[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 113 (Wednesday, July 13, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5022-S5028]
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 11
a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pending before the Senate is an important
bill. It is a bill that relates to the opioid epidemic in America--an
epidemic which is linked directly to the heroin epidemic in America and
the sad reality of the deaths that are occasioned by heroin overdoses.
The prescription opioid and heroin epidemic claimed 28,647 American
lives in 2014--1,652 in my State of Illinois. That is a 30-percent
increase in just 4 years.
I have seen this devastation firsthand. I have sat with parents who
have lost their kids. I have met with young teenagers who were
addicted. Thank goodness that some of them have been able--with
treatment, counseling, and strength--to fight off that addiction.
The reality is obvious. This narcotics epidemic is not an inner city
problem. It is an American problem. It is a problem that not only
touches the inner cities of America, but it also touches every other
community. There is no town too small, no suburb too wealthy to escape
the opioid and heroin epidemic.
I have been across my State, from one end to the other, at
roundtables with law enforcement, with medical professionals, with
those who do addiction treatment and with those who have lived through
these addictions. I have seen firsthand what it has done to communities
and families and lives. We need a forceful response, and we are going
to vote on one in about an hour. It is called the CARA bill. It is a
bill that moves us in the right direction when it comes to dealing with
this addiction.
The conference report has many important elements to it, and that is
why I am going to support it. It includes my proposal to require
reforms at the FDA, or the Food and Drug Administration, to ensure
better oversight of dangerous and addictive opioid drugs before they
are approved for sale in our country. My provisions will ensure the FDA
convenes scientific advisory committees before approving new opioid
drugs and that the Pediatric Advisory Committee has a voice in the
decision.
We require the FDA to consider the public health impacts before
allowing more addictive products to come onto the market. We direct
Federal health agencies to develop plans for continuing medical
education with doctors and other providers who prescribe opioids. We
require the FDA to encourage drug companies to make abuse-deterrent
formulations of these dangerous drugs.
The CARA conference report also includes a proposal I have worked on
to improve State prescription drug monitoring programs. This
legislation will make it easier for States to share information about
overprescribing and overusing opioids, it gives doctors more
information to better perform their prescribing practices.
I am pleased the CARA conference report includes new grant programs
to expand access to naloxone--the lifesaving anecdote--to promote
treatment alternatives instead of arrests for those suffering from
addiction and to create flexibility and treatment options for those who
need medication-assisted therapy or pregnant women who need specialized
care.
Having said all of these positive things about what we are to vote
on, let me state the obvious. When only 12 percent of the people in
Illinois are able to receive care for their addiction, and there is a
12-week wait at facilities for vulnerable patients to get into drug
treatment, authorizing new programs, which this bill does, is good but
not good enough. We need to make an investment. We need to put
taxpayers' dollars behind this commitment to end this epidemic, and it
is needed now.
That is why Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire offered an
amendment during the Senate floor consideration of this bill. Her
amendment would have put $600 million into actually making the bill
work, enforcing it, investing in it. It failed.
During the CARA conference meetings, Senator Murray and Congressman
Pallone offered amendments to ensure that Congress would put some money
into the promise of this bill. They couldn't get it passed in a
conference dominated by the Republican majority. Why? Why would these
efforts be blocked when the Republicans are joining us and saying this
is a national problem that deserves our immediate attention? Because
Republicans have said they have already proposed to increase funding in
appropriation bills to take care of this. Yet many Republicans are
supporting a continuing resolution that freezes funding at this year's
level and provides for no increase in opioid epidemic treatment. When
they say they are going to put more money in and then call for a
continuing resolution, they know and we know that it is a sham.
The Republicans are opposing an increase in funding for this bill by
saying they already proposed increased funding in another bill, but at
the same time they are advocating a freeze, or flat-funding a
continuing resolution. They can't have it both ways.
It is confusing, but those of us who live in this world know what
they are up to. They want to take the credit for passing this bill and
the promise of funding it in the future into the election in November
but not provide the money that is needed to make it work. That is
playing games with people's lives. America deserves better.
Failing to provide the dollars today is not going to help those who
are currently suffering. It is not going to help that mother who was
awake all last night worrying about a son or a daughter who is facing
an addiction, praying they can get that child they love into treatment
in time to break that addiction and save their lives.
[[Page S5023]]
You know what else is missing from this CARA conference report? Many
of these measures in the bill deal with addiction after it has taken
hold. We have to do things to prevent addiction on the front end. The
best way is to ensure people don't get addicted in the first place. I
have introduced the Addiction Prevention and Responsible Opioid
Practices Act, or the A-PROP Act. It is going to help shut off the
spigot for fueling this crisis.
Here is something most people don't understand or realize. The Drug
Enforcement Administration sounds like the kind of law enforcement
agency that polices America to reduce the likelihood that narcotics are
going to be found in our homes, in our neighborhoods, in our
communities, and in our States. It also has another responsibility.
Each year pharma, the major pharmaceutical companies, comes to this
agency and asks for the approval to make even more narcotics. These
are prescription narcotics like opioids. The DEA has to sign off on
this increase in production each year.
If we are going to take a look at the seriousness of this opioid
problem and its growth in America, take a look at the growth of
production in America that has been approved by this Federal agency.
Between 1993 and 2015, the Drug Enforcement Administration-approved
quotas for oxycodone increased almost 40 times. In 1993, they were
producing about 3\1/2\ tons of these opioid pills. Now they are
producing 150 tons of these opioid pills.
The DEA has approved pharma to produce enough opioid narcotic pills
to provide--listen closely--every adult in America a 1-month
prescription each year to opioid narcotics--every adult in America.
That goes way beyond any medical need. It is pharma's effort to make
more money and to feed the beast of this opioid epidemic, and DEA each
year gives the seal of approval. That is wrong.
Once these pills are produced, it takes a doctor or a dentist or some
other authorized medical professional to prescribe them. How they are
making it through that process onto the streets and into the homes of
America is the next question beyond this DEA approval of pharma's
overproduction.
We need continuing medical education to be mandated. Incidentally,
DEA approves doctors to give them the authority and power to prescribe
narcotics. They can monitor this, as well, and see where the abuse is
taking place. We need an all-hands-on-deck approach to this epidemic.
Each stakeholder needs to play a role.
I am going to vote for this CARA conference report. On its face, it
is hard to vote against, but I want to do it with the knowledge of
having said in this statement on the floor that it isn't enough. Unless
we pass Senator Jeanne Shaheen's amendment, unless we follow up on
Senator Patty Murray's amendment in conference and fund this effort to
stop this epidemic, we are basically sending a very nice greeting to
America that we recognize the problem but we are not paying to solve
it. People across America understand this epidemic. It is time for us
to take it seriously, not for political posturing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague from
Illinois for his remarks on the funding issue. I couldn't agree more.
There is no question that this body should be working to help curb
opioid abuse in this country, to improve mental health services, to
improve the way we treat addiction and speed up recovery. Everyone in
this Chamber knows it. But the bill before us, the Comprehensive
Addiction and Recovery Act, is woefully insufficient for dealing with
the opioid and heroin crisis. It makes a whole lot of changes, but it
doesn't support a single one with new resources.
It would authorize block grants to States to treat people who are
hooked on these dangerously addictive prescription painkillers, but it
doesn't provide any actual money to give. It would authorize programs
to help law enforcement crack down on this scourge, but it doesn't
provide a single plugged nickel to our cops.
Without actual appropriations, this bill is like a Hollywood movie
set--something that appears real on the surface but has no substance
and no life behind its facade. Let me say that again. Without actual
appropriations, this bill is like a Hollywood movie set--something that
appears real on the surface but has no substance and no life behind its
false facade.
I want to clear one thing up. I have heard many of my Republican
colleagues say that we should pass this bill, and we can just fill in
the money later. Forgive me for being skeptical that they will actually
follow through on that promise, because my friends on the other side of
the aisle have been fighting for years to cut, not increase, the exact
same programs they are now touting in this bill--what a sham.
With the rise of the tea party, the hard-right conservative factions
in the House and Senate brought devastating proposed cuts to the health
programs that combat the opioid problem, and my colleagues here who are
not members of the tea party went along. Now that there is an opioid
crisis, now that some are worried about reelection, oh, they are out
there. Where were they last year and the year before? Where are they
going to be this year in terms of actually getting some funding?
Last year, Republicans proposed billions of dollars in cuts to the
Labor-HHS appropriations bill--the main funding source for substance
abuse treatment. Without the bipartisan budget agreement, this would
have cut $9 billion. In fact, the Senate Appropriations Committee
proposed cutting the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, or SAMHSA, by $160 million before Democrats pushed to
restore it. We didn't hear much of an outcry from the very same people
who are out there saying they are doing things on opioids.
On the other side of the Capitol, the tea party Republicans have gone
even further. In 2012, they proposed cutting SAMHSA by $283 million.
The latest Paul Ryan budgets--the holy grail of Republican fiscal
austerity--took a meat cleaver to this agency. He proposed cutting an
estimated $400 million from SAMHSA in 2013 and 2014.
The Republican record on actually funding these programs is, frankly,
abysmal. When you hear treatment centers and when you hear law
enforcement say that we don't have the resources to do what we need to
do to go after the opioid crisis, ask yourself why, because our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have fought increases in
funding.
You can't have an additional counselor. I have held parents in my
arms who said: My son or daughter didn't make it as they were waiting
in line for treatment. There were not enough counselors, not enough
slots. I have talked to law enforcement officials who say they want to
do much more, but their hands are tied because they don't have enough
cops, enough intelligence, enough follow-through on going after these
evil drug dealers who are just despicable.
We want to say to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that
what they probably would have done to us is to block this bill so we
should have no accomplishments. That is what happened in 2013 and 2014.
We are not going to do that. This has a few good things, but it is not
close to enough.
The way the appropriations process has proceeded this session, I see
no reason to believe how any of this is going to change. So far the
majority has been utterly unable to pass bills that contain increases
in funding. Why? Why wouldn't good people here who say they want to
fight opioids and come home and talk about it do it? I will tell you
why. Because the hard right has a stranglehold. They say no increase in
funding for anything, except maybe Defense, and even a lot of the hard
right people don't want that. Everyone goes along. They are afraid of
the Koch brothers, who want to cut, cut, cut. They are afraid of the
Heritage Foundation that wants to cut, cut, cut, and so they give
speeches and even pass a bill that makes some small improvements, but
they don't get the funding. It is not that they are malicious, but they
don't have the courage and strength to stand up and do what is needed,
and then they are hypocritical when they go back and say they are
leading the fight to go after opioid addiction. That is the problem
here. After years of opposing funding for mental health and substance
abuse programs, no one should believe that Republicans are going to
honor their promises
[[Page S5024]]
about CARA--yeah, down the road we will find some funding--until we see
it.
Shortly the Senate will pass this bill. As soon as that happens,
Republican Senators are going to run home to tout its passage as if
they have single-handedly solved the opioid crisis in this country, but
that will not be true. They will not mention that the bill has no
funding and doesn't have the teeth it needs; they will not tell people
that it doesn't include a dime for a new treatment bed, a dollar for a
drug counselor's salary, or the needed increases in money for law
enforcement. What it says is this: that colleagues on the other side of
the aisle are more interested in showing voters they are doing
something about opioids than actually doing something because they are
constricted by a small, narrow, but powerful group of special interests
in their party that say you can't vote for any increases in funding for
anything, and it is a shame. This is an issue ripe for bipartisan
compromise. It is an issue in which we can and must make real progress,
but as it stands, this bill doesn't get the job done.
Every day 2,500 teenagers in America abuse prescription drugs for the
first time. These are our kids, our neighbors, and our friends. We all
know families that have had the anguish--and the joy that some have had
as their sons and daughters have recovered. But everyone who knows
people who have been fighting addiction--whether it is alcohol or
prescription drug abuse or some other substance--knows that every day
is a struggle and a fight. You are never sure that they will not go
back. And then there are those who have lost kids. Sometimes their kids
are just out on the streets, and their family doesn't know where they
are, and some of them, of course, are gone. It is nothing we should be
playing games with, and a small group of hard-right ideologues
shouldn't be blocking change in America. We don't need a bill designed
for campaign rhetoric. We need resources.
I strongly urge my Republican colleagues to schedule a vote on
legislation that provides robust funding to address the opioid and
heroin epidemic as soon as possible. Until we pass the increase in
resources for law enforcement and treatment, both of which are so
necessary, we cannot say that Congress has done what is necessary to
solve and fight the opioid crisis.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any time spent in quorum
calls prior to 11 a.m. be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, 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.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in
support of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. This bill
represents an important step in tackling the growing crisis of
prescription drug and heroin addiction in this country. I thank my
colleagues, especially the original sponsors of this bill. Senator
Whitehouse, Senator Portman, Senator Ayotte, and I have worked together
on this legislation for a number of years.
Drug overdoses from opioids now claim more lives than car accidents
every year. That is a pretty shocking statistic that I don't think most
Americans would expect. The crisis is ripping apart families from all
different backgrounds, and with deaths increasing nearly sixfold since
the year 2000, it is a crisis on the rise. This deadly trend struck at
the heart of Minnesota. Last year alone, 336 Minnesotans died after
overdosing on opioids.
Since I started working on this bill, I have heard from people in
communities across my State. In Montevideo, 12-year-olds were courted
by pushers who said: Hey, kids. If you go in and check your parents'
medicine cabinets--I'll give you a list--and bring us their
prescription drugs, we will give you a can of beer. That happened in
Montevideo, MN.
Shelly Elkington shared her tragic story. Her daughter, Casey Jo, was
a champion swimmer and hoped to study nursing like her mom, but in 2008
she was diagnosed with Crohn's disease, and that is when she started
taking opioids for pain relief. As we know, four out of five heroin
users started out by misusing prescription pain killers, and in the end
the very pills that were supposed to ease Casey Jo's pain didn't work.
She became addicted and eventually turned to heroin and other drugs,
and basically this addiction hijacked her life. She is no longer with
us.
This is the story for far too many people. In one 7,000-person town
in Minnesota, 3 young people died of opioid overdoses in just 6 months
in 2013.
Our final bill includes a number of proven strategies to help States
and local communities in the fight against addiction, and one of the
most important provisions in it for me is looking at solutions for
unused prescription drugs. Senator Cornyn and I passed a bill back in
2010 and finally got the rules out after advocating for them from the
DEA, I believe for 4 years, and we are finally starting to see some
pharmacies, such as Walgreens, voluntarily taking back unused
prescription drugs. This bill helps to build on that work.
CARA also increases the availability of naloxone, which we know can
be used in overdoses, and, of course, one of the most important things
in this bill is a start at prescription drug monitoring. I emphasize
that it is a start because I think a lot more needs to be done with
prescription drug monitoring. I would have liked to have done it in
this bill, but now we need to move on and get something done.
Today, I will be introducing a bill with Senator King and Senator
Manchin to actually do something about prescription drug monitoring,
and that is requiring individual States to put in place prescription
drug monitoring programs and actually submit the data. I have learned--
having Hazelden in my State--that some States have a program, but it
just means doctors have to sign up. It doesn't actually mean that they
actually record information or that they share it with other doctors.
It doesn't even mean they share it between States. Our bill would
require States that receive Federal funding to combat opioid abuse to
ensure that their prescription drug monitoring complies with certain
standards so that we can crack down on this addiction before it starts.
It would require prescribers to consult with the PDMPs before they hand
out prescriptions, require dispensers to report back within 24 hours of
distribution, and would provide for the proactive notification of
health care professionals when patterns indicative of opioid abuse are
detected. For people who travel across State lines, it would also
require States to share information.
Here is an example: There was a patient at Hazelden Betty Ford who
had 108 prescriptions for painkillers filled by more than 85 different
prescribers. Think about that: 85 different medical professionals had
prescribed these drugs.
I met a rehab guy up in Moorhead who had a patient with a similar
story, who had filled prescriptions from doctors in North Dakota, South
Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. That is what is going on. If we don't
require States to share information with other States, it is as if we
don't really have a prescription drug program to begin with.
CARA is an important bill, but there are two things that we need to
change in order to improve the work we are doing in Congress. No. 1 is
the money for treatment that I know Senator Schumer just addressed,
which is in Senator Shaheen's bill, which would appropriate emergency
funding and, second, not just say we are doing something about
prescription drug monitoring but actually do something about
prescription drug monitoring, and that is why I am introducing this
bill today.
There is a lot of work ahead, but I want to conclude my remarks by
acknowledging the major step we are taking by passing the Comprehensive
Addiction and Recovery Act and sending it to the President's desk to be
signed into law.
I thank my colleagues for their support.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
[[Page S5025]]
Trans-Pacific Partnership
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I continue to be concerned by the
determination of a number of people to move through the Senate the
Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, the 5,554-page document, which
the American people have clearly rejected and do not favor, even though
powerful forces continue to push for it. It has been reported that both
Presidential candidates oppose it; however, it does appear that
Secretary Clinton's opposition is in doubt, and there was a troubling
report yesterday.
Her top Asia policy adviser, who served as her Assistant Secretary of
State for East Asia, Kurt Campbell, told an Australian news outlet that
Clinton's opposition to TPP is not real. He said: ``Every trade
agreement goes through the deepest, darkest tunnel before it is
ultimately passed.'' Her top adviser is saying to our Australian allies
that it is going to pass, and that is contrary to what she has been
telling the American people. In fact, I think it is fair to say that
the worst-kept secret in Washington is that Hillary Clinton, if
elected, intends--in some way and some fashion--to see that the TPP
becomes law. She made 45 different statements during her time before
this lawless agreement was being negotiated--up to the very end of
Congressional debate over fast track--that she supported it. This
statement by her top adviser is not only shocking but really confirms
the fears that so many people have had--that her opposition to the TPP
on the campaign trail is a result of the pressure of the voters and is
not a real conversion.
After voicing her support for the 5,554-page agreement 45 times
before running for President, and after refusing to take a position on
it when asked about it for months during her campaign, she has since
made statements to the American people that she opposes the
agreement. Her senior policy advisor is overseas touting the benefits
of TPP. Just as her email scandal problem proves, Mrs. Clinton tends to
say one thing to the American people but another thing to her globalist
friends.
The TPP creates a 12-country Pacific union, whereby each country gets
a single vote. This will allow the union to legislate and change its
own rules. It is described as a living agreement. They can even change
their own rules. They can pass laws and regulations that make it very
difficult--virtually impossible--for the American people to have
control over it. It is going to be very difficult to contain this union
where each country gets one vote. The United States gets one vote. The
Sultan of Brunei gets one vote. Vietnam gets one vote. This makes no
sense. We absolutely should not pass this massive agreement that erodes
the economic strength of America, giving our competitors the same votes
on important issues as we have.
Even the rosiest Trans-Pacific Partnership projections cited by the
Obama administration estimate that this agreement--their own estimate
is it will slow the growth of manufacturing in the United States and
cost us 120,000 manufacturing jobs over the next 15 years. But other
studies show the United States could lose much more. A Tufts University
study said we could lose 400,000 jobs. That is their analysis of it.
Secretary Clinton's adviser, Kurt Campbell, and other expansive trade
advocates always believe in these free-trade agreements no matter what
is in them. They seem to remain oblivious to the impacts that such a
massive trade deal will have on the already-struggling economy and
middle America. Mr. Campbell's statements are further confirmation that
the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton have not given up on this
deal. Indeed, President Obama continues to push for it openly and
without apology. They fully intend to do everything they can to sneak
the TPP through Congress, with perhaps some cosmetic changes to say
they have fixed the problem, after the election--most likely during the
lameduck session of the House or the Senate--when many Members are no
longer accountable to the American people, or it could be even in the
next Congress.
While talking with the newspaper The Australian, the former Assistant
Secretary of State, Mr. Campbell, also found time to denigrate and talk
bad about the presumptive nominee of one of our national parties,
Donald Trump. The Australian reported that the former Australian
Foreign Minister has written that Mr. Campbell ``will be Secretary of
State if Mrs. Clinton becomes the President at the end of the year.''
Well, that is the first I have heard of that. We learned that maybe
from Australia.
I believe this is another example of the kind of political duplicity
that irritates, frustrates, and angers--legitimately--the American
people. They have their leader saying one thing, promising one thing
during the election season, all the while they are working to advance a
different agenda entirely.
It is the same about fixing illegal immigration. They always promise
it during the campaign, but when we get in the Senate and start
actually voting on the things that would be necessary to create a
lawful system of immigration that protects the national interests, it
never seems to happen.
So it is pretty clear Hillary Clinton really supports the TPP. It was
only an election-cycle diversion that caused her to back off of it, and
she refuses to rule out its passage entirely. The media should demand
that she clarify her position. Why will she not rule out passing it?
Does her top adviser to Asia, meeting with Asian nations that would
participate in this TPP--does he speak for her or not?
As quoted by PolitiFact, Mrs. Clinton said: ``I waited until it had
actually been negotiated''--she is explaining why she now opposes it
when she supported it previously. She said: ``I waited until it had
actually been negotiated because I did want to give the benefit of the
doubt to the (Obama) administration. Once I saw the outcome, I opposed
it.''
Well, that was not a very satisfactory answer to me at the time. I
was very uneasy about that conversion to opposition, and now we have
her top adviser to Asia saying something entirely different.
This is what the Australian newspaper said about him and this
agreement. He says that--he did acknowledge globalization has sometimes
been disruptive to politics, disruptive in countries like the United
States. He is talking about disruptive for jobs and workers in the
United States. I think he is certainly correct about that.
How did PolitiFact analyze Mrs. Clinton's statements? Here are some
of the things they reported in their analysis. ``Once I saw what the
outcome was, I opposed it.''
That is a pretty clear statement, it appears.
Speaking in Australia in 2012, however, she hailed the deal as
``setting the gold standard.''
She said: ``This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to
open, free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has
the rule of law and a level playing field.''
It seems to me to be a total commitment to supporting the trade deal.
Remember, as Secretary of State, she is the chief diplomatic official
for the United States. The Trade Representative does most of the
negotiations, but the Secretary of State is involved in these
negotiations. It involved the economic relationship of the United
States with 11 other Pacific nations. So she knows what is going on in
these negotiations and should be well aware of them. If she wasn't, she
was not doing her job.
Hillary Clinton's support for the TPP goes on as she said that it
would create ``Better jobs with higher wages and safer working
conditions, including for women, migrant workers and others too often
in the past excluded from the formal economy will help build Asia's
middle class and rebalance the global economy.''
Well, I don't have any doubt that if this trade agreement is like the
other trade agreements--and I believe it is--it will definitely help
Asian trade competitors of ours. The question is, who is representing
the American people? That is whom our legal, moral, and political
responsibility is to--the American people. Is it going to be a better
transaction for them or not? They don't think so, I don't think so, and
a growing number of economists are beginning to understand why these
trade deals I have so often supported in the past are not working
effectively.
PolitiFact reported in October that she also described this trade
deal over
[[Page S5026]]
time as ``exciting, innovative, ambitious, groundbreaking, cutting-
edge, high-quality, and high-standard.'' That is the way she has
described it over the years.
PolitiFact concludes with this: ``Nonetheless, her comments at the
time were so positive and so definitive, it becomes disingenuous to
argue, as she's doing now, that she didn't endorse it before it was
finalized.''
So that is where we are.
I will yield the floor if someone else arrives. That is the main
point I wanted to make.
I would urge our colleagues to understand what is happening. There
has been an analysis and a growing understanding within the developed
nations of the world that their middle-class working people are being
hammered by these trade agreements. Last year, it was reported that 55
percent of the people in Germany supported the transatlantic trade
agreement, and this is a follow-on to the TPP, all part of the fast-
track authority Congress gave to the Trade Representative of the United
States. I opposed it, but Congress voted to approve it. He is
negotiating right now with the Europeans on a matching-type treaty that
will also be monumental involving the Atlantic trade deal.
Last year, 55 percent of the people in Germany supported this
agreement. A recent poll in Germany showed now only 17 percent support
it.
In recent weeks, clear messages have also been sent by the people of
the United Kingdom, our British allies; they don't like being placed in
these large international trade organizations where the UK only gets
one vote. If they get that in the European Union, I don't know if they
have a single vote--and they don't believe it has been working in their
interests. That was a factor in them voting to withdraw from the EU,
even though the EU is pushing this trade deal--the TTIP--exceedingly
hard.
What has been the impact on our trade deals in the past? In 2011, I
supported the South Korea trade deal. It was an important deal, one of
our biggest trade agreements, and they are allies. I believe in the
South Koreans. They are good people. So we voted for it. Congress
passed it. President Obama advocated for it and signed it. At the time,
he declared that our exports to South Korea would increase $10 billion
a year and that would help create manufacturing jobs in the United
States; that it would be a win-win: Korea would import more to us, but
we would export more to Korea too, the trade deficit would not
increase, and it would be a job creator in the United States. So
Congress voted for it--a big vote for it.
Well, what has happened since 2011? Last year, our exports to Korea
were not $10 billion, not $1 billion but $30 million. Their exports to
us from South Korea were $15 billion. So what happened? The data, the
projections were not right. That is very damaging for America. Our
trade deficit with South Korea more than doubled.
I would say to my colleagues somebody needs to be asking: What is
happening to jobs in America? What is happening to wages in America?
The situation is not good. Since 1999, wages in America have declined
$4,186, adjusted for inflation. That is the way to calculate it
properly. Median family income is down over $4,000 since 1999. Make no
mistake, bad trade deals are a part of that. Another part of that is,
when you bring in more workers than you have jobs for, you create a
surplus of labor and wages go down, if there are any free-market people
left on Wall Street, they understand that.
So we have had a double whammy, in addition to high regulations and
stupid taxes that we impose on the economy. All of these things have
created a situation in which we are not healthy economically. Wages are
declining. Middle-class Americans are hurting. They have a right to
ask: Who in Washington is looking out for my interests? That is the way
I see it.
This trade agreement--5,500-some-odd pages--is bad. We do not need to
pass it, and we absolutely do not need to go into another European
Union-like trade agreement where the United States gets only one vote
even though we have by far the dominant economy.
What do all of these countries want first and foremost? It is
understandable. It is not evil. They want to sell in our market. They
want to bring home American dollars. That is their goal.
When we enter into a trade agreement with somebody who wants to sell
here, we should make sure that we do it in a way that protects American
workers and makes sure that our trading partners open their markets to
us so that we can export as much to them as we allow them to import to
us.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I thank my colleagues for the vote we will take in a
very short time on the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act known
as CARA. This legislation holds great promise to help families and
communities combat the opioid epidemic that has truly been ravaging our
Nation.
The epidemic is a public health crisis, causing death and destruction
to families and communities, and this legislation is barely a symbolic
step. The rhetoric on the floor today and throughout our consideration
of this bill, unfortunately, is unmatched by real dollars. Until we
commit resources, our words will be a glass half empty, and we must
fill that glass with the resources necessary to truly make a
difference, as I have seen from the roundtables I have held around the
State of Connecticut where law enforcement, community activists,
families whose loved ones have suffered from addiction, and addicts
themselves recovering from this disease--it is a disease, and we must
recognize it as a disease that can be treated if we commit the
resources.
I thank Senator Coats for joining me in authoring the Expanding
Access to Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs Act, which is among the
measures included in this bill. This provision would allow nurse
practitioners and physician assistants to access State prescription
drug monitoring programs and view the patient's prescription opioid
history to determine if a patient has a history of addiction.
Although nurse practitioners and physician assistants write over 30
million opioid prescriptions every year, including in 2013, few States
allow them to consult and submit prescribing data to these important
State databases. Allowing them to access more information about a
patient's history enables them to help address potential addiction
before it becomes a serious problem.
Critically, we must recognize the key role nurse practitioners and
physician assistants can play in curbing prescription drug abuse and
diversion. That is why this provision allowing those nurse
practitioners and physician assistants to access State prescription
drug monitoring programs is so important.
I thank my colleague Senator Baldwin for her tireless effort in
advancing the Jason Simcakoski Memorial Opioid Safety Act to address
overprescribing and accountability at the VA. Her leadership on behalf
of Jason's family and their courage and strength, particularly his
mother Linda, widow Heather, and daughter Anaya, were impressive and
instrumental in incorporating this measure.
The provisions from Senator Baldwin's legislation that have been
included in CARA will require the VA to expand the use of opioid safety
initiatives within all VA facilities--a profoundly important step
because it will enable the VA to better facilitate use of State
prescription drug monitoring programs and ensure that all VA facilities
provide naloxone to at-risk veterans without a copay. That is a
profoundly significant step.
I hope monitoring and tracking programs will be further improved so
that State boundaries can be more easily overcome in terms of
information flow, and the effectiveness can include not only the VA but
our civilian programs.
Additionally, improvements to the VA Patient Advocacy Program will
truly help the VA better serve our veterans.
These provisions are also included in the Veterans First Act. I am
hopeful that this body will move forward on the Veterans First Act.
I appreciate the bipartisan work of my colleagues in addressing the
opioid crisis. I am pleased to support this bill but again emphasize
that it is a short-term solution.
I yield the floor.
[[Page S5027]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 12
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Tribute to James Wallner
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, Capitol Hill is a famously transient place.
Every 2 years, the membership of the House of Representatives changes,
the membership of the Senate changes, and in the interim, the coming
and going of congressional staffers is virtually constant. But when you
take a step back and look through the wide lens of history, you can see
certain pillars of permanence, certain exceptional individuals who
stand out from and rise above the fleeting crowd. These are the
institutional giants of Congress, the men and women whose extraordinary
talents and devotion to the Constitution have shaped the character and
the course of government and whose legacies continue to influence
Congress long after the individuals behind them have gone.
For the past 5\1/2\ years, I have had the pleasure of working with
and learning from one such individual, a true master of the Senate,
James Wallner.
Friday will be James's last day as executive director of the Senate
steering committee--although the optimist in me hopes that he will be
back in the Senate someday. Starting next week, he will join the
Heritage Foundation as the group vice president of research, where he
will oversee all of the think tank's research papers, projects, and
initiatives. For this, James is eminently qualified. James has been
studying politics in the classroom and in real life on Capitol Hill
throughout his entire adult life. In all his spare time, in between
advising Senators and raising his two children, Graham and Quinn, with
his wife Kimberly, James has been busy becoming a scholar, earning two
master's degrees and a doctoral degree in politics, and an accomplished
author, having published one book, with another forthcoming.
Aside from what must be the best time-management skills in the world,
coupled with the fact that the man probably never sleeps, this is what
you first notice about James: just how freakishly smart he is.
I will never forget the first time I met James, which was back in
2011, not too long after I had been sworn in to office as a Senator. As
a brandnew Senator with a brandnew staff, one of my top priorities was
to find someone who could help mentor and guide me and my staff--
someone outside of my staff. My staff included a lot of people who had
never worked in Washington before, so we needed someone on the outside
of our staff to help teach us how the Senate really works and how
Congress really works.
I asked around for suggestions, and one name kept coming up: James
Wallner. If you need someone to give a crash course or an extended,
semester-length course or a course lasting 5\1/2\ years on Senate
procedure, politics, and policy, James Wallner is the man.
This was some of the best advice I had ever received--to consult
James Wallner on these and other issues. The instruction and guidance
James provided to me and my staff far exceeded expectations. James's
knowledge of the Senate is encyclopedic. Working with him is like
having your own personal Parliamentarian by your side, always ready and
eager to give comprehensive answers to virtually every question that
might come up, even those dealing with the most arcane procedural
mechanics within the Senate.
Most people in Washington operate on the premise that connections are
what you need to succeed in politics. Some might even assume that they
are all you need to succeed in politics. James, although known and
esteemed by many, has flipped this conventional wisdom on its head. For
him, it is not who he knows but what he knows that has made him an
invaluable resource for so many Members in Congress and so many
staffers on both sides of the Capital over the years.
While his formidable intellect has set him apart over the 10 years in
the Senate, the qualities I always admired most in James are his deep
and abiding love for this country, for its history, its people, and its
institutions, and his uncompromising commitment to the self-evident
truths upon which it was founded and the truths built into our
governing document, the U.S. Constitution.
One of my favorite examples of this is exemplified by James's annual
tradition of reading, start to finish, the official and complete notes
from the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Of course, for James, it is
not enough to simply read and re-read this voluminous text every year;
he makes sure to do it between May 25 and September 17 so that he can
read each day's notes on the very day or the very anniversary of the
very day on which they were originally recorded.
James brought the same passion and appreciation for our
constitutional heritage to his work as the executive director of the
Senate steering committee, a position which he has held since 2012. The
purpose and mission of the steering committee is to encourage
innovative thinking and bold action within the Senate's Republican
conference. This is no easy task, of course. In a town that is not
exactly known for innovation or boldness, many may see this as a
mission impossible, but James saw it as a moral imperative because he
understands that many of our government's and our country's most urgent
problems today are caused by an unnatural timidity and sclerosis within
the legislative branch.
The job may be difficult, but James carried it out with an admirable
combination of tenacity, patience, courage, and grace, and always with
an unrelenting devotion to recovering America's founding principles and
thereby putting the Congress back to work for the American people.
As James knows better than most, placing principle over party and
elevating the interests of the American people over the interests of
political elites is unlikely to win a popularity contest in Washington,
but it will earn you the respect of your colleagues and anyone
happening to be watching.
Few on Capitol Hill respect James more than two of his former bosses,
Senator Pat Toomey and Senator Jeff Sessions. This is what each of them
had to say about James on the occasion of his departure from the
Senate.
Senator Toomey said:
James Wallner not only understands a wide range of policy
issues, but he is a master of the congressional rules and
procedures needed to turn conservative philosophies into
action. He is an exceptionally smart strategist and is
willing to work hard to advance the ideas needed to restore
an American government that is limited in scope, efficient
with taxpayers' money, and accountable to the voters.
Senator Sessions said:
It has been an honor to work with James in the Senate. I am
proud to say that James began his Senate career in my office
as a Legislative Assistant and later became my Legislative
Director. In these roles, James demonstrated a mastery of
congressional procedure and policy. He has supported not only
me, but the entire party in developing and working to
implement conservative, pro-growth policies that help place
our nation on a more sustainable path. The Heritage
Foundation is fortunate to have hired a man of such skill and
I am confident that he will serve them well. James is without
a doubt one of the most talented and dedicated staffers I
have ever worked with or known in the Senate.
For 10 years, James Wallner has been an exceptionally articulate,
passionate, knowledgeable, and steadfast champion of the very things
that make the Senate great and that make the Senate unique--especially
open, robust debate and deliberation. The Senate is better because of
him.
He will be missed. But with so many challenges looming over the
horizon and with so much work yet ahead of us to be completed,
something tells me this will not be the last time the Senate hears from
James Wallner.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Pursuant to rule XXII, the
Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the
clerk will state.
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 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.
Mitch McConnell, James M. Inhofe, Pat Roberts, John
Boozman, Johnny Isakson, Chuck Grassley, John Cornyn,
[[Page S5028]]
Thom Tillis, John Hoeven, Kelly Ayotte, John McCain,
Rob Portman, John Barrasso, Lamar Alexander, Richard
Burr, John Thune, Orrin G. Hatch.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
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 abuse, shall be brought to a
close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
Inhofe), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the
Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
Vitter), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 90, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 126 Leg.]
YEAS--90
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Risch
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--2
Lee
Sasse
NOT VOTING--8
Cochran
Inhofe
Roberts
Rounds
Sessions
Shelby
Vitter
Wicker
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 90, the nays are 2.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
____________________