[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''.

                          ____________________