quorum call:

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today to discuss more of

the troubling news that has come out about how the health care law has affected the people of this country. a new poll just came out from national public radio as well as the robert wood johnson foundation. this is what they found. according to the poll, 26% of americans are telling us that the health care law, obamacare, has directly hurt them. 26% of americans say the obamacare, the health care law, has directly hurt them. only 14% of the people in the poll said the health care law has gotten their health, personal health care has gotten better under obamacare. one in seven say it's better. over a quarter say they have personally been hurt. almost twice as many people have been directly hurt by the law compared to the people who have been helped. american taxpayers are also being hurt by obamacare because of the waste and the fraud in the health care system.

there's a new report just out from the government accountability office. it came out last week. it found that the obama administration is still failing to stop the fraud in health care subsidies. now here's how the law was designed to work. people must have government-approved insurance because of the law. it's a mandate. there are a lot of people who have been forced to buy very expensive insurance to comply with the law, and in many cases it's far more coverage than they want, they need or can afford. so the health care law that the democrats voted for, that the republicans voted against, said that the government will give subsidies to people to help them pay for this washington-mandated , expensive insurance. to get the subsidy, people are supposed to be able to prove that they're eligible for the subsidy. and there are various criteria to make sure that you're eligible. that means things like proving that they make a certain income, how many people are in their

family or that they are a citizen of the united states or that they are here legally. so washington then pays the subsidy directly to the insurance company, and then later the government comes around and tries to figure out if the person even qualified for the money. so there's a huge potential for fraud and for wasting taxpayer dollars. this new report from the government accountability office found that despite the billions of dollars at stake, the obama administration has taken what they describe as a passive approach to identifying and preventing the fraud. the obama administration has taken a passive approach. it says that the obama administration has struggled, struggled to confirm the eligibility of millions of people who applied for subsidies this is a report from the government accountability office. we want accountability in government. the report found that there are 431,000 people who still had

unresolved issues with the subsidy paperwork more than a year after they first applied. the cases amount to over $1.7 billion in taxpayer subsidies. the insurance company, the insurance coverage these people had for that year already ended. the obama administration still didn't nope if they should have gotten the money sent out to the insurance companies on their behalf. there are another 22,000 cases where it still isn't clear if the person who got the subsidy is serving time in prison. how can washington not even know if someone is in prison? this should be one of the easiest things to find out. but there are millions of cases where the administration is taking this passive approach to figuring out if there is fraud occurring with these subsidies. people all around the country are asking where is the accountability from the obama administration.

they're spending billions of taxpayer dollars. where's the accountability to make sure it's being spent properly and not wasted? there is no accountability because the obama administration doesn't seem to care about protecting taxpayer money. it cares more about getting a large number of people enrolled in insurance. that's what they want. no matter what the law says, no matter how much money they waste to do it. now this report from the government accountability office came out last wednesday. and the very next day there was more bad news for taxpayers because of the health care law. there was an article in the "wall street journal" thursday, february 25, under the headline "insurance fight escalates." it goes on to say "health co-op leaders say the effort to recoup federal loans will come up short ." this is taxpayer money. remember the health care law gave out billions of dollars,

billions of dollars in loans to set up these health care, health insurance co-ops across the country. they set up 23. already more than half of them have collapsed and have gone out of business. 12 out of 23 have gone bust. 700,000 americans lost their insurance because these co-ops failed. and now it looks like hardworking taxpayers are going to lose the money that the government loaned to these failed insurance businesses. according to this "wall street journal" article, "leaders of the co-op say that taxpayers are going to lose more than $1 billion of the failed co-ops." they say it's because most of the money has already been spent. the article quotes the head of the co-op in new mexico saying "will there be any money left? yeah, maybe." that's what he said. that's his answer. yeah, maybe. maybe there will be a little money left out of more than $1 billion in taxpayer loans.

it's outrageous. it wasn't supposed to be a bailout of the insurance company. these were supposed to be loans. is that how the administration thinks that loans are supposed to work? does the obama administration think if they lend out money, people borrow it from the taxpayers and spend it and they don't have to pay it back? where is the accountability from those co-ops for the american people? where is the accountability for the obama administration to make sure that they loan this money responsibly and didn't waste it? reports like this paint a very bad picture of health care and the health care law in this country. and then just yesterday, we talked about these co-ops, 23 co-ops, half of them have failed. this is headline yesterday. losses deepen for the remaining obamacare co-ops. it says losses snowballed in the fourth quarter of four co-op plans have now reported their numbers for 2015. the article says the nonprofit start-ups based in illinois,

wisconsin, ohio and maine lost about $2,770,000,000 last year. that's more than five times the level of losses the plans reported in 2014. that was the first year they operated. they are still waiting for the updated financial reports on the other seven remaining co-ops who have not yet posted their returns. so here we are. six years ago, there was a debate in congress about the americans' health care system. everyone in this body agreed that we had a problem. everybody agreed we needed to do something to help americans. republicans presented our ideas on the floor of the senate. we went to meetings at the white house. we offered president obama solutions. democrats and the president rejected our ideas, and they came up with their own massive plan. washington took on too much power over the health care decision of american families. more washington control, less

washington accountability. they're never the right answers for our country. if washington can't protect taxpayer dollars, it shouldn't be collecting so many of these dollars in the first place. republicans warned that obamacare would be bad for patients, bad for providers and terrible for the taxpayers, and the news keeps coming out, showing that we were exactly right. so republicans are going to continue to talk about our health care ideas, will continue to talk about ideas that will actually hold washington accountable as washington spends taxpayer dollars. we'll continue to talk about ideas like giving families more control over their health care and their health care decisions and giving washington less control. that's what americans want. this new report out from the national public radio best poll showed 26% of americans say in the health care law, obamacare, has directly hurt them. directly hurt them. they don't want -- they didn't want this kind of health care

reform that directly hurts them. instead of helping them. they wanted to be helped. they don't want an approach like we have. they want an approach that gives them control and certainly not a passive approach to preventing fraud. the american people do not want obamacare. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i'd like to call up amendment 3345, which is my supplemental amendment to address the heroin and opioid epidemic. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from new hampshire, mrs. shaheen, proposes amendment numbered 3345 to amendment numbered 3378. mrs. shaheen: i'd like unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i'm not going to speak to this amendment right now because i hope to do it later, and i spent

a fair amount of time yesterday talking about the need to provide the resources to address the heroin and opioid epidemic, but i am very pleased to see my colleague from maine on the floor to speak to it who has been a cosponsor of the legislation and a huge advocate for addressing the challenge that maine, like new hampshire and so many other states are facing from the heroin and opioid epidemic, so i look forward to his remarks and to the opportunity for us to vote on this amendment later today. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: mr. president, this week this body is talking about one of the most serious problems facing our country. the word epidemic really isn't strong enough to represent what we are seeing in terms of drug

addiction, opioids and heroin in particular. the bipartisan support for the bill that's on the floor this week is an indication of the belief of members of both parties, of all parties, of all parts of the country, that this is a critically important question. we've heard in committees and caucuses and on the floor the appalling figures. in just the state of maine, 200 deaths a year from overdoses, an eightfold increase in the last three years, the figure that got my attention most dramatically was that in maine a year ago we had 12,000 babies born, and of that number, over 950 were addicted to a substance.

that's almost one in 12 babies born in my state. nationally, the figures are just as shocking and just as bad. in my neighboring state of new hampshire, the number of overdose deaths is now over 380 a year. more than one a day. nationally, 47,000 overdose deaths. 47,000. more deaths than are caused by automobiles. think, mr. president, if this were ebola or isis or any other kind of national crisis, we would be in 24-hour session to find a solution. we would be doing everything the equivalent of the manhattan project to deal with something that's killing so many of our

citizens, particularly our young people. like any other problem that gets to this body, this is complicated. there isn't any single solution. it involves law enforcement. it involves national security, stopping drugs at the border. it involves treatment of mental illness. it involves treatment of drug addiction and figuring out what works. it involves figuring out prevention. it involves dealing with the -- i believe the overwhelming number of opioid prescription drugs that we now know lead to heroin and other addiction so that it is a very complex problem. there is no single answer. but there are some things we do know about this problem. number one, law enforcement alone isn't enough.

we essentially have tried that for 25 years. law enforcement alone isn't enough. it's important. it's a critical part of our defense against this scourge but it is not the entire answer. the second thing we know is that this epidemic is directly related to the rise, the dramatic rise of prescription pain killers based upon opioids. the data is that four out of five new heroin users started with prescription drugs. this is something that we need to discuss, we need to discuss with the medical community, we need to discuss with the medical education community and we need to understand when these drugs are prescribed, there are risks, serious, undeniable, dangerous risks that are taking an enormous toll on our society.

four out of five new heroin users started with prescription drugs. i met a young man in maine who was in treatment, who was trying to recover, who had become an addict, and he got there starting with a high school sports injury, and he was prescribed opioid treatment, opioid pills, and he ended up in the drug culture that was destroying his life. so that's the second thing that we know. we know that law enforcement isn't enough. we know that a big part of our focus has to be on opioids and prescription drugs. the third thing we know is there are some treatments that appear to work, appear to work. we don't know for sure. and one of the things that i think we need to do in this body is to provide for the research and the data sharing and the data collection from around the

country so we can find out what works. it appears that medication based counseling together are something that works. but we need more research and more data. number four of things we know, treatment resources are grossly inadequate. this epidemic has exploded in the last few years, but the resources in terms of treatment have in some cases actually diminished. there are fewer beds today than there were three years ago because of budget cuts, because of policy changes, and we end up with young people and people generally that have this terrible problem eating up their lives with no place to go. the greatest tragedy is when we have someone who is suffering from addiction who wants treatment and is ready to take the step and say i need it, and

there is no place to go. the estimates are that among teenagers that are caught in this trap, only 20%, only 20% have treatment available to them. but all these numbers and statistics and policy prescriptions aren't really my subject today. i don't want to talk about politics or even policy. i want to talk about people. and in particular, i want to talk about this little boy. this picture is of a young man from maine named garrett brown, and there was an extraordinary story in the "bangor daily news" earlier this week -- or actually late last week about garrett where a reporter and editor at the "bangor daily news," one of our great newspapers, aaron

rhoda, got to know this young man garrett brown and spent a lot of time interacting with him over the last three years and recounted it in this extraordinary piece of journalism. and it's the story of this young man's attempts to survive and what happened in his life. this isn't politics, it isn't policy. it's people. in reading this story -- and i sat in my darkened office late last week as my staff went home. they thought there was something wrong with me. the lights were dimming, the sun was setting, and i read this story, and it was like reading the story of the titanic or of the lincoln assassination. you knew how it was going to come out, but you hoped it

wouldn't happen. and you kept seeing moments when it could have been avoided, the tragic end could have been avoided, but it didn't happen. and that was what was so gripping to me about this story. it was so real and it was so close to home. i would venture to say i've got four boys of my own. every family in america that has a son has this picture or a picture just like it somewhere in their family scrapbooks or stored on their telephone or in their computer. this is -- this is a wonderful maine kid, smiling, 8 years old, happy, with his backpack, ready to go to school. then about 15 years later, he's

with his mom and he is on his way out. he had a mom who loved him, but he had a system who failed him. he took responsibility, by the way. he said -- "it's not that my mom or my step dad didn't care. they tried. my grandparents in michigan, they tried everything they coul. there was nothing they could have done to change it." he took responsibility, but when he took responsibility, we didn't provide the means for him to effectuate that and save his own life. he had to want to beat it, but he also had to have the means, the resources to take that step. the bangor news i think quite adequately laid out the issue.

"opioid addiction like garrett's requires treatment." requires treatment. we have this idea in our society that people can -- it's just a choice, you make a choice, you don't have to take that pill. well, the way these drugs work on your brain, they hijack the very parts of your brain that enable you to make that decision. they actually go to the parts of the brain that deal with executive function decision making and fear, and they derail those parts. it requires treatment. very rarely, occasionally i'm sure there are people who can do this by themselves, but very rarely. it requires treatment, but the odds are that people with an addiction to drugs or alcohol won't get any treatment at all. as i mentioned, only one out of five teenagers who needs treatment has it available. if they do, they're likely to get the wrong treatment. there are lots of worlds of different theories of treatment, and that's why i say we need to have the research so we understand what works and we put

our workforces into the things that -- put our resources into the things that bring results. often it means they die. and that's what happened to young garrett. between 2010-2014, the number of overdose deaths in maine involving heroin increased eightfold. this is maine. and this could be any state in the country. it seems to be striking rural states now as strongly or even worse than urban areas of the country. i didn't know garrett brown, but he was a brave kid. i could tell it by his conversations with aaron roda, by his conversations with us. he knew he was talking to us. he knew this was going to be

public. he knew that he was communicating, and here's what he said: "if this changes one kid's life, saves one kid from being in jail, saves his family the pain of seeing him go through this," this is a guy in addiction saying this. it's extraordinary. if it saves one kid from overdosing and dying, then all that i have done hasn't been in vain. i guess that's why i keep doing this with you, he said to the reporter. mr. president, this is a tragedy. it's not a tragedy of numbers. it's a tragedy of real people. it's a tragedy of young lives lost, of treasures squandered and of hearts broken. i have never in my adult life seen a problem like this that's facing my state and every state in this country. we can't solve it all at once. there's no magic wand.

but if we find young people like garrett that are ready to take a step toward cure, if not cure at least ongoing recovery, we need to meet them halfway. we need to meet them halfway by the support of treatment, by the support of creating options that are available, by understanding the relationship between addiction and the criminal justice system and ultimately by loving our neighbors as ourselves. people sometimes ask me what's so special about maine. and i tell them maine is a small town with very long streets, but it's a small town where we know each other and we care about each other, we think about each other, and we try to help each

other. and i think this country can also be a community, should be a community where we think about and care about each other. young lives lost, treasure squandered and hearts broken. i hope that we can start this week to change that tragic trajectory that's breaking so many hearts in this country, and we can make a difference not for garrett, but for the young people to whom he was debt ceiling -- to whom he was desperately sending this message. we can, we should, and we shall. thank you, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would ask consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i rise to speak about a very important day in the history of my state, texas. a day that inspires pride and gratitude in the hearts of all texans. i rise to commemorate texas

independence day. i want to read a letter that was written 1280 years ago from behind the walls of an old spanish mission called the alamo, a letter written by a 26-year-old lieutenant colonel in the texas army, william barrett travis. and in doing so, i carry on a tradition that was started by the late senator john to youer who represented texas in this body for more than two decades. this tradition was upheld by his successor, senator phil gramm. it's an honor to carry on this great tradition. on february 24, 1836 with his position under siege and outnumbered nearly 10-1 by the forces of the mexican dictator antonio lopez de santa ana, travis penned the following letter, and i quote -- "to the

people of texas and all americans around the world, fellow citizens and compatriots, i am beseenld by a thousand or more of the mexicans under santa ana. i sustained a continual bombardment and con noneade for 24 hours and have not lost a man. the garrison are to be put to the sword if the forth is taken. i have answered the demand with a cannon shot and our flag still waves proudly from the walls. i shall never surrender or retreat. them i call on you in the name of liberty, of patriotism and everything dear to the american character to come to our aid with all dispatch. the enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to 3,000 or 4,000 in four or five days. if this call is neglected, i'm

determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor and that of his country. victory or death. signed by william barret travis. of course we know in the battle that ensued, all 189 defenders of the alamo lost their lives, but they did not die in vain. the battle of the alamo bought precious time for the texas revolutionaries under general sam houston to maneuver his army into a position for a decisive victory at the battle of san jacento. with this be victory, texas became a sovereign nation and so today we celebrate the adoption of the texas declaration of independence on march 2, 1836. for nine years, texas -- the

republic of texas thrived as a separate nation, and then in 1845 it was annexed to the united states as the 28th state. many texas patriots who fought in the revolution went on to serve in the united states congress, and i'm honored to hold the seat of one of them, sam houston. more broadly, i'm honored to have the opportunity to serve 27 million texans, thanks to the survives made by these brave men 180 years ago. mr. president, on a separate matter, one thing that william barret travis and the other early settlers of texas had in common was a thirst for adventure and a hunger for the great next frontier. it's an attitude of optimistic perseverance that has become a trademark of texans for

generations, so i think it's fitting today that we also celebrate a man who has devoted his life to expanding our footprint in space. last night, scott kelly returned to earth after almost a year in space, one of the longest lasting space flights of all time. by tomorrow, scott should be back in houston, home to the johnson space center. in june, i was able to tour the johnson space center and meet some of the men and women who made scott kelly's mission possible. they make their work look easy. they literally have a hand in sending someone to space, ensuring their safety and executing multiple projects all at the same time, and yet for them it's all in a day's work. they're doing a really outstanding job, not only for houston but for texas and the united states, so as you might expect, texans view the space

center with a particular pride. the world has turned to it as a leader in space exploration and research for more than 50 years, and as one of nasa's largest research centers, it continues to keep the united states at the forefront of innovation and research related to science, technology, engineering and medicine as well. and importantly, the johnson space center also leaves our commercial space partnerships, a growing sector in our state, and helps design and test the next generation of exploration capabilities and systems. the space center also trains members of our brave astronaut corps, people like scott kelly, to ensure they're prepared for the incredible challenges that they face. but a real highlight of my most recent visit to the johnson space center was my ability to

actually speak to scott kelly while he was in space in the international space station. as you could tell from his social media presence -- and i follow him on twitter. he publishes pictures of his incredible view from space on his twitter feed -- he's a pretty optimistic guy, and it's easy to see that he loves his job. but i'm sure he's looking forward to being back home. but scott's mission aboard the international space station was about something much bigger than just him, i'm sure he would say if he were here. it was about an investment in the next generation and a commitment to new discoveries and exploring new frontiers. the research he was a part of, including studies to evaluate the effects of living in space on the human body -- scott is actually a twin, so his twin brother was here on earth while he was in space for a year, and

i'm sure there will be a lot of extensive studies, given the fact they are twins, on what changes that scott experienced in his own metabolism, body and the like. but they also grew plants in zero gravity in space and much more which will lay the groundwork for preparing future americans to go further and explore more places and to push the outer limits of human space exploration safely without endangering their health and well-being. the work that scott kelly accomplished, along with all of the men and women at the johnson space center and with nasa, is so important because it secures america's position as the global leader in space exploration. and just as importantly, this research and development impacts more than our space program. it has applications in the medical field for our military and other scientific endeavors.

and i remember growing up that when we landed the first astronaut on the moon and what an inspiration it was to me as a young person, and i think that space exploration has a way of opening the eyes and the imaginations of young people even today about the future, a future perhaps in space exploration or in some other field of science. lured as they are to work in the forefront of discovery or help engineer the next great innovation. but developments like this don't occur automatically, and they don't occur overnight. we have to task our space program with taking on new challenges to reap the full benefits of technological breakthroughs and scientific advancement, and that's why we need a long-term strategy for the u.s. manned space mission.

so today i've introduced legislation called the manifest for human space flight act that would require nasa to provide congress with a clear and thoughtful strategy, as well as a goal that that strategy would serve. this would include outlining our exploration goals and selecting destinations for future manned space missions that fully utilize our existing assets, provide opportunities to work with commercial and international partners and position our overall space program on a more focused and stable trajectory. this legislation would also for the first time designate a human presence on mars as a long-term goal of nasa. i know matt damon was perhaps an american on mars in the great movie "the martian" but actually

establishing a human presence on mars i believe would be a worthy goal that would then necessitate the creation of a strategy in order to accomplish that goal. with this bill, i hope we can rightly prioritize space exploration and affirm our commitment to discovering the next great frontier. mr. president, i yield the floor. i note the -- okay. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, whriel the distinguished senior senator from texas is still on the floor, he mentioned an astronaut and his year in space. as one who has a hobby of photography, i was in as i looked at all those. i'm sure, mr. president, the distinguished senator from texas had the same feeling that i had

seeing -- seeing these photographs and seeing what an amazing country we are at all times of day or night and seasons. so i thank him for raising that issue. mr. president, this week we're considering the comprehensive addiction and recovery act, or as they call it cara. a few problems in this country that have had more of a devastating impact on american families than opioid abuse. communities across the country are struggling. they are seeking help. my little state of vermont is no exception. i found this as i have held hearings around the state. and finally after years of a misguided approach, congress now sees addiction for what it is. it's a public health crisis.

we have before us a bipartisan bill, and we're concerned this will demonstrate strong bipartisan support for addressing addiction by senators. cara authorizes a critical public health program that i helped create to expand access to medication-assisted treatment programs. some vermonters have been struggling with addiction have had to wait nearly a year to receive treatment. in fact, several have died while waiting. unfortunately, that story is not unique. my bill also -- the bill also includes my provision to support rural communities with the overdose reversal drug naloxone. rural locations have the highest death rates in the country from opioid poisoning.

we're talking about my small state of vermont, but every state, no matter how large or how small, has rural areas. i just want people to know that rural locations have the highest death rate. now, if we can get naloxone into more hands, we could save lives. last week the police in burlington, vermont, they were equipped with naloxone and were able to save a man's life with this impactful treatment. in fact, the man was unconscious. they saved his life and the police chief called it a textbook indication of how police save lives using naloxone. cara recognizes that law enforcement will always play a vital role. that's why my work included an authorization for funding to expand state-led antiheroin task

force. these are important efforts, but i can't emphasize that one authorization bill alone is not going to pull our communities out of addiction, not the communities in my state, the distinguished presiding officer's state or anybody else. we can't pretend that solving a problem as large as opioid addiction does not require more resources. that's why the amendment proposed by senator shaheen is so essential. it puts really dollars behind the rhetoric. it's going to ensure the important programs authorizing cara can actually succeed. we can all feel good about going on record saying we're against the problem -- that we want to solve the problems of opioid addiction, but if we say we're not going to give you any money to do it, it sounds more like empty rhetoric. congress has approved much larger emergency supplemental bills addressing ebola and swine flu and even though we didn't

have a single ebola case in this country, we had emergency supplemental bills addressing it but we have thousands of opioid addiction cases in the country. these efforts were appropriated both for ebola and the swine flu. but now we have a public health crisis. it's here in our own country, and we must respond. of course we've responded to kwreplds in other -- epidemics in other countries but this is an epidemic here at home. everybody agrees opioid addiction is an epidemic. we should start treating it like one. the shaheen amendment provides that commitment. i urge every member who supports cara and has a strong bipartisan group in this body, remember who's concerned about addiction in their communities. i have to assume that includes every senator. to put real resources behind

cara. i would say, mr. president, i think at the different hearings -- i think of the different hearings i've held around our state. in one city that some had suggested maybe we shouldn't have a hearing there because we shouldn't talk about what's going on, the mayor of that city took just the opposite. he said we have a problem and see what we can do about it. and he was happy i was coming there. he's a republican, i'm a democrat. we both said there's no politics, no -- you know what happened? we set that hearing and figured we could use a hall of such and such a size. as the hearing kept coming, we needed a bigger hall because more and more people wanted to come and we found we had the faith community, law enforcement, the medical profession, mothers and fathers

and addicts, educators, all these people came together and said we have a problem. we need the resources to work together. law enforcement can't do it alone. the medical profession can't do it alone. faith community can't do it alone. educators can't do it alone. families can't -- together with the resources we might be able to do something. and i thought of another hearing i held that again the very same thing in a small town. we had to keep enlarging the place where they were going to meet. and i recall several people testified but one was a now retired but highly respected decorated pediatrician. and he tells about talking to a couple. he didn't identify them for obvious reasons. but he said, you know, we have

this opioid problem here in our city. we have young teenagers who come from very good families, families that are well educated, good income, nice home, but these teenagers are addicts and they're getting this right from the home medical cabinet. and in this hall with hundreds of people, you could hear a pin drop. he paused for a moment and he said that parents -- they say this is something we should watch out for. he said no, i'm talking about your daughter, your 14-year-old daughter is an addict. i'm talking about her. there are a lot of others in

this community but i'm talking about her. mr. president, this day i can hear the collective gasp in that room. and i later had an opportunity to meet the parents and the daughter and the things they were doing. now, they had the ability to the extent that there were things available to pay for it, most people couldn't. yes, pass cara but also acknowledge we've got this problem in every single state in the union, across every demographic, every income level, every area of education. let's pass the appropriations so we're not just giving empty words. we're not just addressing a terrible problem with empty words, but the united states senate is saying we'll stand up for a problem in our own country

as we have in other -- when we've helped other countries. let's stand up to a serious problem right here at home, and we have the courage to spend the money to do it. mr. president, i will yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. a senator: mr. president, i appreciate the distinguished ranking member of the judiciary committee for yielding at this time. mr. menendez: i agree with him on the issue of the legislation before us, but i felt compelled to come to the floor to speak about the vacancy in the united states supreme court. and i rise to support this president's obligation, any president's obligation to name a supreme court nominee to fill a vacancy no matter when that

vacancy occurs election year or not. we should rightfully expect any president to fulfill his or her constitutional duty and send an eminently qualified nominee to the senate. all logic, all reason and the constitution itself dictates that every president has the duty to do so under any interpretation of constitutional law. and likewise we should rightfully expect the senate to do its job and send that name to the judiciary committee, hold a hearing, debate the nomination on the floor, and take a vote. mr. president, we are not talking about a vague clause that invites interpretation. we're talking about a very clear and concise clause, article 2, section 2, clause 2 that states the president shall -- shall

nominate and by and with advice and consent of the senate shall appoint judges of the supreme court. it does not say except in an election year. it does not say except when it does not suit the political agenda of the majority party in the senate. it does not say no appointments can be made in the final year of a president's term. and it does not say the senate can arbitrarily and preemstill choose to obstruct the president's responsibility to make appointments. the point is the constitution is clear. in fact, in the last hundred years, the senate has taken action on every supreme court nominee regardless of whether the nomination was made in a presidential election year. but this goes far beyond the filling of a supreme court vacancy. this goes to the very heart of the constant and continuous attacks this president has had

to endure. for more than seven years, some republicans have time and time again questioned the legitimacy of this president, from his election beginning with the legitimacy of his birth setter cat to accusing the -- certificate to accusing the president of lawlessness, to questioning when its legitimate authority in his final year in office to fill the vacancy left by the death of justice scalia. it begs the question of why this president is being denied the opportunity to fulfill his constitutional obligation. why are constitutional standards backed by history and precedent being questioned for this president's supreme court nominee? if we were to rely on pure logic and simple consistency, the question to ask is would our friends on the other side deny a president of their own party the right to make that appointment?

i think not. the only conclusion we can draw is that this is yet another validation of their strategic decisions. seven years ago at a republican retreat to make barack obama a one-term president and obstruct this president at every term and then claim political victory for their own misguided inaction and refusal to govern. what is most astonishing is that they claim, like justice scalia, that the constitution is carved in stone, that it is undeniable and imper vows to interpretation and yet somehow they can completely ignore what it clearly states in yet another effort to obstruct this president's ability to govern. so i say to my friends on the other side, this president was elected twice to serve two full terms. it has only been seven years. it's time to accept it and move away from obstructionism and on

to governing. the president and i may have differences on certain policies, but we are in complete agreement that he should not be denied the ability to fill this vacancy on the court. democrats did not deny president reagan the ability to confirm justice kennedy in an election year, and the republicans should not deny this president the same ability under the same circumstances. we should have the decency and respect for the constitution to let the unambiguous writes dom of art 2, section 2, clause 2 determine our actions today as we did then. so let's stop the political posturing. let the president fulfill his constitutional responsibility and the senate fulfill its advice and consent role. let us fulfill one of the most basic and solemn duties we have. let's have a hearing and take a vote. the american people deserve a fully functioning supreme court. there is a bipartisan tradition

of giving full and fair consideration to supreme court nominees. even when a majority of the senate judiciary committee has not supported the nominee, the committee has still sent the nominee to the full senate for a floor vote. and it should be noted that at no time since world war ii has the court operated with fewer than nine justices because of the senate's simply refusing to consider a nominee. now, every day when i come to work, i pass the supreme court, and it says the words over the portal of the supreme court say "equal justice under law." equal justice under law. let the judicial branch be fully functional. when we have a supreme court deadlocked in a decision, the decision in the lower courts stand and the highest court in the land has no presidential value.

when there's a difference between different federal courts in our country and different jurisdictions, it's the supreme court that determines what is the law of the land so that the federal law is not different in new jersey than it is in texas. but if the court is deadlocked in two similar cases and the decision reverts to the finding of the lower court, there could be differences in how a person in new jersey is treated than a person in texas under the same federal statute. that is not -- it is not equal justice under the law. to have equal justice under law, the nation needs the supreme court to be fully functional. justice scalia himself spoke of the problems with an eight-justice court. in 2004 next plaining why he would not recuse himself in a case involving former vice president dick cheney, he said, quote, "with eight justices raises the possibility that by

reason of a tie vote, the court will find itself unable to resolve the significant legal issue presented by the case. even one unnecessary recusal impairs the functioning of the court." so i believe that in life, justice scalia has a textualist would say the president has an obligation to nominate a supreme court justice. and in 1987 before the democratic senate confirmed justice kennedy, it was president reagan who said, "every day that passes with a supreme court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body." so i ask my republican colleagues, how long are you willing to impair the people's business? how long are you willing to stick it a strategy of obstruction over good governors? hoand how long are you willing o

deny equal justice under the law? it was john adams who reminded us that this is a -- quote -- "government of laws, not of men." and it was justice felix frank furtherer who said, "if one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. that means first chaos, then tyranny, legal process is the essential part of the democratic process." mr. president, let us not in this chamber be the one man. let us respect the constitution and do our jobs. in this case, the constitution is settled law. let's not unsettle i through a misguided determination to undermine the legitimacy of this president. the american people understand that our obligation in this process is to advise and consent, not neglect and obstruct.

the american people will see the harm to our country and our courts if the majority continues these political tactics. let's do the right thing. let's do our jobs and respect this institution and the constitution by holding hearings and voting on a supreme court nominee. let's provide for equal justice under the law. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: mr. president, i think we just heard some legitimate -- the presiding officer: will the senator from new jersey withhold his request to call off the quorum. the senator from iowa, without objection. mr. grassley: i just think that we have heard some very legitimate questions by the previous speaker that ought to be answered, and i am going to

go back to the familiar to answer that, the so-called biden rules. by now everyone is pretty familiar with the biden rules, so i'm not going it take time to go over all of them again, but they boil down to a couple basic points. first, the president should exercise restraint and -- quote -- "not name a nominee until after the november election is completed" -- end of quote. or, stated differently, the president should let the people decide. but if the president chooses not to follow this model but inste instead, as chairman biden said -- quote -- "goes the way of filfillmore and johnson and pres an election-year nomination" -- end of quote -- then the senate shouldn't consider the nomination and shouldn't hold hearings.

it doesn't matter, he said, and i quote, "how good a person is nominated by the president" -- end of quote. so the historical record is pretty clear. but we haven't talked as much about one of the main reasons chairman biden was so adamant that the senate shouldn't consider a supreme court nominee during a heated presidential election. it's because of the tremendous damage such a hyper political environment would cause the court, the nominee, and the nation. in short, if the senate considered a supreme court nominee during a heated presidential election campaign, the court would become even more political than it already is. that's a big part of what was driving chairman biden in 1992

when he spoke these strong words. here's how chairman biden described the problem in an interview -- not the speech on the floor that i've quoted in the past. in an interview about a week before his famous speech of 1992, quote, "can you imagine dropping a nominee into that fight, into that caldron, in the middle of a presidential year?" question mark, end of quote. he continued -- quote again -- "i believe there would be no bounds of propriety that would be honored by either side. the environment within such a hearing would be held would be so supercharged and so prone to be able to be distorted" -- end of quote.

and, as a result, chairman biden concluded -- quote -- "whom ever the nominee was, good, bad, or indifferent, would become a victim" -- end of quote. my friend, the vice president, but a friend when he was in the senate, then considered the tremendous damage that thrusting a supreme court nominee into a frenzfrenzied political environt would cause and weighed against the potential impact of an eight-member court for a short time. he concluded that -- these are his words -- the miner minor --e concluded that the minor costs of the three or four cases that would be reargued are nothing

compared to the damage a hyper-politicized fight would have on -- quote -- "the nominee, the president, the senate, and the nation, no matter how good a person is nominated by the president." end of quote. the former chairman concluded that because of how badly such a situation would politicize the process and based on the historical record, the only reasonable and fair approach -- or, as he said, pragmatic approach -- is not considered a nominee -- or, as he said, the pragmatic approach is not to consider a nominee during a presidential election. or, let's put it in his words in a fairly long quote, "once the political season is underway,

action on a supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. that is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. otherwise, it seems to me, mr. president, we will be in deep trouble as an institution." end of quote. well, the quote is concluded this way: "senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the senate itself." end ever quote. this, in part, is why chairman biden went to such lengths to explain the history of bitter fights that occurred in presidential years. as he said, quote, "some of our nation's most bitter and heated confirmation fights have come in

presidential election years" -- end of quote. so let me just say this about the discussion that we're having today and will probably have every day for the next several months. everyone knows that this nominee isn't going to get confirmed. republicans know it. democrats know it. the president knows it. and, can you believe it, even the press knows it. that's why, for instance, "the washington post" called the president's future nominee a -- quote -- "judicial com kamikaze pilot" -- end of quote. and "the new york times" noted that the nominee would need an -- quote -- "almost suicidal willingness to become a central player in a political fight that seems likely to end in failure" -- end of quote. so the only question is, why

would the other side come to the floor to express outrage about not having a hearing? mr. president, it's because they want to make this as political as possible. the press has already picked up on it. for instance, cnn reported that the other side hopes to use the fight over a supreme court nominee to -- quote -- "energize the democratic base" -- end of quote. and they're already using the supreme court and the eventual nominee as a political weapon. they want nothing more than to make the process as political as possible. that's why the president wants to push forward with a nominee that won't get confirmed. that's why the other side is clamoring for a hearing on a nominee everyone knows won't get confirmed. and making the court even more

political is absolutely the last thing that the supreme court needs. the court has been politicized enough already. a recent gallup poll documents the frustration i hear expressed even at the grass roots of my state of iowa. in the six years since president obama has appointed two justices, the american people's disapproval of the supreme court jumped from 28% disapproval in 2009 to 50% disapproval in 2015. now, that's what happens when justices legislate from the bench. and i mute say might say, therea republican nominee to that bench -- sitting on that bench that has legislated from the bench as well. so that's what's happened when justices then make decisions based on their personal

political preferences or what's in their heart rather than what's in the constitution and the law. the last thing we need is to further politicize that process and thin the courts. so i just want to make sure everyone understands what all this outrage is really about. it's about making this process as political as possible. we aren't going to let that happen to the court, the nominee, or the nation, to follow the suggestion of then-senator biden. we're going to have a debate, a national debate, between the democrat nominee and the republican nominee about what kind of justice the american people want on the supreme court. that's what the american people deserve, and that's what we're going to let the people --

that's why we're going to let the people decide. beyond just one justice, there's even more basic debate here, because at my town meetings often somebody will come in very outraged about why this senator, who probably doesn't understand senators don't impeach; we are juries of impeachment. but you ought to impeach those supreme court justices. they're making law instead of interpreting law. how come you put up with that? so we can have a debate between the republican nominee and the -- on the republican nominee on what is the constitutional role of the court? and maybe even make some impact upon justices who feel that their personal feelings ought to fit into the decision or, as the

president says, that he wants somebody that expresses empathy and understanding of people's problems. as we all know, that's not the purpose of the judicial branch of government. that branch of government isn't supposed to let their personal feelings be involved whatsoever. the president should not encourage that of justices he appoints. their job is to look at what the law says, the constitution says, the fablghts of th facts of thee that impartial judgment. it would even go to the point of a republican appointed to the supreme court who when issuing a decision that somehow the affordable care act didn't fit into what congress could do in regard to -- in regard to regulating interstate commerce

because maybe that case could not be approved. but we can go over here to the taxing powers of the federal government. we might find a way that this president can have his legacy approved. now, that's a republican justice said that. find all kinds of ways to do what you want to do as opposed to what the constitution requires or what congress intends in legislation. it would be nice to have that debate between a democrat nominee and a republican nominee , whether we have two, three, four national debates or whether they have hundreds of appearances around the country to have these basic constitutional issues discussed, and then let the people decide, not just on one justice but

really what is the role of the supreme court or the courts generally in our constitutional system. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from. a senator: a senator: mr. leahy: mr. president, i found this interesting. you know, when my children were little, i'd read fairy tales to them. they loved it, especially through the looking glass, "alice in wonderland." and listening to this speech, i thought of the looking glass and alice in wonderland. it's interesting how president obama gets blamed for everything. oh, the approval rating of the supreme court has gone down, it's gone down. the majority of the supreme court are republicans. they've been appointed or nominated by republican presidents. and we're going to blame president obama because the

republicans nominated by republican presidents are bringing down the approval of the u.s. supreme court? according to my dear friend from iowa, he's saying president obama should be blamed for what those republicans on the supreme court did. this is alice in wonderland. this is alice in wonderland. i don't care what happens. president obama has to get blamed for it. we have a hurricane or something, must be president obama's fault. but this is about as far a stretch as i've ever heard that with the supreme court goes down in approval rating because of the five members -- i apologize

for that -- because of the five members of the supreme court -- i apologize. i'm sure president obama is going to get blamed for that. if the approval rating of the court goes down because of the five republicans who constitute the majority of it, it is about as far-fetched as alice in wonderland to blame president obama for it. let's talk about facts. i like to talk about facts. it's the way democrats have handled republicans' nominees. my distinguished friend doesn't point out, even though it's been pointed out to him by the vice president and by the president personally, certainly in my presence, vice president biden's speech -- you should read the whole speech -- he's talking

about what happens after the election. vice president biden as chairman biden put through in an election year a republican nominee to the supreme court and got a majority -- got a unanimous vote of democrats and republicans in this body. those are the facts. then president bush's -- the fact that we use a different standard it appears, in president bush's final two years, democrats controlled the senate. i was chairman. we confirmed 68 of his nominees. republicans in president obama's final years in office has allowed only 16. these are facts. this isn't rhetoric. these are facts. we allowed 68 no a republican president -- for a republican president, 16 for a democratic president. this enthey're going to blame --

then they're going to blame the state of the judiciary on president obama? then they talk about vice president biden when he was chairman and what he might have said during president h. w. bush's last year in office. you know what vice president biden did? they try to imply that he blocked judges. he put through 11 republican nominees for the circuit court, 53 republican nominees for the district court, 11 for the circuit court, 53 for the district court. republicans in five district courts this year. so don't go -- if you say we want to follow the biden rule, i wish we would. we put through 53 district courts, 11 circuit court, and a republican president's last year

in office -- only five. come on, let's be fair. the fact is, there has never -- we've never blocked in a presidential election year a supreme court nominee because it is a presidential election year. in fact, we -- i think we created the judiciary committee in 1816. always allowed presidential nominees to go forward. i tell you this because the constitution requires the president to make a nomination. it's very clear. and we shall advice and consepbltsz. we say oh, no, we don't need

advice. we don't need consent. we won't even have a hearing. mr. president, i've taken the oath of office here seven times. it is a moving, thrilling moment. i'm sure the distinguished presiding officer knows it is a solemn moment. and you promise to uphold the constitution so help me god. the constitution says the president shall nominate. it says we shall advise and consent. i took my oath very, very seriously. that's why just as vice president biden did when he was chairman, i moved a significant number of republican judges through, even in the last year that they were in office. and it's so different than what we see now. just think of it.

they criticize vice president biden. the last year president george h. w. bush was in office, vice president biden was chairman of the judiciary committee. he put through 11 circuit court judges, 53 district court judges. the republicans have allowed five district court judges. come on. let's get this out of partisanship. by any standard whatsoever, there's been a republican president and democratically controlled senate, we have treated that republican president far better than they have treated democratic

presidents. but then to hear that because the supreme court, the five republican appointed majority members of the supreme court are bringing down the approval rating of the supreme court, the american people, it must be president obama's fault even those five members were nominated and approved before president obama's presidency, that goes too far. that goes too far. that is through the looking glass. that is alice in wonderland. i see the distinguished senior senator out on the floor. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the distinguished ranking member of -- i thank the tkpw-rbgd ranging member of the judiciary very much. while he's on the floor -- the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: let me thank you

for his leadership and support and passion for the comprehensive addiction and recovery act which was shepherded through the judiciary committee under his guidance and with his wise and benevolent support and i'm very, very grateful. i'm here to talk about the comprehensive addiction and recovery act today because it has been said by several of my colleagues that there is funding to implement this bill and that that funding is already in the government's accounts, that if we pass the cara bill, we'll be able to fund it, put it to work right away. let me say with regret that i disagree with that assertion. i'm sorry to have a disagreement with my colleagues over the funding question after all the

really excellent bipartisan work that we have done to get this bill to this point. this really has been a legislative model. for years we worked on the statute. we had five different full-on national seminars here in washington bringing people in from all around the country to advise us on all the different aspects of the opioid problem. we had an advisory committee that supported us broadly represented from all the different interests that are affected by the opioid crisis. and we came up with a bipartisan bill that came through committee in regular order without objection from anyone and is now here on the senate floor awaiting passage. that's the way it is supposed to work. but on this question of whether it is funded i must disagree, and i'd like to explain why. for openers let me explain that in congress, there are committees that authorize

funding, and in the case of this bill, the relevant committees are the help committee and the judiciary committee. but it's the appropriations committee that actually determines what funding will go into what accounts. the appropriations committee in turn is broken up into subcommittees which determine the funding of different accounts in different areas of government. so one subcommittee has jurisdiction in one set of accounts. another subcommittee has the appropriations authority over other accounts. the funding that my colleagues have referred to as the funding for this cara bill was appropriated by what we call in the senate the labor h.h.s. appropriations subcommittee. the labor h.h.s. appropriations subcommittee appropriates to

accounts that generally correspondent to the authorizing power -- correspond to the authorizing power of the help committee. so there are three committees here involved: judiciary, help and appropriations and the subcommittee on appropriations that appropriated this money generally correlates to the authorizing power and jurisdiction of the help committee. there are other propose kwraeubgss subcommittee -- propose kwraeupbgss subcommittees -- appropriations subcommittees. there's one we refer to as c.j.s. c.j.s. appropriates to among others the accounts within the authorizing power of the judiciary committee. so that's the background. now let's go through the problems. one problem with my friend's argument that the bill is funded is that the funding measure to which they refer originally passed out of its appropriations subcommittee last june, last

june. we didn't even take the cara bill up in the judiciary committee until this february. so there is a timing problem. how could the appropriators last june have predicted this state of affairs on the floor right now? the appropriators would have had to have an stoppishing -- astonishing wizard like ability to read the future in order to fund back then an unpassed bill, indeed a bill that then didn't even have a committee hearing scheduled let alone markup and passage and the choice to bring it to the floor. clearly the labor h.h.s. appropriators in june were funding existing programs, and when the omnibus passed in december, these same programs

were funded at an even higher level. in fact, democrats demanded that they be funded at nearly the identical level proposed in the president's budget. the president's budget goes even further back in time. the president's budget certainly could not have foreseen cara. the comprehension addiction recovery act. so there's a timing problem. second, this cara bill back when these appropriations were passed in june was funded through different accounts this afternoon the accounts that funded through now as we see it on the floor. when the appropriations were passed, it was funded through accounts that would be funded by c.j.s. appropriators.

so there is a committee mismatch as well as a timing problem to any claim that these funds were intended for the cara bill. the bulk of the care with of tk then -- in fact, ten out of its 13 programs authorized funding through judiciary committee programs, which is why the bill was sent by the parliamentarians here to the judiciary committee. so if, back then, the intention was to fund cara, it would have been c.j.s. that would have funded ten of those 13 programs. but the appropriators for the funds that my colleagues speak of were not the c.j.s.

appropriators but the labor-h.h.s. appropriators. again, there is a committee mismatch. here is what happened that explains the shift. after the fy 2016 omnibus had passed, we were informed -- the sponsors and authors of the legislation -- that in order to get our bill out of the judiciary committee, the cara bill had to be rewritten so that it operated only through existing federal programs. there are republicans, as the presiding officer well knows, who live by the principle "no new federal programs," even for new crises, and we were asked in the judiciary committee to accommodate them. so we accommodated them. we rewrote the bill in january to accommodate those concerns. so this february when cara came before the judiciary committee, it had been revised to move the

bulk of its new programs out of the judiciary committee accounts and into accounts under the jurisdiction of the help committee. now, of the ten programs remaining in the bill, eight are located at the department of health and human services in the help committee's jurisdiction. but that move was long after these appropriations were made. you cannot connect them. i should interject that this change created an intrusion by our judiciary bill into the jurisdiction of the help committee, and we all here today who support the cara bill owe a great debt of gratitude and appreciation to chairman alexander and to ranking member murray for allowing this bill to proceed, even though it now involves a considerable number

of accounts under their committee's jurisdiction, and they have done so very graciously, without dee -- witht demanding further hearings or further asserting their help committee's turf. so to them both, i offer -- and we shalwe should all offer -- or heartfelt thanks. but it does seem a stretch to think that the appropriators in the appropriations subcommittees that funds these help account as should have foreseen last gin not only that cara would pass out of judiciary and come to the floor now, but also foreseen that so many of its programs would have been transferred from judiciary committee to help committee accounts. that would indeed have been an astonishing, indeed truly magical feat of prediction. the simple fact is that the

labor-h.h.s. appropriation that my friends rely on on the "funding" nor thi toker for th a bill passed out. wree wrotwe wrote a letter -- ak unanimous consent for it to be an exhibit to my remarks -- we wrote a letter to both committees but those subcommitteesubcommittees when s letter had no idea that the bulk of this would move from judiciary to help. cara was back then mostly funded through another subcommittee. c.j.s. -- karabakh then had not even been considered for a hearing in judiciary. so why, why was the funding for the opioid crisis put in and

indeed increased by the appropriators of the help accounts? obviously because 47,000 people died last year -- 2014, the last year we had on record -- of opioid overdose deaths. that is national crisis. they were paying attention to it. they were putting resources in. but not resources to implement the bill that we're about to vote on in the next few days. indeed, as we speak, samhsa, the relevant agency, is gearing up its grant operations to go forward and solicit bids for all the money that the appropriators approved and that was dialed up in the omnibus. and samhsa is proceeding under the pre-cara laws. samhsa intends to spend every dollar of the appropriated funds, cara or no cara, which

means that if this cara bill passes, every dollar that goes this year to fund a cara program will take away funds from that pre-cara grant r.a. that cara is preparing right now. we will be paying peter to rob paul. ness no new money for cara. now, one can make the argument -- and indeed i would accept the argument -- that though we're rob peter to pay paul, rare cara's paul is better than pre-cara's peter. cara is after all a very good bill but the funding math is still undeniable. we are in fact robbing pre-cara peter to pay for a new cara-improved paul. so one can argue that funded programs may improve because of cara, at least for the extent that it goes to authorized

purposes, but that is the argument that the same money will be better spent. it is not a fair argument that there is new money for cara programs. there is no new money. so in sum, the timing does not support an argument that there is new funding for cara. that money was ahe want proked long -- was appropriated long ago. this bill won't be funded if it get it through congress. what kind of wizards do we think our appropriators must have been eight months ago at seeing a future tho for this bill, whiche wean noeven now cannot see? we'd be robbing to fund cara programs. unless they were time traveling wizards, if the appropriators had intended to add extra money for cara, they would have added the money to the judiciary

accounts that were what cara authorized back then when it was introduced and when the appropriators passed the appropriations in the subcommittee. and finally is the fact that all this appropriated money my friends speak of is already on its way to being spent. it will be spent even without cara. it will be spent even if for some reason cara fails. it may even be spent before cara becomes law, and it will be spent in programs to support addiction recovery. that is the logic of my conclusion that there is no funding for car cara. to fund cara without robbing other addiction recovery programs, we would need new funding, not just last year's appropriation, and that, my friends is why senator shaheen's emergency funding bill is so important. and with that, i see my distinguished chairman on the floor, and i will yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i would like -- officethe presiding officer: wee currently in a quorum call. mr. markey: mr. president, i would ask for a vitiation of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president, very much. i'd like to start my remarks on the comprehensive abuse and recovery act today just by complimenting all of the members, senator whitehouse, senator grassley, senator portman, senator ayotte, senator had shaheen, all the members who have been working so hard on this legislation to produce something which is very much needed by our country.

and i'd like to begun by just telling a little story of a constituent who wants to remain anonymous, and this is her story. it's -- on july 20, 2009, she said that she was a passenger in a vehicle with her close friend at the time behind the wheel. the light turned green and, as expected, he hit the gas, but he was hitting the gas. the oncoming car never hit their brakes to stop at the end of a red light they were approaching. she says, "i was painfully pinned in the passenger seat. all i could hear was my friend asking me if i was okay. upon arriving in the e.r., i was quickly poked, prods and injected with high-level painkillers. this is where it all began. walking out of the hospital, i wang only walking out with crutches, but a prescription. i was prescribed oxycontin to help manage the pain i was experiencing, with continuing

follow-up appointments and check-ins also came more prescriptions for pain management prescriptions. two months after getting into a car accident, i was a heroin addict. how quickly all things i knew changed. in september of 2009 i not only began shooting heroin, but i also began my first semester of college. i was a freshman at umass boston. worked full time but i was also a heroin addict. i kept my addiction a secret from everyone i knew, including my close friends and family. on august 21, 2013, i woke up and said, enough is enough. i took three overdoses in order to open my eyes. since leaving treatment in november of 2014, my recovery has not stopped. i continue to learn and to grow daily. i have also learned of the medical issues and complications that my heroin use has led to.

i now suffer from seizures because the excessive drug use over five years has led to minor brain damage. along with the seizures, i have tested positive for hepatitis-c and h.i.v., which is common with injection drug users. at the end of the day, all i want to do is to help others who are struggling because i know what they are going through." well, she is one of the fortunate ones. she found the help that she needed and had the strength and support to get clean. but i'm hearing enormous frustration from people who don't feel that sufficient resources are being brought to bear on this enormous epidemic of prescription drug and honor addiction. all week we've heard the statistics here in this chamber. our nation is experiencing more deaths from drug overdoses than from gun violence or auto accidents. 80% of the people suffering from heroin addiction started with

opioid pain medications approved by the f.d.a. and prescribed by doctors. 27,000 people died from an opioid overdose in 2014. 1,300 of those came from the state of massachusetts. so this issue is one that doesn't just affect the bay state. america is drowning in a tsunami of heroin and prescription drug addiction that we must stop before it drowns anymore families and communities. now, let's compare what we did as a nation when confronted with other deadly epidemics. a bipartisan majority in congress funded more than $5 billion to respond to ebola. we dispatched the medical community and public health experts. today the obama administration is asking congress for $1.8 billion in emergency funding to fight the zika virus.

imagine if we applied the same commitment, urgency, and level of resources to the prescription drug and heroin epidemic. we need an immediate and comprehensive strategy that requires commitment from all levels of government -- state, local, federal -- and that means congress must step up and respond with leadership and with resources. we need to stop the overprescription of opioid pain medication. we must prevent addiction before it takes hold, and we must provide the funding necessary to ensure that we stem this tide of deadly addiction. the food and drug administration must change its decision not to seek expert advice about the risks of addiction before it approves abuse deterrent opioids. abuse deterrent opioid is a contradiction in terms. whether an opioid is abuse deterrent or not has