Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about the pending legislation, which is very important. It actually enjoys broad bipartisan support, and I am optimistic we can get it done.

Before I talk about that, I wish to comment on some of the things that have been said on the floor with regard to the vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia.

First, the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, clearly wants to apply a different set of rules when Republicans are in the majority than he did when Democrats were in the majority. That is very clear.

People may get lost in some of the arcane and convoluted nature of the arguments we make on the floor, but the American people understand hypocrisy when they see it. Clearly, in 2005, when President George W. Bush was President, Senator Reid made this statement:

The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential appointees a vote.

We actually agreed with Senator Reid then. But to have him come to the floor and lambaste the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and others in a very personal way is surely beneath the dignity of this body and of any Senator. Somehow the Democratic leader feels as if the rules that apply to the rest of us simply don't apply to him. He comes to the floor and tries to provoke fights.

We actually have some important work to get done, and we will get it done on this Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, the so-called CARA Act.

I wish to make another point clear. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed in a united way to the same principle that our Democratic colleagues have argued for decades. During an election year, a Supreme Court nominee should not be confirmed. I previously had spoken about Senator Joe Biden making that point when he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee back in 1992. In 2005, Senator Reid made that point. In 2007, Senator Schumer, the heir apparent to the Democratic leadership, made the same point. But, again, they feel that now the rules should apply differently under a Democratic majority than they do under a Republican majority.

We are not a rubberstamp for the President of the United States. The Constitution says as much. We can grant consent or we can withhold consent. I, for one, am for withholding consent to the confirmation of another liberal on the U.S. Supreme Court. We have seen the types of Justices that President Obama has nominated: Justice Kagan, Justice Sotomayor--clearly on the left in terms of the balance of power on the U.S. Supreme Court. To simply give President Obama the ability to appoint somebody who is going to change the balance of the Supreme Court to tilt left for the next 25 or 30 years is simply unacceptable.

So it really doesn't make any difference who the President nominates. I am sure they will be very much in the same mold as the two Justices that he has already nominated: Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor. I say that with respect to them as people. They are entitled to their opinions just as we are, but their decisions make fundamental changes in the United States. And it is not just for a term of office; it is literally for a generation. We are not going to stand by and allow President Obama--on his way out the door as a lameduck President--to change the balance of power on the Supreme Court for the next 25 to 30 years.

Madam President, now to a more pleasant topic. I actually have been encouraged, despite the disagreement we have with our friends across the aisle on the Supreme Court, to see that there is interest in actually getting some work done. I hope that does not cause us to fail to do our duty when it comes to places we agree on, such as the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act.

This bill has been the result of a lot of hard work and bipartisan discussions. I thank the leadership and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, as he made this a priority. This wasn't just for Republicans who were proposing we move on this legislation. Senator Klobuchar and Senator Whitehouse on the Democratic side, and Senator Portman, Senator Toomey and Senator Ayotte on the Republican side brought this to everyone's attention, primarily because of the devastating impact of the opioid prescription drug abuse problem and the heroin problem in their parts of the country, but it affects the whole country.

I am thankful that the Democratic leadership understands that this legislation should not be taken as a partisan hostage because it is about helping to restore communities and families from the effects of drug addiction and it is about stemming the tide of a massive epidemic of opioid drug use and addiction that continues to claim lives across the country. It is an example of how in the 114th Congress, since the beginning of last year, we have actually been able to work together with our colleagues across the aisle.

Before that, under the leadership of the Senator from Nevada, this institution was deadlocked. It wasn't just when Republicans were in the majority. When Democrats were in the majority, even they could not get votes on amendments. It is pretty hard to explain that back home: Yes I am in the majority, but it doesn't make any difference in terms of my ability to get things done for the people I represent.

I actually am very pleased that we have been working our way through this legislation and other legislation that could help advance good policies that positively impact the lives of the American people on a daily basis.

Madam President, another effort we have worked on in the Judiciary Committee has to do with the intersection of mental illness and the criminal justice system. I recently met with a number of major county sheriffs, and I was introduced to the sheriff of Los Angeles County. He said: I am the largest mental health provider in the country--the sheriff of Los Angeles. The fact is, after we deinstitutionalized people with mental illness, basically there was no safety net for them, no continuing treatment for their needs, so they either end up in jails or living homeless on our streets.

I have introduced legislation, and Chairman Grassley allowed us to have a hearing on it. I think it was very instructive. It was also very interesting. I say this to my friend from Maine: It is one of the few times we have actually had a consensus panel of witnesses. I think on some committees in the Senate that is a common practice, but usually in the Judiciary Committee things are so polarized that we rarely have a consensus panel. But we did on the issue of mental illness.

Reforming our country's mental health system has become an area of real bipartisan consensus as well, along with criminal justice reform. In order to protect our communities and to get help to the people with mental illness, we actually need to act.

What has also become clear is that many people who struggle with mental illness suffer from addiction and substance abuse. In many instances they self-medicate. They have a mental illness, they cannot deal with it, they are not getting the prescriptions they need from their doctors, so they end up drinking or taking drugs. These are so- called co-occurring disorders. It is estimated that more than 10 million Americans suffer from both addiction and mental health disorders--co-occurring disorders. Unfortunately, many mental health services such as specialty courts--drug courts, veterans courts, and the like--have operated on separate tracks and treat only one aspect of the problem. Someone with a history of drug abuse and mental illness may be sent to a drug court where their mental health needs are not taken into account. By definition, a drug court deals with people with drug problems, not necessarily mental health issues. When that happens, the underlying problem isn't addressed at all.

I have submitted an amendment to this legislation that will address this common link between mental illness and substance abuse in the criminal justice system. It would direct existing programs to apply to co- occurring disorders as well, so that people suffering from both addiction and mental health problems are not seen and treated for just one of those problems. It seems as if it makes sense.

It would also expand substance abuse and transitional services to help people suffering from co-occurring disorders to receive the appropriate treatment they need in order to get back on their feet.

This amendment has been cosponsored by the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, the senior Senator from Tennessee, whom I thank for his important contribution to this effort. It also has the support of many stakeholders around the country, including the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the National Association of Police Organizations.

I hope, when the time comes, our colleagues will support this amendment as a commonsense measure that will help those suffering from both mental health and addiction problems, and I believe it will make the underlying bill that much stronger.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source