in america and the sad reality of the deaths that are occasioned by heroin overdoses. the prescription opioid and heroin epidemic claimed 28,647 american lives in 2014. 1, 652 in my state of illinois. a 34% increase in just four years. i've seen this devastation firsthand. i have sat with the pairptses that have lost -- with the parents that have lost their kids. i've met with some of the teenagers that were addicted. some have been able to fight off the addiction. and reality is obvious: this narcotics epidemic is not an inner city problem. it is an american problem. it is a problem that not only touches the inner cities of america, but it also touches every other community. there is no town too small, no suburb too wealthy to escape the

opioid and heroin epidemic. i've been across my state from one end to the other, round tables with law enforcement, with medical professionals, with those who do addiction treatment, and with those who've lived through these addictions. i've seen firsthand what it's done to communities and families and lives. we need a forceful response, and we're going to vote on one in about an hour. it's called the cara bill, and it's a bill that moves news the right direction when it comes to dealing with this addiction. the conference report has many important elements to it, and that's why i'm going to support it. it includes my proposal to require reforms at the f.d.a., food and drug administration, to ensure better oversight of dangerous and addictive opioid drugs before they're approved for sale in our country. my provisions will ensure the f.d.a. convene scientific advisory committees before approving new opioid drugs and that the pediatric advisory

committee has a voice in the decision. we require the f.d.a. to consider the public health impacts before allowing more addictive products to come onto the market. we direct federal health agencies to develop plans for continuing medical education for doctors and other providers who prescribe opioids. we require the f.d.a. to encourage drug companies to make abuse-deterrent formulations of these dangerous drugs. the cara conference report also includes a proposal i've worked on to improve state prescription drug monitoring programs. this legislation will make it easier for states to share information about overprescribing and overusing opioids, and it gives doctors more information to better-inform their prescribing practices. i'm pleased the cara conference report includes new grant programs to expand access to naloxone, the lifesaving overdose antidote, to promote

treatment alternatives instead of arrests for those suffering from addiction, and to create flexibility and treatment options for those who need medication-assistant therapy or pregnant women who need specialized care. having said all of these positive things, let me state the obvious. when only 12% of the people in illinois are able to receive care for their addiction and there is a 12-week wait at facilities for vulnerable patients to get into drug treatment, authorizing new programs, which this bill does, is good but not good enough. we need to make an investment. we need to put taxpayers' dollars behind this commitment to end this epidemic, and it's needed now. that's why senator jeanne shaheen of new hampshire offered an amendment during the senate floor consideration of this bill. her amendment would have put $600 million into actually

making the bill work, enforcing it, investing in it. it failed. during the cara conference committee meeting, senator murray and congressman pallone offered amendments to ensure that congress would put some money into the promise of this bill. they couldn't get it passed in a conference dominated by the republican majority. why? why would these efforts be blocked when the republicans are joining us in saying this is a national problem that deserves our immediate attention? because republicans have said that the they are already opposo increasing funds in appropriations bills to take care of this. yet many republicans are supporting a continuing resolution that freezes funding at this year's level and provides for no increase in opioid epidemic treatment. so when they say they're going to put more money in and then

call for a continuing resolution, they know and we know that it is a sham. the republicans are opposing an increase in funding in this bill by saying they've already proposed increased funding in another bill, but at the same time they're advocating a freeze, flat-funding continuing resolution. they can't have it both ways. it's confusing, but those of us who live in this world know what they're up to. they want to take the credit for passing this bill. the promise of funding it in the future, into the election in november but not provide the money that's needed to make it work. that's playing games with people's lives. america deserves better. failing to provide the dollars today is not going to help those who are currently suffering. it's not going to help that mother who was awake all last night worrying about a son or a daughter who is facing an addiction, praying they can get that child they love into

treatment in time to break that addiction and save their lives. you know what else is missing from this cara conference report? many of these measures in the bill deal with addiction after it's taken hold. we have to do things to prevent addiction on the front end. the best way is to ensure that people don't get addicted in the first place. i've introduced the addiction prevention and responsible opioid practices act, aprop. and it is going to help shut off the spigot. the drug enforcement administration sounds like the kind of law enforcement agency that polices america to reduce the likelihood that narcotics are going to be found in our homes, in our neighborhoods, in our communitiesed and in our states. but there is has another responsibility. each year pharma, the major

formceutical companies, dhom this agency and as -- and ask fr approval to make more narcotics. the d.e.a. has to sign off on this increase in production each year. if we're going to take a look at the sear yesness of this opioid -- seriousness of this opioid problem in america, take a look at the growth in production. between 139 and 2015, the drug enforcement administration approved quotas for oxycodone, increased them almost 40 times. in 1993 they were producing about 3.5 tons of these opioid bills. now they are producing 150 tons of these opioid pills. the d.e.a. has approved pharma to produce enough opioid narcotic pills to provide --

listen closely -- every adult in america a one-month prescription each year to opioid narcotics. every adult in america. that goes way beyond any medical need. it is pharma's effort to make more money and to feed the beast of this opioid epidemic, and d.e.a. each year gives the seal of approval. that's wrong. and once these pills are produced, it takes a doctor or a dentist or some other authorized medical professional to prescribe them. how they're making it through that process onto the streets and into the homes of america is the next question beyond this d.e.a. approval of phrma's over-pruks. we -- overproduction. we need continuing education to be mandated and incidentally, d.e.a. approves doctors to give them the authority and power to prescribe narcotics. they can monitor this as well and see where the abuse is taking place.

we need an all-hands-on-deck approach in this epidemic. i'm going to vote for this care conference romplet on this face, it's hard to vote against. but i want to do it with the knowledge and saying in this statement on the floor that it isn't enough. unless we pass jeanne shaheen's amendment, the senator from new hampshire, unless we follow up on senator patty murray's effort in conference and fund this effort to stop this epidemic, we are basically sending a very nice greeting to america that we recognize the problem but we're not paying to solve it. people all across america understand this epidemic. it's time for us to take it serious -- seriously, not to political posturing. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: first let me thank my colleague from illinois for his remarks on the funding issue. i couldn't agree more. now, there's no question that this body should be working to help curb opioid abuse in this country, to improve mental

health services, to improve the way we treat addiction and speed recovery. everyone in this chamber knows. but the bill before us, the comprehensive addiction and recovery act, is woefully insufficient for dealing with the opioid and heroin crisis. it makes a whole lot of changes, but it doesn't support a single one with any new resources. it would authorize block grants to states to treat people who are hooked on these dangerously addictive prescription painkillers, but it doesn't provide any actual money to give. it would authorize programs to help law enforcement crack down on this scourge, but it doesn't provide a single plug nickel to our cops. without actual appropriations, this bill is like a hollywood movie set: something that appears real on the surface but has no substance and no life behind its facade. let me say that again. without actual appropriations,

my colleagues, this bill is like a hollywood movie set: something that appears real on the surface but has no substance and no life behind its false facade. now, i want to clear one thing up. i have heard many of my clean colleagues say that we -- my republican colleagues say that we should just pass this bill and we can just pass the money later. forgive me for being skeptical that they will actually follow through on that many pro. because my friends on the other side of the aisle have been fighting for years to cut, not increase -- to cut the exact same programs they're now touting in this bill. what a sham! with the rise of the tea party, the hard-right conservative factions in the house and senate brought devastating proposed cuts to the health programs that combat the opioid problem, and my colleagues here who are not members of the tea party went

along. now that there's an opioid crisis, now that some are worried about reelection, oh, they're out there. where were they last year and the year before? where are they going to be this year? -- in terms of actually getting some funding. last year republicans proposed billions of dollars of cuts to the labor-h.h.s. appropriations bill. the main funding source for substance abuse treatment. without the bipartisan budget agreement, this would have cut $9 billion. in fact, the senate appropriations committee proposed cutting the substance abuse and mental health agency, sam sarks by $-- samhsa, by $160 million before democrats pushed to restore it. we didn't hear much of an outcry from the very same people saying they are a out there doing things on opioids. over on the other side of the capitol, the tea party republicans have gong even further. in 2012, they proposed cutting

samhsa by $283 million and the latest paul ryan budget, the holy grail of republican fiscal austerity, took a meat cleaver to this agency. he proposed cutting an estimated $400 million from samhsa in 2013 and 2014. so, the republican record on actually fighting these programs is frankly abysmal. when you hear treatment centers, when you hear law enforcement say we don't have the resources to do what we need to go after the opioid crisis, ask yourself why. because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have fought increases in funding. you can't have an additional counselor -- i've held parents in my arms who said, my son or daughter didn't make it, as they were waiting in line for treatment, but there were not enough counselors, not enough slots. i've talked to law enforcement

officials who say they want to do much more, but their hands are tied because they don't have enough cops, enough intelligence, enough follow-through on going after these evil drug dealers. -- who are just despicable. so, we want to say to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle what they probably would have done to us is block this bill. we should have no accomplishments. that's what happened in 2013-20146789 we're not going to do that. this has a goo good things but it is not -- this has a few good things but it is not close enough. the way the appropriations process has preceded this session. i see into reason to believe any of this is going to change. so far the majority has been utterly unable to pass bills that contain increases in funding. why? why would good people here who say they want to fight opioids and come home and talk about it, why won't they do it? i'll tell you why. because the hard right has a

stranglehold. they say no increase in funding for anything. except maybe defense and even a lot of the hard-right people don't want that. and everyone goes along. they are frayed of the koch brothers. -- they're afraid of the koch brothers who want to cut, cut, cut. they are afraid of the heritage foundation that wants to cut, cut, cut. and so they give speeches and they even pass a bill that makes some small improvements. but they don't give the funding. it's not that they're malicious, but they don't have the courage and strength to stand up and do what's needed. and then they're hypocritical when they go back and say they're leading the fight to go after opioid addiction. that's the problem here. so, after years of opposing funding for mental health and

substance abuse programs, no one should believe that republicans are going to honor their promises about cara, down the road we'll find some funding, until we see. mr. president, shortly the senate will pass this bill. as soon as that happens, republican senators are going to run home to tout its passage as if they have single-handedly solved the opioid crisis in this country, but that won't be true. they won't mention that the bill has no funding, doesn't have the teeth it needs. they won't tell people it doesn't include a dime for a new treatment bed, a dollar for a drug counselor's salary, the needed increases in money for law enforcement. what it says is this, that colleagues on the other side of the aisle are more interested in showing voters they're doing something about opioids than actually doing something. because they're constricted by a small, narrow but powerful group of special interests in their party that say you can't vote for any increases and funding

for anything. it's a shame. this is an issue ripe for bipartisan compromise. it's an issue on which we can and must make real progress. but as it stands, this bill doesn't get the job done. mr. president, every day 2,500 teenagers in america abuse prescription drugs for the first time. these are our kids, our neighbors, our friends. we all know families that have had the anguish, the joy that some have had as their sons and daughters have recovered. but everyone knows people who have been fighting addiction, whether it's alcohol or prescription drug abuse or others, every day is a struggle and a fight. you're never sure. you're never sure they won't go back. and then those who have lost kids. their kids are sometimes just out on the streets. they don't know where they are. and some of them, of course, are

gone. it's nothing we should be playing games with. it's nothing we shoulding letting a small group of hard-right ideologues block change in america. we don't need a bill designed for campaign rhetoric. we need resources. i strongly urge my republican colleagues to schedule a vote on legislation that provides robust funding to address the opioid and heroin epidemic as soon as possible. until we pass the increase in resources for law enforcement and treatment, both of which are so necessary, we cannot say that congress has done what is necessary to solve and fight the opioid crisis. mr. president, i ask consent that any time spent in quorum calls prior to 11:00 a.m. be equally divided. the presiding officer: without

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

ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i come to the floor today to speak in support of the comprehensive

addiction and recovery act. this bill represents an important step in tackling the growing crisis of prescription drug and heroin addiction in this country. i thank my colleagues, especially my, the original sponsors of this bill, myself and senator whitehouse, senator portman, senator ayotte. and we have worked together on this for a number of years. drug overdoses from opiates now claim more lives than car accidents every year. that's a pretty shocking statistic that i don't think most americans would expect. the crisis is ripping apart families from all different background and with deaths increasing nearly sixfold since the year 2000, it is a crisis on the rise. this deadly trend struck at the heart of minnesota. last year alone 336 minnesotans died after overdosing on opioids. since i started working on this bill, i've heard from people in communities across my state.

in montevideo, 12-year olds courted by pushers who said, hey, kids, i'll give you a can of beer. if you go in, i'll give you a list, check your parents' medicine cabinet and if you find these drugs bring them out to me and i'll bring you a can of beer. that happened in montevideo, minnesota. sheri oakington sharing her tragic story. her daughter casey jo, champion swimmer hoped to study nursing like her mom but in 2008 she was diagnosed with crohn's disease and started taking opioids for pain relief. as we know, four out of five of these heroin users now started by misusing prescription painkillers. and in the end the very pills that were supposed to ease casey jo's pain didn't work. they got her addicted. she turned to heroin, turned to drugs. basically this addiction

hijacked her life. she's no longer with us. this is a story for far too many people. in one 7,000 person town in minnesota, three young people died of heroin overdoses in just six months in 2013. we have a number of proven strategies to help states and local communities in the fight against addiction. and one of the most important provisions in there for me is the use of looking at solutions for unused prescription drugs. senator cornyn and i passed a bill back in 2010. we finally got the rules out after advocating for them, from the d.e.a. for i think four years, and finally we're starting to see some pharmacies like walgreens voluntarily going to be taking back unused prescription drugs. and this bill helps to build on that work. cara also increases availability of nalaxone which we know can be used in overdoses.

and then of course one of the most important things here in this bill is a start at prescription drug monitoring. and i emphasize that, that it's a start. because i think a lot more needs to be done with the prescription drug monitoring. i would have liked to do it in this bill, but now we need to move on and get something done. so today i'm going to be introducing a bill with senator king and senator manchin to actually do something about prescription drug monitoring, and that is requiring individual states to put in place prescription drug monitoring programs and actually submitting the data. right now what i have learned, having hazel ton in my state that in some states they have a program. but that just means doctors have to sign up. it doesn't mean that they actually record information. it doesn't mean that they share it with other doctors. it doesn't even mean that they share it between states.

and our bill would require states that receive federal funding to combat opioid abuse to ensure that their prescription drug monitoring comply with certain standards so that we can crack down on this addiction before it starts. it would require prescriberrers to consult with the -- prescribers to consult before they hand out prescriptions, require dispensers to report back within 24 hours of distribution and provide for the proactive tphoeufgs -- notifications when patterns of opioid abuse are detected. it would require that people that travel across state lines, requiring the states to share the information. here's an example. at hazelton, betty ford, there was a patient who filled 108 prescriptions for pain killers for more than 85 different prescribers. think about that, 85 different medical professionals prescribed

these drugs. i met someone in morehead who had a similar stories, filled prescriptions from doctors in north dakota, south dakota, minnesota, wisconsin. that's what's going on. and if we don't require the sharing of information among states, it is as if we don't really have a prescription drug program to begin with. so cara is an important bill, but two things that need to be changed, two ways that we need to greatly improve the work we're doing here in congress. number one, the money for treatment that i know that senator schumer just addressed. it is senator shaheen's bill that would appropriate emergency funding. secondly, to not just say we're doing something about prescription drug monitoring, but to actually do something about prescription drug monitoring. and that's why i am introducing this bill today. there's a lot of work ahead, but i want to conclude my remarks by acknowledging the major step that we are taking by passing

the comprehensive addiction recovery act, sending it to the president's desk to be signed into law. i thank my colleagues for their support. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i continue to be concerned about the termination of a number of people to move through this senate a trans-pacific partnership trade deal, the 5,000-page document that the american people have clearly rejected and do not favor, but powerful forces continue to push for it. and it has been reported that both presidential candidates oppose it. however, it does appear that secretary clinton's opposition is in doubt in this troubling

report yesterday, the top advisor that she has on asia policy told an australian news outlet that clinton's opposition to t.p.p. is not real, declaring, he said -- quote -- "every trade agreement goes through the deepest, darkest tunnel before it is ultimately passed." so her top advisor is saying to australian allies of ours that it's going to pass. that's contrary to what she's been saying. and in fact, and i think it's fair to say that the worst-kept secret in washington is that hillary clinton, if she's elected, she intends to see that the partnership will become law some way, some fashion. she made 45 different statements during her time before this -- while this agreement was being

negotiated to the very end of the fast-track that she supported it. so this statement by her top advisor not only is shocking but really confirms the fears that so many people have had, that her conversion during the campaign trail as a result of the pressure of the voters in the primaries is not a real conversion. this was yesterday he made this statement. after voicing her support for the 5,554 page agreement 45 times before she began running for president and refusing to take a position on it when asked about it for months during her campaign, she's made statements to the american people that she opposes the agreement. now her senior advisor served as

her asian assistant secretary of state for the first four years of the obama administration when she was secretary of state, this individual made a statement that they want to move it forward and see it had passed. he's overseas touting the benefits of t.p.p., just as her scandal e-mail problem proves, mrs. clinton tends to say one thing to the one thing but another thing to her globalist friends. the t.p.p. creates an all-country -- 11-country pacific union whereby each country -- 12, counting us -- gets a single vote. this will allow this union to legislate and change its own rules. it's described as a living agreement. they can even change their own rules, and they can pass laws and regulations that make it

very difficult, virtually impossible, for the american people to have control over it. it's going to be very difficult to contain this union where each country gets one vote. the united states gets one vote, vietnam one vote. this makes no sense. we absolutely should not go through and pass this massive agreement that reads the economic -- erodes the economic strength of the united states, giving our economic competitors the same votes we have as -- the same votes as we have. even the rosy economic projections cited by the obama administration, our own estimate is that it will slow the growth of manufacturing in the united states and cost us 120,000 manufacturing jobs over the next 15 years. they say it's going to be great

for us, but they admit that it's going to cost 120,000 jobs over 15 years. but other studies show that the united states could lose much more. tufts university study said it could lose 400,000 jobs. that's their analysis of it. president clinton's advisor, kurt campbell, who served as her assistant secretary of state, like other expansive trade advocates always believe in these free trade agreements no matter what's in them, what they say, he seems to remain oblivious to the impacts that such a massive trade deal will have on the already-struggling economy and middle america. mr. campbell's statements are further confirmation that the obama administration and hillary clinton have not given up on this deal.

indeed, president obama continues to push for it openly and without apology. they fully intending to do everything they can to -- they fully intend to do everything they can to sneak the t.p.p. through congress, with perhaps some cosmetic changes, after the lame-duck session of the senate when many members are no longer accountable to the american people, or it could even be in the next congress. while talking with the newspaper "the australian," former secretary -- assistant secretary of state, mr. campbell, also found time to denigrate and talk bad about the presumptive nominee of one of our national parties, donald trump, and "the australian" reported that the former australian foreign minister has written that mr. campbell -- quote -- "will

be the secretary of state if mrs. clinton becomes president at the end of the year." well, that's the first i've heard of that. we learned that maybe from australia. so this is another example, i believe, of the kind of political duplicity that irritates, frustrates, and angers legitimately the american people. so they've got their leaders saying one thing, promising one thing during the election season, all the while they're working to advance a different agenda entirely. it's the same about fixing the illegal immigration. they always promise it during the campaign, but when we get in the senate and start actually voting on the things that would be necessary to create a lawful system of immigration, that protects the national interests, this never seems to happen. so hillary clinton supports the t.p.p. it's pretty clear really. it was only an election-cycle

conversion that caused her to back off of it. and she refuses to rule out its passage entirely. all the media should really demand of her why she won't rule out passage and put the pressure on her to make clear once and for all, does her top asian advisor meeting with asian nations that would participate in this t.p.p., does he speak for her or not? as quoted by "politifact," mrs. clinton said -- quote -- "i waited until it had actually been negotiated." she's explaining why she now opposes it. and she supported it previously. she said, "i waited until it had actually been negotiated because i did not want to give the benefit -- i wanted to give the benefit of the doubt to the

obama administration. once i saw the outcome, i opposed it." well, that's not a very satisfactory answer to me. at the time, i was very uneasy about that conversion to opposition. and now we have her top advisor to asia saying something entirely different. this is what "the australian" newspaper said about him and this agreement. he says that he did acknowledge that globallation has sometimes been disruptive to politics -- disruptive in countries like the united states." he's talking about disruptive for jobs and workers in the united states. and i think he's certainly correct about that.

how did "politifact" analyze mrs. clinton's statements? this is some of the things that they reported in their analysis. quote -- "once i saw the outcome, what the outcome was, i opposed it." close quote. that's a pretty clear statement. it appeared. speaking in australia in 2012, however, she hailed the deal as -- quote -- "setting the gold standard," saying this -- quote -- "this t.p.p. sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field." close quote. it seems to me to be a total commitment to supporting the trade deal. and, remember, as secretary of

state, she is the chief diplomatic official for the united states. yes, the trade official does most of the negotiations but the secretary of the state is involved in these negotiations. it involves the economic relationship of the united states with 11 different pacific nations. so she knows what's going on in these negotiations. and should be well-aware of it. if she wasn't, she was not doing her job. it goes on to say -- quote hillary clinton as saying this, quote, "better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions including for women, migrant workers, and others too often in the past excluded from the formal economy will help build asia's middle class and rebalance the global economy." well, i don't have any doubt that if this trade agreement is like the other trade agreements -- and i believe it is -- it

will definitely help asian trade competitors of ours. the question is, who's representing the american people? there's who our -- that's who our legal, moral, and political responsibility is to, is to the american people. is it going to be a better transaction for them or not? they don't think so. i don't think so. and a growing number of economists are beginning to understand why these trade deals -- that i have so often supported in the past -- are not working effectively. "politifact" reported in october that she also used the words in describing this trade deal over time as -- quote -- "exciting, innovative, am by news, ground breaking, cutting-edge, high-quality, and high standard." that's the way she's described it over the years.

and "politifact" concludes this -- quote -- "nonetheless, her comments at the time were so positive and so definitive, it becomes disingenuous to argue, as she is doing now, that she did not endorse it before it was finalized." close quote. so that's where we are. mr. president, i'll yield the floor if someone else arrives. that's the main point i wanted to make, but i would urge our colleagues to understand what is happening. there has been an analysis and a growing understanding within the developed nations of the world that their middle-class, working people are being hammered by these trade agreements. last year it was reported that germany is -- that 55% of the people in germany supported the

trans-at language particular trade agreement -- trans-atlantic trade agreement. that is follow-on to the t.p.p., all part of the fast-track authority congress gave to the trade representative of the united states. i opposed it, but congress voted to give it to them. and he's negotiating right now with the europeans on a matching type tax rate that will also be monumental involving the atlantic trade deal. and so last year 55% of the people in germany supported this agreement. a recent poll in germany showed now only 17% support it. the trade negotiator for the european union has told us -- told a conference that i atentedded in bros -- that i attended in brussels earlier this year that she was worried it would pass in europe, that they had t -- that they had the

support for t i would think that it would be in trouble. and there is no doubt that one of the messages sent by the people of the united king drnlg our british allies, is that they don't like being involved in these large international trade organizations where the u.k. only get one vote, if they get that and the european union -- i don't know if they have a single vote. and they don't believe it has been working in their interest. and that was a factor of them withdrawing from the e.u. the e.u. is pushing this pushinl exceedingly hard. what has been the impact in the past? i supported in 2011 the south korean trade deal. it was an important deal and one of our biggest trade agreements.

and they're allies, and i believe in the south currency. they're good -- and i believe in the south koreans. the they're good people. and so we voted for it. congress passed it. president obama advocated for it and signed it. when president obama signed it, he declared that our exports to south korea would increase $10 billion a year and that that would help create manufacturing jobs in the united states, that it would be a win-win. korea would import more to us, but we would export more to korea, that the trade deficit would not increase, and that it would be a job creator in the united states. so congress voted for it. big vote for it. well, what happened since 2011? last year our exports to korea were not $10 billion, not $1 billion, but $30 million.

their exports to us from south korea were $15 billion. so what happened? the data, the projections were not right. that is a very damaging thing for america. our trade deficit with south korea, already large, more than doubled. so i just would say to us, somebody needs to be asking what's happening to jobs in america? what's happening to wages in america? the situation is not good. since 1999, wages in america have declined $4,186, adjusted for inflation. that's the way to calculate it properly. median family income down over $4,000 since 1999. make no mistake, bad trade deals is a part of that. another part of that is when you

bring in more workers than you've got jobs for, you create a surplus of labor and wages go down. if there are any free market people left on wall street to understand that. and so we've had a double whammy. in addition to high regulations, stupid taxes that we impose on the economy, all these things have created a situation in which we're not healthy economically. wages are declining, middle-class americans are hurting. they have a right to ask who in washington is looking out for my interest? that's the way i see it, and this trade agreement, 5,400-some-odd pages, is bad. we do not need to pass it, and we absolutely do not need to go into another european union-like trade agreement where the united states gets only one vote, and

we are by far the dominant economy. all these countries, what do they want first and foremost? it's understandable. it's not evil. they want to sell in our market. they want to bring home american dollars. that's their goal. we should make sure when we enter into a trade agreement with somebody who wants to sell here that we do it in a way that protects american workers and makes sure they open their markets to us so we can export as much as we allow them to import. mr. president, i thank the chair and would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i thank my colleagues for the vote that we will take in just a very short time on behalf of the comprehensive addiction and recovery act, known as cara.

this legislation holds great promise to help families and communities combat the opioid epidemic that has truly been ravaging and -- ravaging our nation. the epidemic is truly a public health crisis, causing death and destruction to families and communities. this legislation is barely a symbolic step. the rhetoric on the floor today and throughout are consideration of this bill. unfortunately is unmatched by real dollars. until we commit resources, our words will be a glass half empty. and we must fill that glass with the resources necessary to truly make a difference, as i have seen from the round tables that

i have held around the state of connecticut where law enforcement, community activists, families whose loved ones have suffered from addiction and addicts themselves recovering from this disease. it is a disease, and we must recognize it as a disease that can be treated if we commit the resources. i want to thank senator coats for joining me in authoring the expanding access to prescription drug monitoring act. among the measures included in this bill, this provision would allow nurse practitioners and to access state prescription drug monitoring programs and view the patient's prescription opioid history to determine if a patient has a history of addiction. although nurse practitioners and physician assistants write over

seven million opioid prescriptions every year, including in 2013, few states allow them to consult and submit prescribing data to these important state data bases. allowing them to access more information about a patient's history enables them to help address potential addiction before it becomes a serious problem. critically we must recognize the key role that nurse practitioners and physician assistants can play in curbing prescription drug abuse and diversion. and that is why this provision allowing those nurse practitioners and physician assistants to access state prescription drug monitoring programs is so important. i want to thank my colleague also, senator baldwin, for her tireless efforts at advancing the jason simkowsky act.

their courage and strength, particularly mother linda, widow heather and daughter were truly instrumental in incorporating this measure. the provision from senator baldwin's legislation that have been included in cara will require the v.a. to expand the use of opioid safety initiative within all v.a. facilities, a profoundly important step because it will enable the v.a. to better facilitate use of state prescription drug monitoring programs and ensure that all v.a. families provide nalaxone to at-risk veterans without a co-payment. that is a profoundly significant step, and i hope that monitoring and tracking programs will be further improved so that state

boundaries can be made more easily overcome in terms of information flow and the effectiveness can include not only the v.a., but our civilian programs. additionally, improvements to the v.a. patient advocacy program will truly help the v.a. better serve our veterans. these provisions are also included in the veterans first act. i am hopeful that this body will move forward on the veterans first act. i appreciate the bipartisan work of my colleagues in addressing the opioid crisis. i am pleased to support this bill, but again emphasize that it is a short-term solution. and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 12 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president, capitol hill is a famously transient place.

every two years the membership of the house of representatives changes. the membership of the senate changes. and in the interim the coming and going of congressional staffers is virtually constant. but when you take a step back and look through the wide lens of history, you can see certain pillars of permanence, certain exceptional individuals who stand out and rise above the fleeting crowd. these are the institutional giants of congress, the men and women whose extraordinary talents and devotion to the constitution have shaped the character and the course of government. and whose legacies continue to influence congress long after the individuals behind them are gone. for the past five and a half years i've had the pleasure of working with and learning from one such individual, a true master of the senate, james

wellner. friday will be james' last day as executive director of the senate steering committee. though the optimist in me hopes that he'll be back to the senate someday. starting next week he will join the heritage foundation as the group vice president of research where he will oversee all of the think tanks, research papers, projects and initiatives. for this, james is eminently qualified. james has been studying politics in the classroom and in real life on capitol hill throughout his entire adult life. in all of his spare time, in between advising senators and raising his two children, graham and quinn, with his wife kimberly, james has been busy becoming a highly respected scholar and an accomplished author having published one book with another forthcoming. aside from what must be the best time management skills in the

world, that coupled with the fact that the man probably never sleeps, this is what you first notice about james. just how freakishly smart he is. i'll never forget the first time i met james. it was back in 2011, not too long after i had been sworn into office as a senator. as a brand-new senator with a brand-new staff, one of my top priorities was to find someone who could help mentor and guide me and my staff, someone outside of my staff. my staff included a lot of people who had never worked in washington before, so we needed someone on the outside of our staff to help teach us how the senate really works, how congress really works. i asked around for suggestions, and one name kept coming up. james wollner. if you need someone to give a crash course or an extended semester-like course or a course lasting five and a half years on senate procedure, politics and

policy, james wollner is the man. this was some of the best advice i had ever received to consult james on these and other issues, the instruction and guidance james provided to me and my staff far exceeded expectations. james' knowledge of the senate is like an encyclopedia. working with him is like having your own personal parliamentarian by your side always ready and eager to give answers to answer questions that might come up, even those dealing with the most arcane procedural mechanics within the united states senate. most people in washington operate on the premise that connections are what you need to succeed in politics. some might even assume that they're all you need to succeed in politics. james, although known and esteemed by many, has flipped this conventional wisdom on its head. for him, it's not who he knows.

it's what he knows that has made him an invaluable resource for so many members of congress and for so many fellow staffers on both sides of the capitol over the years. while his formidable intellect has set him apart during his tenure in the senate, the qualities i've always admired most in james are his deep and abiding love for this country, for its history, its people and its institutions and his uncompromising commitment to the self-evident truths upon which it was founded. and for the truths built into our governing document, the u.s. constitution. one of my favorite examples of this is exemplified by james' annual tradition of reading start to finish the official and complete notes from the constitutional convention of 1787. and of course for james, it's not enough simply to read and re-read this voluminous text every year.

he makes sure to do it between may 25 and september 17, just to make it authentic, so that he can reach each day's notes on the very day or the very anniversary of the very day on which they were originally recorded. james brought the same passion and appreciation for our constitutional heritage to his work as the executive director of the senate steering committee, a position which he has held since 2012. the purpose and mission of the steering committee is to encourage innovative thinking and bold action within the senate's republican conference. this is no easy task, of course. in a town that's not exactly known for innovation and boldness, many would see this as mission impossible. but james saw it as a moral imperative because he understands that many of our governments and our countries most urgent problems today are caused by an unnatural timidity and sclerosis within the

legislative branch. the job may be difficult, but james carried it out with an admirable combination of tenacity and patience, courage and grace and always with an unrelenting devotion to recovering america's founding principles and thereby putting the congress back to work for the american people. as james knows better than most, placing principle over party and elevating the interest of the american people over the interest of political elites is unlikely to win you a popularity contest in washington. but it will earn you the respect of your colleagues and anyone happening to be watching. few on capitol hill respect james more than two of his former bosses: senator pat toomey and senator jeff sessions. this is what each of them had to say about james on the occasion of his departure from the senate. senator toomey said -- quote -- "james wollner not only

understands a wide range of policy issues, but he's a master of the congressional rules and procedures needed to turn conservative philosophies into action. he is an exceptionally smart strategist and is willing to work hard to advance the ideas needed to restore an american government that is limited in scope and efficient with taxpayers' money and accountable to the voters." senator sessions said -- quote -- "it has been an honor to work with james here in the senate. i'm proud to say that james began his senate career in my office as legislative assistant and later became my legislative director. in these roles, james demonstrated a mastery of congressional procedure and policy. he has supported not only me but my entire party in developing and working to implement conservative progrowth policies that helped place our nation on a more sustainable path. the heritage foundation is fortunate to have hired a man of such skill and i'm confident that he will serve them well. james is without a doubt one of

the most talented and dedicated staffers i have ever worked with or known in the senate." close quote. for ten years james wollner has been an exceptionally articulate, passionate, knowledgeable and steadfast champion of the very things that make the senate great and that make the senate unique. especially open, robust debate and deliberation. the senate is better because of him. he will be missed, but with so many challenges looming over the horizon and with so much work yet ahead of us yet to be completed, something tells me that this will not be the last time the senate hears from james wollner. thank you, mr. president. 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 the conference report to accompany s. 524, a bill to authorize the attorney general to award grants to address the national epidemics of prescription opioid abuse and heroin use, 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 the conference report to accompany s. 524, a bill to authorize the attorney general to award grants to address the national epidemics of prescription opioid abuse and heroin use shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 90, the nays are 2. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the chair lays before the senate the message to accompany h.r. 636, which the clerk will report. the clerk: resolved, that the house agree to the amendment of the senate to the text of the bill h.r. 636 entitled "an act

to amend the internal revenue code of 1986," and so forth and for other purposes, with house amendments to senate amendments. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i move to concur in the house amendments to the senate amendments to h.r. 636. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 1:45 p.m. will be equally divided between the leaders or their designees. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: before i give my speech, i'd ask unanimous consent for senator portman to have one minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i thank my colleagues. it will be less than a minute. i just want to acknowledge something historic that happened on this floor. 90-2 vote for the comprehensive addiction and recovery act. this is this united states senate agreeing with the house to do something important to address this epidemic of heroin and prescription drug abuse, and i congratulate my colleague sheldon whitehouse, my co-author, and encourage all of our colleagues to now get this signed as soon as possible so we

can get it out to our communities to help. thank you, mr. president. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i rise today to discuss america's broken budget process and the senate budget committee's continuing effort to provide solutions to place our nation's budget on a better sustainable path. last year, on may 5, the senate passed its first joint balance ten-year budget since 2001. this was a big deal. it was thoroughly considered and amended to the tune of 71 roll call votes and 146 amendments adopted overall, and it provided an enforceable plan to get the nation's exploding debt under control. but on may 22, just 17 days later, we enacted legislation that violated the budget. congress didn't even abide by the budget for a whole month. this trend has continued throughout the 114th congress, and since passing its fiscal

year 2016 budget plan, congress has been unable to achieve any reduction in overspending called for in the balanced budget. instead, congress enacted legislation increasing spending by nearly $150 billion and reducing revenue by $478 billion over the ten-year window. much of these violations were enacted as part of the end of year omnibus spending bill which was drafted behind closed doors and passed under threat of government shutdown. completely outside of regular order. the truth is america's budget process is broken, and it's presenting congress from -- preventing congress from tackling the pressing fiscal challenges facing our country. the current budget process is designed only to spend and fails hardworking taxpayers. each year, nearly $3 trillion is spent by washington without any meaningful congressional review or consideration. what america really needs is a

budget process built to save. the last time congress reformed the budget process was in 1974. times have changed, and the 40-year-old process has only grown more dysfunctional and antiquated. until 1998, congress had never failed to pass a budget. but in the last 15 years, congress failed to pass a budget resolution more than half the time. today, budgets from congress and the president are increasingly tossed aside, leaving the country with no long-term fiscal plan. our appropriations process is broken. spending bills are nearly always late, creating crippling uncertainty for agencies, businesses and the american people. we've completed all appropriations bills on time in only four of the last 40 years. in 15 of those years, we did not pass one appropriations bill on

time. instead of well-considered funding decisions, the government operates on short-term spending bills or continuing resolutions. we've had to use 173 short-term spending bills since 1977. and that's just three years after the budget act was passed. and that's just a portion of the budget that congress has control over. today a growing portion of our budget is devoted to entitlements and other automatic spending. when congress last reformed the budget process in 1974, this type of spending constituted only one-third of what was spent and two-thirds of the spending provided annually. this chart points that out. 1966, 33% on automatic pilot. 67% annual review. now 70% automatic spending, 30% under annual review. and this is growing automatically.

these don't have guaranteed revenue sources. whenever the revenue source doesn't meet up with what we have already said will be automatically paid, it cuts into this 30% that we get for annual review automatically and reduces the amount that we get to actually make decisions on. i've talked about what can happen if the interest rates go up. $19 trillion in debt, $20 trillion, a 1% interest rate would cost us $200 billion a year. the norm of 5% would cost us 1,000 billion, or a trillion dollars, and we only get to make decisions, this part of it, on 1,070,000,000,000. how would we fund everything that government does on $70 billion? this crisis is coming. in 2016, 70% of federal spending is provided automatically, essentially on auto pay year after year without congressional review or approval. in 15 years, this runaway

spending and interest will consume all of the taxes taxes and revenues the federal government collects, crowding out the functions we normally associate with good government. what would those be? some really important ones would be national defense and border security. maybe transportation. maybe education. this mandatory spending operates with no connection between funding decisions and program performance. given that the spending often continues imperpetuity, the least we can ensure is that it's spent effectively. i want to repeat that part. the mandatory spending operates with no connection between funding decisions and program performance. there are a whole bunch of programs out here in the 70% that we never have to look at because they're going to get their money anyway. nobody lobbies this on them because they get their money anyway. so we don't have any program performance. how many of those do you suppose they're not doing what they were

originally intended to do? i'm willing to bet a lot of them. in fact, i've looked at them and know that it's a lot of them. the good news is that there are bipartisan steps congress can now take to fix america's broken budget process. the senate budget committee has held a series of hearings and meetings to discuss bipartisan solutions that would, one, improve the way congress considers budget legislation. two, it would update the antiquated accounting rules that affect the information congress uses to make tax and spending decisions. and three, it would set the country's finances on a sustainable path by establishing enforceable long-term fiscal targets. congress can begin to regain control of the nation's finances by reforming the procedures it uses to consider budget legislation. based on conversations with democrat and republic members of my committee, i'm pursuing the following reforms with the understanding that they'll receive bipartisan support.

first, the senate's rules governing consideration of budget resolutions are overly burden some and diss courage passage of this important planning document. we can fix this by reforming what we call the voterrama, the disgrateful -- disgrace if the ritual which has turned into meaningless gotcha votes. by establishing filing deadlines and limits on the number of amendments that can be offered. second, the senate should be required to devote floor time to consideration of annual appropriations measures. the annual spending measures. in wyoming the state legislature encourages full consideration of their spending bills by holding a budget session. that's a session of the regular legislature and it requires a two-thirds vote to consider any nonbudget legislation. we should have similar rules in the senate to make sure we get our work done.

third, budget points of order should be meaningful. today they're routinely ignored or waived by members of this body. the senate should tie the waiver vote threshold to the size of the budget violation. diminimus violations under half a medical dollars probably should be automatically waived while large violations should be subject to up to a two-thirds vote threshold. it has to be a little bit more difficult for us to violate what we set out to do. fourth, congress needs to rethink the way it allocates federal resources. our fragmented budget process make it is nearly impossible to know how much of the government's resources are devoted to a particularly policy goal. there's a different budget for the budget committee, a different one for the spending committees which are the appropriators, a different one for the white house. i think it's intentional so that you can't follow what it is.

our fragmented budget process makes it impossible to know how much of the government's resources are devoted to a particular policy goal. we should establish subcommittees within the budget committee to review an entire portfolio of government spending and tax policy to ensure that the programs and funding are actually accomplishing certain policy objectives. this would help identify both effective and ineffective programs, reducing waste and focusing on results. we should also consider moving to a two-year funding cycle. funding uncertainty creates wasteful spending. it disrupts government operations and planning. and it reduces productive investment and hiring in the private sector. a biennial process would lock in to years of spending in law. providing federal agencies, businesses and the american people with certainty and predictability. that's why this common sense solution has been supported by presidents, legislators, and

good governance think tanks from both parties for decades. once the senate passes legislation to improve our internal budget procedures, we should move on to the more fundamental problems of the current budget process. and that's the ant waited accounting -- antiquated accounting rules and our growing debt burden. the private sector applies modern advances in economics, accounting and finance to accurately reflect a business' financial condition, and the potential impact of new policies, but the federal government budget rules haven't undergone comprehensive review since -- listen to this -- comprehensive review since 1967. that was 50 years ago. this issue may seem dry and boring but as an accountant, i can tell you that it's extremely important and exciting. antiquated accounting techniques mislead congress and the public and misstate the true cost of government activities. updating these budget rules will provide congress with the honest, accurate information necessary to allocate taxpayer

dollars effectively and efficiently. finally, congress should get serious about addressing america's long-term debt crisis which today totals more than $19 trillion and is expected to grow to over $29 trillion by 2026. and that's just based on this 70% that's on automatic pilot. we need long-term enforceable fiscal targets with guide posts along the way that ensure revenues and spending are moving in the right direction. fiscal targets alone will not fix the federal budget. congress will need to enact substantial policy reforms if it wants to get our nation's debt under control. former budget chairman judd gregg and former budget chairman kent conrad, one republican, one democrat, recommended establishing a bipartisan commission to submit a legislative proposal that would achieve long-term revenue, spending and debt targets. congress would then be required

to consider and vote on the commission's recommendations without amendment. this is a creative bipartisan approach to addressing politically difficult decisions that must be made to ensure this country's future prosperity. the budget committee has been working diligently on these reforms and stands ready to offer bipartisan legislation should the senate choose to fix our broken budget process. the time to act is now. we're currently spending over $230 billion in interest on our debt every year, even with those low historical interest rates that i talked about. the congressional budget office tells us that for every 1 percentage point that the interest raises will increase america's overspending by $1.6 trillion over the next ten years. or about $160 billion a year. that's a 1% raise in the

interest rate. $230 billion, up another $160 billion, up another $160 billion. interest on the debt would soon put america out of the business of protecting its citizens from foreign threats, educating our youth, and building national infrastructure like highways and roads. these bipartisan reforms wouldn't solve all of the budget problems, but they are a promising first step towards unsticking the budget gridlock that's gripped washington in recent years. this will begin to put our nation on not just another path but a better path. i ask unanimous consent that the cart that appeared -- that the article that appeared in "the washington times" today entitled "government not close to paying for promises cbo says" and the subtitle is "tax increases cuts need to return to normal debt load" by steven denam. i ask that it become part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: then there's another

article that "the washington times" did called "budget chairman introduced by overall haul of the senate process" and has some bipartisan quotes for members of the committee. i would ask unanimous consent that that appear in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: thank you. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, at 1:45 today we are going to vote on the f.a.a. bill. it is coming back as a negotiated conference -- in essence a conference report although it was negotiated directly with the house. and so we will take up the house message. and i want to thank senator thune, the chairman of the committee, because the two of us of course get along and we have worked together to achieve an agreement with our counterparts

in the house. i want to thank senator thune. there were parts of this bill that he basically said for me to work it out with the republican chairman in the house. the work product is the proof in the pudding that we are going to take up today. it's a little more than 14-month extension but don't let that fool you. because it is going to put into permanent law bot bolstering security at our airports in order to help better product us. and of course in these times the safety of our traveling public is a top priority. in fact, it contains some of the most significant aviation security reforms that congress has ever considered. and we've considered as you can remember a lot since september

11, 2001. and it also contains a number of consumer protection and drone safety provisions. so let me just enumerate a couple of those. to address the insider threat posed by terrorists, we increase the investigating requirements and the ran -- the vetting requirements and the random physical screenings of airport employees. what we found was that if -- especially with the atlanta airport situation two years ago. they were not really checking their airport employees. there was a gun-running scheme over a three-month period in which an atlanta airport employee would bring in guns. he wasn't checked. he wasn't screened. they didn't know what was in his

backpack. then he would go into the sterile t.s.a. area where passengers are into the men's room and would trade his backpack to a passenger that had already come through t.s.a. screening. for three months they carried on this scheme running guns from atlanta to new york. thank goodness they weren't terrorists. they were criminals. but you can imagine something like 150 guns were transported over that three-month period. well, that's what we addressed in this f.a.a. bill. we've increased the screening required of the airports, even though that's their responsibility. and so for t.s.a. the most effective thing for t.s.a. in

screening anybody or baggage is the nose of a dog. we have doubled those vipor dog teams and that is a substantive change. and so what about the international flights? we're always concerned. a point of a last departure at an international destination coming into the u.s., have they been sufficiently check since we in effect are relying on the host government of that airport for a u.s. inbound flight? this will authorize t.s.a. to donate unneeded security equipment to foreign airports with that service to the u.s., and we're calling for the increased cooperation between us and those partner nations on those routes flown by americans,

and we're now in this bill requiring a new assessment of foreign cargo security programs. so we also are setting up new screening systems and security check point configurations to try to expedite the passengers getting through, but at the same time recognizing what happened in the terrorist attacks in belgium and istanbul, it makes it clear that we've got to reduce the vulnerability of all those passengers amassing as a soft target before they ever go through the t.s.a. check point. and that's what they did in istanbul and in belgium. and so we've put stuff that addresses that in this bill.

now, cyber security, you've heard a lot about it. certainly the cyber security risk for the f.a.a. is a definite one and we've done stuff in this bill to reduce the cyber security risk to the national air space system and civil aviation and that includes reducing the vulnerability of the in-flight entertainment systems. we've all seen that video where someone with a laptop can take over a car through the in-car entertainment systems. we're concerned about that with regard to airlines, airplanes as well. so this legislation supports the f.a.a.