Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 114 (Thursday, July 14, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 114 (Thursday, July 14, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5161-S5171]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. CARDIN:
S. 3210. A bill to identify and combat corruption in countries, to
establish a tiered system of countries with respect to levels of
corruption by their governments and their efforts to combat such
corruption, and to assess United States assistance to designated
countries in order to advance anti-corruption efforts in those
countries and better serve United States taxpayers; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.

[[Page S5162]]

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, there is growing recognition in the United
States, and around the world, that corruption is a serious threat to
international security and stability. We have all seen the headlines--
from scandals in Brazil and Malaysia, to the doping by Russian athletes
and their subsequent ban from the Summer Olympics, to the Panama
Papers. It is becoming clear that where there are high levels of
corruption we find fragile states, or states suffering from internal or
external conflict--in places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq,
Syria, Somalia, Nigeria, and Sudan.
The problem of corruption, and the dysfunction that follows it, can
be difficult to address because it is like a hydra, with many corrupt
actors that can include government officials, businessmen, law
enforcement, military personnel, and organized criminal groups.
Corruption is a system that operates via extensive, entrenched networks
in both the public and private sectors.
But we must address it. We can't throw up our hands and accept
corruption as the status quo, because the costs of not addressing and
rooting it out are too great. Corruption fuels violent extremism,
pushing young people toward violence, because they lose faith in the
institutions that are supposed to protect and serve them. Corruption
feeds the destructive fire of criminal networks and transnational
crime. Citizens lose faith in the social compact between governments
and the people. Terrorist groups use corruption to recruit followers to
their hateful cause. It's a vicious cycle.
The human cost of corruption is substantial. Across the globe,
millions of men, women and children are victims of modern day slavery.
Corruption enables their trafficking within and among countries.
Corruption is a constant companion to modern day slavery and the
suffering that it brings. We also have seen this play out in the
refugee and migrant crisis, with thousands drowning in the
Mediterranean, victims of trafficking networks and corrupt government
officials who facilitate this illicit business. Make no mistake,
corruption is big business--one news report estimates that traffickers
made 5 to 6 billion dollars in 2015 alone in bringing approximately one
million refugees and migrants to Europe.
Let's be clear-eyed--any fight against corruption will be long-term
and difficult. It's a fight against powerful people, powerful
companies, and powerful interests. It is about changing a mindset and a
culture as much as it is about establishing and enforcing laws. As my
colleagues and constituents know, my attention has long been focused on
fighting corruption. I introduced S. 284, the Global Magnitsky Human
Rights Accountability Act, to target human rights abusers and corrupt
individuals around the globe who threaten the rule of law and deny
fundamental freedoms. But the problem is so big--we simply have to do
more.
This is why I am introducing the Combating Global Corruption and
Accountability Act. We must meet the scale of the problem of corruption
with greater resolve and commitment. To do that, I believe we must
focus on four things.
First, we must institutionalize the fight against corruption as a
national security priority. In my bill, the State Department will
produce an annual report, similar to the Trafficking in Persons Report,
which takes a close look at each country's efforts to combat
corruption. That model, which has effectively advanced the effort to
combat modern day slavery, will similarly embed the issue of corruption
in our collective work, so that we hold governments to account. This
bill establishes minimum standards for combating corruption--standards
that should be part and parcel of every government's commitment to its
citizens. These include whether a country has laws that recognize
corrupt acts for the crimes they are--violations of the people's
trust--along with appropriate penalties for breaking that trust.
Whether a country has an independent judiciary for deciding corruption
cases, free from influence and abuse. Whether there is support for
civil society organizations that are the watchdogs of integrity against
would-be thieves of the state. This bill, hopefully, will build
anticorruption DNA into the foundations of government action.
Second, in the United States, our whole-of-government effort must be
better coordinated. Right now, we work across multiple agencies and in
multiple offices to combat corruption. There is much information and
many best practices that can be shared--we've got to do better at that
and take advantage of those areas where we have been successful. The
State Department and the United States Agency for International
Development have done great work, but the vast nature of the problem
requires that we improve our ability to tackle it. In this bill,
agencies and bureaus and our missions overseas will have to prioritize
corruption into their strategic planning as an essential part of our
foreign policy work--a step that I believe will foster greater
cooperation.
Third, we must improve oversight of our own foreign assistance and
promote transparency. The U.S. taxpayer has a right to know how our
foreign assistance is being spent, and also should feel confident that
we are doing the kind of risk assessments, analysis, and oversight that
ensure our assistance to other countries is having the effect we want
it to have. My bill consolidates information and puts it online, where
citizens can see the numbers and the programs. That kind of
transparency is in and of itself good, but in my experience it has the
effect of making us better at self-policing our work. We can use the
data to capture redundancies and analyze trends, which I believe will
make our decision-making better. The bill embeds oversight into our
foreign assistance programs overseas, maintaining the flexibility we
need to meet our goals rapidly while also holding government to
account.
In fact, it is a natural complement to the Foreign Assistance
Transparency and Accountability Act, a bill Senator Rubio and I co-
sponsored that looks at our foreign aid and ensures that our foreign
assistance programs are tracked and evaluated adequately and
appropriately.
I am a believer in the power of example. This ``one-two'' punch of
the Combating Global Corruption Act and the Foreign Assistance
Transparency Act strengthens our foreign assistance policy,
demonstrates that we hold ourselves to the highest standards, and shows
other countries that we are committed to this fight.
Finally, we have to find ways to resource anti-corruption work.
Corruption is big business and big money. We should look for ways to
use seized assets and ill-gotten proceeds to build civil society
capacity to fight corruption, and make it easier to transfer these
assets to the appropriate effort. The Obama administration has built on
the efforts of those before it to improve our ability to go after the
big players, and there have been some great successes by the Treasury
and Justice Departments in winning judgments and recovering assets. So
we will look at the resources and the training and the intelligence
needs, and we will make sure we have the tools and skills to continue
those kinds of successes.
I want to close with a few words about something that is hard to
capture in legislation. It is something that I grappled with when
drafting this bill. It is something that perhaps, more than anything,
will dictate if we win this struggle against corruption. And that is
political will.
At the end of June, after six long years, the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission issued a final rule to implement Section 1504 of
the Dodd-Frank Act, known as the ``Cardin-Lugar provision''. This
provision requires that all foreign and domestic companies listed on
U.S. stock exchanges and involved in oil, gas, and mineral resource
extraction must publish the project-level payments they make to the
foreign countries in which they operate. This was a watershed moment in
which the United States reclaimed its position as a leader in the
effort to increase global accountability and transparency. Six years.
That is the length of a term of a U.S. Senator. It is college and a
Master's degree. It is the length of the horrific conflict in Syria.
Six years for the United States to achieve greater revenue transparency
in the extractives sector because we know secrecy breeds corruption and
corruption can breed instability and perpetuate poverty in resource-
rich countries. It took that long

[[Page S5163]]

because some people believed that less transparency is a good thing.
Some groups believed that accountability should take a back seat to
profitability.
I am under no illusion that this global fight against corruption will
be easy. It will make the work of our government agencies more
challenging. It will make our diplomacy more challenging. It will
require political will. But political will finds its source and its
strength in our values. Political will is created when we embrace those
values. Political will endures in good governance, accountability, and
transparency and those values that are at the core of the compact
between the government and the governed.
As this bill moves forward, I urge my colleagues to find the
political will to combat global corruption, ensure accountability, and
keep our commitment to the best of American values.
______

By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Carper):
S. 3211. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
establish a national Oncology Medical Home Demonstration Project under
the Medicare program for the purpose of changing the Medicare payment
for cancer care in order to enhance the quality of care and to improve
cost efficiency, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3211

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Cancer Care Payment Reform
Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHING AN ONCOLOGY MEDICAL HOME DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM TO IMPROVE
QUALITY OF CARE AND COST EFFICIENCY.

Title XVIII of the Social Security Act is amended by
inserting after section 1866E (42 U.S.C. 1395cc-5) the
following new section:

``SEC. 1866F. ONCOLOGY MEDICAL HOME DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

``(a) Establishment of Demonstration Project.--Not later
than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this
section, the Secretary shall establish an Oncology Medical
Home Demonstration Project (in this section referred to as
the `demonstration project') to make payments in the amounts
specified in subsection (f) to each participating oncology
practice (as defined in subsection (b)).
``(b) Definition of Participating Oncology Practice.--For
purposes of this section, the term `participating oncology
practice' means an oncology practice that--
``(1) submits to the Secretary an application to
participate in the demonstration project in accordance with
subsection (c);
``(2) is selected by the Secretary, in accordance with
subsection (d), to participate in the demonstration project;
and
``(3) is owned by a physician, or is owned by or affiliated
with a hospital, that submitted a claim for payment in the
prior year for an item or service for which payment may be
made under part B.
``(c) Application To Participate.--An application by an
oncology practice to participate in the demonstration project
shall include an attestation to the Secretary that the
practice--
``(1) furnishes physicians' services for which payment may
be made under part B;
``(2) coordinates oncology services furnished to an
individual by the practice with services that are related to
such oncology services and that are furnished to such
individual by practitioners (including oncology nurses)
inside or outside the practice in order to ensure that each
such individual receives coordinated care;
``(3) meaningfully uses electronic health records;
``(4) will, not later than one year after the date on which
the practice commences its participation in the demonstration
project, be accredited as an Oncology Medical Home by the
Commission on Cancer, the National Committee for Quality
Assurance, or such other entity as the Secretary determines
appropriate;
``(5) will repay all amounts paid by the Secretary to the
practice under subsection (f)(1)(A) in the case that the
practice does not, on a date that is not later than 60 days
after the date on which the practice's agreement period for
the demonstration project begins, as determined by the
Secretary, submit an application to an entity described in
paragraph (4) for accreditation as an Oncology Medical Home
in accordance with such paragraph;
``(6) will, for each year in which the demonstration
project is conducted, report to the Secretary, in such form
and manner as is specified by the Secretary, on--
``(A) the performance of the practice with respect to
measures described in subsection (e) as determined by the
Secretary, subject to subsection (e)(1)(B); and
``(B) the experience of care of individuals who are
furnished oncology services by the practice for which payment
may be made under part B, as measured by a patient experience
of care survey based on the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare
Providers and Systems survey or by such similar survey as the
Secretary determines appropriate;
``(7) agrees not to receive the payments described in
subclauses (I) and (II) of subsection (f)(1)(B)(iii) in the
case that the practice does not report to the Secretary in
accordance with paragraph (6) with respect to performance of
the practice during the 12-month period beginning on the date
on which the practice's agreement period for the
demonstration project begins, as determined by the Secretary;
``(8) will, for each year of the demonstration project,
meet the performance standards developed under subsection
(e)(4)(B) with respect to each of the measures on which the
practice has agreed to report under paragraph (6)(A) and the
patient experience of care on which the practice has agreed
to report under paragraph (6)(B); and
``(9) has the capacity to utilize shared decision-making
tools that facilitate the incorporation of the patient needs,
preferences, and circumstances of an individual into the
medical plan of the individual and that maintain provider
flexibility to tailor care of the individual based on the
full range of test and treatment options available to the
individual.
``(d) Selection of Participating Practices.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, not later than 15
months after the date of the enactment of this section,
select oncology practices that submit an application to the
Secretary in accordance with subsection (c) to participate in
the demonstration project.
``(2) Maximum number of practices.--In selecting an
oncology practice to participate in the demonstration project
under this section, the Secretary shall ensure that the
participation of such practice in the demonstration project
does not, on the date on which the practice commences its
participation in the demonstration project--
``(A) increase the total number of practices participating
in the demonstration project to a number that is greater than
200 practices (or such number as the Secretary determines
appropriate); or
``(B) increase the total number of oncologists who
participate in the demonstration project to a number that is
greater than 1,500 oncologists (or such number as the
Secretary determines appropriate).
``(3) Diversity of practices.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), in
selecting oncology practices to participate in the
demonstration project under this section, the Secretary
shall, to the extent practicable, include in such selection--
``(i) small-, medium-, and large-sized practices; and
``(ii) practices located in different geographic areas.
``(B) Inclusion of small oncology practices.--In selecting
oncology practices to participate in the demonstration
project under this section, the Secretary shall, to the
extent practicable, ensure that at least 20 percent of the
participating practices are small oncology practices (as
determined by the Secretary).
``(4) No penalty for certain opt-outs by practices.--In the
case that the Secretary selects an oncology practice to
participate in the demonstration project under this section
that has agreed to participate in a model established under
section 1115A for oncology services, such practice may not be
assessed a penalty for electing not to participate in such
model if the practice makes such election--
``(A) prior to the receipt by the practice of any payment
for such model that would not otherwise be paid in the
absence of such model; and
``(B) in order to participate in the demonstration project
under this section.
``(e) Measures.--
``(1) Development.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall use measures
described in paragraph (2), and may use measures developed
under paragraph (3), to assess the performance of each
participating oncology practice, as compared to other
participating oncology practices as described in paragraph
(4)(A)(i).
``(B) Determination of measures reported.--In determining
measures to be reported under subsection (c)(6)(A), the
Secretary, in consultation with stakeholders, shall ensure
that reporting under such subsection is not overly burdensome
and that those measures required to be reported are aligned
with applicable requirements from other payors.
``(2) Measures described.--The measures described in this
paragraph, with respect to individuals who are attributed to
a participating oncology practice, as determined by the
Secretary, are the following:
``(A) Patient care measures.--
``(i) The percentage of such individuals who receive
documented clinical or pathologic staging prior to initiation
of a first course of cancer treatment.
``(ii) The percentage of such individuals who undergo
advanced imaging and have been diagnosed with stage I or II
breast cancer.
``(iii) The percentage of such individuals who undergo
advanced imaging and have

[[Page S5164]]

been diagnosed with stage I or II prostate cancer.
``(iv) The percentage of such individuals who, prior to
receiving cancer treatment, had their performance status
assessed by the practice.
``(v) The percentage of such individuals who--

``(I) undergo treatment with a chemotherapy regimen
provided by the practice;
``(II) have at least a 20-percent risk of developing
febrile neutropenia due to a combination of regimen risk and
patient risk factors; and
``(III) have received from the practice either GCSF or
white cell growth factor.

``(vi) With respect to such individuals who receive
chemotherapy treatment from the practice, the percentage of
such individuals so treated who receive a treatment plan
prior to the administration of such chemotherapy.
``(vii) With respect to chemotherapy treatments
administered to such individuals by the practice, the
percentage of such treatments that adhere to guidelines
published by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network or
such other entity as the Secretary determines appropriate.
``(viii) With respect to antiemetic drugs dispensed by the
practice to individuals as part of moderately or highly
emetogenic chemotherapy regimens for such individuals, the
extent to which such drugs are administered in accordance
with evidence-based guidelines or pathways that are compliant
with guidelines published by the National Comprehensive
Cancer Network or such other entity as the Secretary
determines appropriate.
``(B) Resource utilization measures.--
``(i) With respect to emergency room visits in a year by
such individuals who are receiving active chemotherapy
treatment administered by the practice as of the date of such
visits, the percentage of such visits that are associated
with qualified cancer diagnoses of the individuals.
``(ii) With respect to hospital admissions in a year by
such individuals who are receiving active chemotherapy
treatment administered by the practice as of the date of such
visits, the percentage of such admissions that are associated
with qualified cancer diagnoses of the individuals.
``(C) Survivorship measures.--
``(i) Survival rates for such individuals who have been
diagnosed with stage I through IV breast cancer.
``(ii) Survival rates for such individuals who have been
diagnosed with stage I through IV colorectal cancer.
``(iii) Survival rates for such individuals who have been
diagnosed with stage I through IV lung cancer.
``(iv) With respect to such individuals who receive
chemotherapy treatment from the practice, the percentage of
such individuals so treated who receive a survivorship plan
not later than 45 days after the completion of the
administration of such chemotherapy.
``(v) With respect to such individuals who receive
chemotherapy treatment from the practice, the percentage of
such individuals who receive psychological screening.
``(D) End-of-life care measures.--
``(i) The number of times that such an individual receives
chemotherapy treatment from the practice within an amount of
time specified by the Secretary, in consultation with
stakeholders, prior to the death of the individual.
``(ii) With respect to such individuals who have a stage IV
disease and have received treatment for such disease from the
practice, the percentage of such individuals so treated who
have had a documented end-of-life care conversation with a
physician in the practice or another health care provider who
is a member of the cancer care team of the practice.
``(iii) With respect to such an individual who is referred
to hospice care by a physician in the practice or a health
care provider who is a member of the cancer care team of the
practice, regardless of the setting in which such care is
furnished, the average number of days that the individual
receives hospice care prior to the death of the individual.
``(iv) With respect to such individuals who die while
receiving care from the practice, the percentage of such
deceased individuals whose death occurred in an acute care
setting.
``(3) Modification or addition of measures.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may, in consultation with
appropriate stakeholders in a manner determined by the
Secretary, modify, replace, remove, or add to the measures
described in paragraph (2).
``(B) Appropriate stakeholders described.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the term `appropriate stakeholders'
includes oncology societies, oncologists who furnish oncology
services to one or more individuals for which payment may be
made under part B, allied health professionals, health
insurance issuers that have implemented alternative payment
models for oncologists, patients and organizations that
represent patients, and biopharmaceutical and other medical
technology manufacturers.
``(4) Assessment.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall, for each year in
which the demonstration project is conducted, assess--
``(i) the performance of each participating oncology
practice for such year with respect to the measures on which
the practice has agreed to report to the Secretary under
subsection (c)(6)(A), as compared to the performance of other
participating oncology practices with respect to such
measures; and
``(ii) the extent to which each participating oncology
practice has, during such year, used breakthrough or other
best-in-class therapies.
``(B) Performance standards.--The Secretary shall, in
consultation with the appropriate stakeholders described in
paragraph (3)(B) in a manner determined by the Secretary,
develop performance standards with respect to--
``(i) each of the measures described in paragraph (2),
including those measures as modified or added under paragraph
(3); and
``(ii) the patient experience of care on which
participating oncology practices agree to report to the
Secretary under subsection (c)(6)(B).
``(f) Payments for Participating Oncology Practices and
Oncologists.--
``(1) Care coordination management fee during first two
years of demonstration project.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall, in addition to any
other payments made by the Secretary under this title to a
participating oncology practice, pay a care coordination
management fee to each such practice at each of the times
specified in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Timing of payments.--The care coordination management
fee described in subparagraph (A) shall be paid to a
participating oncology practice at the end of each of the
following periods:
``(i) The period that ends 6 months after the date on which
the practice's agreement period for the demonstration project
begins, as determined by the Secretary.
``(ii) The period that ends 12 months after the date on
which the practice's agreement period for the demonstration
project begins, as determined by the Secretary.
``(iii) Subject to subsection (c)(7)--

``(I) the period that ends 18 months after the date on
which the practice's agreement period for the demonstration
project begins, as determined by the Secretary; and
``(II) the period that ends 24 months after the date on
which the practice's agreement period for the demonstration
project begins, as determined by the Secretary.

``(C) Amount of payment.--The Secretary shall, in
consultation with oncologists who furnish oncology services
for which payment may be made under part B in a manner
determined by the Secretary, determine the amount of the care
coordination management fee described in subparagraph (A).
``(2) Performance incentive payments.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (C) and (E),
the Secretary shall, in addition to any other payments made
by the Secretary under this title to a participating oncology
practice, pay a performance incentive payment to each such
practice for each year of the demonstration project described
in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Timing of payments.--The performance incentive
payment described in subparagraph (A) shall be paid to a
participating oncology practice as soon as practicable
following the end of the third, fourth, and fifth years of
the demonstration project.
``(C) Source of payments.--Performance incentive payments
made to participating oncology practices under subparagraph
(A) for each of the years of the demonstration project
described in subparagraph (B) shall be paid from the
aggregate pool available for making payments for each such
year determined under subparagraph (D), as available for each
such year.
``(D) Aggregate pool available for making payments.--With
respect to each of the years of the demonstration project
described in described in subparagraph (B), the aggregate
pool available for making performance incentive payments for
each such year shall be determined by--
``(i) estimating the amount by which the aggregate
expenditures that would have been expended for the year under
parts A and B for items and services furnished to individuals
attributed to participating oncology practices if the
demonstration project had not been implemented exceeds such
aggregate expenditures for such individuals for such year of
the demonstration project;
``(ii) calculating the amount that is half of the amount
estimated under clause (i); and
``(iii) subtracting from the amount calculated under clause
(ii) the total amount of payments made under paragraph (1)
that have not, in a prior application of this clause,
previously been so subtracted from a calculation made under
clause (ii).
``(E) Amount of payments to individual practices that meet
performance standards and achieve savings.--
``(i) Payments only to practices that meet performance
standards.--The Secretary may not make performance incentive
payments to a participating oncology practice under
subparagraph (A) with respect to a year of the demonstration
project described in subparagraph (B) unless the practice
meets or exceeds the performance standards developed under
subsection (e)(4)(B) for the year with respect to--

``(I) the measures on which the practice has agreed to
report to the Secretary under subsection (c)(6)(A); and
``(II) the patient experience of care on which the practice
has agreed to report to the Secretary under subsection
(c)(6)(B).

[[Page S5165]]

``(ii) Consideration of performance assessment.--The
Secretary shall, in consultation with the appropriate
stakeholders described in subsection (e)(3)(B) in a manner
determined by the Secretary, determine the amount of a
performance incentive payment to a participating oncology
practice under subparagraph (A) for a year of the
demonstration project described in subparagraph (B). In
making a determination under the preceding sentence, the
Secretary shall take into account the performance assessment
of the practice under subsection (e)(4)(A) with respect to
the year and the aggregate pool available for making payments
for such year determined under subparagraph (D), as available
for such year.
``(3) Issuance of guidance.--Not later than the date that
is 12 months after the date of the enactment of this section,
the Secretary shall issue guidance detailing the methodology
that the Secretary will use to implement subparagraphs (D)
and (E) of paragraph (2).
``(g) Secretary Reports to Participating Oncology
Practices.--The Secretary shall inform each participating
oncology practice, on a periodic (such as quarterly) basis,
of--
``(1) the performance of the practice with respect to the
measures on which the practice has agreed to report to the
Secretary under subsection (c)(6)(A); and
``(2) the estimated amount by which the expenditures that
would have been expended under parts A and B for items and
services furnished to individuals attributed to the practice
if the demonstration project had not been implemented exceeds
the actual expenditures for such individuals.
``(h) Applications From Entities To Provide
Accreditations.--Not later than the date that is 18 months
after the date of the enactment of this section, the
Secretary shall establish a process for the acceptance and
consideration of applications from entities for purposes of
determining which entities may provide accreditation to
practices under subsection (c)(4) in addition to the entities
described in such subsection.
``(i) Revisions to Demonstration Project.--The Secretary
may make appropriate revisions to the demonstration project
under this section in order for participating oncology
practices under such demonstration project to meet the
definition of an eligible alternative payment entity for
purposes of section 1833(z).
``(j) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary may waive such
provisions of this title and title XI as the Secretary
determines necessary in order to implement the demonstration
project under this section.
``(k) Administration.--Chapter 35 of title 44, United
States Code, shall not apply to this section.''.
______

By Mr. LANKFORD (for himself and Mrs. Fischer):
S. 3213. A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for
transparency of payments made from the Judgment Fund; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to draw attention to important
legislation that would ensure American taxpayers know how their hard-
earned dollars are being spent. This morning, I was pleased to join
Senator Lankford to introduce a bill that expands on similar
legislation that I introduced with Senator Gardner last year, known as
the Judgment Fund Transparency Act. The Judgment Fund is administrated
by the Treasury Department and is used to pay certain court judgments
and settlements against the Federal Government. It is essentially an
unlimited amount of money made available to the Federal Government to
cover its own liability.
The fund is not subject to the annual appropriations process. And
even more remarkable, the Treasury Department has no reporting
requirements. Because of this, the Judgment Fund payments are made with
very little oversight or scrutiny. Because the Treasury Department has
no binding reporting requirements, few public details exist about where
the funds are going and why. This is no small matter, as the Judgment
Fund disburses billions of dollars in payments every year. For example,
between 2013 and 2015, the Federal Government paid more than $10
billion in Judgment Fund awards with scant transparency or oversight.
Hard-working taxpayers and Members of Congress have every right to see
exactly how tax dollars are being spent out of this Judgment Fund.
I was proud to see my original version of the bill pass the Senate as
part of the Energy Policy Modernization Act in April. Still, recent
developments show more oversight is needed, and that is why I have
joined with Senator Lankford to update and expand the Judgment Fund
Transparency Act. This update is the result of payments made through
the Judgment Fund to Iran earlier this year.
In January, the Obama administration transferred $1.7 billion to
Iran's Central Bank. It was paid in connection with the settlement of a
claim relating to arms sales to the Shah. Last month, new reports
indicated that the U.S. payment was transferred to Iran's defense
budget. In defending the payment, White House spokesman Josh Ernst
argued that it was ``Exhibit A in the administration pursuing tough,
principled diplomacy in a way that actually ends up making the American
people safer and advancing their interests.''
I disagree. A $1.7 billion payment that goes to Iran's military does
not make our country safer. Iran was designated a state sponsor of
terror in 1984. Its military has long provided weapons, training, and
funding to groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and other proxies
throughout the Middle East and beyond.
Last month, the State Department released its latest country reports
on terrorism. It states: ``In 2015, Iran's state sponsorship of
terrorism worldwide remained undiminished.'' In fact, the State
Department report noted that in some areas, such as Iraq, its support
to terrorist groups has actually increased. I am haunted by the fear
that some of these very terrorists, groups that may have taken American
lives, may have received money from the U.S. Treasury.
The bill that I am introducing with Senator Lankford today takes
action. It would prohibit the Judgment Fund from being used for this
purpose while maintaining key provisions from the original bill
requiring openness and transparency.
If the administration wants to deliver another payment to a regime
that is going to sponsor terror, it should make its case to Congress
and to the American people. More transparency leads to greater
accountability. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Through this bill,
we can track taxpayer-funded payments to foreign nations and prevent
harmful transactions from happening in the future.
I thank Senator Lankford for his diligent work on this issue, and I
urge my colleagues to stand behind hard-working American taxpayers and
support this legislation.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Merkley):
S. 3214. A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to allow
all eligible voters to vote by mail in Federal elections, to amend the
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to provide for automatic voter
registration; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mr. WYDEN: Mr. President, today I am introducing the Vote by Mail Act
of 2016 to ensure that all registered voters have the opportunity to
fully participate in our democracy.
Fifty-one years ago, President Johnson urged Congress to pass the
Voting Rights Act. In the face of implacable opposition from southern
states, Johnson clearly laid out the stakes: ``Every American citizen
must have an equal right to vote. There is no reason which can excuse
the denial of that right. There is no duty which weighs more heavily on
us than the duty we have to ensure that right.''
Sadly, half a century after that law began to remove the most
egregious obstacles to voting, Americans are facing new barriers to
exercising their fundamental right to vote. Across the country, there
are stories of long lines, inexplicable purges of voter rolls and new
requirements that make it harder for citizens to vote. There is no
excuse for accepting this state of affairs.
There is no excuse for citizens in Arizona to wait 5 hours to cast
their ballot. There is no excuse for citizens in Rhode Island to find
two out of every three polling places have closed. There is no excuse
whatsoever for poor communities and minority communities across this
country to see their polling places shuttered.
Seniors and disabled Americans should not have to wait in long lines
or struggle to reach polling places. Working parents shouldn't have to
choose between going to work or going to vote. Voting should not be a
test of endurance. It should not be a Kafkaesque experience in
defeating bureaucracy.
Increasingly, too many voters show up to the polls on election day,
only to find out their name is inexplicably missing from the voter
rolls, or their

[[Page S5166]]

ID doesn't meet some new, more restrictive requirements. There is no
excuse for our government to turn away citizens, to say their voice
does not count, because of a clerical error or an unjust technicality.
These grossly unfair obstacles have sprouted like weeds across our
Nation ever since the Supreme Court overturned large portions of the
Voting Rights Act in 2013. According to the Brennan Center for Justice,
just this year, 17 States have passed new laws or rules to make it
harder for their citizens to vote.
Thankfully there is a solution. My home State of Oregon has led the
Nation in making voting more accessible. In Oregon, every voter
receives a ballot 2 or 3 weeks before an election date. With the
arrival of that ballot, complete with candidate information and issue
pamphlets, every Oregonian has ample time to research candidates and
issues, think about them, discuss them with friends and family, and
then vote. All in their own time. Rather than waiting in long lines,
Oregonians can mail their ballot back, or drop it off at ballot
collection sites, many of which are open 24-7. No one has to take time
off work just to exercise his or her constitutional rights to vote.
Vote-by-mail won't stop every state legislature from devising new
ways to suppress voter turnout. But one thing it will do is it will
give voters more time to fight back. When Americans have two or three
weeks to vote, they'll have more time to challenge registration
problems. There's more time for citizens to defend their rights.
Oregon has been voting by mail locally since 1981. When I was first
elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996 it was the first time vote-by-mail
was used for a federal race. In 2000 Oregon went to an entirely vote-
by-mail system including for President of the United States. Since then
we have consistently had voter turnout rates that are among the highest
in the country. Oregon voting rates are especially high among young
voters and in midterm elections. As an added benefit, studies have
shown it saved taxpayers money to boot.
Oregon is also leading the charge in another important aspect of our
voting system--voter registration. Our representative democracy
requires active participation from all our citizens--regardless of
one's economic resources or state of residence. This is particularly
the case when it comes to ensuring that the voter registration prqciess
is widely accessible and easy to navigate. In order to vote, eligible
citizens must first register--a step in the political process that has
historically been difficult to navigate and subject to onerous burdens
designed to exclude citizens of color and lower-income citizens from
easily casting a ballot.
Oregon is the first state in the nation to launch an automatic voter
registration system, which automatically registers eligible citizens
who visit the Department of Motor Vehicles, unless they ``opt out.''
This year alone, Oregon has successfully registered over 200,000 new
voters. Our governor, Kate Brown, deserves enormous credit for
shepherding this reform into law.
So my proposition is the rest of our country should follow Oregon's
lead by offering all voters a chance to vote by mail, and automatically
registering eligible voters. To me, this is a no-brainer.
Today I introduced new legislation for national vote-by-mail, which
builds on Oregon's system and bills I introduced in 2007 and 2010. My
plan is simple: Every voter in a Federal election will receive a ballot
in the mail. The Federal Government, through the Postal Service, will
assist states with the costs of mailing ballots to registered voters.
States can keep their current polling practices if they wish, but those
states that choose a full vote-by-mail system will see their election
costs significantly drop. Additionally, this bill will shift the burden
of registration from the individual to the government. It calls on
state governments to collaborate with State motor vehicle agencies to
maintain updated voter registration rolls for all citizens who apply
for a driver's license and who do not ask to remain unregistered. This
practice will serve to both increase the accuracy of our voter rolls
and reduce the burden on individual voters by requiring state
governments to ensure that eligible citizens are registered.
My hope is this can ignite a new campaign to make it easier, not
harder for Americans to vote. Because vote-by-mail and automatic
registration are just the first steps in fighting back against those
who would disenfranchise their fellow citizens to gain a political
edge.
I know many of my colleagues and many voters are cynical about the
chances of passing real reforms in this partisan day and age. My view
is voting rights are simply too important to abandon the field to
special interests who would manipulate our government. So once again I
urge my colleagues and urge voters to call for real reform to our
voting system and ensure that every citizen who wants to vote has that
opportunity.
______

By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. King):
S. 3226. A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
establish a registry of certain veterans who participated in a
radiation cleanup mission in the Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands
during the period beginning on January 1, 1977, and ending on December
31, 1980, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Enewetak Atoll
Cleanup Veterans Registry and Study Act of 2016. I am pleased to be
joined by my colleague from Maine, Senator King, in this initiative.
Our bill would address an issue important to veterans, including many
in Maine, who participated in the Enewetak Atoll radiation cleanup
missions from 1977 to 1980. These veterans may now be suffering from
adverse health conditions due to exposure to radiation during these
missions.
At the end of World War II, Enewetak Atoll came under the control of
the United States, which used it to test nuclear bombs. From 1948 to
1958, Enewetak Atoll was the site of 43 U.S. nuclear tests. The
combined federal effort to clean up the resulting radioactive waste
cost about $100 million over three years and required an on-atoll task
force numbering almost 1,000 people.
The veterans who served on the cleanup task force did not ask to be
sent to Enewetak Atoll. Like good servicemembers, they received their
orders and went to work serving the U.S. government by cleaning up
radioactive waste over a 3-year period. I have heard from several
Enewetak Atoll veterans who have now developed cancers, and they have
expressed their concerns that these cancers may be rooted in their
service cleaning up nuclear material.
To address this troubling issue, our bill would help identify and
bring together the shared experiences of those who served as a part of
the Enewetak Atoll cleanup. It would require the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, VA, to establish a registry of U.S. veterans who participated
in the cleanup missions of the Enewetak Atoll and who have subsequently
experienced health issues. It would also direct the VA to commission an
independent study investigating any possible linkage between radiation
exposure during the cleanup missions and subsequent health problems
among the servicemembers who served or trained there.
Protecting the health of those who have served our nation is a solemn
responsibility. This legislation keeps faith with our veterans by
demonstrating that our government takes the allegations of service-
connected exposure to radiation seriously. We must fulfill our
obligations and affirm a larger commitment made long ago to take care
of those who have so proudly served our Nation--the patriots who have
worn our Nation's uniform.
I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to voice my support for the
Enewetak Atoll Cleanup Veterans Registry and Study Act of 2016. I am
joined by my esteemed colleague from Maine, Susan Collins, in
introducing this initiative, which will help to combat a very important
issue facing the servicemen and women stationed at the Enewetak Atoll
between 1977 and 1980. These veterans assisted in a radiation cleanup
mission that may have exposed them to harmful nuclear waste, and may be
causing them health problems to this day.
Between 1948 and 1958, the United States used the Enewetak Atoll for
nuclear bomb testing. In 1977, after a

[[Page S5167]]

total of 43 nuclear tests, the United States engaged in a 3-year
cleanup mission, costing $100 million and requiring a task force of
nearly 1,000 servicemembers. However, despite the clearly dangerous
nature of handling radioactive material, there is no registry or health
study for those who served at Enewetak during that time.
This bill would require the Secretary of the VA to establish a
registry of veterans who served as part of the cleanup of Enewetak
Atoll, and have subsequently experienced health issues that may have
resulted from exposure to radiation. In addition, the bill would direct
the VA to commission an independent study investigating any linkages
between those who were exposed to the radiation and subsequent health
problems. It would allow for the gathering of targeted data for a
better assessment of exposure, and would help determine whether these
veterans should be granted the presumption of service-connection
disabilities.
Throughout our Nation's history, our veterans have put themselves in
harm's way to ensure our freedom time and time again. Their unwavering
patriotism and courage demonstrate the fortitude of American character
and our Nation's commitment to democracy worldwide. In response, we
must do everything we can to follow through on our responsibility to
provide for our veterans, and the brave men and women who served at
Enewetak Atoll are no exception to this solemn duty. This bill
demonstrates our commitment to honoring and respecting our Nation's
heroes, past and present, and I urge my colleagues to support this
important legislation.
______

By Mr. BARRASSO (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 3234. A bill to amend the Native American Business Development,
Trade Promotion, and Tourism Act of 2000, the Buy Indian Act, the
Indian Trader Act, and the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to
provide industry and economic development opportunities to Indian
communities; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise to speak on S. 3234, the Indian
Community Economic Enhancement Act of 2016.
For years, Indian communities have experienced serious socio-economic
challenges. Unacceptably high rates of unemployment, remote locations,
and a lack of infrastructure are just a few of the problems affecting
either the quality of life for Indian people or the ability to build
strong sustainable economies.
The Federal programs available to facilitate or create economic
opportunities are not structured to effectively target these
communities. The Federal bureaucracy underlying various programs also
inhibits economic growth as well.
The Committee on Indian Affairs, which I chair, has conducted several
hearings, listening sessions, and a roundtable on economic development.
The primary concerns from Indian tribes, business owners, and tribal
organizations have largely focused on access to capital. The Federal
mechanisms for increasing available capital that have been used by
Indian tribes or businesses to some degree include loan guarantees, tax
credits, tax-exempt bond financing, community development financial
institutions, CDFIs, and procurement programs.
This bill is intended to address several of these mechanisms by
amending four key Federal laws affecting Indian communities: Native
American Business Development, Trade Promotion, and Tourism Act of
2000; Native American Programs Act; Indian Trader Act; and the Buy
Indian Act.
By amending these laws, the bill would benefit Indian communities by
increasing access to capital for Indian tribes and businesses,
increasing opportunities for Indian business promotion, and creating
mechanisms and tools to attract business to Indian communities.
This bill will amend the Native American Business Development, Trade
Promotion, and Tourism Act of 2000 in four ways. First, it would
require interagency coordination between the Secretaries of Commerce,
Interior, and Treasury to develop initiatives encouraging investment in
Indian communities. It would elevate the Director for the Indian
programs in the Department of Commerce. The bill would make permanent
the waiver of the requirement for Native CDFIs to provide a matching
cost share for assistance received by the Treasury CDFI. In addition,
the bill would establish the Indian Economic Development Fund to
support the Bureau of Indian Affairs Indian loan guarantee and CDFI
bond guarantee program for Indian communities.
The bill would also amend the Native American Programs Act to
reauthorize the economic development programs For economic development
programs governed by this act, the bill would prioritize applications
and technical assistance for building tribal court systems and code
development for economic development, supporting CDFIs, and developing
master plans for community and economic development.
This legislation would also amend the Indian Trader Act. The bill
maintains current law and actions taken thereunder, but simply adds
authority for the Secretary of the Interior to waive the licensing
requirement for traders under this statute where an Indian tribe has a
tribal law governing trade or commerce in its Indian lands.
The bill would amend the Buy Indian Act to facilitate the use of and
more accountability for the Buy Indian Act in procurement decisions by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service.
Through this bill, more jobs at the local level would be created and
small businesses are assisted. Indian tribes could engage in more
cohesive community development and infrastructure building. In
addition, Federal bureaucracy is diminished, thereby reducing the costs
of economic development.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this
important and beneficial piece of legislation for Indian communities.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Franken, and Ms.
Hirono):
S. 3241. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
reaffirm the United States' historic commitment to protecting refugees
who are fleeing persecution or torture; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Refugee
Protection Act, along with Senators Franken, Durbig and Hirono. The
world is confronting the worst refugee crisis since World War II. There
are more than 65 million people who have been forcibly displaced around
the globe. In the face of such staggering human suffering, we must not
lower our torch--we must raise it higher. The Refugee Protection Act of
2016 takes important steps to bolster and update our laws to address
the urgency of today's crisis. Now, more than ever, we must reaffirm
our role as a humanitarian leader and renew our commitment to those
fleeing persecution across the world.
The ongoing conflict in Syria makes clear the enormity of the
humanitarian crisis we face. The terror inflicted by Bashar Al-Assad's
regime and ISIS, which now subjects vast swaths of the region to its
barbaric rule, has forced more than half of Syria's 23 million people
from their homes and claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of
civilians Currently, there are more than 4.8 million registered Syrian
refugees, the overwhelming majority of whom are women and children.
The United States must assert its leadership in efforts to resettle
the innocent victims of this catastrophe. That is precisely the call so
many of us respondedjiipj:st a year ago when the world came together
stunned and heartbroken over the image of a 3-year-old Syrian child's
lifeless body washed up on a Turkish beach. His tragic death touched
our hearts and focused our attention on the desperate plight of this
population. We must not forget him or the plight of the thousands of
other children who are attempting the same terrifying journey to
safety.
We also cannot ignore the humanitarian crisis that is closer to home.
Ruthless armed gangs in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala continue
to brutalize women and children with impunity. El Salvador and
Guatemala have the highest child murder rates in the world--higher even
than in the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. These three Central
American countries also account for some of the highest rates of female
homicide worldwide. The violence and impunity in the Northern

[[Page S5168]]

Triangle has forced thousands of mothers and children to flee and seek
refuge wherever they can find it. The administration's Central American
Refugees Minor, CAM program and its expansion of the Refugee Admissions
Program in Central America are an acknowledgment of the unique
protection needs resulting from this crisis.
In response to these challenges, and so many others around the world,
we must adapt our laws to make good on our commitment as a nation of
refuge and freedom. It is our moral obligation but it is also in our
national interest.
Our refugee program sends a powerful message to the rest of the
world: America is not your enemy. We stand against persecution and
terrorism in all its forms. A strong refugee program undermines the
hateful propaganda of ISIS that there is a war between Islam and the
West, that Muslims are not welcome here, and that the ISIS caliphate is
their true home. By offering refuge to the world's most vulnerable
people, regardless of their religion or nationality, our refugee
program lays bare those lies.
The landmark Refugee Act of 1980 affirmed the commitments we made in
ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention. The Refugee Protection Act of
2016 that Jam introducing today would reaffirm the spirit of those
commitments and ensure that our law is up to meeting the humanitarian
crisis of our time.
First, our bill would repeal harsh and unnecessary hurdles that exist
in current law. It would eliminate the requirement that asylees file
for asylum within one year of arrival. This is an arbitrary deadline
that has prevented many deserving people from pursuing legitimate
protection claims. It is particularly harmful to those individuals who
may be slow to come forward and recount their trauma, such as victims
of rape or torture. The bill also includes important safeguards to
ensure that victims of gender-based persecution and LGBT asylum-seekers
receive the protection they deserve.
Second, our bill provides critical protections for children and
families. It would enable vulnerable minors seeking asylum to have
their cases adjudicated by an asylum officer in a non-adversarial
setting. Importantly, our bill would require the Attorney General to
appoint counsel for children and other vulnerable individuals, allowing
those who cannot advocate for themselves to receive a fair day in
court. It is unconscionable that young children are being brought
before U.S. Immigration judges without a lawyer to represent them. And,
it would provide that all children in the custody of the Department of
Homeland Security must be adequately screened for protection needs.
Our legislation also includes important protections for refugee
families. It would allow certain children and family members of
refugees to be considered derivative applicants for refugee status if
they have undergone the requisite security checks. Refugees escaping
persecution should not have to choose between finding refuge and
keeping their families together.
Third, our bill promotes a more efficient asylum and refugee process.
It would require timely notice of immigration charges and provide for
updated conditions of detention, preventing individuals from
languishing in detention at taxpayer expense and encouraging efficient
case adjudication in our immigration courts. It includes measures to
provide particularly vulnerable individuals with a full and fair
opportunity to seek protection in the United States. The bill would
also establish a secure ``alternatives to detention'' program to ensure
the appearance of individuals in removal proceedings.
Finally, our bill would facilitate the integration of refugees into
our communities, which is a longstanding tradition in this country. It
ensures that the Reception and Placement grants, which help refugees
become self-sufficient, are adjusted on an annual basis for inflation
and cost of living. It would also provide that resettled refugees who
work for our government overseas do not face unnecessary hurdles in
their adjustment to lawful permanent residence. Our bill also
authorizes a study of our refugee resettlement program and improves the
collection of data to ensure that our resettlement system uses
resources efficiently.
I am proud of the role Vermont has played in welcoming refugees.
Since 1989, our State has welcomed nearly 8,000 refugees from more than
a dozen war-torn countries. RecerThy, Mayor Christopher Louras and
members of the Rutland community announced plans to resettle 100 Syrian
refugees. I applaud their decision, which should serve as an example to
other communities in Vermont and across the country. I am confident
that Vermont will do its part to provide a welcoming home for these
families.
I am hopeful that if we pause and remember the role refugees and
asylum-seekers have played for generations in making our communities
strong and vibrant, we will be able to move past the hateful, ugly
rhetoric of this campaign season. Our moral obligation to innocent
victims of persecution demands it, and our national interest requires
it. I urge all Senators to support the Refugee Protection Act of 2016.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 3252. A bill to require States to automatically register eligible
voters to vote in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my friend John Lewis often says that ``the
right to vote is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have in a
democracy.'' I could not agree more with him. We are a better and more
representative Nation when more Americans participate in our democracy,
and we can help foster greater participation by modernizing the way we
register our voters.
That is why today, I am introducing the Automatic Voter Registration
Act of 2016, a bill to require states to automatically register
citizens who are eligible to vote by working with State and Federal
agencies. Individuals have the option of declining automatic
registration, but this bill would provide for a registration process
that is more efficient and accurate. Importantly, the information used
by the agencies to automatically register individuals will remain
private and secure, and can only be used for voter registration,
election administration, or prosecution of election crimes.
The bill also takes steps to streamline the voter registration
process, by providing for online registration and greater portability
of registration when an individual moves to a different location in the
same state. Under this bill, no individual can be unfairly penalized
for inadvertent registration, and punishment is preserved only in cases
of intentional registration fraud or illegal voting. These are all
common sense measures that would make it easier for Americans to
maintain accurate voter registration information, and they further help
to ensure that our voter rolls are current and up-to-date.
My efforts in trying to extend automatic registration to every State
is consistent with efforts in Vermont, which became just the fourth
State to pass an automatic voter registration bill this past April. The
State of Vermont and its superb Secretary of State--Jim Condos--have
been leaders in improving access to the ballot box. I cannot offer
enough praise for what they have done.
State election officials have estimated that Vermont could add 30,000
to 50,000 voters to the State's rolls when its new automatic voter
registration law takes effect after the 2016 election. Now imagine if
we can provide similar improvements to the registration rolls for every
State in this great Nation. Our union can only become stronger and more
representative with the participation of a broader electorate.
According to a report from the Brennan Center released in September
2015, a comprehensive automatic voter registration plan could
potentially add up to 50 million eligible voters to the rolls.
Moreover, not only would it save money and increase accuracy, but it
would also reduce the potential for fraud and protect the integrity of
our elections.
There is no reason why every eligible citizen cannot have the option
of automatic registration when they visit the DMV, sign up for
healthcare, or sign up for classes in college. These are just some of
the agencies or institutions that would work with the States to provide
for automatic voter registration. We live in a modern world, and we

[[Page S5169]]

should strive to have a registration system that reflects that.
I would like to thank the Brennan Center for Justice for working so
closely with me and my staff on this bill. I would also like to thank
Senators Klobuchar and Durbin for joining me in introducing this bill.
A House companion bill is being introduced by Congressman Brady of
Pennsylvania, the Ranking Member on the House Committee on House
Administration. I am proud to join all of these individuals in fighting
to increase access to the ballot box for all Americans.
The Automatic Voter Registration Act of 2016 is common sense
legislation that all members of Congress should be able to support.
However, this bill is part of a larger set of voting reforms that we
must take on without further delay. We cannot talk about voting without
mentioning the fact that this will be the first presidential election
where the American people will be without the full protections of the
Voting Rights Act since its original passage. It has now been more than
three years since the Supreme Court's devastating decision in Shelby
County v. Holder.
In that case, five justices severely weakened the Federal
government's ability to prevent racial discriminatory voting changes
from taking effect before those changes occur. The ruling's impact on
voters across the country has been even worse than imagined. Before the
ink dried on the Court's opinion, elected officials in several states
rushed to exploit the decision by enacting voting laws that
disproportionately prevent or discourage minorities from voting.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, at least 17 states have
passed new voter restriction laws for the 2016 election. Millions of
voters risk being disenfranchised for this election, and yet, this
Republican majority--in both the House and the Senate--refuses to even
hold a hearing on the issue.
The fundamental right to vote is too important for partisan politics.
We must restore the full protections of the Voting Rights Act to ensure
that no American's right to vote is infringed, and we must implement an
automatic voter registration system to ensure that every American who
wishes to vote is able to do so. This is an issue that cannot wait. It
is long past time for Congress to respond with action.
______

By Mr. MORAN (for himself, Mr. Udall, Mr. Daines, and Mr.
Warner):
S. 3263. A bill to promote innovation and realize the efficiency
gains and economic benefits of on-demand computing by accelerating the
acquisition and deployment of innovative technology and computing
resources throughout the Federal Government, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, data has become a form of currency. Today,
businesses and government are processing and storing more information
than ever. This creates access, organization, and security problems for
government agencies using outdated, legacy IT systems.
I worked in the technology sector for over a decade. We were doing
cloud computing before the cloud even had a name. So I know first-hand
the advantages cloud computing offers from a cost-saving, organization,
and security perspective.
The private sector is transitioning to cloud computing systems at a
rapid pace, but the government continues to lag behind. There are
unnecessary impediments related to planning, funding, and procurement
that inhibit Federal agencies from migrating to cloud computing
services.
That is why I am proud to join my colleagues Senator Moran, Senator
Udall, and Senator Warner in introducing the Cloud IT Act. This bill
will accelerate deployment of cloud computing services in the Federal
government by removing impediments to investment. It will streamline
the procurement process for IT tools and encourage the government to
work more closely with the cloud computing industry.
Migrating Federal government systems to cloud computing services will
reduce redundancies and save time and taxpayer dollars. I ask my
colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this much needed legislation.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Leahy, and Mr.
Tillis):
S. 3269. A bill to require the Attorney General to make a
determination as to whether cannabidiol should be a controlled
substance and listed in a schedule under the Controlled Substances Act
and to expand research on the potential medical benefits of cannabidiol
and other marijuana components; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act of 2016, with my Judiciary Committee
colleagues, Senators Grassley, Leahy, and Tillis.
This narrowly focused legislation responsibly cuts the red tape that
hinders marijuana research, paving the way for important studies to
determine if cannabidiol, a non-psychoactive component of marijuana
often referred to as CBD, can be a safe and effective medication for
serious illnesses, such as intractable epilepsy.
It does this while maintaining safeguards to protect against illegal
diversion.
First, the bill directs the Departments of Justice and Health and
Human Services to complete a scientific and medical evaluation of CBD
within one year.
Based on this evaluation, the legislation directs the Department of
Justice to make a scheduling recommendation for CBD that is independent
of marijuana. This has never been done before.
Second, without sacrificing appropriate oversight, it streamlines the
regulatory process for marijuana research.
In particular, it improves regulations dealing with changes to
approved quantities of marijuana needed for research and approved
research protocols.
It also expedites the Drug Enforcement Administration registration
process for researching CBD and marijuana.
Third, this legislation seeks to increase medical research on CBD,
while simultaneously reducing the stigma associated with conducting
research on a Schedule I drug.
It does so by explicitly authorizing medical and osteopathic schools,
research universities, and pharmaceutical companies to use a Schedule
II Drug Enforcement Administration registration to conduct authorized
medical research on CBD.
Given that the security requirements for conducting research on
Schedule I and II drugs are nearly identical, this change would not
jeopardize important safeguards against illegal diversion.
Fourth, the bill allows medical schools, research institutions, and
pharmaceutical companies to produce the marijuana they need for
authorized medical research. This will ensure that researchers have
access to the material they need to develop proven, effective
medicines.
Finally, the bill allows parents who have children with intractable
epilepsy, as well as adults with intractable epilepsy, to possess and
transport cannabidiol or other non-psychoactive components of marijuana
used to treat this disease while research is ongoing.
To do so, parents and adults must be able to provide documentation
that they or their child have been treated by a board-certified
neurologist for at least 6 months, and have certifications from their
neurologist that other treatment options have been exhausted, and that
the potential benefits outweigh the harms of using these non-
psychoactive components of marijuana.
The Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act will responsibly reduce
barriers and spur additional research to ensure that CBD and other
marijuana-derived medications are based on the most up to date
scientific evidence.
I believe this bill is critical to help families across the country
as they seek safe, effective medicines for serious illnesses, and I
hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important
legislation.
______

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Cornyn, Ms.
Klobuchar, Mr. Rubio, and Mr. Bennet):
S. 3270. A bill to prevent elder abuse and exploitation and improve
the justice system's response to victims in elder abuse and
exploitation cases; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have fought for years to protect our

[[Page S5170]]

Nation's seniors from abuse and exploitation--initially, as former
Chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, former Chairman of Senate
Finance Committee, and more recently, as Chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee.
Two weeks ago, I chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing on Protecting
Older Americans from Financial Exploitation. At the hearing, we heard
about numerous scams in which seniors were targeted time after time,
resulting in their being defrauded, often with devastating
consequences. We also heard that many older Americans don't report
instances of elder abuse or exploitation due to embarrassment, a
refusal to acknowledge that they were victimized, or reliance on the
perpetrator as their caretaker.
Sadly, these accounts of elder abuse are nothing new. What has
changed is that the scams targeting seniors are becoming increasingly
sophisticated. That is one of the reasons why elder financial
exploitation has been dubbed ``the crime of the 21st century.''
I have made it a top priority to get the federal government to step
up its efforts to fight the abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation
of our Nation's seniors.
To this end, I recently called on the Justice Department to outline
its efforts to prevent and respond to instances of elder abuse. First,
I sent a letter to the Department to find out what it's doing to
protect seniors from a new and particularly troubling form of
exploitation: the photographing and online publication of nursing home
residents in embarrassing and compromising situations.
I also sent a letter to inquire about the Department's efforts to
fight imposter scams, in which fraudsters pose as employees of the IRS
or another government agency, in order to deprive ordinary Americans of
millions of dollars of their hard earned money.
Most recently, I asked about the data the Department is collecting on
financial exploitation, as well as how this data is being used to
support Federal efforts to protect America's seniors.
In its response to my inquiries, the Justice Department effectively
admitted that it falls short in several respects. The Department said
that it ``does not collect data on the prevalence of elder financial
exploitation nationwide.'' Further, the Department said that it can't
provide statistical information on the number of cases it has
prosecuted for elder financial exploitation.
What all this means is that we are not getting the full picture of
elder financial exploitation.
We do know that some older Americans' trusting and polite nature,
combined with their hard-earned retirement savings, make them
particularly attractive targets for fraudsters. We also know that the
abuse and exploitation of older Americans is on the rise and it can
take many forms.
Financial exploitation is the most widespread form of elder abuse,
costing America's seniors between an estimated $2.9 billion and $36
billion annually. But, sadly, its costs aren't limited to the negative
effect on seniors' bank accounts. Victims suffer all sorts of negative
effects, including diminished health, loss of independence, and
psychological distress.
It is estimated that up to 37 percent of seniors in the United States
are affected by some form of financial exploitation in any 5-year
period.
In my home State of Iowa, so-called grandparent scams are on the
rise. In these scams, fraudsters present themselves to an older
American as a grandchild in distress, hoping to convince the
grandparent to send cash or give out a credit card number.
Con artists are also using sweepstakes scams to steal money from
seniors. A senior is called and told they have won a prize or sum of
money. But before they can claim the supposed prize, the victim is
required to pay taxes or processing fees. Once the money is paid to
cover the taxes and fees, however, no prize ever materializes.
Other instances of elder financial exploitation are more personal in
nature and have especially devastating effects. Some victims are
pressured into signing over a deed, modifying a will, or giving a power
of attorney. Americans have lost their farms, homes, and life savings
to this form of fraud.
In short, elder abuse and exploitation is a serious problem, and it
demands a strong response. It requires all of us to work together in a
collaborative way.
So, today I am proud to introduce the Elder Abuse Prevention and
Prosecution Act. I thank my colleagues--Senators Blumenthal, Cornyn,
Klobuchar, Rubio, and Bennet for collaborating with me on this
comprehensive bill's development and joining as original cosponsors. It
takes a multi-pronged, bipartisan approach to combating the abuse and
financial exploitation of our nation's senior citizens.
We've heard a need for specialized prosecutors and more focused
efforts to combat abuse and exploitation. That is why the bill directs
the Attorney General to designate at least one federal prosecutor in
each U.S. Attorney's Office to serve as an Elder Justice Coordinator
for that district.
To ensure that elder abuse is a priority for the Federal Trade
Commission and the Justice Department, the bill also calls for each
agency to have an Elder Justice Coordinator.
We also need to send a strong message that efforts to target our
Nation's seniors won't be tolerated. That is why the bill enhances
elder victims' access to restitution and increases penalties for
criminals who use telemarketing or email in their schemes to defraud
seniors.
The bill also requires that the Justice Department partner with the
Department of Health and Human Services to provide training and
technical assistance to State and local governments on the
investigation, prevention, prosecution, and mitigation of elder abuse
and neglect.
Finally we have heard about the need for more data on financial
exploitation and the government's response. Gathering accurate
information about elder abuse is not only crucial to understanding the
scope of the problem, but it is also essential in determining where
resources should be allocated. So, the bill helps to accomplish that.
It requires that data be collected from federal prosecutors and law
enforcement in cases where an older American was the target of abuse or
exploitation.
These and other reforms included in the bill are the product of
bipartisan discussion, as well as insight from key stakeholders and
those who've been battling on the front lines.
This 21st century crime requires a 21st century response. The Elder
Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act takes a strong step toward
protecting our Nation's seniors, and I urge my colleagues to support
this bill.
______

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mrs. Ernst, Mr. Lee, Mr. Wicker,
Mr. Vitter, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Moran, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Inhofe, and
Mr. Sessions):
S. 3276. A bill to make habitual drunk drivers inadmissible and
removable and to require the detention of any alien who is unlawfully
present in the United States and has been charged with driving under
the influence or driving while intoxicated; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Obama administration is putting
Americans into harm's way by releasing drunk drivers who are in the
country illegally back onto our streets. This is unbelievable when you
consider that every two minutes, a person is injured by a drunk driver,
and every day in America, 27 people die as a result of a drunk driving
crash. These numbers translate into real people.
I would like to talk about my constituent, Sarah Root, who was killed
by a drunk driver the day she graduated from college. On January 31,
2016, Eswin Mejia, a Honduran national in the United States illegally,
was drag racing in Omaha, NE, with a blood alcohol level more than
three times the legal limit. He struck 21-year-old Sarah Root's vehicle
from behind and she was killed. Mejia was charged with felony motor
vehicle homicide. Although state authorities reportedly contacted ICE
several times and requested the agency take custody of him prior to his
release from state custody, ICE refused. He was released on bond and is
now a fugitive from justice.
In Kentucky, Chelsea Hogue and Meghan Lake were seriously injured by
a drunk driver in the country illegally who had been previously
deported five times in one week. On February 7, 2016,

[[Page S5171]]

Jose Munoz Aguilar was arrested for drunk driving and colliding with a
car occupied by the two young women, causing injuries to both women and
putting one in a coma. Although Jose Aguilar was transferred to ICE
custody, he was promptly released because he didn't meet the Obama
administration's enforcement priorities. He remains at large.
In May, three people from a Texas family were killed by a suspected
drunk driver who had an outstanding warrant for a previous drunk
driving conviction. He had three prior DWI offenses. One of the three
family members--18 year old Mauricio Ramirez--was scheduled to graduate
from high school just a few short weeks later.
In Houston this May, an illegal immigrant who was driving drunk and
evading authorities injured a high school senior and killed a young
girl who were on their way home from prom. The driver had been
previously deported and attempted to run from the scene.
On February 24, 2016, Esmid Valentine Pedraza was arrested in San
Francisco, California, for the murder of Stacey Aguilar. Prior to
allegedly committing the murder, Pedraza was reportedly arrested by ICE
and placed in removal proceedings in August 2013 after Pedraza's
conviction for DUI in Alameda County, California. Although ICE could
have continued to detain him, ICE released him back onto the streets
after he posted bond.
Mesa, AZ Police Department Sergeant Brandon Mendoza lost his life to
an illegal immigrant who was driving the wrong way down a one-way
street. The driver was three times over the legal limit and high on
meth when he struck Sgt. Mendoza head on. Sgt. Mendoza had just
finished his shift of keeping citizens and his community safe.
Police Officer Kevin Will of Houston, TX, was struck and killed by a
drunk driver as he investigated a hit-and-run accident. The driver was
in the country illegally.
In Phoenix, Police Officer Daryl Raetz was killed by a man who
admitted to being drunk and high, and was in the country illegally.
Officer Raetz was an Iraq war veteran and had been a police officer for
6 years. He left behind a wife and daughter.
Nobody argues that drunk driving is not a public safety risk, so it
is remarkable that the Obama administration's own immigration
enforcement priorities fail to take perpetrators off the street.
Families coping with the grief of losing a loved one to such a
senseless crime must also live with the reality that their government
is quick to release offenders back into our communities.
Today, along with several other Senators, I am introducing the Taking
Action Against Drunk Drivers Act. Our bill would ensure that federal
immigration authorities take custody and hold anyone in the country
illegally who has been charged with driving under the influence, DUI,
or driving while intoxicated, DWI, taking them off the streets and
protecting the public.
Additionally, my bill would make immigrants with three DUI or DWI
convictions inadmissible to and removable from the country. Finally, it
would make three DUI or DWI convictions an aggravated felony under the
Immigration and Nationality Act. This will allow for expedited removal
and preclude eligibility for certain benefits and permanently bar legal
admission into the country.
We cannot let this current system that promotes the reckless death of
innocent Americans continue. I encourage my colleagues to join me in an
effort to protect our citizens from these dangerous people.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Schumer,
Mr. Wyden, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Warner, Mr. Coons,
Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Schatz, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Markey, and Mr.
Booker):
S. 3281. A bill to extend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3281

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF IRAN SANCTIONS ACT OF 1996.

Section 13(b) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law
104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended by striking
``December 31, 2016'' and inserting ``December 31, 2026''.

____________________