[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 82 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2917-S2920]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DAINES:
S. 1097. A bill to postpone the deadline for the completion of the
conversion of certain military technician (dual status) positions to
positions of civilian employment by the Federal Government, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
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. 1097
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 ``Armed Forces Reserve and
National Guard Dual-Status Review and Modernization Act''.
SEC. 2. POSTPONEMENT OF DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF CONVERSION
OF CERTAIN MILITARY TECHNICIAN (DUAL STATUS)
POSITIONS TO POSITIONS OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) A September 2013 study conducted by a federally funded
research and development center found that 21 percent of the
military technician (dual status) positions are
administrative in nature--the largest category as a
percentage of military technician (dual status) positions.
The study recommends investigation on whether ``some Dual
Status MilTech positions supporting general administration
functions could be converted to Title 5 Federal civilian
full-time support positions without compromising unit
readiness''. The study further recommends investigation on
whether ``it is more appropriate to use military full-time
support for other reasons (such as currency in military
operations and training and augmentation)''.
(2) Section 1053 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2016 directs the conversion of not fewer than
20 percent of all military technician positions to positions
of Federal civilian employment under title 5, United States
Code, by January 1, 2017. Section 1084 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 extends the
deadline for that conversion from January 1, 2017, to October
1, 2017.
(3) The Department of Defense submitted a report on the
management of military technicians in December 2016 that
finds that 12.6 percent of the military technician (dual
status) positions were administrative in nature, and
recommended a conversion of 4.8 percent of such positions to
positions of Federal civilian employment.
(4) The Chief of the National Guard Bureau testified before
Congress in April 2017 that a conversion of 20 percent of
military technician (dual status) positions to positions of
Federal civilian employment would degrade readiness, but that
a lower number could be converted with minimal impact. The
Chief of the National Guard Bureau also testified that the
Department of Defense had not conducted an analysis of the
associated costs and benefits of a conversion of 20 percent
of military technician (dual status) positions to positions
of Federal civilian employment.
(b) Postponement of Deadline for Completion of
Conversion.--Notwithstanding the deadline otherwise specified
in paragraph (1) of section 1053(a) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (10 U.S.C. 113 note)
for the completion of the conversion of military technician
positions as described in that subsection, the deadline for
the completion of such conversion shall be 180 days after the
date on which the Secretary of Defense transmits to Congress
under paragraph (6) of subsection (c) the report of the
working group required by paragraph (5) of that subsection.
(c) Working Group on Full Time Support of the Reserve
Components.--
(1) In general.--There shall be established in the
Department of Defense a working group to be known as the
``Working Group on Full Time Support of the Reserve
Components'' (in this subsection referred to as the ``working
group'').
(2) Co-chairs.--The co-chairs of the working group shall be
the following:
(A) The Director of the Army National Guard.
(B) The Director of the Air National Guard.
(C) The Chief of the Army Reserve.
(D) The Chief of the Air Force Reserve.
(3) Members.--The members of the working group shall
include the co-chairs of the working group and such other
personnel of the Department of Defense as the Secretary shall
appoint from among organizations and elements of the
Department with an interest in full time support of the
reserve components of the Armed Forces, including the
National Guard Bureau and the Adjutants General of the
States.
(4) Duties.--The working group shall undertake a
comprehensive review of full time
[[Page S2918]]
support of the reserve components of the Armed Forces,
including the following:
(A) An identification of the missions, purposes, and
objectives of military technicians (dual status) in support
of an operational reserve force.
(B) A review of the posture of current military technician
(dual status) positions, and of their current role in meeting
the objectives identified pursuant to subparagraph (A).
(C) An analysis of potential restructurings of the
workforce of military technicians (dual status) in order to
identify a restructuring that fully aligns military
technician (dual status) positions with objectives for full
time support of the reserve components.
(D) An identification of the military technician (dual
status) positions whose conversion to positions of Federal
civilian employment under title 5, United States Code, would
best ensure the achievement of objectives for full time
support of the reserve components.
(E) An assessment of the impact on the readiness of the
National Guard for domestic operations of the conversion of
positions identified pursuant to subparagraph (D) as
described in that subparagraph.
(F) An assessment of costs and potential savings associated
with the conversion of positions identified pursuant to
subparagraph (D) as described in that subparagraph.
(5) Report to secretary of defense.--Not later than 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the working
group shall submit to the Secretary of Defense a report on
the comprehensive review undertaken pursuant to paragraph
(4). The report shall include the following:
(A) A comprehensive description of the review and the
results of the review.
(B) The percentage of military technician (dual status)
positions whose conversion to positions of Federal civilian
employment under title 5, United States Code, would best
ensure the achievement of objectives for full time support of
the reserve components of the Armed Forces as an operational
reserve.
(C) A transition plan for implementing a new force
structure for full time support of the reserve components,
including for the conversion of positions as described in
subparagraph (B) which mitigates any risks to readiness
identified pursuant to paragraph (4)(E).
(D) Recommendations for the reform of personnel management
policy for military technician (dual status) positions that
address--
(i) the eligibility of military technicians (dual status)
for civilian retirement upon retirement from the Armed
Forces; and
(ii) the process for appealing employment decisions.
(E) Recommendations for reforms of compensation and
benefits policies for military technician (dual status)
positions in order to provide military technicians (dual
status) with parity in compensation and benefits with other
Federal civilian employees of the Department of Defense under
title 5, United States Code.
(6) Transmittal of report to congress.--The Secretary shall
transmit to the congressional defense committees the report
of the working group under paragraph (5), together with such
discussion and recommendations in connection with the report
as the Secretary considers appropriate. The Secretary shall
publish the report, and any such discussions and
recommendations, in the Federal Register at the time of
transmittal.
(7) Congressional defense committees defined.--In this
subsection, the term ``congressional defense committees'' has
the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(16) of title
10, United States Code.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, under current law, twenty-percent of our
military dual-status technicians in the National Guard, Army Reserve,
and Air Force Reserve will become federal civilians on October 1st.
This will leave the state Governors to respond to wildfires, floods,
and other natural disasters with twenty-percent fewer people. The
benefits of this conversion are unclear. In fact, the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau testified that no formal analysis has been
conducted as to whether there is any benefit at all. It seems prudent
to me to take a pause, bring all of the affected stakeholders together,
and figure this problem out before we take any irreversible action.
Today, I'm introducing the ``Armed Forces Reserve and National Guard
Dual-Status Review and Modernization Act,'' to do exactly that.
As I've studied this situation, I understand there are a number of
valid concerns involved. The current statutory construct for dual-
status military technicians is nearly 50 years old and the role of the
Reserve components has changed dramatically just in the past 15 years,
let alone the last half-century. I agree we should update the statute
to better meet the needs of the total force and my bill addresses this
concern. Similarly, many Guardsmen and Reservists feel that personnel
management practices under this aging construct doesn't fit the needs
of a 21st century workforce. My bill addresses those concerns as well.
Most importantly, the bill ensures that there is no adverse impact to
the Guard's ability to respond to domestic emergencies on October 1st,
by postponing that date until Department of Defense leadership conducts
a thorough, comprehensive review on the requirements of a 21st Century
total force, and how our current structure should be aligned to meet
those requirements. This will allow Congress to make an informed and
measured judgement on how to update current law. I urge my colleagues
to give this matter their full consideration and support.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Ms. Collins):
S. 1113. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
ensure the safety of cosmetics; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to
improve the safety oversight of products that affect every single
family on a daily basis. Whether it's shampoo or shaving cream, lotion
or make-up, hair dye or deodorant, personal care products are a part of
our everyday lives. I thank Senator Collins for her support and hard
work on this important legislation.
However, even though our bodies absorb many chemicals in these
products through our skin and even our nails, their ingredients are
largely unregulated. It's time to modernize our safety oversight and
correct this problem. Most people assume these products have up-to-date
federal oversight, but in reality the Food and Drug Administration's
authority to do so is sorely outdated--in fact, it's based on a law
from the 1930s that has changed little over the past eight decades.
There are questions about the safety of some ingredients in these
products, which not only leads to health concerns but also causes
uncertainty for companies working to innovate and expand domestically.
Over the last several years, Senator Collins and I have worked with a
wide group of stakeholders that represent both industry and consumer
groups. Those stakeholders include small and large companies, doctors,
consumer advocates, patient advocates, scientists, and the Food and
Drug Administration. Together, we have drafted bipartisan legislation
that puts commonsense measures in place and has the support of both
industry and consumer and health organizations.
The Personal Care Products Safety Act sets up a process for reviewing
the safety of ingredients in personal care products. The bill requires
manufacturers to register so consumers know who produces personal care
products sold in the United States.
The legislation also modernizes authority for the Food and Drug
Administration so the agency is better equipped to deal with public
health concerns, such as being able to recall contaminated products if
companies choose not to do so voluntarily. The updated system is
completely paid for by industry fees. Companies will provide
information about the ingredients in their products to the Food and
Drug Administration, and attest to their safety. Many companies
manufacturing in the United States currently follow strict voluntary
standards for manufacturing under proper conditions, but the lack of
federal standards leaves this to chance. Under this legislation, the
agency sets Good Manufacturing Practice guidelines to ensure companies
meet minimum requirements. Companies will also need to report adverse
health events related to their products to the Food and Drug
Administration.
Last year, we heard about WEN shampoo, a product that was causing
significant hair loss. Among those affected were children, including a
little girl named Eliana who lost all of her hair after using WEN. She
shared her story with my office and several of my colleagues. What's
shocking is that the company received more than 20,000 reports of this
happening, but under current law WEN had no legal obligation to tell
the Food and Drug Administration. Under this legislation, companies
would be required to do so.
Another example of concern is the ongoing use of formaldehyde, also
called methylene glycol when mixed with water, in the popular hair
treatment called a Brazilian blowout. Formaldehyde is released into the
air during
[[Page S2919]]
this beauty treatment. It can cause shortness of breath, headaches, and
dizziness in the short-term. Over the long-term, formaldehyde has been
linked to cancer.
I am also greatly concerned about the effect on the health of salon
professionals who are constantly exposed to a variety of chemicals
daily. In addition to reviewing the safety of chemicals they may be
exposed to, this legislation also ensures that the salon products they
use are properly labeled with ingredients and warnings.
The Food and Drug Administration will be required to evaluate at
least five ingredients per year for safety and use in personal care
products. In addition to reviewing the latest scientific and medical
studies, the agency will consider how prevalent the ingredient is, the
likely exposure, adverse event reports, and information from public
comments. Public input will be critical to the review process. There
will be opportunities for companies, scientists, consumer groups,
medical professionals, and members of the public to weigh in on, not
only the safety of particular ingredients but also, which ingredients
should be a priority for review. After review, the Food and Drug
Administration may deem an ingredient safe, unsafe, or safe under
certain uses or under certain conditions. The agency will also have the
authority to require warning labels as needed for certain ingredients
and limit the amount of an ingredient that may be used in personal care
products. For example, some ingredients may only be safe for use by
adults or when used by professionals in a salon or spa setting.
The Personal Care Products Safety Act is the result of many diverse
groups working together with the common goal of modernizing the federal
oversight system to ensure the safest products possible are on the
market. We have worked closely with small businesses to ensure that the
legislation recognizes their needs and supports their growth. This
legislation incorporates changes to increase flexibility for small
businesses, particularly those making low-risk products. The bill
recognizes the unique nature of the handmade cosmetic industry and
meets their needs to encourage growth and innovation.
I am pleased that the major organizations representing these small
businesses (Handmade Cosmetic Alliance, Coalition of Handcrafted
Entrepreneurs, Handcrafted Soap and Cosmetic Guild), have said that the
provisions within this legislation ``afford producers in the handmade
cosmetic industry the opportunity to continue to innovate, grow, create
jobs and produce safe, quality handmade products in communities across
the nation.''
I am pleased to have the support of a broad coalition, including
Environmental Working Group, Society for Women's Health Research,
Endocrine Society, National Alliance for Hispanic Health, Au Naturale,
Coalition of Handcrafted Entrepreneurs, Handcrafted Soap and Cosmetic
Guild, Handmade Cosmetic Alliance, Herban Lifestyle, The Honest
Company, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Babo
Botanicals, Goddess Garden Organics, Caregiver Action Network, March of
Dimes, EO Products, Eclair Naturals, Juice Beauty, National Psoriasis
Foundation, and the following major companies that together represent
over 99 brands of products: The Estee Lauder Companies, Johnson and
Johnson, Procter and Gamble, Revlon, Unilever, and L'Oreal.
I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this much needed
legislation to modernize our outdated regulatory system for personal
care products, and I hope the Senate will pass this long overdue
legislation this year.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Wyden, Mr.
Franken, Mr. Markey, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms.
Harris, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Booker, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Hirono, Mr.
Coons, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Blumenthal, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Leahy):
S. 1114. A bill to nullify the effect of the recent Executive order
laying a foundation for discrimination against LGBTQ individuals,
women, religious minorities, and others under the pretext of religious
freedom; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today to join with my
colleagues in introducing a rescission bill to nullify President
Trump's Executive Order 13798, titled ``Promoting Free Speech and
Religious Liberty.'' Unfortunately, this Executive Order does not live
up to its title. Instead, it furthers the aim of this administration to
diminish critical protections for women, minorities, and LGBT
Americans.
I am deeply troubled by Section 3 of the Order, which paves the way
for the Trump administration to roll back protections to preventive
health services under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), especially for
women and LGBT individuals. Through new regulations issued pursuant to
this Order, companies could use ``conscience-based'' objections to deny
their employees coverage for preventive services that they have a right
to under the ACA. This means that because of their employers' moral
objection, women could lose access to contraception, and those in the
LGBT community could lose access to essential services, including
cancer screenings or counseling for domestic violence.
I respect that we all have religious and moral convictions, but it is
wrong to put employers' religious views above individuals' rights to
access basic health care. I also note that this section of the Order
invites members of the President's Cabinet to eliminate an
accommodation President Obama administration made allowing religiously
affiliated nonprofit employers, including large universities and
hospital systems, to opt out of providing their employees with
contraception coverage based on religious objections.
Importantly, women working for objecting employers can receive
contraception coverage directly through their insurance companies.
Seven federal courts of appeals have upheld this accommodation in the
face of religiously based challenges. But with this Order, the
President signals that his administration is likely to do away with the
accommodation, which would deny contraception access to women whose
bosses want to make this important and intimate decision for them.
The Order also directs the Attorney General to issue guidance to all
agencies on ``religious liberty protections in Federal law.'' This
language is concerning as it opens the door for the Attorney General to
eliminate protections in federal rules and regulations for LGBT
individuals and minorities. The Attorney General's duty is to enforce
and protect the civil rights and constitutional freedoms of all
Americans. This Order's direction for guidance that could change the
implementation of critical rules affording equal treatment for all in
America is a disturbing step backward. For example, there are rules
protecting same-sex spouses' ability to visit their partners in the
hospital and ensuring that LGBT individuals have equal access to
federally funded emergency housing. Under this provision, however, new
religious exemptions may be implemented to weaken these protections.
Shelters could turn LGBT families away because of who they love. As the
Human Rights Campaign has described, this provision opens the door to a
``license to discriminate'' even where basic services funded with
government dollars are at stake.
This Executive Order opens the door to weakening the enforcement of
longstanding tax laws against individuals, houses of worship, and other
religious organizations engaging in political campaign speech. Notably,
the Johnson Amendment was proposed by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1954 and is
part of our tax code. It prohibits 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entities,
including churches, from engaging in political campaign activity on
behalf of candidates. The Johnson Amendment does not bar nonpartisan
voter education and registration activities, which are important to a
strong democracy, nor does it prohibit speech on moral issues.
The President has promised to repeal the Johnson Amendment. Doing so
could have a significant impact on political campaign fundraising and
would change the current tax consideration for certain political
contributions. While repeal of the Johnson Amendment is something only
Congress has the power to do, this Executive Order clearly indicates
the administration's intention to undermine the separation
[[Page S2920]]
between tax-exempt charities and religious organizations and political
campaign activity in the tax code.
It remains to be seen whether the President and the administration
will implement this Order in ways that will realize our worst fears
about the kind of discrimination it could enable. But we know for
certain that this Order represents a disturbing statement of principles
and values. Instead of seeking even greater protections from
discrimination, this administration has set the stage to undermine
protections, especially for women and LGBT individuals. That is not
what our country stands for.
Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting
the bill I am introducing today to nullify this troubling Executive
Order.
Thank you. I yield the floor.
____________________