appropriations bill because our friends across the aisle are blocking it. it is time to open it up for debate, open it up for amendments. this is the process of the united states senate. the american people, the troops deserve more. but it appears that the democrat leader and his democratic colleagues would rather huddle in back rooms somewhere and concoct yet another deal behind closed doors versus in full daylight, in transparency on the senate floor because they'd rather negotiate in private than engage in an open and honest debate in front of the american people. unfortunately, today the senate democrats will put partisan politics ahe of funding the troops. the senior senator from new york, the likely next senate democratic leader, has already

foretold that democrats would rather throw together another massive spending package than allow for open consideration of each part of the nation's budget. no wonder we're $18 trillion going on $19 trillion in debt. and he said -- and i quote -- "we could pass a defense bill and then they could say, well, we'll do a continuing resolution on the rest of it, violating the 50-50 deal. we need to negotiate an omnibus all at once and all together. " i reject that. montanans know firsthand the importance of supporting the men and women in uniform. the passage of this legislation is critical to carrying out our missions in an increasingly dangerous world. and it's important regarding the missions we support in montana. this defense appropriations bill protects the montana international guard c-130

mission by moving forward with the avionics modernization program in increments one and two which are improvements from the original costly a.m.p. program. this will ensure the c-130's at the international national guard will be certified to continue flying by 2020 and provide a pathway for a full-scale avionics upgrade that addresses yowt -- outdated components. but the senate democrats would prefer to once again obstruct regular order. much in the same fashion they did during the past few years which became the hallmark, it became the trademark of a failed democrat-led senate majority. so as the senate heads home for the weekend, i challenge my democratic colleagues to look their veterans, to look their

active-duty troops, to look the military families in the eye and ask yourself did i serve these selfless men and women or the washington establishment? i think we know which one they will choose. i encourage my senate democratic colleagues to change course. we have a chance to change course on this upcoming vote. vote "yes" on moving this critical defense legislation forward.

mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. daines: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: i ask to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: i also ask consent that all time in the quorum call before the 11:00 a.m. vote today be charged equally against each side. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: mr. president, i

note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the it assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: at 11:00, the senate will vote on the defense appropriations bill.

this is a bill i worked on with senator cochran of mississippi. he not only chairs the appropriation committee but this subcommittee on defense on which i serve as vice chair and ranking member on as well. excuse my voice. the effort in this bill is extraordinary because it comprises 60%, virtually 60% of the domestic discretionary spending of our government. it of course deals with the department of defense and defense agencies. i just want to say that we've worked on this on a bipartisan basis from the start. it's been a real pleasure to work with senator cochran. i want to commend him for his leadership and his gentility, thank him for all of the good work that he's put into this bill. now it's going to be a procedural vote which we anticipate is not going to allow this bill to go forward. it is not a reflection on the substance of the bill at all. although we may disagree with one or two provisions in the bill and even as one of the

authors i can say that. the fact is that what we are trying to do now is to position ourselves to complete the work of the budget agreement last week. i think that there is an understanding at least at this moment of how we will move forward, but i say to my colleagues that we can stand behind the substance of this bill. procedurally we may be delaying it today, but ultimately it will pass, and i look forward to supporting it at that time. and i yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. a senator: are we in morning business? the presiding officer: the senate currently is in a quorum call. mr. alexander: i ask consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: i ask consent to speak up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i'd like to address my remarks to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, my democratic

colleagues. yesterday, i spent almost the whole day working with democratic colleagues on a variety of proposals to try to get bipartisan results here in the senate. we've gotten more of those this year than most people think, whether it's the progress we've made on no child left behind or on the trade bill or on the doc fix or on changing the way we pay doctors, on the u.s.a. freedom act, on defense authorization, terrorism. it's a long list. and i was working on that yesterday because that's what i'm supposed to do as a united states senator. i'm not sent here to posture or to make a political point. i'm sent here, given this privilege in order to create an environment where we can solve problems for the benefit of the taxpayers, for the benefit of the american people. so that's how i spent my time yesterday. i don't think any other republican spent more time than

i did working with colleagues on the democratic side to do that, which is why i'm addressing my remarks to my democratic friends. what they propose to do is block our moving to the appropriations bill for the defense of this country for the third time, for the third time, and there is no justification whatever to do that. and what i'm saying to my friends is don't go there because if you continue to block appropriations bills, you're going to set in motion an irreversible trend toward partisanship in this senate, and i'm going to lead it. i'm going to lead it. instead of spending my time on behalf of working with democrats to get bipartisan results, we're going to go in another direction. now, why would i say that? because i'm not here to be a partisan. because here is -- let me give

you this example of the appropriations bill that senator feinstein, the senator from california, and i have worked on. we have worked on that in a bipartisan way. i think even she would say she wrote about as much of it as i did. there was a page full of things that she thought are important for our country that are part of the bill. there are probably more than 75 senators wrote us letters, about half of them democratic senators saying these are important provisions in the energy and water bill. those provisions are in our bill. they're in our bill. they're ready to be considered. twice the democrats have kept us from from considering the defense appropriations bill. today they're going to do it again. what they're saying to us is that we're going to come up with any reason, any excuse not to have a normal appropriations process. the last time was, well, we didn't have enough money.

well, the way you deal with not enough money, if that's your opinion, is you bring a bill to the floor, you vote on it, you pass it, if you can. you send it to the president. if the president disagrees with you, he vetoes it, it comes back and we negotiate and we have a compromise. that's the way it works. you don't just jam something through because you have the power to stop something or jam it through. that's the way you do obamacare. that's the way you make sure the country has no respect for what we're trying to do. but that's what they did, so they got a result and it's a result i'm not unhappy with. i voted for it. i voted for it. but what it does is create additional spending for defense of more than, of $339 million, more than the president asked for in our bill -- the energy and water bill -- and additional spending for non-defense discretionary funding of more than $1.38 billion, higher than

the president asked for. i'm glad to see that because that money goes for ports, locks and dams. that money goes for the office of science so we can have revolutions in manufacturing that create jobs. money that can help with our biomedical research that we need to do. there are important things we need to do, and this bill will help us do them. but why would we not begin a debate then? why would we not let the other senators do it? all we're proposing to do is to begin to do some of what in december we should have done in june or july. the majority leader knows that he can't put every one of the 12 appropriations bills on the floor. there's not enough time, not enough time this year. why is there not enough time? because the democrats blocked it in june. they kept us from going to the bills even though this is the first time in six years that all 12 appropriations bills have come to the floor.

why is that important? that's what we do here. our job is to review the percent, to decide what -- review the purse, to decide what to spend, more for this lock, less for that project, keep the budget in balance when we can. that's our job, and they blocked it twice and they're getting ready to do it again with a vote today. i'm saying don't go there because you're going to set in motion an irreversible course in this senate and i'm going to lead it. i'm going to use whatever skills and powers i have to do that. all these provisions don't have to be in the energy and water appropriations bills. they don't have to be in any of the bills because we have the majority and you don't. we're going to play that kind of game, we can play it too. we can play it too. i'm not one who usually does but i'm able to play. i am able to play or i wouldn't have gotten here. so i want to say to my friends on the other side, don't go there. vote to put the bill on the floor. vote to give ourselves a chance to have amendments. why werewhy would the other 70 s

not want to have a clans to have a say about the -- chance to have a say about the appropriations bill? 30 of us are on the appropriations committee. we did our work. we approved the bill, in our case, 26-4. 26-4. it's a bipartisan bill. why would we not put bills like that on the floor and let the other 70 senators have their say? what are they here for if they don't want to have their say about appropriations? they might as well be home watching television. they should be here deciding the issues that face our country. so i hope my friends on both sides of the aisle can tell i'm not happy this morning with the direction things are taking. i don't like the fact that i spend all day working with democratic colleagues to get bipartisan results, and they come along with a tactic for the third time that says if we don't get everything we want, we're going to not have an appropriations process. well, we'll see how that goes. we'll see how that goes. and it will go not in a way that's good for the country, not

in a way that's good for the senate. but it will give the people who have a majority in the senate a chance to assert themselves and write the bills. at least we can do that. there is no reason really why we need to have 75 senators' ideas about priorities in the energy and water appropriations bill if the majority doesn't want to. there's no reason to have the ranking members' opinions in any of these appropriations bills if the majority doesn't want to. the way we have worked in our committee -- and i've worked with the senator from california for several years, a terrific person, a wonderful senator -- is we worked together. so why should we stop that process when the bills come to the floor? so i respectfully through the chair ask my colleagues to think again. don't do this. don't send us a signal that we're never again going to have another normal appropriations process for the united states senate. the american people don't want

that. we don't want it. and i am sure -- i can assure you that my friends on the other side don't want it. my hope comes, my hope is that one way or another the majority leader and the democratic leader have a conversation and that the senate come to its rational senses and begin a normal appropriations process with as much as time as we have between now and the end of our time here in december which would be a signal to all of us that we're going to work in a bipartisan way on a normal appropriations process for the good of the country. and that we're not just going to try to think of any excuse we can think of not to move an appropriations bill to the floor. two years ago the majority leader simply wouldn't bring the bills to the floor. this time the minority leaders block the bills coming to the

floor. let's get back to work. for heaven's sakes, that's what we're here for. i'm ready to go to work. i much prefer the way i worked yesterday, working with my colleagues, but i'm prepared to work in another way if that's what we need to do to get some balance in the united states senate. i thank the president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. cochran: mr. president, i compliment the distinguished senator from tennessee for his remarks and appreciation and extend my appreciation for his strong leadership in developing and bringing to the floor of the senate the defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016. specifically, i urge the senate to do as he suggests. let's get this bill before the senate, offer amendments if senators have suggestions for changes in the bill, and move ahead to completing action on

this bill on time so we can predict with some certainty what our obligations are going to be and we can nor thoughtfully and with a sense of confidence know that we're doing the right thing to protect the security interests of our country and our citizens, and our interests around the world. so, we have before us an effort to move to the consideration of the department of defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016. the bill provides $514.1 billion in base budget funding and $58.6 billion in overseas contingency operations funding for the department of defense.

the senate appropriations committee has worked on a bipartisan basis to write and approve 12 appropriations bills this year. that's for the first time since 2009. senators should have the opportunity to debate, amend, and approve the defense appropriations bill. the legislation is a bipartisan national security measure that provides the resources that are necessary to protect our nation, support our service members and their families, and meet current and future threats to our national security. we have no greater priority than protecting our national security interests here at home and abroad. so, i urge senators to cooperate and support our efforts and to vote to proceed to the

consideration of this bill. i'm hopeful that the leadership can get together and work out a time that's convenient and appropriate for carrying out this responsibility. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alex arnd: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motor we, the undersigned senators in accordingence with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 2685, an act making appropriations for the department of defense for the physician cl yeathefiscal year ,

2016, and for other purposes. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by stand in consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 2685, an act making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

have ever think senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, on this vote, have ever think senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, on this vote, the motion is not agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to reconsider the motion to proceed to the defense appropriations bill. the presiding officer: the motion is entered. mr. mcconnell: i withdraw the motion to proceed. the presiding officer: the motion is withdrawn. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to h.r. 2029. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion.

the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 98, h.r. 2029, an act making appropriation appr military construction, the department of veteran affairs and related agencies for fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: madam president, for the information of all senators, there will be a roll call vote on the motion to proceed to the military construction and veterans appropriations bills shortly after lunch. the chairman of that committee, senator kirk, is working with the ranking nobody move that bill aclose the floor next -- across the floor next week. they will have a senate substitute to the bill pending and senators will then further amend. if senators cooperate in moving things along and scheduling votes on amendments to the bill, we can vote on passage on tuesday night so that senators can commemorate veterans day back home with their constituents. obviously this is going to require some cooperation from all members. however, i would encourage those

of you with amendments to the milcon-v.a. bill to work with senator kirk and senator tester to get in the queue for floor consideration. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, two weeks ago the senate was unable to proceed to consider a very important piece of legislation called the stop sanctuary policies and protect americans act. the goal of this legislation is to protect our communities from criminals who violate our laws and who pose a danger to those communities, often minority communities themselves. the aim of this legislation is to restore law and order across the country by holding those accountable who are defying federal law and refusing to cooperate with the federal government when it comes to communicating the status of people who are illegally present

in the country who've committed other, more serious crimes 6 and refusing to honor federal detainers. as we discussed the need for this bill, several of my colleagues have highlighted the importance of this issue, but unfortunately we lost that vote because only 54 senators voted to proceed to the bill and obviously we needed 60. and because i am concerned that this debate does not focus on the people harmed the most because of the status quo, i wanted to come here to the floor and talk about the larger problem of violent crime committed by those who are here illegally and resident being -- and are not being punished according to our laws, and to highlight the importance of the victims and the families across the country who are suffering because we've not taken the appropriate action to stop these criminals.

one person i want to talk about in particular -- and my plan is to come to the floor and to tell these stories one at a time over the next few weeks -- but this is javier vega jr., who grew up in lafaria, small town of about 7,000 people in south texas. javier was known by the name harvey to his friends, interestingly enough, and he spent his entire life thinking of ways to how to help others other than just himself. from a young age he knew i wanted to serve in the military and so he volunteered for the marine corps and embarked on a military career after graduating from lafaria high school. harvey thrived in the marine corps and so after leaving the marines and working day and night to put himself through college, he decided the next step in his public service was to join the u.s. border patrol.

harvey's mother said that he approached his work at the border patrol just like everything else he pursued in life -- with diligence, dedication to hard work, and trying to just simply be the best he could be. he was proud to help protect his fellow neighbors and serve our country and he worked tirelessly to do so. but, tragically, harvey's service to his country was cut short. last summer efs out at one of his favorite -- he was out at one of his favorite fishing spots with his family. he loved fishing. it was a family tradition and harvey wanted to pass along his love for this pasttime to his sons. but shortly after he and his family members cast their lines into the water on that sunday afternoon, he was ambushed by two men who tried to rob him. and the encounter turned heartbreakingly violent. harvharvey's lifelong commitmeno

protecting those around him -- something he seemed born to do -- kicked in instantly. as harvey and his father and eventually his mother tried to fend off the attackers, tragically javier "harvey" vega jr. was killed and his father, javier sr. was shot in the hip and still suffers from the wounds inflicted that afternoon. this was just supposed to be another normal weekend fishing with the family. madam president, the senate's not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. cornyn: but as i said, this normal weekend or what was supposed to be a normal weekend fishing with javier and his family instead turned deadly. who were the killers? madam president, the senate's still not in order.

the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. cornyn: who were the killers? well, they were two illegal immigrant criminals who had repeatedly violated our laws. and by that i don't mean just by entering the country without the appropriate visa. both had been he deported multiple times but managed to repeatedly find their way back into the country, even after committing a long list of crimes. in fact, according to some witnesses, these two men had been terrorizing the community for months, committing armed robberies and carjackings. and clearly they were capable of attacking and killing a hardworking father on a fishing trip with his family. now, this is a difficult topic to some because some people would like to mischaracterize what we're trying to do with this legislation as being somehow anti-immigrant. but, indeed, legal immigrants

and people who live in the communities along south texas, many of whom's family had come over the years from mexico and elsewhere, they recognize how much people who illegally enter the country, commit multiple crimes can terrorize local communities and victimize the very people that those who block this legislation say they want protect. -- they want to protect. i don't raise this issue or this story lightly but the country should know that the family of javier vega jr., that for them this is reality. illegal immigrant criminals, including those deported multiple times, attacking them, killing their son, their father, their brother and their friend. and their lives will never be the same. so when a number of our colleagues voted to block our

ability to even consider this important legislation that seeks to merely enforce existing federal law and to defund those jurisdictions who defy federal law, this is the consequence of doing nothing. people like javier vega jr. being victimized and victimize more people and more communities and kill people like javier vega jr. so for the vega family, their lives will never be the same, and i know they don't want other families in texas or elsewhere around the country to have to suffer like they have. it doesn't seem like a lot to ask that our federal laws be

enforced to protect our communities from criminals. that's all the legislation attempted to do. and yet there was a concerted effort across the aisle to filibuster the bill and prevent us from even considering this legislation along with any suggestions our colleagues might have for improving it. the goal o bill, the stop sanctuary policies and protect americans act, is not to keep legal immigrants from entering the united states or to disparage law-abiding immigrants. even the victim's mother, marie, someone with justifiable personal anger, noted that this tragedy does not mean that her family is against immigration. far from it. this legislation is narrowly targeted to address the root cause of tragedies like the one that i've been talking about, by targeting criminal illegal immigrants who've repeatedly

ignored the rule of law and who live with virtual impunity in our country and victimize people like the vega family. we can't in good faith address immigration reform until the american people see us doing more to enforce our existing laws. now, i've been here for awhile and i've heard the arguments across the aisle that our colleagues would say, well, the only thing we need to do to fix problems like the vega family experienced and otherwise, is to pass comprehensive immigration reform. but the american people simply don't have confidence enough in us. if we're unwilling to take the necessary steps to see that the laws on the books are already enforced, the very laws that would protect people like javier vega and his family. so we've got a lot of work to do to regain the public's confidence before we can do other things that i believe we need to do to fix our broken immigration system.

it is imperative, it's our responsibility, it's something we've referred to in our oath that we will uphold and defend the laws and constitution of the united states. it's our responsibility to make sure that local governments comply with federal laws and do not prevent the department of homeland security from doing its job and enforcing them. america's law enforcement community, including heroes like harvey, put their lives on the line every day to protect our citizens. they work tirelessly to try to protect our safety. and i hope our colleagues will come to their senses and stand up for those who provide for our public safety and not contribute to a situation where other families like the vega family will lose a loved one to the sort of career criminals that i

was referring to earlier that killed javier vega jr. i've recently joined with congressman filo manvuella, to send a letter to the commissioner of the u.s. customs and border can troll, that they reclassify javier jr.'s desk as a line. duty fatality. everybody in law enforcement knows that you're never truly off duty and javier's brave actions that fateful day back in 2014 should be classified as a death occurring in the line of duty. just like every other law enforcement officer. i look forward to hearing back from the commissioner on this soon and i'm thankful to paul perez, president of the national border patrol council in kingsville and to the rio grande valley union of the national border patrol council for helping the vega family highlight this issue. we have an opportunity, madam president, no, we have a

duty to help our brave men and women in law enforcement do their job by passing this legislation. and to regain some of the lost confidence that the american people used to have in our ability to actually do our job and to keep illegal immigrant criminals and repeat offenders off our streets. in issue is not going away. there are countless other stories in texas and across the country, like the story of kate steinle out in san francisco who tragically was murdered by the same sort of repeat illegal immigrant criminal that killed harvey vega. so there are a lot more stories to tell, a lot more stories that i hope we will tell in the coming days. it is our duty as members of congress to put a stop to this, and i pledge to keep fighting on behalf of the vega family for

legislation that will do just that. madam president, before i yield the floor to the senator from virginia, i would -- i have five unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. this has been approved by the majority and minority leaders. i'd ask consent that these requests be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: i yield the floor. mr. kaine: madam president, i rise to introduce a bill called the pro-prescribing saves lives act. all across the nation we're seeing the scourge of prescription drug abuse and a heroin epidemic. these oweddoi opioids are havinr impact from the coal mines to

rural communities to right here in fairfax county. i have heard and i think my colleagues here have heard stories from parents who bury children, from companies that can't find employees who can pass drug tests, and certainly from law enforcement officials -- judges, prosecutors, police officials, ar sheriffs -- who tk about the dramatic expansion of opioid addiction in this country. the numbers are shocking. when i came to the senate and started doing tours in the spring of 2013, i really wasn't kind of schooled about this and i started to hear stories. heroin and i.p.o.oid opioids acr 25,000 deaths. in virginia and much of the united states, the deaths from opioid overdoses are now excee exceeding deaths from motor vehicle accidents. according to the centers for disease control, in the u.s.

fatal opioid-related drug overdose rates have quadrupled since 1990 and have never been higher than they are right now. so the question is, how do we address this crisis? and, obviously, the answer is -- there's no single answer. there are a lot of things that have to be done. federal government, state and local communities, individuals indicating themselves -- there are a lot of answers. but we've got to move forward on steps that we know can reduce overdose deaths. there is some good news. there are advances that can help us do this, and one of the advances has been the development of a drug called naloxone, a medicine safe and effective as an antidote to all opioid-related overdoses including heroin, prescription opioids and fient phentanel.

one of the neat things about naloxone is if you come across somebody who is in respiratory failure -- and it could be from an overdose or some other reason -- you could administer naloxone to that individual and if it is not an overdose, it doesn't have any negative side effects. it can bring somebody back from the overdose, but it doesn't have negative side effects if it turns out the person is suffering from something else. in virginia there's an organization called project re-vive that trains people to administer naloxone, and in one of our communities in russell county, i took the training with a lot of family members and others -- just two-hour training to learn how to do this. since naloxone has come into common usage beginning in the late 1990's, it has saved more than 26,000 people who have been in the throes of an overdose.

naloxone has brought them back to life. i think a lot of public safety officials, health care officials have seen how effective it is. so the answer -- one answer to our overdose problem is to co-prescribe naloxone. when somebody is getting a prescription for an opioid -- and opioids have legitimate uses phusesto manage pain -- to co-prescribe naloxone in case of an overdose. there are people who are using drugs inappropriately and grabbing somebody else's prescription. but there are also overdoses, quite a few happen with people who are legitimately prescribed the drug and they're usually prescribed it for pain. they develop a tolerance for the drug. the package may say take one

every three hours. er you can start to take too many because of pain symptoms. you get into an overdose situation for that reason, too. but if you have naloxone prescribed, you can have it right there if you get into an overdose situation. many of these communities, states and national organizations and medical organizations havessociated co-prescribing naloxone to patientepatients taking i.p.o. . not everyone who gets an opioid prescription needs a naloxone prescription. my wife got prescribed a powerful opioid prescription. she got sick from it and stopped

using it. the medical profession has developed warning signs. if you have these signs, you should get the co-prescription. developing these guidelines helps physicians and pharmacists determine who is at risk. what this bill does is, it improves access to naloxone to co-prescribe this lifesaving drug along opioid prescriptions and making it more widely available in federal health settings. the act would require that the secretaries of health and human services, defense, and veterans affairs would establish physician education co-prescribing guidelines for all federal health settings, including v.a. hospitals, d.o.d. hospitals, the indian health service, and federally qualified health centers. so within federal health care

facilities, if there is going to be an opioid prescription, there wassen a mandate that naloxone would be prescribed as well. the v.a. has been a real leader in setting up these co-prescription guidelines. in addition, the bill would provide a program of grants through state departments of health that are interested in doing the co-prescribing guidelines fo for for private physicians, not in federal settings. the act would provide co-pay assistance for uninsured patiences, to fund training for health professionals. grant funding could also support state innovation and.for community outreach. the kind of program where i trained last summer is just a community program trying to battle overdose deaths in the coalfields of apa l appalachia.

in closing, this just one solution. obviously the real solution sol, the important ones are still around prevention. why do americans get prescribed so many opioids than folks in other nations? what do you do with prescriptions where the quantity given is too big? there are a lot of issues that we have to solve. but there is this bit of good news, that naloxone saves lives and if -- it's easy to administer, it doesn't have a negative side effect and if we can broaden access to naloxone to those who have been prescribed opioids, we can save a lot more lives. i'll just conclude by saying that there's a dad in northern virginia, don flattery, who has been very public about the loss of his son kevin who was a 26-year-old graduate of u.v.a.

in 20146789 h 2014. he talked about his son son, the advantages he had, but then he fell into the bottomless pit of opioid -- prescription opioid addiction and he perished in 2014. what don said is, "i feel we need to keep personalizing. we're talking about my son, your daughter, our neighbors. they're real people, real lives and their losses are the face of the epidemic we must stop." that's what this bill intends to play a part in. with that, madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. coats: madam president, i ask that the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: we are not in a quorum call. mr. coats: i thaipg the president. i would like to speak -- do i have a limitation on speaking time? the presiding officer: there is no limitation. mr. coats: i thank the president. madam president, this is my annual -- not annual, weekly "waste of the week." it is time for another one. let me just say upfront, this involves department of defense spending. now, i am a strong advocate -- i am an army veteran, served on the senate armed services committee for nearly two terms. i am a strong advocate of a

strong national defense, but it doesn't mean we give a blank check to the department of defense. it means that we have to scrutinize their expenditures and their engagement in spending taxpayers' dollars, just as carefully as we scrutinize every other agency. everybody is involved here in terms of finding the best and most effective way of using taxpayer dollars, hopefully without going into debt to do so and hopefully directed to those issues of priority and necessity that we have to fund here. and the department of defense, of course, is one of those. but it doesn't, as i said, mean they get a blank check. i'm disappointed -- deeply disappointed -- that my democrat friends across the aisle here have tenned us the opportunity to take -- denied us the opportunity to take up the defense authorization bill where we would have the too unts to save money for essential necessary efforts in spending by department of defense. clearly every agency has to do

some triage here if we're going to ever get control of our out-of-control budget. and our out-of-control plunge into deficit spending year after year after year and into debt ever-growing. just heard today that there were now $18.5 trillion of debt that's going to come back to haunt us and future generations. so the triage involves defining what is essential. is this an essential expenditure that only the federal government can do? and defense spending falls that category. we can't -- that's something we can't leave to the states. secondly, there's a whole bunch of things that we would like to do, may be necessary to do but not urgently or a priority or essential when we have the money to do it. and then there's a third category, and the third category is why in the world are we doing that in the first place? how can we define those items that are not necessary, take those