[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 91 (Thursday, May 25, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3215-S3223]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Franken):
S. 1237. A bill to amend title 11 of the United States Code to
clarify the rule allowing discharge as a nonpriority claim of
governmental claims arising from the disposition of farm assets under
chapter 12 bankruptcies; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. 1237
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 ``Family Farmer Bankruptcy
Clarification Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF RULE ALLOWING DISCHARGE TO
GOVERNMENTAL CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE
DISPOSITION OF FARM ASSETS UNDER CHAPTER 12
BANKRUPTCIES.
(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 12 of title 11,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 1232. Claim by a governmental unit based on the
disposition of property used in a farming operation
``(a) Any unsecured claim of a governmental unit against
the debtor or the estate that arises before the filing of the
petition, or that arises after the filing of the petition and
before the debtor's discharge under section 1228, as a result
of the sale, transfer, exchange, or other disposition of any
property used in the debtor's farming operation--
``(1) shall be treated as an unsecured claim arising before
the date on which the petition is filed;
``(2) shall not be entitled to priority under section 507;
``(3) shall be provided for under a plan; and
``(4) shall be discharged in accordance with section 1228.
``(b) For purposes of applying sections 1225(a)(4),
1228(b)(2), and 1229(b)(1) to a claim described in subsection
(a) of this section, the amount that would be paid on such
claim if the estate of the debtor were liquidated in a case
under chapter 7 of this title shall be the amount that would
be paid by the estate in a chapter 7 case if the claim were
an unsecured claim arising before the date on which the
petition was filed and were not entitled to priority under
section 507.
``(c) For purposes of applying sections 523(a), 1228(a)(2),
and 1228(c)(2) to a claim described in subsection (a) of this
section, the claim shall not be treated as a claim of a kind
specified in section 523(a)(1).
``(d)(1) A governmental unit may file a proof of claim for
a claim described in subsection (a) that arises after the
date on which the petition is filed.
``(2) If a debtor files a tax return after the filing of
the petition for a period in which a claim described in
subsection (a) arises, and the claim relates to the tax
return, the debtor shall serve notice of the claim on the
governmental unit charged with the responsibility for the
collection of the tax at the address and in the manner
designated in section 505(b)(1). Notice under this paragraph
shall state that the debtor has filed a petition under this
chapter, state the name and location of the court in which
the case under this chapter is pending, state the amount of
the claim, and include a copy of the filed tax return and
documentation supporting the calculation of the claim.
``(3) If notice of a claim has been served on the
governmental unit in accordance with paragraph (2), the
governmental unit may file a proof of claim not later than
180 days after the date on which such notice was served. If
the governmental unit has not filed a timely proof of the
claim, the debtor or trustee may file proof of the claim that
is consistent with the notice served under paragraph (2). If
a proof of claim is filed by the debtor or trustee under this
paragraph, the governmental unit may not amend the proof of
claim.
[[Page S3216]]
``(4) A claim filed under this subsection shall be
determined and shall be allowed under subsection (a), (b), or
(c) of section 502, or disallowed under subsection (d) or (e)
of section 502, in the same manner as if the claim had arisen
immediately before the date of the filing of the petition.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 12 of title 11,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in section 1222(a)--
(i) in paragraph (2), by striking ``unless--'' and all that
follows through ``the holder'' and inserting ``unless the
holder'';
(ii) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(iii) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) subject to section 1232, provide for the treatment of
any claim by a governmental unit of a kind described in
section 1232(a).'';
(B) in section 1228--
(i) in subsection (a)--
(I) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
(aa) by inserting a comma after ``all debts provided for by
the plan''; and
(bb) by inserting a comma after ``allowed under section 503
of this title''; and
(II) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the kind'' and all
that follows and inserting ``a kind specified in section
523(a) of this title, except as provided in section
1232(c).''; and
(ii) in subsection (c)(2), by inserting ``, except as
provided in section 1232(c)'' before the period at the end;
and
(C) in section 1229(a)--
(i) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(ii) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) provide for the payment of a claim described in
section 1232(a) that arose after the date on which the
petition was filed.''.
(2) Table of sections.--The table of sections for
subchapter II of chapter 12 of title 11, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``1232. Claim by a governmental unit based on the disposition of
property used in a farming operation.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to any bankruptcy case that--
(1) is pending on the date of enactment of this Act and
relating to which an order of discharge under section 1228 of
title 11, United States Code, has not been entered; or
(2) commences on or after the date of enactment of this
Act.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with
Senator Franken, the Family Farmer Bankruptcy Clarification Act of
2017. I thank Senator Franken for supporting and working with me, since
the 112th Congress, on this important bill to help our Nation's family
farmers.
This bipartisan bill addresses the 2012 United States Supreme Court
case Hall v. United States. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled
a provision that I authored in the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and
Consumer Protection Act did not accomplish what we in Congress
intended. The Family Farmer Bankruptcy Clarification Act of 2017
corrects this unfortunate result and restores Congress's original
intent. The bill clarifies that bankrupt family farmers reorganizing
their debts, under chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code, may treat capital
gains taxes owed to the government, arising from the sale of farm
assets during the bankruptcy, as general unsecured claims. This bill
will give family farmers a chance to reorganize successfully and remove
the Internal Revenue Service's veto power over a plan's confirmation.
Congress created chapter 12 in 1986 as a temporary measure to provide
a specialized bankruptcy process for family farmers. In 2005, Congress
made chapter 12 a permanent part of the bankruptcy code. Between 1986
and 2005, we learned what worked and did not work for family farmers
reorganizing under chapter 12. In particular, family farmers faced
serious problems when they needed to sell land to fund their
reorganization plan. For example, a family farmer might sell portions
of the farm in order to generate cash and pay creditors. Unfortunately,
in most of these cases, the family farmer is selling land with a low
cost basis, because it has likely been held in the family for a very
long time. As a result, the family farmer gets hit with a substantial
capital gains tax, which is owed to the Internal Revenue Service.
Under the bankruptcy code's priorities structure for claims, taxes
owed to the IRS must be paid in full, unless the IRS agrees otherwise.
This creates problems for the family farmer who needs cash to pay
creditors and reorganize. Since the IRS has the ability to require full
payment, it essentially holds veto power over the confirmation of a
family farmer's chapter 12 plan. In many instances, the effect is that
a family farmer will not be able to have a plan confirmed. This is a
harsh result and does not make sense if the goal is to give family
farmers a fresh start. Recognizing this problem, Congress amended the
bankruptcy code in 2005 to provide that in these limited and particular
situations, the taxes owed to the IRS would be stripped of their
priority and treated as general unsecured debt. This removed the
government's veto power over plan confirmation and paved the way for
family farmers to reorganize under chapter 12.
Unfortunately, in Hall v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that
despite Congress's express goal of helping family farmers, the language
we used failed to accomplish the intended result. To be clear, the Hall
case was about statutory interpretation. There is no question about
what Congress was trying to do; rather, the question is, ``Did Congress
use the correct language?'' My goal, along with others at the time, was
to relieve family farmers from having their reorganization plans fail
because of certain tax liabilities owed to the government. Justice
Breyer noted this point in his dissent: ``Congress was concerned about
the effect on the farmer of collecting capital gains tax debts that
arose during (and were connected with) the Chapter 12 proceedings
themselves. . . . The majority does not deny the importance of
Congress' objective. Rather, it feels compelled to hold that Congress
put the Amendment in the wrong place.'' Hall v. United States, 132
S.Ct. 1882, 1897 (2012) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (internal citations
and quotations omitted).
As a result of the Hall case, family farmers facing bankruptcy now
find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place. The rules have
changed and must be corrected in order to provide certainty and clarity
in the law. The Family Farmer Bankruptcy Clarification Act of 2017 does
this and provides the help needed for family farmers.
This bill adds a new section 1232 to the bankruptcy code. This new
section, along with other conforming changes, gives guidance and
certainty to debtors, practitioners, and courts as to how these claims
are to be treated during bankruptcy. I'm pleased that the bill we're
introducing today will help family farmers who are facing hard times.
In the wake of the Hall decision, this bill ensures that what
Congress sought to do in 2005 actually occurs. The Family Farmer
Bankruptcy Clarification Act of 2017 provides the help that may one day
be needed for the hard working family farmers across our great Nation.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
Blumenthal, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Rounds, and Mr. Merkley):
S. 1238. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
increase and make permanent the exclusion for benefits provided to
volunteer firefighters and emergency medical responders; to the
Committee on Finance.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Cardin, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 1239. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
the rules applicable to length of service award plans; to the Committee
on Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce two bills that will
benefit the brave women and men who volunteer at our local firehouses:
the Volunteer Responder Incentive Protection Act and the Volunteer
Firefighters' Length of Service Award Program Cap Adjustment Priority
Act. I am pleased to be joined by my friend and colleague from
Maryland, Senator Cardin, in reintroducing this bipartisan legislation.
Across our nation, volunteer firefighters play a critical role in
helping to ensure the safety of our communities and the well-being of
our neighbors. The State of Maine, for example, has approximately
11,000 firefighters in more than 400 departments. Because Maine is a
largely rural state, more than 90 percent of those firefighters are
volunteers.
Without these public-spirited citizens, many communities would be
unable to provide emergency services protection at all, while others
would be forced to raise local taxes to pay salaries and benefits for
full- or part-time
[[Page S3217]]
staff. Often, communities seek to recruit and retain volunteers by
offering modest benefits. The bills we are introducing today would
support these efforts by helping to ensure that nominal benefits to
volunteers are not treated as regular employee compensation.
The Volunteer Responder Incentive Protection Act would allow
communities to provide volunteer firefighters and EMS workers with up
to $600 per year of property tax reductions or other incentives,
without those benefits being subject to federal income tax and
withholding. This would ease the administrative burden that local
departments sometimes face when they reward their volunteers. We also
want to help first responders save for retirement. For years, local and
state governments have provided their volunteer firefighters and EMS
personnel with different forms of benefits, including Length of Service
Award Programs, commonly known as LOSAPs. These are pension-like
benefits for volunteer emergency responders.
Our second bill, the LOSAP Cap Act, would help communities recruit
and retain volunteer firefighters by increasing the annual cap on
contributions to their retirement accounts to $6,000, and allowing for
adjustments for inflation.
As we begin the complicated process of reforming our nation's tax
code, I believe we should take care to protect those who serve this
country with such bravery. That is why Senator Cardin and I have
introduced these bills today, and I urge my colleagues to join us in
supporting them.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Franken, Mr.
Blumenthal, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Warren, Mr. Reed, Mr. Wyden, Ms.
Baldwin, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Kaine, and Mr. Murphy):
S. 1262. A bill to amend title 11, United States Code, with respect
to certain exceptions to discharge in bankruptcy; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. DURBIN. 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. 1262
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 ``Fairness for Struggling
Students Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. EXCEPTIONS TO DISCHARGE.
Section 523(a)(8) of title 11, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``dependents, for'' and all that follows
through the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting
``dependents, for an educational benefit overpayment or loan
made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit or made
under any program funded in whole or in part by a
governmental unit or an obligation to repay funds received
from a governmental unit as an educational benefit,
scholarship, or stipend;''.
Mr. DURBIN. Today I am reintroducing the Fairness for Struggling
Students Act. This bill takes an important step toward addressing the
student debt crisis in America. It would once again treat private
student loans like nearly all other forms of private unsecured debt and
permit these loans to be discharged in bankruptcy.
Student loan debt has reached an astronomical $1.4 trillion--more
than double what it was in 2008. Student loan debt is now the second
largest form of consumer debt in America, after only mortgage debt. The
balance of student loan debt is larger than credit card and auto loan
debt. Currently, around 44 million borrowers hold student loan debt,
with an average balance of roughly $30,000.
This past weekend, the New York Times published an editorial that
clearly and concisely describes the student debt crisis that we face.
The editorial is titled ``Student Debt's Grip on the Economy,'' and I
ask consent to place it into the Record. As the editorial points out,
``student debt has become a drag on graduates' hopes and a threat to
economic growth.''
This editorial reports that as college costs have continued to
increase, wages have not kept pace. Students continue to take out
larger amounts in loans to afford the rising costs of college. This
crushing student loan debt has forced young people to delay making
important life decisions like getting married and economic investments
such as home ownership. We are also seeing an increase in the wealth
gap between college graduates with student debt and those without
student debt. The burdens of student debt are threatening the notion
that being college-educated is enough to get ahead. As the editorial
notes, ``the fallout from these burdens, afflicting those who are
supposedly best prepared to face and shape the future, is not only a
personal financial issue but also a social and economic one.''
These burdens are even more significant for students who have taken
out private student loans. Federal student loans have fixed, affordable
interest rates, and a variety of consumer protections including
forbearance in times of economic hardship and manageable repayment
options. Private loans, on the other hand, frequently have high,
variable interest rates, and they lack the repayment options and
protections that federal loans offer. In 2013, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau reported that the outstanding private student loan
debt in America was $165 billion, at least $8 billion of which was then
in default. As it turns out, many students were steered into costly
private student loans by for-profit colleges, often when the students
still had eligibility for lower-cost federal loans.
One of those students is a woman named Marta, from Chicago, who wrote
to me about her story and asked me to only use her first name. Marta
came to the United States from Poland in 1994 with her family, hoping
for a better life. She is a U.S. citizen now, and has a family of her
own. As an aspiring designer, Marta wanted to enroll in a college that
would help launch her career. So after meeting a recruiter at a college
fair from the now-closing, for-profit Harrington College of Art and
Design, she enrolled in the fall of 2004. At the urging of the
recruiter, she signed the enrollment paperwork and began courses. Being
the first in her family to attend college, she did not know the
difference between private and federal student loans. The recruiter
assured her that the paperwork was just part of the normal college
enrollment process.
It was only after she graduated that Marta learned that in signing
the paperwork the recruiter gave her, she had taken out a combination
of federal student loans and much riskier and more expensive private
student loans. She now has over $120,000 in student debt, the majority
of which is in private student loans. The monthly payments are
overwhelming and Marta worries about what this crushing debt means for
her family's future. Thanks to high-interest rates, her private loans
continue to grow despite doing her best to make her payments.
Marta enrolled in college to get a good career and widen her future
opportunities. But she has been left with enormous debt from a failed
for-profit college. And now she is struggling and needs a fair chance
to get back on her feet. There are stories like Marta's in every corner
of America. And it's time to do something about it.
Today I am reintroducing the Fairness for Struggling Students Act.
This bill would restore the bankruptcy code's pre-2005 treatment of
private student loans.
Since 2005, private student loans have enjoyed a privileged status
under the bankruptcy code: they cannot be discharged in bankruptcy
except in extremely limited circumstances. Only a few other types of
private unsecured debt cannot be discharged in bankruptcy--criminal
fines, child support, back taxes and alimony. In contrast, nearly all
types of private unsecured debt, including credit card and medical
debt, are dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Congress had no good reason to make private student loans non-
dischargeable in 2005. It was a provision that was quietly slipped into
a broader bankruptcy reform bill with little debate and no
justification. There was no evidence that private student loan
borrowers had abused the bankruptcy system to avoid repayment before
2005. But, since the law changed in 2005, lenders have been
incentivized to extend expensive private student loans to students that
the students cannot repay and that they can never escape. This is
overwhelming for students and an impairment on our overall economy.
The Fairness for Struggling Students Act will make important relief
available to students being crushed by private student loan debt, and
will discourage private lenders from extending risky loans.
[[Page S3218]]
This bill is supported by a large coalition of educational, student,
civil rights and consumer organizations including the American
Association of Community Colleges, American Association of State
Colleges and Universities, American Association of University Women,
American Council on Education, American Federation of Teachers,
Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, Center for
Responsible Lending, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America,
Consumers Union, Demos, Empire Justice Center, NAACP, National
Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, National Consumer Law
Center (on behalf of its low income clients), National Association of
College Admission Counseling, National Association of Consumer
Advocates, National Association of Student Financial Aid
Administrators, National Consumers League, Public Citizen, The
Institute for College Access and Success, UNCF, and Young Invincibles.
I want to thank the cosponsors of this bill, Senators Whitehouse,
Franken, Blumenthal, Hirono, Warren, Reed, Wyden, Baldwin, Hassan,
Kaine, and Murphy for their support, and I hope more of my colleagues
will join us.
This is just one step of what we need to do to get control of the
student debt crisis in our country. But it is a critical step, and it
is long overdue. Let's give struggling students a fair chance,
______
By Ms. COLLINS:
S. 1264. A bill to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to allow
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to exempt certain depository
institutions from certain legal requirements, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to introduce the Community Bank
Sensible Regulation Act of 2017, a bill that would allow financial
regulators to exempt community banks from unnecessary and unduly
burdensome requirements, if doing so is in the public interest. My bill
would provide this authority to the FDIC, the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency, and the Federal Reserve and would apply to financial
institutions with less than $10 billion in assets.
The aim of my legislation is to allow the financial regulators to
exempt community banks from highly complex regulations designed to
protect our financial system from systemic risks that would arise from
the failure of larger banks. All banks, large and small, should be
well-capitalized and properly regulated, but that does not mean that
our financial regulators must impose a ``one size fits all'' regulatory
regime across the board without regard to the risks posed to the
financial system by banks with fundamentally different business models
and of vastly different sizes.
Some regulations that are appropriate or essential for larger banks
may make no sense when applied to community banks. For example, current
law requires community banks to demonstrate that they are in compliance
with the Volcker Rule--which restricts proprietary trading and hedge
fund investments by banks--even though community banks rarely engage in
such trading. Even so, community banks must shoulder the burden of
complying with this complex regulation. My bill would allow the
regulators to exempt community banks from the Volcker Rule.
As the GAO has noted, smaller banks are ``disproportionately affected
by increased regulation, because they are less able to absorb
additional costs.'' These costs are significant. According to industry
representatives, the cost of complying with regulations absorbs 12
percent of total bank operating expenses, and is two-and-a-half times
greater for small banks than for large banks.
The cost of regulation puts community banks at a competitive
disadvantage vis-a-vis larger banks. Over the past two decades, the
share of the U.S. banking industry represented by community banks has
declined from 40 percent to just 18 percent. Over the same period, the
share of the market represented by the five largest banks has grown
from roughly 18 percent to 46 percent. I am concerned that unnecessary
regulation will accelerate these trends, and ironically, contribute to
the further consolidation of the banking industry into a handful of
``too big to fail'' banks.
Community banks play an essential role in meeting the credit needs of
their customers, particularly small businesses, homeowners, and
farmers. Although community banks represent just 18 percent of total
banking assets, they are responsible for half of our nation's small
business loans. With small business formation at generational lows, it
is essential that we preserve and protect their access to credit, as
they are the major driver of job creation in our country. In addition,
community banks provide three-fourths of our nation's agricultural
loans, a line of finance that requires highly specialized knowledge of
farming and a long-term perspective suited to agricultural cycles.
Regulators should be able to tailor their regulations to take the
distinctive nature of community banks into account. My bill would allow
regulators to exempt community banks from unnecessary and burdensome
regulations where it is in the public interest to do so. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
______
By Mr. DAINES (for himself and Mr. Peters):
S. 1268. A bill to amend parts B and E of title IV of the Social
Security Act to allow States to provide foster care maintenance
payments for children with parents in a licensed residential family-
based treatment facility for substance abuse and to reauthorize grants
to improve the well-being of families affected by substance abuse; to
the Committee on Finance.
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. 1268
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 ``Child Protection and Family
Support Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. FOSTER CARE MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS FOR CHILDREN WITH
PARENTS IN A LICENSED RESIDENTIAL FAMILY-BASED
TREATMENT FACILITY FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE.
(a) In General.--Section 472 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 672) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)(C), by striking ``or'' and
inserting ``, with a parent residing in a licensed
residential family-based treatment facility, but only to the
extent permitted under subsection (j), or in a''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Children Placed With a Parent Residing in a Licensed
Residential Family-Based Treatment Facility for Substance
Abuse.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding the preceding provisions
of this section, a child who is eligible for foster care
maintenance payments under this section, or who would be
eligible for the payments if the eligibility were determined
without regard to paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) of subsection
(a), shall be eligible for the payments for a period of not
more than 12 months during which the child is placed with a
parent who is in a licensed residential family-based
treatment facility for substance abuse, but only if--
``(A) the recommendation for the placement is specified in
the child's case plan before the placement;
``(B) the treatment facility provides, as part of the
treatment for substance abuse, parenting skills training,
parent education, and individual and family counseling; and
``(C) the substance abuse treatment, parenting skills
training, parent education, and individual and family
counseling is provided under an organizational structure and
treatment framework that involves understanding, recognizing,
and responding to the effects of all types of trauma and in
accordance with recognized principles of a trauma-informed
approach and trauma-specific interventions to address the
consequences of trauma and facilitate healing.
``(2) Application.--With respect to children for whom
foster care maintenance payments are made under paragraph
(1), only the children who satisfy the requirements of
paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) of subsection (a) shall be
considered to be children with respect to whom foster care
maintenance payments are made under this section for purposes
of subsection (h) or section 473(b)(3)(B).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 474(a)(1) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 674(a)(1)) is amended by inserting
``subject to section 472(j),'' before ``an amount equal to
the Federal''.
SEC. 3. ENHANCEMENTS TO GRANTS TO IMPROVE WELL-BEING OF
FAMILIES AFFECTED BY SUBSTANCE ABUSE.
Section 437(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
629g(f)) is amended--
[[Page S3219]]
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Increase the
Well-being of, and to Improve the Permanency Outcomes for,
Children Affected by'' and inserting ``Implement IV-E
Prevention Services, and Improve the Well-Being of, and
Improve Permanency Outcomes for, Children and Families
Affected by Methamphetamine, Heroin, Opioids, and Other'';
(2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) Regional partnership defined.--In this subsection,
the term `regional partnership' means a collaborative
agreement (which may be established on an interstate, State,
or intrastate basis) entered into by the following:
``(A) Mandatory partners for all partnership grants.--
``(i) The State child welfare agency that is responsible
for the administration of the State plan under this part and
part E.
``(ii) The State agency responsible for administering the
substance abuse prevention and treatment block grant provided
under subpart II of part B of title XIX of the Public Health
Service Act.
``(B) Mandatory partners for partnership grants proposing
to serve children in out-of-home placements.--If the
partnership proposes to serve children in out-of-home
placements, the Juvenile Court or Administrative Office of
the Court that is most appropriate to oversee the
administration of court programs in the region to address the
population of families who come to the attention of the court
due to child abuse or neglect.
``(C) Optional partners.--At the option of the partnership,
any of the following:
``(i) An Indian tribe or tribal consortium.
``(ii) Nonprofit child welfare service providers.
``(iii) For-profit child welfare service providers.
``(iv) Community health service providers, including
substance abuse treatment providers.
``(v) Community mental health providers.
``(vi) Local law enforcement agencies.
``(vii) School personnel.
``(viii) Tribal child welfare agencies (or a consortia of
the agencies).
``(ix) Any other providers, agencies, personnel, officials,
or entities that are related to the provision of child and
family services under a State plan approved under this
subpart.
``(D) Exception for regional partnerships where the lead
applicant is an indian tribe or tribal consortia.--If an
Indian tribe or tribal consortium enters into a regional
partnership for purposes of this subsection, the Indian tribe
or tribal consortium--
``(i) may (but is not required to) include the State child
welfare agency as a partner in the collaborative agreement;
``(ii) may not enter into a collaborative agreement only
with tribal child welfare agencies (or a consortium of the
agencies); and
``(iii) if the condition described in paragraph (2)(B)
applies, may include tribal court organizations in lieu of
other judicial partners.'';
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``2012 through 2016'' and inserting ``2018
through 2022''; and
(ii) by striking ``$500,000 and not more than $1,000,000''
and inserting ``$250,000 and not more than $1,000,000'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in the subparagraph heading, by inserting ``;
planning'' after ``approval'';
(ii) in clause (i), by striking ``clause (ii)'' and
inserting ``clauses (ii) and (iii)''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) Sufficient planning.--A grant awarded under this
subsection shall be disbursed in 2 phases: a planning phase
(not to exceed 2 years); and an implementation phase. The
total disbursement to a grantee for the planning phase may
not exceed $250,000, and may not exceed the total anticipated
funding for the implementation phase.''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Limitation on payment for a fiscal year.--No payment
shall be made under subparagraph (A) or (C) for a fiscal year
until the Secretary determines that the eligible partnership
has made sufficient progress in meeting the goals of the
grant and that the members of the eligible partnership are
coordinating to a reasonable degree with the other members of
the eligible partnership.'';
(4) in paragraph (4)--
(A) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in clause (i), by inserting ``, parents, and families''
after ``children'';
(ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``safety and permanence
for such children; and'' and inserting ``safe, permanent
caregiving relationships for the children;'';
(iii) in clause (iii), by striking ``or'' and inserting
``increase reunification rates for children who have been
placed in out of home care, or decrease''; and
(iv) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (v) and
inserting after clause (ii) the following:
``(iii) improve the substance abuse treatment outcomes for
parents including retention in treatment and successful
completion of treatment;
``(iv) facilitate the implementation, delivery, and
effectiveness of prevention services and programs under
section 471(e); and'';
(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``where
appropriate,''; and
(C) by striking subparagraphs (E) and (F) and inserting the
following:
``(E) A description of a plan for sustaining the services
provided by or activities funded under the grant after the
conclusion of the grant period, including through the use of
prevention services and programs under section 471(e) and
other funds provided to the State for child welfare and
substance abuse prevention and treatment services.
``(F) Additional information needed by the Secretary to
determine that the proposed activities and implementation
will be consistent with research or evaluations showing which
practices and approaches are most effective.'';
(5) in paragraph (5)(A), by striking ``abuse treatment''
and inserting ``use disorder treatment including medication
assisted treatment and in-home substance abuse disorder
treatment and recovery'';
(6) in paragraph (7)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C); and
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E)
and inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
``(D) demonstrate a track record of successful
collaboration among child welfare, substance abuse disorder
treatment and mental health agencies; and'';
(7) in paragraph (8)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``establish indicators that will be'' and
inserting ``review indicators that are''; and
(ii) by striking ``in using funds made available under such
grants to achieve the purpose of this subsection'' and
inserting ``and establish a set of core indicators related to
child safety, parental recovery, parenting capacity, and
family well-being. In developing the core indicators, to the
extent possible, indicators shall be made consistent with the
outcome measures described in section 471(e)(6)'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ``base
the performance measures on lessons learned from prior rounds
of regional partnership grants under this subsection, and''
before ``consult''; and
(ii) by striking clauses (iii) and (iv) and inserting the
following:
``(iii) Other stakeholders or constituencies as determined
by the Secretary.'';
(8) in paragraph (9)(A), by striking clause (i) and
inserting the following:
``(i) Semiannual reports.--Not later than September 30 of
each fiscal year in which a recipient of a grant under this
subsection is paid funds under the grant, and every 6 months
thereafter, the grant recipient shall submit to the Secretary
a report on the services provided and activities carried out
during the reporting period, progress made in achieving the
goals of the program, the number of children, adults, and
families receiving services, and such additional information
as the Secretary determines is necessary. The report due not
later than September 30 of the last such fiscal year shall
include, at a minimum, data on each of the performance
indicators included in the evaluation of the regional
partnership.''; and
(9) in paragraph (10), by striking ``2012 through 2016''
and inserting ``2018 through 2022''.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on
October 1, 2017.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Lee, Mr. Blumenthal, and Mr.
Cotton):
S. 1272. A bill to preserve State, local, and tribal authorities and
private property rights with respect to unmanned aircraft systems, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Drone
Federalism Act of 2017. This good government bill provides a clear
legal framework to the modern day challenges of drone regulation and
empowers every level of government to issue reasonable restrictions on
drone operations. I thank Senators Lee, Blumenthal, and Cotton for
joining me on this bill, and I appreciate their support.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S3219, May 25, 2017, in the third column, the following
appears: Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Drone
Federalism Act of 2017.
The online Record has been corrected to read: Mrs. FEINSTEIN.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Drone Federalism Act
of 2017.
========================= END NOTE =========================
In recent years, small unmanned aircraft have emerged as a
transformative new technology. These devices--more commonly known as
drones--are highly capable, commercially available, and operable even
by novice consumers.
The way that drones are flown in the daily life of our communities
and in such great numbers has raised new challenges for safety,
privacy, and security that demand cooperation between the federal,
state, and local governments.
Today, drone operations present an astounding array of challenges. In
just two years, over 2,500 drone incidents have been reported to the
Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA. The most recent year of data,
from October 2015 to October 2016, saw the number of incidents surge
166% over the prior year. In addition, there have been some
[[Page S3220]]
alarming reports. On February 26th, 2017, a drone crashed through the
27th floor window of a Manhattan apartment building in New York City.
The next month, on March 28th, a drone crashed through the 23rd floor
window of City Hall in Buffalo, New York. Drones have repeatedly
interfered with medical helicopters. On May 1st, 2016, a medevac
helicopter trying to land at Florida Hospital East in Orlando was
forced to abort its initial landing because of a drone. On November 14,
2015, a helicopter leaving children's hospital in St. Louis, Missouri
had to take evasive action to avoid a drone, banking 60 degrees. Drones
also interfere with emergency wild fire fighting. On April 30, 2017,
multiple drones filming the Opera fire in Riverside, California forced
firefighting helicopters to suspend operations. This happened eight
times in 2015, and another eight times in 2016, in California alone.
Drones have also crashed into the Golden Gate Bridge, including twice
last month. On April 1st, a drone flown almost two miles beyond line of
site fell from the sky into a lane of traffic, only a few feet from the
crowded sidewalk. Again on April 9th, another drone flown beyond line
of site crashed one of the bridge's towers.
These incidents are occurring throughout the nation, but each state
has faced its own challenges. Half of all reported incidents came from
just five States: California, Florida, New York, Texas, and New Jersey.
In fact, one-fifth of all drone incidents reported to the FAA
occurred in California. What works for protecting urban areas will be
different than what is needed in rural areas.
The current legal framework for managing the airspace, which evolved
over a century of manned aviation, is a poor fit for these new
challenges. Drones bear little resemblance to the manned aircraft that
came before them.
First, drones intrude into the everyday life of our communities in a
way that airplanes do not. Airplanes fly into and out of airports, and
municipalities can try through zoning to minimize disruptions. Drones,
on the other hand, can take flight from any location, can hover
anonymously overhead, and are often used to film whatever aspect of
public or private life may catch the operator's interest of the
operator's.
Second, drones are seldom engaged in interstate commerce once they
have been purchased. Short communication range and limited battery life
means that commercially available drones are almost always operated
locally, and are unlikely to be operated across state lines.
Third, there are far more drones than there are airplanes. Already,
more than 750,000 drones have been registered, and the FAA anticipates
up to 4 million drones by 2020. By contrast, there are little more than
200,000 manned aircraft registered in the United States.
WHAT THE BILL DOES
The Drone Federalism Act would address the modern challenges of drone
operations and provide a clear legal framework to regulate drones. The
bill has three provisions.
First, the bill preserves the authority of State, Tribal, and local
governments to issue reasonable restrictions on the time, manner, and
place of drone operations within 200 feet of the ground or a structure.
These could include speed limits, local no-fly zones, temporary
restrictions, and prohibitions on reckless or drunk operators, for
example.
There are regulations that the FAA must issue uniformly throughout
the country to ensure the safety and efficiency of the national
airspace. This bill does not interfere with that authority. However,
the bill does require the FAA to consider legitimate state and local
interests when exercising preemption, and to respect any reasonable
additional low-altitude restrictions that state and local governments
choose to impose.
Second, the bill reaffirms that the federal government will respect
private property rights to the airspace in the immediate reaches above
a property, including at least the first 200 feet. Neither Congress nor
the FAA may authorize drone operations immediately over property
without the owner's permission.
Third, the bill promotes cooperation between the levels of government
by directing the FAA to partner with a diverse group of cities and
States to test out different approaches and report on best practices.
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS REGULATE DRONES
The Drone Federalism Act is consistent with the recent action taken
by States to regulate drone operations. In response to drone incidents
and the concerns of their communities, lawmakers throughout the country
have identified the need for a variety of new approaches to managing
drones. Indeed, at least 38 States are considering drone legislation
this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
These proposals include: definitions of harassment and voyeurism,
airport protections, penalties for interfering with emergency
responders, protections against the delivery of contraband at prisons,
bans on flights over football games, and definitions of aerial
trespass, among others.
This exercise of the laboratories of democracy is appropriate. Our
communities should not have to rely on an already overburdened federal
agency to craft specific regulatory protections for every local
context, supply on-the-ground enforcement agents, or pursue complicated
civil cases in court for every infraction. Local police should be
empowered to issue citations akin to a traffic violation for clear-cut
infractions, without having to prove an action meets a vague tort law
standards of negligence and harm. There should be no question that a
State has a right to prevent drones from interfering with emergency
responders or delivering contraband into prisons; to criminalize hit-
and-runs, voyeurism, stalking, or harassment with a drone; to allow
judges to deny drones to sex offenders.
Neither should there be any question that a State or municipality has
a right to restrict the use of drones where it would be hazardous. Just
as the federal government has banned drone operations over Federal
Parks, States should have the option to protect State parks. Just as
the Federal Government banned flights over sensitive areas, like the
entire Capital region, cities should have the option to protect schools
or other sensitive areas of their own. Just as the Federal Government
can impose temporary flight restrictions over major sporting events or
airshows, a county should have the option to protect its summer
fairgrounds or holiday parade route.
CONCLUSION
The Drone Federalism Act that I am introducing today, along with
Senators Lee, Blumenthal, and Cotton, is a proactive, affirmative
solution. It recognizes the federal interest in protecting the safety
and efficiency of the national airspace, while also respecting private
property rights, Tribal sovereignty, the powers reserved to the States
by the Tenth Amendment, and the general principle of local self-
determination.
This bill will invite the democratic participation of government at
every level, avoid the need for years of litigation about the scope of
preemption, and enable effective local enforcement. It is incumbent on
Congress to provide clarity and to guarantee all sides an equal voice
moving forward.
This bipartisan bill is the way to do that.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Tillis, and Mrs. Ernst):
S. 1276. 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 marihuana components; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act with my colleagues, Senators
Grassley, Durbin, Tillis, and Ernst.
Cannabidiol, or CBD, is a nonpsychoactive component of marijuana. In
many instances parents, after exhausting other treatment options, have
turned to CBD to as a last resort to treat their children who have
intractable epilepsy. Anecdotally, CBD has produced positive results.
However, due to existing barriers and the fact that marijuana is a
schedule I drug, rigorous research that is needed to better understand
the long-term
[[Page S3221]]
safety and efficacy of CBD as a medicine, as well as the correct dosing
and potential interaction with other medications, is lacking.
The Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act seeks to both reduce these
barriers and spur additional research to ensure that CBD and other
marijuana-derived medications are based on the most up to date
scientific evidence. It also provides a pathway for the manufacture and
distribution of FDA-approved drugs that are based on this research.
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 1 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 may include transferring the schedule
of CBD to another schedule, or removing it from the list of controlled
substances altogether. A scheduling recommendation for CBD that is
independent of marijuana 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, practitioners
and pharmaceutical companies to use a schedule II Drug Enforcement
Administration registration to conduct authorized medical research on
CBD.
Fourth, the bill allows medical schools, research institutions,
practitioners, 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. Once the FDA approves these medications, the bill
allows pharmaceutical companies to manufacture and distribute them.
Fifth, the bill allows parents who have children with intractable
epilepsy, as well as adults with intractable epilepsy, to possess and
transport CBD or other nonpsychoactive components of marijuana used to
treat this disease while research is ongoing. To do so, parents and
adults must provide documentation that they or their child have been
treated by a board-certified neurologist for at least 6 months. They
must also have documentation that the neurologist has attested that
other treatment options have been exhausted and that the potential
benefits outweigh the harms of using these nonpsychoactive components
of marijuana. The neurologist must also agree to monitor the patient
for potential adverse reactions.
Finally, because existing Federal research is severely lacking, the
bill directs the Department of Health and Human Services to expand,
intensify, and coordinate research to determine the potential medical
benefits of CBD or other marijuana-derived medications on serious
medical conditions.
The 2016 National Academy of Sciences report, titled ``The Health
Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and
Recommendations for Research'' underscored the need to reduce research
barriers, increase the supply of CBD and marijuana for research
purposes, and address existing research gaps.
The Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act seeks to do just this.
This bill is critical to helping families across the country as they
seek safe, effective medicines for serious illnesses. I hope my
colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.
______
By Mr. DAINES (for himself and Mr. Tester):
S. 1282. A bill to redesignate certain clinics of the Department of
Veterans Affairs located in Montana; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize the
commitment to duty and personal courage of three Montanans by
introducing a bill to redesignate three Department of Veterans Affairs
facilities in their honor. Through their distinguished service to our
Nation, the actions of these three gentlemen have earned the respect
and gratitude of the Treasure State.
Under this resolution, the Community Based Outpatient Clinic on
Palmer Street in Missoula will be designated in honor of David J.
Thatcher. Mr. Thatcher was an outstanding Montanan. The humble
circumstances of his upbringing in rural, eastern Montana helped him
develop a strong work ethic. In 1940, with war raging across Europe and
the clouds of war on the horizon for the United States, he enlisted in
the U.S. Army Air Corps.
Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, he volunteered to serve as a
tail gunner for a high risk mission to attack targets deep within
Japanese controlled territory. This counterattack would be known to
history as the Doolittle Raid. After finishing the bombing mission and
running low on fuel, his aircraft crash landed near the coast of China.
Mr. Thatcher was instrumental in helping the crew reach safety
following the crash and for his actions during the Doolittle Raid, he
was awarded the Silver Star. A few years later, the actor Robert Walker
portrayed Corporal Thatcher on the silver screen in ``Thirty Seconds
Over Tokyo.'' After the war, Mr. Thatcher embarked on a career with the
U.S. Postal Service and married his sweetheart Dawn. Their marriage
spanned seven decades until he passed away last June at the age of 94.
In Billings, the Community Based Outpatient Clinic on Spring Creek
Lane will be designated in honor of Dr. Joseph Medicine Crow. Dr.
Medicine Crow was an accomplished warrior and esteemed historian. He
was born on the Crow Indian Reservation in eastern Montana and traveled
across the U.S. while pursuing his education. In 1939, Dr. Medicine
Crow earned his master's degree from the University of Southern
California, becoming the first member of the Crow Tribe to attain that
credential. In 1943 he joined the United States Army. While serving as
an Army scout during World War II, Dr. Medicine Crow fulfilled the four
requirements to become a war chief. While fighting against the German
forces he led a war party, stole an enemy horse, disarmed an enemy, and
touched an enemy without killing him. Later in life he served as the
Crow tribal historian, received multiple honorary doctorate degrees,
and spoke at venues across the Nation. He was the last Crow war chief,
and his passing last April, at the age of 102, was a loss to our
Nation. For his lifetime of service to the Crow Tribe, the State of
Montana, and to United States, Dr. Medicine Crow was awarded the
Presidential Medal of Freedom.
The Billings Community Based Specialty Clinic located on Majestic
Lane will be designated in honor of Benjamin Charles Steele. Mr. Steele
is remembered by Montanans as a ranch hand, teacher, artist, and Bataan
Death March survivor. Born and raised in Montana, he joined the U.S.
Army Air Corps in 1940. After he was captured by the Japanese, Mr.
Steele's sturdy fortitude helped him endure a 66-mile trek in the
Philippines, a prisoner ship, and a forced labor camp. He was a
prisoner of war in the Pacific Theater of World War II for a total of
1,244 days. Using charcoal to sketch on concrete, he withstood the
harsh treatment in captivity and honed his artistic talents. His
artistic expressions were captured on contraband paper, and some of the
works he created in captivity were preserved and went on tour through
the Nation after the war. In August of last year, we lost a warrior-
artist when Mr. Steele passed away at his home in Montana at the age of
98.
The World War II generation produced many heroes. In 2016, Montana
lost three of our greatest heroes when Thatcher, Medicine Crow and
Steele completed their earthly tours of duty. In 2017 it is fitting
that we honor their service and their remarkable lives by naming three
Veterans Affairs facilities in their honor. Each generation of veterans
using these facilities will help keep their memories alive. Their
unique stories will inspire the future generation of warriors to defend
our
[[Page S3222]]
Nation and preserve our cherished individual liberties.
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. 1282
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS CLINICS IN MONTANA.
(a) David J. Thatcher Department of Veterans Affairs
Clinic.--
(1) Designation.--The clinic of the Department of Veterans
Affairs located at 2687 Palmer Street in Missoula, Montana,
shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known
and designated as the ``David J. Thatcher Department of
Veterans Affairs Clinic''.
(2) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
clinic referred to in paragraph (1) shall be considered to be
a reference to the David J. Thatcher Department of Veterans
Affairs Clinic.
(b) Dr. Joseph Medicine Crow Department of Veterans Affairs
Clinic.--
(1) Designation.--The clinic of the Department of Veterans
Affairs located at 1775 Spring Creek Lane in Billings,
Montana, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be
known and designated as the ``Dr. Joseph Medicine Crow
Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''.
(2) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
clinic referred to in paragraph (1) shall be considered to be
a reference to the Dr. Joseph Medicine Crow Department of
Veterans Affairs Clinic.
(3) Public display of name.--
(A) In general.--Any local public display of the name of
the clinic referred to in paragraph (1) carried out by the
United States or through the use of Federal funds shall
include the English name, Dr. Joseph Medicine Crow, and the
Crow name, Dakaak Baako, of Dr. Joseph Medicine Crow.
(B) Local display.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), a
local public display of the name of the clinic referred to in
paragraph (1) includes a display inside the clinic, on the
campus of the clinic, and in the community surrounding the
clinic, such as signs directing individuals to the clinic.
(c) Benjamin Charles Steele Department of Veterans Affairs
Clinic.--
(1) Designation.--The clinic of the Department of Veterans
Affairs located at 1766 Majestic Lane in Billings, Montana,
shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known
and designated as the ``Benjamin Charles Steele Department of
Veterans Affairs Clinic''.
(2) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
clinic referred to in paragraph (1) shall be considered to be
a reference to the Benjamin Charles Steele Department of
Veterans Affairs Clinic.
______
By Mr. FLAKE (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Moran, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Enzi, Mr. Udall, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Collins, Ms.
Klobuchar, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Reed, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Murphy, Mr.
Coons, Mr. Cardin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Heitkamp,
Mr. Brown, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Markey,
Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Paul, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Kaine, Mr. King, Mr.
Franken, Ms. Warren, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Sanders, Mr.
Tester, Mr. Warner, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Blumenthal, Mrs. Murray,
Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Donnelly, Mr.
Cassidy, Mr. Peters, Mr. Carper, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Van Hollen,
Ms. Harris, Mr. Casey, Mr. Crapo, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Daines,
Ms. Hassan, and Mr. Heller):
S. 1287. A bill to allow United States citizens and legal residents
to travel between the United States and Cuba; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am very pleased to join my friend,
the junior Senator from Arizona, in introducing the Freedom for
Americans to Travel to Cuba Act of 2017.
I will have more to say about this bill, and United States policy
toward Cuba, in the weeks and months ahead. My purpose in speaking
today is simply to point out that 55 Democratic and Republican members
of the Senate have cosponsored this bill to allow Americans to travel
to Cuba in the same way that they can travel to any other country in
the world. And based on my conversations with other Senators,
especially Republicans, I have little doubt that if we voted on this
bill today more than 60 Senators would support it.
It is indefensible that the Federal government currently restricts
American citizens and legal resident from traveling to a country 90
miles away that poses no threat to us, unless they engage in certain
activities and not others. For example, an American biologist can go to
Cuba to study threatened species of migratory birds. That same American
cannot take his family on a trip to visit Cuba's national parks. Why?
Because one is defined as scientific research and the other is defined
as tourism.
At a time when U.S. airlines and cruise ships are flying and sailing
to Cuba, does anyone here honestly think that preventing Americans from
traveling is an appropriate role of the Federal government? Why only
Cuba? Why not Venezuela? Or Russia? Or Iran, or anywhere else? It is a
vindictive, discriminatory, self-defeating vestige of a time long
passed. This bill would end these Cold War restrictions on the freedom
of Americans to travel. It would not do away with the embargo.
We are told that the Trump Administration is conducting a review of
U.S. policy toward Cuba. That is to be expected of a new
administration. We have also heard a rumor, and I hope it is only a
rumor, that in return for the votes of certain Senators or
representative on health care legislation, promises may have been made
by the White House to impose further restrictions on the normalization
of relations with Cuba. I hope that is not the case. I hope the review
produces a policy based on what is in the U.S. national security
interest and on what is in the interests of the American and Cuban
people, an overwhelming majority of whom want closer relations. And I
hope the policy reflects the bipartisan majority in Congress that
supports expanding our engagement with Cuba, as evidenced by the bill
we are introducing today.
I and others who have traveled to Cuba many times over the past 20
years, who have met with Cuban officials, with Cubans who have been
persecuted for opposing the Castro government, and with many others,
have requested meetings with top White House officials before the
review is completed and any final decisions are made.
Every one of us wants to see an end to political repression in Cuba.
The arrests and physical mistreatment of dissidents by the Cuban
government are deplorable, just as they are by other governments
including some, like Egypt's and Turkey's, whose leaders have been
feted at the White House, or, in the case of Saudi Arabia, have feted
President Trump and his family. Americans can travel freely to Egypt,
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and every other country, except Cuba.
The issue is how best to support the people of Cuba who struggle to
make ends meet, and who want to live in a country where freedom of
expression and association are protected, and where they can choose
their own leaders in a democratic manner.
Anyone who thinks that more economic pressure, or ultimatums, will
force the Cuban authorities to stop arresting political dissidents and
embrace democracy have learned nothing from history. For more than half
a century we have tried a policy of unilateral sanctions and isolation,
and it has achieved neither of those goals. Instead, it has been used
by the Cuban government as an excuse for repression to protect Cuba's
sovereignty. It has hurt the Cuban people, not the Cuban government.
And it has provided an opening for our adversaries and competitors,
like Russia and China, in this hemisphere.
Change is coming to Cuba, and we can help support that process. There
is already visible, tangible evidence that the changes in U.S. policy
initiated by President Obama are having positive effects for the Cuban
people and for our security and economic relations with Cuba, even
though critics, particularly those who have never been to Cuba, prefer
to deny it.
But most importantly, the bipartisan bill we are introducing today is
about the right of Americans, not Cubans, to travel. Any member of
Congress, especially those who have been to Cuba, should support the
right of their constituents to do so. American citizens are our best
Ambassadors to Cuba, and it is wrong for the United States government
to be imposing restrictions
[[Page S3223]]
that have no place in the law books of a free society.
____________________