[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 18 (Thursday, February 2, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S657-S659]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. FLAKE (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 276. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to divide the
ninth judicial circuit of the United States into 2 circuits, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, one of the most important elements of the
rule of law is the promise of swift access to the courts, but that
promise has been broken in my home State of Arizona. That is because
Arizona falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, a circuit that is both oversized and overworked.
With the jurisdiction encompassing 13 districts spread across nine
States and 2 U.S. territories, the Ninth Circuit covers 1 in 5
Americans. It hears roughly 12,000 appeals each year. The next busiest
circuit doesn't even hear 9,000, and for the thousands of cases under
its consideration, the average turnaround time exceeds 15 months.
Now, if excessive delays weren't bad enough, it turns out the Ninth
Circuit is overturned by the Supreme Court 77 percent of the time when
the Supreme Court grants cert--77 percent of the time. That is
obviously higher than any other court. So not only is the court
excruciatingly slow, but in many instances it is simply wrong.
The court, itself, is unusually large. It has 29 authorized
judgeships. That is 12 more than the next largest circuit.
The Ninth Circuit is so big that it can't even rehear cases as a
whole body, like every other appeals court does. Instead, cases are
reheard with limited en banc; these are panels of 11 judges each. That
means that only one-third of its judges are deciding law for the entire
court--only one-third.
Of the States suffering under the weight of the Ninth Circuit's
crushing backlog, Arizona shoulders a uniquely heavy burden. Per
capita, Arizona has the busiest Federal docket in the circuit. That
puts Arizonans at the back of an already long line just to get their
day in court.
As if the deluge of cases continues to fill the Ninth Circuit's
docket, the line keeps getting longer and longer if you happen to live
in Arizona.
With problems like these, we are left to ask: Is the Ninth Circuit
simply too big to succeed? If you are an Arizonan, the answer is
unquestionably yes.
Arizonans deserve better, and that is why today I am introducing a
bill to break up the Ninth Circuit.
With the support of my colleague from Arizona, John McCain, and the
support of Gov. Doug Ducey, I have introduced the Judicial
Administration and Improvement Act. This bill would create a new
Twelfth Circuit by moving Arizona, as well as Alaska, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, and Washington, out of the Ninth Circuit. Doing so would create
two smaller appellate courts where one dysfunctional court stood, all
the while establishing stronger local, regional, and cultural ties.
This would help alleviate the Ninth Circuit's enormous caseload and
ensure a more timely and accurate judicial process for both circuits.
Now, importantly, the bill would also free the new circuit from the
Ninth Circuit's precedent. That means States like Arizona would be able
to chart their own legal course, consistent with their local needs and
traditions.
A fair and functioning judiciary is one of the pillars of our
democracy. Geography shouldn't limit a citizen's access to the courts.
The Judicial Administration and Improvement Act will right this wrong
by restoring faith in our judicial system and securing the access to
Justice that Americans deserve.
______
By Mr. DAINES (for himself and Mr. Warner):
S. 278. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide
for innovative research and development, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, in recent years we have seen the inability
of the Federal Government to quickly adapt to changing technology and
emerging threats. In June of 2015 the Office of Personnel Management,
OPM, was infiltrated with a major cyber breach, affecting more than 22
million current and former Federal employees, including myself. In
January of 2016, another nearly half a million Americans had their
social security numbers stolen when the Internal Revenue Service was
hacked.
I spent 28 years in the private sector, 12 years with a global cloud
computing company. We faced cyber threats daily, and our customers
expected security of their data. We delivered, not once was our data
compromised. Until I came to the Federal Government and received the
letters from OPM, my data had been secured too.
I know firsthand that industry has the talent and incentive to keep
their information systems secure. The Federal Government should
continue to innovate and utilize industries' expertise and learn from
their best practices.
That is why I am introducing the Support for Rapid Innovation Act.
This
[[Page S658]]
legislation will extend the authorization for the Secretary of Homeland
Security to carry out innovative research and development projects that
will enhance our Nation's cyber security. It will focus efforts on
developing more secure information systems, technologies for detecting
and containing attacks in real-time, and develop cyber forensics to
identify perpetrators. This will be done by leveraging private sectors'
innovation and ingenuity.
I want to thank Senator Warner for being an original cosponsor of
this bill and Representative Ratcliffe of Texas for leading
introduction of companion legislation in the House of Representatives.
I ask my Senate colleagues to join us in support of this important
legislation.
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. 278
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 ``Support for Rapid Innovation
Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. CYBERSECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
(a) Cybersecurity Research and Development.--
(1) In general.--Title III of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:
``SEC. 321. CYBERSECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
``(a) In General.--The Under Secretary for Science and
Technology shall support the research, development, testing,
evaluation, and transition of cybersecurity technologies,
including fundamental research to improve the sharing of
information, information security, analytics, and
methodologies related to cybersecurity risks and incidents,
consistent with current law.
``(b) Activities.--The research and development supported
under subsection (a) shall serve the components of the
Department and shall--
``(1) advance the development and accelerate the deployment
of more secure information systems;
``(2) improve and create technologies for detecting and
preventing attacks or intrusions, including real-time
continuous diagnostics, real-time analytic technologies, and
full lifecycle information protection;
``(3) improve and create mitigation and recovery
methodologies, including techniques and policies for real-
time containment of attacks, and development of resilient
networks and information systems;
``(4) support, in coordination with non-Federal entities,
the review of source code that underpins critical
infrastructure information systems;
``(5) assist the development and support infrastructure and
tools to support cybersecurity research and development
efforts, including modeling, testbeds, and data sets for
assessment of new cybersecurity technologies;
``(6) assist the development and support of technologies to
reduce vulnerabilities in industrial control systems;
``(7) assist the development and support cyber forensics
and attack attribution capabilities;
``(8) assist the development and accelerate the deployment
of full information lifecycle security technologies to
enhance protection, control, and privacy of information to
detect and prevent cybersecurity risks and incidents;
``(9) assist the development and accelerate the deployment
of information security measures, in addition to perimeter-
based protections;
``(10) assist the development and accelerate the deployment
of technologies to detect improper information access by
authorized users;
``(11) assist the development and accelerate the deployment
of cryptographic technologies to protect information at rest,
in transit, and in use;
``(12) assist the development and accelerate the deployment
of methods to promote greater software assurance;
``(13) assist the development and accelerate the deployment
of tools to securely and automatically update software and
firmware in use, with limited or no necessary intervention by
users and limited impact on concurrently operating systems
and processes; and
``(14) assist in identifying and addressing unidentified or
future cybersecurity threats.
``(c) Coordination.--In carrying out this section, the
Under Secretary for Science and Technology shall coordinate
activities with--
``(1) the Under Secretary appointed pursuant to section
103(a)(1)(H);
``(2) the heads of other relevant Federal departments and
agencies, as appropriate; and
``(3) industry and academia.
``(d) Transition to Practice.--The Under Secretary for
Science and Technology shall support projects carried out
under this title through the full life cycle of such
projects, including research, development, testing,
evaluation, pilots, and transitions. The Under Secretary
shall identify mature technologies that address existing or
imminent cybersecurity gaps in public or private information
systems and networks of information systems, protect
sensitive information within and outside networks of
information systems, identify and support necessary
improvements identified during pilot programs and testing and
evaluation activities, and introduce new cybersecurity
technologies throughout the homeland security enterprise
through partnerships and commercialization. The Under
Secretary shall target Federally funded cybersecurity
research that demonstrates a high probability of successful
transition to the commercial market within two years and that
is expected to have a notable impact on the public or private
information systems and networks of information systems.
``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Cybersecurity risk.--The term `cybersecurity risk'
has the meaning given such term in section 227.
``(2) Homeland security enterprise.--The term `homeland
security enterprise' means relevant governmental and
nongovernmental entities involved in homeland security,
including Federal, State, local, and tribal government
officials, private sector representatives, academics, and
other policy experts.
``(3) Incident.--The term `incident' has the meaning given
such term in section 227.
``(4) Information system.--The term `information system'
has the meaning given such term in section 3502(8) of title
44, United States Code.
``(5) Software assurance.--The term `software assurance'
means confidence that software--
``(A) is free from vulnerabilities, either intentionally
designed into the software or accidentally inserted at any
time during the lifecycle of the software; and
``(B) functioning in the intended manner.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 is amended by
inserting after the item relating to second section 319 the
following new item:
``Sec. 321. Cybersecurity research and development.''.
(b) Research and Development Projects.--Section 831 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 391) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``2016'' and inserting ``2021'';
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking the last sentence; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Prior approval.--In any case in which the head of a
component or office of the Department seeks to utilize the
authority under this section, such head shall first receive
prior approval from the Secretary by providing to the
Secretary a proposal that includes the rationale for the
utilization of such authority, the funds to be spent on the
use of such authority, and the expected outcome for each
project that is the subject of the use of such authority. In
such a case, the authority for evaluating the proposal may
not be delegated by the Secretary to anyone other than the
Under Secretary for Management.'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by striking ``2016'' and inserting ``2021''; and
(B) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
``(2) Report.--The Secretary shall annually submit to the
Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of
the Senate a report detailing the projects for which the
authority granted by subsection (a) was utilized, the
rationale for such utilizations, the funds spent utilizing
such authority, the extent of cost-sharing for such projects
among Federal and non-Federal sources, the extent to which
utilization of such authority has addressed a homeland
security capability gap or threat to the homeland identified
by the Department, the total amount of payments, if any, that
were received by the Federal Government as a result of the
utilization of such authority during the period covered by
each such report, the outcome of each project for which such
authority was utilized, and the results of any audits of such
projects.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Training.--The Secretary shall develop a training
program for acquisitions staff on the utilization of the
authority provided under subsection (a) to ensure
accountability and effective management of projects
consistent with the Program Management Improvement
Accountability Act (Public Law 114-264) and the amendments
made by such Act.''.
(c) No Additional Funds Authorized.--No additional funds
are authorized to carry out the requirements of this Act and
the amendments made by this Act. Such requirements shall be
carried out using amounts otherwise authorized.
______
By Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Blunt, and Mr.
Hatch):
S. 288. A bill to require notice and comment for certain
interpretative
[[Page S659]]
rules; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. DAINES. 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. 288
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 ``Regulatory Predictability
for Business Growth Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. REQUIRING NOTICE AND COMMENT FOR CERTAIN
INTERPRETATIVE RULES.
Subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) in section 551--
(A) in paragraph (13), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (14), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(15) `longstanding interpretative rule' means an
interpretative rule that has been in effect for not less than
1 year; and
``(16) `revise' means, with respect to an interpretative
rule, altering or otherwise changing any provision of a
longstanding interpretative rule that conflicts, or is in any
way inconsistent with, any provision in a subsequently
promulgated interpretative rule.''; and
(2) in section 553--
(A) in subsection (b)(A), by striking ``interpretative
rules'' and inserting ``an interpretative rule of an agency,
unless the interpretative rule revises a longstanding
interpretative rule of the agency''; and
(B) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``interpretative
rules'' and inserting ``an interpretative rule of an agency,
unless the interpretative rule revises a longstanding
interpretative rule of the agency,''.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr.
Isakson):
S. 292. A bill to maximize discovery, and accelerate development and
availability, of promising childhood cancer treatments, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators
Capito, Van Hollen, and Isakson in the introduction of the Childhood
Cancer Survivorship, Treatment, Access, and Research, STAR, Act of
2017. This legislation is an extension of ongoing bipartisan efforts in
the Senate over the past decade to get us closer to the goal of
hopefully one day curing cancers in children, adolescents, and young
adults. Representatives McCaul, Speier, Kelly, and Butterfield are
introducing the companion legislation in the other body.
I first started working on this issue after meeting the Haight family
from Warwick, Rhode Island in June of 2004. Nancy and Vincent lost
their son, Ben, when he was just nine years old to neuroblastoma, a
very aggressive tumor in the brain.
With the strong support of families like the Haights for increased
research into the causes of childhood cancers and improved treatment
options, I introduced bipartisan legislation that eventually was signed
into law in 2008 as the Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer
Act.
This was an important step. Yet, more work remains. The STAR Act
seeks to advance pediatric cancer research and child-focused cancer
treatments, while also improving childhood cancer surveillance and
providing resources for survivors and those impacted by childhood
cancer.
If a treatment is working, doctors elsewhere should know immediately.
The same should happen if a treatment isn't working, or if other major
medical events occur during the course of a particular treatment. It is
critical that doctors, nurses, and other providers are able to
effectively communicate information about the disease, the treatment
process, and what other health and development impacts children can
expect to experience with a particular course of treatment.
As such, the STAR Act would reauthorize the Caroline Pryce Walker
Conquer Childhood Cancer Act, creating a comprehensive children's
cancer biorepository for researchers to use in searching for
biospecimens to study and would improve surveillance of childhood
cancer cases.
This legislation also includes provisions dealing with issues that
arise for survivors of childhood cancer. Unfortunately, even after
beating cancer, as many as two-thirds of childhood cancer survivors are
likely to experience at least one late effect of treatment; as many as
one-fourth experience a late effect that is serious or life-
threatening, including second cancers and organ damage.
We must do more to ensure that children survive cancer and any late
effects so they can live a long, healthy, and productive life. This
legislation would enhance research on the late effects of childhood
cancers, improve collaboration among providers so that doctors are
better able to care for this population as they age, and establish a
new pilot program to begin to explore improved models of care for
childhood cancer survivors.
Lastly, this bill would ensure more pediatric expertise at the
National Institutes of Health to better leverage the research
investment to improve pediatric cancer research by requiring the
inclusion of at least one pediatric oncologist on the National Cancer
Advisory Board and improving childhood health reporting requirements to
include pediatric cancer.
Last year, Senator Capito and I were able to get a provision of this
bill included in the 21st Century CURES Act, which was signed into law
at the end of the year. That provision will provide some clarity for
patients and their physicians attempting to access new drugs and
therapies from pharmaceutical companies. When a patient has run out of
other options, the last thing they and their families need is to spend
months being given the run-around trying to access a potential
treatment.
I am hopeful that we can build on this momentum. Indeed, it was
heartening to see the House of Representatives pass the Childhood
Cancer STAR Act as one of its last acts of the 114th Congress by a
unanimous vote. While, the Senate was unable to follow suit as time ran
out at the end of the year, HELP Committee Chairman Alexander and
Ranking Member Murray have committed to working with Senator Capito and
me to move the legislation this year.
The Childhood Cancer STAR Act has the support of the American Cancer
Society Cancer Action Network, St. Baldrick's Foundation, and
Children's Oncology Group, among others. I look forward to our
continued work with these stakeholders to build support for the bill
and with the HELP Committee to see this bill advance through the
legislative process.
____________________