[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 27, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1245-S1251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs. Capito, Ms. 
        Klobuchar, Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Cassidy, and Ms. 
        Cantwell):
  S. 2456. A bill to reauthorize and expand the Comprehensive Addiction 
and Recovery Act of 2016; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I want to address a critical issue today 
in Westerville, OH, and, frankly, every community I represent in my 
State and communities all over the country. Today, I want to talk about 
the opioid epidemic that is gripping our country.
  Every State represented in this Chamber has had too many communities 
devastated, families broken apart, and lives taken by the opioid 
overdoses. The Centers for Disease Control now tells us more than 
63,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2016, the last year for 
which they have records. It also looks like it was worse in 2017. More 
Americans are dying from drug overdoses than the total number of 
casualties during the Vietnam war. Every year, more Americans are dying 
from drug overdoses than the total number of casualties from the 
Vietnam war. Think about that. It is a staggering statistic.
  On average, more than 174 Americans died every single day from a drug 
overdose in 2016. That is up from 143 Americans in 2015 and 105 
Americans in 2010. In other words, it is getting worse, and 2016 was 
the deadliest year on record. Initial estimates for 2017 suggest it is 
going to be even deadlier, including in my home State of Ohio.
  Opioids--prescription drugs, heroin, and synthetic forms of heroin--
are increasingly the reason why. Opioids were involved in about two-
thirds of all overdose deaths in 2016. Opioid overdose deaths were five 
times higher in 2016 than they were just back in 1999. In the past 17 
years, we have seen a fivefold increase in these overdose deaths. It is 
a national epidemic.
  It has unfolded in three different waves. It started with 
prescription drugs, overprescribing of prescription drugs--pain pills. 
The pill mills we saw in Southern Ohio and around our State exploded 
about 15 to 20 years ago. Next, there were the heroin deaths. Heroin 
moved in and spiked as people moved to less expensive and more 
accessible alternatives than prescription drugs. Now, I hate to tell 
you, there is a new danger and a threat, and it is deadlier than ever. 
It is these synthetic opioids--fentanyl, carfentanil--that have moved 
into our States, overcoming our law enforcement, and the results have 
been deadly.
  By the way, it is a crisis that does not discriminate. Opioid 
addiction affects everybody, regardless of age, area code, class, or 
color. In Ohio, drug addiction and acts committed to support it have 
now become the No. 1 cause of crime in our communities--probably the 
same in your community.
  Employers, of course, are increasingly pointing to the inability to 
find workers who can pass a drug test. They can't fill vacant 
positions. There is new data out with regard to people who are not 
showing up on the unemployment rolls but have given up looking for work 
altogether. There are probably 9 million men between 25 and 55 who are 
considered to be able-bodied who aren't even looking for work. Some 
really troubling statistics out there indicate that maybe as many as 
half--one study says 48 percent--of those individuals are taking 
opioids on a daily basis.
  This is affecting all of us. Every aspect of our communities is 
affected. Everybody has a role to play overcoming this epidemic. There 
is an urgency coming up with better strategies to turn the tide on 
addiction. Although I believe progress has been made recently--and it 
is starting to be made in my State and other States--much more needs to 
be done and done urgently.
  Part of that starts with understanding that addiction is a disease, 
and it is treatable. Too often it is not treated like that. The 
appropriate response should include much more aggressive prevention and 
education, absolutely, and more aggressive law enforcement keeping 
deadly fentanyl out of our communities through the STOP Act and other 
means, of course, but we also have to get more effective treatment 
strategies. We have a couple hundred thousand people in Ohio who are 
addicted. We need to get them into treatment, including more effective 
detox, medication-assisted treatment, and longer term recovery. We 
know, coupled with the right kind of therapy, the right kind of support 
and help, people can get into recovery and get back to their families, 
get back to work, and get back to being productive citizens.
  We also know recovery results are a lot better with that kind of 
continuous support. Closing the gaps that occur is key to overcoming 
addiction. There is a gap between the crisis response, which is often a 
first responder--like the two brave officers I talked about earlier--
finding someone who has overdosed. Often it is firefighters as well 
providing Narcan, this miracle drug that reverses the effect of the 
overdose. That is incredibly important to saving lives.
  Narcan alone is not sufficient. The key is to get those people into 
detox and into treatment and longer term recovery. The gaps we have out 
there between the crisis response and Narcan,

[[Page S1246]]

then going to detox, then going to treatment, and then going to 
recovery are creating a lot of the inability to solve this problem.
  I have probably met a couple of thousand addicts or recovering 
addicts in the last few years. What they tell me is: I tried treatment, 
but it was for 6, 7, 8 weeks, and then there was nothing for me. It 
didn't work for me. Then there are people who overdosed, not once or 
twice but several times, and they had never been in detox and 
treatment.
  One young man I spoke to last weekend has been an addict for 7 years. 
Finally, his brother convinced him to seek help. The last time he 
overdosed, he did go into detox. He did go into treatment, to a 
facility where those gaps were closed, where there was no waiting time, 
where he was able to get the help, rather than going back to his old 
community and his old friends and a situation that was going to lead 
him back into more use and more addiction.
  The key, again, is to get those who have overdosed into the treatment 
they need. Overdose reversal provides a second chance at life. Let's 
face it. Some of these people who are overdosing come out of this after 
Narcan is administered. They have seen their life flash before their 
eyes, and they are ready for something. We have to be ready for them. 
Just as the overdose reversal provides a second chance at life, it is 
treatment and longer term recovery that provides that second chance to 
live addiction-free--again, to get back with your family, get back to 
work, and get back to a productive life. It takes a comprehensive 
solution because it is a comprehensive problem.
  That is what led some of us in this body, including my colleague 
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and me, to introduce the Comprehensive 
Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA, back in 2015. We developed that 
bill over time by relying on experts in the field and those most 
affected by addiction.
  Beginning in 2014, when we were in the process of putting together 
the legislation, we hosted five national forums here in Washington, DC. 
We brought experts and practitioners in from around the country--
prevention, treatment, law enforcement, and recovery communities. We 
wanted to get the best practices to find out what was working, what 
wasn't working, and how we could improve the response. What role could 
the Federal Government play in all of this? We had forums focused on 
the science of addiction to understand it better, evidence-based 
prevention strategies that actually work; treating pregnant women who 
are addicted and babies at risk of being born drug-dependent. There is 
nothing more heartbreaking than going into the neonatal units in the 
hospitals in my home State and seeing these babies who were born 
dependent and watching them go through the painful withdrawal process 
as infants Every neonatal unit in our country has seen this. If you go 
to your own hospital, they will tell you this is an increasing problem.

  We had veterans come in, and we had experts come in to help veterans 
make that transition because, sadly, the use of opioids among veterans 
is also increasing. They sometimes use opioids for injuries, for 
accidents, for PTSD, and they become addicted. How do you build support 
around those veterans? We also had people come in and talk about longer 
term recovery and housing and how, over time, you can get better 
results if you provide those kinds of services. Our goal was to 
leverage the expertise and perspectives of everyone involved in this 
epidemic, to find best practices, and to create an evidence-based 
education, treatment, and recovery bill that works.
  With strong bipartisan support, we moved from hearings, to a 
unanimous committee markup, to Senate passage of this legislation. By 
the way, it passed with a vote of 92 to 2. That is not typical around 
here, certainly not for something so comprehensive. Yet everybody has 
experienced this back home and is desperate to figure out strategies to 
help. In July of 2016, President Obama signed CARA into law. It was the 
first comprehensive addiction reform in more than 20 years. It was the 
first time Congress had ever provided any support or help for this 
longer term recovery piece.
  The CARA law targets prevention and education resources to prevent 
abuse before it even starts--the most effective way. It helps first 
responders reverse overdoses to save lives. It devotes resources to 
evidence-based treatment and recovery programs. It expands prescription 
drug take-back programs to get addictive pain pills off the bathroom 
shelves. More than $180 million was authorized to assist communities in 
these efforts to combat this epidemic. Frankly, because of this crisis, 
the appropriators decided: You know, we need this so badly, we are 
actually going to appropriate more than the $180 million. Last year, as 
an example, they appropriated $267 million--almost $100 million beyond 
our authorization.
  Again, I think it is beginning to make a difference. I see it back 
home in Ohio. I see some of these strategies beginning to work. It is 
going to take some time, and we need to do more. In Ohio, we received 
about $4 million. When I say ``we,'' I mean groups, people who are in 
the trenches doing the hard work.
  We have also made progress in this fight with separate opioid 
legislation that was part of the 21st Century Cures legislation. That 
legislation was for substance abuse and mental health. Many of us 
successfully fought to help secure a 2-year commitment there of $500 
million a year, totaling $1 billion. It goes directly to the States. 
This money goes to States that are hardest hit, and States are allowed 
to decide how to spend that money. The first installment of funding 
from that legislation awarded my State of Ohio with $26 million, and we 
are using every penny of it.
  I was at a facility over the weekend that gave me hope. It is called 
the Maryhaven Addiction Stabilization Center, and it is in Columbus, 
OH. They talked about the gaps, where people who overdose are provided 
Narcan, and then they go back to their community, and what first 
responders will tell you is that sometimes in the same week or even on 
the same day on some occasions, there is another overdose. The 
revolving door continues without any treatment and without any 
solution. Maryhaven Stabilization Center is a response to that. They 
used the Cures money we talked about, they used some CARA funding from 
the county--the county is a part of the broader strategy of where the 
CARA money went--and they said: Let's put together an institution where 
there is an emergency room that focuses on overdoses.
  I have been to other emergency rooms in Columbus, OH, and I have seen 
what they do with the people who overdose. They save lives, and that is 
fantastic, but frankly these emergency rooms are equipped for 
everything, and they have to be--for gunshot wounds, car accidents, 
trauma.
  This emergency room would be focused specifically on overdoses, which 
makes it more cost-effective but also more effective for those 
recovering addicts, those addicts who are coming in. But most 
importantly, in that same facility, there is a detox center. In that 
same facility, there are 50 treatment beds. Whereas in the typical case 
when somebody overdoses, they go to the emergency room and end up going 
back to their community, back home, back to the gang, back to the 
family, in this case, 103 people who have gone through in the last 
month--it has only been open a month--80 percent of them have gone into 
treatment. I had the opportunity to meet someone who had been through 
that process, and we talked about the difference this makes. You 
literally walk through the door into treatment, there is strong 
encouragement to do it, and it is working.
  These are the kinds of things that are going to make a difference in 
our communities. It seems to be common sense, but frankly it is not 
happening in other places. Programs like these are what are going to 
help us overcome addiction and are examples of how Federal funds can be 
used more effectively to leverage, in this case, a lot of private 
dollars, some State dollars.
  Both of these landmark laws--the CARA Act that we talked about and 
the Cures Act--are providing increased resources to local communities, 
but this problem is not getting better, it is getting worse.
  One of the problems is the availability and the low cost of these 
highly addictive, even more dangerous drugs coming in. There are 
synthetic opioids. Fentanyl is 50 times stronger than heroin on 
average. It is coming in through

[[Page S1247]]

the mail. We need to do more to stop it through law enforcement, but we 
also need to acknowledge that it has been sprinkled in other drugs and 
is creating a lot of these addiction overdoses and higher rates of 
death.
  The degree of damage this is causing to our communities, our 
families, our local budgets, and our criminal justice system requires 
us to take a more aggressive stance, to do more to figure this out. We 
need to strengthen our resolve. We made progress recently with the 
bipartisan budget agreement President Trump signed into law just a few 
weeks ago. We included in there an additional amount of funding--$6 
billion over 2 years--to help combat the opioid epidemic. So instead of 
the $500 million a year and the $260 million a year that I talked 
about, it would be $3 billion a year and then $3 billion the year 
after.
  I believe that the evidence-based programs we set out in the 
Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act provide a good framework as to how 
to spend that money effectively. That is why I am pleased to stand here 
today as we introduce the next stage of this--CARA 2.0--to help provide 
a framework for how these funds to combat opioid addiction can be spent 
wisely. It is a roadmap for Congress to build on CARA's successes since 
becoming law.
  The bipartisan CARA 2.0 act is being introduced by Sheldon Whitehouse 
and me and also by six other colleagues--Senators Shelley Moore Capito, 
Amy Klobuchar, Dan Sullivan, Maggie Hassan, Bill Cassidy, and Maria 
Cantwell--a bipartisan group of four Republicans and four Democrats who 
are passionate about this issue. It authorizes $1 billion a year for 
specific evidence-based drug prevention, education, treatment, and 
recovery programs.
  It is very important to have this $6 billion of funding over the next 
couple of years. We need it. But we have to be sure it is spent wisely. 
It is not a matter of just throwing money at a problem; it is a matter 
of being sure we are effectively addressing the real issues.
  As I mentioned earlier, the longer term recovery programs are what 
really help those gripped by addiction to overcome this disease. That 
is evidence that we have. I have certainly seen a lot of evidence of 
that firsthand and countless examples of this, where this longer term 
recovery and the support networks are what get people back on track, 
back with their families, back to work. We need to expand access to 
them to those communities that are in need and give everyone a second 
chance of living up to their own God-given potential. That is why, in 
this new CARA 2.0, we increase funding for recovery.
  In addition to expanding the reach of CARA's evidence-based programs, 
this bill puts in place new policy reforms to strengthen the 
government's response in so many ways. We take what some would consider 
a pretty dramatic step by limiting opioid prescriptions to 3 days for 
acute pain. Some will push back against that, but this is based on good 
evidence and good research. When someone goes in for a simple 
procedure--say, a wisdom tooth extraction--and that young person is 
given a bottle of opioids when he or she leaves, too often, that leads 
to addiction. I don't want more parents coming up to me and saying: My 
kid, when he or she was a teenager, was given these opioids by a doctor 
or a dentist, so we thought they were safe. Our child then turned to 
heroin because the pills became too expensive and less accessible and 
then turned to fentanyl and overdosed and died.
  I have had two such parents from Ohio come to me and tell me their 
story. You probably know others. We need to ensure that these 
prescriptions are limited. For those who have chronic pain and those 
who have cancer, it wouldn't apply. And after those 3 days, you can go 
back to that doctor and tell them why you need it and explain it.
  Experts say that about 80 percent of those who overdose from heroin 
started on prescription drugs. I am sure the same is true with regard 
to fentanyl. Four out of five heroin addicts in my State of Ohio who 
overdosed started on prescription drugs. We do need to deal with this 
overprescription problem.
  By the way, the evidence is that after that fourth day, fifth day, 
sixth day--that is when you get into the bigger risk of becoming 
addicted to prescription drugs.
  As I mentioned, this epidemic started with an explosion of pain pill 
use 15 to 20 years ago. We need to stop the addiction at the source, 
and for most people that begins with prescription drugs. By ensuring 
that clinicians prescribe the appropriate strength and supply of pain 
pills for non-life-threatening injuries, we can keep so many more 
people from becoming addicted.
  The bill also includes legislation very similar to that which passed 
the Senate in 2015 but was dropped out in the House-Senate conference. 
It is very simple. It requires doctors and pharmacists to use the 
prescription drug monitoring programs to ensure that we are not 
overprescribing opioids for certain individuals. That helps us identify 
where the problems are and to get people into treatment. It also 
requires States to share data with other States to prevent people from 
crossing State lines to get prescriptions. One of our big problems in 
Ohio is people can cross the State lines in West Virginia, Kentucky, or 
other States and get their prescription filled even though it has 
already been filled once in Ohio. Across State lines, we need to have 
prescription drug monitoring programs that work.
  CARA 2.0 is going to help turn the tide of this epidemic. The bill 
increases Federal funds for specific evidence-based programs to better 
protect vulnerable groups--including infants, young adults, pregnant 
and postpartum women, and veterans--as well as resources for community 
programs, medication-assisted treatment, and first responders.
  As the title indicates, it is a comprehensive solution. Every aspect 
of our communities is affected, so every aspect of our communities 
needs assistance. The opioid epidemic is one of the most urgent 
challenges we face as a country.
  By the way, ultimately, this crisis is not going to be solved here in 
Washington, DC. It is not going to be solved by legislation we pass 
here. We get that. It is going to be solved in our communities. It is 
going to be solved in our families. It is going to be solved in our 
hearts. But this is a national crisis, and the national government 
needs to be a much better partner with State government, local 
government, communities, and nonprofits--those who are out there doing 
the hard work.
  The $6 billion commitment over the next 2 years is a real opportunity 
to help turn the tide--not by just throwing more money at the problem 
but by being sure that money is well spent on an epidemic that is 
taking too many lives and devastating too many communities.
  CARA 2.0 will build on our accomplishments and continue to give 
communities the resources they need to address this issue. Yes, we have 
made some progress around here, and that is good, but we need to do 
much more. CARA 2.0 gives us that opportunity. It represents the next 
step toward helping our communities address this epidemic and helping 
our communities heal.
  Thank you.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KAINE (for himself, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. Tester):
  S. 2457. A bill to provide a work opportunity tax credit for military 
spouses and to provide for flexible spending arrangements for childcare 
services for military families; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. We rightfully honor the sacrifice of 
veterans and servicemembers and as a member of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, I am proud of the work we do to ensure that we have 
the best equipped and most successful fighting force in the world. 
Military families are critical to the success and readiness of our 
military, but are too often unrecognized for their support to our 
servicemembers and left without necessary programs and assistance to 
help them succeed. Military families frequently face financial 
insecurity due to spousal unemployment, which impacts the overall 
success of our military. Somewhere between 12% and 25% of military 
spouses are unemployed.
  Today, I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues Senators Boozman 
and Tester the Jobs and Childcare for Military Families Act of 2018. 
This legislation encourages businesses to step up and play a bigger 
role in hiring military spouses who sacrifice so much by expanding the 
Work Opportunity Tax Credit to also include military spouses.

[[Page S1248]]

The bill also further addresses a real obstacle to professional success 
for many military families: access to quality, affordable childcare by 
establishing a flexible spending account for military families to use 
to reimburse themselves for out of pocket child care costs.
  Addressing these issues will help military spouses advance in their 
careers despite frequent moves. Being a military family member will 
never be easy, but if we can do something to ease the burden in any 
way, we should. This legislation follows the introduction of another 
bipartisan bill earlier this month, the Military Spouse Employment Act 
of 2018, which provides direct employment opportunities and additional 
access to childcare, improves educational opportunities and extends 
transition and counseling services. I believe if we make it bipartisan 
priority to support military families, we will see an improvement in 
the readiness of our military and reap the economic benefits of 
supporting this underutilized and resilient workforce of military 
spouses. I hope to see many of the provisions of these two bills 
incorporated into this year's National Defense Authorization Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. Flake, Mr. 
        Heinrich, Mr. Toomey, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. King, Mr. Nelson, Mr. 
        Manchin, and Mr. Kaine):
  S. 2458. A bill to authorize the Attorney General to deny the 
transfer of firearms and explosives and Federal firearms and explosives 
licenses and permits to known or suspected terrorists; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Terrorist 
Firearms Prevention Act, which would prohibit suspected or known 
terrorists from legally purchasing a firearm.
  I thank my colleagues--Senators Heitkamp, Flake, Heinrich, Toomey, 
Baldwin, King, Nelson, Manchin, and Kaine--for their cosponsorship of 
this bipartisan bill. I particularly recognize the leadership of 
Senator Heinrich, who has joined me on the floor this evening as we 
introduce the bill and explain it to our colleagues.
  Often referred to as ``no fly, no buy,'' this bill represents one of 
the sensible steps that we can take to reform our Nation's gun laws to 
better protect our people. Our bill is based on a simple principle: If 
you are considered to be too dangerous to board an airplane, then you 
are too dangerous to buy a firearm.
  Our legislation would grant the Attorney General the authority to 
block the purchase of a gun by a person who is on either the no-fly or 
the selectee list. Remarkably, current law does not prohibit a person 
known or suspected of engaging in terrorism from walking into a gun 
shop and buying a firearm. The no-fly list and the selectee list are 
the narrowest subsets of all of the government's terrorist watch lists. 
These lists include the names of individuals who pose the greatest 
threat of committing an act of terrorism against aviation, against our 
homeland, or against U.S. interests abroad. This bill would also 
provide an immediate alert to the FBI and to local law enforcement if 
an individual who has been on the government's terrorist watch list at 
any time during the past 5 years purchases a firearm.
  Our hearts are all broken by the horrific shootings of the students 
in Florida. There was another horrendous shooting in Florida in 2016 
that demonstrates why this look-back provision in this legislation is 
so important. The gunman, Omar Mateen, was on the selectee list for 
approximately 10 months, but he was no longer on the list when he 
purchased the 2 guns that he used to murder 49 people and injure scores 
more. If our bill had been enacted, the FBI would have been notified 
immediately when Omar Mateen purchased his first firearm in the weeks 
leading up to the shooting. Then the FBI would have been notified a 
second time that Mateen had sought to purchase additional firearms. 
Surely, that would have caused the FBI to reopen its investigation of 
Omar Mateen. If our proposal had been law at that time, perhaps that 
massacre might have been prevented.
  I note that our bill would provide robust due process procedures to 
protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Any 
American who would be denied a purchase under this bill would have the 
opportunity to petition a Federal district court and receive a decision 
within 14 days. If the government, which would have the burden of 
proof, would fail to prove its case, it would have to pay attorneys's 
fees for that individual, and, of course, the purchase of the firearm 
would go forward.
  In 2016, when the Senate voted on our bill, it won majority and 
bipartisan support. Our bill was endorsed by a distinguished group of 
military and intelligence leaders. I note that during the 2016 
Presidential debates, both candidates agreed with our principle of no 
fly, no buy. Surely, this is a sensible, reasonable policy around which 
we can build consensus.
  Another step that we can take right now is to pass legislation I 
introduced with Senator Leahy to explicitly outlaw straw purchasing. 
Straw purchasing is intended for one purpose only, and that is to put a 
gun into the hands of a criminal who cannot legally obtain one. Our 
bill, the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act, would provide law 
enforcement with an effective tool to fight the violence that too often 
goes hand in hand with drug trafficking and gang-related crimes.
  Today, gun traffickers exploit weaknesses in our Federal laws by 
targeting individuals who can lawfully purchase firearms. Sadly, 
according to briefings that I have had from Federal officials, in the 
State of Maine gang members from other States have targeted addicts to 
go buy firearms for them, and then they swap firearms for drugs. Right 
now a straw purchaser can be prosecuted only for lying on a Federal 
form, which is treated far too often as just a paperwork violation. 
Instead of a slap on the wrist, our bill would create new, specific 
criminal offenses for straw purchasing and trafficking, punishable by 
hefty prison terms, particularly for those who have reason to believe 
that the firearms will be used to commit violent crimes.
  Our bill would also outlaw firearms and ammunition smuggling out of 
the United States to another country. That is vitally important for 
combating drug trafficking near and across our southern border, which 
is contributing to the heroin crisis here at home.
  Let me again be clear that the bill I have introduced with Senator 
Leahy protects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
  These are just two commonsense reforms that we can pass while fully 
protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. We can 
make it as difficult for a terrorist to obtain a gun as it is for him 
to board an airplane. We can outlaw straw purchasing by increasing the 
penalties to make a real difference. I urge my colleagues to support 
both the bipartisan Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act and the straw 
purchasing bill, as well as other commonsense reforms.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my 
colleague, Senator Collins of Maine, for her work in crafting this 
legislation and the language of this bill and, more generally, for her 
leadership, formerly on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee and certainly for the time that I have been on the 
Intelligence Committee. Her contributions have not gone unnoticed, and 
she has been a pleasure to work with in trying to find reasonable 
places where we can make a material difference in the kinds of mass 
shootings we have seen.
  I should start by speaking a little bit to the recent tragedy in 
Florida. As the father of two young boys, I can't begin to imagine the 
nightmare that families are living through as they mourn the loss of 
their children in the wake of yet another horrific mass shooting.
  Frankly, no parent should have to live in fear of their child not 
coming home from school. It is pretty unthinkable.
  Just last week, one of my own sons went through an active shooter 
training at his school. Sadly, that is now the new norm in schools all 
across our country. In fact, 91 Americans are killed each day by gun 
violence, and we simply cannot accept the status quo as the new normal 
when there are real

[[Page S1249]]

and concrete steps we can take to reduce gun violence while respecting 
constitutional rights.
  Once again, Americans are looking to Congress to finally enact 
commonsense reforms to our gun laws, to protect our schools, to protect 
our children, to protect our communities. Like so many Americans, I 
have been deeply moved by the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School 
students and young people all across this country who have spoken out 
after losing classmates and friends to demand that we as lawmakers take 
action to prevent future tragedies.
  It is no secret to my constituents or even my colleagues here that I 
am a passionate outdoorsman, hunter, and owner of firearms. I strongly 
believe that law-abiding Americans have a right to own guns for sport 
and self-defense. I am teaching my own sons how to safely and 
responsibly use those firearms. The vast majority of Americans, 
including gun owners like me, know that Congress must take action to 
close loopholes and reform our laws to keep those deadly weapons out of 
the hands of those who would turn them against our communities.
  Today I am quite proud to join my colleagues from both sides of the 
aisle--Senators Collins, Heitkamp, Flake, and others--to introduce one 
of those measures that should have broad bipartisan support. This is a 
poster child for the kind of policy that ought to get across the finish 
line even in these deeply divided, partisan times.
  Our bipartisan legislation, the Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act, 
would deny firearms sales to individuals who appear on the Department 
of Justice's no-fly or selectee lists. These are the narrowest of 
databases, the kinds of lists one would have to work pretty hard to 
land on, and for good reason. Our legislation includes due process 
procedures for individuals to appeal their placement on those lists.
  It seems pretty straightforward to most of my constituents that if 
the government and law enforcement have determined that an individual 
is so dangerous as to land on the terrorist watch list and is too 
dangerous to fly on a commercial airplane, that person should not be 
able to walk into a gun shop and purchase a gun. But unless we pass 
this legislation, this glaring loophole will continue to allow 
individuals identified as terror suspects to buy firearms.
  It is time for those Members of Congress who oppose commonsense 
reforms like this to finally step up and tell us what they are doing to 
protect the public. It is time for all of us to listen to the student 
leaders across this country who are rejecting the unacceptable status 
quo of our Nation's gun violence epidemic.
  Those of us in the Senate who know firearms well have a special duty 
to lead these efforts and to get the details right on any legislation 
to reshape our Nation's gun laws. Inaction simply won't cut it anymore. 
We all need to listen to these students, parents, teachers, and to our 
own children who are calling on us to be part of the solution.
  New Mexicans can count on me, despite the odds, to continue fighting 
for real solutions to keep our children safe, to reduce gun violence, 
and to keep our communities safe. That is what our communities and our 
constituents deserve.
  Thank you.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Daines):
  S. 2462. A bill to place restrictions on searches and seizures of 
electronic devices at the border; to the Committee on Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President. No American should have to relinquish all 
of their privacy rights in their cell phones, laptops, and other 
electronic devices, simply because they are coming home from a trip 
abroad. Yet that is exactly how our Government views it: currently, if 
a Vermonter crosses the border into Canada for a day, U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) can search through the Vermonter's emails, text 
messages, photos, and anything else contained in their electronic 
devices without any reason to suspect the person is in violation of 
anything. Let me repeat that: without any suspicion at all. That is 
unacceptable.
  That is why I am joining with Senator Daines to introduce legislation 
to require the Government to have reasonable suspicion or probable 
cause to search or seize Americans' electronic devices at the border. 
This legislation is a vital step toward protecting our Fourth Amendment 
rights, while also ensuring that officers protecting our homeland have 
the lawful authorities they need to do their jobs.
  Last year, CBP searched the electronic devices of over 30,000 
travelers, and this number continues to grow. These searches can take 
place at any international airport, or at any land border point such as 
U.S.-Canada border crossings in my home state of Vermont or Senator 
Daines's home state of Montana.
  Nothing in this legislation will prevent CBP officers from doing 
their jobs to protect the homeland, detect contraband, and enforce the 
law. Our legislation simply says that if an officer of the Government 
wants to search an American's electronic device at the border, at a 
minimum they should have reasonable suspicion. If they want to seize 
the device, they should have probable cause. And if they want to 
conduct a forensic examination of the device, they should get a warrant 
from a judge.
  Our legislation also requires the Department of Homeland Security to 
collect statistics on such searches and seizures and report them to 
Congress. This will significantly increase transparency on the 
Government's use of these invasive tools, providing Congress and the 
American people an opportunity to assess the balance between the needs 
of law enforcement and the imperative of protecting privacy and civil 
liberties.
  I urge other Senators to join us in support of this legislation. It 
should not be controversial to be concerned at the Government's ability 
to search our electronic devices at the border without any suspicion at 
all. All of us--Republican and Democrat--can support the goal of 
protecting our borders while also protecting the Fourth Amendment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FLAKE (for himself and Ms. Heitkamp):
  S. 2464. A bill to improve border security and to provide conditional 
provision residence to certain long-term residents who entered the 
United States as children; read the first time.

                                S. 2464

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Three-Year 
     Border and DACA Extension Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                        TITLE I--BORDER SECURITY

Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Operations and support.

                        TITLE II--DACA EXTENSION

Sec. 201. Provisional protected presence for young individuals.

                        TITLE I--BORDER SECURITY

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated a total of 
     $7,639,000,000 to the Department of Homeland Security for 
     fiscal years 2018 through 2020 for the purpose of improving 
     border security.

     SEC. 102. OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT.

       (a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to 
     establish a Border Security Enforcement Fund (referred to in 
     this section as the ``Fund''), to be administered through the 
     Department of Homeland Security and, in fiscal year 2018 
     only, through the Department of State, to provide for costs 
     necessary to implement this Act and other Acts related to 
     border security for activities, including--
       (1) constructing, installing, deploying, operating, and 
     maintaining tactical infrastructure and technology in the 
     vicinity of the United States border--
       (A) to achieve situational awareness and operational 
     control of the border; and
       (B) to deter, impede, and detect illegal activity in high 
     traffic areas; and
       (C) to implement other border security provisions under 
     this section;
       (2) implementing port of entry provisions under this 
     section;
       (3) purchasing new aircraft, vessels, spare parts, and 
     equipment to operate and maintain such craft; and
       (4) hiring and recruitment.
       (b) Funding.--There are appropriated, to the Fund, out of 
     any monies in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, a 
     total of $7,639,000,000, as follows:
       (1) For fiscal year 2018, $2,947,000,000, to remain 
     available through fiscal year 2022.
       (2) For fiscal year 2019, $2,225,000,000, to remain 
     available through fiscal year 2023.

[[Page S1250]]

       (3) For fiscal year 2020, $2,467,000,000, to remain 
     available through fiscal year 2024.
       (c) Physical Barriers.--
       (1) In general.--In each of the following fiscal years, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall transfer, from the Fund 
     to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection--Procurement, 
     Construction and Improvements account, for the purpose of 
     constructing, replacing, or planning physical barriers along 
     the United States land border, a total of $5,013,000,000, as 
     follows:
       (A) For fiscal year 2018, $1,571,000,000.
       (B) For fiscal year 2019, $1,600,000,000.
       (C) For fiscal year 2020, $1,842,000,000.
       (2) Availability of funds.--Notwithstanding section 1552(a) 
     of title 31, United States Code, any amounts obligated for 
     the purposes described in paragraph (1) shall remain 
     available for disbursement until expended.
       (d) Transfer Authority.--Other than the amounts transferred 
     by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of 
     State pursuant to subsections (b) and (c), the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives may provide 
     for the transfer of amounts in the Fund for each fiscal year 
     to eligible activities under this section, including--
       (1) for the purpose of constructing, replacing, or planning 
     for physical barriers along the United States land border; or
       (2) for any of the activities described in subsection (a).
       (e) Use of Fund.--If the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives do not provide for the transfer of funds in a 
     full-year appropriation in any fiscal year in accordance with 
     subsection (d), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     transfer amounts in the Fund to accounts within the 
     Department of Homeland Security for eligible activities under 
     this section, including not less than the amounts specified 
     in subsection (c) for the purpose of constructing, replacing, 
     or planning for physical barriers along the United States 
     land border.
       (f) Budget Request.--A request for the transfer of amounts 
     in the Fund under this section--
       (1) shall be included in each budget for a fiscal year 
     submitted by the President under section 1105 of title 31, 
     United States Code; and
       (2) shall detail planned obligations by program, project, 
     and activity in the receiving account at the same level of 
     detail provided for in the request for other appropriations 
     in that account.
       (g) Reporting Requirement.--At the beginning of fiscal year 
     2019, and annually thereafter until the funding made 
     available under this title has been expended, the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security shall submit a report to the Committee 
     on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, 
     the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, the Committee 
     on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives 
     that describes--
       (1) the status of border security in the United States; and
       (2) the amount planned to be expended on border security 
     during the upcoming fiscal year, broken down by project and 
     activity.

                        TITLE II--DACA EXTENSION

     SEC. 201. PROVISIONAL PROTECTED PRESENCE FOR YOUNG 
                   INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 4 of title II of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 244A. PROVISIONAL PROTECTED PRESENCE.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) DACA recipient.--- The term `DACA recipient' means an 
     alien who is in deferred action status on the date of the 
     enactment of this section pursuant to the Deferred Action for 
     Childhood Arrivals (`DACA') Program announced on June 15, 
     2012.
       ``(2) Felony.--The term `felony' means a Federal, State, or 
     local criminal offense (excluding a State or local offense 
     for which an essential element was the alien's immigration 
     status) punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 
     year.
       ``(3) Misdemeanor.--The term `misdemeanor' means a Federal, 
     State, or local criminal offense (excluding a State or local 
     offense for which an essential element was the alien's 
     immigration status, a significant misdemeanor, and a minor 
     traffic offense) for which--
       ``(A) the maximum term of imprisonment is greater than five 
     days and not greater than 1 year; and
       ``(B) the individual was sentenced to time in custody of 90 
     days or less.
       ``(4) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security.
       ``(5) Significant misdemeanor.--The term `significant 
     misdemeanor' means a Federal, State, or local criminal 
     offense (excluding a State or local offense for which an 
     essential element was the alien's immigration status) for 
     which the maximum term of imprisonment is greater than 5 days 
     and not greater than 1 year that--
       ``(A) regardless of the sentence imposed, is a crime of 
     domestic violence (as defined in section 237(a)(2)(E)(i)) or 
     an offense of sexual abuse or exploitation, burglary, 
     unlawful possession or use of a firearm, drug distribution or 
     trafficking, or driving under the influence if the State law 
     requires, as an element of the offense, the operation of a 
     motor vehicle and a finding of impairment or a blood alcohol 
     content of .08 or higher; or
       ``(B) resulted in a sentence of time in custody of more 
     than 90 days, excluding an offense for which the sentence was 
     suspended.
       ``(6) Threat to national security.--An alien is a `threat 
     to national security' if the alien is--
       ``(A) inadmissible under section 212(a)(3); or
       ``(B) deportable under section 237(a)(4).
       ``(7) Threat to public safety.--An alien is a `threat to 
     public safety' if the alien--
       ``(A) has been convicted of an offense for which an element 
     was participation in a criminal street gang (as defined in 
     section 521(a) of title 18, United States Code); or
       ``(B) has engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise (as 
     defined in section 408(c) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse 
     Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848(c))).
       ``(b) Authorization.--The Secretary--
       ``(1) shall grant provisional protected presence to an 
     alien who--
       ``(A) files an application demonstrating that he or she 
     meets the eligibility criteria under subsection (c); and
       ``(B) pays the appropriate application fee;
       ``(2) may not remove such alien from the United States 
     during the period in which such provisional protected 
     presence is in effect unless such status is rescinded 
     pursuant to subsection (g); and
       ``(3) shall provide such alien with employment 
     authorization.
       ``(c) Eligibility Criteria.--An alien is eligible for 
     provisional protected presence and employment authorization 
     under this section if the alien--
       ``(1) was born after June 15, 1981;
       ``(2) entered the United States before reaching 16 years of 
     age;
       ``(3) continuously resided in the United States between 
     June 15, 2007, and the date on which the alien files an 
     application under this section;
       ``(4) was physically present in the United States on June 
     15, 2012, and on the date on which the alien files an 
     application under this section;
       ``(5) was unlawfully present in the United States on June 
     15, 2012;
       ``(6) on the date on which the alien files an application 
     for provisional protected presence--
       ``(A) is enrolled in school or in an education program 
     assisting students in obtaining a regular high school diploma 
     or its recognized equivalent under State law, or in passing a 
     general educational development exam or other State-
     authorized exam;
       ``(B) has graduated or obtained a certificate of completion 
     from high school;
       ``(C) has obtained a general educational development 
     certificate; or
       ``(D) is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard 
     or Armed Forces of the United States;
       ``(7) has not been convicted of--
       ``(A) a felony;
       ``(B) a significant misdemeanor; or
       ``(C) 3 or more misdemeanors not occurring on the same date 
     and not arising out of the same act, omission, or scheme of 
     misconduct; and
       ``(8) does not otherwise pose a threat to national security 
     or a threat to public safety.
       ``(d) Duration of Provisional Protected Presence and 
     Employment Authorization.--Provisional protected presence and 
     employment authorization provided under this section shall be 
     effective until the date that is 3 years after the date of 
     the enactment of the Three-Year Border and DACA Extension 
     Act.
       ``(e) Status During Period of Provisional Protected 
     Presence.--
       ``(1) In general.--An alien granted provisional protected 
     presence is not considered to be unlawfully present in the 
     United States during the period beginning on the date such 
     status is granted and ending on the date described in 
     subsection (d).
       ``(2) Status outside period.--The granting of provisional 
     protected presence under this section does not excuse 
     previous or subsequent periods of unlawful presence.
       ``(f) Application.--
       ``(1) Age requirement.--
       ``(A) In general.--An alien who has never been in removal 
     proceedings, or whose proceedings have been terminated before 
     making a request for provisional protected presence, shall be 
     at least 15 years old on the date on which the alien submits 
     an application under this section.
       ``(B) Exception.--The age requirement set forth in 
     subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an alien who, on the date 
     on which the alien applies for provisional protected 
     presence, is in removal proceedings, has a final removal 
     order, or has a voluntary departure order.
       ``(2) Application fee.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may require aliens 
     applying for provisional protected presence and employment 
     authorization under this section to pay a reasonable fee that 
     is commensurate with the cost of processing the application.
       ``(B) Exemption.--An applicant may be exempted from paying 
     the fee required under subparagraph (A) if the alien--
       ``(i)(I) is younger than 18 years of age;
       ``(II) received total income during the 12-month period 
     immediately preceding the date on which the alien files an 
     application under this section that is less than 150 percent 
     of the United States poverty level; and
       ``(III) is in foster care or otherwise lacking any parental 
     or other familial support;

[[Page S1251]]

       ``(ii) is younger than 18 years of age and is homeless;
       ``(iii)(I) cannot care for himself or herself because of a 
     serious, chronic disability; and
       ``(II) received total income during the 12-month period 
     immediately preceding the date on which the alien files an 
     application under this section that is less than 150 percent 
     of the United States poverty level; or
       ``(iv)(I) as of the date on which the alien files an 
     application under this section, has accumulated $10,000 or 
     more in debt in the past 12 months as a result of 
     unreimbursed medical expenses incurred by the alien or an 
     immediate family member of the alien; and
       ``(II) received total income during the 12-month period 
     immediately preceding the date on which the alien files an 
     application under this section that is less than 150 percent 
     of the United States poverty level.
       ``(3) Removal stayed while application pending.--The 
     Secretary may not remove an alien from the United States who 
     appears prima facie eligible for provisional protected 
     presence while the alien's application for provisional 
     protected presence is pending.
       ``(4) Aliens not in immigration detention.--An alien who is 
     not in immigration detention, but who is in removal 
     proceedings, is the subject of a final removal order, or is 
     the subject of a voluntary departure order, may apply for 
     provisional protected presence under this section if the 
     alien appears prima facie eligible for provisional protected 
     presence.
       ``(5) Aliens in immigration detention.--The Secretary shall 
     provide any alien in immigration detention, including any 
     alien who is in removal proceedings, is the subject of a 
     final removal order, or is the subject of a voluntary 
     departure order, who appears prima facie eligible for 
     provisional protected presence, upon request, with a 
     reasonable opportunity to apply for provisional protected 
     presence under this section.
       ``(6) Confidentiality.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall protect information 
     provided in applications for provisional protected presence 
     under this section and in requests for consideration of DACA 
     from disclosure to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
     and U.S. Customs and Border Protection for the purpose of 
     immigration enforcement proceedings.
       ``(B) Referrals prohibited.--The Secretary may not refer 
     individuals whose cases have been deferred pursuant to DACA 
     or who have been granted provisional protected presence under 
     this section to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
       ``(C) Limited exception.--The information submitted in 
     applications for provisional protected presence under this 
     section and in requests for consideration of DACA may be 
     shared with national security and law enforcement agencies--
       ``(i) for assistance in the consideration of the 
     application for provisional protected presence;
       ``(ii) to identify or prevent fraudulent claims;
       ``(iii) for national security purposes; and
       ``(iv) for the investigation or prosecution of any felony 
     not related to immigration status.
       ``(7) Acceptance of applications.--Not later than 60 days 
     after the date of the enactment of the Three-Year Border and 
     DACA Extension Act, the Secretary shall begin accepting 
     applications for provisional protected presence and 
     employment authorization.
       ``(g) Rescission of Provisional Protected Presence.--The 
     Secretary may not rescind an alien's provisional protected 
     presence or employment authorization granted under this 
     section unless the Secretary determines that the alien--
       ``(1) has been convicted of--
       ``(A) a felony;
       ``(B) a significant misdemeanor; or
       ``(C) 3 or more misdemeanors not occurring on the same date 
     and not arising out of the same act, omission, or scheme of 
     misconduct;
       ``(2) poses a threat to national security or a threat to 
     public safety;
       ``(3) has traveled outside of the United States without 
     authorization from the Secretary; or
       ``(4) has ceased to continuously reside in the United 
     States.
       ``(h) Treatment of Brief, Casual, and Innocent Departures 
     and Certain Other Absences.--For purposes of subsections 
     (c)(3) and (g)(4), an alien shall not be considered to have 
     failed to continuously reside in the United States due to--
       ``(1) brief, casual, and innocent absences from the United 
     States during the period beginning on June 15, 2007, and 
     ending on August 14, 2012; or
       ``(2) travel outside of the United States on or after 
     August 15, 2012, if such travel was authorized by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(i) Treatment of Expunged Convictions.--For purposes of 
     subsections (c)(7) and (g)(1), an expunged conviction shall 
     not automatically be treated as a disqualifying felony, 
     significant misdemeanor, or misdemeanor, but shall be 
     evaluated on a case-by-case basis according to the nature and 
     severity of the offense to determine whether, under the 
     particular circumstances, the alien should be eligible for 
     provisional protected presence under this section.
       ``(j) Effect of Deferred Action Under Deferred Action for 
     Childhood Arrivals Program.--
       ``(1) Provisional protected presence.--A DACA recipient is 
     deemed to have provisional protected presence under this 
     section through the expiration date of the alien's deferred 
     action status, as specified by the Secretary in conjunction 
     with the approval of the alien's DACA application.
       ``(2) Employment authorization.--If a DACA recipient has 
     been granted employment authorization by the Secretary in 
     addition to deferred action, the employment authorization 
     shall continue through the expiration date of the alien's 
     deferred action status, as specified by the Secretary in 
     conjunction with the approval of the alien's DACA 
     application.
       ``(3) Effect of application.--If a DACA recipient files an 
     application for provisional protected presence under this 
     section not later than the expiration date of the alien's 
     deferred action status, as specified by the Secretary in 
     conjunction with the approval of the alien's DACA 
     application, the alien's provisional protected presence, and 
     any employment authorization, shall remain in effect pending 
     the adjudication of such application.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 244 
     the following:

``Sec. 244A. Provisional protected presence.''.

                          ____________________