quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, what is the parliamentary situation? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. leahy: i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, i'm concerned as a member of the

appropriations committee, an amendment that is pending here now, the mccain amendment 4787. we had a vote earlier this week -- votes on sensible gun safety measures. we know by all the polling that the overwhelming majority of americans supported them, but they were blocked by senate republicans. and now it appears the republican leadership wants to change the subject. they're resorting to scare tactics to divert the attention of the american people from their failure to act in response to mass shootings. maybe we should be clear about what we need to stay safe. we need universal background checks for firearm purchases. we need to give the f.b.i. the authority to deny guns to terrorist suspects. senate republicans rejected those commonsense measures

earlier this year. we still have the chance to give law enforcement real and effective tools, strengthen our laws to make it easier to prosecute firearms traffickers and straw purchasers. i'm a gun owner, but i know that if i go in to buy a gun in vermont, even though the gun store owners have known me most of their life, i have to go through a background check. but you've got somebody who's got restraining orders against him, warrants outstanding against him, could have been convicted of heinous crimes, they could walk into a gun show with no background check and buy anything they want. we know also that they can go and buy always kinds of weapons to sell at a great profit to gangs, criminal gangs that couldn't buy them otherwise.

and of course to those who commit terrorism and hate crimes. so we need to fund the f.b.i. and we need to fund the justice department so they have resources to combat acts of terrorism and hate. those are the elements of the amendment that senator mikulski and i filed yesterday. in contrast, republicans are proposing to reduce independent oversight of f.b.i. investigations and to make permanent a law that as of last year never even been used. the mccain amendment would eliminate the requirement for a court order when the f.b.i. wants to obtain detailed information about americans' internet activities, the national security investigations. you can almost hear j. edgar hoover, who loved being able to spy on any american he didn't

like, say why didn't i have that when i was the head of the f.b.i.? the republican law could cover web sites americans have visited, extensive information who americans communicate with through e-mail, chat and text messages, and when and where americans log on to the internet or on to social media accounts. over time this information would provide highly revealing details about america's personal lives, americans who are totally innocent of any kind of criminal activity. and you get all this without prior court approval. it's why the amendment is opposed by major technology companies and privacy groups that go across the political spectrum from freedom works to google to the aclu.

senator cornyn and others have argued that we cannot prevent people on the terrorist watch list from obtaining firearms without due process and judicial review. yet at the same time they're proposing to remove judicial approval and dupe -- due process when the f.b.i. wants to find out what web sites americans are visiting. the f.b.i. already has the authority to obtain this information, even obtains a court order under section 215 of the u.s.a. patriot act. none of us would feel that the f.b.i. or any law enforcement would just walk into our home, rifle through our desk, go through the notes on the desk who we've called or who we've talked to. but they're saying because we do it electronically and through the internet, we ought to be able to just ignore any right of privacy and go into it.

so rather than trying to distract us from their opposition to commonsense gun measures, their opposition to requiring somebody who's got criminal indictments pending against him, to stop him from being able to go to a gun show and buy guns, republicans should support actions that will help protect us, like those in the amendment filed by senators mikulski, baldwin, nelson and myself. instead of kowtowing to a very-well organized special interest lobbying group, why not listen to the lobby of the american people and do what americans want. so i hope senators will oppose the mccain amendment. i hope they'll support measures that will actually help keep our country safe. mr. president, i see the distinguished senior senator

from oregon on the floor, and i yield to him. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i thank my colleague. he and i have worked together on this, and he is really outlining the peu -- the hypocrisy behind what has been going on the last few days. due process ought to apply as it relates to guns, but due process wouldn't apply as it relates to the internet activity of millions of americans. and my view is, mr. president, that the country wants policies that promote safety and liberty, and increasingly we're getting policies that do not do much of either. and supporters of this amendment, the mccain amendment, have suggested that americans need to choose between protecting our security and protecting their constitutional right to privacy.

the fact is this amendment really doesn't improve either. now what it does is it gives an f.b.i. field office new authority to scoop up administratively americans' digital records, their e-mail and chat records, their text message logs, web browsing history, and certain types of location information without ever going to a judge. and the reason this is unnecessary -- and it's something i believe and very strongly worked hard for it in the freedom act -- there is a specific section in the freedom act which i worked for and authored in a separate effort in 2013 that allows the f.b.i. to demand all of these records, all of the records i described in an emergency and then go get court approval after the fact.

so unless you're opposed to court oversight even after the fact, there is no reason to support this amendment. the f.b.i. has not in any way suggested that having this authority would have stopped the san bernardino attacker, the massacre at an lgbt nightclub in orlando. and that's because there is no reason to think that is the case. now the founding fathers wrote the fourth amendment to the constitution for a good reason, and we can protect security and liberty. we can have both. and somehow the sponsors of the mccain amendment have said you can really only have one or the other. now the other argument that was made yesterday, mr. president,

and colleagues, some have said we've got to have this amendment because it will just fix a typo in the law. that is just not true. i would urge colleagues to take a look at the record on this. the record makes it clear that this provision was carefully circumscribed and was narrowly drawn. the notion that this is some sort of typo simply doesn't hold water. and the fact is the bush administration hardly an administration that was soft on terror, they said -- they said that this was not needed. this was not something they would support. that the national security letter statute ought to be interpreted narrowly, just the way the authors in 1993 envisioned. so, mr. president, i know we're going to hear -- i see my

friend, the distinguished chair of the intelligence committee -- how this is absolutely pivotal in order to protect the security of the american people. i'll recap, never once has the f.b.i. suggested this would have prevented orlando. two, in the face of an emergency under the legislation that i authored, the government in an orlando or san bernardino issue can go get the records immediately, and then after the fact settle up. three, this was not a typo. this was what the authors had suggested. and, four, the bush administration hardly soft on terror, didn't believe that what this amendment was all about was necessary. this is an amendment thapld undermine fundamental american rights without making our country safer. and in my view, undermining the

role of judicial oversight, particularly when it doesn't make the country safer, and we have a specific statutory provision for emergencies to protect the american people, this amendment just defies common sense. i hope my colleagues will oppose it. i urge my colleagues to do so. i think it's going to be very hard to explain to the american people how an approach like the one behind this amendment that would allow any f.b.i. field office to issue an administrative subpoena for e-mail and chat records, text message logs, web browsing history, location information, that you ought to be able to do it without judicial oversight when you have a specific law, a specific law that says that the government has the right to move quickly in an emergency. i think it's going to be pretty

hard to explain to the american people how you are going to have an arrangement like this that does not make us safer and certainly jeopardizes our liberties. i'm for both, and this amendment doesn't do much of either. i yield the floor. mr. burr: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, as i grew up, i remember daily on the radio listening to paul harvey. paul harvey's motto was "and now the rest of the story." and that's where we are. i give senator wyden a tremendous amount of credit of consistency. he's consistently against providing the tools that law enforcement needs to defend the american people.

that's fine if that's your position. but let's talk about fact. this statute was changed in 1993, and in one subpart of that legislation, it was not carried over about the i.s.p. internet service provider, responsibility to provide this information when requested by law enforcement. so from 1993 until 2010, every technology company when requested by the f.b.i. continued to provide this information. this is not a new expansion, and it's clearly something that continued from 1993 until 2010, six years ago, when all of a sudden a tech company looked at it and said, boy, it's in this

subpart but it doesn't state it in that subpart, so we're not going to provide it for you anymore. so, myth: we never asked for this. we never had this. no, we had it for a long time. and every company supplied it until 2010 to the federal bureau of investigation. and all of a sudden when one company's general counsel said we don't see it in this sub part, therefore we're not bound to provide that for you, we're either going to fight terrorism and process carruth criminals or we're not going to do it. we will take away every tool because we use this excuse technology now forbids us from accessing information. let me say about this -- we get no content. to get content, you have to go to a judge on a bench and that judge has to give you permission to actually read the content. we're talking about addresses,

locations, times that in the case of reconstruction or in the case of trying to prevent an attack could be crucial. now, the one fact that i heard out of my colleague from oregon is this wouldn't have stopped san bernadino or orlando. he's 100% correct. but i hope there is no legislation that we're considering in the united states senate that's about a single incident. this is about a framework of tools that law enforcement can use today, tomorrow and into the future, and it's not about looking back and saying but it didn't exist here. let me just explain what happens if in fact this inadvertent change isn't made. it means that the f.b.i. goes from a one a day process of getting this vital information to over a month to go to the

fisa court to get the approval, to seek the information, over a month. if it had to do with a terrorist attack, boy, i hope the american people are comfortable with saying as long as the f.b.i. figures this out a month in advance, then we're okay. with you when you look at the -- but when you look at the m.o. of attacks around the world, in most cases we had no notice. in most cases, maybe another thread of information might have given us the preventative time we needed. in many cases, connecting the dots is also a matter of time. director comey came and had a session with all members of the senate last week, and his comment about expediting this information into the public domain was because he wanted to assure the american people that they had reviewed as much as they could to certify that there was not another cell, that the american people could sleep safe that night. well, you know, this is part of

that process. it's being able to access the information that you need in a timely fashion. you know something he forgot to say is this is the obama administration's language. you can talk all you want to about the bush or clinton or whatever. this is the obama administration. the one that has the responsibility today to keep the american people safe is the administration that's come to the united states senate, provided the language and asked for this clarification to be made because it was inadvertently left out in 1993. so we are here today to fix something that's broken, not to expand in any way, shape or form the powers or to intrude in the privacy because there is no content collected of this is simply to provide law enforcement with tools that enable them to fulfill their mission, which is to keep

america safe. in addition to the ecta fix, let me just say there is lone wolf provision that extends the lone wolf permanently, and the lone wolf provides the government's ability to provide non-united states persons, foreigners only, who engage or attempt to engage in international terrorism but did not show specific links to a foreign power or terrorist organization to be under the lone wolf provision. it's too important to let it expire. this provision would not -- is not about addressing or responding to a single specific threat, particularly one that's already manifested itself any more than the underlying bill is. i urge my colleagues, support this legislation. the american people need it, law enforcement needs it, the obama administration wants it. it is what we operated on --

under from an understanding from 1993 until 2010 when a general counsel in one company decided to buck the system and to say spell it out for me or we're not going to do it. let's spell it out for him so law enforcement has its tools. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, how much time remains? the presiding officer: ten minutes remain. mr. mccain: would -- i won't take the entire ten minutes. would the senator from oregon -- i notice -- i would be glad to yield to him three minutes of the ten minutes remaining so he can speak in his usual articulate fashion. mr. wyden: i thank my colleague for the courtesy. mr. mccain: i yield three minutes of the ten minutes to the senator from oregon. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i want to come back again to the

argument that i made earlier. the senator from north carolina said the f.b.i. would have to wait around if there was something that really had the well-being of the american people at stake. that's just simply inaccurate. in the u.s.a. freedom act, i was able to add a provision i feel very strongly about that says if the f.b.i. thinks the security and well-being of the american people are on the line, the f.b.i. can move immediately to go collect all the information that we have been talking about. so there is no waiting, there is no dawdling under the amendment that we put in the freedom act. the government can go get that information immediately and come back and then settle up later

with the judge. and frankly that was something that i felt extremely strongly about because i want it understood that this is not a debate about privacy versus security. this is about ensuring that we have both, that we have both, and that's why that emergency provision is so important. so my colleague -- and he made mention of the fact the f.b.i. would be waiting around if the country's safety and well-being was on the line. no way, not because of a specific language in the u.s.a. freedom act that i authored and my colleague supported. this is about ensuring that the american people can have both security and ability. the lone wolf provision, that was extended for four years in the u.s.a. freedom act. i supported that as well.

so what we're talking about today sf not making the un-- today is not making the country safer but threatening our liberty, and i did draw a contrast between this and the issue with respect to guns. our colleagues said we ought to have due process as it relates to guns. i certainly support the idea of due process, but it shouldn't be a double standard that we're going to have due process there and we're not going to have a due process as it relates to these national security letters. the presiding officer: the senator has used three minutes. mr. wyden: if i could have ten additional seconds, and i appreciate my colleague's courtesy. the amendment gives the f.b.i. field offices authority to scoop up all this digital material without judicial oversight. that's a mistake. i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, obviously i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i thank the distinguished chairman of the intelligence committee who knows as much

about this issue as any member of congress or anyone else, and i appreciate the great job that he is doing and his, i believe, important remarks. look, this is pretty simple. the amendment has the support of the national fraternal order of police, the federal law enforcement agencies association, the largest national professional law enforcement association, the federal bureau of investigation agents association, and every law enforcement agency literally in america supports this amendment so they can do their job and defend america. ronald reagan used to say facts are stubborn things. the fact is according to the director of the c.i.a., according to the director of national intelligence, right now baghdadi is calling in people and saying get on this, get on this and get back to the united states or europe and contact us

then, and we'll attack and there will be more attacks according to both the director of the c.i.a. and the director of national intelligence. right now there are unfortunately young people in this country that are self-radicalizing, that are self-radicalizing, and what vehicle is doing the self-radicalization? it's the internet. nd and we're not asking, we are not asking for content here. we are just asking for usage. the same way we can do with financial records, the same way we can do with telephone records. this is an important tool. how could anyone -- i say with great respect to the senator from oregon, he is a passionate and articulate advocate for what he believes in, and he has my respect and friendship, but i ask in all due respect, after the events of the last few days when we know that that attacker was self-radicalized, and what

did he use for it? he used the internet. i don't know if this attack could have been prevented or not but i know these attacks can be prevented because that's the view of the chairman of the intelligence committee and the director of the federal bureau of investigation and the director of the c.i.a. and the director of national intelligence, who are not interested in taking away our liberties. but they are interested in carrying out their fundamental responsibilities which happen to be to protect this nation. so all i can say to my colleagues is that we need to protect the rights of all of our citizens. we can't intrude in their lives. this constant tension will go on between the right of privacy and national security, and i think that there are gray areas that we need to debate and come to agreement on finally over time.

but this issue honestly is a no-brainer. when the director of the federal bureau of investigation, who is probably one of the most respected men in america, individuals in america admired and respected by all of us is saying that this is one of his highest priorities in order to protect america, then i think we should listen to him. when the director of the c.i.a. says they are planning further attacks on the united states of america and europe, we should give them the tools that they need to prevent that. when the director of national intelligence testified before the armed services committee that there will be further attacks, shouldn't we give this rudimentary tool which, according to the chairman of the intelligence committee was basically an oversight, shouldn't we correct that, and can't we protect the rights of every individual and every american and still enact this

really modest change which although in some ways modest, according to the director of the f.b.i., is of his highest priorities. so let's listen, thoats listen to those we entrust our nation's security, after going through the confirmation process and the approval or disapproval of the members of this body who are then entrusted with the solemn obligation of defending this nation. they are saying unanimously that they need this authority in order to carry out their responsibilities. so, mr. president, we're going to vote here in a couple of minutes, and i would urge my colleagues to respect the views. maybe not mine, maybe not the chairman of the intelligence committee, but let's respect the views of those who are entrusted with defending this nation, and

i believe that we should give them this authority. this debate will go on i say to my friend from oregon. there will be other areas where this tension between the right of every citizen of privacy and the requirement of us to defend this nation because we are facing a challenge the likes of which we have never seen before, and that is this whole thing of self-radicalization and people who sneak into this country to commit acts of terror. it has got the entire american people concerned. san bernadino, orlando, and i hope that the senator from oregon and those who will vote no on this amendment understand that in the view of the experts on terrorism in this world, absolutely are convinced that there will be further attacks. so shouldn't we give them this fundamental tool, which basic tool which they have asked for, and i believe they respect americans' right of privacy as

well. so i urge my colleagues to vote aye on this amendment, and then we can move on to other ways to help our enforcement agencies and our intelligence agencies be able to defend this nation against these threats, which are not going away. mr. president, i believe my time has expired. a senator: mr. speaker, has all the time expired on both sides? the presiding officer: all time has expired. mr. heinrich: i would ask unanimous consent to speak for two minutes. mr. mccain: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on senate amendment numbered 4787 to amendment numbered 4685 to calendar number 120, h.r. 2578,

an act making appropriations for the departments of commerce and justice, science and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016 and for other purposes. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on amendment number 4787 offered by the senator from kentucky to the senator from arizona to amendment number 4685 to h.r. 2578 shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 58, the nays are 38. three-fifths of the senators

duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i enter a motion to reconsider the vote. the presiding officer: the motion is entered.

a senator: mr. president? i note the absence. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. a senator: mr. president, i rise today to talk about the heroin and -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: mr. president, i rise today to talk about the heroin and prescription drug epidemic that is tearing families apart and devastating communities in every single one of the states represented here in this chamber, and i rise today for the tenth time since this body, the senate passed cara, the comprehensive addiction and recovery act by a vote of 94-1. it took us two and a half weeks on the floor to get that done. it took three years of work to put together the right legislation to build that consensus but we got it done. the house then proceed over time to pass 18 separate bills dealing with this issue and now we're in conference with the

house. as i have said in every speech that i have given over the last ten weeks we've been in session since that time, we need to move and move quickly and there's no excuse for inaction. and i'm going to continue to come to this floor and talk to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, leadership on both sides of the capitol about this issue until we get it done. why? because this is an emergency. this is not just another issue that congress should take up. this is one that is affecting every single community in america and sadly it's getting worse, not better. every week when i come to the floor unfortunately i come with new news. i come with information that has come to my attention since my previous talk on the floor about what's happening in our communities. and i'll do that again today. there is some good news and that is since i spoke on the floor last week, the senate appropriations committee has voted to increase funding to deal with this opiate issue.

this is heroin, prescription drugs, this new fentanyl which is a synthetic form of heroin that's gripping our communities. and the funding increase was just made as a commitment by the senate appropriations committee on a bipartisan basis to have a 93% increase in funding as compared to this year. this year was also an increase in funding thanks to the leadership of some of the members in this body. we increased the funding for this year. we've increased it again for next year. that's the good news. but we've got to be sure the money is properly spent. and that's what cara is about. it's an authorization bill. it says that going forward let's be sure we're spending it on evidence-based treatment and recovery that actually works to make a difference, to get people back on track. let's be sure we're spending it on the kinds of things that keep people getting into the funnel of addiction in the first place. again evidence-based prevention and education. let's be sure we're helping our law enforcement and helping our health officials. the reason the fraternal order

of police strongly supports it legislation is it helps them and training on how to use naloxone and far cane more effectively and provides them the -- far nae more effective, and provides them -- and been to save lives. so this legislation is comprehension of. it's needed. we now have the funding in place should there be more funding? yes, i think so. but this is an awfully good start to have a 93% increase, again an increase already for this year. there is no excuse for us not getting this conference committee completed, take in the comprehensive senate bill, merging it with the individual house bills and getting it to the president's desk for his signature. the comprehensive approach is the only way to do this. the acting u.s. attorney for northern ohio said it well. her name is carol rendone. she said the only way to stem this tide -- and she's involved with it. the only way we can stem this tide is with a comprehensive

approach. i couldn't agree more. a lot of us, including my friends and allies on the outside who are interested in this issue -- by the way, 130 of the national groups have supported this legislation. 130 groups, virtually every group in the country involved in prevention education, treatment, recovery, law enforcement has supported this, but they are concerned about the house version, the 18 separate bills versus the comprehensive bill because the house versions do not deal effectively with this issue of recovery. so treatment and recovery need to go hand in hand. by the way, without recovery, the legislation is not comprehension of -- comprehensive. it's called the comprehensive addiction and recovery act for a reason. we know that funding the right kinds of recovery programs will work to help people get back on track, bring their families back together, and keep them away from some of the aspects that we all know about. the number one cause of death

now, accidental death in the state of ohio is overdoses. possibly it's the number one cause of accidental death in the country from the data we've received recently. we've got to be sure that recovery works. cara offers critical resources to develop recovery support services for individuals, for families working to overcome addiction. one thing it does, by the way, is it promotes these recovery programs at high schools and colleges. sadly, that's needed. at the ohio state university, we happen to have a model recovery program. sarah nerod who is a brave young woman started this. it's something that other schools are now emulating. it started with a couple of people. now it's grown and grown at ohio state where recovering addicts can come together and talk among themselves in a support group. these are college students. this is something that's been very helpful at the college and high school level because it's needed. there are some good ideas also in the 18 bills passed by the

house that were not in cara, and we should incorporate those. one i like particularly is lifting the cap on sabaxone so we can expand the number of patients who can be treated by a doctor for an opioid dependency. sabaxone is one of the treatment methods that's used. that cap should be raised. there seems to be a bipartisan consensus about that. i'm hopeful we can quickly resolve the differences we have between the house and senate bill, pick up the good parts of the house bill, keep it comprehensive, and get it to the president to his desk for signature. i'm encouraged that the conference is getting going. i thank senator mcconnell and the majority leader last week for naming the conferees on the senate side. there's been a lot of good work done already and now we have the conferees officially named on both sides. again no excuse for not moving forward. ly tell you i was very concerned yesterday when i heard a news report from national public radio about a white house meeting with some democratic members of congress about

potentially stalling cara, the comprehensive addiction and recovery act. one white house legislative aide is quoted in the story as saying -- quote -- "we need to slow down the conference. we need to slow down the conference enough so that the white house can bring it back to the american people. we need help in slowing it dow down." the piece went on to say that some of the democratic members who went down to the white house were eager to help, to slow it down. i hope that's not accurate. i can't believe it would be. delaying might be a good way to score some political points but it's terrible policy. it's the wrong thing to do. it's a disservice to the millions of families across this country who are suffering from the consequences of addiction and who are waiting for relief. they've been patient so far but these 130 groups i talked about are getting increasingly

inpatient and i don't blame them. i am, too. this bill is about saving lives. delay meanshe status quo continues. 129 americans on average are losing their lives every day, every day. we had 129 families come to the capitol a few weeks ago to make that point. the cara family group, to be able to let members know this is something we need to act on and act on now. five ohioans on average every day are losing their lives. that's one in every 12 minutes at the national level. in 103 days since we passed cara here in this chamber with a 94-1 vote during those 103 days, this means that 12,000 americans have lost their lives to overdoses from heroin and prescription drugs. and again the overdoses don't tell the story. as hosk as that -- hosk as that -- horrific as that is, it is a must have bigger story.

they are casualties. they have been torn apart from their family. they have been torn apart from their work. they have been driven to crime like theft to support their habit. they do feel like there's no hope for them. nine out of ten people who are addicted are not getting treatment. this is happening right now. the price of delay is those people are not getting the help they need. the longer we delay, the longer this epidemic continues to get worse. maybe some of those who want to delay cara don't realize how urgent this crisis is. i know there's a lot going on right now. maybe they're distracted by other issues. maybe they don't know the statistics. maybe they don't know the stories of the families that are broken up, the lives cut short or those who are casualties of this. maybe they don't know the faces behind the statistics. again just since last week when i spoke last time, we have new information that's troubling. we know now that the centers for disease control and prevention are warning that the heroin epidemic is actually driving the spread of h.i.v. and hepatitis

c, including in my home area of southwest ohio. we now know that. so again this is about heroin and prescription drugs. it's also about hep c. it's also about h.i.v. maybe they don't know about the drug trafficking sentence last week in ohio for trafficking $300,000 worth of heroin and 20,000 injections worth of heroin. maybe they don't know about stosh outside cleveland. he was a star athlete in soccer and in football. he was charismatic, talented, joyful young man but in high school he started to experiment with drugs. started with marijuana. then extoes and prescription drug cane pillars. he got addicted to provideds. then heroin. it's more available. his relationship with his family suffered of course as it almost always does. the drugs become everything. at times his relationship was broken all together. he had a hard time getting a job

and then keeping a full-time job. finally he agreed he needed help. his parents unsuccessfully tried to get him into five different rehabilitation centers. often there's no room. he was arrested with a felony drug charge. he posted bond and he was released. he told his dad, steve, in a text message, quote, i don't want to lose my family. i lost enough already. i want to be the son you can be proud of, if it's not at that late. -- if it's not too late. that's the last time he ever heard from his son. within 48 hours he had died of an overdose. maybe those who support delaying cara don't know about dan durbin from a small town in ohio. he reports setting up on the front lawn for his daughter's high school graduation party usy and is segment in the ally right next door a heroin deal taking place in front of these high school students.

i know it's an even-numbered year, meaning it is an election year. there's always another election. but delaying cara is unacceptable. partisanship is not going to help people who are suffering to find treatment. it is not going to heal our families, it is not going to educate our kids so they don't become addicted. if we want to show the american people that we can accomplish something here that makes our communities better, we'll get cara to the president as soon as possible. we've kept this legislation completely nonpartisan, not just bipartisan. we brought in major experts from around the country. we had five conferences over a three-year period. we gather ideas from democrats and republicans, and anyone who had a good idea, we didn't ask where it came frvment we asked if it would help this problem. that's the way things are supposed to work. we had strong help from the white house. the director of national drug control policy, michael botticelli, who has stated that we need a comprehensive solution, was quoted as saying "there is clear evidence that a multi-ifaceted approach is

tremendously important. we know that we need to do more and i think all of those components put forward in cara are critical to make headway in terms of this epidemic." that's the white house drug czar. i hope the white house staffer who was quoted "let's delay" actually talks to the drug czar. nearly every democrat in this chamber voted in support of care ravment i commend them for that. democrats were indispensable in crafting it. they were involved at the very start. sheldon whitehouse is the coauthor of this legislation with me. he has a real passion for this. he understands the casualties of this epidemic. he gets it. amy klobuchar has also been very involved in this, along with kelly ayotte on our side, and others. this has been something from the start that has been not just

nonpartisan but bipartisan. they came up with the right ideas and the groups that work with us around the country realize it will make a difference. i've been involved with this issue of drug abuse and addiction for more than two decades. a mom came to my office over 22 years ago and said, what am i doing? i'm involved in the drug-free act. i've worked to stop the sympathetic drugs and make sure they're scheduled as illegal drugs. we've tried to help in terms of prescription drug monitoring, passed legislation on interstate prescription drug monitoring. but this legislation, this cara legislation is what's needed now. there's no good reason to keep these families who are affected waiting. we can have a conversation about funding. again, i'm for more funding. i voted that way.

but this 93% increase in funding this year in the next appropriations bill for next year is a great step forward. let me just say respectfully, again, this issue is not like everything else we face around here. this is urgent. we've got to move now. will it solve the problem? no, the problem is not going to be solved from washington, but washington can be a better partner in addressing the issue right now and it is a growing issue. whith a in a suburb, a rural area, or the inner city in ohio, i hear about this issue. i have a tele-town hall tonight. i'll hear about t a few weeks ago a gentleman called in wanted to talk about the treatment options in cara. he seemed to know a lot about it. i asked him why he knew so much about this, if he wouldn't mind talking about it, reminding him there were 25,000 people probably on the call at that time. he told his story, which was unfortunately a story you hear,

way too comongly in my state -- commonly in my state of ohio. his daughter in and out of treatment. in her case, in and out of the criminal justice system. had decided to seek treatment. she went, couldn't get in. 14 days later she died of an overdose. according to one poll, three in ten ohioans know someone who is struggling with an opioid addiction -- family members, friends, fellow parishioners, their neighbors. those family members are hurting, too. it's almost unbearable watching a loved one suffer through this disease, and it is a disease and requires treatment. ohioans are taking action and appropriate action, too. in warren, ohio, a recovery center recently hold a rally for addiction. nicholas spoke about how much happier he is now in he is in recovery. "my life has improved so much, it is amazing."

emily talked about how her mother, friend friends have sufd from addiction. raymond sansoto also spoke about losing his son josh to a heroin addiction. he was a four-man letterman in high school, an acolyte at his catholic paishish, mean to for his sense of humor. his artistic talents had a good job in middlefield ohio. he became addicted to prescription painkillers and switched to heroin. he overdoses at the age of 31. raymond, thank you for speaking up. at barnsville high school, ohio hospital held a town hall about the tern epidemic bringing together doctors, lawyers, law enforcement, public health officials. judge frank frajiato said "rich, poor, white, black, where every

you are, your family is at risk." he's rievment that's why we can't afford delay. today i was talking to two high school principals who came to see me and they informed me that they have lost six of their recent graduates to this issue and that they're holding a town hall on this soon at that high school. on saturday in stark county, dozens of morality cyclists -- motorcyclists participated in the families against the heroin epidemic rally. fathers is the acronym. these fathers and those who support them raised money for treatment addiction, treatment for education, law enforcement. i want to thank everyone who participated in this motorcycle ride and everyone who is doing their part to stop this rep. -- this epidemic. that event was fowntded by a

family whose son is in transitional housing. "if you aren't affected by this now, you will be." mr. president, i know the scope of this epidemic can sometimes feel overwhelming but there is hope. there are many being many stories of people who have found themselves in the funnel of this addiction, the grip of this addiction and have found hope through treatment and recovery. there are many who are now helping others to get treatment. michael levins of columbus is an example of that. he had chronic back pain. i became addicted to percocet. now he is helping others. he has been clean and sober for more than a year. he is beating it because he got treatment. again, mr. president, it's time for us to act. i've told again stories just from the last week of what's happening around the country and in my home state of ohio. there is no excuse. we need to act quickly to find common ground and get a bill to the president so we can start to

help the millions who are struggling. delay is not an option. i yield back my time. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: is not sphrr oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i being recognized for such time as i shall consume, as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, let me just say that my friend from ohio is truly passionate and in the years i've been here, i have not heard of anyone who is stronger and has a better understanding of this issue than the senator from ohio. and i find myself listening as he speaks and reflecting back. i hear the same things. it is not just in ohio. it is in my meetings that i have in oklahoma, and it is something that i'm glad he has that passion. irm a glad he does. i -- i'm glad he does.

wish yo -- i wish you success. mr. president, i got to get on record after this last week when everyone, the events claiming and submitting the claims of some of my colleagues on the senate floor, that the mainstream media have published about the horrific event in orlando. before we had all the facts in, what happened in orlando last sunday, people on the left were blaming congress, republicans, all gun owners that are out there, blaming anyone else they can think of for this terrorist attack. the actual person responsible for killing 49 people that day is omar mateen, an islamic terrorist. you know, there's something wrong -- this aversion they have to talking about the real cause of these tragedies that are going on right now around the nation by immediately politicizing this act of terrorism, the left has denied the victims and their families and friends our full attention,

our care. they have denied the nation a period of mourning for those that we lost at the hands of a terrorist who pledged allegiance to the islamic state. last week my colleagues on the other sued of the aisle participated in a filibuster against gun rights. they have continued to demonize those who still believe in the constitution, in the rights it protects. and i'm not just talking about gun rights. i'm talking about the right to due process, the right to be innocent until proven guilty. in that effort to twist this act of terrorism into a need to cur tall our constitutional rights, the -- curtail our constitutional rights, "the washington post" -- not one of the more conservative publications around, they gave some -- their arguments that they were using against guns. three out of four pinocchios for the way they falsely twisted

their information to fit the narrative. they've studied it and decided what they said wasn't true. the left was give an chance for the senate to vote on their gun proposals which would not have prevented this terrorist act from appearing and their proposals failed to pass. meaningwhile, the democrats voted against the amendments that would strengthen our gun laws and keep guns out of the hands of terrorists while protecting their rights to due process. over the past week you've heard my friends on the left say that if you can't fly, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. this sounds good and a lot of the media has bought into this idea. but you can't take away the fact that flying is a flifl in this country -- frizzel in this country and -- is a privilege in this country. you can't take away a constitutionally protected right without ntsz and a fair and impartial hearing, denying

someone their rights based on secret lists is unconstitutional. i think everyone understands that and will be struck down by the courts. but it sounds so good right now to say that everybody is going to be for gun control. one of the things that people forget, they try to pass laws that are going to protect our offend the right of gun owners when by definition a criminal breaks laws, a terrorist breaks laws. and so consequently you'd have only those individuals who are law-are abiding citizens -- law-a abiding -- law-abiding citizens complying with the law. there is irrefutable evidence of mateen's note motivations. many wonder why the administration is so focused on policies that don't address the core cause of this horrific act. terrorism and the influence of radical islam here in the united states of america. the answer is simple.

focusing on the root cause and mateen's motivations will only further expose the fact that the policies of this administration is supported by most of the -- of his own party here in congress, have been a completely failure. time and again the president's rhetoric on isil and terrorism and the threat to america is proven wrong in reality. in january of 2014, the president referred to isil as a jayvee squad and downplayed their thread and influence. yet four days before he dismissed sile as a major player in the middle east, they had cappitude and raised the flag over fallujah. i have a guy who is my state director by the name of brian heckler. i first met him when i was over there in fallujah right after we all remember -- i'm sure the chair remembers when they were taking the fingerprints of the horrific people risking their lives to vote over there and we

vote. we won in fai fallujah. we like world war i, door-to-door combat. my guy brian heckler came back. i hired him when he came back. when i called him up and told him that we lost fail lou sharks after we had had it in our hand, he cried. he had friends who had died over there. furthermore, the president failed to recognize the threat posed by the muslim brotherhood. obama created the vacuum in the middle east that gave rise to isil. he downplayed the benghazi thing. i remember him trying to blame it on a video. i can remember that because i talked to james clapper and i talked to all of the intelligence people right after that happened. i did so because of my position at that time as ranking member on the armed services committee. and they all say they knew at the time of benghazi that it was a terrorist attack. had nothing to do with the