issue today that we recognize what is at stake. this organization, the paralyzed veterans of america, was founded by a band of service members who came home from world war ii with spinal cord injuries, and i think we should listen to their experience. there are many, many other groups that have come out in opposition to senator lee's amendment. they include the urban league. while those are big cities that receive a lot of federal funds, but they are opposed to senator lee's amendment. the naacp is suppose suppose --s opposed to the amendment. disability groups have come out in opposition to the amendment.

there's another extremely important point that the senator from virginia made, and that is that this rule which has been criticized by some is in direct response to a g.a.o. report, a direct response to g.a.o. criticizing h.u.d. for not doing a good job in carrying out this part of the 1968 fair housing act. that is so important. how many of us in this chamber have repeatedly looked to g.a.o. for advice on how we can improve how federal programs work? well, look to g.a.o., look to its 2010 report which was very critical of h.u.d., and surely

it is significant that when h.u.d. last year issued the new regulations, the g.a.o. said fine and closed out its recommendations as being completed. that's significant. this wasn't some wild scheme that was dreamed up by bureaucrats at h.u.d. as some have claimed. this was in response to a report from the government accountability act. we talk about how we want more efficiency, better accountability. that's why we have the g.a.o., and this rule was directed -- was directly adopted in response to the g.a.o.'s report surely is significant. i see that the senator from texas has arrived and wants to

speak so i will be speaking more on this issue later today, but let me just make one final point. there are those who have claimed that somehow h.u.d. is going to get involved in dictating the zoning rules and ordnances -- ordinances of local communities. i don't believe that that is the case but we're going to offer an amendment to make sure that that is not the case. our amendment that senator reed and i and senator cochran have offered specifically prohibits h.u.d. from dictating in any way to any community what i its zong

ordinances should be. so if that is a possibility, we will foreclose it with our amendment. again, mr. president, i'll be speaking further about this important issue later this afternoon, but at this point i know there are many of my colleagues eager to speak and i will yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i just want to congratulate our friend, the senator from maine, for doing a tremendous job managing this bill. it's never easy given the fact that an individual senator can basically slow down the process or insist on their rights which i'm not disparaging at all. there comes time in every piece of legislation where it's important for us to make sure that we invoke our rights as senators on behalf of the people we represent. but i know it's -- it takes some

patience and diligence and i admire the diligence and the patience and the professionalism of our colleague from maine on what is always a challenging piece of work which is trying to get an appropriation bill passed. i'd like to speak on a different topic, mr. president. that's because this is national police week. earlier this week i had the chance to visit with a police officer by the name of gregory stevens of the garland, texas, police department. now, garland, for people who are not aware is a city just northeast of dallas, texas. and around this time last year, it was a site of an attempted terrorist attack. there was a display of some artwork of the profit mohammed that provoked a terrorist attack, but fortunately officer stevens was the man in the right place at the right time when it

happened. many of us remember that fateful day last may when two armed gunmen from phoenix, arizona, clad in body armor with automatic weapons pulled up to conference center and opened fire. according to media report, the attackers were inspired by isis, the islamic state. this is actually a real problem because this, like the shooters in san bernardino, these folks hadn't actually traveled to syria, although the san bernardino couple had been i believe in saudi arabia, if i'm not mistaken, had traveled overseas. but these people were basically radicalized in place by the ideology of the islamic state. of course this is a big problem for the united states because as the f.b.i. director as commented, there are open f.b.i. investigations in every f.b.i. field office in america over

potential radicalization of people in place here in the united states. so it doesn't just -- it doesn't take people traveling from the middle east over here. it doesn't take people just traveling from here over there and coming back. this is the third leg of the stool or the third prong of the threat, people being radicalized in place. but getting back to my story, officer stevens responded decisively. he was able to stop the two terrorists from hurting hundreds and -- or killing hundreds of people during -- inside the conference center and, thankfully, he left unscathed. i asked him, i said, well, what sort of weapon did you have to protect yourself against these two terrorists in body armor with automatic weapons? he said, well, i had a 45-caliber glock with a 14-shot clip. he said he had to do a tactical reload, but he never fired an additional shot after he

reloaded his weapon. so for those of us familiar with such things, that's the mark of a real professional, somebody who really is well trained and responded as well as you could hope for. so i know the people of the city of garland and the folks in texas are grateful to officer stevens for his quick response and his bravery. like i said, he saved potentially hundreds of lives and injuries. frankly, i think it's appropriate here during police week for us to honor people like officer stevens by telling their stories. on monday, president obama presented officer stevens the medal of valor, the highest honor given to a police officer. and as i suggest, a fitting tribute to the heroic actions he exhibited that day. well, here during national police week, we should note that there are more than 900,000 law

enforcement officers serving our country. we've come to talk about them after 9/11 as being first responders but i'm talking specifically about the law enforcement officers, not the broader category here during police week. these are folks who get up every morning and kiss their families goodbye and go to work and put on a uniform and put themselves in harm's way to protect our communities and our families. and tragically we know not all of them will make it home at the end of the day. last year the united states lost 124 law enforcement officials, 12 of those officers from the state of texas. many of them -- of course all of them have their individual stories, but some left behind spouses and children, and i have no doubt that all of them left behind loved ones and people who cared deeply about them and a community that now in their absence misses them terribly. i'm particularly proud of the

men and women in my state who are serving law enforcement, but not just in texas, across the country, including here at the nation's capitol. our capitol police do a terrific job keeping all of us safe and not just members of congress but obviously the hundreds of thousands of tourists who visit here on an annual basis. all of these professional law enforcement officials have dedicated their lives to public safety. and we should honor them for it. there's no doubt that our nation is a better place because of their hard work and dedication, and of course we all owe them a debt of gratitude. here in the senate, we need to do everything we can do to help professional law enforcement officials learn how to do their job as effectively and safely as possible. and one simple way we can do that is by making sure that they have access to the very best and latest training techniques like,

for example, active shooter training. we know from a number of instances, and i recall the situation at fort hood when major nadal hassan killed i believe it was 13 people, wounded many more. two police officers in what they call active shooter -- active shooter mode crashed the site exposing themselves to danger and ultimately paralyzing nadal has sanl, more importantly taking -- hassan, more importantly taking him out of action and saving a lot of lives. but this sort of training that they had and exhibited to such great effect on that day is what we need to give more of our law enforcement officials access to. that's why i'm glad to join my colleague, the senior senator from vermont, in sponsoring a piece of legislation called the police act, a bill that passed out of the judiciary committee just last week. this is pretty straightforward, and it's bipartisan so it

doesn't make a lot of news, but i do think it serves a useful purpose. it will allow the use of existing grant money for police training to be used for this active shooter training. i know some of that training occurs at texas state university in san marcus. i've been to that site and walked through some of the buildings they use for the training. and it's really a kind of a heart thumping exercise to realize what law enforcement deals with when confronting an active shooter. but it's really important training. we have seen terrorists attacks and sudden acts of violence in communities across the country and thankfully we have people like officer stevens who helped avoid a tragedy in garland, but we should do everything we can to help equip our law enforcement officials with the training and tools they need in order to do their jobs as effectively as possible. the police act would help in this effort, and it would help protect those who put their lives on the line on our behalf every day and support their

efforts to guard the communities that they serve. so i look forward to passing this legislation soon. i can think of no better way to honor those who serve our country so well during police week than to pass the police act which will in some way, some small way provide them access to the training they need in order to do their jobs better and help keep our communities safer. mr. president, before i yield the floor, i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they've been approved by both the majority and minority leaders. i ask consent these requests be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. i'll yield the floor.

i suggest the absence of a quorum prrpt the clerk will call the roll. -- the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. a senator: mr. president, my colleagues and i have been coming down to the floor to talk about an issue that's really one of the most important issues we can focus on -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call.

a senator: mr. president, i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: mr. president, as i was saying, my colleagues and i have been coming to the senate floor talking about a very, very important issue for our country, that we should be spending much more time focusing on, and that's the importance of growing our economy. mr. president, with the exception of national defense, i believe there's no more important moral imperative for this body, for the federal government, to focus on this issue, and, unfortunately, as we've seen, the administration doesn't focus on it. they don't want to talk about the importance of growing the economy because the record that they have of economic growth for americans, particularly middle-class americans, has been dismal. and i've been trying to get my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to focus on this chart

over the last several weeks, but this chart says a lot. if you look at the different records of different administrations -- democrats, republicans -- the obama years have been a lost decade of economic growth. never hit -- this red line here is 3% g.d.p. growth, decent not great. you see reagan, clinton, kennedy, johnson -- they've all ... way, way better numbers. worst recovery in over 70 years. that's a fact. now, they don't want to talk about it. we should talk about it a lot more. i clearly think it's one of the most important things we can be doing in this body. and one way to do that, mr. president, to rei.gignite te american dream, to reignite economic growth, especially for our pages here, is to reduce

burdensome and unnecessary regulations -- and everybody agrees with that, the president, all my colleagues here -- to reduce burdensome and unnecessary federal regulations and to build infrastructure, to build infrastructure for america. and, mr. president, that is exactly what my amendment number 3912 to the transportation aappropriations bill -- to the transportation appropriations bill that's being so ably managed by my colleagues from maine and rhode island, that's what my amendment would be. mr. president, i want to talk about that amendment for a bill lit. -- for a little bit. my amendment would allow states ant communities throughout this -- and communities throughout this nation the ability to expedite permitting for the maintenance, reconstruction, or construction of structurally

deficient bridges. pretty simple. if you're going to do maintenance on a bridge -- you're not going to expand the bridge. the amendment is very narrowly tailored. it says if you are going to do maintenance, construction, or reconstruction of a bridge that's structurally deficient, then the federal government won't be a burden. we will expedite the permitting by waiving many other permitting requirements. so that's it. very simple. as a matter of fact, it's only two paragraphs, this amendment. and it's a win-win for the country. it will help boost our economy, get us back to economic growth, by investing in infrastructure. and, importantly, mr. president, it will keep american families safe. so it's a commonsense approach

that i'm hoping my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support. now, recently president obama was asked about the economy. he was asked about our crumbling infrastructure. and he talked about the need for infrastructure investment, which i completely agree with. however, he laid the blame for a lack of investment in infrastructure on republicans, who he said were unwilling to spend on our infrastructure. well, i think with the highway bill, the wrda bill, with that -- with this appropriations bill, we are doing that, and again it is very bipartisan. so i don't think what the president is saying is true there. we're certainly willing to invest in infrastructure, which is so important for our economy, but we need to do it wisely. and we need to make sure that our taxpayer money does not go to unintended uses.

in fact, i believe, as do many of my colleagues, that there is perhaps nothing more essential to growing our economy and competing globally than sound infrastructure for america. but throwing money at projects that aren't ready for development because of the burdensome permitting and regulatory requirements that we often see from the federal government is not a sound use of taxpayer dollars. a recent column in "the wall street journal" points out that of the $800 billion of taxpayer money that was passed several years ago as part of the president's stimulus package, only $30 billion was spent on transportation infrastructure. that's remarkable. $800 billion. only $30 billion.

why? one of the big reasons why is because these infrastructure projects were not shovel-ready because of the own you arous permitting -- because of the onerous permitting requirements. consider this, mr. president. the average time for an environmental review for a major transportation project in the united states has increased to a staggering eight years -- eight years. to get a transportation project approved in terms of permitting -- eight years in 2011. and that's up from 3.5 years in the year 2000. so we've more than doubled the time in less than seven years because of federal permitting requirements. the average environmental impact statement was about 22 pages when nepa, which requires e.i.

sigh's -- which are -- which requires e.i. s.'s. today's highway projects often have e.i.s.'s that are well above 1 ^,000 pages. and, mr. president, it also takes, on average, over five years to permit a bridge in the united states. nobody wants this. as a matter of fact, former president bill clinton highlighted the need for reform in this area in a well-known "newsweek" article in 2011 where he was on the front cover, where he was talking about thousand get americans back to -- about how to get americans back to work. how do we get americans back to work? and one of his top recommendations was to make sure that when we have infrastructure projects, the permitting requirements don't take forever. he said -- quote -- "we need to

keep the full review process on permitting -permitting on infrae projects when they are a real environmental concern, absolutely. but when there aren't, the federal government should be able to give a waiver to the states to speed up times for construction projects." that's president bill clinton's -- former president bill clinton's recommendation. well, in fact, mr. president, that's exactly what my amendment does. again, if you are going to repair or build a bridge and keep it the same capacity -- a two-lane bridge stays a two-lane bridge, no a -- not a four-brain bridge -- and you keep it in the same place and sim sierksz then the permitting process should be expedited. mr. president, let me spend a few minutes on why this is so important for our economy and for safety our citizens. i think most people in this body

know our bridges are in poor condition. about one in ten of america's roughly 670,000 bridges are termed and classified as "structurally deficient." let me repeat that in a different way. in the united states, there are more than 61,000 bridges in need of repair, 61,000 bridges. the average age of our bridges -- 42 years old. americans cross these structurally deficient bridges 215 million times a day. here's where they are. if you look here, this classifies different bridges. the red category is the most -- over 25% of bridges in that part

of the country are structurally deficient. the lighter red, 20% to 25%, 15% to 20%. but, as you can see, mr. president, this impacts every state, for we have structurally deficient bridges where americans are crossing 215 million times a day. and let me be clear. it's not just about the economy. where struckers and commerce are crossing these bridges every day. it's about safety -- children, -- children in school buses, and parents coming home from work. every state in the union is expwacted by this. let me -- every state in the union is impacted by this. let me give a few examples of structurally deficient bridges across the country. this is the magnolia bridge, seattle, washington, built in 1929. this bridge carries over 18,000

cars per day and has been declared structurally deficient. the greenfield bridge in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. pittsburgh pennsylvania has the most structurally deficient bridges in the country. and this is one of them. built in 1921, it carries almost 8,000 cars per day. in 2003, a 10-inch chunk of concrete went thraw a car windshield -- through a car windshield injuring the driver. this bridge has been crumbling for decade. one more, mr. president, which you will find of significant interest. the russell street bridge, missoula, montana. transportation for america rated the deck of the russell street bridge a 4 out of 10 in terms of structural soundness. it was built in 1957 and carries

over 22,000 cars a day. so i think we would all agree that we need to fix these 61,000 structurally deficient bridges. there's no doubt about that. i don't think there's any member of this body or in the federal government that would disagree with that. but what happens when we try to do that? in effect, mr. president, the efforts, especially of the local communities, are strangled by bureaucratic red tape. mr. president, "the wall street journal" recently had an article called "the highway to bureaucratic hell." and what it talked about was this very issue. when communities try to fix their bridges, their structurally deficient bridges,

what happens? they gave a number of examples, but i wanted to read one that impacts americans in the new jersey/new york area of the country. "the wall street journal" article stated, "another illustration of what happens is the bi-on bridge that connects statin, new jersey, to long island. the port authority of new york and new jersey plans to raise the bridge, a height from 150 feet to 215 feet. they wanted to do that to allow cargo ships going there -- same size bridge, they would just raise it instead of having to spent $3 billion building a tunnel. the article goes on to say, "as a reward for that rationality, it took six months to identify

the lead agency for an environmental review, an environmental review that dragged foreign more than five years -- for more than five years and spanned 20,000 pages." mr. president, that's not good for new jersey, that's not good for new york, that's not good for america. so again, what my amendment would do would fix this. very narrowly tailored, and it would simply make sure that when we are trying to do this, when we are trying to fix the 61,000 structurally deficient bridges in the united states, we can do it in an expedited manner, not the way in which this "wall street journal" article described -- five years, 20,000 pages. this amendment is a win-win-win. it'll help spur economic growth, it'll help us with safety of our

citizens, it'll help our workers get comebacget -- get back to wo repair and do maintenance and reconstruction on these bridges. and, you know, mr. president, everybody here talks about regulatory reform and how we need it. even the president in his state of the union talked about the need to cut red tape to grow this economy. but we rarely act on it. talk about it, but we don't act on it. so i want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, my colleagues particularly from older states where this amendment will help them more than the rest of the country, and to vote on this amendment which will keep our families and kids safe, help grow our economy, put workers back to work. and it's a commonsense thing to do for our country. i yield the floor.

ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: mr. president, it has been 62 days now since judge garland's nomination. 62 days. and as we all know, our founding fathers entrusted all of us in the united states senate with the role of providing advice and consent to the president of the united states in relation to his appointments to the supreme court. we have the option of meeting -- in fact, i believe responsibility to meet with the nominee in person. we're responsible for holding hearings through the senate judiciary committee based on his responses to questions. we then have the opportunity to vote "yes" or "no" on the nomination. but we don't have the

responsibility of doing nothing. we have to proceed to consider the nomination. unfortunately, senators in the majority are refusing to do that. they've said they will not hold hearings. no hearings. zero on a nominee for the united states supreme court. and too many have refused to even meet with the nominee, which is, i believe, a matter of respect to meet with the nominee. judge merrick garland. this is our job in the senate. this is their job. the job established for them, for us by america's founding fathers. and unfortunately the majority is refusing to do it. i've talked with a lot of hardworking people in michigan and, frankly, people around the

country about what would happen if they decided not to do one of the most basic parts of their job, if they said for the next year i think i just am not going to do this major part of my job description. and usually when i ask people about that, they laugh and they go, well, that's simple. i'd be fired. that's the response of the majority of americans. if we go back in history and look at how long it usually takes for the senate to process a president's supreme court nomination, you can see how unprecedented these delays really are. if this republican-controlled senate did its job like previous senators did, then there would have been a hearing of the judiciary committee by april 27. that's three weeks ago. three weeks ago. but that hasn't happened. the judiciary committee would have held a vote on may 12, but

that vote never came. and there's no sign it's coming any time soon, if at all, this year. and based on historical precedent, the supreme court nominee would then come to the floor for a vote on confirmation, up or down, "yes" or no, by memorial day. and that's not going to happen either. so i urge my republican colleagues to schedule a hearing so that the american people can hear directly from judge merrick garland in a transparent and open way. ask the tough questions. talk about his almost 20 years on the bench, on the circuit bench and his role as chief judge. we should also talk about the fact that he was confirmed for that position overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis by the u.s.

senate. because there's not a willingness to hold hearings, to debate, to discuss, to have a vote, that's why polls show a majority of americans support the hearings and a vote for judge garland and don't understand what's going on. meanwhile, the eight justices of the supreme court have been unable to reach a final decision on two important cases, and i'm sure there will be more. zubickv burwell and spokevs. robbins. the vacancy will remain likely for a year or so as to whether men or women will have seamless access to health care products.

we can't afford to let this continue with less than the nine justices that make up the united states supreme court. the reality is that's what it says in the constitution. this is supposed to be the branch of government, a separate branch of government that will place a check on the administration and on congress, the third branch of government. and it's time that we get about the business of doing our job for republican colleagues to say they're going to do their job to provide advice and consent on the nomination. again, if there is not support for this nomination after rigorous debate, after hearings, after questions, after hearing judge garland, then so be it. then the president of the united states will have to come back with another nomination. but right now nothing is

happening to reflect the fact that the third branch of government will be left ineffective, unable to fully function for probably a year. it could be longer. that makes no sense. so it's time to do your job. it's time to do your job. so that the u.s. supreme court can do its job on behalf of the american people. thank you, mr. president. i would yield the floor.

mrs. fischer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to discuss important legislation before the united states senate this week,

the combined transportation, housing and urban development and the military construction and veterans affairs appropriations bill. as chairman of the surface transportation subcommittee and an active member of the committee on environment and public works, i am pleased that this appropriations bill includes a number of critical transportation and infrastructure initiatives that i have advocated for during my time in the senate. a safe, efficient and reliable transportation system is crucial to the economic growth of our country. last year, congress passed a much-needed five-year highway bill known as fixing america's surface transportation or the fast act. i was proud to work with my colleagues on this bipartisan legislation and usher in the

first multiyear transportation bill in over a decade. the transportation appropriations bill before the senate fully funds that highway bill. because of the fast act, americans will benefit from increased investment in our nation's transportation system. rural and urban communities across nebraska and across our country will have new opportunities to secure funding for essential freight infrastructure projects. meanwhile, a new national strategic freight program within the fast act will help our states and our local communities prioritize freight traffic and increase safety. through this program, states will be provided with the discretion to direct new funds to rural and urban freight corridors with higher commercial traffic. as states work to develop their

freight plans and designate corridors, stakeholders across all modes will have the opportunity to participate and provide valued feedback. first and last mile connectors for freight at airports, trucking facilities and rail yards will also be eligible for increased investment under this national freight program. railroad infrastructure is also a pivotal component of our national transportation network. according to the nebraska department of roads, my state hosts more than 3,000 at-grade rail crossings that will be eligible for federal dollars. additional funding is provided for railroad safety and research programs, including positive train control installation and resources to address highway

rail grade crossing safety. i'm also pleased that t-hud advances key pipeline safety efforts which i worked with my commerce committee colleagues, including you, mr. president, to include in the bipartisan safe pipes act. america's pipeline infrastructure transports vital energy resources to homes, businesses, schools and commercial centers across our country. according to the pipeline and hazardous material safety administration or phmsa, more than 2.5 million miles of pipelines traverse the united states. pipelines are often renowned as the safest way to transport crude oil and natural gas. nevertheless, congress must continue to increase safety on america's vast pipeline network.

our nation's hazardous materials emergency responders and our firefighters are supported by t-hud report language that encourages phmsa to update important training curriculum programs. the surface transportation subcommittee has also been working on legislation to strengthen our nation's maritime programs. for example, the maritime security program is responsible for ensuring a fleet of u.s. merchant marine vessels stands ready and available to assist our nation's military in times of war or national emergency, and i appreciate that t-hud bolsters this very valuable program. furthermore, d.o.t. and the u.s. merchant marine academy will be compelled to provide more information to congress on efforts to combat on-campus

sexual assault. addressing on-campus sexual assault is something that i have been seeking to address as part of my bill known as the maritime administration enhancement act of 2017. through meaningful prevention and response efforts, we can provide a more secure experience for the academy's men and women, many of whom will go on to serve our country. america's aviation and aerospace system will benefit from increased resources without raising ticket fees on our nation's passengers. the bill's report tasks the federal aviation administration with evaluating and updating commercial airline onboard emergency medical kits, particularly for families traveling with young elephants. this is something that i have fought for in the senate f.a.a.

bill. full funding is provided for the contract tower program which allows smaller airports to contract with the private sector for air traffic control services. airports across the country, such as the central nebraska regional airport in grand island, nebraska, will benefit greatly from this program. t-hud allocates critical funding for our nation's multimodal transportation network, and i'm pleased that the bill advances many of my own key initiatives. i would also like to address some of the important provisions included in the military construction and the veterans' affairs portion of the bill. we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to our veterans, and we have a responsibility to help them in their time of need. these men and women answer the

call to serve our country and to defend our freedom. some have deployed around the world, often into the heart of danger to fight or provide humanitarian assistance. many of these veterans return from service with both the visible and the unseen scars of battle. these brave men and women deserve timely access to quality health care. unfortunately, veterans living in rawrl states can be forced to travel great distances to receive the care that they need. through this legislation, the v.a. would be prevented from diminishing services at certain existing veterans health administration medical facilities. it would also require the v.a. to take a more holistic approach to planning and executing

realignment. throughout nebraska, veterans are fortunate to receive quality care from dedicated v.a. medical providers. at the same time the lack of modern infrastructure and outdated facilities are hindering efforts to provide the latest treatments and support. the v.a. must continue to explore innovative strategies to hasten updates and the completion of our new facilities. although this bill offers progress, we are not finished in our efforts to address problems at the v.a. i will continue to do whatever i can to ensure that every veteran has access to the health care that they need. as i mentioned, the appropriations bill before us today moves forward a number of significant national

transportation priorities and enhances programs beneficial to america's veterans. i greatly appreciate the hard work of senators collins, senators kirk and their appropriations subcommittee staffs on this critical bill. it will allocate much-needed dollars to advance our nation's transportation system and strengthen veterans' programs. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i just want to thank the senator from nebraska, senator fischer, for her comments. she is such is leader on so many issues in the senate. we work very closely together on transportation issues, and she gave us very valuable input for the bill that is before us. so i just want to acknowledge

her help and assistance and guidance and thank her for her comments. mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent to address the senate as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. without objection. the quorum call is lifted. mr. mccain: mr. speaker, over the last few months, we have witnessed obamacare crumbling in my home state of arizona. several obamacare co-ops collapsed including mutual health partners, forcing nearly 60,000 arizonans scrambling to find new coverage. last month united healthcare, the nation's largest health insurer, announced it will exit the arizona marketplace and leave about 45,000 arizonans to find new coverage in 2017. now as a direct result of the president's failed law, health insurer humana announced it will exit the marketplace in 2017 in my home state. all together, over half of arizona's counties will be left with a single insurer. another third will be left with

just two. this will in turn cause premiums to skyrocket even higher than last year. while democrats continue to stand by a failed law, arizona families are bearing the burden. that is unacceptable. more than six years after obamacare was rammed through congress without a single republican vote -- and i was here on the floor on christmas eve morning as it was passed on a strict party-line vote -- democrats are still trying to spin their overhaul of america's health care system. we continue to hear from advocates of obamacare who make their claims that continue to leave me speechless. such is that insurance markets are stable and premiums aren't rising quickly. unfortunately, as is often the case with advocates of the president's disastrous law, these statements are largely devoid of reality.

obamacare's upheaval and disruption to our nation's health care system is a direct result of the white house and democratic leadership's efforts to write this massive bill behind closed doors with no input from this side of the aisle. the process was anything but bipartisan as promised on the campaign trail by then-presidential candidate barack obama. instead of crafting health care reform that works for the american people, the administration cut deals with drug companies to get their support, ensuring they would see increased profits and consumers would face increased costs. democrats' partisan effort to write and pass obamacare without republican participation flies in the face of how every other major reform in american history was enacted. i've worked with democrats on many occasions to solve some of the country's most urgent

problems. never in my experience has one party attempted to increase the government's influence in one-sixth of the american economy over the unanimous opposition of the other party. unfortunately, americans are now facing the consequences of this massive overhaul of our health care system. the biggest problem in our health care system and americans' most pressing concern are out-of-control cost increases. but obamacare does nothing to address this issue. that's why we continue to see health care costs balloon while health insurance becomes increasingly expensive and unaffordable for citizens and their employees. sadly, as we've seen in recent weeks, the situation is only getting worse. just last month a poll by gallup found that americans cite health care costs as the most important

financial burden facing their family. they name health care costs ahead of other financial burdens such as low wages, debt, and being able to afford college or a mortgage. the american people are now experiencing firsthand exactly what republicans have been warning about ever since obamacare was written. the law will ultimately do far more harm than good, and they have every right to question what the future holds. the fact is the crumbling of obamacare should come as no surprise to anyone. united health, which will exit from all but a handful of states in the individual marketplace in 2017, united health lost $475 million on the obamacare exchanges in 2015 and is projected to lose $650 million on the exchanges in 2016.

its exit from obamacare exchanges will send an estimated 45,000 citizens of my state, arizonans, scrambling to find new coverage with even fewer options to choose from. humana's announcement that it will follow in united health's footsteps by exiting arizona's exchanges, should also come as no surprise given the fact that it continues to incur losses as a result of obamacare's onerous regulations. humana and united health's exit means fewer options, less competition and most certainly higher costs for consumers. this is especially true after blue cross-blue shield, the only remaining provider in several arizona counties, increased premiums last year by 27%, merely to recover the $185

million in losses it incurred in the obamacare marketplace between 2014 and 2015. the health insurer has noted that continuing to suffer losses in the marketplace is unsustainable, meaning significant premium increases are on the horizon for 2017. all of this news of insurance companies exiting the marketplace and others increasing premiums is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the consequences of this disastrous law. since obamacare became law, prescription drug costs have continued to skyrocket. instead of encouraging innovation and competition, obamacare places heavy taxes on manufacturers and prurgz -- prescription drugs importers. according to standard & poor's,

the cost of drugs on the individual insurance market jumped 50% in 2015. just as some are foregoing a visit to the doctor because of higher out-of-pocket costs, we're starting to see more and more individuals with chronic conditions not getting their prescriptions filled because of the increasing cost of drugs. the fact is obamacare was a failure from the start and americans are paying the price. the best thing government could do to expand access to health insurance is to institute reforms that would rein in costs and make health care more affordable. i've introduced legislation to replace obamacare with real reform that would expand quality access to health care without compromising individual liberty, competition or innovation. regrettably, every republican effort to meaningfully bring down the cost of health care has been met with rigid opposition

by democrats who are more concerned with protecting president obama's legacy than making health care accessible and affordable. every day that goes by with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continuing to dig in their heels leads to another day that millions of americans face higher health care costs, decreased quality of care, and fewer choices. it's past time for the president of the united states and democrats in congress to answer to the thousands of citizens across my state and the nation who have been let down time and again by this disastrous law. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i come to the floor today to commend the leaders of the senate appropriations committee for accepting transparency language that a request to be included in the fiscal year 2017 spending bill for the department of hud

hud -- housing and urban development. the good government provision which i championed after years of oversight work will ensure greater accountability in public housing, authority's use of the federal money that they receive in this annual appropriation bill. for the last six years, i have raised concern about h.u.d.'s failure to conduct proper oversight of how local housing use those federal dollars. specifically, my concerns relate to h.u.d.'s practice of allowing local housing authorities to spend hundreds of millions of federal dollars each year with virtually no housing and urban development oversight and no transparency to the public. we all have reason to be concerned about this lack of

transparency because some local housing authorities rely on the federal government for up to 90% of their funding. that's why i want to thank senators collins, senator kirk and other members of the transportation-h.u.d. appropriation subcommittee for recognizing that congress must insist on h.u.d. paying closer attention to the use of taxpayer dollars by housing authorities. the good governance provision that the transportation-h.u.d. subcommittee included in this year's appropriations report ensures that in the future the housing money we appropriate for low-income families will retain its federal designation even after it's transferred to the housing authorities. and i want to stress this

designation is no small matter. in other words, federal money is going to be considered federal money when it gets to the local housing authority, and no games can be played with it like are being played with it now. u.s. taxpayers spend about $4.5 billion every year to help low-income americans put a roof over their heads. we can be proud that we do so much for people in need. we should not let any of that money specifically for people of need to be wasted or spent to feather the nests of local public housing authority bureaucrats. i'd like to take a few minutes to explain why the appropriations language that i championed and is in this legislation is so sorely needed.

some local housing authorities have devoted these limited funds meant to help low-income people find affordable housing to high salaries and to even for perks for the people who run housing authorities around the country. i'm just going to use three examples, but there is dozens of examples that can be given. at the atlanta housing authority, at least 22 employees earned between $150,000 and $303,000 per year. the former executive director of the raleigh, north carolina, housing authority received about $280,000 in salary and benefits plus 30 vacation days. the executive director of the tampa housing authority is paid

over $214,000 per year and the housing authority spends over $100,000 per year on travel and conferences. a few years ago after i called attention to these wasteful practices, h.u.d. limited the executive salary paid by local housing authorities. good news, right? well, it didn't work out that way. even after the salaries were capped at level four of the executive schedule pay scale, which today amounts to about $160,000 a year. so as i say it didn't turn out to be good news. unfortunately, as it did turn out, this compensation cap had little impact in limiting housing authority salaries, and this is -- i'll explain that. h.u.d. provides over $350 million in operating fees

annually to local housing authorities. right now, these fees are considered income earned by the housing authority for managing programs instead of considering them what they are grants given by the federal government. that's where the federal money gets mixed up with local money and federal money isn't followed by h.u.d., and that's why they get away with the waste of taxpayers' money. when these fees reach the housing authorities, despite their source, they are no longer considered federal funds. i say that a second time for emphasis. once these federal funds lose federal designation, housing authorities then can use the tax dollars as they see fit, and they do. and then when they use it as

they see fit, h.u.d. is not required to conduct oversight of how the money's spent. and believe me, h.u.d. hasn't done much oversight. this means that many employees of housing authorities can continue to earn annual salaries well in excess of the $160,000 without technically violating the federal salary cap. you can see the games that are being played to let these local housing people get this massive high salaries and fringe benefits and wasting taxpayers' money that should be spent helping low-income people get safe housing. now, these salaries, sadly, exceed limits that were imposed by the federal government to ensure then that the money we

appropriate goes to low-income families in the greatest need of our assistance. after i began publicly voicing my complaints about this practice, the office of management and budget in december, 2013, issued a governmentwide guidance that should have, should have put a stop to it, but it didn't. let me tell you what the guidance called for. so-called fees for services will then be designated as program income so the federal funding would retain its federal designation after it's transferred into housing authority business accounts, and by making sure it kept a federal designation, that means that it had to be subject to h.u.d.

oversight. now, h.u.d. initially agreed to fully implement the o.m.b. guidance, but they did not, so later the department quietly, very quietly requested a waiver that if that waiver is granted would have allowed the housing authorities to step -- sidestep the new o.m.b. rule and then continue to avoid commonsense oversight because with that waiver the federal dollars would not have federal designation, they would be considered local money and could be spent any way people wanted to spend it. now, i might never have learned of this h.u.d. effort to get around this o.m.b. rule but for the very good work of the h.u.d. inspector general. after i learned from the inspector general's staff that

the -- that h.u.d. was requesting a waiver of the o.m.b. guidance, i sent a letter to o.m.b. expressing my concerns, but as so often happens with bureaucrats in this town, i didn't hear from o.m.b. until i attempted to include an amendment language addressing the fee designation in the transportation-h.u.d. appropriation bill before thanksgiving last year. when the like issue was up on the floor of the senate. that bill, as we all know, was pulled from the floor, but neither the inspector general nor i were ready to give up, and that's why we're here today. just recently, i received good news which reinforces my belief that congressional oversight works. h.u.d. has finally agreed to implement its inspector

general's recommendations requiring that funding provided by the taxpayers to public housing authorities will keep its federal designation. in other words, h.u.d. will be responsible for making sure that federal funding is used as intended, and that's very clear why we have public housing, to provide safe, affordable housing for those in need and consequently then not use that federal money to pay exorbitant executive salaries. my concern now is the time frame for implementation and ensuring that h.u.d. does not request another waiver. h.u.d. expects a final rule to be completed by december 2017, more than a year and a half from now. now, that's an awful long time to finalize regulations.

i hope h.u.d. isn't delaying the process in the hope that neither the inspector general nor this senator will give up. i can assure you that that won't happen. we need to ensure this reform is implemented by including language in this appropriation bill to not just keep salaries in check but also to ensure that h.u.d. exercises oversight authority over how these funds are used and more money is actually used for the poor. i would hope h.u.d. might use that oversight authority to combat waste like the following, and i've got three examples and then i'll be finishing. the housing authority of the city of los angeles misused over three and nine-tenths million dollars in operating funds for salary, travel, bonuses, and legal settlements.

the stark metropolitan housing authority in canton, ohio, misused $4 million in operating and capital funds to build a commercial development and an additional $2 million was misused for salaries and benefits. the hickory, north carolina, housing authority paid over $500,000 in operating funds to a maintenance company owned by the brother of a board member, a clear conflict of interest. it is also vital that congress is aware of any effort by h.u.d. to once again avoid implementing this rule like they tried to get around the o.m.b. rule that i just talked about. for that reason, the report language that i requested requires h.u.d. to notify both the house and senate appropriation committees quarterly during fiscal year

2017 if they request any waiver from implementing these provisions. so i encourage my colleagues to support this effort to ensure that h.u.d. implements these much needed changes and does its part to provide better oversight of our scarce federal funding. i yield. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'm delighted to be here on the floor with the chairman of the senate judiciary committee and the ranking member, my colleague -- our colleague from vermont who i worked with on so many issues to ask unanimous consent to take up a bill that i talked about a little bit earlier this morning called the police act. this is using existing funding to support local law enforcement but specifically to make sure that funding is available for active shooter training.

for example, in san marcus, texas, at texas state university, they've trained 80,000 local law enforcement officials in active shooter training. the time i remember most pointedly when this was put to good use and saved lives was at fort hood texas when major nadal hassan stood up and killed i think about 13 people and then wounded about 30 more, had two law enforcement officials who crashed the site, put themselves in harm's way but thanks to the great training they had, they were able to disable major hassan before he was able to do any more damage. so this is very important training. we want to make sure that there are funds available using existing funding streams but available for active shooter training wherever it might be provided around the country. so i want to just express my gratitude to senator grassley and senator leahy and at this time, mr. president, i'd ask

unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 464, s. 2840. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 464, s. 2840, a bill to amend the omnibus crime control and safe streets act of 1968 and so forth and for other purposes. mr. cornyn: -- the presiding officer: any objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. cornyn: i ask consent the bill be read a third time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i know of no further debate on the matter. the presiding officer: the presiding officer: the clerk will read the bill for a third time clerk calendar, a bill to amend the omnibus crime control and safe streets act of 1968 and so forth and for other purposes. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i know of no further debate on the matter. the presiding officer: the presiding officer: if there's no further debate, the question is on passage ever the

bill. -- ever the bill. all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. mr. leahy: move to reconsider. mr. cornyn: i move to lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i've had a chance to speak on this earlier. i defer to my colleague, the chairman of the judiciary committee or senator leahy from vermont, my principal cosponsor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont lay lay i -- leag i ask consent my -- mr. leahy: i ask consent my whole speech appear in the record. the presiding officer: without objection leag we've work od many law enforcement issues over the years. i think we're trying to demonstrate that law enforcement should not be a partisan matter and we've done this in a bipartisan fashion. you know, this week the president bestowed upon several

officers the medal of valor for the response act of shooters, including three officers who confronted a gunman during a rampage at a community college and left five people dead. i think we cannot rely on heroism alone. mr. leahy: senator cornyn mentioned the training that helped end an active shooter incident in texas. unfortunately, active shooter incidents have become all too common. they occur in shopping malls and schools, the workplace, anywher people gather. no state is immune, including my own state of vermont. all of our nation's officers should receive training on how to handle such situations. so they can respond effectively to protect the public and protect themselves. -- make such training available. as we said senator cornyn and i have made it very clear supporting our nation's law enforcement officers, reducing

gun violence is not a partisan issue. so i applaud the senate in passing this. i urge the house to quickly pass it, and i know the president will sign it and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. a senator: mr. president, in 1867 when the naturalist john muirer first walked into the cumberland mountains, he wrote, -- quote -- "the scenery is far grander than any i ever before beheld. such an ocean of wooded, waving swelling mountain beauty and grandeur is not to be describe described." in january apex clean energy announced it would spoil that mountain beauty by building 23, 45 story wind turbines in cumberland county. mr. alexander: i can still recall walking into grassy cove in cumberland county one spectacular day in 1978 during my campaign for governor. i had not seen a prettier sight.

over the last few decades, pleasant weather and natural beauty have attracted thousands of retirees from tennessee and across america to the cumberland plateau. the proposed crab orchard wind project would be built less than ten miles from cumberland mountain state park where for a half century tennesseans and tourists have camped, fished and canoed alongside herrings and belted king fishers and around bird lake. it will be fewer than five miles from ozone fall seen incompetent state natural area where -- scenic state natural area where the water fall is to picturesque that it was filmed in the movie "junk balance book -- jungle book" so here are my ten questions for the people of tennessee. how big are these wind turbines? i have a picture somewhere, maybe it will show up in the next few minutes, but each one is over two times as tall as the

sky boxes at the university of tennessee football stadium. three times as tall as ozone falls, and taller an the statue of liberty. the blades on each one are as long as a football field. they're blinking lives can be seen for 20 miles. they are not injure grandma's wind -- they are not your grandma's win windmills. will they disturb the neighborhood? here's a "new york times" review that said about new york residents debating such turbines. turbines are huge with blades weighing seven tons and spinning at 150 miles an hour. they can fall over or send parts flying, struck by lightning say they can catch fire. they can generate a disorienting strobe effect in sun light. giant flickering shadows can tarnish a sunset's glow on a landscape. question number three, how much

electricity can the project produce? a puny amount, mr. president, 71 meeting watts -- meg watts but that's -- megawatts but that's only when the wind is blowing which is only 18.4% of the time according to the energy information administration. number four, do they need this electricity? no is the answer. last year t.v.a. said, quote there is no immediate need for new base-load plants after watch bar unit two comes on line. that's a nuclear reactor. and just last week, t.v.a. put up for sale its unfinished bellefonte nuclear plant. question number five, do we need wind power's carbon free electricity to help with climate change? no, we don't. nuclear power is a more reliable option, nuclear produces over 60% of our country's carbon-free

electricity which is available 92% of the time. wind produces 15% of our country's carbon free electricity, but the wind often blows at night when electricity is not needed. number six, question six, how many wind turbines would it take to equal one nuclear reactor? to equal the production of the new watch bar reactor, you would have to run three rows of these huge wind turbines along i-40 from memphis to knoxville. don't forget the transmission lines. four reactors, each occupying roughly one square mile, would equal the production of a row of 45-story wind turbines strung the entire length of the 21,078 appalachia trail from georgia to maine. relying on wind power to produce electricity when nuclear reactors are available is the energy qirve lengts of going --

give rent in going to war in sailboats when the nuclear navy is available. question number seven, can you easily store large amounts of wind power and use it later when you need it. the answer is no, mr. president. so even if you build wind turbines, do you still need nuclear, coal or gas plants for the 80% of the time when the wind isn't blowing in tennessee? the answer is yes. then why would anyone want to build wind power that t.v.a. doesn't need? because billions of dollars of wasteful federal taxpayer subsidies allow wind producers in some markets to give away wind power and still make a profit. and the tenth question, mr. president, is who is going to guarantee that these giant wind turbines get taken down when they wear out in 20 years or after the subsidies go away? good question.

mr. president, the picture that was just put up, and i have another slide just as well, but the picture was just put up is what palm springs, california looks like after it's been littered with these massive wind turbines. my question for the people of tennessee is do you want cumberland county and tennessee to look like that? that's the question we need to ask ourselves. many communities where wind projects have been proposed have tried to stop them before they go up, because once the wind turbines and new transmission lines are built, it's hard to take them down. for example, watch the documentary windfall that i mentioned earlier. in october the residents of vermont voted 274-9 against a plan to install a pair of 500-foot turbines on a ridgeline visible from their neighborhoods. in new york, three counties

opposed 500 to 600-foot wind turbines next to late ontario. people of the town of yates voted unanimously to oppose the project in order to preserve their rural landscape. take a look and you can see why. in kent county, maryland, the same company that's trying to put turbines in cumberland county, apex clean energy tried to put down 25 to 35 500-foot turbines, a quarter to a half mile apart across thousands of acres of farmland where the air serves as a route for migratory geese. according to the baltimore sun, a bill was introduced that would give county officials the right to veto any large-scale wind knowledge their jurisdiction. heherb chicago said he put in te bill. he called it a massive footprint

in a relative mural bucolic area. william pickrim wrote the senate committee that the project will have a negative effect on farming, boating, and tourism in the county and hurt property value. the legislation had the support of local conservation groups and of washington college in chesterton venal the school's interim president warned to in a letter that the turbine would des spoil the scenic landscape. mr. president, i mentioned a little earlier how big these wind turbines are. these are not your grandma's windmills. i happen to know the prrvetion even though he is the senator from the university -- from north carolina, was born in tennessee and knows a little bit about the football stadium in knoxville. this is one wind turbine. when placed in the stadium in

knoxville which will hold 100,000 people. the turbine is twice as hall as the sky boxes. its blades go the whole length of the football field. it's blinking lights can be seen for 20 miles. these are not your grandma's windmills. so, mr. president, let me take this down. as united states senator, i voted to save our mountain toins from destructive mining techniques. i'm just as eager to protect mountaintops from unsightly wind turbines. i have voted for federal clean air legislation and supported t.v.a.'s plan to build carbon-free nuclear reactors, phase out its oacialtiond dirtier coal plants and put pollution-control equipment on the remaining coal plants. already the air is cleaner and our view of mountains is better.

i hope the citizens of cumberland county and all tennesseans will say a loud "no" to the out-of-state wind producers who are encouraged by billions in wasteful taxpayer subsidies to destroy our mountains and make them look like that. some say tourists will come to see the giant turbines they made once. but do you really think tourists or more tennesseans want to exchange a drive through the natural beauty of the cumberland mountains for a drive along 23 towers that are more than twice as tall as neland stadium and whose flashing lights can be seen for 20 miles? if you do, just take another look at the photograph of what has happened in palm springs, california. mr. president, if there is one thing tennians agree on, it is -- tennesseans agree on, it is the pride and natural beauty of our state. there are few places anymore

more beautiful than cumberland county. we should not allow anyone to destroy the environment of our state in the name of saving it. i thank the president, and i yield the floor. mr. manchin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president, i rise today, as i have for the past few weeks, to bring stories of the opiate crisis we have throughout my state and all over your state of north carolina and all over this country. this epidemic is something we have to face because it affects every person in america right now. therthere's not a person i knowf and not anybody i believe in america who doesn't know somebody in their immediate family, extended family or close

friend that hasn't been affected by prescription drug abuse or illicit drug abuse. i've been dealing with this since my days as governor of the great state of west virginia. and, as you know, it's ravaged my state. we've hit harder than any other state in the country. drug overdoses have soared by over 700%. just last year we lost over 600 west virginians. these are legal prescription drugs made legally in the country by a legal company, approved by the food and drug administration, a federal agency supposed to be looking out for our well-being. being prescribed by the most trusts person next to our family members, our doctors, and they're killing us. but our state is not unique in that. it's hit everybody. 51 americans are dying every day. every day. we've lost over 200,000 americans -- 200,000 americans

have died since 1999. when you think about that, we should -- i mean, if epidemic proportions were taken about zika -- we just put d 1.1 billion towards zika. we spent $500 million on ebola. all of these horrible epidemics that can do devastation to america, we'll rise up and face. we haven't done a thing in this line. we need a serious culture change to get to the root of the problem and we need to change approval of opiate drugs. f.d.a. does not need to be putting out these powerful drugs. we don't need them. there's less than 5% of the world's population that lives in our country. we consume over 80% of the opiates produced in the world. how did we become soaddicted? so we have to treat the way we

look at this drug coming to the market. also, mr. president, probably like yourself, 10, 20 years ago you know anybody that did drurks i thought they committed a crime, put them in jail. we've spent over $500 billion in the last two decades incarcerating people for nonviolent crimes. they come out as bad as they went in. we didn't cure anything. so i say, we got to chaifnlgt we're looking at sentencing guideline changes. a nonviolent crime, most addicts create a theft. that's where they get their sentencing frvment they get a criminal record. can't get a job. they're oust market. my state of west virginia has the lowest workforce participation. there's only three things that take you out of the workforce if you are an adult. one, you have a record, incarceration record. people won't hire you. either you have a lack of skill sets or you're a dicted.

you can't pass a descrug test or a combination of those three. we've got people -- we can't fill jobs. people are telling me how bad the economy is. we can't get people to pass a drug test. it is something we have to do. my office continues to get flooded, mr. president. i get letters from all over the country now because i invite that -- i want -- leet me read your letter. let's put a face. let's put a family. not just a hardship. it is not just poverty. this is basically every walk of life of america and they're writing stories. i want to read another story to you right now. this is carolyn's story. this is the grandmother writing to he moovment "dear senator manchin, i am closing a copy of the letter i included in the newspaper. i consider myself debbie's

grandmother. at my age, words are the best weapon to fight the scourge that killed her. read my lettered and use it in any way you see fit in the fight for passage of jesse's law." it's basically just saying, if you go to the hospital and you know your child or loved one in your family is addicted and the child is trying to over-qom the addiction, then the hospital has a responsibility to stands stamp on their record "addiction" so they'll be watching how they discharge them and the type of opiates they give them. you can't reaffirm an addiction by giving them more pills. so this is what we're fighting against. she says, "our granddaughter devon, that tall, exuberant redhead is now a statistic. several days ago our son called to tell us she had died the night before from a heroin overdose. it wasn't her first by far but the other times someone had always managed to get her to the hospital. the last time the friend -- that

last time the friend shooting up with her couldn't help. he died at her side. she still held the need until her hand that killed her. it was that quick," mr. president. devon started her drug journey with a prescription of opiates, a prescription because she had been injured and she had an ailment and she had pain. when those pills weren't enough anymore, heroin stepped in. heroin steps in every time, and the downward spiral began. it isn't just a problem of kids from poor neighborhoods who get hooked. everybody thinks it is because of economic downturn. that's a part of it. that's a part of it, but not all of t our granddaughter came from a stable, affection not, upper-middle class home. even though her parents tried to help her with countless sleepless nights and trips to rehab and loving persuasion, they lost the battle. we must also contend with the

many forms of our anger. impatience with devon for not being stronger, rage at those who sold her the drugs, frustration with the authorities for not doing more to stop the trafficking or establishing more treatment centers, and self-recrimination for maybe not doing enough. we also are trying to cope with the guilt of feeling relief that her hell has finally ended. there's nothing more than we can do for her now, no more treatments that we can try. close quote. can you imagine living with that? you tried everything and finally with the end comes like that you have a feeling of relief and then you feel remorseful for that? can you imagine grandparents going through this? she says tbienally, "she's just gone. she's gone." people now are combing out -- before -- people now are coming out. before, mr. president, people didn't want to tell meevment they thought that would be a scourge on their family.

so we never knew about t it was a silent killer going on. then you saw a young person -- you ever go through the paper in the obituary and you see a young person. doesn't give the cause of death. but you pretty much can figure it out anymore. people are saying, if we don't come out of the closes et and tal-- out ofthe closet and talke can't fix it. another story. this young girl had started using drugs when she was 12 years old. anything and everything could happen to a human being coming -- her dad was mayor of the town, was mayor. she's gone through everything. hit bottom as far as bottom could be. the person she went through drug court and rehab with died, didn't get out. she made it. i'm going to read hers now. most of these stories are about the pain and heartache associated with opiate abuse. but this story here, chelsea's steer little different.

i read chelsea carter's powerful stoir story on how she has overcome her opiate addiction on the senate floor in february and today i'm proud to say she has just received her master's degree in social work from concord university. after being addicted to drugs since she was 12 years old by a neighborhood friend, i decided -- she said, "i decided to go back to school and teach he is others what i have struggled with my whole life. last saturday, may 7, 2016 you i graduated with my master's in social work from concord university. i'm currently work on my alcohol and drug counseling licensure and also myself and seven other people are in the process of opening up sober living home in danville, west virginia" -- her home area --" called the hero house." they get no funding. they don't qualify for any medicaid, medicare, nothing.

it is all going to be on the love and kindness of what they're gag to do. also because of the record she has for grand larceny, it is hard for her to get a job. we're taking a person now with a master's degree out of the workforce. it is unbelievable. so she says, "i currently work for appalachian health services as an addiction 245eur pivot. they went beyond that and hired her anyway. "my dream is to one day open my own in-treatment patient facility and help others like me. a message i would like people to know is that recovery is possible, but you have to be willing to work at it. it is a lot easier to go out on the streets and buy drugs instead of trying to change your life. but the one thing that recovery gives you that the drugs will never is your life back." she say, "i am living proof that if you want something bad enough, you can change." we've go to do give them hope, reasons, the ability to get back

into the mainstream. this is the best example of what can be done if we make investments and the investments we make is investments in human capital in the united states of america in the spirit of america. this is what we're doing. and i would hope awful you for the many stories i read that have such horrible endings, this is one that has a happy ending and can help many, many people. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. i thank the senator from west virginia. he has been a tiring on this issue. -- he has been a tiger on this issue. i hope we'll answer his call. the epidemic is no better in connecticut where most of our cities are on track to see a doubling of overdose deaths this year from last year and last year was quadruple the number it was just three or four years ago. so thank you very much to my colleague from west virginia. mr. president, i'm on the floor to talk about an amendment to the pending bill. it's an issue that a lot of us thought