problem you have in your community. and if you talk to law enforcement, you talk to firefighters, you talk to emergency medical folks, they will tell you this issue is at the top of their list. they're frustrated by it. they're looking for solutions, and this legislation helps to come up with solutions. i also want to thank senator ayotte, senator klobuchar and 42 bipartisan cosponsors for their support of this legislation. it is comprehensive, evidence-based and will make a difference. not only does it have a lot of support here in the united states senate -- and i hope we'll see that again in the final vote on this -- but it also has support in the house of representatives. there is a companion bill -- at one time it was identical to our legislation -- also called care remarks the comprehensive addiction and recovery act -- but it is very similar to the house companion bill. over 80 cosponsors of that legislation on the house side as well. if we pass it here in the senate, we have a very good chance of passing it in the house, getting it to the president for his signature so it can begin to make a difference in our communities.

the reason we're here today talking about this again is so many people are suffering. there are 23 million americans, it is said -- 23 million americans who are in recovery for addiction. think about that. we're doing this for them, to ensure that they can have successful recovery, to hem, to ensure -- to help them, to ensthiewr they can keep their lives together and not fall back into this struggle of addiction. but with 23 million people recovering, think of the millions who are still struggling. together those who are recovering and those who are addicted have begun to stand up and let their voices be heard. that's one of the differences i've seen in this debate is is that the stigma that's been aesht 10ed with addiction has begun to be removed. there was a rally here on the mall, on the capital mall several months ago. it was called unite to face addiction rally. and there were people from all over the country there, thousands of people came to washington, d.c. thousands.

and the message from them was, one, pass cara -- this legislation -- and i appreciate their help. we wouldn't be here today on the floor talking about this issue if they hadn'ten gauged in their elected representatives in the house and senate, our leadership and helped us to get this moving. but, second, their message was, look, this -- addiction is a disease. it has to be treated like other illnesses and we have to have legislation that helps break the stigma associated with drug addiction so we can get our communities and families out of the grip of addiction. this is a cause that requires law enforcement, the criminal justice system, but it also requires love and faith and communities coming together. it's one that we can only carry out together, all of us -- not as republicans or democrats or independents but as americans, as fathers and mothers, as family members and friends, coworkers who care about those who are facing this great

challenge of addiction. cara now has the support of over 130 groups around the country. these are criminal justice groups, these are people who are in the trenches every day dealing with treatment and prevention, these are folks who are in public health, these are people who are in law enforcement, understand the importance of this. they've all come together to say, let's pass this legislation so we can begin to implement this evidence-based program to respond to this epidemic. it does prevent -- it does add prevention in education efforts, it does do a lot to get prescription drugs off the shelves, get the medication out of the hands of our youth. it does a lot to monitor drugs. it authorizes law enforcement task forces to combat heroin and methamphetamine in areas that are particularly hard-hit. it expands the availability of this miracle drug we talked about earlier. doesn't always work, but it saved a lot of lives -- called naloxone and narcan. the criminal justice system does identify and treat individuals suffering from substance abuse

disorders and expands diversion and education efforts to give those individuals that second chance. we give special help in this legislation to our veterans. we establish more funds for these veteran treatment courts. ist been to them in ohio. they are incredible. i talked about a story yesterday of one of the veterans who had been in and out of the prisoner system. he's not only got his life back together, he's got his family back together. he is back in school getting a degree. he is one example of many who got off track because of ptsd, because of an addiction, self-medication to deal with his ptsd in the prison system and now back out. we're supporting that effort. we do help women who are postpartum and suffer from addiction. we do help babies who are born addicted with this incredible situation where we have now in ohio a 750% increase in the number of babies who are born with this syndrome, with addiction. they have to be taken through withdrawal and going to these

neonatal units, as i've done with my wife, and looking at these incredibly compassionate nurses and doctors, they've said, rork rob, you've got to do something. it supports recovery programs focused on youth, building communities of recovery. it creates a national task force on recovery, to get the experts he will radioly engaged to help us -- experts really engaged to help us. economists will tell you that addiction now costs this country about $700 billion every year. think about that. that's lost productivity, that's more expensive health care. go to the emergency room and you'll see a lot of people coming in because of addiction. it is because of the cost of policing, the cost of incarceration. law enforcement back home tells me most of the crime being committed in our communities is being commits because of this issue. $700 billion every single year. that's lot of money, no doubt. but addiction costs us something

else, too. it costs us in dreams never fulfilled, in families torn apart, in lives that are lost. we don't just measure our success in dollars and cents. we measure it in safer may bed ins, less cies crime. we measure it in the number of empty jail cells. we measure it in the number of individuals that never have to deal with addiction in the first place. we michiga measure it in the nuf moms and dads that can bring their families back together. as we move forward pass this legislation, the comprehensive addiction and recovery act, our message is a real simple one. to those who struggle with addiction, to those who think they cannot overcome, to those who believe there is no one out there who cares about them or can help them, you are not alone. we are with you. there is hope. i've seen people beat this. i've known people who've beat this. you can beat this. and we can be a better partner

here at the federal government to be able to help people to overcome this struggle. we need to pass this bill and get it signed into you la, to begin to make a real limps for the families we represent. the house of representatives has some companion legislation. the companion legislation is also called cara. they have a big bipartisan group supporting it. i hope after we pass this legislation here -- because i'm confident we will based on the vote this afternoon -- that the house will take it up, take up cara, get it passed, let's get it to the president for his signature and let's truly begin to deal with this epidemic. it is at crisis levels. we can't wait. all of us can begin to make a real difference for those we represent. thank you, mr. president. i yield back my time. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, senator cardin of maryland, my colleague, and i are here on the floor today to ask that two

nominations for the federal bench, the district court, be confirmed. they are the next two judges in line on the executive calendar for the federal district courts. one is a mr. waiverly crenshaw jr., a highly qualified nominee from the state of tennessee. the other is a ms. paula zinnis, from our own state of maryland, a bringts, talented lawyer who also is ready to be confirmed. both have been approved by the judiciary committee. mr. crenshaw was approved in july and has been waiting for a vote. ms. xinis was approved by the judiciary committee in september. so it's been more than 6 months for senators to be able to evaluate the excellent work done by the judiciary committee on whether these nominees should be confirmed. we think it's time that the

senate full committee does its job and give these two outstanding candidates for the bench a vote. therefore, i come to the senate floor with senator cardin to rise today to ask for unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, calendar number 215 and calendar number 307. that the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on these nominations in the order listed, that the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nominations, and that any related statements be printed in the record and that the president may be immediately notified of the senatest action -- of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session.

the presiding officer: is is there objection? mr. cornyn: reserving the right to object, i would point out to my friends from maryland who -- and the senior senator who has made this consent request -- that we move off of the current legislation, the comprehensive addiction and recovery act, offer that important legislation -- off of that important legislation into executive session to consider this nomination, that it's the prerogative of the majority leader to set the agenda and if every senator could come down here and cherry-pick different nominations from the calendar and ask consent that we move to executive session and consider those, that it would result in some chaos. so, for those reasons, i will object. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, i'm certainly disappointed by the senator from texas objecting to senator mikulski, our senior senator from maryland's request. senator mikulski's request is for us to consider two article 3

judges that are next in line for consideration on the floor of the united states senate. they've cleared the committee. they've both been approved by the committee by voice vote, unanimous vote within the judiciary committee. i know paula xinis, the vacancy to be filled in maryland, from university park. she's joined the law firm of if you are imurphy in baltimore. she's well-qualified to take the seat of former chief justice deborah chasenow. she wasappointed by president obama in march of 20156789 we are now aproasmg the one-year anniversary of her appointment. one-year anniversary to the district court. mr. president, let me just talk a little bit about fairness. i hear what the senator from texas said about the majority

leader scheduling the votes on the floor of the senate. but i think my colleagues should be aware of the facts in regards to filling judicial vacancies. we have completed the confirmation process of 16 article 3 judges since the beginning of this term of congress. now, the comparable number in the last two years of a presidential term, where the president was of the republican party and the senate was controlled by the democrats -- just the opposite of what we have today, was the year 2007 and 2008 under president george w. bush. the judiciary committee was chaired by chairman leahy. that year, by march 9, we had cleared and confirmed 40 judicial appointments.

40 compared to 16 in this congress. and by the end of the year, we had approved 68 of president bush's nominees. going back to the last -- other time for a republican president with a democrat-controlled senate, president reagan in 1987 and 1988 under chairman biden, by march 9 of the last year, the senate had confirmed 47 of his nominations compared to 16 this year. and by the end of the year, we had confirmed 85 nominees, including a supreme court justice, justice kennedy. mr. president, we have pending right now on the floor of the senate, that have cleared committees, every single one by voice vote unanimously, we have 12 article 3 judges that are ready for action and five other judicial appointments for a total of 17.

but that's not the whole story. we have 25 nominees that are still pending before the judiciary committee. including stephanie gallagher of maryland to fill a vacancy. this is not -- xinis is not the only vacancy we have in maryland. we happen to have two vacancies in maryland waiting for action by the united states senate. there's a matter of fairness here. there's also a matter of respect for the judicial branch of government and allowing the courts to be able to function and the district court is where most individuals get their justice. that's the trial court. that's the court where most of our citizens will go for their judicial relief. and we have vacancies where whereappointments have been made, engine controversial, well-qualified people. we can't get a vote on the the floor of senate. my friend from texas tells me

this is the prerogative of the majority leader. it is our responsibility in the senate to act on these nominations. senator mikulski has set up a process in maryland where we take -- an interview process to get the very best talent to serve on our courts. i am honored to work with her, as we've gone through this process of trying to find the very best to serve on the courts. how do you expect them to come forward and allow their name to come forward when it takes a year for us to consider a nomination? if you want to get the very best on the courts, we have to act, and we have to be responsible. so let me just say something. we've got to take up these nominations. i appreciate that we always have a lot of work that we have to do. we've got time today to get these nominations done. i call on the majority leader and i call on my friends to say, look, let's get our court vacancies filled. let's carry out our

responsibility and vote on these nominations. with that, i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, first i'd like to ask unanimous consent that my full statement be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: second, i'd like to compliment once again my very able colleague from maryland for his statement where he laid out facts, he laid out historic precedent. and i want to associate myself with those remarks. i want to add also, i am really frustrated. i am so frustrated that, number one, president obama doesn't get to be president obama. his job as president is to nominate competent people for an independent branch of government, the federal judiciary. he did his job. then it came to the senate. really, we thank the judiciary

committee because they did hold a hearing and do their due diligence to examine the worthiness of whether these nominees should be brought to the senate. do they have the judicial temperament? do they have the judicial experience? do they, are they of sound character to truly be independent and render impartial justice which our constitution mandates? the judiciary committee said yes. so it comes to the senate with something called the executive calendar. that's senate-speak for the nominating calendar. it means you're on a calendar waiting your turn to have a vote. well, this is just a slowdown, and we don't want to be in a showdown here. i didn't bring this up with senator cardin to disrupt consideration of the opioid bill. we have a terrible problem in

maryland. we are for this. we're for bipartisan action here. but we are driven to taking action, asking for unanimous consent because we're not getting action. i would agree to a compromise if the gentleman from texas, himself a member one time of the texas supreme court, had said how about crenshaw first and xinis after the break that will be coming up. we're like college kids. we get spring breaks. well, we would have agreed to that. all we're looking for is for mr. crenshaw, who was on the calendar before ms. xinis, go first. we're not pushy, but we are persistent. saul we wanted was a -- all we wanted was a time certain when we could get a vote on xinis. we are now in the business of discouraging business from coming in public service. they're willing to put their

career on hold and their life on examination to really be able to serve on the federal bench or other nominations. our nominee did it. her career is she's in a law firm, it's on hold. we also have ms. gallagher waiting who is a federal magistrate. what are we doing here? people are finally going to say i don't want the hassle. i don't want the harassment. i don't want to, after i go through all this, just to wait, wait, wait, wait. and i think the senate needs to move in an orderly way where a nominee has been put, moved through the process, nominated by the president, gone through the due diligence of the judiciary committee and is waiting. i think we ought to do it. i think we ought to take a couple of days and just vote on

these nominations. i believe our courts are overwhelmed. there are backlogs in the courts. there are people waiting for their ability to have a trial. we need good judges. we need to be able to make sure that if people are willing to serve and they have the credentials, the judicial temperament and the character to serve, we need to be able to at least give them a vote. now if you don't like the obama nominees, vote them down. vote them down. but don't slow down the process. we have a constitutionally mandated process. let's follow it. let's do our job. mr. crenshaw comes before ms. xinis. we're happy to have crenshaw go first. but we sure would like a date for xinis. and we call out to our colleagues, give us a date, give us a vote, give it to us now.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended and i address the senate as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, last night, we saw another unusual election result, and we see a -- quote -- businessman now in a very significant lead for the nomination of the republican party, the party of abraham lincoln and ronald reagan, and as i watch the post

mortems last night and this morning, we see again that many of those who voted cite as one of their primary if not the primary reason is distaste and anger and frustration about washington, d.c., specifically the congress of the united states as well as the president. and they believe that they need somebody who is an outsider, someone who is not -- quote -- of the establishment. i guess that applies to anyone who is in elected office, and some of us have been surprised. certainly no one has predicted these outcomes as -- as not only on the republican side but on the -- on the democratic side we

saw our colleague from vermont engineer quite a stunning upset in the state of michigan last night. but he also, even though a member of the senate, senator sanders, clearly is speaking in opposition to the machine of business as usual in washington, and sometimes we ask ourselves why do the american people have such low approval rating? i have seen most polls show that the approval rating of congress is 12%, 13%, 14%, sometimes as high as 15%, and i would inform and remind my colleagues that it wasn't always like that. we didn't always have such low approval rating here in congress of the american people. and i think it's worthy of note

that we have in the last year since regaining the majority have done some things that i think, enacted some legislation. i think we could be proud to go back and talk to our constituents about, whether it be education reform where we did away with common corps, whether it be a highway bill that was much needed to provide infrastructure for our states and economies and towns. and passed a budget. we passed a defense authorization bill that has some of the most significant reforms in history. but the fact is those numbers haven't changed, and they haven't changed sometimes for good reason, and that's why i come to the floor today, because i'm ashiemed and embarrassed as a representative of the people

of my state to talk about billions of dollars of unnecessary wasteful spending of their tax dollars, and it happened on the omnibus appropriations bill. omnibus. a lot of my constituents don't know what omnibus means. what it means is that of all the up 13 appropriations bills, we don't do it, and i would put the responsibility for that on the other side of the aisle, but it doesn't matter, really, because we end up at the end of the year with a massive hundreds of billions of dollars of a bill that's about this high that none of us have seen or read and there is no amendment to it, and we have approximately 48 or 72 hours in which to vote yes or no, with the option being the government not continuing to function. that's not the way to do business. that doesn't inspire any

confidence on the part of the american people in us. and it's disgraceful. so the omnibus again was passed with votes from both sides, actually, but the fact is that our responsibility was to take up these bills one by one to examine them, to have amendments and have the congress and in this case the senate work its will. we didn't do that. here it was, we walked in and here was this bill, not that size but this size. no one had read it, no one had had a chance to peruse, and even if we had, we couldn't do anything about it because the bill was not amendable because we amend it and it bounces back to the other side of the capitol and we run out of time and the government shuts down. that is the wrong way to do business.

and one of the major reasons what happened was it's open to incredible abuse, and i came to the floor today to talk about the abuse of the most sacred responsibility that we have, which is the defense of this nation. i'm proud, i'm proud to be chairman of the senate armed services committee, a post i aspired to for many, many years. and we work hard on the defense authorization bill. we work hard in the senate armed services committee. we work in on a bipartisan basi, and we have hearings and we examine the issues and we examine the programs, and we're talking about again hundreds of billions of dollars, of taxpayers' dollars, whether it be pay and benefits for the men and women who are serving or whether it be the equipment they need or many of the policies that govern the defense of this nation. and i'm proud of the work that we do. i'm proud of the work that we

do. and so after producing a bill with a overwhelming majority vote, 90-some votes with the authorization for all of this to do with our nation's defense, the appropriations committee decides to overrule what we have authorized and in violation not only of the way the senate is supposed to function but in violation of a resolution adopted by the republican conference, and i'll read it. quote -- "earmark moratorium. resolved it's a policy of the republican conference no members shall request a congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, as such items are used, et cetera." so what was in this omnibus bill ?s let me give you the best example.

$225 million for a ship. it's called a joint high-speed vessel, for a ship that the navy did not want. no one asked for this. there was -- we had hearings in the armed services committee on shipbuilding. we examined all of the proposals. some of them we didn't accept, others we did. others with votes in the committee and debate and discussion came up with our ship -building authorization. so what was done in this omnibus appropriations bill by the appropriations committee? a 200 -- for the second year in a row, the second year in a row, a $225 million the navy did not request and did not need. and by the way, my friends, i would not take too much time in the senate, but building a ship is just the beginning of the expense. you have to man it, you have to put the ammunition on it, you have to put the equipment on it, you have to operate it for as

much as 30 years, and the navy did not want it. and the navy has lots of unmet military requirements so what was put in there and why because frankly and i use these words without reservation, it's made in mobile, alabama. made in mobile, alabama. it's blatant. it's blatant. and then of course there were so many other items in it. over the years a very -- it's like any other evil. first you condemn things and then you condone them and then you embrace them. and there's no better example of that than the so-called money for -- quote -- "medical research." i've asked years ago somebody decided hey, we'll spend some money for medical research on some of the illnesses that affect men and women in the military. i think -- i don't take

exception to that. but it grew and grew and grew and grew and grew. now in this bill, $1.2 billion extra, not million, billion dollars for -- let me give you an example -- $120 million for breast cancer, $12 million for lung cancer, $16 million for multiple sclerosis, $20 million for ovarian cancer, $7.5 million for epilepsy. my friends, all of those are worthy causes, all of those should probably be funded. we should do all those things, but not on the defense -- not on the defense bill. it was not authorized and jammed in for the willy sutton syndrome. the willy sutton syndrome was a famous bank robber. he was asked why he robbed banks

and he said that's where the money is and the defense appropriations is where the money is. after it's grown and grown and grown just $2.4 billion of the $10 billion spent on these congressionally directed medical research program was relative to the military. in other words, $7 billion went to research things like osteoporosis and mad cow disease instead of training equipment and care for our troops and their families. we do not have enough money to care for the men and women who are in the military and take care of their families and take care of their medical needs. we don't have enough money for that as a result of sequestration. so what did they do? they put in $1.2 billion more in medical research. a few other examples. an additional $7 million in funding for a machine gun. these guns are made in a 500%

increase. $750 million for a national guard reserve equipment fund. $600 million in additional funding for d.o.d. science and technology budget. this is very interesting, my friends, this science and technology budget. here's what happens. they put out $600 million and it's supposed to be -- quote -- "scientific and technology research "but it doesn't say what specific item. so what happens, members of the appropriations committee then writes to the department of defense and tells them to spend certain money on certain projects. that's a way of getting around the letter of the earmarked band if not the spirit of it. then of course there's the russian rocket.

today we are having to use for space launches russian rocket engines. the company that makes these russian rocket engines happens to be run by cronies of vladimir putin. in fact, two of the cronies of vladimir putin have been -- are such thugs and gang steres that they've been on our sanctions list. we have sanctioned them. and yet our friends in the appropriations committee again with u.l.a., the people that are buying these rocket engines are based in alabama and of course headquartered in chicago, illinois. the engines as i mentioned are manufactured by this russian company. it's controlled by a guy named shamizgov and ragoshen who have been sanctioned and we're sending tens of millions of

dollars to them? what we did was we restricted the cost and encouraged the competition. and we had hearings on it. it was a big issue. we had votes in the committee on it. we discussed it. we debated it. and so what did they -- the appropriators do? they put a provision into this bill revursing what we thore -- reversing what we authorizers did. that is in complete violation of the rules of the republican conference. so i have talked very often with our 12 freshmen. i can't be more proud of what these freshmen senators have brought to this conference. they brought enthusiasm. they brought knowledge. they have brought youth. they have brought military experience, people like senator ernst and senator cotton and

others who bring the military experience. i'm so proud to have many of them serving on the armed services committee. and i've asked them -- i've asked them to get together and condemn this. i campaigned for almost all of them. they promised the people of their states as i promised the people of my state take i wouldn't allow this waste of billions of dollars of their tax dollars, that i would fight against it, and i'm asking my freshmen senators to join together and i hope that they will because i've had conversation with them to reject this, to not -- if we go into another appropriations omnibus, that they will thought allow this to happen. and why did i focus my comments on defense? for two reasons. one, obvious. i'm chairman of the senate armed services committee so i take strong exception when the men

and women who are serving the military are having to leave the military involuntarily because we don't have enough money and they're wasting billions, billions of taxpayer's dollars. and second of all, because it's not right. it's not right. and third of all, we authorize. we authorize and our bill is passed by the senate and the house for 53 straight years and signed by the president of the united states. and this bill is important to defend the nation. and when our careful deliberations, our votes, our hearings, our debates for days after day on the floor of the senate as we consider the authorization bill is then overturned, overturned and pork barrel projects like a $225 million extra vessel that the navy neither needs nor wants are

added to it, then, my friends, do not be surprised when we have an approval rating of 12% or 13% or 14%. the american people are smart. our constituents are smart. when they see billions of dollars wasted in this fashion, it's no wonder that we receive their condemnation and their sarcasm and their disapproval. so i'm asking my freshmen colleagues to take the lead, to take the lead. they are the ones that are closest to the people. and help me reject this corrupt process and it is corrupt. and so i want to also assure all of my colleagues that they try this again, if they try this again, i will do everything in my power, everything in my power to make sure that it's reversed

or that it never happens to start with. we owe the american people much, much better than the process that i just described. mr. president, i note the presence of the senior senator from texas, and i yield the floor. corn mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i thank my friend, the senior center from arizona for his great work over the years, particularly now in the armed services committee that he chairs and es' been ten nairks -- he's been ten nairks in his attempt to make sure no dollars are inadvertently or unknowingly wasted especially when it comes to the pentagon. i for one believe that this is a

number one priority of our country. i know he shares that view but it's pretty hard to make the argument that we ought to continue to give more money to the pentagon if the money is not being used efficiently, either because of their internal administrative problems or some other reason. and i know because i happened to be there this morning at the pentagon, many of our military chiefs are concerned that things that are being put in appropriation bills are not things that they actually want or need and that there are other priorities. and the best way to get those vetted is through the senate armed services committee and working with the appropriations committee to make sure that the money is being used as efficiently as possible and not wasted, certainly on not things that the military doesn't want or doesn't need. so i thank him for his continued leadership. i wanted to talk about a few topics here.

number one is the comprehensive addiction and recovery act, the legislation we've been working on now for two weeks. and anybody who's been listening understands the importance of this legislation which will help stem the tide of the massive epidemic of opioid prescription drug abuse and heroin abuse that continues to claim lives across our country. this bill is actually a good example of how the senate can work on a bipartisan -- in a bipartisan fashion to advance good policies that positively impact the lives of ordinary american citizens. i know most people in this polarized environment are not aware of this bipartisan work that we've been able to do over this year and last year, but we've actually done a number of good things. some if you told them they may not even believe it, but to people who are open to the facts, i think this is another

good example. and of course in this instance it's been the result of strong leadership from the junior senator from new hampshire, senator ayotte, senator portman of ohio, the chairman of the judiciary committee, the senior senator from iowa, senator chuck grassley along with our democratic counterparts, people like senator whitehouse. i'm hopeful this legislation will contain an amendment that i've offered last week to help those who struggle with both substance abuse and mental illness. it's estimated that more than ten million americans suffer from both addiction and mental health disorders. these are called co occurring disorders and it's a fact that many people who don't otherwise get treatment for their mental health problems try to self-medicate, making their lives even more complicated and worse. and that's what this amendment is designed to address. many mental health and substance abuse services like specialty

courts have operated on separate tracks, and they only treat one part of the problem. this amendment really isn't all that earth shaking. all it would do is make the common sense link between mental health and substance abuse, something that we direct our existing criminal justice programs to apply to -- to apply to these coexisting disorders as well. that way people who struggle with both addiction and mental health problems can have both of those problems addressed by the money we're already appropriating and already spending in grants to local law enforcement and medical providers. it would also expand substance abuse and transitional services to help those suffering from cooccurring disorders receive the treatment they need to recover. so i look forward to voting on this legislation and getting it passed soon. i would note that we are having

a few bumps along the way, mr. president, in terms of our democratic friends allowing votes on amendments. there are apparently about 25 different amendments that have been negotiated between republicans and democrats, but i'm told that our democratic friends are objecting to any amendments by senators who happen to be running for election in 2016. now the democratic leader just in a fit of candor the other day said they were going to reject to the center from wisconsin, senator johnson's amendment because he was running for election. well, i would ask them to back off of that sort of political hardball and let's get our work done. it doesn't help when they object to noncontroversial amendments or they take certain amendments hostage because they don't want somebody to get -- score points by getting something done. i mean, that's why we are sent here is to get things done for

our constituents. and i want to just share the amendment that i mentioned just a moment ago that apparently is one of those being held hostage as well, i'd like to share a letter from the national alliance on mental illness, the american correctional association, the national association of police organizations that support the amendment i just talked about. so if the democratic leadership won't listen to me, maybe it will listen to them. and i hope they will listen to the voices of the families that suffer from mental illness and law enforcement officials. so i'd ask consent, mr. president, at the end of my remarks that this be made a part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: separately, earlier this morning i joined my colleagues on the senate judiciary committee to hear testimony from the attorney general of the united states, loretta lynch. as a former attorney general of my state, i have always taken a

great interest in our system of justice at the state level and now certainly at the national level and tried to do everything i can to help strengthen the rule of law and to help keep the american people safe, and that includes transparent and fair investigations. so i spent a little bit of time asking the attorney general this morning about her department's investigation into the former secretary of state hillary clinton and her use of a private email server during her tenure. and i talked about my concern surrounding her use of an unsecure email server many timet that many times on the floor. the former secretary has refused to use -- did refuse to use the government server and decided to basically play by her own rules, setting up this server at her home in new york. but the fact of the matter is this sort of reckless conduct put our country at great risk. several experts from the

intelligence community have outlined how her unsecure server left her emails, some highly classified, vulnerable to hacking and cyber attacks. so this is a very serious matter. last fall, i -- about six months ago, i asked the attorney general to appoint a special counsel to fairly and fully conduct an investigation, and that's because secretary clinton is not just a random citizen or former government employee. her case is awfully high profile, and as a result i think there are many questioning whether she is being treated in exactly the same way as any other citizen would be treated under similar circumstances or whether she is getting some sort of preferential treatment. because the attorney general is a political appointee of the president of the united states and given miss clinton's high profile, there are real conflicts of interest and real

concerns about politics ahead of justice. those could be addressed and mitigateed providing a special counsel as the law provides. it provides some measure of independence from the attorney general so the public can have confidence that this case is being treated just like every other case, and not with some sort of political favoritism based on a conflict of interest. this morning i questioned the attorney general about recent reports that the department has granted immunity to the staffer who set up secretary clinton's private server. just so anybody listening understands, the only reason that immunity would be granted in a criminal investigation is if somebody invokes their fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination. but if given immunity, then that individual must cooperate with law enforcement authorities and cannot refuse to answer questions because in no longer have any likelihood or any

chance of being convicted of that crime having been granted immunity. this does indicate that this investigation has taken on a new level of seriousness, and i suspect the f.b.i. continues to be hard at work trying to get to the bottom of this, as i would expect them to do. but i hope this indicates that the department of justice who is integral to this grant of immunity because the f.b.i. can't do this on their own, it takes the prosecutors at the department of justice to agree to a grant of immunity as part of an investigation, but i hope this indicates the department is treating this case with the great care and the gravity that it deserves. but i still believe the american people deserve an independent investigation, and i'll continue to press for the appointment of a special counsel to that end. finally, mr. president, i wanted to address another issue that i

questioned the attorney general about, and that is about needed reforms to our mental health system. i believe i repeated to her today, i have repeated this story so many times i sometimes forget when i have said it before, but i recently had a chance to meet with a number of major county sheriffs, and somebody asked me would you like to meet the largest mental health provider in america? i said well, sure. i said -- he said well, he's over here, the sheriff of los angeles county. the fact of the matter is many people incarcerated in our jails are suffering from mental illness, and they may have committed petty crimes like trespasses and the like. but they are not getting their condition treated as long as they are warehoused in jails, and so many communities like my hometown of san antonio, texas, has created a -- really a model of how to divert people from jail to get their mental health issues treated.

and at the same time make sure that we don't continue this turnstile of people coming in and out of our jails when their underlying mental illness problems is not being treated. well, i have asked her to take a look at a bill that i have introduced called the mental health and safe communities act, which is designed to help families in communities who are struggling to help their loved ones who are mentally ill. many families don't have access to adequate treatment or lack the resources to comply with doctors' orders, and the fact of the matter is back in the 1990's, back when a major policy change was made in america and people were essentially turned out of institutions where the mentally ill were treated, there is no -- there wasn't any follow-up to make sure that there was some sort of safety net or some follow-on treatment to make sure that their needs were taken care of. and so today any of us have

walked down the street in a major american city know we have a lot of homeless people living on our streets who are essentially suffering from some form or another of mental illness, and their needs are not being addressed. and some of them, perhaps because they abused alcohol or other drugs, in order to try to medicate or take care of their problems on their own, they end up committing crimes of one type or another. not necessarily what i would call a serious crime but serious enough to get them arrested and in jail. so i'm hopeful that we will take this opportunity as we're looking at our criminal justice system at large, along with prison reform and legislation that's passed out of the senate judiciary committee and which i hope will soon come to the floor of the senate to deal with issues like this confluence of mental health and criminal justice in a way that is more enlightened, in a way that's cheaper, in a way that's more

humane and more efficient than just simply warehousing people who are mentally ill in our criminal justice system. we can do better, and i'm hopeful that models like those in bexar county, texas, where mentally ill persons are able to find programs that help them actually solve their underlying problem, those kind of models are helpful to the rest of the country and us as we try to craft means for our communities to better care for those suffering from mental illness. so i look forward to moving this legislation soon. i know the chairman of the health, education, labor and pensions committee, senator alexander, tells me he has been working with senator murray, his ranking member, along with senator cassidy and senator murphy on another piece of legislation that they are proposing on the mental health space, and my hope is that the group of us who are interested in this issue can cobble

together a consensus piece of legislation which the majority leader could then bring to the floor of the senate to let us do some additional important bipartisan work to help address this problem. mr. president, i don't see any senator wishing to speak, so i would 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 arizona. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: mr. president, after decades of isolation, we are seeing a measured shift in our policy toward cuba. we have resumed diplomatic relations, we've expanded travel opportunities, lifted caps on

financial assistance between family, and we have eased trade restrictions. i congratulate the administration for spearheading these changes. it took courage to embark on this path. these policy changes are supported by the vast majority of cuban americans, they are applauded by sector after sector of the u.s. business community, and they are welcomed by americans at large. still, it took someone to lead, and president obama did. i applaud him and his administration for doing so. make no mistake, conditions are improving for the cuban people because of these changes. there are some who do not fully appreciate the meaningfulness of this opening to cuba. they maintain that we have somehow offered concessions to the cuban government without benefit to the united states or to the cuban people. some contend that we have moved prematurely when human rights issues remained unresolved in

cuba. to be clear, human rights abuses persist in cuba. we all seek to remedy these abuses, yet extending 50 years as the cuban government's convenient scapegoat for the failure of socialism is unlikely to yield gains in human rights in the future any more than our policies have done in the past. instead, this opening to cuba takes full advantage of the opportunities presented by the failures of socialism. recognizing the inherent right of americans to travel to cuba isn't a concession to dictators. it's an expression of freedom. it is americans who are penalized by our travel ban, not the cuban government. during my first visit to cuba in 2001, i told the cuban foreign minister in a meeting in havana that i was attempting to lift the travel ban. i added that if the cuban

government didn't improve on its human rights record, i would seek to lift the entire trade embargo. that was taken as an attempt at humor, of course, but for me it was no joke. i have always believed that denying americans the ability to travel to and trade with cuba has done more to extend dictatorial rule on that island than any other policy we could have adopted. for far too long, u.s. administrations, both republican and democrat, have insisted that u.s. measures like ending the travel ban or easing trade -- easing the trade embargo must be met by moves by the cuban government to improve the human rights condition of the citizenry. now, i understand this instinct, but i would submit that ending the travel ban and easing the trade embargo even when done unilaterally leads to better human rights conditions in cuba.

milton friedman wrote that economic freedom is an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom. far from being concessions to dictators, changes in our policy toward cuba are reinforcing and advancing opportunities for cubans in the private sector. citizens who are totally dependent on government for their livelihood are subject to the whims of all powerful leaders in a way that those who are economically independent are not. in a very real sense in cuba, the economic agenda is the human rights agenda. about i recognizing that pe carious economic position in recent years, the castro regime has laid off thousands of government workers and it has expanded legal opportunities in the private sector. this has given way to a dramatic rise in the number of entrepreneurs on the island who are running restaurants, bed and breakfasts, taxi services, barbara shops, beauty salons and

much more. in fact, it's estimated that as many as a ird this of cuba's five million work ergs are now operating in cuba's private sector. this exponential expansion of cuba's entrepreneurial class would not have happened were it not for u.s. policy changes in 2009 that has led to an explosion of travel and remittances among cuban americans. some suggest that remittances to the island are responsible for 70% to 80% of the capital used in small businesses in cuba. recent changes to u.s. regulations allowing for additional travel and remate temperatureses have further expedited the expansion of the private sector in cuba. additional regulatory changes such as allowing the so-called people-to-people exchanges to be conducted on an individual as opposed to a group basis would propel this movement even further. again this entrepreneurial expansion in cuba has not only

given scores of cubans a better quality of life, it has lessened their dependence on the cuban government in a way that has improved their human rights condition. the reason we completed bilateral air service agreement also represents a key piece to ensuring the continued travel of americans to the island. this agreement will for the first time in 50 years provide scheduled air service it the u.s. and cuba. frequent and regulatory travel between the two countries will continue to open economic ties and it will lead to private sector economic opportunities on the island. i should note that the administration has done just about all that its authority permits to effect change on the island. in the coming months it will be up to congress to take the next steps. i hope that we, particularly those of us on this side of the aisle, who believe so strongly in the value of free markets and

free enterprise will remember these principles as we promote democracy and human rights in cuba. margaret thatcher famously said "there can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty." this statement is as true in cuba as it is anywhere in the world. it is my hope that this principle will guide our actions as we endeavor to promote freedom and liberty in cuba. i yield back the balance of my time. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i request that proceedings under the quoru quorum call be dispend with. the. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i am here this afternoon on the floor to join with colleagues as we discuss the comprehensive addiction and recovery act, cara. i would -- i would suggest that from the perspective of families across the country, so many

would look at this and say this is probably one of the more important pieces of legislation that this senate could be taking up this year. as we think about this crisis, this epidemic that we're seeing across the country with opioid addiction, it's probably one of the most pressing public health issues that are facing american families all across the country. and as we've heard from colleagues, this is not just one single state's issue. this is not just one region of the country. this is -- this is across all 50 states. i always like to think that alaska, because we are so far away, we are so remote, that perhaps we might be insulated from some of the -- some of the

negative aspects of just this modern society. and, in fact, we cannot isolate. we cannot insulate ourselves from the scourge of the drugs and the drug addiction that we are seeing. and this addiction does not discriminate, it doesn't discriminate against any -- any demographic, any group. it can't be, again, confined to just a single geographic region. it impacts young people, it impacts our older people, the lower-income people, the middle-income people, higher-income levels, those of us who -- those who have served our nation as our honored veterans, pregnant women, even newborn babies can suffer from addiction. and the stories that we hear when we are back home visiting with our constituents, talking

with friends, talking with neighbors, and then hearing these stories recounted on the floor -- these are heartbreaking stories that come from all over the country, from the east coast, again, all the way to the most remote villages of alaska. we have seen and we have heard the pain of opioid addiction causes, and that's so -- it's so important then that we be taking action, we address this issue now before it worsens. and, unfortunately, as we see the statistics, that's where it's going; that's the trend; that's the direction. the rate addiction and hospitalization will only continue to skyrocket unless we can throttle this back, unless we can get our hands around it. this is our opportunity to not only treat but to prevent opioid addiction. lots of numbers have been

discussed on the floor about this epidemic that we're seeing, and the numbers really are horrifying. in alaska, the mortality rates related to opioid and heroin abuse have more than tripled since 2008. in 2015, we had 33 alaskans die from heroin overdose, perhaps even more than that that we just haven't been able to identify. the rates on inpatient hospitalization for heroin and opioid poisoning have nearly doubled since 2008. the cost is over millions of dollars. and as we know, it is often our young people that suffer the addiction the most and certainly the most directly. between 2009 and 2013, the rate of individuals between 21 and 29 years old being admitted to treatment centers has doubled.

and, again, we're talking about numbers, we're talking about statistics, but we're really not. we're talking about our friends. we're talking about family. we're talking about neighbors. but we can -- we can make a difference, if we provide the resources. and if we provide the education and the outreach, not just to young people but to all, so that they understand the dangers of opioid addiction. and, unfortunately, some of what we have seen with this addiction is that somehow or other opioids are viewed as less a health threat because they are prescription. and what cara does, what this legislation in front of us does is to help address the educational need, provide states and communities with grant options and resources to ensure

that all in the community -- the educators, the parents, the doctors, other members of the community -- have the knowledge and have the tools that they need to guide and support young people and the community at large. but it is just so hard. it has been so hard to see families and friends lose their loved ones to this addiction. in the community of juneau, our capital state, over the past several months there have been a series of newspaper articles that have chronicled how that community has been impacted by the loss of young people due to heroin. six young people all under the age of 30 were lost last year. in september, we had a young man

who was a soft ballplayer -- softballplayer lost his life -- softball player lost his life. another member was going to film school. you read the stories, you read the details about the lives of these young people, and it would be like any of us until something happens. and what that something is, is an exposure to opioids and an addiction that, again, cuts a life short. and those parents of these young people, as parents in states all across the nation grieve for the loss of their children and wonder what could they have done to perhaps help save their child's life. and, again, that's the community of juneau that is recounting

that. but it is all over our communities. this drug addiction knows no boundaries. it's seeped into, it corrodes alaska's most remote commutes. commutes. -- communities. and these are communities -- there is no easy access to them. 80% of communities in alaska are not connected by road. in order to get to them, particularly this time of year, the only way to get in is to fly in. it's expensive to fly in. in the summer there's water options. but, again, that, too, is expensive. and so somehow or other, while it's difficult for people to move in and out, somehow or other the drugs are coming in and out. the heroin, the opioid addiction has found its way into these remote communities, leaving

families and loved ones just scrambling and desperate as they try to help those that they love. and, unfortunately, the resources that we have in terms of any form of treatment centers are so incredibly, incredibly limited. one of the communities that is on the road system, the community of palmer, just north of anchorage, our largest city -- i was at an event this summer. lots of people and everyone wanting to tiewk m talk to me as picnic. there was a woman who was with her daughter in her early 20's. and that woman waited patiently to be able to speak with me alone. she asked to go off into a corner of the outdoor area that we were in so that she could speak to me about her daughter's situation. her daughter was an addict. she had been in and out of jail. she had been in and out of treatment.

nothing had worked. and this mother had no place else to go, no place else for her daughter to go. and so she, as one mom who cared, was trying to help raise the awareness of the lack of facilities, the lack of treatment, and the lack of options for so many in her situation. and you listen to stories like that, and you realize, we must attempt to do all that we can. and, granted, we're sitting here in washington, d.c., and the federal government doesn't always know what's best. we know that for a fact. but how is it that we can help these families, these communities, as they deal with, again, this scourge that has afflicted so many? we had some good news in the state of alaska. just this week the alaska state

house of representatives passed a bill that will remove civil liabilities for providing or administering the drugal in nale to treat opioid and heroin overdose -- naloxone and heroin overdose. it was representative malone who helped lead this important measure. that is on its way to the governor's desk. again, i think an important option for lifesaving treatment. so, as we work together, those of us that have cosponsored the cara bill and all that have expressed their concern, we know that we need to keep the pressure on, we need to keep the momentum up, not only in alaska to address this but around the country, to fight back, to deal with this addiction that we're

seeing, and to really attack the issue from every degree -- from mental health, to criminal justice reform, community programs, educational resources, tools for veterans and for pregnant women, addressing this widespread issue with a widespread response is important. so i thank -- i thank my colleagues who have led on this issue and the presiding officer here today has clearly done just that. i thank you for your leadership on this. and, as i have spoken this afternoon on opioid addiction and more perhaps specifically to heroin addiction, i also feel compelled to mention that in my state and particularly in anchorage, we've seen a spike of spice abuse -- this is the sympathetic marijuana. more and more we're seeing

individuals that are being sent to the hospital. it's our firefighters that seemingly are responding to more spice and more heroin incidents than they are in responding to fire calls. so recognizing that it's not just heroin but it is other drugs that are truly wreaking the havoc on our families and our communities, that we need to unite together to make a difference. so i think what we're doing here in this body is a first step that passing this legislation is an important response and through what we're doing, we can work to change the direction that unfortunately we have been on that path. so with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and would

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

quorum call: