[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 150 (Monday, September 18, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5776-S5796]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2810, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2810) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2018 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
McCain/Reed modified amendment No. 1003, in the nature of a
substitute.
McConnell (for McCain) amendment No. 545 (to amendment No.
1003), of a perfecting nature.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
Nomination of Makan Delrahim
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the nomination
of Makan Delrahim as the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust
Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Mr. Delrahim is someone I have known for over 15 years. He is
eminently qualified, and I have no doubt that he will make an
outstanding Assistant Attorney General.
Mr. Delrahim has a long and distinguished career within the antitrust
world. His service in this area includes service as senior staffer for
the Senate Judiciary Committee of the Antitrust Modernization
Commission and previously at the U.S. Department of Justice.
I could go on and on regarding Mr. Delrahim's accomplishments,
regarding his character and his aptitude as a lawyer, generally, and as
an antitrust lawyer, in particular. But instead of taking my word for
it, allow me to read just a little bit of the wide-ranging support Mr.
Delrahim's nomination has from both sides of the aisle. People within
the Senate and outside the Senate on both sides of the aisle have been
supportive of this nomination.
A bipartisan group of former Assistant Attorneys General for the
Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice--including AAGs for
Antitrust under President Obama, President Clinton, and President
Carter--submitted a letter expressing strong support for Mr. Delrahim's
nomination. They explained that ``Mr. Delrahim has the experience,
intelligence, judgment, and leadership skills necessary to serve as an
excellent Assistant Attorney General.''
Similarly, a bipartisan group of former Commissioners of the
Antitrust Modernization Commission, a group of well-respected, seasoned
anti-trust officials, submitted a letter supporting Mr. Delrahim's
nomination. The letter said that Delrahim will ``serve with high
distinction and be an outstanding Assistant Attorney General for
antitrust.'' The authors of this letter also ``strongly urge[d] the
Committee to look favorably upon his nomination, with the hope that the
Senate can confirm him as soon as possible.''
Because Mr. Delrahim is so well respected, his nomination is one that
has enjoyed broad bipartisan support, including broad bipartisan
support within the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I serve. He was
voted out of the committee by a vote of 19 to 1. That is not all that
common these days. Ranking Member Feinstein went out of her way to
explain that Mr. Delrahim ``will fully and fairly enforce our antitrust
laws.''
Despite this strong bipartisan support, Mr. Delrahim's nomination has
languished on the floor. In fact, the wait to confirm Makan Delrahim is
the longest for someone appointed to this
[[Page S5777]]
position in 40 years. Not since the Carter administration has a new
administration been forced to wait this long to fill the vacancy at the
Antitrust Division. President Carter's wait was largely due to the fact
that he took more than twice as long to nominate an Assistant Attorney
General for the Antitrust Division than did President Trump.
Apparently, some Democrats are still so eager to resist that they are
unwilling to allow us to confirm a nominee who many of them support.
This is unacceptable. Democrats understand that antitrust is essential
to ensuring that consumers receive the benefits of a competitive
economy: lower prices, more innovation, and more choice. You see, when
you have competition, good things happen. When you have competition, it
inevitably brings down prices, and it inevitably results in higher
quality.
In fact, last month some Democrats reiterated the importance of a
strong antitrust enforcement to our economy, and they did so by
releasing their Better Deal plan. The Democrats' plan describes the
effects that anticompetitive mergers can have, such as harming
consumers, customers, and suppliers.
Senator Klobuchar, along with several Democratic colleagues, followed
up on this plan by proposing legislation to enact some of these
policies into law. Although I don't agree with all of their proposed
solutions, I do agree with my colleagues from across the aisle that
antitrust enforcement should be a priority.
The best way to ensure that antitrust laws are being properly
prioritized is to make sure our antitrust agencies are fully staffed
and have leaders in place--leaders who have the requisite expertise and
ability; leaders who have broad bipartisan support from sitting
Senators, practitioners, and former agency leaders who know the
position and the exacting demands required by the position; leaders who
fit the description of Makan Delrahim.
Given his broad support, his impeccable qualifications, and the
importance of this position, there is no good reason to delay this
confirmation--quite to the contrary. This is a position that is neither
Republican nor Democratic. It is a position that is neither liberal nor
conservative. This position is there to advance bipartisan issues that
affect every American. And Makan Delrahim in this position at a
critical time in our Nation's history, at a critical time for antitrust
law--it is especially important that we have him in place.
Antitrust law is an area in which the United States has excelled
above and beyond what its peer nations have been able to achieve. We
developed this area of the law, and we did so with an eye toward
protecting consumers and competition itself rather than protecting
individual competitors. We have to lead, and the best way we can start
is by confirming Makan Delrahim. So I call upon the Senate to confirm
Makan Delrahim as Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division
of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.
Hurricane Irma Recovery
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the Defense bill,
but before I do, I want to give the Senate a report.
Senator Rubio and I have been together quite a bit this past week, as
Florida has not only encountered a hurricane, but this was quite
unusual in that it basically affected almost all of the State of
Florida.
Florida is a big State. If you went from Key West to Pensacola, it is
as far as going from Pensacola all the way to Chicago. That is how big
our State is. With almost 21 million people, it is the third largest
State, with 75 percent of that a population along the coast. Of course,
we know what happens when hurricanes start threatening those coasts.
This was an unusual one because it was first going to hit the east
coast of Florida. That was the track. The National Hurricane Center has
gotten quite good in their ability to project the path and the velocity
of the winds. But once it took an unexpected turn, hitting the north
coast of Cuba as a category 5, its velocity and forward motion were
reduced, and it then took a more westerly path, making landfall in the
Middle and Lower Keys of Florida, where the winds were category 3,
approaching category 4. Residents were not even let back in to see
their homes until Sunday morning.
As of now, although FEMA is present in the Lower Keys--Key West--and
in the Upper Keys--Key Largo--individual assistance and disaster teams
were still trying to get into the areas that had the biggest impact,
the areas around Big Pine Key and Marathon. It is a painfully slow
process. FEMA is having to deal with the problems in Texas and now the
enormity of the storm affecting almost all of Florida. FEMA is
stretched. But FEMA is supposed to bring emergency assistance to
people, organizations, and local governments in the aftermath of a
natural disaster. That will be a work in progress as we go on.
There are places where Senator Rubio and I have gotten personally
involved in asking FEMA to come in, areas in Lee County and Collier
County. Areas where FEMA had not visited, they now have come in--Lee
County, east of Fort Myers, and Lehigh Acres.
The little farming community of Immokalee was exceptionally torn up.
There is a great story there. The university president opened up the
fieldhouse so that a lot of the poor people in Immokalee had a place to
go if they didn't have another shelter. Indeed, they took in some 400
people. Elderly people in an apartment complex whose caregivers had
left were picked up by the sheriff and taken to the university, and the
students cared for them for 4 nights. This is a great example of
Floridians helping Floridians, which we have seen throughout.
This Senator has been all over the State, much of it with my
colleague, demonstrating that the two Senators, in a bipartisan way,
actually get along and were there to try to help the people.
First, right after the storm in the Florida Keys, we saw damage in
Key West and Boca Chica. But that was the back side of the storm. The
eye of the storm had gone farther to the east, so the damage was in the
northeastern quadrant since the most severe winds were in the Big Pine
Key and the Marathon area. The military, the Coast Guard, FEMA, and the
engineers came in immediately after the storm. Floridians helping
Floridians. Americans helping Americans.
Then Senator Rubio and I went to the Jacksonville area. Quite unusual
was that all the extra rainfall had flowed into the St. Johns River
Basin. The river had swollen, and all of that water was trying to get
its normal outlet into the Atlantic Ocean at Jacksonville. But lo and
behold, the winds covering up the entire peninsula moving northward,
now the eye over land between Tampa and Orlando and that northeastern
quadrant of those winds coming from east going west--what did it do at
Jacksonville? It pushed back all of the water that needed to get out
into the Atlantic. That, combined with the incoming high tide--what you
had was phenomenal flooding, an overflowing of the banks of the St.
Johns River in many places in the Upper St. Johns, at considerable loss
of property and considerable distress to the citizens. A good part of
downtown Jacksonville was flooded.
The next day, Senator Rubio and I ended up in a citrus grove in Lake
Wales, FL. Fifty percent of the fruit in this citrus grove was on the
ground. Farther south, 75 percent of the citrus crop was on the ground.
They can't salvage that. That is a huge percentage of the loss. So it
made Senator Rubio and me all the more determined that we are going to
try to pass an amendment to the Tax Code that would give the citrus
growers of Florida--not only because of this loss but also because of
every grove now infected by a bacteria called citrus greening that will
kill the tree in 5 years--that would give the citrus industry a chance
to start over by plowing under the grove of those diseased citrus trees
and replanting new stock that has new promise to outlast the bacteria--
at least for a number of years more than the 5 years that will kill the
tree--until we can find the cure, and we are working on that. But do
that in the IRS Code by allowing them to expense in the first year the
plowing under and replanting in order to save the citrus industry.
Senator Rubio and I were in that grove and saw all of that lost crop.
That was going to be a promising crop
[[Page S5778]]
for the first time in 10 years of declines of the citrus crop because
of the bacteria. This was going to be a good year, but we saw half of
that crop on the ground in that grove, lost, gone. Citrus crop
insurance is not going to really help them--only if it is a much
greater loss.
From there, the two of us went on to a poor part of Florida, east of
Lake Okeechobee, called Belle Glade. A lot of the residences were torn
up by the winds.
This was a hurricane whose winds affected virtually all of the
peninsula of Florida and even reached over into the panhandle as far as
Tallahassee and even other parts west.
In Belle Glade, we served a meal. Charities had come together to
bring food to hungry people because they had no power and they had no
refrigeration. It had been several days since the hurricane, and
therefore they had no food.
From there, we went to another very poor part of Florida, Immokalee,
FL, which I described earlier, which had been torn up considerably.
Whether it was what I just described or whether it was feeding poor
people in Apopka, FL, who at that point had been without power for 5
days, and they had no food because there was no refrigeration, or
whether it was going down to Lehigh Acres, where the Florida National
Guard had organized the distribution of MREs, which are meals ready to
eat, and gallons of fresh water because so many of those homes out in
Lehigh Acres, east of Fort Myers, were on water wells, and without
electricity, there were no pumps to give them water--there are so many
things that we often take for granted. If power is taken away, you
suffer not only because of the 90 degree-plus heat and humidity but
also because you can't even get any water because you are on a water
well.
It was a privilege to be there with the Florida National Guard,
handing out food, handing out water, and talking to those local
residents who are living paycheck to paycheck--and now they have no
paycheck. Where is the FEMA assistant to help them? Because there is no
power, they can't go online to apply for individual assistance. In
fact, they can't pick up the phone because of the intermittent cell
service. Even if they could get a cell signal, they couldn't get
through to the FEMA number. That is why we wanted the FEMA
representatives to come in, and fortunately, just yesterday, they
finally did come in.
It has been quite a couple of weeks--first, anticipating the storm
coming in and getting all of the emergency operation centers ready.
Fortunately, people obeyed the evacuation orders. It was estimated that
out of the population of almost 100,000 in the Keys, there were only
10,000 left. That was a huge evacuation. Those folks did not get in to
find out what was left of their homes until yesterday. You can imagine,
a week after the storm had hit--the weekend before the Keys--all of
that water was in there, setting in with the heat and the humidity, the
mold and the mildew. You can imagine the mess, the cleanup.
All the while, FEMA has to worry about Texas, now Florida, and maybe
another hurricane that is going to come up. It looks as though it is
going to turn out to sea but is still going to have some of the wind
effects along the northeast Atlantic Coast.
Floridians helping Floridians--and then there was a great, great
tragedy that occurred 4 days after the hurricane. Why there is not a
requirement that every nursing home or assisted living facility, an
ALF, have a generator not only for power, for lights, but have a
generator capacity that will run air conditioning units--I think this
is going to be the subject of great debate that I hope will change that
requirement in the State of Florida because eight people died. Eight
people died in a nursing home right across the street from a major
hospital in Hollywood, FL--eight frail elderly, from ages 70 to 99--
eight needless deaths as a result. A criminal investigation is
underway.
All the phone calls that had been made that were not answered, both
to the government as well as to the power company, as reported by the
press, specifically a Miami television station--we don't know all the
facts; they will come out in the criminal investigation. But it is
inexcusable that eight frail, elderly people would die from heat
exhaustion by being left so that their condition deteriorated over the
course of 3 or 4 days.
What is wrong with a regulatory scheme that does not have a backup
generator that would kick in when, in fact, the hospital right across
the street had one? What was the disconnect there? Why did it take days
and days until 911 was called? We will find out in this great tragedy.
I can tell you, the Miami Herald had done a series, over the last
couple of years, of three investigative pieces, which pointed out that
these ALFs and these nursing homes had not been properly managed or
regulated by the State of Florida. That is to be determined.
Hurricane Irma is just another reminder that we are going to confront
huge natural occurrences and maybe, just maybe, people will realize
there is something to the fact that the Earth is getting hotter.
Because of that, two-thirds of the Earth is covered by oceans, with the
oceans absorbing 90 percent of that heat. What happens to water when it
is heated? It expands. Thus, the sea levels are rising.
Mr. President, as we turn to this Defense bill, this is an issue of
national security. As Secretary of Defense Mattis has said, ``Climate
change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops
are operating today.''
Maybe we should pay attention to issues like those I have just
described in Florida or maybe in Texas. Or what about tornadoes causing
damage to military depots in Georgia? Or what about the severe heat
canceling military training and hail storms damaging aircraft in Texas?
What about the coastal erosion, not only in Florida but also
threatening early-warning radar in Alaska? What about the wildfires
causing ranges to be closed and the flooding that we saw in not only
Texas but also the flooding damaging military logistics rail in
Louisiana and affecting warehouses containing hazardous materials in
Virginia?
That is why, in this version of the Defense bill that we will pass
today, there is a provision that this Senator had something to do with,
which calls for the Defense Department to conduct a comprehensive
assessment of the threats to the training and readiness of our Armed
Forces and the military infrastructure caused by climate-related
events.
It is critical that we recognize the threat so we will ensure that
our forces and installations are resilient enough to withstand and
quickly recover from all of these natural disasters that we have been
talking about. Not only must we ensure that our military infrastructure
is resilient, we must also ensure that it provides our warfighters with
the space they need to train and the technology they need to stay ahead
of our adversaries.
I have opined on this subject over and over in speeches to the
Senate. I have opined over and over about the Gulf Test and Training
Range that the Air Force needs to make huge investments in for the
precise measurements of all of our sophisticated weapons and our
systems.
I thank Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed for their good work
on the bill. It begins to address some of the training and readiness
shortfalls in our military. I look forward to continuing to discuss
this.
I yield the floor.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is
recognized.
Thanking the Senior Senator from Florida
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, let me once again thank my friend and
colleague from Florida. There is no one--no one--who has defended his
State more diligently, more assiduously, more effectively than the
senior Senator from the State of Florida. I know there are close to 20
million people in Florida who are grateful, as are all of us.
Thank you.
Mr. President, we will vote today on the final passage of NDAA. I am
pleased with the bipartisan manner in which the Senate has worked on
this important legislation. Senators McCain and Reed managed the bill
with great skill. I commend them for their bipartisan work on this
important legislation.
[[Page S5779]]
Healthcare
Mr. President, I am going to use the rest of my time to address
something that is not so bipartisan. It is terribly partisan, and that
is the issue of healthcare. I hope the American people listen closely.
After a few months of lying dormant, TrumpCare is back, and it is
meaner than ever. TrumpCare now lives under the name of Cassidy-Graham.
Guess what. It is another bill that would drastically cut back on
healthcare funding for Americans who need it most.
My colleagues, my fellow Americans, this is a red-alert moment for
the entire country. Our healthcare system again is threatened by a
hastily constructed piece of legislation, put together in a back room
by only one party--no CBO score, no committee process, not a single
hearing. Everyone is totally in the dark about the effects of this
bill, yet there is an effort to rush it forward.
This Frankenstein monster of a bill that would harm so many Americans
keeps coming back and back, and somehow each time it has managed to get
worse.
Here is what we know the new TrumpCare bill would do. It would roll
back protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. It would
allow States to impose burdensome requirements as a condition on
Medicaid coverage. It would defund Planned Parenthood, stripping
millions of women of their right to access affordable healthcare. Most
crucially, the new TrumpCare would plunge a dagger deep into the heart
of Medicaid, immediately ending Medicaid expansion and establishing a
per capita cap on Medicaid spending. That jeopardizes coverage for 11
million Americans and puts at great risk the coverage and affordability
of insurance for the 12 million who buy insurance on the marketplaces.
It would take the money used for Medicaid expansion and subsidies and
block-grant it to the States, imposing a massive cut on funding that
helps so many Americans well into the middle class.
The term ``block grants'' may sound harmless, but in practice they
are anything but. Right now, our healthcare system reimburses States
for the costs of what their citizens actually need and use. Block
grants are a fixed amount of money given to each State, forcing people
who need healthcare to fight among each other as to who gets those
dollars. People with parents in nursing homes will fight with those on
opioid treatment, who will fight with those who have kids with
preexisting conditions, who will fight with those who simply need to go
see a doctor. They will all be pitted against one another in a
heartless scheme, a heartless scheme that will hurt so many.
Block grants are a not-so-clever way of disguising a massive, massive
cut to healthcare--cutting back care, raising premiums, hurting
millions and millions of average Americans.
That is the case with this new TrumpCare. The Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities took a look at the new TrumpCare and found that the
block grants in the bill would deprive States of hundreds of millions
and sometimes billions of dollars. I am going to mention a few States
here. My colleagues should know the effect of the bill. They don't.
CBO has told us--I will talk more about this later--that they cannot
give us a full score but simply notes whether it meets the budget
reconciliation numbers. They say it will cut a billion dollars. That is
all it will say. We will not know how many citizens are hurt, but the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, whose numbers are very
reliable, has done a calculation. I would ask my colleagues to pay
attention. I just picked out some States. There are more. Arizona would
lose $1.6 billion in Federal funding. Alaska would lose $255 million in
Federal funding. Maine would lose $115 million in Federal funding. West
Virginia would lose $554 million in Federal funding. Colorado would
lose $823 million in Federal funding. Ohio, the State most racked by
the opioid epidemic, would lose over $2.5 billion in healthcare
funding. Iowa would lose $525 million in Federal funding. These are
devastating numbers. My colleagues, if you don't believe the accuracy
of these numbers, then have the courage and decency to wait for a CBO
score. To pass this legislation before CBO measures out the effect on
your State would be legislative malpractice of the highest order. These
numbers, we believe, are accurate. They come from a group that has had
years of expertise and accurately predicted healthcare effects. There
will be devastating cuts to so many in so many States.
If you don't believe these numbers, then show us what yours are. Wait
for CBO, an impartial arbiter, and see what they have to say. The
numbers are devastating. They represent millions of Americans,
especially middle-income and low-income, who will receive poorer
healthcare, face higher costs, or both. Whom do they represent? You are
an American family--a nice, middle-class family making a good income.
You have a parent in a nursing home. It is likely to be paid for by
Medicaid. That parent is at risk if this Graham-Cassidy bill passes.
You have a young son or daughter afflicted by opioids. The treatment
they receive would often be at risk if this bill passes. You give birth
to a child with a preexisting condition who desperately needs help. We
met so many of these families, every one of us. That child's life, in
many cases, would be at risk if this bill passes. This is the poorest
way of legislating I have seen in all my years here. To try to rush
this bill through with no hearings, no CBO score, no knowledge of how
it actually affects your constituents--how can we do that?
Already, some Republican Governors have spoken out against this
legislation. Governor Kasich, Governor Baker, and 16 patient and
provider groups have come out against this TrumpCare, including the
American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association. The ratings
agency Fitch says Graham-Cassidy would be even ``more disruptive'' than
all the other ACA bills. The American people have rejected TrumpCare
repeatedly. Its numbers in the polls are below 20 percent. Hardcore
supporters of Donald Trump do not want us to pass this bill. Virtually
only one in five Americans wants us to pass this bill--hardly anybody--
and we are going to go do it for a political scalp? No, we can't.
I know there are some on the other side of the aisle who say they can
work it out so each State wouldn't be hurt as badly as under the
current draft of the bill--these bad numbers--that they can tweak the
formula for one State or another that would make the cuts less
devastating. First, they are never going to come up with that kind of
money. I heard one Governor was told by a Senator: Don't worry about
the big cuts to your State. We will make it up with disproportionate
share payments--uncompensated care. It is impossible. The amount of
money in the DSH Program is so much less than the amount of these cuts
that we couldn't even come close. That is what is being thrown around
here. There are lots of different surmises: Maybe we will do this,
maybe we will do that. We are playing with people's lives. That is so
wrong. States will end up facing a harsh cut--most of the States in the
Union--many States represented by my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle who voted for the previous bills.
We shouldn't do it on substance, but we also shouldn't do it on the
basis of regular order. To have such a major bill that affects so many
people be rushed at the last minute in the dark of night--no
discussion, no analysis, no real knowledge of how it affects each of
our States--is legislative malpractice of the highest order.
If the Founding Fathers were looking at this Chamber now and
watching, they would be turning over in their graves. An America
founded on debate and discussion and sunlight is veering off all of
that in a really nasty way. There is no regular order here. There are
no bipartisan public hearings on the Graham-Cassidy bill. The HELP and
Finance Committees are not debating the legislation. It is the same
backroom, one-party sham of a legislative process that ultimately
brought the previous bill down. A contrived, eleventh-hour hearing on
block grants in the Homeland Security Committee--a committee that has
very little jurisdiction over healthcare matters--does not even come
close to suggesting regular order.
In conclusion, I think many of us on both sides of the aisle thought
there was a ray of light in the last few
[[Page S5780]]
weeks. The partisanship that had governed this place for the last 8
months seemed to be breaking. I had good meetings in the White House--
hopes of working together. Senators Alexander and Murray began talking
about how we move forward. I was joyful that maybe the partisanship
could end and we could work together. The majority leader and I are
getting along very well. This bill, if done this way and passed, would
dash those hopes.
There is a way out. Senators Alexander and Murray have had hearings.
They have had discussions. They are negotiating at this moment. What
they will come up with will have some things I don't like and some
things people on the other side of the aisle don't like. That is the
legislative process. It is not to rush a bill through in the dark of
night without even knowledge of how it affects people. CBO has said
they cannot measure how many people would lose coverage and how they
would be affected until a few weeks because this is a block grant. It
takes a long time to weigh it.
So after 2 weeks of thinking bipartisanship--that flickering candle
might gain some new light--this is the last thing we need. Let's not go
back to the divisive, destructive healthcare process that paralyzed the
Senate for much of this year. Let the leader and I encourage our
Members to talk to one another and come up with bipartisan solutions--
not just on this bill but on bills to come. Let's pursue the bipartisan
path courageously used by Senators Alexander and Murray.
In conclusion, I would ask every American who hears these words, who
longs for us to work together, to call your Senators and Congressmen
and let them know. Tell them this bill is even worse than the previous
bills. Tell them it hurts average families dramatically. Tell them
there is a better way. The same level of activism that we saw on the
previous bills must be garnered now or this will just slide through in
the dark of night, with effects that are desperate, devastating, and
unknown. Democrats in the Senate, we have no choice. Our
constituencies, our consciousness impels us. We will oppose the Graham-
Cassidy bill in every way we can, using every tool at our disposal, and
we ask the American people to speak out, once again, and make their
voices heard. The hour is late, and the need is desperate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I first thank the Democratic leader
for his efforts to work and reach out to the Republican leader, Senator
McConnell, as we move forward to try to take some sensible steps to
improve our healthcare system, not try to blow up the entire healthcare
system.
Just last month, the overwhelming majority of the American people
sighed a great sigh of relief when this Senate voted down the earlier
TrumpCare proposal that would have destroyed the Affordable Care Act
and which would have had a devastating impact on the entire American
healthcare system.
We all recall, at that point in time, Senator McCain gave a powerful
and impassioned speech on this floor about the importance of the Senate
going through the regular order, about working in a transparent way, in
a bipartisan way, to improve and strengthen our healthcare system--not
another cynical, partisan effort to ram through a piece of legislation
that impacts hundreds of millions of our fellow Americans. For a time,
it seemed we were making headway on that front. Senator Lamar Alexander
and Senator Patty Murray and the HELP Committee are working together,
holding hearings, bringing people from all points of view in front of
that committee to testify about how we can improve and strengthen our
current system.
Now, instead of heading down that bipartisan path, we are seeing
another last-ditch effort to destroy the Affordable Care Act and, in
the process, wreak incredible damage to our entire healthcare system.
The latest incarnation of TrumpCare is the Graham-Cassidy legislation.
Make no mistake, in many ways, this is far worse than the earlier
proposals we have seen.
It would end the Medicaid expansion program, which in my State of
Maryland actually has provided more affordable care to more Marylanders
than the exchanges that were established under the Affordable Care Act.
It will dramatically cut the funds under the Medicaid Program through a
block grant proposal that gives very little, given the huge
responsibilities that the State has.
It will give a green light to States throughout the country to
eliminate the really important patient protections, protections against
discrimination based on preexisting conditions like diabetes or asthma
or whatever it may be, and it will give a blank check to those who want
to eliminate the important essential benefit provisions that provide
important coverage guarantees for women's health and so many other
important areas like mental health and substance abuse.
Doctors in this country take a very simple oath, the Hippocratic
oath, which says: First, do no harm.
This piece of legislation--this latest incarnation of TrumpCare--will
do devastating harm to our healthcare system, and you don't have to
take my word for it. As more and more groups learn about this piece of
legislation--and they are just looking at the details--they are
beginning to phone into our offices and to send us emails and texts. I
can assure you that Members will see the same outpouring of opposition
to this bill that they saw to the earlier ones.
Already we have seen strong statements of opposition from the
American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, the
American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and the list
goes on and on, and it just started.
It is important for us to remember that these are not Republican
groups. They are not Democratic groups. They have no partisan
affiliation at all. Their only interest is to protect patients in this
country, and we should have the same interest in protecting the health
of our constituents.
It is not just the patient advocacy groups that are already strongly
opposed to this. Those who provide healthcare in our system to our
loved ones--to our parents, to our children--are coming out strongly
opposed to this already.
Here is what the Children's Hospital Association has to say about the
Graham-Cassidy provision:
Their legislation would slash funding for Medicaid, the
nation's largest health care program for children, by one-
third, reducing access and coverage for more than 30 million
children in the program. Furthermore, the legislation weakens
important consumer safeguards, and as a result, millions of
children in working families would no longer be assured that
their private insurance covers the most basic of services
without annual and lifetime limits. . . .
And they go on. That is the Children's Hospital Association. Those
are the hospitals that every day are caring for kids throughout this
country, and they are not alone in already opposing this legislation.
The American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American Nurses
Association--in short, all of those organizations representing all
those people out there who are providing healthcare to our fellow
Americans, to our constituents--are opposed to this bill.
AARP, which, of course, represents millions--in fact, tens of
millions--of older Americans is strongly opposed to this bill because,
once again, it opens the door toward age discrimination in the amount
of the premiums that are charged. Older Americans and elderly Americans
will see their premiums go through the roof under this proposal, and
that is why AARP is also strongly opposed.
So just when we thought we were at a point where we were going to
focus on a bipartisan basis on improving our healthcare system, which
has a whole lot of room for improvement, just when we began to see
bipartisan hearings and legislation possibly emerge from the HELP
Committee, we now see this last-ditch effort on the floor of the Senate
to do what other bills had tried to do but in an even worse fashion.
We are hearing already from Americans--not with political hats on,
not with Republican hats on or Democratic hats on or Independent hats
on, not with political hats on at all, just people who care about the
healthcare of the people of this country--and they are resoundingly
opposed to this. So let's not try and ram something
[[Page S5781]]
through here in the next 2 weeks to try to meet an artificial clock
that has been set by the rules of the Senate. There has been ample time
to debate this, and we have debated the earlier versions. Let's not
allow this final sneak attack on the American healthcare system to get
through this body. It would be a very sad day for the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. YOUNG. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the National
Defense Authorization Act. I want to begin by thanking Senators McCain
and Reed, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee. I commend their continued bipartisan leadership and
collaboration on behalf of our servicemembers and our national
security.
As someone who served in the U.S. Marine Corps and also served on the
House Armed Services Committee, I understand the importance of
Congress's fulfilling its constitutional duties to our men and women in
uniform.
This legislation is important for our country. It is also important
to my neighbors. That includes Hoosiers serving on Active Duty, in the
Reserves, and in the Indiana National Guard, as well as their families.
It also helps Hoosiers working at Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane,
Crane Army Ammunition Activity, and Defense Finance and Accounting
Service in Indianapolis to perform their important work, which is
essential to our servicemembers.
Now, for the last 55 years, Congress has passed the NDAA. Given the
threats our country confronts, it is important that we once again pass
this legislation and provide our troops with the training, weapons, and
support they need to accomplish their missions and return home safely.
But that is not enough.
Congress must pass Defense authorization and appropriations bills
before the end of the fiscal year, stop the habitual use of continuing
resolutions for the Department of Defense, and end defense
sequestration once and for all. I stand ready to work with Senators of
both parties to achieve these objectives.
I am committed to doing my part, and that is why I voted to end
debate on this legislation last week and why I will support further
advancing the bill today, despite the fact that we weren't able to
debate and vote on amendments here on the floor.
Today, I will only note that I have introduced a couple of bipartisan
amendments related to Saudi Arabia's actions in Yemen. These are
amendment Nos. 585 and 1081. I believe this issue deserves
consideration by the full Senate, and I look forward to speaking at
length on this issue again in coming days.
I share the frustration of Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed
regarding the lack of floor debate and substantive votes, and I hope
the Senate can do better next year. I think each Senator, the Americans
we represent, and the troops who protect us are right to expect better.
Now, with that said, I applaud Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed
for working to include over 100 noncontroversial amendments in this
bill.
I am proud of the fact that the Defense bill we are going to vote
on--and, hopefully, pass--this evening includes three amendments
important to Hoosiers that I introduced and for which I worked with the
committee to include. I would like to quickly mention two of them and
then spend a little more time on the third.
The first provision is amendment No. 793. This provision would press
the Department of Defense to implement Government Accountability Office
recommendations or explain why they aren't doing so.
Now, let me explain why this is so important. Our Nation confronts
challenges and threats of extraordinary scope. Yet the resources we
have are limited. That means we need to ensure that the Department of
Defense is operating as efficiently and as effectively as possible with
the money the taxpayers provide. That is what our national security
demands and what U.S. taxpayers are right to expect.
So when a respected organization such as the GAO, our Federal
Government's auditor, conducts independent and rigorous analysis and
identifies key areas for improvement within DOD, Congress and the
Pentagon should take it seriously.
Here is the problem. As of this morning, there were 1,008 open GAO
recommendations, including 75 priority recommendations that DOD alone
has failed to address fully. Now, some of these priority
recommendations relate to missile defense, ship maintenance, military
readiness, servicemember healthcare, and financial management, and some
of these open recommendations go back to 2009 and even earlier.
There may be a few of these recommendations in which DOD has a
persuasive justification for not implementing GAO's recommendation, but
I believe the burden of proof should be on DOD to either implement
GAO's recommendations without delay or justify to Congress why they
believe the recommendation should not be adopted. That is essentially
what my provision would do.
I look forward to working with the leaders and staff of the Armed
Services Committees to ensure that this important provision is included
in the final legislation.
I would also like to highlight a second amendment, amendment No. 882,
that I introduced and worked to include in the bill that we will soon
vote to adopt. This provisions would require the Navy to conduct and
provide to Congress a comprehensive review of U.S. maritime
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting capability,
also known as ISRT.
In light of growing Chinese and Russian maritime capabilities, this
report would require the Navy, among other things, to identify specific
capability gaps and specific areas of risk when it comes to ISRT, as
well as offer solutions and resources that are needed to address those
capability gaps and areas of risk. The review will help to ensure that
the United States retains the naval supremacy necessary to keep vital
shipping lanes open, deter aggression, and defend our national security
interests.
Now, lastly, I would like to highlight amendment No. 821. I
introduced it and worked with the committee to include this in the
bill, and I want to thank Senator Donnelly for cosponsoring my
amendment.
On January 27, the President issued a memorandum that emphasized the
need for a ``modern, robust, flexible, resilient, ready, and
appropriately tailored nuclear deterrent.'' This memorandum reiterated
the longstanding and bipartisan consensus that deterring a nuclear
attack on our country and on our allies depends on our ability to
maintain a strong, nuclear deterrent.
Our nuclear deterrent includes three legs, also referred to as the
nuclear triad, consisting of submarine-launched ballistic missiles,
land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, and long-range bomber
aircraft. Now, each of these legs offers an important and complementary
capability making clear to any potential aggressor that a nuclear
attack on the United States would be suicidal and, thereby, deterring
such an attack in the first place. Perhaps that is why Secretary of
Defense Mattis, referring to the deterrence of potential aggressors,
said just last week: ``If I wanted to send the most compelling message,
I have been persuaded that the triad . . . is the right way to go.''
Now, the challenge is that, in just the next two decades, essentially
all of our Nation's nuclear delivery systems and all of our nuclear
weapons will need to be refurbished or replaced.
According to a February 17 study by the nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office, that could cost a total of $400 billion over the next
decade. That is an enormous cost during a period when our Department of
Defense has many other modernization bills coming due. Consequently, we
must identify opportunities to minimize costs while not sacrificing
capability.
So consistent with that fact, on January 31, Secretary Mattis issued
a memorandum calling for an ``ambitious reform agenda, which will
include a horizontal integration across DOD components to improve
efficiency and take advantage of economies of scale.''
Consistent with that memorandum and the memorandum of the President,
my amendment would require the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
working with our Navy and Air Force, to
[[Page S5782]]
submit a report to Congress on the potential to achieve more value;
that is, enhanced nuclear deterrence at a lower cost by integrating
elements of acquisition programs related to modernization and
sustainment of the nuclear triad.
If we can improve efficiency and program management, cost, and
schedule by increasing integration, colocation, and commonality between
the strategic deterrent programs of the Navy and the Air Force and
their associated systems, technologies, and engineering processes, then
we should do so.
Back home in Indiana, the skilled workers at Naval Surface Warfare
Center Crane have supported the Navy Strategic Systems Program for more
than 60 years. Crane is the largest DOD supplier to the Strategic
Systems Program. Crane provides the Navy's only organic high-
reliability, radiation-hardening capability. Crane also serves as a
leader in trusted microelectronics. What is less well known is that
Crane provides important support to the Air Force's ICBM Ground Based
Strategic Deterrent Program. More importantly, there is good reason to
believe that Crane can dramatically increase its level of support to
the Air Force's strategic programs.
That is the kind of joint collaboration between the Air Force and the
Navy my amendment envisions. By breaking down stovepipe barriers
between our military services, by eliminating unnecessary duplication,
and by looking for commonsense opportunities for joint cooperation, we
can keep our country safe and save money in the process. That is not
only a win for Crane, it is a win for the Navy, it is a win for the Air
Force, it is a win for taxpayers, and it is a win for the safety and
security of every American.
That is why I look forward to working with the leadership and staff
of the Armed Services Committee to include this amendment in the final
bill.
I thank Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed for their work and
tireless leadership on the Senate Armed Services Committee and for your
work to bring the National Defense Authorization Act to this point.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I want to clarify something about what
is going to happen this afternoon. Whenever a Democratic Senator says
they are worried about the state of our military, that they are
horrified about the kind of cuts we are making, and they can't sleep at
night because of what we are doing to our troops in the field, don't
believe them. They don't mean it. They are not serious. It is all for
show because they had a perfect opportunity to stop all of these
terrible cuts--and not just for the troops, for their own State, for
their constituents, even for their little parochial projects. What did
they do? They turned it down. They said no.
Well, actually I take that back. They didn't say no. They couldn't
even bring themselves to say no. They didn't have the courage to say
no. They did something much worse. They said nothing because we are not
even going to vote on the amendment I wanted to offer, which would have
repealed the sequester spending cuts for defense and nondefense--
defense and nondefense spending.
Now, the Members of this body know I am no fan of frivolous, pork-
barrel spending. A lot of the projects that my Democratic colleagues
sponsored could easily fall in that category, and we should rein that
sort of thing in at a time when we are $20 trillion in debt, but I
understand the only way we were going to get something done about the
radical spending cuts to our military was to forge a bipartisan
compromise.
After all, it is not like the sequester spending cuts really did that
much to control spending. Did spending go down in 2011, 2012, 2013?
Yes, it went from $3.6 trillion to $3.5 trillion, to $3.4 trillion, but
the sequester wasn't even in effect for those first 2 years. Spending
went down because Republicans won control of the House in 2010. At the
end of 2013, however, Congress raised the budget caps and pushed off
the sequester for those 2 years ahead. So, by 2015, Federal spending
was back to $3.6 trillion, and it has been growing ever since. Time and
time again, Congress has proven itself utterly incapable of sticking to
the caps under the Budget Control Act of 2011.
Instead of actually saving money, all the sequester does is create an
endless series of crises for Congress to escape just in the nick of
time. Take this year. We all know what is going to happen. We just
passed a 3-month continuing resolution earlier this month. We are going
to reach a 2-year budget agreement in October or November that doesn't
control spending. We are going to have an omnibus in December, written
in secret in our leaders' offices, and then we are going to have
another omnibus spending bill, written in secret in our leaders'
offices, next December, and we will repeat that cycle over again in
2019 and 2020. How do I know that? Because that is exactly what
happened in 2013 and 2015. We will never make the cuts the Budget
Control Act called for. We will just pass giant budgets that nobody has
read in the last minute in an attempt to avoid the crisis of our own
making.
My amendment was the last best chance in years to stop this bust-and-
boom cycle of budgeting. But what did the Democrats do? They threw it
away. They took a perfectly good, bipartisan opportunity to repeal
these automatic spending cuts, and they threw it away.
You have to ask yourself what goes through Senators' heads when they
make such a cynical political calculus. Do they not understand the
implications of what they are doing? Do they not see the appalling lack
of readiness that is so apparent to everyone else?
Did they not see what happened to the USS John McCain? Did they not
see what happened to the USS Fitzgerald? Did they not see all those
caskets carrying the dead bodies of America's young coming home to
families in grief? Do they not see them or do they see them and just
not care?
What do they think when they hear respected men like Secretary Jim
Mattis say: ``No enemy in the field has done more to harm the readiness
of our military than sequestration''?
What did they think when Secretary Mattis said, after 4 short years
of retirement, when he returned to the Department of Defense, ``I have
been shocked by what I've seen about our readiness to fight''?
Is it just background noise? Does it not register with Democratic
Senators? In fact, what must they think when they have been saying the
exact same thing for years?
The junior Senator from Connecticut said: ``The so-called sequester
is another example of governing at its worst.''
The junior Senator from New Jersey said: ``It is blunt, brutal, and
blind.''
He gets bonus points for alliteration.
The senior Senator from Virginia: ``Sequestration is stupidity on
steroids.''
I could make that claim about a lot of things that have been said in
this Chamber.
The senior Senator from Washington: ``We need to replace
sequestration as quickly as possible''; although, apparently, not if it
requires a vote on the Cotton amendment.
The junior Senator from Minnesota: ``There are a lot of people
suffering needlessly because of the sequester.''
That is not a joke, even coming from him. I guess all of these cries
of anguish are falling on deaf ears.
The senior Senator from New Hampshire: ``The blind cuts of
sequestration are not the right approach,'' but by all means, let's
keep them in place rather than vote on the Cotton amendment.
The senior Senator from Connecticut: ``The safety and strength of our
Nation also requires that Congress eliminate the rightly maligned
sequestration straightjacket for all Federal programs''--maligned, yet
not repealed.
My favorite is by the senior Senator from Rhode Island, the senior
Democrat on the Armed Services Committee: ``Instead of dodging fiscal
responsibility, Republicans need to help end sequestration and get back
to a normal budget process.''
Republicans gave you a perfect example with which to do that, sir,
and you turned it down.
That is what this amendment would have done, but now we will not have
a single dime more for the military. We will not give a dime more to
FEMA or to the National Weather Service or to NOAA or to NASA or what
have you. We will not give one penny more to all of those domestic
priorities that the
[[Page S5783]]
Democrats claim to care about. It turns out that they must not care
that much about them or maybe I am being too harsh. Maybe they do like
them a lot. They like using them to gin up political support because,
when the time came for them to actually put their money where their
mouths were, they walked away.
The Democrats will tell you that they oppose this amendment because
it will not repeal the automatic sequester of mandatory spending. Don't
give me that. That is nonsense. That is pure pretext. The automatic
sequester consists of a small, almost trivial number of cuts, and it
would not have affected one penny--not one penny--of Social Security or
Medicare or veterans' benefits.
Here is what is most important. Every single Democratic Senator has
voted to extend that mandatory sequester into the foreseeable future.
So, far from thinking it is a problem, they have voted to extend its
life.
Hey, how about I strike a new deal? Here is my offer. I will support
your hiding behind procedural niceties, hiding in your cloakroom, and
not voting on my amendment, if you will agree to do one thing--to go
home, in person, to your military bases that are in your home States
and explain to the men and women of our Armed Forces, face-to-face, why
you could not bring yourselves not just to repeal these spending cuts
but not even to be tough enough to take a vote one way or the other.
The Democratic leader can go to New York and tell the men and women
of the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum.
The Democratic whip can go to the Naval Station Great Lakes.
The senior Senator from Rhode Island--the senior Democrat on the
Armed Services Committee--can go to the Naval War College.
The senior Senator from Missouri can go to the 131st Bomb Wing.
The junior Senator from New York can go to the soldiers at Fort Drum
as well.
The senior Senator from New Hampshire can go to the Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard.
The junior Senator from Hawaii can go to the dozen different military
bases in Hawaii, while the senior Senator from Florida can go to 20
different military installations in his State.
The senior Senator from Connecticut can go to the Groton submarine
base.
The senior Senator from Indiana can go to AM General in South Bend,
whose manufacturing he always touts for political purposes.
The junior Senator from Virginia can go to Norfolk or the Pentagon or
Fort Myer or to any one of the numerous bases in Virginia.
The junior Senator from Maine can go to Bath Iron Works.
The junior Senator from New Mexico can go to the Kirtland and Cannon
Air Force Bases.
The junior Senator from Michigan can go to General Dynamics, outside
Detroit.
Also, the senior Senator from Massachusetts could shake hands with
all 115,563 of the people in her State whose jobs are directly tied to
defending our Nation.
Every one of those Democrats who sits on the Armed Services Committee
and has claimed to want to stop these automatic spending cuts can go
home and tell the men and women in uniform in his State that he had a
chance to vote on it and that he was too cowardly to even put his name
on the rolls.
He can look at all of these Americans in the eye and say: Sorry, just
politics--hope you understand.
That is all this is. It is politics of the lowest kind. In
maneuvering, posturing, and posing, they are caving to the demands of
the Democratic leader simply because he wants more leverage for more
pork-barrel spending when we had a budget deal that was negotiated in
secret in December. He twisted their arms, and they screamed like
little kids. They are putting politics ahead of our troops. They are
holding our troops hostage to politics solely because their leader
wants them to.
If they were not, they would allow a vote on this amendment. They
would vote aye. They would vote aye eagerly, and they would vote aye
enthusiastically, but they cannot even do that. They cannot even put
their names down as a yes or a no on something that they have all said
that they have supported for years.
They just hide behind procedure. They hide in their cloakroom. They
hide from the voters. They hide in the back corridors and hallways of
this building. They hide to save their own skin. They hide because they
are ashamed, and they sure as hell should be ashamed.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, as chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Subcommittee on Readiness, I would like to make a statement for the
record regarding an item of special interest inserted into the
committee report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2018 related to the Department of Defense's use of its
intellectual property rights of certain medical products.
The committee report includes language that purports to direct the
Department of Defense to exercise its rights under the Bayh-Dole Act
``to authorize third parties to use inventions that benefited from DOD
funding whenever the price of a drug, vaccine, or other medical
technology is higher in the United States'' as compared to prices in
foreign countries. I am concerned that the report language is
inconsistent with the original intent of Bayh-Dole and could hinder
critical medical developments.
Americans, including our men and women in uniform, must have access
to affordable healthcare, including prescription drugs and medical
technologies. However, I fear the committee report directive in
question will slow future innovation, lead to a more complex and
burdensome regulatory scheme, and make it less likely that our military
personnel will be able to access cutting-edge medicines in the future,
while doing nothing meaningful to address healthcare costs. The DOD
relies on its partnerships with industry to develop vaccines, drugs,
and diagnostics that target unique threats faced by our warfighters
during operations in theater. As such, the biopharmaceutical industry
plays a critical role in enhancing our military and civilian defenses
against biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear threats.
Federal agencies, such as the DOD, already face significant
challenges in attracting top drug and vaccine developers as partners to
develop lifesaving medical countermeasures necessary to protect the
warfighter. These challenges include low procurement quantities, high
regulatory risk, complex Federal contracting regulations, and
inconsistency in funding, among others. The added risk of diluting or
compromising intellectual property protections as a means of price
control will not only fail to meet its objective, but will serve as an
additional deterrent to private sector development of critical medical
capabilities offered by DOD.
Furthermore, companies who partner with the Federal Government rely
heavily on the strength and scope of their intellectual property to
generate investment to take their technologies to commercialization.
The report language invokes the Bayh-Dole Act, the purpose of which is
to encourage the prompt commercialization of federally funded patents.
Prior to Bayh-Dole, collaborations between private industry and public
entities were rare. The act has fostered a delicate balance of
collaborations between Federal agencies, public research institutions,
and private industry that have resulted in the commercialization of
inventions for use by all Americans, especially in the area of medical
countermeasures for our servicemen and women.
In the drug development context, Federal funding under the Bayh-Dole
Act has facilitated the discovery of 153 marketed drugs and vaccines
over the last 30 years. The act included the creation of so-called
march-in rights to allow agencies to compel additional licensing if
good-faith efforts toward development are not being made. Agencies can
also march-in if a licensee cannot produce enough products to meet a
national emergency. It is these provisions to which the report language
refers and I believe inappropriately expands the statute's reach to
include Federal price controls and increases the scope of the
government's authority.
Nothing in the Bayh-Dole Act, whether in march-in rights or
otherwise, provides a Federal agency the authority to influence the
price of a commercialized invention. Regulating the price of
commercialized intellectual property was never intended by Congress
when passing the Bayh-Dole Act,
[[Page S5784]]
as evident by the Senate and House reports. Congress contemplated the
use of march-in rights only ``when the invention is not being used.''
Further, Senators Bayh and Dole have subsequently explained that the
absence of any reference to reasonable pricing in the statute was
intentional. As Senator Bayh--the author of and driving force behind
the Bayh-Dole Act--has said: Any attempt to use the Bayh-Dole Act to
support price controls is a ``flagrant misrepresent[ation]'' of
Congress's purpose in enacting the statute. Consistent with this
position, a Federal agency has never invoked the Bayh-Dole Act to
interfere with the price of a commercialized invention. I am aware of
petitions to both the NIH and the DOD requesting march-in rights be
exercised on the basis of pricing, and in all of those cases, the
petitions were rejected in accordance with the law.
The committee report language seeks to authorize something that the
statute itself does not. I believe the item of special interest does
not accurately reflect the current intent of Congress with respect to
the Bayh-Dole Act, and I encourage the DOD to continue to rely on the
existing interpretation of Bayh-Dole law when addressing these matters.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to thank Senator McCain and
Senator Reed for their leadership in producing the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018. Both veterans, they have a
particular understanding of the sacrifices that members of our Armed
Services make every day.
Every year, this authorization bill is drafted to reflect our
commitment to the men and women serving in uniform, to authorize
resources needed to maintain our national security, and to demonstrate
the values and principles on which our country was founded. While I
believe this bill reflects many sound defense policies, I regrettably
cannot support its passage.
Yet again, this Defense authorization bill continues to include the
shameful and counterproductive measures that block us from ending the
terrorist recruitment tool that is the Guantanamo Bay detention
mission, but the core reason for my opposition to this bill is the
reckless price tag its implementation carries. This bill authorizes
$700 billion in Defense spending, far above the caps currently
established by the Budget Control Act and far more than the increase
requested by the President in his budget proposal. If we met this
authorization with real dollars, sequestration would take effect for
Defense spending. Secretary Mattis has testified about the perils of
sequestration. His message was clear: We must raise the budget caps.
What is more, this authorization relies on the same tired gimmick we
have seen for years and includes $60 billion in overseas contingency
operations funding. For fiscal hawks who call for us to reign in
Federal spending to reduce the deficit, we cannot continue to treat OCO
funds as privileged dollars--outside the scope of our budget caps--as a
means to pay for what should be base spending.
Further, we cannot unilaterally boost Defense spending without
similarly addressing other budgets that contribute to our national
security. Earlier this year, in a hearing before the Senate
Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, Secretary Mattis clearly asserted
that ``history is pretty clear, nations that did not keep their fiscal
house in order and their economies strong lost their military power.''
We cannot simply raise spending for the Department of Defense without
investing in programs that advance our diplomatic missions overseas and
strengthen our domestic security through economic development,
infrastructure improvements, environmental protections, and that meet
the core needs of all Americans. Inflating our Defense spending at the
cost of all other programs makes us neither stronger nor more secure.
I do want to thank Senator McCain and Senator Reed for including,
through managers' packages, more than 100 amendments from both
Republicans and Democrats, including some that I filed. This kind of
collaborative process is what has, in the past, yielded results in the
Senate. I regret that the amendment process was not more extensive, but
hyperpartisan amendments that seek to upset the discussions of how to
responsibly fund our government are not the way to reach consensus for
further votes.
Make no mistake: This authorization bill invests in our men and women
in uniform and their families, and it supports competition to keep our
Defense industry healthy, as it should. I hope the reasons for my
objection to its passage at this point in the process will be resolved
as we move to conference this bill with the House. I believe that,
through an agreement to address the current budget caps, those
objections can be resolved.
Mr. COTTON. I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Healthcare
Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, 2 months ago, millions of Americans rose
up and defeated TrumpCare. In doing so, we reaffirmed that, in the
wealthiest nation on Earth, healthcare is a right and not a privilege
that is reserved only for those who can afford it.
The President and the Republican Party believe the opposite. To them,
healthcare is just another commodity to be bought and sold, but we all
know that this is not like buying a new car or a big screen TV. The
Republican position shows no heart, no care, and no compassion. It is
the exact opposite of what so many of you showed me when I was
diagnosed with kidney cancer.
Although we successfully defeated TrumpCare in July, we face fresh
assaults to deny every American's right to healthcare, but it does not
have to be this way. In July, so many of us were moved by Senator John
McCain's impassioned plea for the Senate to return to regular order in
order to debate how to strengthen our healthcare system on a bipartisan
basis. Since then, Senators Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray have
worked to build consensus for a bill that would strengthen insurance
markets and reduce out-of-pocket costs for consumers. They have done
this the right way--through committee hearings, bipartisan meetings,
and careful deliberation.
Instead of embracing and endorsing this effort, the President and the
majority leader have now chosen to double down on their obsession with
depriving healthcare to millions of people across the country through
the Graham-Cassidy bill. Let me be clear. This bill is not a
compromise. It is not a new and better idea for delivering healthcare
in this country. It is just a new version of TrumpCare and, I might
say, an even worse proposal than the one we defeated in July.
The details matter. This version of TrumpCare eliminates the
Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, and that threatens the
coverage for more than 110,000 Hawaii residents who are now receiving
such coverage. There are millions all across the country who now get
healthcare coverage thanks to Medicaid expansion in their States.
This bill establishes a healthcare block grant, including a per
capita cap on Medicaid spending that would severely limit Federal
funding for healthcare--funds that States rely upon. Republicans,
including the cosponsors of this bill, argue that this approach would
provide more local control over healthcare. This, however, is what we
in Hawaii call ``shibai''--or BS. Local control through a block grant
is just an excuse that Conservatives and Republicans use as a pretext
to make deep cuts to programs that Americans depend upon. You see them
resorting to block-granting everywhere--from education to healthcare.
A new study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reveals
the cost of this latest version of TrumpCare firsthand. Under the
proposal, Hawaii would lose $659 million in Federal funding for
Medicaid over 10 years--part of some $80 billion in cuts across the
country. This is a lot of money for Hawaii to lose--money that is being
put to great use across our State.
Last month, I visited the Bay Clinic in Hilo, on the Big Island,
where the Medicaid expansion under the ACA has improved health outcomes
in poor
[[Page S5785]]
rural communities across that island. Bay Clinic is the primary
healthcare provider to 6 of the 10 poorest ZIP Codes in the entire
State of Hawaii, where many residents went years without having health
coverage. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, the Bay Clinic has
successfully enrolled thousands more people in Medicaid and decreased
the number of uninsured patients who have gone through their doors. It
is astounding what the numbers show.
The number of patients who have gone through their doors has been cut
from 29 percent in 2010 to only 10 percent in 2015. That is how many
more people on the island of Hawaii are able to get healthcare
coverage. Over that same time period, the Bay Clinic has seen an almost
20-percent increase in the number of patients it has served every year.
In the years following the passage of the ACA, the Bay Clinic and
community health centers all across Hawaii have hired more doctors and
nurses, and they have expanded the types of services that they provide.
The Bay Clinic, for example, has expanded its Mobile Health Unit, by
which doctors go to rural communities, such as in Keaau, where
residents would otherwise not have access to primary care providers.
This program and others like it in Hawaii and across the country face
an imminent threat from this newest version of TrumpCare.
Unfortunately, this bill's devastating cuts to Medicaid are only part
of what makes it so mean and so dangerous.
It eliminates all premium subsidies that allow lower income Americans
to afford coverage, and it eliminates cost-sharing subsidies that
reduce out-of-pocket expenses for consumers. These are the very issues
relating to the Affordable Care Act that Chairman Lamar Alexander and
Ranking Member Patty Murray are addressing through regular order--how
to provide healthcare for more people in our country.
The Graham-Cassidy bill creates a process by which States can receive
waivers to roll back essential health benefits and eliminate important
consumer protections, like guaranteed coverage for millions of
Americans who are living with preexisting conditions--people like me.
I have said many times on the floor of the Senate that we are all
only one diagnosis away from a major illness. Every day, 6,540 people
are diagnosed with cancer in our country. There are 4,109 who are
diagnosed with diabetes. There are 1,309 who are diagnosed with
Alzheimer's disease every day in this country. We are all one diagnosis
away from a major illness. These are people like me--many of them--
going about their business when, wham, suddenly, you get a devastating
diagnosis. Not all of these people will have health insurance, and
under this version of TrumpCare, even more of them will not have access
to it.
When I was diagnosed with kidney cancer, I had insurance. Instead of
worrying about how to pay for my treatment, I could focus on fighting
my illness. No one facing cancer, heart disease, diabetes, or any other
chronic or life-threatening medical condition--or, I should say, any
kind of circumstance in which one needs to have access to a healthcare
provider--should have to worry about whether one can afford the care
that might, one day, save one's life--not in the richest country in the
world, not where healthcare should be a right and not a privilege.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moran). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be up
to 20 minutes of debate, equally divided, under the control of Senators
McCain and Reed, following the first vote this evening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 545 Withdrawn
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 545 is
withdrawn.
Amendment No. 1003, as Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 1003,
as modified, is agreed to.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No.
175, H.R. 2810, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2018 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.
John McCain, Mitch McConnell, John Thune, Thom Tillis,
Pat Roberts, Mike Crapo, Richard Burr, Michael B. Enzi,
Orrin G. Hatch, Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, Dan Sullivan,
Roy Blunt, Cory Gardner, Tim Scott, Shelley Moore
Capito, David Perdue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on H.R.
2810, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes, as amended, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Rubio).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio)
would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 7, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 198 Leg.]
YEAS--90
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Duckworth
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Grassley
Harris
Hassan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Strange
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Young
NAYS--7
Durbin
Gillibrand
Lee
Merkley
Paul
Sanders
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Graham
Menendez
Rubio
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 90, the nays are 7.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Under the previous order, there will now be 20 minutes of debate,
equally divided, between the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and the
Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. As we approach the final vote on
[[Page S5786]]
the fiscal year 2018 national defense authorization bill, I would like
to make a few closing comments.
When we began considering this bill last week, Senator McCain and I
were interested in returning to regular order and having debate and
votes on any amendment that needed a vote. We actually started off very
well.
While I disagreed with Senator Paul's amendment to sunset the current
authorization for the use of military force, I am pleased we were able
to follow regular order on his amendment and have a debate. It is my
hope that we can use this as a step to restore regular order going
forward and work together, along with Senator Paul, in drafting a new
AUMF that more precisely addresses the threats we face and resolves the
issue, which is very critical, that Senator Paul has raised; that is,
updating the AUMF.
After the Paul amendment, however, we were unable to come to an
agreement on further votes. As a result, several issues that are
important to both sides were not fully considered. On the Democratic
side, Senators Baldwin, Stabenow, and Donnelly had very important
amendments that would have ensured important protection for American
workers and that our servicemembers receive high-quality, domestically
produced equipment.
In addition, Senator Durbin had an important amendment that supports
the world-class medical research DOD conducts and has a profound impact
on the health of our servicemembers and citizens alike. Senator Warren
would have liked a discussion on the INF Treaty, and Senator Gillibrand
was interested in a full debate on protections for military personnel
who are transgender.
As I indicated, I also know there are Members on the other side of
the aisle who also had important issues they wanted to debate. I regret
we were not able to have those debates and votes.
I am pleased, however, that we are able to include several dozen
agreed-upon amendments in this bill from both Democrats and Republicans
which will strengthen the legislation. In the end, this bill represents
a strong bipartisan effort to provide the military with the resources
they need and the support they deserve.
Moving forward, more work needs to be done. It is clear we need to
find a sustainable, equitable path forward that will end sequestration
and provide the additional resources needed for our current readiness
shortfalls. I look forward to working together to continue to address
the needs of the Department and our servicemembers.
I would like to close by thanking Senator McCain in my remarks about
the NDAA for his leadership in guiding this bill through our committee
markup process and the floor. I believe this bill truly exemplifies
Senator McCain's unrivaled dedication to the men and women of our Armed
Forces. His firm hand and unwavering resolve for a bipartisan approach
were invaluable in achieving a bill that reflects the priorities of
many Members on both sides of the aisle.
Additionally, I would like to thank the committee staff who worked
tirelessly over many weeks to make this bill a reality. I thank the
majority staff director, Chris Brose, and his staff for their hard work
and commitment to a bipartisan process. I would also like to thank my
staff for their expertise and dedication to creating the best bill
possible--Jody Bennett, Carolyn Chuhta, Jon Clark, Jonathan Epstein,
Jorie Feldman, Jon Green, Creighton Greene, Ozge Guzelsu, Gary Leeling,
Kirk McConnell, Maggie McNamara, Bill Monahan, Mike Noblet, John Quirk,
Arun Seraphin, and Elizabeth King. Finally, I would like to thank the
floor staff, without whom none of this could be accomplished.
I must say, having completed a truly bipartisan process using regular
order, I am disappointed to hear that my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle would like to bring back the partisan efforts to repeal
the Affordable Care Act and its protections for people with preexisting
conditions and decimate Medicare as we know it.
We have already spent so much time this year having this fight--time
we could have spent working on a bipartisan basis to improve our health
care system and lower costs. We voted decisively in July to reject the
partisan bill. With these votes, Senators on both sides of the aisle
decided we would return to regular order and work toward bipartisan
health care solutions that could get at least 60 votes in this body.
As I have highlighted, this kind of bipartisan approach is why we
have been successful in bringing the NDAA to the floor each year, and
Senators Alexander and Murray have been doing just that with respect to
the HELP Committee. They have had four hearings over the last two
weeks, with witnesses from both parties, from Governors to health
insurance commissioners, to leaders in the industry. I have great
confidence in my colleagues and their ability to craft a bipartisan
bill to improve the ACA that a majority of Senators could support. This
is a bipartisan, inclusive process, and I should note, it is undertaken
by one of the two committees that have jurisdiction for health care.
So for my Republican colleagues to now decide, after this critical
work is already underway, that we are going to scratch those efforts
and return instead to a partisan process, in which not even Republican
Senators have had the opportunity to fully review the bill, make
changes or even get analysis of the bill, I think that process is
wrong. Let's not be fooled by the new effort. The legislation would
have the same effects as the other versions of TrumpCare we saw
rejected.
We have heard the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee will hold a hearing on the latest version of TrumpCare. This
is not the right process. It is not representative of the legislative
process.
I would urge my colleagues to reject this approach and, rather,
follow the example I think we have tried to set in NDAA--a bipartisan,
regular process, in which amendments are offered by both sides, in
which debate is undertaken, in which we come to a conclusion based on
60 votes and move forward to improve the country, particularly to
protect the men and women in the armed services.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on final
passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.
This is the culmination of months of bipartisan work, and it is a
product in which all Senators and all Americans can take great pride. I
want to thank, once again, my friend and colleague the Senator from
Rhode Island. His partnership on this legislation has been invaluable.
The fundamental purpose of this legislation, which has united
Senators from both sides of the aisle, is to provide our Armed Forces
what they need to do the jobs we ask of them. We, in this body, have no
higher duty than to do everything we can to support our fellow
Americans who serve and sacrifice every day to keep us safe.
This legislation does that. It keeps faith with our men and women in
uniform. It supports a national defense budget of $700 billion for
fiscal year 2018, which exceeds the administration's request by $37
billion and the defense spending caps in the Budget Control Act by $91
billion. The decision of the Committee on Armed Services to authorize
these additional resources was unanimous and bipartisan, and it is a
significant statement on the troubling state of our military today.
My friends, for too long, our Nation has asked our men and women in
uniform to do too much with far too little. Much of the blame lies with
the last administration, but we in Congress cannot escape
responsibility. Our military's job is hard enough, but we are making it
harder through continuing resolutions, unpredictable funding, and
arbitrary spending caps that we put into law 6 years ago before the
rise of ISIS, before the current crisis with North Korea, before
Russia's return to aggression on the world stage, and before so many
other dangerous developments.
We have been warned--we have been warned, my friends--that we can't
go on like this. We have been warned. Earlier this year, the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, warned us: ``In just
a few years if we don't change the trajectory, we will lose our
qualitative and our quantitative competitive edge, [and] the
consequences will be profound.'' The Secretary of Defense, Jim Mattis,
[[Page S5787]]
also warned us, saying: ``We are no longer managing risk; we are now
gambling.''
We are gambling, my friends. We are gambling with the lives of the
best among us, and we are now seeing the cost--the tragic but
foreseeable cost--of an overworked, strained force, with aging
equipment and not enough of it.
On June 17, seven sailors were killed when the USS Fitzgerald
collided with a container ship off the coast of Japan. On July 10, a
Marine KC-130 crash in Mississippi killed all 16 troops on board. On
August 5, an Osprey helicopter crash off the coast of Australia
resulted in the deaths of three Marines. On August 15, an Army
helicopter crashed off the coast of Hawaii, with five soldiers presumed
dead. On August 21, 10 sailors perished when the USS McCain collided
with a tanker near Singapore. On August 25, an Army Black Hawk
helicopter went down during a training mission off the coast of Yemen,
and one soldier died. Earlier this month in Nevada, two Air Force A-10
aircraft crashed into each other. Thank God the pilots safely ejected,
but the planes were lost, at a cost of over $100 million.
Just last week--just last week, as we debated this legislation--there
were additional accidents. Last Tuesday, one soldier died during
helicopter training at Fort Hood. Last Wednesday, an amphibious vehicle
explosion at Camp Pendleton injured 15 marines. Last Thursday, a
demolition accident at Fort Bragg killed another soldier and injured
seven others.
My friends, more of our men and women in uniform are now being killed
in totally avoidable training accidents and routine operations than by
our enemies in combat. Let me repeat that. More of our men and women in
uniform are now being killed in totally avoidable training accidents
and routine operations than by our enemies in combat.
Where is the outrage? Where is our sense of urgency to deal with this
problem? Congress can criticize this administration or the last
administration all we want, and there is plenty of blame to go around,
but the constitutional responsibility is to ``raise and support
Armies'' and ``provide and maintain a Navy.'' That responsibility is
ours. How can we believe that we are meeting our responsibilities when
young Americans in uniform are not receiving the necessary resources
and capabilities to perform their missions? My friends, that blame
rests with us, the Congress.
I know many of my colleagues agree. I have heard them--both
Republicans and Democrats--speak for years about the harmful effects
sequestration is having on our military and many other Federal agencies
with a national security mission. How do we explain our failure to deal
with this problem last week? We had an opportunity. This legislation
was open for amendments under regular order for an entire week. There
was an amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas to repeal
sequestration. The amendment was written in a bipartisan way and would
have ended sequestration, not only for defense but nondefense spending
as well. We had an opportunity to tell all of our men and women in
uniform that the Senate finally was doing everything it could to
support them. We had an opportunity, and we failed. Worse than that, we
didn't even try. We couldn't even agree to vote.
It makes me so angry, but more than that it makes me sad. It breaks
my heart.
How do we explain our failure to our men and women who are serving?
How do we explain to Americans who are risking their lives for us that
we could not summon the courage to take some hard votes? How can we
explain we couldn't come together and vote together when it mattered
most? How do we explain the signal our inaction sends to all who are
serving that Congress has higher priorities than rebuilding our
military? We should be ashamed of ourselves.
For those of you who will soon vote for this National Defense
Authorization Act, which will authorize the necessary resources to
begin rebuilding our military, let me thank you; let me thank you; let
me thank you. You can be proud that you are voting for a good piece of
legislation, but this legislation is only part of the solution. We
still have no path to actually appropriate the money that we are about
to authorize. That requires a bipartisan agreement to adjust the
spending caps in the Budget Control Act.
For all of you who will join me in voting to authorize these vital
additional resources for our military, I would also urge you to join me
in demanding and passing a bipartisan agreement so that we can
appropriate those resources. This will require some hard work. It will
require some teamwork and some trust in each other. It will require
having the courage of our convictions. But in the end, it will require
much less of us than the service and sacrifice we ask every day from
our men and women in uniform, which they so dutifully provide us.
I do not want to have to call another grieving mother or father or
spouse after their loved one has perished in a mishap that might have
been prevented if Congress had done its job. Let's find a way to
appropriate the resources for our military that we will soon authorize.
Our men and women in uniform deserve no less.
Mr. President, I will suggest a short quorum call while we get these
final agreed-upon amendments on the bill at this time. It shouldn't
take more than 3 or 4 minutes.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 277, 434, 574, 660, 750, 756, 833, 890, 900, 903, 904,
950, 976, 995, 1014, 1015, 1021, 1023, 1065, 1087, 1088, 1089, 1094,
1100, 470, 601, 712, 780, 873, 874, 879, 908, 927, 943, 945, 1006,
1031, 1033, 1034, 1038, 1039, 1050, 1055, 1063, 1073, 1086, 1096, and
1032
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments to H.R. 2810, as amended, be considered and agreed to en
bloc: Kaine No. 277, Tester No. 434, Heitkamp No. 574, Merkley No. 660,
Whitehouse No. 750, Van Hollen No. 756, Murray No. 833, Brown No. 890,
Cardin No. 900, Leahy No. 903, Baldwin No. 904, Peters No. 950,
Heitkamp No. 976, Cantwell No. 995, Stabenow No. 1014, Whitehouse No.
1015, Harris No. 1021, Sanders No. 1023, Cantwell No. 1065, Bennet No.
1087, Wyden No. 1088, Kaine No. 1089, Cortez-Masto No. 1094, Lee No.
470, Moran No. 601, Portman No. 712, Inhofe No. 780, Ernst No. 873,
McCain No. 874, Johnson No. 879, Murkowski No. 908, Rubio No. 927,
Isakson No. 943, Flake No. 945, Moran No. 1006, Tillis No. 1031, Perdue
No. 1033, Strange No. 1034, Lankford No. 1038, Rounds No. 1039, Scott
No. 1050, Portman No. 1055, Tillis No. 1063, Sullivan No. 1073, Strange
No. 1086, Graham No. 1096, and Isakson No. 1032.
Mr. President, I ask to add Durbin No. 1100. I intentionally omitted
him the first time around in hopes that it wouldn't be noticed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's request is so modified.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
numbers at the desk be reflected in the list.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there objection to the modified request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 277, 434, 574, 660, 750, 756, 833, 890, 900,
903, 904, 950, 976, 995, 1014, 1015, 1021, 1023, 1065, 1087, 1088,
1089, 1094, 1100, 470, 601, 712, 780, 873, 874, 879, 908, 927, 943,
945, 1006, 1031, 1033, 1034, 1038, 1039, 1050, 1055, 1063, 1073, 1086,
1096, and 1032) were agreed to en bloc, as follows:
Amendment No. 277
(Purpose: To provide for the establishment of a visitor services
facility on the Arlington Ridge tract, Virginia)
At the end of subtitle E of title XXVIII, add the
following:
SEC. 2850. ESTABLISHMENT OF A VISITOR SERVICES FACILITY ON
THE ARLINGTON RIDGE TRACT.
(a) Arlington Ridge Tract Defined.--In this section, the
term ``Arlington Ridge tract'' means the parcel of Federal
land located in Arlington County, Virginia, known as the
``Nevius Tract'' and transferred to the Department of the
Interior in 1953, that is bounded generally by--
(1) Arlington Boulevard (United States Route 50) to the
north;
(2) Jefferson Davis Highway (Virginia Route 110) to the
east;
(3) Marshall Drive to the south; and
(4) North Meade Street to the west.
[[Page S5788]]
(b) Establishment of Visitor Services Facility.--
Notwithstanding section 2863(g) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107;
115 Stat. 1332), the Secretary of the Interior may construct
a structure for visitor services, including a public restroom
facility, on the Arlington Ridge tract in the area of the
United States Marine Corps War Memorial.
Amendment No. 434
(Purpose: To convert the authority for a National Language Service
Corps into a requirement for such a Corps)
At the end of subtitle D of title IX, add the following:
SEC. 953. REQUIREMENT FOR NATIONAL LANGUAGE SERVICE CORPS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a)(1) of 813 of the David L.
Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 (50 U.S.C.
1913) is amended by striking ``may establish and maintain''
and inserting ``shall establish and maintain''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (b) of such section
is amended by striking ``If the Secretary establishes the
Corps, the Secretary'' and inserting ``The Secretary''.
AMENDMENT NO. 574
(Purpose: To expand the SkillBridge initiative to include participation
by Federal agencies)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. EXPANSION OF SKILLBRIDGE INITIATIVE TO INCLUDE
PARTICIPATION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES.
(a) Modification of Initiative by Secretary of Defense.--
The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director
of the Office of Personnel Management, shall make such
modifications to the SkillBridge initiative of the Department
of Defense as the Secretary considers appropriate to enable
Federal agencies to participate in the initiative as
employers and trainers, including the provision of training
by Federal agencies under the initiative to transitioning
members of the Armed Forces.
(b) Participation by Federal Agencies.--The Director, in
consultation with the Secretary, shall take such actions as
may be necessary to ensure that each Federal agency
participates in the SkillBridge initiative of the Department
of Defense as described in subsection (a).
(c) Transitioning Members of the Armed Forces Defined.--In
this section, the term ``transitioning member of the Armed
Forces'' means a member of the Armed Forces who is expected
to be discharged or released from active duty in the Armed
Forces not more than 180 days after the member commences
training under the SkillBridge initiative.
amendment no. 660
(Purpose: To treat the service of recipients of Boren scholarships and
fellowships in excepted service positions as service by such recipients
under career appointments for purposes of career tenure under title 5,
United States Code)
At the appropriate place in subtitle B of title XVI, insert
the following:
SEC. ___. CONSIDERATION OF SERVICE BY RECIPIENTS OF BOREN
SCHOLARSHIPS AND FELLOWSHIPS IN EXCEPTED
SERVICE POSITIONS AS SERVICE BY SUCH RECIPIENTS
UNDER CAREER APPOINTMENTS FOR PURPOSES OF
CAREER TENURE.
Section 802(k) of the David L. Boren National Security
Education Act of 1991 (50 U.S.C. 1902(k)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4);
(2) in paragraph (2), in the matter before subparagraph
(A), by striking ``(3)(C)'' and inserting ``(4)(C)''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Career tenure.--In the case of an individual whose
appointment to a position in the excepted service is
converted to a career or career- conditional appointment
under paragraph (1)(B), the period of service described in
such paragraph shall be treated, for purposes of the service
requirements for career tenure under title 5, United States
Code, as if it were service in a position under a career or
career- conditional appointment.''.
amendment no. 750
(Purpose: To extend temporarily the extended period of protection for
members of uniformed services relating to mortgages, mortgage
foreclosure, and eviction)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF EXTENDED PERIOD OF
PROTECTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF UNIFORMED SERVICES
RELATING TO MORTGAGES, MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE,
AND EVICTION.
Section 710(d) of the Honoring America's Veterans and
Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-
154; 50 U.S.C. 3953 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``December 31, 2017'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2019''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``January 1, 2018'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2020''.
amendment no. 756
(Purpose: To require a report on compliance with Department of Defense
and Service policies regarding runway clear zones)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH RUNWAY CLEAR ZONE
REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Service secretaries, shall submit to
the congressional defense committees a report on Service
compliance with Department of Defense and relevant Service
policies regarding Department of Defense runway clear zones.
(b) Elements.--The report required under subsection (a)
shall include the following elements:
(1) A listing of all Department of Defense runway clear
zones in the United States that are not in compliance with
Department of Defense and relevant Service policies regarding
Department of Defense runway clear zones.
(2) A plan for bringing all Department of Defense runway
clear zones in full compliance with these policies, including
a description of the resources required to bring these clear
zones into policy compliance, and for providing restitution
for property owners.
AMENDMENT NO. 833
(Purpose: To provide for the promotion of financial literacy concerning
retirement among members of the Armed Forces)
At the end of part I of subtitle C of title VI, add the
following:
SEC. ___. PROMOTION OF FINANCIAL LITERACY CONCERNING
RETIREMENT AMONG MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.
(a) Programs for Promotion Required.--The Secretary of
Defense shall develop programs of financial literacy for
members of the Armed Forces to assist members in better
understanding retirement options and planning for retirement.
(b) Information on Comparative Value of Lump Sum and
Monthly Payments of Retired Pay With Conventional Retired
Pay.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop information to
be provided to members of the Armed Forces who are eligible
to make the election provided for in subsection (b)(1) of
section 1415 of title 10, United States Code, to assist such
members in making an informed comparison for purposes of the
election between the following:
(1) The value of the lump sum payment of retired pay and
monthly payments provided for in such subsection (b)(1) by
reason of the election, including the manner in which the
lump sum and such monthly payments are determined for any
particular member.
(2) The value of retired pay payable under subsection (d)
of such section in the absence of the election, including the
manner in which such retired pay is determined for any
particular member.
AMENDMENT NO. 890
(Purpose: To ensure the continued designation of the Secretary of the
Air Force as the Department of Defense Executive Agent for the program
carried out under title III of the Defense Production Act of 1950)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. LIMITATION ON CANCELLATION OF DESIGNATION OF
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE AS DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE EXECUTIVE AGENT FOR A CERTAIN DEFENSE
PRODUCTION ACT PROGRAM.
(a) Limitation on Cancellation of Designation.--The
Secretary of Defense may not implement the decision, issued
on July 1, 2017, to cancel the designation, under Department
of Defense Directive 4400.1E, entitled ``Defense Production
Act Programs'' and dated October 12, 2001, of the Secretary
of the Air Force as the Department of Defense Executive Agent
for the program carried out under title III of the Defense
Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 4531 et seq.) until the
date specified in subsection (c).
(b) Designation.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall
continue to serve as the Department of Defense Executive
Agent for the program described in subsection (a) until the
date specified in subsection (c).
(c) Date Specified.--The date specified in this subsection
is the earlier of--
(1) the date that is two years after the date of the
enactment of this Act; or
(2) the date of the enactment of a joint resolution or an
Act approving the implementation of the decision described in
subsection (a).
Amendment No. 900
(Purpose: To require a report on the National Biodefense Analysis and
Countermeasures Center (NBACC) and to provide a limitation on use of
funds)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. REPORT ON THE NATIONAL BIODEFENSE ANALYSIS AND
COUNTERMEASURES CENTER (NBACC) AND LIMITATION
ON USE OF FUNDS.
(a) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2017, the
Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense
shall jointly submit to the appropriate Congressional
committees a report, prepared in consultation with the
officials listed in subsection (b), on the National
Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (referred to
in this section as the ``NBACC'') containing the following
information:
(1) The functions of the NBACC.
(2) The end users of the NBACC, including end users whose
assets may be managed by other agencies.
(3) The cost and mission impact for each user identified
under paragraph (2) of any potential closure of the NBACC,
including an
[[Page S5789]]
analysis of the functions of the NBACC that cannot be
replicated by other departments and agencies of the Federal
Government.
(4) In the case of closure of the NBACC, a transition plan
for any essential functions currently performed by the NBACC
to ensure mission continuity, including the storage of
samples needed for ongoing criminal cases.
(b) Consultation.--The officials listed in this subsection
are the following:
(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(2) The Attorney General.
(3) The Director of National Intelligence.
(4) As determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,
the leaders of other offices that utilize the NBACC.
(c) Form.--The report submitted under subsection (a) shall
be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a
classified annex.
(d) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--For
purposes of this section, the term ``appropriate
Congressional Committees'' means--
(1) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
(2) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives;
(3) the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
(4) the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives;
(5) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate;
(6) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives;
(7) the Committee on Judiciary of the Senate;
(8) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives;
(9) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the
House of Representatives;
(10) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate;
and
(11) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the
House of Representatives.
(e) Transition Period.--The report submitted under
subsection (a) shall include a transition adjustment period
of not less than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, or 180 days after the date on which the report required
in under this section is submitted to Congress, whichever is
later, during which none of the funds authorized to be
appropriated under this Act or any other Act may be used to
support the closure, transfer, or other diminishment of the
NBACC or its functions.
amendment no. 903
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a feasibility
study and cost estimate for a pilot program that uses predictive
analytics and screening to identify mental health risk and provide
early, targeted intervention for part-time members of the reserve
components of the Armed Forces)
At the end of subtitle C of title VII, add the following:
SEC. 737. FEASIBILITY STUDY ON CONDUCT OF PILOT PROGRAM ON
MENTAL HEALTH READINESS OF PART-TIME MEMBERS OF
THE RESERVE COMPONENTS OF THE ARMED FORCES.
(a) In General.--Not later than one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
conduct a feasibility study and cost estimate for a pilot
program that uses predictive analytics and screening to
identify mental health risk and provide early, targeted
intervention for part-time members of the reserve components
of the Armed Forces to improve readiness and mission success.
(b) Elements.--The feasibility study conducted under
subsection (a) shall include elements to assess the following
with respect to the pilot program studied under such
subsection:
(1) The anticipated improvement in quality of behavioral
health services for part-time members of the reserve
components of the Armed Forces and the impact of such
improvement in quality of behavioral health services on their
families and employers.
(2) The anticipated impact on the culture surrounding
behavioral health treatment and help-seeking behavior.
(3) The feasibility of embedding mental health
professionals with units that--
(A) perform core mission sets and capabilities; and
(B) carry out high-risk and high-demand missions.
(4) The particular preventative mental health needs of
units at different states of their operational readiness
cycle.
(5) The need for additional personnel of the Department of
Defense to implement the pilot program.
(6) The cost of implementing the pilot program throughout
the reserve components of the Armed Forces.
(7) The benefits of an integrated operational support team
for the Air National Guard and Army National Guard units.
(c) Comparison to Full-time Members of Reserve
Components.--As part of the feasibility study conducted under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall assess the mental health
risk of part-time members of the reserve components of the
Armed Forces as compared to full-time members of the reserve
components of the Armed Forces.
(d) Use of Existing Models.--In conducting the feasibility
study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall make use of
existing models for preventative mental health care, to the
extent practicable, such as the approach developed by the
United States Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine.
Amendment No. 904
(Purpose: To prohibit or suspend certain health care providers from
providing non-Department of Veterans Affairs health care services to
veterans)
At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1088. PREVENTION OF CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS FROM
PROVIDING NON-DEPARTMENT HEALTH CARE SERVICES
TO VETERANS.
(a) In General.--On and after the date that is one year
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs shall deny or revoke the eligibility of a
health care provider to provide non-Department health care
services to veterans if the Secretary determines that the
health care provider--
(1) was removed from employment with the Department of
Veterans Affairs due to conduct that violated a policy of the
Department relating to the delivery of safe and appropriate
health care;
(2) violated the requirements of a medical license of the
health care provider;
(3) had a Department credential revoked and the grounds for
such revocation impacts the ability of the health care
provider to deliver safe and appropriate health care; or
(4) violated a law for which a term of imprisonment of more
than one year may be imposed.
(b) Permissive Action.--On and after the date that is one
year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary may deny, revoke, or suspend the eligibility of a
health care provider to provide non-Department health care
services if the Secretary has reasonable belief that such
action is necessary to immediately protect the health,
safety, or welfare of veterans and--
(1) the health care provider is under investigation by the
medical licensing board of a State in which the health care
provider is licensed or practices;
(2) the health care provider has entered into a settlement
agreement for a disciplinary charge relating to the practice
of medicine by the health care provider; or
(3) the Secretary otherwise determines that such action is
appropriate under the circumstances.
(c) Suspension.--The Secretary shall suspend the
eligibility of a health care provider to provide non-
Department health care services to veterans if the health
care provider is suspended from serving as a health care
provider of the Department.
(d) Initial Review of Department Employment.--Not later
than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act,
with respect to each health care provider providing non-
Department health care services, the Secretary shall review
the status of each such health care provider as an employee
of the Department and the history of employment of each such
health care provider with the Department to determine whether
the health care provider is described in any of subsections
(a) through (c).
(e) Comptroller General Report.--Not later than two years
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller
General of the United States shall submit to Congress a
report on the implementation by the Secretary of this
section, including the following:
(1) The aggregate number of health care providers denied or
suspended under this section from participation in providing
non-Department health care services.
(2) An evaluation of any impact on access to health care
for patients or staffing shortages in programs of the
Department providing non-Department health care services.
(3) An explanation of the coordination of the Department
with the medical licensing boards of States in implementing
this section, the amount of involvement of such boards in
such implementation, and efforts by the Department to address
any concerns raised by such boards with respect to such
implementation.
(4) Such recommendations as the Comptroller General
considers appropriate regarding harmonizing eligibility
criteria between health care providers of the Department and
health care providers eligible to provide non-Department
health care services.
(f) Non-Department Health Care Services Defined.--In this
section, the term ``non-Department health care services''
means services--
(1) provided under subchapter I of chapter 17 of title 38,
United States Code, at non-Department facilities (as defined
in section 1701 of such title);
(2) provided under section 101 of the Veterans Access,
Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-146;
38 U.S.C. 1701 note);
(3) purchased through the Medical Community Care account of
the Department; or
(4) purchased with amounts deposited in the Veterans Choice
Fund under section 802 of the Veterans Access, Choice, and
Accountability Act of 2014.
Amendment No. 950
(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to increase the
Primary Aircraft Authorization of Air Force or Air National Guard A-10
aircraft units in the event conversion of an A-10 unit is in the best
interest of a long-term Air Force mission)
At the end of subtitle D of title I, add the following:
[[Page S5790]]
SEC. __. AUTHORITY TO INCREASE PRIMARY AIRCRAFT AUTHORIZATION
OF AIR FORCE AND AIR NATIONAL GUARD A-10
AIRCRAFT UNITS FOR PURPOSES OF FACILITATING A-
10 CONVERSION.
In the event that conversion of an A-10 aircraft unit is in
the best interest of a long-term Air Force mission, the
Secretary of the Air Force may increase the Primary Aircraft
Authorization of Air Force Reserve or Air National Guard A-10
units to 24 aircraft to facilitate such conversion.
Amendment No. 976
(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on use of test sites for
research and development on countering unmanned aircraft systems)
At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:
SEC. ___. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON USE OF TEST SITES FOR RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT ON COUNTERING UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
SYSTEMS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the armed unmanned aircraft systems deployed by
adversaries for military purposes pose a threat to military
installations, critical infrastructure, and members of the
Armed Forces in conflict areas like Iraq and Syria;
(2) the unmanned aircraft systems test sites designated by
the Federal Aviation Administration offer unique
capabilities, expertise, and airspace for research and
development related to unmanned aircraft systems; and
(3) the Armed Forces should, as appropriate and to the
extent practicable, seek to leverage the test sites described
in paragraph (2), as well as existing Department of Defense
facilities with appropriate expertise, for research and
development on capabilities to counter the nefarious use of
unmanned aircraft systems.
Amendment No. 995
(Purpose: To extend the authorization of the Advisory Board on Toxic
Substances and Worker Health)
At the end of subtitle B of title XXXI, add the following:
SEC. 3116. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF ADVISORY BOARD ON
TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND WORKER HEALTH.
Section 3687(i) of the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7385s-
16(i)) is amended by striking ``5 years'' and inserting ``10
years''.
Amendment No. 1014
(Purpose: To require the Government Accountability Office to evaluate
Buy American training policies for the Defense acquisition workforce)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. BUY AMERICAN ACT TRAINING FOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION
WORKFORCE.
(a) Finding.--Congress finds that the Inspector General of
the Department of Defense has issued a series of reports
finding deficiencies in the adherence to the provisions of
the Buy American Act and recommending improvements in
training for the Defense acquisition workforce.
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report evaluating Buy American training policies
for the Defense acquisition workforce.
(2) Elements.--The report shall include the following
elements:
(A) A summary and assessment of mandated training courses
for Department of Defense acquisition personnel responsible
for procuring items that are subject to the Berry Amendment
and Buy American Act.
(B) Options for alternative training models for contracting
personnel on Buy American and Berry Amendment requirements.
amendment no. 1015
(Purpose: To encourage the United States Trade Representative to
consider the impact of marine debris in future trade agreements)
At the end of subtitle G of title XII, add the following:
SEC. 1285. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CONSIDERATION OF IMPACT OF
MARINE DEBRIS IN TRADE AGREEMENTS.
Recognizing that the Senate unanimously agreed to S. 756,
an Act to reauthorize and amend the Marine Debris Act to
promote international action to reduce marine debris, and for
other purposes (commonly referred to as the ``Save Our Seas
Act of 2017'') on August 3, 2017, Congress encourages the
United States Trade Representative to consider the impact of
marine debris, particularly plastic waste, in relevant trade
agreements entered into or negotiated after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
amendment no. 1021
(Purpose: To require a review of effects of personnel requirements and
limitations on the availability of members of the National Guard for
the performance of funeral honors duty for veterans)
At the end of subtitle B of title V, add the following:
SEC. ___. REVIEW OF EFFECTS OF PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS AND
LIMITATIONS ON THE AVAILABILITY OF MEMBERS OF
THE NATIONAL GUARD FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF
FUNERAL HONORS DUTY FOR VETERANS.
(a) Review Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall
undertake a review of the effects of the personnel
requirements and limitations described in subsection (b) with
respect to the members of the National Guard in order to
determine whether or not such requirements unduly limit the
ability of the Armed Forces to meet the demand for personnel
to perform funeral honors in connection with funerals of
veterans
(b) Personnel Requirements and Limitations.--The personnel
requirements and limitations described in this subsection are
the following:
(1) Requirements, such as the ceiling on the authorized
number of members of the National Guard on active duty
pursuant to section 115(b)(2)(B) of title 10, United States
Code, or end-strength limitations, that may operate to limit
the number of members of the National Guard available for the
performance of funeral honors duty.
(2) Any other requirements or limitations applicable to the
reserve components of the Armed Forces in general, or the
National Guard in particular, that may operate to limit the
number of members of the National Guard available for the
performance of funeral honors duty.
(c) Report.--Not later than six months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a report on the review undertaken pursuant to
subsection (a). The report shall include the following:
(1) A description of the review.
(2) Such recommendations as the Secretary considers
appropriate in light of the review for legislative or
administrative action to expand the number of members of the
National Guard available for the performance of funeral
honors functions at funerals of veterans.
Amendment No. 1023
(Purpose: To authorize the provision of support for Beyond Yellow
Ribbon programs)
At the end of subtitle H of title V, add the following:
SEC. 583. AUTHORIZATION OF SUPPORT FOR BEYOND YELLOW RIBBON
PROGRAMS.
Section 582 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 10 U.S.C. 10101 note)
is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (k) and (l) as subsections
(l) and (m), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (j) the following new
subsection (k):
``(k) Support for Beyond Yellow Ribbon Programs.--The
Secretary of Defense may award grants to States to carry out
programs that provide deployment cycle information, services,
and referrals to members of reserve components of the Armed
Forces, members of active components of the Armed Forces, and
the families of such members throughout the deployment cycle.
Such programs may include the provision of access to outreach
services, including the following:
``(1) Employment counseling.
``(2) Behavioral health counseling.
``(3) Suicide prevention.
``(4) Housing advocacy.
``(5) Financial counseling.
``(6) Referrals to for the receipt of other services.''.
Amendment No. 1065
(Purpose: To increase funding for environmental restoration for the Air
Force, and to provide an offset)
In the funding table in section 4301, in the item relating
to Environmental Restoration, Air Force, increase the amount
in the Senate Authorized column by $20,000,000.
In the funding table in section 4301, in the item relating
to Subtotal Environmental Restoration, Air Force, increase
the amount in the Senate Authorized column by $20,000,000.
In the funding table in section 4301, in the item relating
to Total Miscellaneous Appropriations, increase the amount in
the Senate Authorized column by $20,000,000.
In the funding table in section 4301, in the item relating
to Undistributed, Line number 999, reduce the amount in the
Senate Authorized column by $20,000,000.
In the funding table in section 4301, in the item relating
to Fuel Savings, increase the amount of the reduction
indicated in the Senate Authorized column by $20,000,000.
In the funding table in section 4301, in the item relating
to Subtotal Undistributed, reduce the amount in the Senate
Authorized column by $20,000,000.
In the funding table in section 4301, in the item relating
to Total Undistributed, reduce the amount in the Senate
Authorized column by $20,000,000.
Amendment No. 1087
(Purpose: To recognize the National Museum of World War II Aviation)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. RECOGNITION OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF WORLD WAR II
AVIATION.
(a) Recognition.--The National Museum of World War II
Aviation in Colorado Springs, Colorado, is recognized as
America's National World War II Aviation Museum.
(b) Effect of Recognition.--The National Museum recognized
by this section is not a unit of the National Park System,
and the recognition of the National Museum shall not be
construed to require or permit Federal funds to be expended
for any purpose related to the National Museum.
[[Page S5791]]
AMENDMENT NO. 1088
(Purpose: To authorize an additional $10,000,000 for the National Guard
for training on wildfire response, and to provide an offset)
At the end of subtitle B of title V, add the following:
SEC. ___. TRAINING FOR NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL ON WILDFIRE
RESPONSE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army and the
Secretary of the Air Force shall, in consultation with the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau, provide for training of
appropriate personnel of the National Guard on wildfire
response, with preference given to States with the most acres
of Federal forestlands administered by the U.S. Forest
Service or the Department of the Interior.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for the Department of Defense a total of
$10,000,000, in addition to amounts authorized to be
appropriated by sections 421 and 301, in order to carry out
the training required by subsection (a) and provide related
equipment.
(c) Offset.--In the funding table in section 4101, in the
item relating to Fuzes, Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force,
decrease the amount in the Senate Authorized column by
$10,000,000.
amendment no. 1089
(Purpose: To establish opportunities for scholarships related to
cybersecurity, and for other purposes)
At the end of title XVI, add the following:
Subtitle F--Cyber Scholarship Opportunities
SEC. 1661. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Cyber Scholarship
Opportunities Act of 2017''.
SEC. 1662. COMMUNITY COLLEGE CYBER PILOT PROGRAM AND
ASSESSMENT.
(a) Pilot Program.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subtitle, as part of the Federal Cyber
Scholarship-for-Service program established under section 302
of the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014 (15 U.S.C.
7442), the Director of the National Science Foundation, in
coordination with the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management, shall develop and implement a pilot program at
not more than 10, but at least 5, community colleges to
provide scholarships to eligible students who--
(1) are pursuing associate degrees or specialized program
certifications in the field of cybersecurity; and
(2)(A) have bachelor's degrees; or
(B) are veterans of the armed forces.
(b) Assessment.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subtitle, as part of the Federal Cyber
Scholarship-for-Service program established under section 302
of the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014 (15 U.S.C.
7442), the Director of the National Science Foundation, in
coordination with the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management, shall assess the potential benefits and
feasibility of providing scholarships through community
colleges to eligible students who are pursuing associate
degrees, but do not have bachelor's degrees.
SEC. 1663. FEDERAL CYBER SCHOLARSHIP-FOR SERVICE PROGRAM
UPDATES.
(a) In General.--Section 302 of the Cybersecurity
Enhancement Act of 2014 (15 U.S.C. 7442) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (b)(3) and inserting the
following:
``(3) prioritize the employment placement of at least 80
percent of scholarship recipients in an executive agency (as
defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code); and
``(4) provide awards to improve cybersecurity education at
the kindergarten through grade 12 level--
``(A) to increase interest in cybersecurity careers;
``(B) to help students practice correct and safe online
behavior and understand the foundational principles of
cybersecurity;
``(C) to improve teaching methods for delivering
cybersecurity content for kindergarten through grade 12
computer science curricula; and
``(D) to promote teacher recruitment in the field of
cybersecurity.'';
(2) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
``(d) Post-award Employment Obligations.--Each scholarship
recipient, as a condition of receiving a scholarship under
the program, shall enter into an agreement under which the
recipient agrees to work for a period equal to the length of
the scholarship, following receipt of the student's degree,
in the cybersecurity mission of--
``(1) an executive agency (as defined in section 105 of
title 5, United States Code);
``(2) Congress, including any agency, entity, office, or
commission established in the legislative branch;
``(3) an interstate agency;
``(4) a State, local, or tribal government; or
``(5) a State, local, or tribal government-affiliated non-
profit that is considered to be critical infrastructure (as
defined in section 1016(e) of the USA Patriot Act (42 U.S.C.
5195c(e)).'';
(3) in subsection (f)--
(A) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
``(3) have demonstrated a high level of competency in
relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities, as defined by the
national cybersecurity awareness and education program under
section 401;''; and
(B) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
``(4) be a full-time student in an eligible degree program
at a qualified institution of higher education, as determined
by the Director of the National Science Foundation, except
that in the case of a student who is enrolled in a community
college, be a student pursuing a degree on a less than full-
time basis, but not less than half-time basis; and''; and
(4) by amending subsection (m) to read as follows:
``(m) Public Information.--
``(1) Evaluation.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation, in coordination with the Director of the Office
of Personnel Management, shall periodically evaluate and make
public, in a manner that protects the personally identifiable
information of scholarship recipients, information on the
success of recruiting individuals for scholarships under this
section and on hiring and retaining those individuals in the
public sector cyber workforce, including on--
``(A) placement rates;
``(B) where students are placed, including job titles and
descriptions;
``(C) student salary ranges for students not released from
obligations under this section;
``(D) how long after graduation they are placed;
``(E) how long they stay in the positions they enter upon
graduation;
``(F) how many students are released from obligations; and
``(G) what, if any, remedial training is required.
``(2) Reports.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation, in coordination with the Office of Personnel
Management, shall submit, at least once every 3 years, to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of
the House of Representatives a report, including the results
of the evaluation under paragraph (1) and any recent
statistics regarding the size, composition, and educational
requirements of the Federal cyber workforce.
``(3) Resources.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation, in coordination with the Director of the Office
of Personnel Management, shall provide consolidated and user-
friendly online resources for prospective scholarship
recipients, including, to the extent practicable--
``(A) searchable, up-to-date, and accurate information
about participating institutions of higher education and job
opportunities related to the field of cybersecurity; and
``(B) a modernized description of cybersecurity careers.''.
(b) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this section, or an
amendment made by this section, shall affect any agreement,
scholarship, loan, or repayment, under section 302 of the
Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014 (15 U.S.C. 7442), in
effect on the day before the date of enactment of this
subtitle.
SEC. 1664. CYBERSECURITY TEACHING.
Section 10(i) of the National Science Foundation
Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-1(i)) is amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (5) to read as follows:
``(5) the term `mathematics and science teacher' means a
science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or computer
science, including cybersecurity, teacher at the elementary
school or secondary school level;''; and
(2) by amending paragraph (7) to read as follows:
``(7) the term `science, technology, engineering, or
mathematics professional' means an individual who holds a
baccalaureate, master's, or doctoral degree in science,
technology, engineering, mathematics, or computer science,
including cybersecurity, and is working in or had a career in
such field or a related area; and''.
amendment no. 1094
(Purpose: To express the sense of Senate on increasing enrollment in
Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps programs at minority-serving
institutions)
At the end of subtitle E of title V, add the following:
SEC. ___. SENSE OF SENATE ON INCREASING ENROLLMENT IN SENIOR
RESERVE OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS PROGRAMS AT
MINORITY-SERVING INSTITUTIONS.
(a) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that
the Armed Forces should take appropriate actions to increase
enrollment in Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (SROTC)
programs at minority-serving institutions.
(b) Minority-serving Institution Defined.--In this section,
the term ``minority-serving institution'' means an
institution of higher education described in section 371(a)
of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1067q(a)).
amendment no. 1100
(Purpose: To modify the basis on which an extension of the period for
enlistment in the Armed Forces may be made under the Delayed Entry
Program)
At the end of subtitle C of title V, add the following:
SEC. ___. MODIFICATION OF BASIS FOR EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR
ENLISTMENT IN THE ARMED FORCES UNDER THE
DELAYED ENTRY PROGRAM.
Section 513(b) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
[[Page S5792]]
(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4);
(2) by designating the second sentence of paragraph (1) as
paragraph (2) and indenting the left margin of such paragraph
(2), as so designated, two ems from the left margin;
(3) in paragraph (2), as so designated, by inserting
``described in paragraph (1)'' after ``the 365-day period'';
(4) by inserting after paragraph (2), as designated by this
section, the following new paragraph (3):
``(3)(A) The Secretary concerned may extend by up to an
additional 365 days the period of extension under paragraph
(2) for a person who enlists under section 504(b)(2) of this
title if the Secretary determines that the period of
extension under this paragraph is required for the
performance of adequate background and security reviews of
that person.
``(B) The authority to make an extension under this
paragraph shall expire on December 31, 2019. The expiration
of such authority shall not effect the validity of any
extension made in accordance with this paragraph on or before
that date.''; and
(5) in paragraph (4), as redesignated by paragraph (1) of
this section, by striking ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting
``this subsection''.
amendment no. 470
(Purpose: Relating to mechanisms to facilitate the obtaining by
military spouses of occupational licenses or credentials in other
States)
At the end of part II of subtitle F of title V, add the
following:
SEC. ___. MECHANISMS TO FACILITATE THE OBTAINING BY MILITARY
SPOUSES OF OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES OR CREDENTIALS
IN OTHER STATES.
Not later than March 1, 2018, the Secretary of Defense
shall--
(1) develop and maintain a joint Federal-State clearing
house to process the occupational license and credential
information of military spouses in order--
(A) to facilitate the matching of such information with
State occupational licensure and credentialing requirements;
and
(B) to provide military spouses information on the actions
required to obtain occupational licenses or credentials in
other States;
(2) develop and maintain an Internet website that serves as
a one-stop resource on occupational licenses and credentials
for military spouses that sets forth license and credential
requirements for common occupations in the States and
provides assistance and other resources for military spouses
seeking to obtain occupational licenses or credentials in
other States; and
(3) submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting
forth an assessment of the feasibility and advisability of
the establishment of a joint Federal-State task force
dedicated to the elimination of unnecessary or duplicative
occupational licensure and credentialing requirements among
the States, including through the use of alternative, less
restrictive and burdensome forms of occupational regulation.
amendment no. 601
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to declassify certain
documents related to incidents in which members of the Armed Forces
were exposed to toxic substances)
At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1088. DECLASSIFICATION BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OF
CERTAIN INCIDENTS OF EXPOSURE OF MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES TO TOXIC SUBSTANCES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall declassify
documents related to any known incident in which not fewer
than 100 members of the Armed Forces were exposed to a toxic
substance that resulted in at least one case of a disability
that a member of the medical profession has determined to be
associated with that toxic substance.
(b) Limitation.--The declassification required by
subsection (a) shall be limited to information necessary for
an individual who was potentially exposed to a toxic
substance to determine the following:
(1) Whether that individual was exposed to that toxic
substance.
(2) The potential severity of the exposure of that
individual to that toxic substance.
(3) Any potential health conditions that may have resulted
from exposure to that toxic substance.
(c) Exception.--The Secretary of Defense is not required to
declassify documents under subsection (a) if the Secretary
determines that declassification of those documents would
materially and immediately threaten the security of the
United States.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Armed forces.--The term ``Armed Forces'' has the
meaning given that term in section 101 of title 10, United
States Code.
(2) Exposed.--The term ``exposed'' means, with respect to a
toxic substance, that an individual came into contact with
that toxic substance in a manner that could be hazardous to
the health of that individual, that may include if that toxic
substance was inhaled, ingested, or touched the skin or eyes.
(3) Exposure.--The term ``exposure'' means, with respect to
a toxic substance, an event during which an individual was
exposed to that toxic substance.
(4) Toxic substance.--The term ``toxic substance'' means
any substance determined by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to be harmful to the
environment or hazardous to the health of an individual if
inhaled or ingested by or absorbed through the skin of that
individual.
amendment no. 712
(Purpose: To require a plan to meet the demand for cyberspace career
fields in the reserve components of the Armed Forces)
At the end of subtitle B of title V, add the following:
SEC. ___. PLAN TO MEET DEMAND FOR CYBERSPACE CAREER FIELDS IN
THE RESERVE COMPONENTS OF THE ARMED FORCES.
(a) Plan Required.--Not later than one year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to Congress a report setting forth a plan for meeting
the increased demand for cyberspace career fields in the
reserve components of the Armed Forces.
(b) Elements.--The plan shall take into account the
following:
(1) The availability of qualified local workforces.
(2) Potential best practices of private sector companies
involved in cyberspace and of educational institutions with
established cyberspace-related academic programs.
(3) The potential for Total Force Integration throughout
the defense cyber community.
(4) Recruitment strategies to attract individuals with
critical cyber training and skills to join the reserve
components.
(c) Metrics.--The plan shall include appropriate metrics
for use in the evaluation of the implementation of the plan.
amendment no. 780
(Purpose: To increase the maximum term for intergovernmental support
agreements to provide installation support services)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. INCREASED TERM LIMIT FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SUPPORT
AGREEMENTS TO PROVIDE INSTALLATION SUPPORT
SERVICES.
Section 2679(a)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``five years'' and inserting ``ten
years.''
amendment no. 873
(Purpose: To require the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration to submit to Congress a report on the utilization of
small businesses with respect to certain Federal contracts)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. REPORT ON UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES FOR
FEDERAL CONTRACTS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) since the passage of the Budget Control Act of 2011
(Public Law 112-25; 125 Stat. 240), many Federal agencies
have started favoring longer-term Federal contracts,
including multiple award contracts, over direct individual
awards;
(2) these multiple award contracts have grown to more than
one-fifth of Federal contract spending, with the fastest
growing multiple award contracts surpassing $100,000,000 in
obligations for the first time between 2013 and 2014;
(3) in fiscal year 2017, 17 of the 20 largest Federal
contract opportunities are multiple award contracts;
(4) while Federal agencies may choose to use any or all of
the various socio-economic groups on a multiple award
contract, the Small Business Administration only examines
socio-economic performance through the small business
procurement scorecard and does not examine potential
opportunities by those groups; and
(5) Congress and the Department of Justice have been clear
that no individual socio-economic group shall be given
preference over another.
(b) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of
the Small Business Administration;
(2) the term ``covered small business concerns'' means--
(A) HUBZone small business concerns;
(B) small business concerns owned and controlled by
service-disabled veterans;
(C) small business concerns owned and controlled by women;
and
(D) socially and economically disadvantaged small business
concerns, as defined in section 8(a)(4)(A) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)(4)(A)), receiving assistance
under such section 8(a); and
(3) the terms ``HUBZone small business concern'', ``small
business concern'', ``small business concern owned and
controlled by service-disabled veterans'', and ``small
business concern owned and controlled by women'' have the
meanings given those terms in section 3 of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 632).
(c) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the
Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House of
Representatives a report that includes--
(A) a determination as to whether small business concerns
and each category of covered small business concerns
described in
[[Page S5793]]
subparagraphs (A) through (D) of subsection (b)(2) are being
utilized in a significant portion of the Federal market on
multiple award contracts, including--
(i) whether awards are being reserved for 1 or more of
those categories; and
(ii) whether each such category is being given the
opportunity to perform on multiple award contracts;
(B) a determination as to whether performance requirements
for multiple award contracts, as in effect on the day before
the date of enactment of this Act, are feasible and
appropriate for small business concerns; and
(C) any additional information as the Administrator may
determine necessary.
(2) Requirement.--In making the determinations required
under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall use information
from multiple award contracts--
(A) with varied assigned North American Industry
Classification System codes; and
(B) that were awarded by not less than 8 Federal agencies.
amendment no. 874
(Purpose: To limit authorized cost increases in military construction
projects)
At the end of subtitle A of title XXVIII, add the
following:
SEC. __. AUTHORIZED COST INCREASES.
Section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``by not more than 10
percent'' after ``may be increased''; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``limitation on cost variations'' and
inserting ``limitation on cost decreases''; and
(B) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``case of a cost increase or a reduction''
and inserting ``case of a reduction''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (A)--
(I) by striking ``cost increase or reduction in scope, the
reasons therefor,'' and inserting ``reduction in scope, the
reasons therefor, and''; and
(II) by striking ``, and a description of the funds
proposed to be used to finance any increased costs''.
amendment no. 879
(Purpose: To amend title 46, United States Code, to provide greater
flexibility to the Coast Guard in deciding the Federal district court
in which to prosecute individuals engaged in drug trafficking)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. VENUE FOR PROSECUTION OF MARITIME DRUG TRAFFICKING.
(a) In General.--Section 70504(b) of title 46, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Venue.--A person violating section 70503 or 70508--
``(1) shall be tried in the district in which such offense
was committed; or
``(2) if the offense was begun or committed upon the high
seas, or elsewhere outside the jurisdiction of any particular
State or district, may be tried in any district.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1009(d) of the
Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.
959(d)) is amended--
(1) in the subsection title, by striking ``; Venue''; and
(2) by striking ``Any person who violates this section
shall be tried in the United States district court at the
point of entry where such person enters the United States, or
in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia.''.
amendment no. 908
(Purpose: To authorize the modification of the Second Division
Memorial)
At the end of subtitle D of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3___. MODIFICATION OF THE SECOND DIVISION MEMORIAL.
(a) Authorization.--The Second Indianhead Division
Association, Inc., Scholarship and Memorials Foundation, an
organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under section
501(a) of that Code, may place additional commemorative
elements or engravings on the raised platform or stone work
of the existing Second Division Memorial located in
President's Park, between 17th Street Northwest and
Constitution Avenue in the District of Columbia, to further
honor the members of the Second Infantry Division who have
given their lives in service to the United States.
(b) Application of Commemorative Works Act.--Chapter 89 of
title 40, United States Code (commonly known as the
``Commemorative Works Act''), shall apply to the design and
placement of the commemorative elements or engravings
authorized under subsection (a).
(c) Funding.--Federal funds may not be used for
modifications of the Second Division Memorial authorized
under subsection (a).
AMENDMENT NO. 927
(Purpose: Requiring a report on the availability of postsecondary
credit for skills acquired during military service)
At the end of subtitle D of title V, add the following:
SEC. __. REPORT ON AVAILABILITY OF POSTSECONDARY CREDIT FOR
SKILLS ACQUIRED DURING MILITARY SERVICE.
Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretaries of Veterans Affairs, Education, and Labor, shall
submit to Congress a report on the transfer of skills into
equivalent postsecondary credits or technical certifications
for members of the armed forces leaving the military. Such
report shall describe each the following:
(1) Each skill that may be acquired during military service
that is eligible for transfer into an equivalent
postsecondary credit or technical certification.
(2) The academic level of the equivalent postsecondary
credit or technical certification for each such skill.
(3) Each academic institution that awards an equivalent
postsecondary credit or technical certification for such
skills, including--
(A) each such academic institution's status as a public or
private institution, and as a non-profit or for-profit
institution; and
(B) the number of veterans that applied to such academic
institution who were able to receive equivalent postsecondary
credits or technical certifications in the preceding fiscal
year, and the academic level of the credits or
certifications.
(4) The number of members of the armed forces who left the
military in the preceding fiscal year, and the number of such
members who met with an academic or technical training
advisor as part of the member's participation in the
Transition Assistance Program of the Department of Defense.
AMENDMENT NO. 943
(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to enter into an
agreement providing for the joint use of Dobbins Air Reserve Base,
Marietta, Georgia, with civil aviation)
At the end of subtitle E of title XXVIII, add the
following:
SEC. __. JOINT USE OF DOBBINS AIR RESERVE BASE, MARIETTA,
GEORGIA, WITH CIVIL AVIATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Air Force may enter
into an agreement that would provide or permit the joint use
of Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Marietta, Georgia, by the Air
Force and civil aircraft.
(b) Conforming Repeal.--Section 312 of the National Defense
Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1989 (Public Law 100-456; 102
Stat. 1950) is hereby repealed.
Amendment No. 945
(Purpose: To require information on Department of Defense funding in
Department press releases and related public statements on programs,
projects, and activities funded by the Department)
At the end of subtitle A of title X, add the following:
SEC. ___. INFORMATION ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FUNDING IN
DEPARTMENT PRESS RELEASES AND RELATED PUBLIC
STATEMENTS ON PROGRAMS, PROJECTS, AND
ACTIVITIES FUNDED BY THE DEPARTMENT.
(a) Information Required.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 134 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
2257 the following new section:
``Sec. 2258. Department of Defense press releases and related
public statements on Department funded programs, projects,
and activities
``Any press release, statement, or other document issued to
the public by the Department of Defense that describes a
program, project, or activity funded, whether in whole or in
part, by amounts provided by the Department, including any
project, project, or activity of a foreign, State, or local
government, shall clearly state the following:
``(1) That the program, project, or activity is funded, in
whole or in part (as applicable), by funds provided by the
Department.
``(2) An estimate of the amount of funding from the
Department that the program, project, or activity currently
receives.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of subchapter II of chapter 134 of such title is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2257
the following new item:
``2258. Department of Defense press releases and related public
statements on Department funded programs, projects, and
activities.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act,
and shall apply with respect to programs, projects, and
activities funded by the Department of Defense with amounts
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years after fiscal
year 2018.
Amendment No. 1006
(Purpose: To modernize Government information technology, and for other
purposes)
(The amendment is printed in the Record of September 13, 2017, under
``Text of Amendments.'')
Amendment No. 1031
(Purpose: To require a certification and report related to the enhanced
multi mission parachute system)
At the end of subtitle C of title I, add the following:
SEC. ___. CERTIFICATION OF THE ENHANCED MULTI MISSION
PARACHUTE SYSTEM FOR THE UNITED STATES MARINE
CORPS.
(a) Certification.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall
submit to
[[Page S5794]]
the congressional defense committees a certification--
(1) whether either the Marine Corps' currently fielded
multi mission parachute system or the Army's RA-1 parachute
system meet the Marine Corps requirements;
(2) whether the Marine Corps' PARIS, Special Application
Parachute meets the Marine Corps requirement;
(3) whether the testing plan for the enhanced multi mission
parachute system meets all regulatory requirements; and
(4) whether the Department of the Navy has determined that
a high glide canopy is as safe and effective as the currently
fielded free fall parachute systems.
(b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall submit
to the congressional defense committees a report that
includes--
(1) an explanation for using the Parachute Industry
Association specification for a military parachute given that
sports parachutes are employed from relatively slow flying
civilian aircraft at altitudes below 10,000 feet;
(2) a cost estimate for any new equipment and training that
the Marine Corps will require in order to employ a high glide
parachute;
(3) justification of why the Department of the Navy is not
conducting any testing until first article testing; and
(4) an assessment of the risks associated with high glide
canopies with a focus on how the Department of the Navy will
mitigate the risk for malfunctions experienced in other high
glide canopy programs.
Amendment No. 1033
(Purpose: To require a report related to the E-8C JSTARS
recapitalization program)
At the end of subtitle D of title I, add the following:
SEC. __. REQUIREMENT FOR CONTINUATION OF E-8 JSTARS
RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM.
If the Secretary of the Air Force proposes in a budget
request to cancel or modify the current E-8C JSTARS
recapitalization program as presented to Congress in May
2017, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report at the
same time as the Secretary of the Air Force makes such a
request budget request. That report shall set forth the
following:
(1) The rationale and appropriate supporting analysis for
the proposed cancellation or modification.
(2) An assessment of the implications of such cancellation
or modification for the Air Force, Air National Guard, Army,
Army National Guard, Navy and Marine Corps, and combatant
commands' mission needs.
(3) A certification that such cancellation or modification
of the previous recapitalization program plan would not
result in an increased time during which there is a
capability gap in providing Battlefield Management, Command
and Control/Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
(BMC2/ISR) to the combatant commanders.
(4) Such other matters relating to the proposed
cancellation or modification as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
Amendment No. 1034
(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding fire protection in
Department of Defense facilities)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FIRE PROTECTION IN DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE FACILITIES.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) portable fire extinguishers are essential to the safety
of members of the Armed Forces and their families;
(2) the current United Facilities Criteria could be updated
to ensure it provides members of the Armed Forces, their
families, and other Department of Defense personnel with the
most modern fire protection standards that are met by their
civilian counterparts, including requiring portable fire
extinguishers on military installations;
(3) United Facilities Criteria 3-600-01, Section 4-9, dated
September 26, 2006, addresses the national and international
standards for fire safety and Department of Defense
Facilities; and
(4) the Secretary of Defense should consider amending the
current United Facilities Criteria Section 9-17.1 to address
the standards outlined by United Facilities Criteria 3-600-
01, Section 4-9, dated September 26, 2006.
Amendment No. 1038
(Purpose: To ensure transparency in acquisition programs)
At the end of subtitle A of title VIII, add the following:
SEC. __. ENSURING TRANSPARENCY IN ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall establish
and implement a policy that will ensure the acquisition
programs of major systems establish cost, schedule, and
performance goals at the onset of the program. The policy
shall also ensure that acquisition programs of major systems
report on the original cost, schedule, and performance goals
throughout the program to ensure transparency.
(b) Major System Defined.--In this section, the term
``major system'' has the meaning given the term in section
2302d of title 10, United States Code.
Amendment No. 1039
(Purpose: To devolve acquisition authority from the Office of the
Secretary of Defense to the military services)
At the end of subtitle C of title VIII, add the following:
SEC. __. ROLE OF THE CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCE IN MATERIAL
DEVELOPMENT DECISION AND ACQUISITION SYSTEM
MILESTONES.
Section 2547(b) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``(1) The
Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Consistent with the performance of duties under
subsection (a), the Chief of the armed force concerned, with
respect to major defense acquisition programs, shall--
``(A) concur with the need for a material solution as
identified in the Material Development Decision Review prior
to entry into the Material Solution Analysis Phase under
Department of Defense Instruction 5000.02;
``(B) concur with the cost, schedule, technical
feasibility, and performance trade-offs that have been made
with regard to the program before Milestone A approval is
granted under section 2366a of this title;
``(C) concur that appropriate trade-offs among cost,
schedule, technical feasibility, and performance objectives
have been made to ensure that the program is affordable when
considering the per unit cost and the total life-cycle cost
before Milestone B approval is granted under section 2366b of
this title; and
``(D) concur that the requirements in the program
capability document are necessary and realistic in relation
to program cost and fielding targets as required by paragraph
(1) before Milestone C approval is granted.''.
Amendment No. 1050
(Purpose: To increase funding for research, development, test, and
evaluation for historically Black colleges and universities and other
minority-serving institutions of higher education)
At the end of subtitle C of title II of division A, add the
following:
SEC. ___. IMPORTANCE OF HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES AND MINORITY-SERVING INSTITUTIONS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs)
and minority-serving institutions play a vital role in
educating low-income and underrepresented students in areas
of national need;
(2) HBCUs and minority-serving institutions presently are
collaborating with the Department of Defense in research and
development efforts that contribute to the defense readiness
and national security of the Nation;
(3) by their research these institutions are helping to
develop the next generation of scientists and engineers who
will help lead the Department of Defense in addressing high-
priority national security challenges; and
(4) it is important to further engage HBCUs and minority-
serving institutions in university research and innovation,
especially in prioritizing software development and cyber
security by utilizing existing Department of Defense labs,
and collaborating with existing programs that help attract
candidates, including programs like the Air Force Minority
Leaders Programs, which recruit Americans from diverse
background to serve their country through service in our
Nation's military.
(b) Increase.--Funds authorized to be appropriated in
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE
61228D8Z, section 4201, for Basic Research, Historically
Black Colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions, Line
006, are hereby increased by $12,000,000.
(c) Offset.--Funding in section 4101 for Other Procurement,
Army, for Automated Data Processing Equipment, Line 108, is
hereby reduced by $12,000,000.
AMENDMENT NO. 1055
(Purpose: To require a report on cyber applications of blockchain
technology)
At the end of subtitle C of title XVI, add the following:
SEC. 1630C. REPORT ON CYBER APPLICATIONS OF BLOCKCHAIN
TECHNOLOGY.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the heads of such other agencies and
departments as the Secretary considers appropriate, shall
submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on
the potential offensive and defensive cyber applications of
blockchain technology and other distributed database
technologies and an assessment of efforts by foreign powers,
extremist organizations, and criminal networks to utilize
these technologies. Such report shall also include an
assessment of the use or planned use of blockchain
technologies by the United States Government or critical
infrastructure networks and the vulnerabilities of such
networks to cyber attacks.
(b) Form of Report.--The report required by (a) may be
submitted--
(1) in classified form; or
(2) in unclassified form with a classified annex.
(c) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
[[Page S5795]]
(1) the Committee on Armed Services, the Select Committee
on Intelligence, and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
(2) Committee on Armed Services, the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on Homeland
Security of the House of Representatives.
AMENDMENT NO. 1063
(Purpose: To modify the definition of custom-developed computer
software)
In section 886, beginning in the new section 2320a of title
10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a)(1) of such
section 886, strike subsection (c) of such section 2320a and
all that follows through the end of subsection (d)(1) of such
section 886 and insert the following:
``(c) Applicability to Existing Software.--The Secretary of
Defense shall, where appropriate--
``(1) seek to negotiate open source licenses to existing
custom-developed computer software with contractors that
developed it; and
``(2) release related source code and technical data in a
public repository location approved by the Department of
Defense.
``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Custom-developed computer software.--The term
`custom-developed computer software'--
``(A) means human-readable source code, including
segregable portions thereof, that is--
``(i) first produced in the performance of a Department of
Defense contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other
transaction; or
``(ii) developed by a contractor or subcontractor
exclusively with Federal funds (other than an item or process
developed under a contract or subcontract to which
regulations under section 9(j)(2) of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 638(j)(2)) apply); and
``(B) does not include Commercial Off-The-Shelf software,
or packaged software developed exclusively at private
expense, whether delivered as a Cloud Service, in binary
form, or by any other means of software delivery.
``(2) Technical data.--The term `technical data' has the
meaning given the term in section 2302 of this title.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding after the item
relating to section 2320 the following new item:
``2320a. Use of open source software.''.
(b) Prize Competition.--The Secretary of Defense shall
create a prize for a research and develop program or other
activity for identifying, capturing, and storing existing
Department of Defense custom-developed computer software and
related technical data. The Secretary of Defense shall create
an additional prize for improving, repurposing, or reusing
software to better support the Department of Defense mission.
The prize programs shall be conducted in accordance with
section 2374a of title 10, United States Code.
(c) Reverse Engineering.--The Secretary of Defense shall
task the Defense Advanced Research Program Agency with a
project to identify methods to locate and reverse engineer
Department of Defense custom-developed computer software and
related technical data for which source code is unavailable.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Custom-developed computer software.--The term ``custom-
developed computer software''--
(A) means human-readable source code, including segregable
portions thereof, that is--
(i) first produced in the performance of a Department of
Defense contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other
transaction; or
(ii) developed by a contractor or subcontractor exclusively
with Federal funds (other than an item or process developed
under a contract or subcontract to which regulations under
section 9(j)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
638(j)(2)) apply); and
(B) does not include Commercial Off-The-Shelf software, or
packaged software developed exclusively at private expense,
whether delivered as a Cloud Service, in binary form, or by
any other means of software delivery.
Amendment No. 1073
(Purpose: To improve section 1653, relating to ground-based interceptor
capability, capacity, and reliability)
Strike section 1653 and insert the following:
SEC. 1653. GROUND-BASED INTERCEPTOR CAPABILITY, CAPACITY, AND
RELIABILITY.
(a) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that it is the policy of the United States to maintain and
improve, with the allies of the United States, an effective,
robust layered missile defense system capable of defending
the citizens of the United States residing in territories and
States of the United States, allies of the United States, and
deployed Armed Forces of the United States.
(b) Increase in Capacity and Continued Advancement.--The
Secretary of Defense shall--
(1) subject to the annual authorization of appropriations
and the annual appropriation of funds for National Missile
Defense, increase the number of United States ground-based
interceptors, unless otherwise directed by the Ballistic
Missile Defense Review, by up to 28;
(2) develop a plan to further increase such number to the
currently available missile field capacity of 104 and to plan
for any future capacity at any site that may be identified by
the Ballistic Missile Defense Review; and
(3) continue to rapidly advance missile defense
technologies to improve the capability and reliability of the
ground-based midcourse defense element of the ballistic
missile defense system.
(c) Deployment.--Not later than December 31, 2021, the
Secretary of Defense shall--
(1) execute any requisite construction to ensure that
Missile Field 1 or Missile Field 2 at Fort Greely or
alternative missile fields at Fort Greely which may be
identified pursuant to subsection (b), are capable of
supporting and sustaining additional ground-based
interceptors;
(2) deploy up to 14 additional ground-based interceptors to
Missile Field 1 or up to 20 additional ground-based
interceptors to an alternative missile field at Fort Greely
as soon as technically feasible; and
(3) identify a ground-based interceptor stockpile storage
site for the remaining ground-based interceptors required by
subsection (b).
(d) Report.--
(1) In general.--Unless otherwise directed or recommended
by the Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR), the Director
of the Missile Defense Agency shall submit to the
congressional defense committees, not later than 90 days
after the completion of the Ballistic Missile Defense Review,
a report on options to increase the capability, capacity, and
reliability of the ground-based midcourse defense element of
the ballistic missile defense system and the infrastructure
requirements for increasing the number of ground-based
interceptors in currently feasible locations across the
United States.
(2) Contents.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) An identification of potential sites in the United
States, whether existing or new on the East Coast or in the
Midwest, for the deployment of 104 ground-based interceptors.
(B) A cost-benefit analysis of each such site, including
tactical, operational, and cost-to-construct considerations.
(C) A description of any completed and outstanding
environmental assessments or impact statements for each such
site.
(D) A description of the existing capacity of the missile
fields at Fort Greely and the infrastructure requirements
needed to increase the number of ground-based interceptors to
20 ground-based interceptors each.
(E) A description of the additional infrastructure and
components needed to further outfit missile fields at Fort
Greely before emplacing additional ground-based interceptors
configured with the redesigned kill vehicle, including with
respect to ground excavation, silos, utilities, and support
equipment.
(F) A cost estimate of such infrastructure and components.
(G) An estimated schedule for completing such construction
as may be required for such infrastructure and components.
(H) An identification of any environmental assessments or
impact studies that would need to be conducted to expand such
missile fields at Fort Greely beyond current capacity.
(I) An operational evaluation and cost analysis of the
deployment of transportable ground-based interceptors,
including an identification of potential sites, including in
the eastern United States and at Vandenberg Air Force Base,
and an examination of any environmental, legal, or tactical
challenges associated with such deployments, including to any
sites identified in subparagraph (A).
(J) A determination of the appropriate fleet mix of ground-
based interceptor kill vehicles and boosters to maximize
overall system effectiveness and increase its capacity and
capability, including the costs and benefits of continued
inclusion of capability enhancement II (CE-II) Block 1
interceptors after the fielding of the redesigned kill
vehicle.
(K) A description of the planned improvements to homeland
ballistic missile defense sensor and discrimination
capabilities and an assessment of the expected operational
benefits of such improvements to homeland ballistic missile
defense.
(L) The benefit of supplementing ground-based midcourse
defense elements with other, more distributed, elements,
including both Aegis ships and Aegis Ashore installations
with Standard Missile-3 Block IIA and other interceptors in
Hawaii and at other locations for homeland missile defense.
(3) Form.--The report submitted under paragraph (1) shall
be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a
classified annex.
Amendment No. 1086
(Purpose: To authorize $600,000,000 in increased funding for the
procurement of one Littoral Combat Ship for the Navy above the
President's budget request)
In the funding table in section 4101, in the item relating
to Littoral Combat Ship, increase the amount in the Senate
Authorized column by $600,000,000.
In line 999 of the funding table in section 4301, in the
item relating to fuel savings, increase the reduction by $600
million.
Amendment No. 1096
(Purpose: To prohibit multichannel video programming distributors from
being required to carry certain video content that is owned or
controlled by the Government of the Russian Federation)
At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:
SEC. _____. CARRIAGE OF CERTAIN PROGRAMMING.
(a) Definitions.--In this section--
[[Page S5796]]
(1) the term ``local commercial television station'' has
the meaning given the term in section 614(h) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 534(h));
(2) the term ``multichannel video programming distributor''
has the meaning given the term in section 602 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 522);
(3) the term ``qualified noncommercial educational
television station'' has the meaning given the term in
section 615(l) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
535(l));
(4) the term ``retransmission consent'' means the authority
granted to a multichannel video programming distributor under
section 325(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
325(b)) to retransmit the signal of a television broadcast
station; and
(5) the term ``television broadcast station'' has the
meaning given the term in section 76.66(a) of title 47, Code
of Federal Regulations.
(b) Carriage of Certain Content.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a multichannel video programming
distributor may not be directly or indirectly required,
including as a condition of obtaining retransmission consent,
to--
(1) carry non-incidental video content from a local
commercial television station, qualified noncommercial
educational television station, or television broadcast
station to the extent that such content is owned, controlled,
or financed (in whole or in part) by the Government of the
Russian Federation; or
(2) lease, or otherwise make available, channel capacity to
any person for the provision of video programming that is
owned, controlled, or financed (in whole or in part) by the
Government of the Russian Federation.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed as applying to the editorial use by a local
commercial television station, qualified noncommercial
educational television station, or television broadcast
station of programming that is owned, controlled, or financed
(in whole or in part) by the Government of the Russian
Federation.
Amendment No. 1032
(Purpose: To prohibit the availability of funds for retirement of E-8
JSTARS aircraft)
At the end of subtitle D of title I, add the following:
SEC. ___. PROHIBITION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR RETIREMENT
OF E-8 JSTARS AIRCRAFT.
(a) Prohibition on Available of Funds for Retirement.--
Except as provided by subsection (b), none of the funds
authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made
available for fiscal year 2018 for the Air Force may be
obligated or expended to retire, or prepare to retire, any E-
8 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System aircraft.
(b) Exception.--The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not
apply to individual Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar
System aircraft that the Secretary of the Air Force
determines, on a case-by-case basis, to be non-operational
because of mishaps, other damage, or being uneconomical to
repair.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield back my remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All postcloture time has expired.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall it pass?
Mr. ENZI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) and the Senator from South Carolina
(Mr. Graham).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio)
would have voted ``yea''.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 8, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 199 Leg.]
YEAS--89
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Grassley
Harris
Hassan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Strange
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Young
NAYS--8
Corker
Gillibrand
Leahy
Lee
Merkley
Paul
Sanders
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Graham
Menendez
Rubio
The bill (H.R. 2810), as amended, was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 2810,
as amended, be printed as passed by the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The bill, H.R. 2810, as amended, will be printed in a future edition
of the Record.)
____________________