[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 206 (Thursday, December 19, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7178-S7185]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT ACCURACY AND TECHNOLOGICAL AVAILABILITY ACT
Mr. WICKER. Madam President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of Calendar No. 328, S. 1822.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1822) to require the Federal Communications
Commission to issue rules relating to the collection of data
with respect to the availability of broadband services, and
for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to proceeding to the
measure?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill,
which had been reported from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting
clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Broadband Deployment
Accuracy and Technological Availability Act'' or the
``Broadband DATA Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Broadband internet access service.--The term
``broadband internet access service'' has the meaning given
the term in section 8.1(b) of title 47, Code of Federal
Regulations, or any successor regulation.
(2) Broadband map.--The term ``Broadband Map'' means the
map created by the Commission under section 3(c)(1)(A).
(3) Cell edge probability.--The term ``cell edge
probability'' means the likelihood that the minimum threshold
download and upload speeds with respect to broadband internet
access service will be met or exceeded at a distance from a
base station that is intended to indicate the ultimate edge
of the coverage area of a cell.
(4) Cell loading.--The term ``cell loading'' means the
percentage of the available air interface resources of a base
station that are used by consumers with respect to broadband
internet access service.
(5) Clutter.--The term ``clutter'' means a natural or man-
made surface feature that affects the propagation of a signal
from a base station.
(6) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Communications Commission.
(7) Fabric.--The term ``Fabric'' means the Broadband
Serviceable Location Fabric established under section
3(b)(1)(B).
(8) Form 477.--The term ``Form 477'' means Form 477 of the
Commission relating to local telephone competition and
broadband reporting.
(9) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian Tribe'' has the
meaning given the term ``Indian tribe'' in section 4 of the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25
U.S.C. 5304).
(10) Mobility fund phase ii.--The term ``Mobility Fund
Phase II'' means the second phase of the proceeding to
provide universal service support from the Mobility Fund (WC
Docket No. 10-90; WT Docket No. 10-208).
(11) Propagation model.--The term ``propagation model''
means a mathematical formulation for the characterization of
radio wave propagation as a function of frequency, distance,
and other conditions.
(12) Provider.--The term ``provider'' means a provider of
fixed or mobile broadband internet access service.
(13) Shapefile.--The term ``shapefile'' means a digital
storage format containing geospatial or location-based data
and attribute information--
(A) regarding the availability of broadband internet access
service; and
(B) that can be viewed, edited, and mapped in geographic
information system software.
(14) Standard broadband installation.--The term ``standard
broadband installation''--
(A) means the initiation by a provider of new fixed
broadband internet access service with no charges or delays
attributable to the extension of the network of the provider;
and
(B) includes the initiation of fixed broadband internet
access service through routine installation that can be
completed not later than 10 business days after the date on
which the service request is submitted.
SEC. 3. BROADBAND MAPS.
(a) Rules.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall issue final rules
that shall--
(A) allow for the collection by the Commission of accurate
and granular data, not less frequently than biannually--
(i) relating to the availability of terrestrial fixed,
fixed wireless, satellite, and mobile broadband internet
access service; and
(ii) that the Commission shall use to compile the maps
created under subsection (c)(1) (referred to in this section
as ``coverage maps''), which the Commission shall make
publicly available; and
(B) establish--
(i) processes through which the Commission can verify the
accuracy of data submitted under subsection (b)(2);
(ii) processes and procedures through which the Commission,
and, as necessary, other entities or persons submitting
information under this Act, can protect the security,
privacy, and confidentiality of--
(I) information contained in the Fabric;
(II) the dataset created under subsection (b)(1) supporting
the Fabric; and
(III) the data submitted under subsection (b)(2);
(iii) the challenge process described in subsection (b)(5);
and
(iv) the process described in section 5(b).
(2) Other data.--In issuing the rules under paragraph (1),
the Commission shall develop a process through which the
Commission can collect verified data for use in the coverage
maps from--
(A) State, local, and Tribal governmental entities that are
primarily responsible for mapping or tracking broadband
internet access service coverage for a State, unit of local
government, or Indian Tribe, as applicable;
(B) third parties, if the Commission determines that it is
in the public interest to use such data in--
(i) the development of the coverage maps; or
(ii) the verification of data submitted under subsection
(b); and
[[Page S7179]]
(C) other Federal agencies.
(3) Updates.--The Commission shall revise the rules issued
under paragraph (1) to--
(A) reflect changes in technology;
(B) ensure the accuracy of propagation models, as further
provided in subsection (b)(3); and
(C) improve the usefulness of the coverage maps.
(b) Content of Rules.--
(1) Establishment of a serviceable location fabric
regarding fixed broadband.--
(A) Dataset.--
(i) In general.--The Commission shall create a common
dataset of all locations in the United States where fixed
broadband internet access service can be installed, as
determined by the Commission.
(ii) Contracting.--
(I) In general.--Subject to subclauses (II) and (III), the
Commission may contract with an entity with expertise with
respect to geographic information systems (referred to in
this subsection as ``GIS'') to create and maintain the
dataset under clause (i).
(II) Application of the federal acquisition regulation.--A
contract into which the Commission enters under subclause (I)
shall in all respects comply with applicable provisions of
the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
(III) Limitations.--With respect to a contract into which
the Commission enters under subclause (I)--
(aa) the entity with which the Commission contracts shall
be selected through a competitive bid process that is
transparent and open; and
(bb) the contract shall be for a term of not longer than 5
years, after which the Commission may enter into a new
contract--
(AA) with an entity, and for the purposes, described in
subclause (I); and
(BB) that complies with the requirements under subclause
(II) and this subclause.
(B) Fabric.--The rules issued by the Commission under
subsection (a)(1) shall establish the Broadband Serviceable
Location Fabric, which shall--
(i) contain geocoded information for each location
identified under subparagraph (A)(i);
(ii) serve as the foundation upon which all data relating
to the availability of fixed broadband internet access
service collected under paragraph (2)(A) shall be reported
and overlaid;
(iii) be compatible with commonly used GIS software; and
(iv) at a minimum, be updated annually by the Commission.
(C) Implementation priority.--The Commission shall
prioritize implementing the Fabric for rural and insular
areas of the United States.
(2) Collection of information.--The rules issued by the
Commission under subsection (a)(1) shall include uniform
standards for the reporting of broadband internet access
service data that the Commission shall collect--
(A) from each provider of terrestrial fixed, fixed
wireless, or satellite broadband internet access service,
which shall include data that--
(i) documents the areas where the provider--
(I) has actually built out the broadband network
infrastructure of the provider such that the provider is able
to provide that service; and
(II) could provide that service, as determined by
identifying where the provider is capable of performing a
standard broadband installation, if applicable;
(ii) includes information regarding download and upload
speeds, at various thresholds established by the Commission,
and, if applicable, latency with respect to broadband
internet access service that the provider makes available;
(iii) can be georeferenced to the GIS data in the Fabric;
(iv) the provider shall report as--
(I) with respect to providers of fixed wireless broadband
internet access service--
(aa) propagation maps and propagation model details that--
(AA) satisfy standards that are similar to those applicable
to providers of mobile broadband internet access service
under subparagraph (B) with respect to propagation maps and
propagation model details, taking into account material
differences between fixed wireless and mobile broadband
internet access service; and
(BB) reflect the speeds and latency of the service provided
by the provider; or
(bb) a list of addresses or locations that constitute the
service area of the provider, except that the Commission--
(AA) may only permit, and not require, a provider to report
the data using that means of reporting; and
(BB) in the rules issued under subsection (a)(1), shall
provide a method for using that means of reporting with
respect to Tribal areas; and
(II) with respect to providers of terrestrial fixed and
satellite broadband internet access service--
(aa) polygon shapefiles; or
(bb) a list of addresses or locations that constitute the
service area of the provider, except that the Commission--
(AA) may only permit, and not require, a provider to report
the data using that means of reporting; and
(BB) in the rules issued under subsection (a)(1), shall
provide a method for using that means of reporting with
respect to Tribal areas; and
(v) the Commission determines is appropriate with respect
to certain technologies in order to ensure that the Broadband
Map is granular and accurate; and
(B) from each provider of mobile broadband internet access
service, which shall include propagation maps, and the
propagation models on which those maps are based, that
indicate the current (as of the date on which the information
is collected) fourth generation Long-Term Evolution (commonly
referred to as ``4G LTE'') mobile broadband internet access
service coverage of the provider, which shall--
(i) take into consideration the effect of clutter; and
(ii) satisfy--
(I) the requirements of having--
(aa) a download speed of 5 megabits per second and an
upload speed of 1 megabit per second with a cell edge
probability of not less than 90 percent; and
(bb) cell loading of 50 percent; and
(II) any other parameter that the Commission determines to
be necessary to create a map under subsection (c)(1)(C) that
is more precise than the map produced as a result of the
submissions under the Mobility Fund Phase II information
collection.
(3) Update of reporting standards for mobile broadband
internet access service.--For the purposes of paragraph
(2)(B), if the Commission determines that the reporting
standards under that paragraph are insufficient to collect
accurate propagation maps and propagation model details with
respect to future generations of mobile broadband internet
access service technologies, the Commission shall immediately
commence a rule making to adopt new reporting standards with
respect to those technologies that--
(A) shall be the functional equivalent of the standards
required under paragraph (2)(B); and
(B) allow for the collection of propagation maps and
propagation model details that are as accurate and granular
as, or more accurate and granular than, the maps and model
details collected by the Commission under paragraph (2)(B).
(4) Certification and verification.--With respect to a
provider that submits information to the Commission under
paragraph (2)--
(A) the provider shall include in each submission a
certification from a corporate officer of the provider that
the officer has examined the information contained in the
submission and that, to the best of the officer's actual
knowledge, information, and belief, all statements of fact
contained in the submission are true and correct; and
(B) the Commission shall verify the accuracy and
reliability of the information in accordance with measures
established by the Commission.
(5) Challenge process.--
(A) In general.--In the rules issued under subsection (a),
and subject to subparagraph (B), the Commission shall
establish a user-friendly challenge process through which
consumers, State, local, and Tribal governmental entities,
and other entities may submit coverage data to the Commission
to challenge the accuracy of--
(i) the coverage maps;
(ii) any information submitted by a provider regarding the
availability of broadband internet access service; or
(iii) the information included in the Fabric.
(B) Considerations; verification; response to challenges.--
In establishing the challenge process required under
subparagraph (A), the Commission shall--
(i) consider--
(I) the types of information that an entity submitting a
challenge should provide to the Commission in support of the
challenge;
(II) the appropriate level of granularity for the
information described in subclause (I);
(III) the need to mitigate the time and expense incurred
by, and the administrative burdens placed on, entities in--
(aa) challenging the accuracy of a coverage map; and
(bb) responding to challenges described in item (aa); and
(IV) the costs to consumers and providers resulting from a
misallocation of funds because of a reliance on outdated or
otherwise inaccurate information in the coverage maps;
(ii) include a process for verifying the data submitted
through the challenge process in order to ensure the
reliability of that data;
(iii) allow providers to respond to challenges submitted
through the challenge process; and
(iv) develop an online mechanism, which--
(I) shall be integrated into the coverage maps; and
(II) allows for an entity described in subparagraph (A) to
submit a challenge under the challenge process.
(C) Use of challenges.--The rules issued to establish the
challenge process under subparagraph (A) shall include--
(i) a process for the speedy resolution of challenges; and
(ii) a process for the regular and expeditious updating of
the coverage maps as challenges are resolved.
(6) Reform of form 477 process.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date on
which the rules issued under subsection (a) take effect, the
Commission shall--
(i) reform the Form 477 broadband deployment service
availability collection process of the Commission to make the
process consistent with this Act and the rules issued under
this Act; and
(ii) remove duplicative reporting requirements and
procedures regarding the deployment of broadband internet
access service that, as of that date, are in effect.
(B) Continued collection and reporting.--On and after the
date on which the Commission carries out subparagraph (A),
the Commission shall continue to collect and publicly report
subscription data that the Commission collected through the
Form 477 broadband deployment service availability process,
as in effect on July 1, 2019.
(c) Maps.--The Commission shall--
(1) create--
(A) the Broadband Map, which shall depict--
(i) the extent of the availability of broadband internet
access service in the United States, without regard to
whether that service is fixed
[[Page S7180]]
broadband internet access service or mobile broadband
internet access service, which shall be based on data
collected by the Commission from all providers; and
(ii) the areas of the United States that remain unserved by
providers;
(B) a map that depicts the availability of fixed broadband
internet access service, which shall be based on data
collected by the Commission from providers under subsection
(b)(2)(A); and
(C) a map that depicts the availability of mobile broadband
internet access service, which shall be based on data
collected by the Commission from providers under subsection
(b)(2)(B);
(2) use the maps created under paragraph (1)--
(A) to determine the areas in which terrestrial fixed,
fixed wireless, mobile, and satellite broadband internet
access service is and is not available; and
(B) when making any new award of funding with respect to
the deployment of broadband internet access service;
(3) update the maps created under paragraph (1) not less
frequently than biannually using the most recent data
collected from providers under subsection (b)(2);
(4) establish a process requiring the Department of
Agriculture and the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration to consult the maps created under
paragraph (1) when, as of the date on which the process is
established or on any future date, distributing funds
relating to the deployment of broadband internet access
service under any program administered by the Rural Utilities
Service or the Administration, respectively; and
(5) establish a process to make the data collected under
subsection (b)(2) available to the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration.
SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for a person or
entity to willfully and knowingly, or recklessly, submit
information or data under this Act that is materially
inaccurate or incomplete with respect to the availability of
broadband internet access service.
(b) Violations.--A violation of this Act shall be treated
as a violation of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
151 et seq.), and the Commission shall enforce this Act in
the same manner, by the same means, and with the same
jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable
terms and provisions of that Act were incorporated into and
made a part of this Act.
SEC. 5. IMPROVING DATA ACCURACY.
(a) Audits.--The Commission shall conduct regular audits of
information submitted to the Commission by providers under
section 3(b)(2) to ensure that the providers are complying
with this Act.
(b) Crowdsourcing.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall develop a process
through which persons in the United States may submit
specific information about the deployment and availability of
broadband internet access service in the United States so
that the information may be used to verify and supplement
information provided by providers of broadband internet
access service for inclusion in the maps created under
section 3(c)(1).
(2) Collaboration.--As part of the efforts of the
Commission to facilitate the ability of persons to submit
information under paragraph (1), the Commission shall issue
guidance and other information as appropriate to ensure that
the information submitted is uniform and consistent with the
data submitted by providers under section 3(b)(2).
(c) Technical Assistance to Indian Tribes.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Commission
shall hold workshops for Tribal governments in each of the 12
Bureau of Indian Affairs regions to provide technical
assistance with the collection and submission of data under
section 3(a)(2).
(2) Annual review.--Each year, the Commission, in
consultation with Indian Tribes, shall review the need for
continued workshops required under paragraph (1).
(d) Technical Assistance to Small Service Providers.--The
Commission shall establish a process through which a provider
that has fewer than 100,000 active broadband internet access
service connections may request and receive assistance from
the Commission with respect to geographic information system
data processing to ensure that the provider is able to comply
with the requirements under section 3(b) in a timely and
accurate manner.
SEC. 6. COST.
(a) In General.--Beginning with the first full fiscal year
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall
include in the budget submission of the Commission to the
President under sections 1105(a) and 1108 of title 31, United
States Code, amounts sufficient to ensure the proper and
continued functioning of the responsibilities of the
Commission under this Act.
(b) Cost of Fabric.--
(1) USF.--The Commission may not use funds from the
universal service programs of the Commission established
under section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 254), and the regulations issued under that section,
to pay for any costs associated with this Act.
(2) Other funds.--The Commission may recover costs
associated with this Act under section 9 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 159) to the extent
provided for in an appropriation Act, as required under
subsection (a) of that section.
SEC. 7. OTHER PROVISIONS.
(a) OMB.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
initial rule making required under section 3(a)(1) shall be
exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget.
(b) PRA.--Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code
(commonly known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act''), shall
not apply to the initial rule making required under section
3(a)(1).
(c) Execution of Responsibilities.--Except as provided in
section 3(b)(1)(A)(ii), the Commission--
(1) including the offices of the Commission, shall carry
out the responsibilities assigned to the Commission under
this Act; and
(2) may not delegate any of the responsibilities assigned
to the Commission under this Act to any third party,
including the Universal Service Administrative Company.
(d) Reporting.--Each fiscal year, the Commission shall
submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and
Commerce of the House of Representatives a report that
summarizes the implementation of this Act and associated
enforcement activities conducted during the previous fiscal
year.
Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
committee-reported amendment be withdrawn; that the Wicker substitute
amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be
considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee-reported amendment was withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 1268), in the nature of a substitute, was agreed
to as follows:
(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The bill (S. 1822), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4998
Mr. WICKER. Madam President, with regard to the so-called ``Rip and
Replace Act'' that would facilitate the United States joining our
allies and protecting us, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous
consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R.
4998, which was received from the House; that the bill be considered
read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEE. Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, this is
clearly an effort to push through last-minute changes on a single bill.
In my view, these changes are reckless, unnecessary, and unwise, and
in any event they were made without debate by Members of this body and
specifically contrary to the manner in which this very same legislation
was reported out of the Senate Commerce Committee.
I am glad to see the passage of a couple of pieces of legislation
just now, including the TRACED Act, which will help us fight damaging
robocalls. This is good legislation. I am also supportive of S. 1822,
the Broadband DATA Act, which will require much needed updates to our
broadband maps. These are good pieces of legislation. I am glad they
are passed.
I am also very supportive of the legislation that is the subject of
the immediate unanimous consent request; that is, the Commerce
Committee's reported version of S. 1625, the United States 5G
Leadership Act.
This is an important bill. It would help us identify Huawei equipment
posing an espionage risk in the United States. It will ban the use of
Universal Service Fund dollars to purchase the equipment and help
reimburse small companies for the costs associated with ripping and
replacing vulnerable equipment.
This is an important bill, and it received careful consideration
during the Senate Commerce Committee's markup on July 24, 2019.
The version of this bill that passed the committee was supported
unanimously by Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the aisle.
That version required $700 million to be set aside in a fund to help
reimburse companies for Huawei equipment replacements. The bill
specified that the source of this funding was to come from the proceeds
of spectrum auctions. This was a smart and good and carefully tailored
pay-for that did not add to our out-of-control Federal spending.
[[Page S7181]]
As currently written, the bill contains a reference to a
reimbursement fund and assumes there will be reimbursements, but the
bill does not specify how much funding is allocated, nor does it
specify the source of these funds. I can only assume this means the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees will default to authorizing
new funds rather than using the smart pay-for that the Senate Commerce
Committee unanimously and wisely agreed to in July.
For these reasons, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. LEE. Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1625
Mr. LEE. Madam President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous
consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged from further
consideration of S. 1625 and the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments ordered
reported by the Commerce Committee be agreed to; that the bill, as
amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WICKER. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Madam President, the Senator, my good friend from Utah,
has asked unanimous consent that we pass the version of the bill I
authored. Ordinarily, I would very much appreciate that. The problem
with his request is that in this Congress, it prevents us from acting
today to get to this ZTE and Huawei problem. We have a solution, and we
need to get started on it.
Let me also make the point that some things are worth paying for, and
protecting Americans, protecting our electronic system, our broadband
communications from the Chinese-owned Huawei and ZTE is worth paying
for.
What my unanimous consent request would have done, had the Senator
not objected, is we would have passed the bill and leave the issue of
how we fund it to another day. Perhaps the appropriators would have
decided to appropriate money for it. Had they done so, they would have
operated within the budget caps, as the Appropriations Committee has
done, and found room, found some offsets, and paid for it that way.
The proposal I made, that was objected to by my friend from Utah,
would also have left open the possibility of having a pay-for by the
sale of some spectrum.
I regret that the Senator is objecting based on how we will pay for
this very needed expenditure down the road. So I am compelled to object
to my good friend's unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. LEE. Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, where I come from in Utah, $700 million is
a lot of money. Seven hundred million dollars is something we ought to
worry about where we are going to get it.
It is not unreasonable for us to request that the House of
Representatives agree to the language we unanimously, on a bipartisan
basis, passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee.
In my mind, it is unfortunate that we are allowing the House of
Representatives' unreasonable, unwarranted demand--a demand the
chairman of the Commerce Committee himself acknowledges is one they
shouldn't object to--to rule the day and prevent this legislation from
becoming law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 6 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Tribute to Bill Murat
Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, I rise today with great pride to
recognize and honor my chief of staff and dear friend Bill Murat, who
will retire at the end of this year after 21 years of working in
Congress.
It is a rare thing in Washington to work side by side with the same
person for more than 20 years.
So on the eve of your retirement, Bill, I want to share a few words
about how much you have meant to me and the countless others you have
encountered during your long and storied career.
Bill Murat is a proud son of Stevens Point, WI. He graduated from
high school and college there, earned his GD from UW Law School and his
MBA from Columbia University.
Civically engaged since his youth, he served as district attorney for
Portage County, WI, prior to his election to the Wisconsin State
Assembly in 1994. It was there that Bill and I developed a friendship
as colleagues in the Wisconsin State Assembly in the 1990s. I found him
to be earnest, hard-working, a brilliant strategist, and lovely
storyteller. He also knew when to add good humor or a note of levity.
I remember fondly one night, during a midnight session of the
assembly, when Bill and I and a few of our Republican colleagues were
on the floor waiting for a vote while many of our colleagues were still
in their respective caucuses trying to hash out an agreement on an
issue. Being a big fan of Broadway, Bill was reflecting on how this
moment felt like a particular song from the musical ``Oklahoma.''
There, on the floor of the Wisconsin State Assembly, while in recess in
the wee hours, on a bipartisan basis, he broke out in song, singing:
``The farmer and the cowman should be friends.'' Because this is a
speech about Bill Murat, this will not be the last time I mention show
tunes.
After I was elected to the House of Representatives, Bill came to
work with me, first, as my district director and then, starting in
2001, as my chief of staff. Bill's steady hand of leadership has helped
me weather the storms Washington brings and stay focused on what
matters most--the people we serve in Wisconsin.
I remember the days after September 11, 2001. It was chaotic,
weighty, and, frankly, a scary time in Washington and across our
Nation. I had to get back to Wisconsin, but planes were still grounded.
So Bill walked into my office and simply said: ``Need a ride?'' So,
together, we made that 14-hour trip home from Washington, DC, to
Madison, WI, noting the American flags that were hung from nearly every
highway bridge we passed under and considering the gravity of the new
world we were seeing emerge.
Bill has been by my side for the highs and the lows of my time in
Congress. I am so proud of what we have done together, working to do
right by the people of Wisconsin and to pass on to the next generation
a country that is more equal, not less. His generosity of spirit
extends to every constituent in Wisconsin, every colleague in Congress,
and every staffer who has worked for him. His door is always open, and
he has been a mentor to so many people who have worked in the Baldwin
offices over the years.
In fact, I know there are several former staff members of mine who
have Bill to thank for their love of Broadway, since he used to host
``Better Living through Show Tunes'' as evening staff events. To be
honest, I am still jealous that these show tune nights always happened
after ``wheels up'' and I was headed home to Wisconsin.
On a more serious note, Bill is a fierce advocate and ardent
supporter of our Team Tammy family. He has led by example, encouraging
young people to pursue their passions, doling out career advice to
those who need it and listening to the concerns of others, whether they
are a Senate employee or a Wisconsinite looking for some assistance.
Bill has spent over three decades working on behalf of the great
State of Wisconsin. He and I have accomplished much together. I would
not be here today without him, and I am grateful for his friendship. I
thank him from the bottom of my heart for the years of service, and I
wish him the most fabulous retirement.
appropriations
Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, very shortly, the Senate will vote on
the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to
accompany H.R. 1865, Further Consolidated Appropriations Act. As part
of this appropriations package. a
[[Page S7182]]
version of my bill, the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of
Terrorism Act of 2019, is included in section 903. This bipartisan bill
seeks to restore U.S. court jurisdiction over the Palestinian
Authority, PA/Palestine Liberation Organization, PLO, while promoting
U.S. foreign policy interests in the Middle East through the resumption
of U.S. security assistance to PA security forces. It is a testament to
the hard work of my Democratic and Republican colleagues in this
Chamber that we are about to take up this important legislation.
In 1992, Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism Act, ATA. This law, as
well as future amending legislation, sought to deter and defeat
international terrorism by giving American citizens who are victims of
terrorism overseas the power to sue perpetrators in U.S. court. I was
privileged to work with the original ATA's author, Senator Grassley, in
drafting the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism
Act of 2019.
What our bill--also sponsored by Senators Duckworth, Coons,
Blumenthal, and Rubio--does is strike a balance between Congress's
desire to provide a path forward for American victims of terror to have
their day in court and the toleration by the Members of this body to
allow the PA/PLO to conduct a very narrow scope of activities on U.S.
soil--such as activities pertaining to official business at the United
Nations, engagements with U.S. officials necessary to our national
interest, and legal expenses related to adjudicating or resolving
claims filed in U.S. courts--without consenting to personal
jurisdiction in civil ATA cases. This delicate balance is supported by
a bipartisan coalition of Members of Congress, the executive branch,
and American victims of international terrorism and their families.
For 25 years, the Federal courts struck this balance by holding that
the PLO's and PA's presence and activities in the United States subject
them to jurisdiction in our courts unless they can demonstrate that
their offices in the United States deal exclusively with the official
business of the United Nations and that their activities in this
country are commensurate with their special diplomatic need for being
present here.
The courts correctly held that the PLO's and PA's fundraising and
public relations activities such as press releases and public
appearances, whether characterized as diplomatic public speaking or
proselytizing, are not essential to their diplomatic functions at the
United Nations Headquarters. The bill codifies the distinction
recognized in these cases while giving the PLO and PA a clear choice.
Unless they limit their presence to official business with the United
Nations and their U.S. activities commensurate with their special
diplomatic need to be in the United States, they will be consenting to
personal jurisdiction in ATA cases.
In this regard, the exception in the language for ``ancillary''
activities is intended to permit only essential support or services
that are absolutely necessary to facilitate the conduct of diplomatic
activities expressly exempted in the bill.
By applying the bill to any case pending on or after August 30, 2016,
we are making clear Congress's intent that courts have the power to
restore jurisdiction in cases previously dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction after years of litigation. It is to be liberally construed
to carry out the purposes of Congress to provide relief for victims of
terrorism, and it specifies Congress's intent to enable victims to
pursue justice without being subjected to repetitive, unnecessary, or
protracted litigation, which would just reopen the pain that many
Americans have already suffered through.
As the Congress finishes its final week of the first session of the
116th Congress, I look forward to voting in favor of this important
legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, in October the Senate Judiciary
Committee marked up and passed S. 2132, the Promoting Security and
Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019. I am happy to say that
after further good faith negotiations among key stakeholders within and
outside of Congress, a version of the bill is included in the
appropriations package the Senate will soon consider.
I am proud to be a lead cosponsor of this bipartisan bill and to have
helped lead it through the Judiciary Committee. Senator Lankford, who
introduced this legislation, has tirelessly worked to get it across the
finish line in the Senate. From day one of this effort, American
victims of terrorism have had a tremendous ally in the Senator from
Oklahoma and his staff, and I thank him for his leadership.
Earlier today, Senator Lankford discussed parts of this bipartisan
legislation in greater detail. I would like to associate myself with
his remarks.
I am also very grateful to Senators Duckworth, Rubio, Blumenthal, and
Coons for their support and work on behalf of victims.
It is not easy to find common ground here in the Senate, but there is
one issue where we should all agree: Those who aid or carry out
terrorist attacks overseas that kill or injure Americans should be held
fully accountable in our justice system.
For over 25 years, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1992, ATA, which I
authored and Congress unanimously passed, has empowered American
victims of international terrorism to bring lawsuits in Federal courts
to vindicate their rights and obtain compensation for their injuries--
providing some semblance of justice.
Equally important, these lawsuits disrupt and deter the financial
support of terrorist organizations. By cutting terrorists' financial
lifelines, the ATA is a key part of the U.S. arsenal in fighting
terrorism and protecting American citizens.
The 1992 law removed the jurisdictional hurdles that had for so long
frustrated or outright prevented American victims' ability to seek
justice in U.S. courts for attacks committed overseas. Congress passed
the ATA in the wake of international terrorist attacks, including the
Palestine Liberation Front's 1985 killing of Leon Klinghoffer, a Jewish
American aboard the Achille Lauro cruise ship.
For 25 years the law worked as intended. The Palestine Liberation
Organization, PLO, and Palestinian Authority themselves were repeatedly
held to account in U.S. courts and paid a price for terrorist attacks
that harmed or killed Americans. But starting in 2015, lower court
decisions made it impossible for American victims injured abroad to
hold sponsors of international terrorism accountable in our own courts.
These decisions nullified the fundamental purpose of the ATA--to
protect Americans wherever in the world they may be--and disrespected
Congress's power to protect U.S. citizens and U.S. interests.
Last year, I introduced the bipartisan Anti-Terrorism Clarification
Act of 2018, ATCA, in direct response to those court decisions,
including Sokolow v. PLO in the second Circuit and Livnat v.
Palestinian Authority in the DC Circuit. Congress passed the ATCA--once
again, without objection--to restore jurisdiction and thereby finally
secure justice for victims.
The ATCA expressed a clear principle: If the PLO and Palestinian
Authority continued to maintain any office or facility in the United
States, or accepted taxpayer-funded U.S. assistance, they would be
answerable in our courts for perpetrating or supporting terrorism that
harmed or killed Americans. The bipartisan bill was considered through
regular order as a standalone bill, with markups in both Chambers,
passed Congress without objection, and was signed into law by President
Trump in October of 2018.
Shortly thereafter, instead of facing justice in our courts, the
Palestinian Authority rejected all U.S.-backed humanitarian assistance
provided to the West Bank and Gaza. In its zeal to dodge legal
responsibility, the Palestinian Authority even prevented non-
governmental organization, NGO, from receiving U.S. assistance.
The Palestinian Authority's strategically overbroad interpretation of
the ATCA harmed the very people it claims to represent on the
international stage.
After inexcusable objections and delays--which I previously outlined
on the Senate floor--the State Department finally began to
constructively work with me and my colleagues to improve upon the ATCA,
respond to the Palestinian Authority's actions, and finally remove the
jurisdictional hurdles imposed on American victims by flawed court
decisions.
[[Page S7183]]
The Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of
2019 is the product of those negotiations and enables victims of
terrorism to vindicate their rights in U.S. courts. It also responds
directly to the Palestinian Authority's shameful blocking of security
assistance and humanitarian services. This bill marks a rare compromise
reached by American victims of terrorism and the State Department.
I hope it in some way also sets a new precedent for our own State
Department to continue working on behalf of and never again at odds
with American victims.
During the bill's markup this past October, Senator Coons offered an
amendment that I cosponsored to add another important means of securing
jurisdiction in our courts over the PLO and Palestinian Authority: If
they pay terrorists or families of terrorists who injured or killed
Americans, then that reprehensible conduct will be grounds for
jurisdiction in ATA cases. This is a sound addition to the bill to
support the United States' global fight against terrorism, as reflected
in years of legislation--most recently the Taylor Force Act. The PLO
and Palestinian Authority's ``pay to slay'' policies are nothing short
of an incitement for further acts of terrorism. Connecting these
payments to jurisdiction in ATA cases is perhaps the least Congress
should do to further discourage such conduct and protect Americans
abroad.
The bill also sends a clear signal that Congress intends to empower
courts to restore jurisdiction in cases previously dismissed.
The American principle that everyone deserves meaningful access to
justice is as old as the Constitution itself. This bipartisan bill will
reopen the courthouse doors to American victims and their families. I
am grateful for its inclusion in the appropriations measure that the
Senate will soon consider.
Once again, I want to thank Senator Lankford for his leadership and
tireless work these past several months on behalf of American victims
of terrorism.
Finally, I also want to thank Chairman Graham for making this bill a
priority in the Judiciary Committee. I now urge all of my colleagues'
support for this important and bipartisan measure.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today in support of the fiscal
year 2020 Appropriations bill for the Departments of Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies. This bill is
included in the appropriations package that is before this Chamber.
Let me begin my remarks by thanking Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman
Leahy for their bipartisan leadership in successfully finishing the
conference and advancing all of these appropriations bills to the
Senate floor.
I also want to acknowledge the hard work and strong commitment of my
friend and colleague Senator Jack Reed, the ranking member of the T-HUD
Subcommittee. We have worked closely together in negotiating this bill
and have crafted a truly bipartisan product.
The fiscal year 2020 transportation and housing appropriations bill
provides $74.3 billion to continue to improve our Nation's
infrastructure and maintain HUD rental assistance for low-income
seniors, homeless youths, and other vulnerable populations. This year,
we once again faced the funding challenge of rising rental costs across
the country and a reduction in the receipts from the Federal Housing
Administration that are used to offset some of the spending in this
bill.
However, we were successful in maintaining many of the Senate
priorities in the final bill. For example, the bill provides $1 billion
for the highly effective and popular BUILD grant program, which has
provided $205 million in critical infrastructure improvements in Maine
since 2009. In addition, the bill includes $1.15 billion for bridge
repair and rehabilitation, with a focus on those States with the
greatest needs. The need for additional bridge funding is clear across
the country and was highlighted in my home State of Maine by grant
awards for projects such as the Station 46 Bridge and the Sarah Mildred
Long Bridge.
The infrastructure funding in this bill not only addresses the
transportation challenges we face but also creates jobs and economic
growth in each and every one of our homes. The American Society of
Civil Engineers' most recent report card from 2017 shows that America's
infrastructure remains in poor condition with a grade of D+. This poor
rating is not only detrimental for the movement of people and goods but
also harmful from a safety perspective.
I am also particularly proud of the $300 million for the third
National Security Multi-Mission Vessel which will serve as the new
training vessel for Maine Maritime Academy. The new NSMV will play a
critical role in training the next generation of U.S. mariners. This
new ship will ensure that cadets receive the training hours they need
to graduate and join the workforce in the merchant marine, Navy, and
Coast Guard.
Another important issue, particularly to Senator Reed and me, is
reducing lead paint in homes. That is of particular health concern to
families with children under the age of 6. The bill provides $290
million to combat lead hazards, a historic level of funding. Lead paint
hazards are a significant concern for Maine families, as 57 percent of
our housing stock was constructed prior to 1978, the year lead-based
paint was banned. These grants will help communities protect children
from the harmful lifelong effects of lead poisoning.
Finally, I do want to mention that the bill provides additional
funding for the FAA's aviation safety programs in light of two Boeing
crashes. This funding ensures that the agency has the necessary staff
and training, as well as safety data reporting systems going forward.
Our Committee remains focused on this issue to ensure that we maintain
the Nation's safest airspace.
I appreciate the opportunity to present this important legislation to
the Chamber. As we begin debate on the Transportation-HUD bill, I urge
my colleagues to support the investments in this bill that benefit our
communities all across this Nation and the families, veterans,
children, and our seniors that rely on these programs.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today as a member of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee to express my support for this
appropriations bill and to highlight a number of important provisions
for both our national security and the State of Maine.
I would first like to thank Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member
Durbin, as well as Vice-Chairman Leahy, for their work and leadership
on the committee and their willingness to come together to complete
what is a strong, bipartisan final bill.
The bipartisan work of the Defense Subcommittee is vitally important
to ensure our men and women in uniform are able to fight and defend our
Nation as well as deter potential adversaries. It also ensures our DOD
civilians have the resources they need to support those servicemembers
and keep our ships, planes, and vehicles at the ready.
The bill before us today supports a military pay increase of 3.1
percent--the largest in a decade. It also recognizes the value of our
civilian workforce by also supporting an average pay increase of 3.1
percent for DOD civilians.
The bill recognizes the necessity of building and maintaining a
strong Navy. It provides nearly $24 billion for new Navy battle force
ships, including more than $5 billion for three DDG-51 destroyers.
Looking ahead to next year, it also provides an additional $390 million
above the amount requested in the President's budget request for DDG-51
advanced procurement. This demonstrates Congress's intent that the
Department sustain an aggressive growth rate for large surface
combatants in fiscal year 2021 and beyond.
In Maine, we are very proud of the role that Bath Iron Works plays in
contributing to our national security, building the finest ships in our
fleet. This bill includes $130 million to invest in our Nation's large
surface combatant industrial base, ensuring Bath Iron Works can
efficiently design and build our Navy's fleet long into the future.
BIW is known throughout the Navy for the high-quality of the ships
they build, with many Sailors using our motto that ``Bath Built is Best
Built.'' BIW employs the finest shipbuilders, engineers, and designers
in the world, and this bill rightly recognizes the great value that
these tried-and-tested warships bring to the Navy.
[[Page S7184]]
This bill supports our nation's public shipyards, which are truly the
backbone of our Navy's submarine fleet. It funds our Navy's maintenance
activities, ensuring workers at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and other
shipyards can carry out their work keeping our Nation's submarines at
sea.
The bill also makes clear that the Navy should continue to invest in
the very successful apprenticeship programs at our public shipyards--
which has been incredibly successful at PNSY--as well as work to
address the availability of Virginia-class submarine materials at our
shipyards.
This bill makes critical investments in research and development
programs, which are being carried out in partnership with research
institutions, including the University of Maine. These programs include
producing jet fuel from Maine's forest biomass; developing hybrid
composite structures for the Navy; and funding for DOD to utilize
UMaine's new 3D printer, the largest in the world, for cutting-edge
defense research and rapid prototyping.
This bill invests in fifth-generation aircraft we need to deter
Russia and China by funding 98 F-35 aircraft 20 more than initially
requested by the Department. These advanced, stealthy jets are key to
dominating the skies, and I am proud of Pratt and Whitney's
contributions to the program through its construction of the F135
engine at its facility in North Berwick, ME. Additionally, the bill
procures six CH-53K Heavy Lift helicopters for the Marine Corps. The
rotating drive shafts are a critical moment of the aircraft and are
produced at Hunting Dearborn's facility in Fryeburg, ME.
The National Guard provides our country with both a strategic and
operational reserve which has proven itself time and time again. I
applaud the bill's inclusion of $1.3 billion to the National Guard and
Reserve equipment account to help modernize our Reserve forces. It also
notes the critical capability that the National Guard provides to State
governments in DOD's cyber defense mission and urges the Department to
ensure there are cyber capabilities within the Guard in every State.
Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass
this important legislation.
Mr.VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I rise to express my concerns with
H.R. 158, the appropriations package to fund the Department of Defense,
the Census Bureau, the Department of Justice, NASA, the Treasury, and
the Department of Homeland Security.
As a representative of many Federal employees in the State of
Maryland and a member of the Appropriations Committee, I take the
responsibility of funding the government extremely seriously. The
decisions we make in the appropriations bills govern the operations of
the Federal Government and its programs to serve the American people,
keep them safe, and foster opportunity.
I have also been deeply disturbed by this Administration's efforts to
disregard the appropriations bills that Congress has passed and the
President has signed by transferring funds from one account to another
and, in some cases, failing to spend duly appropriated dollars in a
timely fashion. In order to assert Congress's authority to make the
laws that the administration must faithfully execute, I have advocated
for greater transparency through disclosure of the apportionment
documents used by the Office of Management and Budget to plan spending
schedules among agencies and for restrictions on the administration's
authority to transfer funds between programs. We have seen that this
President does not care about, congressional intent and will flout the
law to use American taxpayer money build a border wall that he said
Mexico would pay for. The funds appropriated by Congress cannot be not
be allowed to be taken away and redirected on the whim of a President.
So I am disappointed that this bill does not include meaningful
restrictions on transfer authority.
It also does not include House language to require disclosure of
apportionment documents--language that is similar to an amendment I
offered that was passed on a bipartisan basis as part of a bill in the
Budget Committee. I appreciate the hard-won provisions in the bill to
bolster efforts to oversee and correct abuses in this administration's
disgraceful detention policy that has separated children from their
parents and funding for alternatives to detention family case
Management. The bill rightfully rejects the President's request to
increase his ICE and Border Patrol forces and prohibits border fencing
in environmentally sensitive areas. But I remain deeply concerned that
the President still can--and judging by past actions, likely will--
transfer resources to support his damaging agenda.
I am pleased that this bill provides a well-deserved 3.1 percent pay
increase for Federal employees who serve our Nation admirably every
day. I am a cosponsor of the legislation to do that and glad that it
has been included in this bill However, I am concerned that the bill
does not include House-passed language to counter the President's
Executive orders that undermine Federal employee collective bargaining
and have resulted in a number of anti-worker contracts. Federal
employees are prohibited from bargaining on wages and benefits, so they
focus their efforts on improving the operations of their offices. We
should not impede their efforts to establish better working conditions,
protect the civil service from political reprisals, and arbitrate
disputes between management and the rank-and-file. I will continue to
fight for fair treatment of Federal workforce.
I appreciate the willingness of Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman
Leahy to work with me and with Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton to
provide the District of Columbia with funding to cover past
inauguration and Fourth of July expenses. But I am deeply disappointed
that the bill continues to include shameful political policy riders for
the District of Columbia that place restrictions on how the District
spends its own money. The U.S. Congress should stop acting like we run
the city of Washington, DC. Elected officials from the District should
be able to enact laws that address the needs of their constituents
without Congress looking over their shoulder. As I stated during our
full committee markup of the Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations bill, we must remove these restrictions--which none of
us would accept for our own States.
Despite my reservations about the bill, it does include funding for
many important programs. It fully funds the First Step Act to implement
needed criminal justice reform, rejects the President's request to
eliminate the Legal Services Corporation, and includes resources for
law enforcement to address crime and fight opioid and drug trafficking.
It fully funds the Census, a constitutionally mandated effort to count
everyone in the United States and ensure that every community receives
the resources it needs. It rejects the President's cuts to a number of
important programs at NASA Goddard in Maryland, including the PACE
Program, W-FIRST, and carbon monitoring. These programs are essential
to our understanding of the universe and to own world and have been on
the Trump chopping block year after year. I will continue to fight to
make sure they are adequately funded. It fully funds the James Webb
Space Telescope, supports RESTORE-L, and increases the base budget for
Earth Science. NOAA and NIST, which are also headquartered in Maryland,
will receive modest increases instead of the Administration's proposed
cuts. The bill also includes important funding for defense
installations in Maryland. This funding, coupled with the National
Defense Authorization Act, which I was proud to support and which
included a military pay increase and for the first time paid parental
leave for federal employees, will ensure that the men and women of the
military will receive benefits they deserve. Finally, the bill rejects
the President's request to eliminate the Economic Development
Administration and preserves funding for cooperative agreements between
the Minority Business Development Agency and Minority Business
Development Centers--three of which serve Maryland.
I recognize that no bill is perfect and that appropriations bills
require compromise. I respect the work that Chairman Shelby, Vice
Chairman Leahy, and their staffs have put into this legislation and am
grateful for their willingness to work with me on many Maryland
priorities. However, I believe
[[Page S7185]]
that we must take steps to assert Congress's role in the appropriations
process in the face of a President who is willing to disregard the laws
we pass--and he signs--to further his individual agenda. Because this
bill does not restrict the President's ability to flout Congress's
stated intent, I regret that I cannot vote for it.
____________________