Stopping Overdoses of Fentanyl Analogues Act

Madam President, it has been nearly 7 months since President Trump took office. He was sworn in on the steps of the Capitol on January 20.

Our colleagues across the aisle have had, frankly, more than enough time to come to terms with the election results. Unfortunately, they seem to be channeling their disappointment through the confirmation process by engaging in an unprecedented level of obstruction.

We spent all this week when the Senate could do no other business on the executive calendar than to confirm three nominees--three nominees of about 500 that need to be appointed by the President. They are there only because the President would want them there. They come and go as Presidents come and go. Many of them have gone. The problem is that their replacements haven't been there.

If there is any doubt as to just how unprecedented this drawn-out confirmation process has been, let's look at how it stacks up against the previous administration. We are only a couple of weeks away from August, and Senate Democrats have only allowed us to confirm 52 of President Trump's 216 nominees. That is 24 percent. By the August recess of President Obama's first term, the Senate had confirmed 313 of his 454 nominations, or 69 percent.

So we start out with an incredibly slow start, where previous administrations--both the Bush administration and the Obama administration--by the end of the first week, or often by the end of the first day, had most of their Cabinet confirmed.

Getting a Cabinet confirmed is a process that took every minute of time that the Senate rules could possibly be stretched to allow.

Then, we look at nominations. The President, as I said, has nominated 216 people. Less than one out of four of them have been confirmed. In President Obama's term, even though he had more nominees by this time, he had a lot more confirmations. The Senate confirmed 69 percent of the Obama nominees.

There are currently more than 150 nominations waiting for confirmation, many of them are already out of committee. They are ready to come to the floor, but Senate Democrats have caused this backlog by using every procedural tactic to needlessly delay nominees. But, when they delay the nominees, they also delay our ability to get to the other work.

So there are two questions here. Are you going to let the President take over the government, which the Constitution and the Senate have been an active part of? Are you going to get the other work done? If you don't let the President take over the government, how do you effectively get the other work done? It is really a plan that works really well if what you want to do is slow down any changes of where the government was on January 20.

A Wall Street Journal editorial earlier this week said:

Democratic obstruction against nominees is nearly total,

most notably including a demand for cloture filings for every

nominee--no matter how minor the position. This

means a two-day waiting period, and then another 30 hours of

debate. The 30-hour rule means Mr. Trump might not be able to

fill all of those 400 positions in four years.

In fact, at the rate we are going, it will take more than 11 years to fill all the jobs that the President is supposed to be able to fill. I guess that would put us in the third term of the Trump Presidency before he ever got every job filled the first time, which the President is expected to fill under the laws that have been there, most of them for a long time.

The Wall Street Journal editorial talks about these difficult terms, like cloture. What does that mean? That means that you have to get a vote to move forward with the nomination--normally, not done where nominations are concerned.

There is a rule that allows you to have vigorous debate on any nominee who really is a problem, but that rule has clearly been abused. Now the cloture vote only takes 51 votes. This is no odd Senate majority or anything like that. A majority of the Senators can vote to move forward with the nominee. But then, if you will not consent to waive any of the other rules, you have to wait 2 days before you can get to that. You can't do anything else during those 2 days. Then you have to have 30 hours of debate.

That has happened over and over. As a matter of fact, this happened 30 times. That sounded like about 5 days to me, certainly 3\1/2\ days. That whole process has happened 30 times, only to have many of these nominees get 90 or more votes, to have no debate on the floor about the nominee for whom you are supposed to be insisting on 30 hours of debate and to come to the floor and talk about whatever else you want to talk about. But if you go back and view the tape on whatever has happened during these confirmations, you will find very little discussion of the 30 times that 30 hours of debate was supposedly required before we could get to a final vote. Then, often, in the final vote, in a bipartisan effort to find nominees who are willing to serve, they get more than 90 votes. That just has never happened before.

By the first August recess in his administration, President Obama only had eight cloture votes. So what has happened here 30 times under President Trump happened 8 times under President Obama. Three percent of the nominees confirmed under President Obama had a cloture vote between swearing in and August, but 60 percent of the nominees from President Trump have had a cloture vote, but about the same amount of real debate. If we look back at what happened in 2009, the hours of actual debate on nominees were about the same, but the use of the maximum abuse of the rules is different.

Let me say this. The rules of the Senate were designed to protect the minority, and that is a good thing. This is a unique body in a democratic country, where the minority has been traditionally protected, and that protection lasts until the minority begins to abuse it. There will be a point here pretty quickly where I think Senators are going to have to wonder if this rule is any longer a rule that should be sustained.

We cannot continue to do what we are doing. We don't have 11 years and 4 months to confirm the Trump nominees. Nobody would want the President to have--well, maybe not anybody--an 11-year and 4-month term. But our friends on the other side are acting like that is how long he has to get just this rudimentary part of this job done that largely should have been done in the first 6 months.

Only 10 percent of the President's nominees' confirmations have been done by a voice vote. That is another alternative--just bring the nominee, nobody objects to waiving the rules, and you have a voice vote.

Ten percent of President Trump's confirmations have been done by voice vote while more than 90 percent of President Obama's confirmations were done by a voice vote. So we have the same percentages there, just totally turned around--10 percent for Trump and 90 percent for President Obama. The contrast is striking. It is not just simply math. It is, again, about the key positions of government that aren't filled.

As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I hear all the time that our country faces more threats from more directions than at any time in our history. But we have only been allowed by this strung-out process, insisted on by Senate Democrats, to confirm 6 of the President's 22 nominees for the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense has 22 nominees already made, and only 6 of them are over there doing the jobs, of which the President says: Here are the 22 people I would like to have, and there will be more names to follow.

The positions that haven't been confirmed are the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the next job in the Defense Department and the principal deputy under the Secretary of Defense; and the Assistant Secretary of Defense.

I don't know about everybody else. I was a little confused by how long these titles are. But if you look at what each of these people do, these are critical to the mission of defending the country and they haven't been filled. These are positions that need to be filled.

The President continues to work to improve the safety of our communities and enforce our Nation's laws. We have seen obstruction when it comes to the Justice Department and the 19 people who have been willing to serve--all of whom I think are out of committee or about to be out of committee.

If one of them is out of committee, that would be enough. But the President has nominated 19 people to fill these vacancies, and only 3 nominees have been confirmed. Two of the nominees who have been reported out of the committee received votes of 20 to 0 and 19 to 1. We would think that is somebody who could come to the floor with a likely voice vote.

My bet is that when they do get voted on, 98 Senators will vote for them. But if we continue to do what we are doing now, only 2 days after a cloture vote, 2 days after the vote, and then almost a day and a half of debate after that, it is a disservice to the people that elected us to do these jobs and even a greater disservice to the people who elected the President to do his job.

Once again, these are key positions in Justice--the Solicitor General of the United States, the principal person who argues in court for the United States of America--and it is the middle of July.

My colleagues from across the aisle have clearly decided that it is in their best political interests to stand in the way of the President's nominees, but, maybe, more importantly, to stand in the way of the Senate's ability to get its job done.

When I talked to Missourians, they want to know what we are doing and why we can't get the work done that they sent us here to do. They also want to know why we can't let the President do the job he was sent here to do.

We need to be working on the failures of the current healthcare system, how we make college more affordable, and what we can do to improve our infrastructure. Those are things we need to get to, and we need to allow the President to put his government in place for that to happen.

He was sworn in 7 months ago. He has every right to put the government in place. It is time for our friends across the aisle to stop grandstanding, to stop standing in the way. It is time to stop debating the Presidential election, and it is time to start debating the issues of how to run the government and to let the President put his people in those jobs so that process can begin.

Mr. President, I see my friend from Wisconsin is here. I will conclude my remarks.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an epidemic that is sweeping our Nation. From big cities to small towns, communities across our country have been ravaged by drug addiction and the multiple problems caused by it. Opioid overdoses have quadrupled since 1999 and were responsible for over 33,000 deaths in 2015 alone.

We have all seen the dangers posed by the overprescription of highly addictive prescription opioids. According to the CDC, addiction to prescription opioid painkillers is the primary gateway to heroin abuse. In fact, Michael Botticelli, President Obama's drug czar, testified in my committee last year that people who are addicted and abuse prescription opioids are 40 times more likely to abuse heroin.

Almost all of the heroin sold on the streets of the United States today enters the country illegally from Mexico. It is trafficked by drug cartels into our communities through our porous southwest border.

It is a problem that continues to grow. Even as heroin has increased, it has remained available and affordable because increased production in Mexico has ensured a reliable supply of low-cost heroin. As long as there is a demand, the enormous profit potential of the drug trade will ensure that there is a sufficient supply. A kilogram of heroin can be produced in Mexico for around $5,000. It can be sold to dealers for as much as $80,000--a 1,500 percent profit.

At another committee hearing, we learned that heroin has significantly dropped in price. In 1981, the nationwide average price was $3,260 per gram of pure heroin. Today, it is between $100 and $150 per gram. That translates into as little as $10 for one hit, making heroin a very affordable and very destructive addiction. While prices have dropped, the potency has increased. Heroin sold in Wisconsin has increased from 5 percent purity in the 1980s to somewhere between 20 percent and 80 percent purity today.

As awful as that reality is, imported heroin is only one front in our fight against opioids. Another equally dangerous front is synthetic or man-made opioids--particularly fentanyl and its analogs--which are now commonly mixed into the heroin sold in our communities. Since fentanyl is 50 times more potent than heroin and 100 times more potent than morphine, it only takes a minuscule amount of fentanyl--just 2 milligrams, less than one one-thousandth of the weight of a penny--to be potentially lethal.

Even more alarming, we are now beginning to see carfentanil, often used to sedate elephants, also being blended into heroin and fentanyl on the streets. Carfentanil is 100 times more potent than fentanyl and 10,000 times more potent than morphine. A dose of carfentanil the size of a grain of salt can lead to a deadly overdose.

Just as we are seeing an increase in drugs coming across our southwest border, man-made opioids are on the rise as well. The profit potential of fentanyl is even more staggering than heroin's. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, 25 grams of fentanyl costs approximately $810 to produce and has a market value of $800,000.

In 2013, 3,097 people died from overdoses involving synthetic opioids. Just 1 year later, we lost 5,544 people to that same drug--a 79-percent increase in just 1 year. My home State of Wisconsin has been particularly hard hit by the introduction of fentanyl and its analogs.

In April, 2016, I met Lauri Badura. Lauri is from Oconomowoc, WI, a suburb in Milwaukee. She lost her son Archie to a heroin overdose.

Here is a picture of Archie. He doesn't exactly look like a heroin addict, does he? Archie was just 19 years old when he died. He began using marijuana during his freshman year in high school and discovered opioids the summer after his high school graduation. After overdosing multiple times and trying to quit, Archie had stayed sober for 77 days before he relapsed again and finally overdosed on May 15, 2014.

In Archie's memory, Lauri started a foundation called Saving Others For Archie, or SOFA. Her organization raises awareness throughout Wisconsin of the dangers of drug abuse. It offers support for families battling addiction. Lauri is constantly being contacted by and providing comfort to other parents coping with similar tragedies.

Lauri's story is moving, and I applaud her for being such a strong advocate for those struggling with addiction. Unfortunately, her tragedy is not unique. The scourge of addiction and overdose deaths has devastated thousands of families, including my own.

In January, 2016, I lost a nephew to a fentanyl overdose. The legislation I am introducing this afternoon is in memory of my nephew, of Archie, and of all of the families in Wisconsin and throughout America who have lost loved ones in this epidemic.

Today I am proud to introduce the Stopping Overdoses of Fentanyl Analogues Act, or SOFA Act. Sharing an acronym with Lauri Badura's organization, the SOFA Act will give law enforcement a set of enhanced tools to combat the opioid epidemic by closing a loophole that criminal drug manufacturers are exploiting.

Fentanyl is a synthetic, or man-made, opioid--the result of complex chemistry that brings together multiple building blocks. Criminal chemists need change only one small piece of the chemical bond to be one step ahead of the law. The fentanyl analogs on the street today serve no known medical purpose and are contributing to the alarming overdose rates throughout the country. My legislation would classify these analogs under schedule I and give the DEA tools to quickly schedule additional fentanyl analogs as they are identified in our communities.

This body took a step forward last Congress when we passed the CARA legislation to improve addiction treatment programs throughout the United States. We can now take another important step forward by providing law enforcement with the tools it needs to get these dangerous synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl and carfentanil, off the streets.

In addition to Lauri Badura, I also want to thank Dr. Tim Westlake for working with me to craft this legislation. Tim has testified at a committee field hearing in Pewaukee, and he participated in an opioid roundtable in Milwaukee I convened in September. His leadership in Wisconsin and on this issue has been invaluable.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation and additional opportunities to combat this serious problem that has plagued our Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an epidemic that is sweeping our Nation. From big cities to small towns, communities across our country have been ravaged by drug addiction and the multiple problems caused by it. Opioid overdoses have quadrupled since 1999 and were responsible for over 33,000 deaths in 2015 alone.

We have all seen the dangers posed by the overprescription of highly addictive prescription opioids. According to the CDC, addiction to prescription opioid painkillers is the primary gateway to heroin abuse. In fact, Michael Botticelli, President Obama's drug czar, testified in my committee last year that people who are addicted and abuse prescription opioids are 40 times more likely to abuse heroin.

Almost all of the heroin sold on the streets of the United States today enters the country illegally from Mexico. It is trafficked by drug cartels into our communities through our porous southwest border.

It is a problem that continues to grow. Even as heroin has increased, it has remained available and affordable because increased production in Mexico has ensured a reliable supply of low-cost heroin. As long as there is a demand, the enormous profit potential of the drug trade will ensure that there is a sufficient supply. A kilogram of heroin can be produced in Mexico for around $5,000. It can be sold to dealers for as much as $80,000--a 1,500 percent profit.

At another committee hearing, we learned that heroin has significantly dropped in price. In 1981, the nationwide average price was $3,260 per gram of pure heroin. Today, it is between $100 and $150 per gram. That translates into as little as $10 for one hit, making heroin a very affordable and very destructive addiction. While prices have dropped, the potency has increased. Heroin sold in Wisconsin has increased from 5 percent purity in the 1980s to somewhere between 20 percent and 80 percent purity today.

As awful as that reality is, imported heroin is only one front in our fight against opioids. Another equally dangerous front is synthetic or man-made opioids--particularly fentanyl and its analogs--which are now commonly mixed into the heroin sold in our communities. Since fentanyl is 50 times more potent than heroin and 100 times more potent than morphine, it only takes a minuscule amount of fentanyl--just 2 milligrams, less than one one-thousandth of the weight of a penny--to be potentially lethal.

Even more alarming, we are now beginning to see carfentanil, often used to sedate elephants, also being blended into heroin and fentanyl on the streets. Carfentanil is 100 times more potent than fentanyl and 10,000 times more potent than morphine. A dose of carfentanil the size of a grain of salt can lead to a deadly overdose.

Just as we are seeing an increase in drugs coming across our southwest border, man-made opioids are on the rise as well. The profit potential of fentanyl is even more staggering than heroin's. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, 25 grams of fentanyl costs approximately $810 to produce and has a market value of $800,000.

In 2013, 3,097 people died from overdoses involving synthetic opioids. Just 1 year later, we lost 5,544 people to that same drug--a 79-percent increase in just 1 year. My home State of Wisconsin has been particularly hard hit by the introduction of fentanyl and its analogs.

In April, 2016, I met Lauri Badura. Lauri is from Oconomowoc, WI, a suburb in Milwaukee. She lost her son Archie to a heroin overdose.

Here is a picture of Archie. He doesn't exactly look like a heroin addict, does he? Archie was just 19 years old when he died. He began using marijuana during his freshman year in high school and discovered opioids the summer after his high school graduation. After overdosing multiple times and trying to quit, Archie had stayed sober for 77 days before he relapsed again and finally overdosed on May 15, 2014.

In Archie's memory, Lauri started a foundation called Saving Others For Archie, or SOFA. Her organization raises awareness throughout Wisconsin of the dangers of drug abuse. It offers support for families battling addiction. Lauri is constantly being contacted by and providing comfort to other parents coping with similar tragedies.

Lauri's story is moving, and I applaud her for being such a strong advocate for those struggling with addiction. Unfortunately, her tragedy is not unique. The scourge of addiction and overdose deaths has devastated thousands of families, including my own.

In January, 2016, I lost a nephew to a fentanyl overdose. The legislation I am introducing this afternoon is in memory of my nephew, of Archie, and of all of the families in Wisconsin and throughout America who have lost loved ones in this epidemic.

Today I am proud to introduce the Stopping Overdoses of Fentanyl Analogues Act, or SOFA Act. Sharing an acronym with Lauri Badura's organization, the SOFA Act will give law enforcement a set of enhanced tools to combat the opioid epidemic by closing a loophole that criminal drug manufacturers are exploiting.

Fentanyl is a synthetic, or man-made, opioid--the result of complex chemistry that brings together multiple building blocks. Criminal chemists need change only one small piece of the chemical bond to be one step ahead of the law. The fentanyl analogs on the street today serve no known medical purpose and are contributing to the alarming overdose rates throughout the country. My legislation would classify these analogs under schedule I and give the DEA tools to quickly schedule additional fentanyl analogs as they are identified in our communities.

This body took a step forward last Congress when we passed the CARA legislation to improve addiction treatment programs throughout the United States. We can now take another important step forward by providing law enforcement with the tools it needs to get these dangerous synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl and carfentanil, off the streets.

In addition to Lauri Badura, I also want to thank Dr. Tim Westlake for working with me to craft this legislation. Tim has testified at a committee field hearing in Pewaukee, and he participated in an opioid roundtable in Milwaukee I convened in September. His leadership in Wisconsin and on this issue has been invaluable.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation and additional opportunities to combat this serious problem that has plagued our Nation.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a critical subject too often overlooked by Congress. It is the Federal debt and our deficit.

It is no secret that our national debt will soon surpass $20 trillion. To provide some context for that figure, $20 trillion represents the largest amount of debt ever owed by any nation in history. This fact, coupled with the fast-approaching end to our fiscal year, will leave Congress facing an unavoidable debt debate.

Our looming debt and deficit are two of our country's most urgent challenges, but the legislative branch does not treat them like the crises they really are. Since January alone, Congress has added $284 billion to the debt over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office recently projected that if Congress continues on its current path, deficits will increase dramatically over the next decade. Specifically, by 2027, the deficit will grow from 3.6 percent of the Nation's GDP to 5.2 percent of the Nation's GDP, totaling $1.4 trillion. Yet, as the National Debt Clock continues to click upward toward $20 trillion, the Federal Government continues to spend money that it simply does not have.

If Congress continues to legislate in this current state of denial, one day soon, we may well wake up to discover that the financial markets have declared that the United States is no longer a good bet. We must also remember that Congress's failure to address this fiscal train wreck today will force our children and grandchildren to deal with its consequences tomorrow. Unless Congress can get this fundamental issue under control, nothing else will matter very much.

There ought to be an option that allows taxpayers to take matters into their own hands. That is why today I am reintroducing the Debt Buy-Down Act. The Debt Buy-Down Act is a commonsense bill that allows taxpayers to rein in the national debt with the simple check of a box. If passed, this bill would require the IRS to include an option on individuals' tax forms that allow them to voluntarily designate up to 10 percent of their tax liabilities to go specifically toward reducing the national debt. The bill would then require Congress to reduce Federal spending by an amount equivalent to that designated by the taxpayers. If Congress fails to make these necessary spending reductions designated by taxpayers, then across-the-board spending cuts would be imposed.

This is not a good way to reduce the Federal debt. The better way would be to make priorities as we consider our spending bills, but it is better than just letting these spending bills go and doing nothing. We ought to use a scalpel and go in and treat these programs as we should and make sure they are doing what they were intended to. If we cannot do that, then we need to take dramatic measures to get our debt and deficit under control.

The Debt Buy-Down Act would protect Social Security benefits, benefits for those in the uniformed services, and payments for net interest on the national debt from being included in any of these across-the-board cuts.

Simply put, in the absence of responsible Federal budget solutions, this bill allows taxpayers to take matters into their own hands. In 2014, Americans paid over $1.37 trillion in individual income taxes. If every one of these individuals had contributed 10 percent of their tax liability, Congress would have been required to have cut $137 billion in spending. While $137 billion does not solve our $20 trillion debt problem, it is certainly a good place to start.

Congress has been so desensitized to the growing national debt that the word ``trillion'' does not even raise alarm bells anymore. In fact, after I introduced the Debt Buy-Down Act in 2010, I began sending a weekly, pun-laden press release to help put the then-$13 trillion national debt--just in 2010--into perspective. It was called ``So Just How Broke Are We?'' Maybe it is time to bring it back.

So 7 years and $7 trillion in added debt later, just how broke are we today? We are so broke that, with our $20 trillion national debt, we could book 570,000 trips to the Moon on SpaceX. It is a pretty expensive excursion, but we could do it 570,000 times. We are so broke that, with our $20 trillion national debt, we could buy every seat at Chase Field in Phoenix for the next 22 million Arizona Diamondbacks games. Of course, that is just a ballpark figure, but it is the last pun. I promise. We are so broke that with our $20 trillion national debt we could buy 20 billion tickets to see Hamilton.

My love of bad puns and jokes aside, instead of thinking about how $20 trillion could be spent, maybe we ought to start thinking about how $20 trillion could be saved.

That is why I am calling on my colleagues to support the Debt Buy- Down Act and empower taxpayers to reduce the national debt. Just think, a simple check of a box would help save billions of dollars and preserve the strength of our national economy. It would save future generations from the consequences of our crippling national debt.

At any rate, I hope this bill makes like the debt and grows a lot of interest.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the Open America's Waters Act of 2017. This bill would repeal the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, better known as the Jones Act, an archaic and burdensome law that hinders free trade, stifles the economy and ultimately hurts consumers, largely for the benefit of labor unions. If this legislation becomes law, U.S. shippers will no longer be required to patronize market inefficiency but rather, effectively leverage the global shipping market.

As many of my colleagues know, the Jones Act is one of many of laws passed over time that addresses port-to-port coastal shipping, drafted in order to protect the U.S. domestic shipping industry. While the Jones Act may have had some rationale back in the 1920s when it was enacted, today it serves only to raise shipping costs, making U.S. farmers and businesses less competitive in the global marketplace and increasing costs for American consumers. This protectionist mentality directly contradicts the lessons our nation has learned about the many benefits of a free and open market. Repeatedly, it has been proven that trade liberalization has created

jobs, expanded economic growth and provided consumers with access to lower cost goods and services.

The forced purchase of American vessels combined with the immense cost associated with U.S. shipbuilding has forced U.S. shippers to act against their best interests to the detriment of their businesses. While foreign-built coastal-sized ships typically cost between $25-30 million, a U.S.-made ship of the same size can cost anywhere between $190-250 million. A repeal of the Jones Act, over time, would have broad impact. According to a 2002 U.S. International Trade Commission study, repealing the Jones Act would lower shipping costs by about 22 percent. The Commission also found that repealing the Jones Act would have an annual positive effect of $656 million on the overall U.S. economy. Though this decade-and-a-half-old study provides some of the most recent statistics available, it is not hard to imagine the modern affect that maritime deregulation would contribute to this industry.

Congress must take action to repeal laws that have outlived their usefulness and are no longer relevant to modern commerce. It is unacceptable that millions of dollars in the U.S. economy are lost every year to an antiquated policy, and unacceptable that this body is unable to disengage from special interests in order to participate in a productive debate on this issue. I encourage my colleagues to reflect on our responsibility as lawmakers and see the Jones Act for what it really is: an outdated and protectionist policy that only serves to harm the American economy and consumer.

I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.