Zika bill is a compromise and bipartisan. Let me be
clear. It is neither. It is not a compromise, and it is not bipartisan.
Not a single Democrat signed the conference report that came out of the
House. Despite the fact that 89 Senators of both parties had voted for
bipartisan funding in the Senate, when they took it into conference, it
turned into a political football.
This is a cynical attempt by the Republicans in the House to hijack a
public health crisis and push a grab bag of their favorite unrelated
poison pill riders. That is why their bill, as shown by the vote here
last month, is a nonstarter in the Senate, and it is a nonstarter with
the American people.
What is being lost during this entire posturing and politicizing is
the very real toll Zika is taking. During the past 5 months, we have
discovered new and alarming things about Zika. We know the Zika virus
can be transmitted through sexual contact. Women infected with Zika in
their first trimester can face a 13-percent likelihood of a baby born
with a serious problem. Even if a pregnant woman doesn't show any signs
of infection, her baby can be born with serious, physical, and
neurological disorders.
It has been 5 months since the President asked for funding. This
Republican-led Congress just can't get it right. Eighty-nine Senators,
Democrats and Republicans, came up with a bipartisan answer, they
couldn't get it through the House of Representatives, and we sit here
today languishing in this political mess.
Researchers are examining the links to other negative health
consequences: eye infections that lead to blindness, autoimmune
disorders that cause paralysis related to Zika virus.
What about the impact of maternal stress on the baby? I spent the
last several weeks meeting with maternal and fetal health care
providers and community health leaders in Chicago. Yesterday I was in
the Belleville area. They shared with me the fear and stress their
patients are experiencing. Hundreds of pregnant women in Illinois are
seeking care and advice from doctors. They have undergone tests to make
sure their babies are safe. Sadly, three of those Illinois women have
learned they are already infected with Zika. I am sick and tired of
this political game being played by the House and Senate Republicans
when it comes to a public health crisis.
The President got it right 5 months ago. Why can't this Congress get
it right now before we leave for this 7-week vacation? Enough is
enough. It is time for the Republican majority in the House and the
Senate to do their job: respond to this public health crisis in a
sensible, bipartisan way, just as our bill that passed the Senate with
89 votes addressed, instead of making this a political test for the
most outrageous claims.
Did I mention the fact that in conference, the House and Senate
Republicans decided to add another provision when it came to this
public health crisis? That provision would allow the display of
Confederate flags in veterans cemeteries. Give me a break. What does
that have to do with this public health crisis or honoring our men and
women in the military or our veterans who have served our country well?
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Private Sector Pensions
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I come
to the floor on a regular basis and give some bad news, hopefully in
small doses. If the small doses don't work, I am going to have to go to
larger doses, but we do have a crisis of overspending. We are going to
have some more opportunities to talk about that spending.
Private sector pensions are what I am going to talk about today.
Private sector pensions are relied upon by millions of Americans for
retirement security. They are agreements that are made between an
employer and its employees or a union and its members which allow the
recipients to receive payments in retirement. Those payments are based
on a formula that includes a number of factors, including years of
service.
I have worked on pension policy for all of my professional life. I
have dealt with pensions as a young accountant, as the mayor of the
city of Gillette, as a member of the Wyoming Legislature, as a member
of the Senate Pensions Committee, as chairman of the Senate Pensions
Committee, as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, as chairman of
the Senate Retirement Security Subcommittee, as chairman of the Senate
Budget Committee, and as chairman of the conference committee on the
2006 Pension Protection Act that saved pensions for thousands of
workers without wholesale business bankruptcy.
I also authored the 2006 Pension Protection Act, which dramatically
altered the funding rules and made single-employer pension plans much
more stable. The act also made significant changes to defined
contribution plans that drastically improved participation. I believe
it is safe to say I speak from my experience as a Member of this body,
with a large background in pension policy, and I am concerned about
where we are heading.
Out of the 24,361 single-employer pension plans that we have
information on, 4,486 are underfunded. The most recent actuarial
estimations of the underfunding by the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation is over $758 billion. That should concern us because the
assets of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's single-employer
insurance program are $85 billion. Let's see. Single-employer pensions
are underfunded by $758 billion. That is
[[Page S4957]]
rounding it down, actually. It should be $759 billion, with assets of
$85 billion.
Let me say that another way and say it again. The insurance program
for that $758 billion only has $85 billion in assets. That is not even
our biggest pension problem. Out of the 1,361 multiemployer pension
plans, that means the collectively bargained agreements we have
information on, 1,238 are underfunded. The most recent actuarial
estimations of that underfunding is just over $611 billion.
What are the assets of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation? They
are $1.9 billion. In other words, the safety net for $611 billion is
one and nine-tenths billion. I would equate that to trying to catching
a whale shark with a net made for minnows.
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. The PBGC wrote in its
2015 annual report that ``it is more likely than not that the
multiemployer program's assets will be depleted in 2025.'' The
insurance policy for collectively bargained pensions is on track to
become insolvent in less than a decade. In fact, if the Central States
Pension Fund goes under, it will reduce that amount considerably.
Altogether, private sector pensions are underfunded by $1.35
trillion, or to put it in better perspective, $1,350 billion. On top of
that, per the most recent actuarial data available for State and local
pensions, the total amount of underfunding in public sector pension
plans is $1.2 trillion, or $1,200 billion.
The total amount of unfunded liabilities in both private and public
sector pension plans is around $2,600 billion. That means these pension
plans have agreed to pay out $2.6 trillion more than they have
available. For reference, $2.6 trillion is $2,600 billion. It is more
than double what our current annual spending is that Congress gets to
make decisions on. That includes defense, transportation, agriculture,
and education--twice what we spend on the things we get to make
decisions on.
I have heard from some of my colleagues who have come to the Senate
floor and speak to the troubling predicaments of specific pension
plans. Many of them are currently advocating for shoring up the United
Mine Workers of America pension plan, which is just one of the 1,238
union pension plans that are underfunded. I am concerned about this for
several reasons.
First, if we take the steps my colleagues are advocating for with
regard to the United Mine Workers of America, what are we going to do
with the next underfunded pension plan that comes around looking for
assistance? What about the plan after that? There are hundreds of
private-sector pension plans in critical and declining or endangered
status throughout America today so I am not sure how Congress would
help the United Mine Workers of America and not the others.
Paraphrasing President Washington: We are walking on untrodden ground.
There is scarcely any part of our conduct which may not hereafter be
drawn into precedent.
I have frequently heard my colleagues try to differentiate this case
by speaking of a promise of a pension that was made to retirees in this
particular union, but that agreement was between the members and the
union. It was not an agreement with the Federal Government.
Second, I find it necessary to remind my colleagues this country is
$19 trillion in debt and consistently increasing its spending. We don't
have the money to shore up pension plans. To be clear, despite
proponents arguing that this legislation is paid for by coal companies'
contributions to the Abandoned Mine Land Trust, in reality, it would be
paid for by the taxpayers.
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act is funded by a tax
levied on mining operators per tonnage of coal harvested. Interest from
the abandoned mine land fund can be transferred to three trusts to
support United Mineworkers' health care benefits of orphaned miners.
Orphaned miners are those whose companies no longer exist but whose
health plans still exist. If the abandoned mine land interest does not
cover these health care costs, the three United Mine Workers' health
care plans are entitled to payments from the U.S. Treasury.
The AML interest payments are often not sufficient to meet the three
United Mine Workers' health care plans' needs so the general fund of
the Treasury provides the balance. For example, in fiscal year 2012,
interest from the abandoned mine land fund paid $48.4 million toward
the health care funds, and the U.S. Treasury general fund, the taxpayer
dollars, provided $205.6 million. The AML interest cannot take on
another obligation. Now my colleagues are asking taxpayers to pay even
more than the health care for the United Mine Workers' beneficiaries.
The portion of funds coming from the U.S. Treasury will only
increase. As I mentioned, the AML trust is funded by a tax levied on
coal harvested. The key word is ``harvested.'' It breaks my heart to
say this, but according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration,
U.S. coal production, or harvesting, is projected to be down over 25
percent this year compared to 2014. In large part, that is due to the
mercury air toxics standards rule, the stream protection rule, the
Clean Power Plan, the freeze on Federal coal leases, the proposed
increase in coal royalty rates, and everything else the administration
is doing to shut down coal. Less coal being harvested means less taxes
will be paid into the abandoned mine land trust fund. As those
abandoned mine land dollars dry up, more and more of the money this
bill proposes to use for United Mine Workers' health care and pensions
will come from taxpayer dollars.
Again, I will point out this agreement was made between the members
and the union, not between the members and the American taxpayer. That
bears repeating. The United Mine Workers of America agreement was made
between the members and the United Mine Workers of America, not between
the members and the American taxpayer.
It is also worth noting that the AML fund is not unique in that it is
comprised of fees paid by a specific industry or user base. One of the
most significant pension problems we hear about today is the Central
States Pension Fund, which I mentioned earlier and which includes a
large number of truckers. That fund is going broke. So I will offer my
colleagues an analogy using that fund. To be sure that there are roads
to drive on, trucking companies pay a higher tax on their diesel fuel
as well as taxes on truck and trailer sales, heavy tires, and heavy
vehicle usage. Together with a tax that all consumers pay on every
gallon of gasoline purchased, these taxes fund the highway trust fund.
This trust fund for highways builds roads and pays for repairs and new
bridges that the trucking industry and all drivers rely on. Using a
dwindling AML trust fund to shore up the United Mine Workers of America
pension would be like shoring up the Central States Pension Fund with
the fund that builds highways because truckers pay into the highway
fund. That is what the United Mine Workers of America is asking us to
do.
My guess is that, if we examined all of the pension plans in critical
and declining or endangered status, we could probably identify a fund
that relevant employers or employees paid into in some way. If we go
down this road, what is to stop those funds from being raided to shore
up the quasi-related pensions? Where do we draw the line?
Lastly, I worry about the claims that we are helping all coal miners
with this proposal when, in reality, the policy does absolutely nothing
for miners who are not members of the United Mine Workers of America.
According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly 11,000 workers in the
coal industry have lost their jobs in the last year, largely due to
this administration's policies. Yet my colleagues have proposed a bill
that would help only a portion of those people, and the bill wouldn't
help put those folks back to work, developing the energy source that
generated 33 percent of America's electricity last year. Instead,
proponents of this bill are saying: If you are a member of the United
Mine Workers of America, we want to help you with your health care
benefits and pensions, but if you are not or if you want your job back,
then too bad.
I am not without sympathy for the United Mine Workers of America's
coal miners. Remember, I helped the miners get their health care. Coal
miners play an integral part in our economy, and my colleagues have
heard me say time and again that America runs on coal. Nowhere is that
more evident than in
[[Page S4958]]
my home State of Wyoming, which produces 40 percent of the Nation's
coal. In fact, we produce more coal than the second through the sixth
States in coal production combined.
I have the deepest respect for coal miners and am worried about those
who have been laid off in Wyoming and across the country. I understand
the unique health care needs of miners, and I respect the health care
promise this country has made to the miners over many decades. I have
supported those health care needs in the past, most specifically by
working across the aisle to shore up the three United Mine Workers of
America's health care funds back in the mid-2000s. I believe it is
important that coal miners continue to receive quality health care. I
also believe it is crucial that they, as well as all Americans, have
the opportunity to live out their retirement years in financial
solvency, but I also want America to remain financially solvent. I
don't believe the efforts of my colleagues advocating for this United
Mine Workers of America bill help the mine workers in a way that is
fair to the Federal taxpayers or to the other coal miners across
America. I also know the troubling truth about some of America's
pension plans, as I pointed out on this chart, that are underfunded, as
well as the faces of the participants within those plans. I have met
with them and heard their stories throughout my professional life.
There are facets of our retirement system that we can fix to help
retirees, but I remain concerned about the use of Federal tax dollars
to shore up specific pension plans and to make false promises.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 5243
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I come to the floor for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request with regard to Zika.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration
of H.R. 5243, which is at the desk; that all after the enacting clause
be stricken; that the substitute amendment, which is the text of the
Blunt-Murray amendment to provide $1.1 billion of funding for Zika, be
agreed to; that there be up to 1 hour of debate equally divided between
the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back
of time, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and the Senate vote
on passage of the bill, as amended, with no intervening action or
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Unanimous Consent Request--Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2577
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me
just walk through this one more time in case anybody is confused about
where we are.
As I said yesterday, Republican Senators are eager to pass the
conference report which is before us and send it to the President's
desk for signature. We should do that today--this very day. That would
accomplish several important things before we leave for the week.
First, it would provide $1.1 billion in immediate funding to combat
Zika. That is the exact amount of money in the Democrats' request.
However, the Democrats' request includes only funding for Zika and
leaves the rest of the important priorities behind.
The conference report that the House passed includes full funding for
Zika, funding for military construction, funding for veterans programs,
and temporary but meaningful reforms to ensure that we are able to
combat mosquito-borne illnesses during the summer months, which are
upon us.
We should pass the conference report today--this very day. Therefore,
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of
the conference report to accompany H.R. 2577 and that the conference
report be agreed to with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--first of
all, did I hear an objection from the majority leader to my unanimous
consent request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has not yet objected.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I believe I reserved the right to
object and then offered an alternative unanimous consent request to
which I think the Senator from Florida is about to respond.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, now here we
are in the same old political games. With a much needed bill, MILCON-
VA--a very good bill--attaching a Zika bill that is loaded down with
poison pills, that takes away family planning funds and also takes
money out of the Affordable Care Act. So here again it is the same
political games, and for that reason, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the majority leader's
request.
Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Florida?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I
will be objecting--let me just say to my good friend from Florida that
regardless of the substantive arguments he is making, as a practical
matter, if we were to repass the Senate bill, it would not pass the
House, so it would not achieve the result we are looking for. So I
guess who is playing political games is in the eye of the beholder.
If we want to get an outcome, if we want to get $1.1 billion
appropriated to combat Zika and do it now, and if we want to fund the
military construction bill, the proposal the Senator from Florida is
asking for will not achieve that; therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I would just say to the majority leader
that one of the items in his proposal takes money away from Puerto
Rico. By seeing the unanimous vote we had--not unanimous--the
overwhelming vote last week for the financial assistance plan to help
Puerto Rico get out of its financial woes--part of those financial woes
is in the health care sector. We know that experts have told us that 20
percent of the population of Puerto Rico is estimated to be infected
with the Zika virus by the end of this summer. So there is just one
example of why we should not take an approach that is taking money out
of the Affordable Care Act and taking money away from family planning,
but specifically with regard to its effect upon Puerto Rico.
As I shared with the Senate last week, I represent the State that had
11 new cases of the Zika virus last week. Well, lo and behold, we now
have 13 more new cases, bringing the total in our State to 276, which
includes 43 pregnant women, and that is just one of the 50 States in
the Union, not including the territories. The number of cases being
reported across the country continues to rise. There have been seven
infants born in the United States with Zika-related birth defects, and
you know what I am talking about because you have seen the pictures of
how, when the virus attacks the fetus in its development, it does not
allow the development properly of the head and of the brain.
Right now in America, the CDC is monitoring 599 pregnant women.
Public health experts estimate that caring for a child born with Zika-
related microcephaly could amount to $10 million in medical costs over
that child's lifetime. That is just speaking about the dollars; that is
not talking about the tragedy. By that estimate, it would cost up to $2
billion to care for 200 children born with microcephaly. That is $100
million more than the amount this Senator and the minority leader had
asked for in the first place, reflecting the President's request of
$1.9 billion that the experts say is needed to curb the spread of the
virus. That request was made 4 months ago, and we still haven't done
anything about it.
At what point do the majority and the majority leader decide to stop
playing these games and simply do what is needed?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will my friend yield for a question?
Mr. NELSON. Of course.
Mr. REID. Is it true that your family first came to Florida in 1829
or somewhere in there--a long time ago?
[[Page S4959]]
Mr. NELSON. Can the Senator ask that again? I cannot hear.
Mr. REID. Is it true that your family came to the State of Florida
around the turn of the 19th century?
Mr. NELSON. Through the Chair, Mr. President, I would answer the
Senator. Yes, my family came to Florida right after Florida was
acquired as a territory from Spain.
Mr. REID. Is it true that during your lifetime, you have served in
various elected offices in the State of Florida. You were, as I recall,
the State treasurer, which included insurance commissioner, and you
represented the State of Florida in the House of Representatives; is
that true?
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, that is true.
Mr. REID. And you have been in this body since 2000; is that true?
Mr. NELSON. For 15\1/2\ years, that is true.
Mr. REID. Is it also true that during your tenure as a Floridian, you
had the good fortune to be an American astronaut?
Mr. NELSON. Not only the good fortune but the great privilege, and
now I have the opportunity to work on the policy for the Nation's space
program.
Mr. REID. The point I am trying to outline here for the Senator from
Florida, I think, without any stretch of the imagination, that you know
the State of Florida pretty well, don't you?
Mr. NELSON. The good Lord willing, I know it pretty much like the
back of my hand.
Mr. REID. And you understand as much, if not more, than anyone else
the dangers of these mosquitoes that are ravaging your State and other
States and, of course, the American citizens of Puerto Rico; is that
true?
Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. And I know that mosquitoes are all over
Florida, but now this one strain of mosquito, the aegypti, for dinner
feeds not on one human but on four. If the mosquito has the Zika virus,
each of those four would then be infected with the virus after the
mosquito has had its dinner.
Mr. REID. And you understand, I ask the Senator from Florida, that
for generations of time, mosquitoes have caused all kinds of medical
problems for people who are infected from different bites from
mosquitoes; is that right?
Mr. NELSON. If you think of the building of the Panama Canal,
mosquitoes transmitted malaria. So mosquitoes are a vector which
transmits a lot of diseases. This strain of mosquito can lay its larvae
in stagnant water contained in something as small as a bottle cap.
Mr. REID. It is true, is it not, that in generations past, mosquitoes
have caused death and illness that we have tried to handle for the last
100 years?
Mr. NELSON. That is correct, and we usually meet those emergencies
with emergency funding.
Mr. REID. Isn't it true that this strain of mosquito is now causing,
for the first time in history that we know of, not only death and
sickness but also causing women to give birth to babies who are very
ill?
Mr. NELSON. There is a direct link, I would say, Mr. President, in
response to the Senator, between a pregnant woman being infected with
the Zika virus and the probability that she will deliver a child who is
deformed.
Mr. REID. Is the Senator aware that what we passed out of here by 89
votes was $1.1 billion in emergency funding for the State of Florida
and the rest of our States and, of course, the citizens of Puerto Rico?
Mr. NELSON. Not only that, but with bipartisan support early on in
this whole dialogue. And now we are seeing the resistance of the
majority leader to take up the very bill that passed with those
overwhelming numbers of bipartisan support.
Mr. REID. And the Senator is aware that what we got back from the
House of Representatives and what this Republican Senate signed on to
is a bill that is an abomination. Is the Senator aware that what it
does, among other things, is it allows the flying of Confederate flags
at cemeteries; it takes $543 million from ObamaCare; it takes money
from emergencies we have today with Ebola? Is the Senator aware that
they are taking a whack at the Clean Water Act with our inability to
spray? Is the Senator aware that there are so many women who go to
Planned Parenthood to handle the problems that women have, including
wanting help to not get pregnant? Are you aware that the legislation
they sent back to us prevents Planned Parenthood from being involved in
this?
Mr. NELSON. It is a political message that is so reviled by the
people of America. They want us to get down to the business.
If Senator McConnell had a flood or an earthquake in Kentucky, we
would all support him with emergency funding to meet that emergency. We
have an emergency now. Why are they adding all of these poison pills,
such as those the Democratic leader has just enumerated, in this bill?
Mr. President, I think the Senator from Nevada has with his cross-
examination exposed exactly what the problem is, and it is too bad. The
clock continues to tick. At the end of this week, we will go out. We
won't come back until the day after Labor Day, which is in the first
week of September. And all along, the Government of the United States
is going to have to figure out how it will get the money to the local
mosquito control districts and how it will get the money to the drug
companies to continue the R&D to find and produce a vaccine and all the
other health-related expenses.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield through the Chair for a question?
Mr. NELSON. I certainly will yield to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Through the Chair, I would ask the Senator from Florida
whether it is true that it has been 5 months since President Obama
declared this public health emergency and asked the Congress to respond
to that emergency in a timely way. He asked for emergency funding of
$1.9 billion for mosquito abatement, for medical research, for
expanding lab facilities, and for investing in developing a vaccine to
protect Americans, if not this year, next year.
Mr. NELSON. It is true, and not only is it true that the President
requested it, but immediately, a whole bunch of us out here filed a
bill and brought it to the attention of the Senate, and it is now 5
months later.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator through the Chair, in dealing with a
public health emergency, a public health crisis, the potential of an
epidemic that we now think could infect 25 percent of the population of
Puerto Rico, is a timely response an important part of the
congressional response?
Mr. NELSON. Amen to that, and here we are dithering with these
political games. We wonder why the American public is so turned off
when they see what is going on up here, and here is one of the very
best examples of an emergency.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator--and I see my colleague, Senator Murray
of Washington, on the floor, who is in a very important position, and
she is going to address this issue in a few moments. But is it not true
that we worked out a bipartisan compromise in the Senate--not to give
$1.9 billion, which, on the Democratic side, is our aspiration, but at
least to agree with the Republicans in the Senate to $1.1 billion to
respond to the President's request for an emergency response; and that
we passed the bill in the Senate with 89 votes--an overwhelming
bipartisan vote--with an agreement and a compromise in May, and this
was sent over to the House of Representatives in May of this year?
Mr. NELSON. Not only is it true, but with 100 Senators, when
something passes with 89 votes, that is a pretty strong consensus.
Mr. DURBIN. I would ask the Senator through the Chair--so we have the
President identifying a public health emergency and the President
telling us--and the CDC as well--that delaying this makes a possibility
or probability of an epidemic even worse. We have a response by the
Senate, on a bipartisan basis with 89 votes, to provide over $1 billion
for the President to get to work to protect America and to develop a
vaccine. And is it not true that the House was given this measure with
89 votes and failed to send it back to us on a timely basis?
Mr. NELSON. Not only is that true, those four things, but then the
House of Representatives put it on a very good bill, the MILCON
appropriations, and they sent it down here thinking that we were going
to have to take it at the eleventh hour with all of those poison pills,
which include the Confederate flag.
[[Page S4960]]
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Florida, through the Chair, is it
also true that the bill sent to us by the House, after we passed a
bipartisan bill with 89 votes, had no Democratic signatories--no House
Members of the Democratic Party signing onto this conference report
that was sent over to us--so it was a totally Republican conference
report?
Mr. NELSON. Not only is that true, but it is also indicative of how
ideologically driven and how partisan driven so much of the activity
here in this Capitol building is, which is what is very distasteful to
the American people.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Florida, through the Chair, is it
also not true, based on the statements made by the Republican majority
leader, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, that he is going to give us one
last chance in the next 48 hours to either take this partisan version
of the bill, addressing this public health crisis, or do nothing for
the next 7 weeks?
Mr. NELSON. That, of course, I say to the Senator from Illinois, is
such a poor, poor choice.
Mr. DURBIN. I would ask the Senator from Florida my last question. I
know my other colleagues are waiting to ask questions. Your State, the
State of Florida, appears to be vulnerable--more vulnerable than most
States--because of your proximity to Puerto Rico and other places and
the number of travelers coming into the State of Florida from areas
where we know for certain that the Zika virus is starting to be
manifest. I ask the Senator from Florida: What are you hearing back in
your State about the need for a timely, bipartisan effort in Congress
to deal with the public health crisis of the Zika virus?
Mr. NELSON. I say to the Senator from Illinois, with 276 cases of
infection, with 43 pregnant women that we know of just in the State of
Florida, is it any wonder that 5 months ago, when we filed the $1.9
billion request of the administration, my colleague from Florida, my
friend who I get along with, the junior Senator, Mr. Rubio, cosponsored
the bill with me.
Mr. DURBIN. Well, I said it was the last question. I will ask one
more, if I may, through the Chair. I would ask the Senator from Florida
this: So you have Senator Rubio, a well-known Republican from Florida,
and Senator Bill Nelson, maybe the best known Democrat from Florida,
agreeing that this is an emergency that needs to be dealt with on a
timely basis, that the President's request for $1.9 billion is a
reasonable request, that we pass a bipartisan measure--Senate Democrats
and Senate Republicans--and that we are moving toward solving this
problem and responding to it. Is it not true that this measure fell
apart or broke down when it ended up in the Republican-controlled House
of Representatives, where they did not take a bipartisan approach to
the issue?
Mr. NELSON. Not only is that true, I say to the Senator, but there is
the fact that this is an emergency, which has always been dealt with in
the history of this Senate as a bipartisan thing to meet the situation
of the emergency, and now this has been used--because it is so urgent
to get the appropriations--as a political message and ideological,
partisan-driven bill.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Florida
for his leadership on this issue and the Senators from Nevada and
Illinois for their great questions illuminating us.
I am just going to sum up here in a minute. If the Republican leader
wants to get something done, instead of putting this bill on the floor
again, he would go over to the House and tell them to vote for the
bipartisan bill that he voted for and we all voted for of $1.1 billion.
I say something else to my friend from Kentucky. When he was in the
minority, he kept saying to us: Leadership means working together.
Well, he is in charge now. We have a crisis. Instead of working
together, he is putting a bill on the floor that had no input from our
side and that doesn't do the job and is loaded with poison pills. Is
that leadership? Does that show that the Senate is working again? He is
back to the old ways when we have a crisis. Again, if the majority
leader of this body wanted to get something done about Zika, he would
ask the House to pass our bipartisan bill.
Instead, he puts the same political document on the floor that shows
no leadership, that shows no bipartisanship, and that will not pass. So
there is no drama. There is no suspense. I don't even know why he is
doing it again, but probably because he knows there is a crisis and he
is unwilling, reluctant, afraid, to confront the House with their
gamesmanship that was driven by 40 Freedom Caucus members who don't
believe the government should spend money on anything.
The only way he could get the votes was to put in all these poison
pills which he knew would kill the bill to begin with. So the bottom
line is very simple. If the House would put our bipartisan bill on the
floor of the House it would pass right now. We would get something
done. Instead, the very bipartisanship that the majority leader is
trying to make as a hallmark of his leadership is being made a joke of
by his putting a partisan bill that has failed once on the floor once
again in the closing days of this session.
I would urge the majority leader--it is really on his shoulders--to
reconsider. I would urge him to make a good faith effort to get
something done. I would urge him not to play the game of putting this
bill, laden with poison pills, not doing the job, on the floor, and,
instead, go call Speaker Ryan and say: We have to get something done.
Let's do something in a bipartisan way.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I too want to thank the Senator from
Florida for his strong effort to get this done. I thank my colleagues
who are here speaking as well. There are just a few days left in this
legislative session. I am so frustrated that instead of finally coming
out of their partisan corner and getting to work to fight the Zika
virus, Republican leaders, as we just saw, have doubled down on their
politics-first approach.
It has been more than 5 months since President Obama first put
forward a strong emergency funding proposal to respond to Zika. Rather
than giving that proposal a serious consideration, Republicans simply
refused to even consider it. Instead, they found excuse after excuse,
delay after delay, and refused to listen to public health experts and
women and families who made it clear that Congress needed to act.
They tried to jam a partisan, political bill through Congress on the
way out of town on the Fourth of July. Now, look, as we just heard, it
was a bill that included harmful, political provisions on everything
from women's health to the Confederate flag to the environment.
Now, as this Republican-controlled Congress is headed out of town
again, Republicans are somehow trying to claim that they have done
everything they need to do when it comes to Zika. They are saying that
by putting forward now a partisan bill full of harmful and unnecessary
policy riders, they can throw up their hands and go home.
Well, that might be how Republicans in Congress want it to work, but
the women and families I talk to could not disagree more. They are
worried about what this virus could mean to their families. They want
Congress to take action. Republicans should know that Democrats are
going to keep pushing until that happens. It is especially frustrating
that, despite all of the partisanship and tea party pandering we have
seen from the other side of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats in
this Senate did reach an agreement on Zika 2 months ago that got the
support of every Democrat and nearly half of the Republicans--89 votes.
It did not provide the full amount President Obama requested, but it
would have been a strong down payment. It would have helped to
accelerate the development of a vaccine. It would strengthen vector
control in communities across the United States and the territories and
critically expand access to desperately needed family planning and
other health care services.
Had Republicans been willing to stay the bipartisan course that we
set and push aside the extreme members who insist on using women's
health every time as a political football, that agreement would now
have been signed into
[[Page S4961]]
law, and it would be on its way to communities, as we speak. I am
deeply frustrated that has not happened.
This is truly urgent. In fact, just last week, the Puerto Rico
Department of Health noted a 40-percent increase in the number of
pregnant women with Zika on the island. So, frankly, it is appalling
that given what we know about the impacts of this virus, Republicans
would put an ideological, partisan bill in front of us and say: My way
or the highway. That is why today Democrats are here giving Republicans
another chance to do the right thing. We are urging them to support
women and families instead of the tea party and Heritage Action and
join us to get a strong bipartisan emergency funding package to
communities at risk because of the Zika virus.
This bill has already passed the Senate, as we know, with 89 votes.
Democrats supported it. Most Republicans supported it. So we are here
to urge Republican leaders: Don't waste another minute. Join us in
moving a bipartisan bill forward. Women and families across the country
have waited long enough for action on Zika. Let's not make them wait
any longer.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Tragedy in Dallas
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my thoughts and
prayers to the five Dallas police officers and their families who were
killed in the line of duty on July 7, 2016. I want to recognize them on
the Senate floor for the sacrifices they have made, for their heroic
service to protect the people of Dallas, and also to recognize our law
enforcement officers for what they do every single day on our behalf.
On July 7, 2016, unfortunately, killed in the line of duty--adding to
the rollcall, and whose names will be added to the Law Enforcement
Memorial in Washington--are Sergeant Michael Smith, a former Army
Ranger who also served our Nation and who had been with the department
since 1989; Senior Corporal Lorne Ahrens, 48, who had been with the
department since 2002; Officer Michael Krol, 40, who had been with the
department since 2007; Officer Patrick Zamarripa, 32, a former Navy
Seal and Iraq war veteran, who had been with the department since 2011;
DART Officer Bart Thompson, 43, a former marine who had been with the
department since 2009. Thompson was the first DART officer who was
killed in the line of duty since the department's inception in 1989.
Having served as attorney general for the State of New Hampshire, we
have, unfortunately, been through this with our law enforcement
officers in New Hampshire when we lose an officer in the line of duty.
This is such a tragedy for the Dallas community, but it is a tragedy
for our country. So, today, we stand with those mourning in Dallas. We
stand with the law enforcement community. We stand with all of those
who serve our Nation because they go out every single day when we are
home with our families and on holidays.
When we are home late at night, when we are sleeping, they are out in
the streets patrolling, keeping us safe, the ``Thin Blue Line'' between
us and those who want to do us harm.
So, as we look at what is happening around our Nation, law
enforcement is the solution to bringing us together. They work in our
communities every single day. I have seen the phenomenal work that our
law enforcement community does in New Hampshire. I have been to the
Police Athletic League and seen what they are doing with the youth in
our community. I have seen the outreach they do every day on this
horrible drug epidemic that we are facing in the State of New
Hampshire. I have seen the difficult situations they face with those
struggling with mental illness--every single challenge they are taking
on in our communities.
So, today, let's remember those five brave officers who gave their
lives in the line of duty, and let's remember all those who have given
their lives in the line of duty to keep us safe every single day.
Without our brave law enforcement officers, we would not be able to
enjoy the freedoms we have and not be able to enjoy our own families
and our way of life. So we are grateful to all of those who serve. We
stand with you. We thank you for what you do every single day on our
behalf.
To your family members, we say to you as well, thank you, because
families do serve as well. And when your loved ones go out on our
streets to keep us safe, we know you worry about their safe return. So
we stand with you as well, and we say thank you for your service and
sacrifice to keep the rest of us safe.
Mr. President, I would also like to speak today about a very
important piece of legislation that I hope we will be considering on
the Senate floor this week. I rise in support of the conference report
for a critical piece of legislation called the Comprehensive Addiction
and Recovery Act, otherwise known as CARA. I have now been working on
this piece of legislation with Senators Portman, Whitehouse, and
Klobuchar for about 2 years, and I thank them for their leadership on
this legislation and their partnership in the work we have done, along
with hundreds of coalition groups that have helped us put this
legislation together.
CARA passed this body in March by a vote of 94 to 1. Not much passes
the Senate with a vote of 94 to 1. Numbers like that speak volumes to
the fact that every community is facing a heroin and opioid epidemic
right now, and we need to take national action. And after conferencing
the Senate version with a package of House bills related to opioid
abuse, just this past Friday the House of Representatives passed the
conference report by an overwhelming vote of 407 to 5--407 to 5 in the
House of Representatives.
Those are very powerful numbers in support of this legislation, but I
want to touch on the numbers that matter the most and why we need to
act on this legislation--numbers like 129, the number of people who die
each day in our country from a drug overdose; or 248, the number of
stakeholder groups who have endorsed the final version of CARA because
they know it takes the right legislative approach to fighting back
against this public health crisis. That number includes some groups
from my home State of New Hampshire whom I have had the honor of
working with. I appreciate so much their phenomenal work on the
frontlines in helping those struggling with addiction, including HOPE
for New Hampshire Recovery; Hope on Haven Hill; the Kingston Lions Club
in Kingston, NH; and Project Recovery in Newton, NH. And I know there
are many other individuals and groups on the frontlines in New
Hampshire who are making a difference.
CARA is also supported by nearly 40 chiefs of police from across our
State, the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police, and the
National Fraternal Order of Police because our law enforcement knows we
need a comprehensive response. I have heard so many times from our
police officers that we cannot arrest our way out of this public health
crisis.
Another number never far from my mind is 439--the number of
individuals in my home State of New Hampshire who died from a drug
overdose last year. And just this year alone, 2016, 161 have died. So
unfortunately we are looking at even greater numbers with what we see
happening on the streets of New Hampshire.
I will never forget those numbers because they are so much more than
numbers; they are the lives of loved ones we have lost, and they
represent the overwhelming heartbreak felt by too many families.
Every time I am out in New Hampshire, I have another family,
unfortunately, whom I meet and who tells me about their story of losing
someone they loved or a loved one they are trying to get help for who
is struggling with addiction. That is why in this debate we must give a
voice to those who no longer have a voice of their own. We must put
faces, names, and stories to this epidemic because it is affecting
families and communities all across our country.
I want to share some stories from those in New Hampshire who are
driving us to take action. In passing CARA, we are remembering them,
and we are honoring them and making a change that can help save lives.
We are making sure we have the right legislative framework in place as
we push for more funding to get to the States to address this epidemic.
I am spurred to action by these stories, and it is my hope that by
sharing this here today, my colleagues will join me in passing this
legislation.
[[Page S4962]]
I just spoke to a woman yesterday from Plaistow, NH--Kathy. Kathy's
son Thomas was a hero in his local community. He was compassionate and
caring to his peers and even helped a fellow student who was living
alone in the woods rededicate himself to studying and eventually
graduate. He literally went out in the woods to find a homeless student
and brought him into his home.
Around 7 years ago, this bright young man became addicted to
painkillers. This is a story we hear all too often. He had an injury,
he became addicted to painkillers, and his family was shocked at how
many pills he was legally prescribed for his back pain. It wasn't long
before he turned to something else--heroin.
In fact, the national data shows that four out of five people who
turn to heroin actually started with misusing or overusing prescription
drugs.
Thomas's life, unfortunately, took a turn for the worse, and he spent
time in jail before eventually passing away from an overdose.
When I spoke with Kathy, she told me that more needs to be done to
help others struggling with a substance use disorder. She wants to see
more resources for early education. She wants to fight back against the
stigma associated with addiction.
In having this debate on the Senate floor, that is something we need
to turn around--the stigma. This is a public health crisis. This is a
disease, and we need to get help for those struggling with addiction.
But Kathy is not alone. A woman in Goffstown wrote to me after losing
her brother to a heroin overdose:
From here forward, we will never have another holiday where
our family is complete. At Thanksgiving, when our close,
loving family gathers, there will be an empty seat where he
once sat. An unfilled stocking at Christmas will remind us of
the void we feel each day. Come his 25th birthday this year,
we will visit his grave site where he is buried instead of
hugging him in our arms and wishing him another wonderful
year.
A father in Brentwood, NH, lost his son to an overdose and told me:
I cannot describe the pain, feeling of helplessness and
grave despair [my wife] and I went through upon finding our
son dead. This has been a tragedy we in the end were not able
to fix, and a war we were not able to win. Our son is now
part of the statistics.
A woman in Wakefield wrote that her niece's dreams were crushed when
she became addicted to heroin. She wrote:
Her death has left the family heartbroken, and we have
chosen to tell everyone the truth in hopes that her death
will not have been in vain.
A mother in Manchester said:
I wake up every morning with the fear of finding my son
dead. I am crying out for help.
A mother from Greenville, NH, who spends her days helping people
living with substance abuse disorders only to come home and see her own
son struggling with using heroin, told me:
As I tried to comfort those who have been affected by this
tragedy, I think that my son will be next.
In Laconia, a man helps those struggling to get treatment, but he
feels helpless when he is faced with a 5-month waiting period to get
into a facility. He wrote:
In 5 months, these individuals will be dead.
A parent from Salem contacted me and told me her son is struggling
with heroin addiction, and she needed help finding a treatment program
for him since she couldn't afford to pay for treatment herself, like
the mother of these three children who had to revive her son from an
overdose before the paramedics could arrive, or like the Griffin
family, Pam and Doug and Shannon Griffin from Newton, NH, whom I have
gotten to know well. The Griffin family lost their beautiful 20-year-
old daughter Courtney to a fentanyl and heroin overdose. Courtney's
father, Doug Griffin, and his wife, Pam, have made it their life's
mission to raise awareness about this terrible epidemic to help save
lives and help others going through the same difficulty and tragedy.
Doug and so many other dedicated people in New Hampshire are working
tirelessly to turn the tide against this epidemic. Earlier this year, I
met with families from New Hampshire who actually traveled to
Washington to urge Congress to take up and pass CARA. If we don't act,
what kind of message are we sending to these families who need our help
and need us to act? That is why we need CARA and we need to ensure this
framework is passed.
CARA authorizes resources for treatment, prevention, recovery, and
first responders--critical facets of a comprehensive approach. And CARA
is an authorizing vehicle. Some have made this argument around here:
Why should we pass an authorization vehicle if the funding is not
attached? Under that reasoning, we wouldn't have passed the Violence
Against Women Act, we wouldn't have passed the Head Start Program, we
wouldn't have passed a program for vaccines for children, we wouldn't
have passed the Second Chance Act, and there are so many more. The
reality is that in the appropriations bill there have been increases in
funding for CARA, and we are going to fight for even more increases in
funding. In fact, at the end of the day, the Senate appropriations
bills include a 46-percent increase in spending on opioid addiction
programs since last year. So we can do more, but if we don't pass CARA,
then we will do a great disservice to the American people.
President Obama's Director of the Office of National Drug Policy,
Michael Botticelli, told me at a hearing in New Hampshire last year:
``Certainly the CARA Act, I think, highlights many of the issues and
fills really critical gaps not only in terms of funding but in terms of
policy around this issue.''
Mr. President, I hope this is not a partisan issue. Unfortunately, we
know, whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent--it
doesn't matter what your political background is--we have so many
families in New Hampshire and across this country who are struggling
with addiction, and it is time for us to rise above the politics and
pass this important legislation.
I again thank Senator Portman. I thank Senator Klobuchar and Senator
Whitehouse for the passion and leadership they have shown on this
legislation.
There is an urgent and pressing need for this legislation, and I call
on my colleagues to come together and make sure we duplicate what
happened in the House of Representatives, where there was an
overwhelming vote to pass this legislation, so we can get it to the
President's desk and make sure this legislation is funded.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, before the Senator from New Hampshire
leaves the floor, I just want to say again what I said previously. We
wouldn't be where we are today on the Comprehensive Addiction and
Recovery Act without the Senator from New Hampshire, who made an
extraordinary contribution to this early on and played an important
leadership role. So on behalf of all Members of the Senate, Republicans
and Democrats, I want to thank the Senator from New Hampshire for all
she did to bring this forward.
____________________