[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4274-4291]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            AMERICA'S SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 636, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 636) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to permanently extend increased expensing limitations, 
     and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       McConnell (for Thune/Nelson) amendment No. 3679, in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       Thune amendment No. 3680 (to amendment No. 3679), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The senior Senator from South 
Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the motion 
to end debate so the Senate can vote and pass the pro-security and pro-
consumer provisions within the bipartisan Federal Aviation 
Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016.
  For the past 2 weeks on the Senate floor and earlier at the Commerce 
Committee, we have engaged in a constructive and open process to 
consider amendments making important changes to this legislation that 
sets aviation policies for our country. On the Senate floor we added 19 
amendments, 10 from Democrats and 9 from Republican Senators, and at 
the Commerce Committee we approved 57 amendments, 34 from Democrats and 
23 from Republicans. A number of these amendments were substantial, 
including the vast majority of the aviation security provisions within 
the legislation.
  We have also agreed to set aside discussions on certain issues for 
now so we could continue to have a bill with broad bipartisan support. 
On some policy issues where there was disagreement, we found the will 
of the Senate through negotiation and votes. Our debate has been 
constructive, and I value the process by which we have allowed Senators 
to make their mark on this bill.
  After 2 weeks of consideration, it is now time to conclude our work 
on the bipartisan legislation I introduced along with my friend, the 
ranking member from Florida, Senator Bill Nelson, and our Aviation 
Subcommittee leaders, Kelly Ayotte and Maria Cantwell.
  The bill we can vote on today has been described in the Washington 
Post as ``one of the most passenger-friendly Federal Aviation 
Administration reauthorization bills in a generation.''
  Even more important, this bill includes strong, new security measures 
that address the threat that ISIS and other terrorist groups pose to 
airline passengers. It is a comprehensive bill addressing needs in 
cyber security, the aircraft design approval process, undue regulatory 
burdens on noncommercial

[[Page 4275]]

pilots, airport infrastructure, rural air service, lithium battery 
safety, mental health screening for pilots, communicable disease 
preparedness, drone safety, and many other important issues. This bill 
helps the public that relies on our air transportation system, and we 
shouldn't let them down.
  A vote yes on the motion to end debate allows us to move forward and 
to get these reforms going forward by agreeing to ultimately vote on 
them and to vote on passage of this bill.
  Again, I thank all who are involved. Senator Nelson and I started 
this process months ago. I think we had somewhere on the order of seven 
hearings, full committee and subcommittee, in debating and helping 
shape the bill. It was a very constructive process as we went through 
the markup, where we incorporated the suggestions and good ideas that 
came from many Members of our committee. We tried to continue that 
process on the floor of the Senate, and we have been successful in 
adding some amendments that strengthen the bill. I wish we could add 
more. I hope we can still reach agreement. There are still negotiations 
underway for another package of 25 or 30 amendments that we would like 
to get added to this bill if we can get the level of cooperation that 
is necessary to accomplish that.
  In the end, we need to pass this. It is important for the American 
people. It is a piece of legislation that needs to get voted on in the 
Senate, hopefully on to the House, and eventually on the President's 
desk.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota. He 
has been a real friend and a champion in being able to work together in 
the best traditions of the Senate in trying to craft--and I think we 
have successfully--a bipartisan piece of legislation that continues, as 
the Senator has quoted from one of the papers, to advance the FAA in a 
way that we should be sensitive to the needs of the flying public.
  It is also this Senator's hope that where we have disagreements on 
just a few amendments, that after we have a big vote invoking cloture 
so we can move on with the bill, that a package of 30-some amendments--
noncontroversial, bipartisan--would then be allowed to be adopted by 
unanimous consent, and then it is possible that we could move on to the 
final passage early this afternoon. That is this Senator's hope.
  Let me underscore what the Senator has already said. There are a lot 
of challenges in how we conduct ourselves in the airspace of this 
country. There are a lot of important things that we have to do, such 
as modernizing the air traffic control system, the next generation of 
technology in moving us efficiently, and in the process it has to be 
safe.
  Therefore, as we see new kinds of challenges because of technology--
for example, unmanned aerial vehicles, drones--we have to approach that 
with great caution and make sure we know what we are doing so the 
flying public is safe.
  I hope we get a big vote on this motion for cloture.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Senate amendment 
     No. 3679.
         Mitch McConnell, Daniel Coats, Roger F. Wicker, Roy 
           Blunt, Orrin G. Hatch, Thom Tillis, John Hoeven, Rob 
           Portman, James Lankford, John Thune, Mike Rounds, John 
           Cornyn, John Barrasso, Johnny Isakson, James M. Inhofe, 
           Jerry Moran, Kelly Ayotte.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 3679, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. 
McConnell, to H.R. 636, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 94, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 45 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--4

     Boxer
     Lee
     Portman
     Rubio

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cruz
     Sanders
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 94, the nays are 4.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 627

  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, America was horrified 2 years ago as the 
scandal at the VA unfolded. We heard about veterans dying while they 
were waiting for care. Meanwhile, we discovered that VA employees 
manipulated appointment wait lists to hide the fact that the VA 
couldn't provide the care our veterans needed in a timely fashion.
  The denial of earned care is always tragic, but it is inexcusable 
when the denial is driven by bureaucratic tampering and falsifications. 
Cooking the books was one bureaucratic offense, but not holding 
accountable those responsible is an additional bureaucratic failure, 
and one that continues to haunt our system.
  These weren't just a few scattered incidents either. The VA inspector 
general investigated 73 VA facilities across the country and found 
problems in 51 of them, ranging from rule violations to outright fraud. 
These reports demonstrate that inappropriate scheduling practices were 
systematic at the VA.
  This map shows how widespread the wait-list rule violations and 
manipulations have been. The inspector general's office found out how 
our veterans were treated when they called up looking for care. The 
information the VA gave was manipulated to make it seem as though the 
VA was doing much better than it was. We literally know that veterans 
died while waiting for care. That is shameful, and we owe it to those 
who served this Nation to serve them. They earned this by defending us 
and our freedoms.
  Unfortunately, one of those 51 cases was the VA medical center in my 
home State of New Hampshire.
  A New Hampshire newspaper summarizes the inspector general's report 
as follows:

       Staff at the Manchester VA Medical Center manipulated 
     appointment dates and refused to schedule referrals beyond 14 
     days in some speciality departments, all to make it appear 
     patients were being seen quickly.

[[Page 4276]]

       One report also shows that top officials at the Manchester 
     VA discouraged the use of electronic waiting lists.
       Another shows extremely long waits at the facility's Pain 
     Clinic, where one patient waited an average of seven to eight 
     months for injection treatments.
       The reports show a near obsession with keeping numbers down 
     when it comes to the length of time that veterans had to wait 
     for appointments, which is one of the ways bonuses for 
     hospital officials were determined.

  Bonuses were determined by how you performed on the scheduling and 
whether you were actually meeting the needs of our veterans on time. 
Yet we know they were manipulating wait lists across the country to 
show that they were, in fact, serving our veterans when they were not.
  Last week I met with the current Manchester VA medical center 
director to discuss the findings of the inspector general's report. 
Even though it didn't occur under her leadership, these findings are 
serious and must be dealt with appropriately. While I was encouraged to 
hear of the steps the director has taken to address the scheduling 
misconduct, I will be closely following the medical center's practices 
and performance.
  We cannot let this happen again. Part of not letting it happen again 
is what brings me to the floor today. I will make sure we aren't 
incentivizing misconduct and allowing wrongdoers to get away with it, 
whether it is the wait-list manipulations or misconduct.
  Unfortunately, the wait-list scandal isn't the only scandal at the 
VA. There is a common theme with all these scandals: Those committing 
misconduct are getting bonuses--yes, bonuses. Those involved in 
wrongdoing are getting checks paid by the American taxpayer. That is 
unacceptable, and that is why I introduced bipartisan legislation to 
improve accountability at the Department of Veterans Affairs by 
requiring the VA Secretary to claw back bonuses paid to VA employees 
who were involved in serious misconduct or felonies. It would also 
require the VA to retain a copy of any reprimand or admonishment given 
to an employee by the Department which would then be in that employee's 
permanent record. Keeping that information in someone's employment 
record seems like common sense, but we have to pass this bill in order 
to do that. Amazingly, the Secretary of the VA doesn't currently have 
the authority to claw back bonuses even if, as with the wait list, the 
perpetrator's misconduct led to a bigger bonus check. That is 
unacceptable. We cannot reward those who commit fraud and misconduct by 
doling out taxpayer dollars.
  A recent report noted that in 2014 the VA paid out $140 million in 
bonuses. Nearly half of the VA's employees got bonuses. More 
importantly, we know that individuals who were implicated in an array 
of scandals also received bonuses. For example, the director of the 
Phoenix VA hospital who was fired for her misconduct got a $9,000 
bonus. The VA senior managers who improperly leveraged their positions 
to get hundreds of thousands of dollars in relocation funds to move to 
new facilities, along with a bump in pay--even though they were 
committing misrepresentations and fraud--got bonuses. A VA employee who 
recently pleaded the Fifth Amendment before a congressional committee 
got a bonus. Executives overseeing the $1 billion-over-budget VA 
medical center construction project in Colorado got bonuses. A doctor 
implicated in overprescribing opioids at the Tomah VA facility called 
``Candy Land,'' where veterans were harmed--bonus.
  We can't let these bonuses keep going to wrongdoers. It will just 
continue the erosion of trust of our veterans, who have done so much to 
defend this Nation and our freedom. That is why we need to pass this 
bill. The VA Secretary must be active in pursuing the disciplinary 
actions against VA employees guilty of misconduct so they aren't 
getting bonuses and taking away resources that could go to help our 
veterans. Without my legislation, the VA Secretary does not have the 
authority right now to go after a bonus, even if the bonus is given to 
a wrongdoer, to claw that money back.
  This bill passed out of committee by a voice vote. The records 
retention provisions in this bill passed out of the House of 
Representatives by voice vote. Let's put this authority into law so 
that those who break the law don't get bonuses. That is why I am 
standing on the floor today asking for unanimous consent to pass this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 240, S. 627. I further ask that 
the Ayotte and Brown amendments be agreed to; the committee-reported 
substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, 
be read a third time and passed; the title amendment be agreed to; and 
that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I agree 
with much of what the Senator from New Hampshire said, and that is that 
our veterans deserve to have the highest quality care by the Veterans 
Administration. Those employees at the Veterans Administration who have 
not carried out their responsibility should be disciplined, and when 
there are adverse findings, there should be consequences to them. So I 
agree with much of what she has said.
  However, let us be mindful that the overwhelming number of Federal 
workers, including those at the Veterans Administration, are hard-
working public servants, asked to do more with less resources. They 
have been through freezes, furloughs, government shutdowns, 
sequestration--you name it.
  I understand that the Veterans' Affairs Committee is considering more 
comprehensive legislation, as they should. As my colleague from New 
Hampshire has mentioned, this deals with one aspect of those who have 
adverse findings in regard to their ability to get bonuses or the 
reprimand on their record.
  Here is my problem. If we use a unanimous consent request, there is 
no opportunity for amendment, and there is no opportunity for debate. 
When I finish my comments, I am going to ask that the Senator amend her 
unanimous consent request to include an amendment that I wish to offer. 
Let me explain what it does.
  Yes, we want to hold the employee accountable--those who have not 
carried out the public trust in which there are adverse findings. But 
there also has to be accountability for the supervisors, for those who 
should be managing the agency so that we don't have employees doing 
what they did.
  Managers need to have tools. They need to be able to manage their 
employees. They need to be able to determine how their employees are 
handled if we are going to hold them accountable, and I want to hold 
the supervisors accountable. So my amendment would allow the supervisor 
to determine the length of the suspension of the bonus that the 
individual could receive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If I could just ask Members to take their 
conversations out of the Senate Chamber.
  Mr. CARDIN. I appreciate that, and I thank the Presiding Officer very 
much. I thought I was getting an agreement here.
  So to continue, it could be longer than the 5 years that is in the 
bill of the Senator from New Hampshire, but it would be the manager or 
supervisor who would determine the length of the suspension of the 
right to receive the bonus, so that the manager has the tools in order 
to manage the workforce and we can hold the supervisor accountable.
  The second amendment is similar, as it relates to the reprimand being 
retained in the records. It allows the manager to have the discretion 
as to the length of time.
  The bill that the Senator from New Hampshire is recommending is a 
hard 5-year period, and it doesn't give the manager the ability to use 
these tools as ways to advance service to our veterans.
  The bottom line here is service to our veterans. That is the bottom 
line--that they get the services they deserve.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify her request so 
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 
240, S. 627;

[[Page 4277]]

that in lieu of the committee-reported substitute and title amendments, 
that the Cardin substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed 
to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; that 
the Cardin title amendment be agreed to; and that the motions to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no 
intervening action or debate.
  That would carry out the modifications that I said, giving the 
manager the ability to impose either a shorter or longer period of time 
than the bill of the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Hampshire so modify 
her request?
  Ms. AYOTTE. No, I do not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. CARDIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I certainly thank the Senator from 
Maryland. I agree, and I believe there are many hard-working Federal 
employees. The reason that I have been fighting for this bill in 
particular is, No. 1, to make sure that those who commit misconduct are 
held accountable. No. 2, I actually want to make sure that we aren't 
sending the wrong message to the people who are working hard and doing 
their jobs. When they see someone else who has committed misconduct by 
literally manipulating wait lists get a bonus, that actually 
demoralizes the good, hard-working employees who are doing their jobs 
and serving veterans.
  So this is about making sure that the people who actually do a good 
job get recognized. But when you give a bonus to someone who has 
committed misconduct, you not only obviously undermine our system--
thinking about the veterans who have served our Nation with so much 
courage and done so much for us--not only do we corrode their trust, 
but I think we corrode the trust of the workforce that is doing really 
great work every day, and I want to thank those who are doing the good 
work on our behalf. I have had a chance to meet many of them.
  I want to address the point of the Senator from Maryland about giving 
managers authority. I wish to point out that the problem we have here 
is that this is rampant--absolutely rampant. If we look at what 
happened with the director of the Phoenix VA who lost her job--fired 
for misconduct--where literally wait lists were manipulated and 
veterans died, she got a $9,000 bonus. So who are we going to leave 
discretion to here? Many of the managers, I know, need to manage the 
facilities, which is important. But when it comes to the bonus issue, 
we literally would be putting, for example in the Phoenix situation, 
the individual who gets fired for overseeing all of this in charge of 
whether and how long other people's bonuses are clawed back. I would 
also say that this has been rampant, unfortunately, about management, 
and not just of the director of the Phoenix VA but the other examples I 
gave, including the VA senior managers who improperly leveraged their 
positions to get hundreds of thousands of dollars in relocation funds. 
So, in other words, they were misappropriating taxpayer dollars. They 
got bonuses too. They are managers.
  We have executives overseeing the huge cost overrun in the Colorado 
VA who got bonuses. We have many examples. If we put this at the 
discretion of how long this is going to go in place instead of putting 
a logical time period in place, which my bill does, then we are going 
to keep perpetuating the same situation where the discretion makes it 
so it doesn't happen. That worries me, because, unfortunately, we have 
a pattern here that needs to be addressed.
  Second, I would just say that, as we look at even the ability to 
retain records, most employers do have standard recordkeeping in terms 
of if you receive a reprimand or an admonishment and how long that is 
retained. So if we just leave that completely loosey-goosey discretion 
among managers, where we have already established some of them have 
been part of this misconduct, then I fear there really will be no 
accountability and these provisions will not have the teeth in them 
that they should.
  Let me just say that this bill that we have been working on, that did 
pass out of committee, is something that I have been working on and 
negotiating for months, working and taking people's concerns into 
account. It does ensure that, before any employee is subject to having 
the bonus clawed back, they do have the opportunity for due process. So 
that is built into this to challenge the underlying claims made against 
them. But if we put this all into a discretionary basis, then we are 
just going to be in the same situation that we are right now and not 
have the teeth that we need in this commonsense measure.
  I talked to some of my constituents about this issue, and they can't 
believe that we actually have to pass a law to say that if you got a 
bonus and you committed misconduct--in fact, one of the reasons you got 
the bonus is because of the misconduct, because you manipulated the 
wait list--yes, you can give that money back, and you shouldn't be 
receiving a bonus. It is kind of shocking that this isn't just common 
sense. But right now the VA Secretary does not have this authority.
  Our veterans deserve better. This is plain common sense. I am 
disappointed that the modification that was sought on the floor would 
weaken this commonsense bill. I am going to continue to fight for more 
accountability in our VA. But let's have some common sense in all of 
this. We shouldn't be rewarding our employees who are committing 
misconduct for the very conduct that they are committing and that 
unfortunately is harming our veterans who have done so much for this 
Nation.
  I am the granddaughter of a World War II veteran. My husband is an 
Iraq veteran. I have had the privilege in my job of meeting so many of 
our veterans, both current Active-Duty military and those who have 
served in conflicts going back to World War II. There is no greater 
example of patriotism and what makes our country great than our 
veterans. Really, if we think about what has happened in our VA and how 
shameful it is, this is something that we need to make sure we get 
right once and for all for those who have defended this Nation and who 
really show us what it means to be an American.
  So I am going to continue to fight for such a commonsense piece of 
legislation, but I hope my colleagues will join me in this so that we 
can make sure that the VA performs its mission, which is to give our 
veterans the best care they can receive and that they certainly have 
earned defending our great Nation.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the hard work Senator Ayotte 
has put into her bill and her willingness to work across the aisle with 
the ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Senator 
Blumenthal, and Senator Brown. Since I objected to her unanimous 
consent request and she objected to my counteroffer, I would like to 
take a few moments to outline my concerns about her bill and explain 
why I offered a complete substitute amendment that reflects those 
concerns and an amendment to change the title.
  At the outset, I want to make it clear that I do not condone 
malfeasance by any Federal executive or employee. The well-documented 
problems at the Veterans Administration, VA, are particularly troubling 
because they harmed the men and women who have defended our Nation--and 
their families. That is unacceptable.
  There is an old proverb, ``You can fix the blame or you can fix the 
problem.'' Actually, VA Secretary Robert McDonald, his leadership team, 
and the VA rank-and-file are doing both.
  To that end, I would encourage my colleagues to read the December 9, 
2015, testimony of Sloan D. Gibson, Deputy Secretary of the Department 
of Veterans Affairs, before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  In the context of patient access and scheduling data manipulation 
concerns that came to light at the Phoenix VA Medical Center, Deputy 
Secretary Gibson reported that, as of October 2015,

[[Page 4278]]

VA completed 97 percent of appointments within 30 days of the 
clinically indicated or veteran's preferred date; 91 percent within 14 
days; 87 percent within 7 days; and 24 percent on the same day. VA's 
average wait time for completed primary care appointments is 4 days; 
specialty care is 5 days; and mental health care is 3 days.
  The Veterans Benefits Administration, VBA, completed 1.4 million 
claims in fiscal year 2015, nearly 67,000 more than the previous year 
and the highest completion rate in VA history. Fiscal year 2015 marked 
the 6th year in a row of more than 1 million claims.
  VBA reduced its claims backlog 88 percent from a peak of 610,000 in 
March 2013 to a historic low of 75,122 and reduced inventory 58 percent 
from a peak of 884,000 in July 2012 to 369,328, 28 percent lower than 
fiscal year 2014.
  The average number of days a veteran is waiting for a claims 
decision, pending, is 91 days, a 191-day reduction from a peak of 282 
days in March 2013 and the lowest average number of days pending in the 
21st century. VBA's average days to complete is now 129 days--a 60-day 
reduction from fiscal year 2014. So VA is improving its services to 
veterans. That is fixing the problem.
  Now, what about VA supervisors and employees who engaged in 
misbehavior or wrongdoing? There is a popular misconception that you 
can't get rid of Federal workers. In fact, in fiscal year 2015, 2,348 
VA employees were removed, terminated during probation, or retired or 
resigned with a removal action pending. Over 1,800 of these 
individuals--or more than 75 percent--were fired. To be clear, these 
numbers pertain to the entire Department for all infractions and are 
not limited to the wait list problem.
  It is a mistake just to focus on those numbers. As Secretary McDonald 
and Deputy Secretary Gibson wrote in the January 21, 2016, Wall Street 
Journal, ``You can't fire your way to excellence.'' But the point here 
is that punishments have been and are being meted out; people have had 
their careers ended. That is fixing the blame.
  I will briefly outline my concerns with S. 627, even as reported and 
as it would be modified by the Ayotte and Brown amendments.
  First, the bill deprives the Secretary of the discretionary authority 
needed to manage and discipline the VA workforce appropriately.
  Second, the bill establishes new precedents for punishing Federal 
workers that haven't been thoroughly vetted and may have harmful 
unintended consequences.
  Third the bill has two major components. The first deals with 
bonuses; the second deals with employees' personnel records and 
reprimands and admonishments. The second component was added at mark-up 
and was not a subject considered when the Veterans Affairs Committee 
held its hearing on bonuses on May 13, 2015. The Republican leader 
talks about the need to restore regular order. There ought to be a 
hearing regarding the second component. And fairness dictates that a 
witness from a Federal employee union, such as the American Federation 
of Government Employees, which represents many VA workers, should be 
invited to testify.
  As Senators Blumenthal, Murray, Sanders, Brown, Tester, and Hirono 
stated in their Minority Views in Senate Report 114-148:

       Besides the substantive issues with the provision that we 
     have identified, section 2 of S. 627 was derived from S. 
     1496, a bill that has not been considered in a legislative 
     hearing. For a significant and controversial provision like 
     section 2 of S. 627, the Committee should have held a 
     legislative hearing to give all Members the opportunity to 
     hear from witnesses and fully understand the consequences of 
     this provision.

  I am not objecting simply to object. I would like to work with the 
junior Senator from New Hampshire to see if we can find common ground, 
and that is why I sent a substitute amendment and title change 
amendment, which needs to be done separately, to the desk, and asked 
her to modify her consent request to reflect these two amendments.
  Let me explain exactly what I am proposing. The unanimous consent 
that has been hot-lined consists of three elements. The first is S. 627 
as reported. The second is an Ayotte amendment modifying provisions of 
that bill dealing with bonuses. The third is a Brown amendment 
modifying provisions of that bill dealing with reprimands and 
admonishments.
  What I have done is to combine all three elements into a single 
substitute and modify it to restore to the Secretary some managerial 
discretion, which I feel is essential for someone charged with running 
a department the size of a Fortune Six company.
  As reported, the title of the bill is ``To require the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to revoke bonuses paid to employees involved in 
electronic wait list manipulations, and for other purposes''.
  While the wait list problem may have spawned this bill, that title is 
inaccurate. The bill has no such limitations implied by that title; it 
applies Department-wide for any offense.
  So I propose a simple amendment changing the title to read: ``To 
amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to recoup inappropriate bonuses paid to or on behalf 
of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other 
purposes.''
  Section 1 of S. 627 as reported and as further modified by the Ayotte 
amendment prohibits the Secretary from awarding bonuses for 5 years to 
any employee who is the subject of an ``adverse finding.'' My 
substitute amendment changes that provision to give the Secretary 
discretion to withhold future bonuses ``until such date as the 
Secretary considers appropriate.''
  Now, my language theoretically empowers the Secretary to withhold 
bonuses for more than 5 years. The point here is to provide the 
Secretary with the flexibility needed to manage, discipline, and 
incentivize 340,000 people in an appropriate fashion. I wonder if there 
is any Senator who has managed a workforce as large as the VA's and, if 
so, would have preferred surrendering his or her discretion to make 
personnel decisions as he or she thought necessary.
  Section 1 of S. 627 as reported and further modified by the Ayotte 
amendment of the bill states in part that:

       The Secretary may base an adverse finding . . . on an 
     investigation by, determination of, or information provided 
     by the Inspector General of the Department or another senior 
     ethics official of the Department or the Comptroller General 
     of the United 
     States . . .

  I believe the Secretary must base an adverse finding on an 
independent determination. As I have stated, I fully support increasing 
accountability at the VA--and that includes making sure that a VA 
employee does not receive a bonus while engaging in misconduct.
  Senator Ayotte's bill, however, does not require the Secretary to 
base an adverse finding on the determination of an independent 
decisionmaker. My amendment would cure this defect and set appropriate 
limits by requiring the Secretary to base an adverse finding on an 
independent determination. By doing so, it would ensure that bonus bans 
are not arbitrary.
  Section 1 of S. 627 as reported and further modified by the Ayotte 
amendment requires the Secretary to recoup bonuses paid to employees if 
they are subsequently subject to an adverse finding with respect to the 
years during which the bonuses were awarded.
  Furthermore, section 1 requires VA employees to certify that they 
will repay any bonus received during a year in which an adverse finding 
may subsequently be made.
  These provisions raise many unanswered questions, including how such 
actions would be treated with respect to determining Federal and State 
tax liabilities. But I have left these provisions unchanged.
  Section 1 of S. 627 as reported and further modified by the Ayotte 
amendment states that ``The Secretary may promulgate such rules as the 
Secretary considers appropriate to carry out this section.''
  Considering the unprecedented nature of the sanctions in section 1, I 
believe it is imperative that the Secretary engage in a formal 
rulemaking to allow all interested parties the opportunity to weigh in 
with their concerns and suggestions.

[[Page 4279]]

  S. 627 is characterized as a legislative response to a specific 
management crisis at the VA. Yet it sets several new precedents and 
penalties that will be applied in a much broader context. As such, I 
believe it would be appropriate to sunset the bill after 3 years to 
encourage Congress to revisit whether it is an appropriate legislative 
remedy to the ``wait list'' problem at the VA and whether the bill is 
causing any adverse unintended consequences.
  My original proposal to the junior Senator from New Hampshire 
included two sunset provisions, for section 1 and for section 2, which 
I will discuss momentarily. Senator Ayotte objected to the sunset 
provisions, so I have removed them from my substitute amendment at the 
desk.
  Section 2 of S. 627 as reported and further modified by the Brown 
amendment requires the Secretary to retain reprimands and/or 
admonishments in the personnel records of affected employees for a 
minimum of 5 years. While this is a significant improvement over the 
original provision, which was to retain such actions permanently, it is 
still problematic.
  First, as I mentioned previously, this provision was added after the 
Veterans Affairs Committee conducted its hearing and, consequently, 
hasn't been sufficiently considered.
  Furthermore, Active-Duty personnel can request that reprimands be 
removed from their military personnel records jackets, MPRJs, at any 
time, and reprimands can only remain in the MPRJ for a maximum of 3 
years.
  One in three VA employees is a veteran. Should someone have fewer 
rights to clear his or her personnel record as a civilian than he or 
she had while serving on Active Duty?
  Section 2 of the bill is unlikely to increase accountability at the 
VA. However well intentioned the provision may be, it is much more 
likely to cause significant increases in taxpayer-funded litigation 
costs because the VA will no longer be able to resolve routine 
personnel disputes through Clear Record Settlement Agreements, CRAs. 
The Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB, reported in 2013 that 95 
percent of agency representatives resolved disputes using Negotiated 
Settlement Agreements, NSAs, and 89 percent of these agreements 
involved CRAs.
  Quoting again from the Minority Views I referred to previously:

       In testimony before the House Committee of Veterans' 
     Affairs, VA noted that it is the standard practice across the 
     Federal government, including the Department of Defense, for 
     letters of reprimand and/or admonishment to be retained on a 
     time-limited basis. According to VA, making letters of 
     reprimand or admonishment permanent would prevent VA managers 
     from ``settling workplace grievances with employees with 
     terms that would limit the amount of time these documents 
     remain in the employee's permanent record,'' and it would 
     restrict VA managers from removing these documents as a 
     ``term of settlement.'' Both of these tools are frequently 
     used by VA managers to ``resolve complaints before they go 
     into costly and high-risk'' litigation. These tools also 
     allow VA managers to promote good performance of employees 
     ``because they are usually conditioned upon no further 
     misconduct of the type that initially led to the reprimand or 
     admonishment.''

  Given all of these problems with section 2, even as it has been 
significantly improved by the amendment offered by the senior Senator 
from Ohio, I come back to the basic proposition that the Secretary must 
have sufficient discretion when it comes to managing the VA workforce. 
My amendment gives the Secretary that discretion by allowing, not 
mandating, that reprimands and/or admonishments may be retained for 5 
years. Note that this still represents a significant departure from 
current practices government-wide. And, as I mentioned a moment ago, I 
originally proposed sunsetting section 2 after 3 years, but I removed 
that provision from the current version of the substitute amendment.
  I sincerely believe these changes are reasonable and improve S. 627, 
and I hope the junior Senator from New Hampshire will ultimately agree.
  To reiterate, no one condones what happened at the VA. But it is 
important to acknowledge that accountability is being restored and the 
miscreants are being punished.
  As Secretary McDonald and Deputy Secretary Gibson wrote in the Wall 
Street Journal:

       You can't fire your way to excellence. You have to inspire 
     the people you keep to do better, and you have to recruit and 
     inspire new talent. You can't do either by capriciously 
     punishing people on the basis of unsubstantiated rumors, 
     complaints or media reports . . . Neither we nor anyone else 
     can accomplish the VA's mission of caring for veterans by 
     depriving VA employees of basic fairness. To do right by 
     veterans, we must do right by VA employees. We will do right 
     by both, whatever the consequences.

  I am privileged to represent 130,000 civilian federal workers, 
including members of the Senior Executive Service, SES; other senior 
managers; and rank-and-file employees who work in Maryland. Tens of 
thousands more live in Maryland or live and work in Maryland. Nearly 20 
percent of these individuals have already served our Nation in uniform. 
Overwhelmingly, these individuals are hard-working, dedicated, and 
patriotic Americans who perform critical missions under difficult 
circumstances. In the last 5 years, civilian Federal workers have 
``contributed'' $182 billion to deficit reduction. They have endured a 
3-year pay freeze. They lost $1 billion in pay due to furloughs related 
to sequestration. They have been forced during government shutdowns to 
stay home against their will or to work without being paid on time. And 
they have been victimized by data breaches that have compromised their 
most sensitive personal information--some of which the Washington Post 
reported on January 31, 2016, has literally been provided to the 
Islamic State terrorist group.
  While we can and will disagree on the proper size and scope of the 
Federal Government, I would hope we can all agree that we want the 
``best and brightest'' to perform critical missions such as providing 
our veterans with the care they have earned so valiantly. This is 
especially true with regard to the senior executives entrusted with 
managing large workforces and multibillion dollar budgets.
  Depriving or diminishing due process rights at the VA already has 
caused the number of applicants over the past 3 years for both title 5 
SES positions and title 38 equivalent positions to decline 
significantly.
  With respect to VA title 5 SES positions, in fiscal year 2013, there 
were 8,721 applicants. In fiscal year 2014, that number dropped to 
6,908. In fiscal year 2015, it dropped even further to 6,317.
  With respect to VA title 38 SES equivalent employees, in fiscal year 
2013, there were 1,020 applicants. In fiscal year 2014, that number 
dropped to 432. In fiscal year 2015, it dropped even further to 228.
  One might argue that these declines represent the ``winnowing out'' 
of unqualified or underqualified applicants.
  I would argue it is just as likely, if not more so, that these 
declines represent the winnowing out of highly qualified applicants who 
could have helped to restore greater accountability and better service 
at the VA, but were discouraged from applying because the deck is being 
stacked against them.
  We all want our veterans to receive the best care possible. So I 
reiterate my sincere desire to work with the junior Senator from New 
Hampshire. As I said at the outset of my remarks, I appreciate the hard 
work Senator Ayotte has put into her bill and her willingness to work 
across the aisle with the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Brown.
  Rather than simply leaving the matter here, I would note that the 
Department of Veterans Affairs has identified several Senate bills that 
provide the agency with the authority and tools it needs to address 
what the VA calls ``breakthrough priorities'' such as: improving the 
veterans' experience; improving access to health care; improving 
community care; developing a simplified appeals process; and reducing 
homelessness among veterans.
  As I understand it, there is an effort underway in the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee to develop comprehensive legislation that helps the 
VA to meet these priorities while also addressing accountability and 
internal staffing

[[Page 4280]]

issues. I think it makes sense to work on a comprehensive reform and 
accountability package bill rather than trying to pass individual bills 
in a piecemeal fashion, and I look forward to working with the junior 
Senator from New Hampshire and every other Senator concerned about our 
veterans to accomplish this objective in the weeks and months ahead.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, just a little while ago there was an 
overwhelming vote to proceed with the FAA bill, the Federal Aviation 
Administration bill, a very important bill. I know how hard the 
managers have worked on it--the chairman, the ranking member--and I 
have a tremendous amount of respect for them. I voted no. Only four of 
us voted no. It is rare that I do that, and I felt it was important to 
explain why.
  We have in our Nation an amazing system of transportation, and we 
always have to stay on top of it to make it safer and safer. There is 
one thing we know without a doubt. We know it intuitively, but we also 
know it because the National Transportation Safety Board has told us 
that the No. 1 problem they face in terms of safety is fatigue.
  We all know how it is. All of us, regardless of what we do for a 
living, know how it feels when we are utterly exhausted. We are not 
making the same decisions we would make. We can't carry them out the 
way we otherwise would. It is not rocket science. It is sleep science. 
We know about it because the experts have told us, and the NTSB has 
told us.
  I will show a picture of two planes. They look exactly alike. As our 
kids say, one of these things is not like the other. Here is a cargo 
plane and passenger jet. They are the same size. They fly over the same 
skies. They have pilots whom we trust, whom we count on.
  Today, because of special interest pressure, there is a different set 
of rest rules. The passenger plane pilot can only fly up to 9 hours a 
day because--rightly so, with all of that responsibility--that pilot 
has to get rest. The cargo plane pilot flies the same exact plane. That 
pilot can be on duty up to 16 hours a day before he or she is 
guaranteed adequate rest.
  I know the Presiding Officer has worked very hard in recent months, 
and I know the energy it took to go out and do what he did. I know what 
it was like when I was running for the Senate so many times--thank you, 
California--with almost 40 million people in the State, how hard it 
was, how much rest was needed to be sharp so we could think. In our 
work if we make a mistake, it only hurts us, but when a pilot makes a 
mistake, it can hurt a much larger community because the cargo plane is 
flying over the same homes as the passenger jet. How does it make sense 
to say one can be on duty up to 16 hours and the other cannot, 
especially when the National Transportation Safety Board has said pilot 
fatigue is one of the biggest problems we are facing today.
  Now one might ask: Can you prove that it is a problem? Yes, I am 
going to prove it to you. I am going to show a graphic of a 
conversation that took place between two cargo pilots, the pilot and 
copilot. This was 2013, and they were over Alabama. These are excerpts 
from the grave. This is dramatic. It isn't me trying to persuade the 
Presiding Officer. These are the pilots.

       Pilot 1: I mean, I don't get that. You know it should be 
     one level of safety for everybody.
       Pilot 2: It makes no sense at all.
       Pilot 1: No it doesn't at all.
       Pilot 2: And to be honest, it should be across the board. 
     To be honest in my opinion whether you are flying passengers 
     or cargo . . . if you're flying this time of day . . . the, 
     you know, fatigue is definitely. . . .
       Pilot 1: Yeah . . . yeah . . . yeah. . . .
       Pilot 2: When my alarm went off, I mean, I'm thinkin', I'm 
     so tired.
       Pilot 2: I know.

  Look what happened to that plane within hours of that conversation. 
Look what happened to that plane. This shows what happened, and the 
pilots are dead.
  After the flight recorder was released and this conversation was out, 
I thought for sure this administration would do the right thing. They 
did the wrong thing, and the Senate did the wrong thing. This isn't 
partisan.
  We have the Obama administration, which I agree with, and today I 
heard some amazing news on jobs. I am just saying on this they haven't 
been right. There ought to be no disparity between a pilot who is 
flying a passenger jet and a pilot who is flying a cargo jet. The 
pilots are telling us this. The pilots who are telling us this are not 
selfish. In fact, many of them are the pilots of passenger jets such as 
Southwest Airlines--8,000 of them. There are 8,000 of them supporting 
the Boxer-Klobuchar amendment.
  I can't get a vote. That is why I voted no along with three other 
colleagues who had their reasons. This was my reason. How do we do a 
bill like this and not address the No. 1 safety issue facing us? I 
don't get it.
  If you don't believe me, fair enough, because I am not a pilot. I 
admit it. I just trust pilots. What is your choice? You walk on a 
plane, the pilot is in charge of the aircraft, and you know that pilot 
wants to land safely. You know that pilot wants to go home to his or 
her family. You know that pilot has your best interests at heart. 
Sometimes I am in a rush, and I get on a plane and the pilot says: You 
know what. We are not going to take off right now because I know there 
is something wrong in one of the monitors here. It could be nothing, 
but I put safety first.
  Everyone in the plane says: Oh, no. We are going to be late. They get 
out their cell phones and they call their loved ones, but we know the 
pilots know what they are talking about. We trust them. I trust them so 
much I wrote with then-Senator Smith the guns-in-the-cockpit law for 
pilots. The NRA thinks I am the worst of the worst, but I said I trust 
pilots. They should have a chance if there is a terrorist on board. I 
trust them. Why doesn't this administration trust them? Because of 
special interests that make billions a year--billions.
  It is going to cost us a tiny bit more, and it is a tiny bit more. 
What price would we put on our kids? There is none, for goodness' sake. 
If it cost a few cents more to ship a package so a pilot doesn't have 
to fly 16 hours, isn't that the right thing to do?
  I will close with a quote from Sully Sullenberger. I think we all 
remember Sully. Before we show that, let's remind people who he is. We 
have another chart that shows him. Sully Sullenberger was the ``Hero of 
the Hudson.'' We remember how he landed his plane in the Hudson River, 
how he saved all the passengers on that plane and his crew. He is so 
famous now, he goes all over the world.
  He came to the press conference I had with Senator Klobuchar, because 
she and I are working on this amendment as well as Senator Cantwell. 
His words were inspiring because he did not kid around. He said: 
``Fatigue is a killer.'' Fatigue is a killer.
  You don't have to say any more. If you know fatigue is a killer, then 
don't say passenger pilots can fly 9 hours but cargo pilots can fly 16. 
Here is what Sullenberger said when we first introduced our 
legislation, the Safe Skies Act: ``You wouldn't want your surgeon 
operating on you after only five hours sleep, or your passenger pilot 
flying the airplane after only five hours sleep, and you certainly 
wouldn't want a cargo pilot flying a large plane over your house at 3 
a.m. on five hours sleep trying to find the airport and land.''
  Sully said at the press conference that had he been suffering from 
fatigue on that fateful day that he safely landed that plane in the 
waters of the Hudson River, if he was suffering from fatigue, he said 
he never could have done it.
  So I can't get a vote on my amendment. It is so simple, even a 6-
year-old

[[Page 4281]]

can understand it. You don't have disparity when you have the same 
responsibility. You are traveling in the same skies, and a cargo plane 
can crash into a house or another plane carrying passengers.
  I am so disappointed in this administration that they have not done 
the right thing on this. I am so disappointed in the U.S. Senate that 
they blocked a vote on this because the special interests don't want to 
charge 2 or 3 or 4 cents more on their packages. If it is to save lives 
of our people, this is what I call a classic no-brainer.
  So I am here today to explain my vote to my constituents--why I voted 
no for an FAA bill that otherwise is a good bill. But I want just to 
make a statement that it is ridiculous not to give me an up-or-down 
vote. They tied it to other issues that are poison pills: immigration 
issues, gun issues. Come on. This is the biggest problem--fatigue.
  Can't we just get an up-or-down vote on it? I am going to try to do 
that at every chance I get. Now I am working on a modified amendment to 
see if we can get it into a package. I don't know whether we can or 
not. But I want to say to the pilots out there who may be listening to 
this debate: A lot of us here have your backs.
  We are not going to forget about this issue just because the FAA bill 
is moving forward. We are not going to forget about you. We are not 
going to forget about what it means when you are fatigued. We are not 
going to forget about the two pilots who, through the recorder, told us 
before they crashed that they were exhausted. They addressed the issue 
of the disparity. We are going to be fighting on this.
  If we can't get it done here, maybe some brave soul in the House will 
do it, and it will wind up in the bill. If we can't get it done 
legislatively, we are going to try to get it done through the FAA 
regular order of their rules. Where is the FAA on this? I want to say: 
FAA, you turned your back on too many safety measures that the NTSB, 
which is in charge of our safety, has recommended.
  It took years to get some simple things done. So while we are working 
to get a modified amendment--which is not going to be the be-all and 
the end-all; it just moves us a little bit forward--I just want to send 
a message that it is rare that I vote no--one of four. It does not 
happen often.
  I view this as a moral issue. I view this as a moral issue for those 
pilots that are on duty up to 16 hours straight in the middle of the 
night, where, as Sully Sullenberger said, their circadian rhythms are 
off, and they are not at the top of their game. They are flying over 
the airspace of the American people.
  I thank the presiding officer so much for his attention. I live to 
fight another day, another hour, another minute on this.
  I want the pilots to know and the flying public to know and everyone 
to know they should engage in this issue. There is no disparity between 
people who do the same work.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Federal 
Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act, to talk about the 
importance of passing this legislation for Colorado and, indeed, the 
Nation. I commend Chairman Thune, our colleague from South Dakota, 
Ranking Member Nelson, Senator Ayotte, and Senator Cantwell for their 
work in crafting this very important piece of legislation.
  It is an economic driver, certainly a national security issue, and a 
number of issues that we are able to address in this legislation of 
great importance to Colorado and the country. Our Nation's airspace is 
clearly one of the most important economic drivers that we have. It is 
important in the movement of passengers and cargo, along with the many 
other users of airspace, whether it be for agriculture or unmanned 
aerial systems.
  The economic importance of aviation in Colorado cannot be stated 
enough when it comes to tourism. In 2014 alone, 71.3 million visitors 
came to Colorado, with $18.6 billion in economic impact for the State, 
according to the Colorado Tourism Office. That tourism results in well 
over 100,000 jobs throughout the State of Colorado.
  Many of those 71 million tourists came through Denver International 
Airport, the nation's fifth busiest and largest commercial airport. In 
2014 alone, more than 50 million people passed through Denver 
International Airport, a State with a population of about 5.5 million--
50 million people passing through the fifth busiest airport, with some 
of these passengers continuing on to one of Colorado's additional 13 
commercial airports or 60 general aviation airports.
  The economic impact that airports and aviation have throughout the 
State is absolutely incredible. When you take in the multiplier effect, 
nearly 300,000 jobs are a result of aviation in Colorado--a payroll of 
about $12.6 billion in Colorado, with the multiplier effect, for an 
economic output of about $36.7 billion.
  In fact, there is one airport, which is the premier business airport 
of the United States, Centennial Airport in Colorado, surrounded by 23 
different business parks, with about 6,000 different businesses 
surrounding this airport in those 23 different business parks. This 
airport, those 6,000 businesses, and the 23 business parks around the 
airport account for nearly 27 percent of Colorado's total gross 
domestic product.
  Think about that. One airport, one business airport, and the 
businesses that surround it account for nearly 27 percent of Colorado's 
economy. So whether it is skiing or snowboarding or visiting one of our 
great national parks, enjoying the outdoors, hiking, camping, fishing, 
or visiting one of our world-class cities, it is not easily achievable 
without well-run, maintained, and secured airspace.
  These airports connect cities like Denver, CO, to Durango, Colorado 
Springs, Pueblo, and smaller cities; rural communities like the city I 
live in, Lamar and Yuma; and to the rest of the country. They help 
businesses reach beyond the borders of our State. Maintaining our 
airport infrastructure then becomes one of the most critical functions 
we can perform.
  Communities in Colorado and across the country continue to push their 
airport infrastructure improvements, betterments, to help realize the 
full potential, the economic potential, to access that airspace and the 
access that airspace indeed brings. That is why I am glad to talk about 
this legislation and the many achievements we were able to accomplish 
and the provisions I was able to secure and include in the bill to help 
improve that airport infrastructure, including improvements to the 
Airport Improvement Program, or AIP, and a study with recommendations 
on upgrading and improving the Nation's airport infrastructure.
  Additionally, I am pleased that this bill includes language that I 
pushed to help allow improvements to Pena Boulevard, the prime access 
road to connecting Denver International Airport with the rest of 
Colorado. If you have been to Denver International Airport and you have 
driven to downtown Denver, you have driven on Pena Boulevard.
  This bill will address the needs, the infrastructure, and the 
improvements that are needed to make sure that Pena Boulevard remains 
an efficient, safe roadway to the Nation's fifth busiest airport. It 
will allow DIA the flexibility it needs and the clarity to ensure the 
primary access road that Pena Boulevard represents is capable of 
handling the traffic that comes with increased use of the airport.
  The bill also includes language that builds on a successful pilot 
program for virtual towers and ensures that those towers will be 
eligible for AIP funding, Airport Improvement Program funding, once 
certified by the FAA.

[[Page 4282]]

  It is important because these virtual towers, such as the one at the 
Fort Collins-Loveland airport area, will allow small- and medium-sized 
airports to offer commercial service in an economically viable and 
sustainable way. Northern Colorado really is the gateway to Colorado's 
energy hub, the gateway to Colorado's biotech, bioscience, and 
engineering research university hub. By allowing this virtual tower in 
northern Colorado at the Fort Collins-Loveland airport, we can help 
expand the opportunity to reach that area for businesses that wish to 
locate there, for customers who wish to fly into the area, and also for 
those businesses that are already there to expand, to have further 
reach around the country and the world.
  Another central responsibility of the FAA is to ensure that the 
airspace is being safely managed while allowing the industries that are 
dependent on aviation to thrive. I think this legislation, after months 
and months of work, really does strike that appropriate balance. I was 
proud to support amendments during consideration of the bill that I 
believe will help ensure that the Transportation Security 
Administration, law enforcement agencies, and security personnel have 
the resources they need to provide for the safety of the traveling 
public.
  I believe more could and should be done, however. That is why I filed 
on the floor an amendment to the bill which will improve TSA's 
operations at our airports by creating a testing location to help TSA 
and airports to work hand in hand to develop future screening 
technologies and passenger screening methods to ensure we are able to 
keep passengers and airports safe.
  If you look at the needs that we have at airports, there is the 
combination of coming into an airport and checking in at an airport 
gate or kiosk. Most people use their iPhone or their smartphone to have 
their digital printout of a ticket. They don't even go to a kiosk 
anymore; they just go straight to the security line. But as we have 
seen, we need to have an increase in security from curb to gate.
  It is not just a security concern where people may be gathering 
around the screening or people may be getting in and out of cars or 
lining up at the desk; it is an overall curb-to-gate security approach 
that we need. That is what my amendment will accomplish. So I look 
forward to continuing to work with Senator Thune and the Commerce 
Committee on a path forward for this amendment because it is critically 
important that we address additional security measures to prevent 
violence like the recent terrorist attack in Brussels from happening 
and occurring at our airports.
  To remind people, the attack in Brussels did not happen on an 
airplane; it happened outside where passengers were gathering. So if we 
can address this curb-to-gate security, alleviate the slowdowns and the 
spots that make it more difficult for efficiency at the airport to get 
through security--this amendment can help do that--we can avoid danger 
to the public from those who wish to do our people harm.
  The bill includes important certification reforms that will improve 
the processing of new aircraft designs and modifications at the FAA. 
This is important because we had an agricultural aviator, a crop 
duster, in Colorado who was trying to get his plane certified. This is 
a spray plane. He was trying to get this plane certified, but what he 
found out was that, first, the FAA was taking a very, very long time to 
certify his crop duster, to give him the permission to use this plane 
to spray crops.
  After they said they found his application, he ended up in a queue, a 
line behind United Airlines, behind Frontier Airlines. So, basically, 
this crop duster in southeastern Colorado had a very small plane, not a 
passenger plane by any means. He was put in line with a 747, a 757, and 
a 767. That is nonsense. It doesn't make any sense, and we were able to 
address those certification challenges in this bill.
  A couple of years ago I requested the inspector general at the FAA to 
look at what was happening in the Rocky Mountain regional facility in 
Denver. They pointed to a number of challenges that region had in terms 
of its management, in terms of its process, and in certification in 
other areas. We were able to include the suggestions and the changes 
that the inspector general's report identified in this legislation in 
the FAA today.
  Finally, the legislation, of course, makes key strides in the future 
of our aviation industry by addressing unmanned aerial systems. We have 
a number of great areas in Colorado where we can test and where we can 
certify, and, of course, the need is great--from agriculture to our ski 
resorts to wildfires. Think about what we can accomplish in the future 
with unmanned aerial assistance.
  I thank the leadership. I thank Senator Thune, our colleague from 
South Dakota for the leadership he provided. I thank the Presiding 
Officer for the work the Presiding Officer has done to make this 
legislation a success.
  With that, I urge support for the legislation. I conclude my remarks 
on the FAA bill asking Members to support the bill.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I compliment the Senator from Colorado 
for his active participation in shaping this bill. Obviously, he is a 
very active member of our Commerce Committee and cares deeply and 
passionately about these issues. He was very involved in the issues 
that he addressed in his remarks and that were incorporated into this. 
They were simply and purely a credit to his persistence and hard work. 
They do make this bill much stronger. I appreciate his good work making 
that possible.
  I wish to say again what I had mentioned earlier today, and that is, 
as Senator Nelson and I put this bill together, it was done in regular 
order. We had on the order of seven hearings--either subcommittee or 
full committee--where we took testimony and tried to assemble the best 
ideas. We worked together with members of the committee, including the 
Presiding Officer, in shaping a bill that we brought to a markup--
getting it to the markup and through the markup. We adopted 57 
amendments--34 Democratic amendments and 23 Republican amendments--
before it came to the floor. After coming to the floor last week, we 
have had 19 amendments that have been added. We have another 30 or 
thereabouts that have been cleared, if we could get objections 
withdrawn so that those amendments could get cleared. But we have some 
other amendments of Members who would like to get votes.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be called up and reported by number: Sessions No. 3591; Paul 
No. 3693, as modified; and Rubio No. 3722; further, that there be 45 
minutes of debate concurrently on the amendments, equally divided 
between the two leaders or their designees, and that following the use 
or yielding back of time, the Senate vote in relation to the amendments 
in the order listed with a 60-affirmative-vote threshold required for 
adoption of the amendments, and that no second-degree amendments be in 
order prior to the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I so admire the managers of this bill. I 
really do. As a former chairman and ranking member now, I know how hard 
this is, but this is not a balanced request.
  I would just say that I have spoken on the safety of pilot fatigue so 
many times. I won't reiterate that here. I feel strongly that I want a 
vote. I know others on our side do as well. I don't think this is 
balanced. So, sadly, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, in the same spirit of the chairman of 
the committee, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be

[[Page 4283]]

called up and reported by number: Boxer No. 3489 and Markey No. 3467; 
further, that there be 45 minutes of debate to run concurrently on the 
amendments, equally divided in the usual form; and that following the 
use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote in relation to the 
amendments in the order listed, with a 60-affirmative-vote threshold 
required for adoption of the amendments; and that no second-degree 
amendments be in order prior to the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. I would simply say that we have worked to try to get the 
amendment from the Senator from California a vote. We have tried to get 
the other amendment referenced by the Senator from Florida, Senator 
Markey's amendment, a vote. But we have Members on our side who also 
want votes, and the other side is objecting to those votes. So I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, as you may have heard a moment ago, one 
of the amendments that is being objected to from our end is an 
amendment that I have filed, and I will describe it briefly.
  I wish to first describe the issue I am trying to address.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record an article entitled ``U.S. welfare flows to Cuba'' from October 
1, 2015.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Sun Sentinel, Oct. 1, 2015]

                       U.S. Welfare Flows to Cuba

  (By Sally Kestin, Megan O'Matz and John Maines with Tracey Eaton in 
                                 Cuba)


 They're taking benefits from the American taxpayer to subsidize their 
                        life in another country

       Cuban immigrants are cashing in on U.S. welfare and 
     returning to the island, making a mockery of the decades-old 
     premise that they are refugees fleeing persecution at home.
       Some stay for months at a time--and the U.S. government 
     keeps paying.
       Cubans' unique access to food stamps, disability money and 
     other welfare is meant to help them build new lives in 
     America. Yet these days, it's helping some finance their 
     lives on the communist island.
       America's open-ended generosity has grown into an 
     entitlement that exceeds $680 million a year and is exploited 
     with ease. No agency tracks the scope of the abuse, but a Sun 
     Sentinel investigation found evidence suggesting it is 
     widespread.
       Fed-up Floridians are reporting their neighbors and 
     relatives for accepting government aid while shuttling back 
     and forth to the island, selling goods in Cuba, and leaving 
     their benefit cards in the U.S. for others to use while they 
     are away.
       Some don't come back at all. The U.S. has continued to 
     deposit welfare checks for as long as two years after the 
     recipients moved back to Cuba for good, federal officials 
     confirmed.
       Regulations prohibit welfare recipients from collecting or 
     using U.S. benefits in another country. But on the streets of 
     Hialeah, the first stop for many new arrivals, shopkeepers 
     like Miguel Veloso hear about it all the time.
       Veloso, a barber who has been in the U.S. three years, said 
     recent immigrants on welfare talk of spending considerable 
     time in Cuba--six months there, two months here. ``You come 
     and go before benefits expire,'' he said.
       State Rep. Manny Diaz Jr. of Hialeah hears it too, from 
     constituents in his heavily Cuban-American district, who tell 
     of flaunting their aid money on visits to the island. The 
     money, he said ``is definitely not to be used . . . to go 
     have a great old time back in the country that was supposed 
     to be oppressing you.''
       The sense of entitlement is so ingrained that Cubans 
     routinely complained to their local congressman about the 
     challenge of accessing U.S. aid--from Cuba.
       ``A family member would come into our office and say 
     another family member isn't receiving his benefits,'' said 
     Javier Correoso, aide to former Miami Rep. David Rivera. 
     ``We'd say, `Where is he?' They'd say, `He's in Cuba and 
     isn't coming back for six months.'''
       ``They're taking benefits from the American taxpayer to 
     subsidize their life in another country.
       One woman told Miami immigration attorney Grisel Ybarra 
     that her grandmother and two great aunts came to Florida, got 
     approved for benefits, opened bank accounts and returned to 
     Cuba. Month after month, the woman cashed their government 
     checks--about $2,400 each time--sending half to the women in 
     Cuba and keeping the rest.
       When a welfare agency questioned the elderly ladies 
     whereabouts this summer, the woman turned to Ybarra, a Cuban 
     American. She told Ybarra her grandmother refused to come 
     back, saying: ``With the money you sent me, I bought a home 
     and am really happy in Cuba.''
       Cubans on the island, Ybarra said, have a name for U.S. 
     aid.
       They call it ``la ayuda.'' The help.


                         Special status abused

       Increasing openness and travel between the two countries 
     have made the welfare entitlement harder to justify and 
     easier to abuse. But few charges have been brought, and 
     Congress and the Obama Administration have failed to address 
     the problem even as the United States moves toward detente 
     with Cuba.
       Cubans' extraordinary access to U.S. welfare rests on two 
     pillars of special treatment: the ease with which they are 
     admitted to the country, and America's generosity in granting 
     them public support.
       Cubans are allowed into the U.S. even if they arrive 
     without permission and are quickly granted permanent 
     residency under the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act. They're 
     assumed to be refugees without having to prove persecution.
       They're immediately eligible for welfare, food stamps, 
     Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income or SSI, cash 
     assistance for impoverished seniors and disabled younger 
     people.
       Most other immigrants are barred from collecting aid for 
     their first five years. Those here illegally are not eligible 
     at all.
       The Sun Sentinel analyzed state and federal data to 
     determine the annual cost of taxpayer support for Cuban 
     immigrants: at least $680 million. In Florida alone, costs 
     for welfare, food stamps and refugee cash have increased 23 
     percent from 2011 through 2014.
       Not all Cubans receive government help. Those arriving on 
     visas are ineligible, and some rely on family support. And 
     many who receive aid do so for just a short time until they 
     settle in, as the U.S. intended. Cubans over time have become 
     one of the most successful immigrant groups in America.
       ``They come to the U.S. to work and make a living for their 
     family,'' said Jose Alvarez, a Cuba native and city 
     commissioner in Kissimmee. ``I don't believe that they come 
     thinking the government will support them.''
       But some take advantage of the easy money--and then go back 
     and forth to Cuba.
       A public housing tenant in Hialeah, who was receiving food 
     stamps and SSI payments for a disabled son, frequently 
     traveled to Cuba to sell food there, records show. She 
     admitted to a city housing investigator in 2012 that she 
     ``makes $700 in two months just in the sales to Cuba.''
       Another man receiving food stamps admitted to state 
     officials ``that he was living in Cuba much of 2015.''
       A recent arrival with a chronic illness got Medicaid 
     coverage and turned to attorney David Batchelder of Miami to 
     help him get SSI as well. But the man was ``going back and 
     forth to Cuba'' so much that Batchelder eventually dropped 
     the case. ``It was just another benefit he was applying 
     for.''
       Concerns about Cubans exploiting the aid are especially 
     troubling to exiles who came to this country decades ago and 
     built new lives and careers here.
       Dr. Noel Fernandez recalls the assistance his family 
     received from friends and the U.S. government when they 
     immigrated 20 years ago, help that enabled him to find work 
     as a landscaper, learn English and complete his medical 
     studies. Now medical director of Citrus Health Network in 
     Hialeah, Fernandez sees Cuban immigrants collecting benefits 
     and going back, including three elderly patients who recently 
     left the U.S. for good.
       ``They got Medicaid, they got everything, and they returned 
     to Cuba,'' he said. ``I see people that said they were 
     refugees [from] Cuba and they return the next year.''
       State officials have received complaints about Cubans 
     collecting aid while repeatedly going to Cuba or working as 
     mules ferrying cash and goods, a common way of financing 
     travel to the island.
       Another way of paying for the trips: cheating. Like other 
     welfare recipients, some Cubans work under the table or put 
     assets in others' names to appear poor enough to meet the 
     programs' income limits, according to records and interviews. 
     Some married couples qualify for more money as single people 
     by concealing marriages performed in Cuba, where the U.S. 
     can't access records.
       ``Stop the fraud please!'' one person urged in a complaint 
     to the state. Another pleaded with authorities to check 
     airport departure records for a woman suspected of hiding 
     income. ``It would show how many times she has traveled to 
     Cuba.''
       Florida officials typically dismissed the complaints for 
     lack of information, because names didn't match their records 
     or because the allegations didn't involve violations of 
     eligibility rules. Travel abroad is not expressly prohibited, 
     but benefits are supposed to be used for basic necessities 
     within the U.S.

[[Page 4284]]

       ``Our congressional folks should be looking at this,'' said 
     Miami-Dade County Commissioner Esteban Bovo Jr., a Cuban 
     American. ``There could be millions and millions of dollars 
     in fraud going on here.''


                             Money to Cuba

       Accessing benefits from Cuba typically requires a U.S. bank 
     account and a willing relative or friend stateside. Food 
     stamps and welfare are issued monthly through a debit-type 
     card, and SSI payments are deposited into a bank account or 
     onto a MasterCard.
       A joint account holder with a PIN number can withdraw the 
     money and wire it to Cuba. Another option: entrust the money 
     to a friend traveling to Cuba.
       Roberto Pizano of Tampa, a political prisoner in Cuba for 
     18 years, said he worked two jobs when he arrived in the U.S. 
     in 1979 and never accepted government help. He now sees 
     immigrants ``abusing the system.''
       ``I know people who come to the U.S., apply for SSI and 
     never worked in the USA,'' he said. They ``move back to Cuba 
     and are living off of the hard-earned taxpayer dollars.''
       He said family friend Gilberto Reyno got disability money 
     from the U.S. and renovated a house in Cuba. The Sun Sentinel 
     found Reyna living in that house in Camaguey, Cuba. He said 
     he was no longer receiving disability, but Pizano and another 
     person familiar with the situation said the payments continue 
     to be deposited into a U.S. bank account. The Social Security 
     Administration would not comment, citing privacy concerns, 
     but is investigating.
       Federal investigators have found the same scenario in other 
     cases.
       A 2012 complaint alleged a 75-year-old woman had moved to 
     Camaguey two years earlier and a relative was withdrawing her 
     SSI money from a bank account and sending it to her. Social 
     Security stopped payments, but not before nearly $16,000 had 
     been deposited into her account.
       Another recipient went to Cuba on vacation and stayed, 
     leaving his debit card with a relative. Social Security 
     continued his SSI payments for another six months--$4,000 
     total--before an anonymous caller reported he had gone back 
     to Cuba.
       One woman reportedly moved to Cuba in 2010 and died three 
     years later, while still receiving SSI and food stamps, 
     according to a 2014 tip to Florida welfare fraud 
     investigators. A state official couldn't find her at her 
     Hialeah home, cut off the food stamps and alerted the federal 
     government.
       Former congressman Rivera tried to curb abuses with a bill 
     that would have revoked the legal status of Cubans who 
     returned to the island before they became citizens.
       ``Public assistance is meant to help Cuban refugees settle 
     in the U.S.,'' Mauricio Claver-Carone of Cuba Democracy 
     Advocates testified in a 2012 hearing on the bill. ``However, 
     many non-refugee Cubans currently use these benefits, which 
     can average more than $1,000 per month, to immediately travel 
     back to the island, where the average income is $20 per 
     month, and comfortably reside there for months at a time on 
     the taxpayer's dime.''
       Rivera recently told the Sun Sentinel that he interviewed 
     welfare workers, Cubans in Miami and passengers waiting for 
     charter flights to Havana. He said he found overwhelming 
     evidence of benefits money going back, especially after the 
     U.S. eased travel restrictions in 2009.
       The back and forth undermines the rationale that Cubans are 
     refugees fleeing an oppressive government, Rivera said. And 
     when they return for visits, they boast of the money that's 
     available in the U.S., he said. ``They all say, `It's great. 
     I got free housing. I got free food. I get my medicine.'''
       Five Cubans interviewed by the Sun Sentinel in Havana said 
     they were aware of the assistance and knew of Cubans who had 
     gone to America and quickly began sending money back. Two 
     said they believed it was U.S. government aid.
       ``I don't think it's correct, but everyone does it for the 
     well-being of their family,'' said one woman, Susana, who 
     declined to give her last name.
       Outside welfare offices in Hialeah, the Sun Sentinel found 
     Cuban immigrants who had arrived as recently as three days 
     earlier, applying for benefits. They said family and friends 
     told them about the aid before they left Cuba.
       ``Back in the '60s, when you came in, they told you the 
     factory that was hiring,'' said Nidia Diaz of Miami, a former 
     bail bondswoman who was born in Cuba. ``Now, they tell you 
     the closest Department of Children and Families [office] so 
     you can go and apply.''


                         Crooks collect in Cuba

       Miami bail bondswoman Barbara Pozo said many of her Cuban 
     clients talk openly about living in Cuba and collecting 
     monthly disability checks, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers.
       ``They just come here to pick up the money,'' Pozo said. 
     ``They pretend they're disabled. They just pretend they're 
     crazy.''
       SSI payments, for those who cannot work due to mental or 
     physical disabilities, go up to $733 a month for an 
     individual. Most other new immigrants are ineligible until 
     they become U.S. citizens.
       Some Cubans try to build a case for SSI by claiming trauma 
     from their life under an oppressive government or the 90-mile 
     crossing to Florida.
       Diaz, the former bondswoman, said she has heard Cuban 
     clients talk about qualifying: ```Tell them that you have 
     emotional problems. How did you get these problems? Well, 
     trying to get here from Cuba.'''
       Antonio Comin collected disability while organizing 
     missions to smuggle Cubans to Florida, including one launched 
     from a house in the Keys, federal prosecutors said. Comin 
     claimed he rented the home to celebrate his birthday--after 
     receiving his government check.
       Casimiro Martinez was receiving a monthly check for a 
     mental disability--but his mind was sound enough to launder 
     more than $1 million stolen from Medicare. Martinez was 
     arrested at Miami International Airport after returning from 
     a trip to Cuba.
       Government disability programs are vulnerable to fraud, 
     particularly SSI, with applicants faking or exaggerating 
     symptoms. Some view SSI as ``money waiting to be taken,'' 
     said John Webb, a federal prosecutor in Tennessee who has 
     handled fraud cases.
       While benefits are supposed to be suspended for recipients 
     who leave the United States for more than 30 days, the 
     government relies on people to self-report those absences, 
     and federal audits have found widespread violations.
       The government could significantly reduce abuses by 
     matching international travel records to SSI payments, 
     auditors have recommended since 2003. The Social Security 
     Administration and Department of Homeland Security are still 
     trying to work out a data sharing agreement--12 years later,
       Jose Caragol, a Hialeah city councilman and Havana native, 
     said aid for Cubans ``was meant to assist those who were 
     persecuted and want a new life. The bleeding has to stop.''

  Mr. RUBIO. I will not read the whole article. But I am going to 
paraphrase from it.
  By the way, as to the Democratic amendments that have been proposed 
and on which the Senator from California has just made a presentation 
regarding travel issues and pilot hours--she referred to the fact I 
have traveled extensively over the last year--they are issues I am 
actually very sympathetic toward. Perhaps we can work together to get 
her a vote on that amendment, because I think that is a legitimate 
issue.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you.
  Mr. RUBIO. Let me now talk about the one I want to talk about. This 
is how the article begins. I talked about yesterday.
  Let me back up and explain what people are facing. Today, if an 
immigrant enters the United States from another country legally and 
comes here on a green card, with 5-year residency, they cannot receive 
Federal benefits. If you immigrate to the United States from any 
country in the world with an immigrant visa legally--not illegal 
immigration, as illegal immigrants do not qualify for Federal 
benefits--a legal immigrant to the United States does not qualify for 
any Federal benefits. There is an exception in the law, however, and 
that is if you happen to be someone who comes from Cuba without a visa.
  There is a law called the Cuban Adjustment Act. When the Cuban 
Adjustment Act was passed during the Cold War, it was passed so that 
Cubans who came to the United States fleeing communist oppression were 
immediately admitted to the United States. In essence, that is why 
there is really no such thing as an illegal immigrant from Cuba. If a 
Cuban makes it to the shores of the United States, they become legal in 
this country, and a year and a day after they have arrived, they are 
allowed to apply for a green card. But unlike any immigrant from any 
part of the world, they are allowed to receive Federal benefits because 
they are automatically presumed to be refugees. That is a status that I 
am not trying to change in terms of the Cuban Adjustment Act. I have 
said that I am open to that being examined, but I am not trying to 
change that law in my amendment.
  I do want to discuss why we should automatically assume at this point 
that anyone who comes from Cuba is a political refugee. The reason why 
that now is in doubt is because many of the people who are coming from 
Cuba, supposedly as refugees seeking to flee oppression, are traveling 
back to Cuba 15, 20, 30 times a year.
  There are people being oppressed politically in Cuba, absolutely. It 
is one of the reasons why I think the President's policies toward Cuba 
have been

[[Page 4285]]

misguided, because they refuse to see that even after this opening to 
Cuba, the political situation on the island has deteriorated. It has 
gotten worse, not better. There are absolutely people from Cuba who are 
coming here as refugees. But we also cannot ignore the fact that many 
of the people coming from Cuba no longer are coming here for political 
reasons. The evidence is that shortly after they arrive, they are going 
back to Cuba 15, 20, 30 times a year. You do not normally travel back 
to a place where you are fleeing from oppression, much less repeatedly 
over an extended period of time.
  So as a result, we now have a law that basically says that if you 
come from Cuba, you are automatically entitled to a full platform of 
Federal benefits.
  This is how the article begins:

       Cuban immigrants are cashing in on U.S. welfare and 
     returning to the island, making a mockery of the decades-old 
     premise that they are refugees fleeing persecution at home. . 
     . .
       Cubans' unique access to food stamps, disability money, and 
     other welfare is meant to help them build new lives in 
     America. Yet these days, it's helping some finance their 
     lives on the communist island.
       America's open-ended generosity has grown into an 
     entitlement that exceeds $680 million a year and is exploited 
     with ease. No agency tracks the scope of this abuse, but a 
     Sun Sentinel investigation found evidence suggesting it is 
     widespread.
       Fed-up Floridians--

  Where a lot of these Cubans are moving to--

     are reporting their neighbors and their relatives for 
     accepting government aid while shuttling back and forth to 
     the island, selling goods in Cuba and leaving their benefit 
     cards in the U.S. for others to use while they are away.
       Some do not even come back at all. The U.S. has continued 
     to deposit welfare checks for as long as two years after the 
     recipients moved back to Cuba for good.

  It goes on to talk about several people. For example there is a 
shopkeeper in Hialeah, FL, where a lot of these folks are coming and 
moving. He says he hears about it all the time. He is a barber. He has 
been in the United States for 3 years, and he said:

       Recent immigrants on welfare talk of spending considerable 
     time in Cuba--six months there, two months here. ``You come 
     and go before benefits expire.''

  The article goes on:

       The sense of entitlement is so ingrained that Cubans are 
     now routinely complaining to the local Congressman about the 
     challenge of accessing U.S. aid--from Cuba.

  What they are complaining about is that they are coming into the 
office. This is what a former aide to a former Congressman from Miami 
said: A family member would come into our office and say a family 
member isn't receiving his benefits. They would ask: Where is he? And 
they would say: He is in Cuba, and he isn't coming back for 6 months.
  This is unreal. There are people coming into congressional offices 
complaining: We are having trouble getting access to our benefits. You 
ask them why, and they say it is because the person who gets the 
benefits is not in America; he is in Cuba and he can't get access to 
his benefits from Cuba.

       One woman told Miami immigration attorney Grisel Ybarra 
     that her grandmother and two great aunts came to Florida, got 
     approved for benefits, opened bank accounts and returned to 
     Cuba. Month after month, the woman cashed their government 
     checks--about $2,400 each time--sending half to the women in 
     Cuba and keeping the rest.

  They kept for themselves a 50 percent commission.

       When a welfare agency questioned the elderly ladies' 
     whereabouts this summer, the woman turned to Ybarra, a Cuban 
     American. She told Ybarra her grandmother refused to come 
     back, saying: ``With the money you sent me, I bought a home 
     and I am really happy in Cuba.''

  That means your money--the American taxpayers' money.
  Ybarra went on to say that the Cubans on the island have a name for 
this U.S. aid. It is called ``la ayuda,'' which means the help.

       Cubans are allowed into the U.S. even if they arrive 
     without permission and are quickly granted permanent 
     residency. . . .

  As I said earlier, under the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, they are 
automatically assumed to be refugees without having to prove it.
  They are immediately eligible for welfare, for food stamps, for 
Medicaid, and for supplemental social security, or SSI, and also cash 
assistance for impoverished seniors and for disabled young people.
  But let's be frank, not all Cubans receive government aid. For 
example, if you come to the United States from Cuba on a visa--because 
there is a visa lottery and every year the government awards visas to 
people living in Cuba--you do not qualify for these benefits.
  If, however, you arrive in the United States on a raft or if you fly 
on an airplane to Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatemala, or Mexico and cross 
the U.S. border--as is now increasingly happening--then you do qualify 
for these benefits I have just outlined. So let's be frank, not 
everyone who is coming from Cuba is doing this. There are people coming 
from Cuba who are fleeing persecution, but many are taking advantage of 
the easy money, and then they are going back and forth to Cuba.
  I will give you some examples cited in this article:

       A public housing tenant in Hialeah, who was receiving food 
     stamps and SSI payments for a disabled son, frequently 
     traveled to Cuba to sell food there, records showed. She 
     admitted to a city housing investigator in 2012 that she 
     ``makes $700 in two months just in the sales to Cuba.''

  And $700 a month is a lot of money in Cuba.
  How does this work? They take the food stamp card. They go to the 
grocery store. They load up a van with canned goods. They travel back 
to Cuba. They just got that food with your taxpayer money. They travel 
back to Cuba with duffel bags full of canned goods, and they sell it in 
Cuba for a profit--$700 over a 2-month period.

       Another man receiving food stamps admitted to State 
     officials ``that he was living in Cuba for much of 2015.''
       A recent arrival with a chronic illness got Medicaid 
     coverage and turned to [his] attorney . . . of Miami to help 
     him get SSI as well. But the man was ``going back and forth 
     to Cuba'' so much that Batchelder eventually dropped the 
     case. ``It was just another benefit he was applying for.''

  This, of course, concerns people who came to the United States as 
exiles and are now watching this happen. There is a doctor whose name 
is Noel Fernandez, and he recalls when his family arrived here from 
Cuba that the U.S. Government helped them a little. When they 
immigrated here 20 years ago, he was helped to find work as a 
landscaper, he was helped to learn English, and he was helped to 
complete his medical studies. Today he is the medical director of 
Citrus Health Network in Hialeah.

       Fernandez sees Cuban immigrants collecting benefits and 
     then going back, including three elderly patients who 
     recently left the United States for good.
       ``They got Medicaid, they got everything, and they returned 
     to Cuba,'' he said. ``I see people that said they were 
     refugees [from] Cuba and they return the next year.''

  That is his quote.

       State officials--

  In my home State of Florida--

     have received complaints about Cubans collecting aid while 
     repeatedly going to Cuba or working as mules ferrying cash 
     and goods, which is a common way of financing travel to the 
     island.

  How that works is, people know you are traveling to Cuba, and they 
have relatives they want to get money to or clothes to or whatever, and 
so they pay you. They actually pay you. They give you money and they 
say: Will you take this with you on your trip to Cuba and deliver it to 
the people we are trying to get it to? That is why they call them a 
mule. Well, from the money you get paid to take these things back to 
Cuba, that is how you pay for your plane ticket.
  Another way of paying for these trips, by the way, is cheating. 
According to the Sentinel article:

       Like other welfare recipients, some Cubans work under the 
     table or put their assets in others' names to appear poor 
     enough to meet the programs' income limits, according to 
     records and interviews. Some married couples qualify for more 
     money as single people.

  Many of our welfare programs actually give you more money if you are 
not married because you don't have to combine your incomes. So because 
they were married in Cuba, they simply conceal the fact that they are 
married because the United States can't access

[[Page 4286]]

those records. That is another way of cheating.
  Now look, ``accessing benefits from [someone who is in] Cuba 
typically requires a U.S. bank account and a willing relative or friend 
stateside.'' By the way, that is just for now because as part of this 
opening to Cuba, the Obama administration is going to make it easier 
for there to be banking transactions with Cuba. So what we are facing 
here, my friends, is that in a very short period of time--once banking 
becomes regularized with American banks--they will not even need to 
rely on their relatives in order to get this stuff. All they are going 
to need is an ATM or debit card or a credit card secured to that 
account, and you--the American taxpayer--will deposit the welfare 
check, the SSI, into their bank account, and they will then be 
conducting transactions or withdrawing the cash from Cuba directly.
  So they will not even need a relative to do it, but right now they 
still need that. ``Food stamps and welfare are issued monthly to a 
debit-type card and SSI payments are deposited into a bank account or 
onto a MasterCard.'' And soon they will be able to use that in Cuba. 
Then what you need is ``a joint account holder with a PIN number who 
can withdraw the money and wire it to you in Cuba.''
  Another option is just to entrust the money to a friend who is 
traveling to Cuba.

       Roberto Pizano of Tampa, a political prisoner in Cuba for 
     18 years, said he worked two jobs when he arrived in the U.S. 
     in 1979 and never accepted government help. He now sees 
     immigrants ``abusing the system.''

  He says he has a ``family friend,'' and this family friend got 
``disability money from the U.S.'' and with the disability money he 
``renovated a house in Cuba.'' The Sun Sentinel found this man. His 
name is Gilberto Reyno. You know where they found him? They found him 
living in Camaguey, Cuba. Quoting from the article:

       The Sun Sentinel found Reyno living in that house in 
     Camaguey, Cuba. He said he was no longer receiving 
     disability, but Pizano and another person familiar with the 
     situation said the payments continue to be deposited into a 
     U.S. bank account.

  Here is another example that Federal investigators found, according 
to the article:

       A 2012 complaint alleged a 75-year-old woman had moved to 
     Camaguey two years earlier and a relative was withdrawing her 
     SSI money from a bank account and sending it to her. Social 
     Security stopped payments, but not before nearly $16,000 had 
     been deposited into her account.
       Another recipient went to Cuba on vacation and then stayed, 
     leaving his debit card with a relative. Social Security 
     continued his SSI payments for another six months--$4,000 
     total--before an anonymous caller reported he had gone back 
     to Cuba.
       One woman reportedly moved to Cuba in 2010 and died three 
     years later, while still receiving SSI and food stamps, 
     according to a 2014 tip to Florida welfare fraud 
     investigators.
       Five Cubans interviewed by the Sun Sentinel in Havana said 
     they were aware of the assistance and knew of Cubans who had 
     gone to America and quickly began sending money back. Two 
     said they believed it was U.S. government aid.

  That means this is now spreading through word-of-mouth. So you live 
in Cuba, you know someone who left for the United States, they 
qualified for these benefits, and they start coming back and bringing 
the money with them or sending it back to their relatives, and word 
gets around. That is why it is not a surprise to read in this article:

       Outside welfare offices in Hialeah, the Sun Sentinel found 
     Cuban immigrants who had arrived as recently as three days 
     earlier, applying for benefits. They said family and friends 
     told them about the aid before they left Cuba.
       ``Back in the '60s, when you came in, they told you the 
     factory that was hiring,'' said Nidia Diaz of Miami, a former 
     bail bondswoman who was born in Cuba. ``Now they tell you the 
     closest Department of Children and Families [office] so you 
     can go and apply.''

  This is a quote from another bail bondswoman:

       Miami bail bondswoman Barbara Pozo said many of her Cuban 
     clients talk openly about living in Cuba and collecting 
     monthly disability checks, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers.
       ``They just come here to pick up the money,'' Pozo said. 
     ``They pretend they're disabled. They just pretend they're 
     crazy.''
       SSI payments, for those who cannot work due to mental or 
     physical disabilities, go up to $733 a month for an 
     individual. Most other new immigrants are ineligible until 
     they become U.S. citizens.
       Some Cubans try to build a case for SSI by claiming trauma 
     from their life under an oppressive government or the 90-mile 
     crossing to Florida.
       Diaz, the former bondswoman, said she has heard Cuban 
     clients talk about qualifying: ``Tell them that you have 
     emotional problems. How did you get these problems? Well, 
     trying to get here from Cuba.''

  Here is one that should really gall everybody, though these are all 
bad stories.

       Antonio Comin collected disability while organizing 
     missions to smuggle Cubans to Florida, including one he 
     launched from a house in the Keys, Federal prosecutors said. 
     Comin claimed he rented the home to celebrate his birthday--
     after receiving his government check.
       Casimiro Martinez was receiving a monthly check for a 
     mental disability--but his mind was sound enough to launder 
     more than $1 million stolen from Medicare. Martinez was 
     arrested at Miami International Airport after returning from 
     a trip to Cuba.
       While benefits are supposed to be suspended for recipients 
     who leave the United States for more than 30 days, the 
     government relies on people to self-report those absences, 
     and Federal audits have found widespread violations.

  So the only way you can find that someone is actually doing this is 
they have to call and say: Hey, by the way, I am now living in Cuba, 
and I am still collecting my checks. Well, that ain't gonna happen. 
This is an outrage.
  Listen, my parents came from Cuba. I live in a community where Cuban 
exiles are a plurality of the people who live there. So no one can say 
this is an anti-immigrant thing or a mean-spirited thing. We have the 
support of every elected Cuban American Member of the House for this 
idea.
  I myself come from a Cuban American family. This is an outrage. It is 
happening right underneath our noses. Who can be for this? Let me 
rephrase it. Who can be against doing something about this? We are 
talking about close to $700 million a year of American taxpayer money 
that could be spent right now to deal with the Zika virus issue that we 
are facing, for example. Instead, this money is being abused. It is 
being stolen.
  So one would think: Wow, that is a commonsense thing; right? People 
here in the gallery, people at home--if anyone is actually watching C-
span--would say: That is common sense. They will do something about it. 
Yet I can't get a vote on this amendment. I cannot get the Senate to 
vote on an amendment to stop this practice.
  Here is the only thing I am asking. I am asking that if you come from 
Cuba, you have to prove you are a refugee. Prove that to us. I am not 
even saying we are not going to let you in. I am just saying that if 
you come from Cuba using the Cuban Adjustment Act, prove that you have 
been persecuted in Cuba. That is not hard to do. You were in jail; you 
were beaten. We know who the people are who are being persecuted. All I 
am saying is prove that you are a refugee, and then you will qualify 
for the benefits because we help refugees. But, apparently, that is too 
much to ask.
  Here is the thing. Everybody here comes up to me and says: I am for 
your amendment. I support what you are trying to do. Great. Why can't 
we vote on it? We can't vote on it because if we give you your 
amendment, then we have to give the other side their amendments. And 
let me just tell you guys that this is why people are so sick of 
politics.
  I don't want to get too much into the weeds on this, but suffice it 
to say I have spent from April 13 of 2015 through very recently 
traveling all over this country on another endeavor, and one of the 
things you hear from people is that they are just angry. They are just 
fed up. They think: Nobody whom we elect, whom we vote for, whom we 
send to Washington--nothing ever changes or happens. It doesn't matter. 
You can vote Republican, you can vote Democrat, or you can vote for a 
vegetarian. It doesn't matter whom you vote for. Nothing happens. These 
people don't do anything.
  They are right. I have just come here today and laid this out. No one 
can

[[Page 4287]]

argue against what I have just said--no one. I challenge any Member of 
this Senate to come here now--I will give the rest of the time I have 
apportioned to me--and tell me why changing this is a bad idea. But I 
can't even get a vote on an amendment to change this.
  The excuses are long: Oh, we can't do it because we don't want to 
open the tax portion of the bill because then other people will want 
their amendments. This is crazy. This is nuts. We can't solve problems. 
We can't solve something as clear and simple as that. We can't even get 
a vote. If you want to vote against what I am proposing, vote against 
it. We can't even get a vote on an amendment like this. It makes no 
sense.
  This is not a small issue. We are talking $700 million. This is not 
an issue of national coverage. It is not in the news every day. This is 
not controversial. This is bipartisan. The chairwoman of the Democratic 
National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Congresswoman from 
Florida, is a cosponsor of this bill in the House. So this is not 
partisan. It is not about getting anyone elected to anything. I am not 
running for anything. This is about doing what is right.
  This is about being able to go back to my home community and say to 
people: This abuse has been addressed. But if I go home tonight or 
tomorrow to Florida and I run into somebody at the grocery store, I 
can't explain to them with a straight face why the Senate will not give 
me a vote on this because it makes no sense. If I came to you and said: 
They are stealing $700 million a year from you, and here is a very 
simple way to stop it, you would say: Let's do it. We have to do it. 
But here they are saying: We can't do it. And no one will tell you why 
we can't do it, except for some procedural internal Senate thing.
  This is ridiculous. This is why people are angry. This is why people 
are so upset. This is why people have taken on this attitude to get rid 
of everyone. And I have to tell you, it is hard to blame them after 
seeing what is happening here now. This is total and complete outrage.
  There is another amendment being debated, by the way, by Senator 
Sessions. It is another one of the amendments that was denied a vote. 
It has to do with the entry-exit tracking system, which basically means 
that when you come into the United States with a visa--you get a visa 
to visit the United States for 90 days as a tourist. You want to go to 
Washington, you want to go to Disney World, you want to go to New York 
City, and you have 60 to 90 days to visit the United States. When you 
arrive, we check you in. But we never check you out. So we never know 
when or if someone has left.
  As a result, today, of the 12 or 13 or 14 million people who are here 
illegally, about 40 percent or so of them are people who have 
overstayed their visas. They didn't cross the border illegally. They 
came on an airplane, and they overstayed their visa.
  Everyone says they are in favor of a system that tracks entries and 
exits so we can crack down on these overstayed visas. Everyone says 
they are in favor of it. In 2013, the Senate passed a controversial 
immigration reform bill that I was a part of and we helped craft, and 
an entry-exit tracking system was part of that bill.
  Everyone--Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative--says they are 
in favor of doing that. But you can't get a vote on an amendment 
dealing with it. Again, it makes no sense. This place can't solve 
anything, and this is ridiculous.
  So what happens when you don't solve things for a long time? The 
problems stack up. The problems stack up and people lose confidence. 
People lose faith.
  Look, I understand this process. I know everyone is not always going 
to get everything. You are not going to achieve everything you want 
when you get involved in these issues, but these are commonsense 
issues. An entry-exit tracking system--of course that makes sense.
  By the way, you have to do that on the FAA bill. You have to because 
that has to do with airports where most of the entry-exits are 
happening. This issue is drafted to this bill because this bill has a 
piece of it that deals with the Tax Code and finance. A moment ago, the 
chairman said we had a lot of debate. They had an open amendment 
process on the FAA bill, but there is a finance component to this bill 
that was not offered until it got here. That is what my amendment is 
drafted on, so I couldn't have offered this in a committee.
  I think people come to Washington and watch this process; they hear 
me explain this thing. They are wondering, there has to be a catch, 
right? What is the other side of the argument? There is no other side 
of the argument. There is none. There is none.
  Why should you, the people watching, the people here, why should 
anybody, why should the American taxpayer be giving money to people who 
don't live here to build houses in another country? That is what is 
happening right underneath our noses. Forget about passing it. You 
can't even get a vote on it, for reasons no one can explain.
  Do you want to know why people are upset and frustrated with the 
political process? This is a small but important example of why people 
are so frustrated. I hope this will change. I hope it will change. I 
hope it will change on this bill because I don't think you can explain 
with a straight face why something like this can't pass or why 
something like this can't even get a vote on it. This makes absolutely 
no sense, but this is what is happening here every single day on a 
routine basis. When I say ``here,'' I mean in Washington. The result 
is, people start to scratch their heads and say: You know what. It 
doesn't matter whom we elect, nothing changes. That explains a lot 
about the frustrations that are going on in this country. I hope that 
will change.


                     Honoring Assault Brigade 2506

  Madam President, I want to talk about another topic briefly. It is 
also related to Cuba but on a much different note. It has to do with 
the Bay of Pigs, which is something that happened a while back. April 
17 will mark the anniversary of a significant event in history. It is 
an event that many in our government over the years have been eager to 
forget and is often cited as a blemish on our history, but I beg to 
differ in some ways. The result wasn't what we wanted, but we have a 
lot to be proud of. I think it has become increasingly important to 
remember.
  Fifty-five years ago this Sunday, on April 17, 1961, there were 1,500 
brave volunteers who embarked upon a mission to liberate Cuba from 
Fidel Castro's oppressive grip. This force was primarily made up of 
Cuban exiles, but they were a diverse group from all backgrounds within 
Cuban society.
  They knew they would be badly outnumbered and they would face 
extraordinary odds. Yet these men stormed the beaches of Playa Giron at 
the Bay of Pigs. They did it for what at the time was their country, 
Cuba. They did it for their families. They did it for freedom itself. 
Over the next 4 days, nearly 100 members of the Brigada de Asalto--
Assault Brigade 2506--lost their lives--nearly 100 members. Included in 
that number were four American pilots and five others who were 
executed. The majority were captured and imprisoned for many months and 
years and in inhumane conditions.
  Though the Bay of Pigs invasion failed, it was a triumph of courage 
for the brave Cuban exiles at the mission's helm, and it serves as a 
reminder of an era when the U.S. Government actually embraced America's 
role as the watchman on the walls of freedom.
  Since taking power those many years ago, the anti-American Castro 
regime has never relented in its attempts to undermine our security and 
suppress its own people. More than 1 million Cubans have voted with 
their feet, fleeing the island in search of political freedom or better 
economic conditions--we just discussed that a moment ago--often coming 
to the United States.
  Many of these refugees are my neighbors, my friends, and 
constituents. My own parents left Cuba several years before Castro took 
over, but their lives were nonetheless marred by his rule as well. The 
relationships with family and friends and access to their homeland were 
abruptly severed.

[[Page 4288]]

  For the nearly 1,500 Cuban exiles who made up the Assault Brigade 
2506, Fidel Castro was not the leader of their country. He was what he 
has always been--a thief and an imposter. They knew liberty was a God-
given right, and they needed to do all in their power to reclaim it.
  Their story says as much about their own resilience as it does about 
America. The very building I stand in, and the proud body I am a Member 
of, would not exist were it not for men like them over 150 years 
before.
  America's Declaration of Independence says of mankind's inalienable 
rights that ``whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of 
these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, 
and to institute new Government.''
  Those who undertook the Bay of Pigs invasion fought for their 
country, not against it. Their cause was a humanitarian cause, a noble 
cause, in many ways, an American cause. Many of those who were captured 
and eventually released and exiled to the United States came with 
nothing--not a penny--and in many cases no English skills. They went to 
work and embraced America's blessings, but they never forgot their 
homeland.
  Some made it their life's work to promote the cause of a free Cuba. 
Others went to work on a different endeavor to provide for their 
families but dedicated countless hours as faithful volunteers of the 
cause. Many of the former members of the Brigade 2506 would take up 
arms for the United States, serving in our Armed Forces with the same 
bravery and distinction they showed at the Bay of Pigs. In doing so, 
they served as teachers to an entire community.
  For example, today in Miami a Brigade 2506 monument and museum now 
exists as much to commemorate these heroes as they do to educate 
others. Far from being forgotten, the example of these brave men has 
inspired others to carry on their work. Their legacy lives, and it 
lives on among those of us who follow in their footsteps by making 
their cause of a free Cuba our cause.
  Today the spirit of those who paid the ultimate price is alive and 
well in the brigade's Veterans Association and continues to stand 
firmly against the Castro brothers' dictatorship. Their spirit is also 
alive inside Cuba, represented by all those who stand up to the 
repressive regime and its beatings, detentions, and suppressions of 
speech. A strong dissident movement within the island refuses to be 
silenced, demanding change and the right of every human being to be 
free.
  Sadly, this administration has betrayed that spirit of dissension by 
treating the Castro government as if
it were democratically elected. The President's actions have only 
motivated the dictatorship to increase in its very nature, but as long 
as the spirit of the brigade lives on, the dream of a free Cuba will 
never die.
  Following the Bay of Pigs invasion, in December of 1962, President 
Kennedy delivered a speech in Miami honoring those who fought. 
Accepting an honor from them in return, he accepted the flag of their 
brigade. President Kennedy said: ``I can assure you that this flag will 
be returned to this brigade in a free Havana.''
  That assurance was not made by a man but by a nation. It came with no 
expiration date. I believe we as Americans owe it to the fearless men 
who fought at the Bay of Pigs to ensure that their flag, which last 
touched the shores of Cuba 55 years ago this week, is one day returned 
to a free Havana and that everything that flag represents--freedom, 
sacrifice, the dreams of the Cuban people--remains the cause of the 
United States.
  To the veterans of Assault Brigade 2506, thank you for your service 
and God bless you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Rubio for his comments 
and his heartfelt expressions. It is important, and his amendment is 
very commonsensical. It deals with a very real abuse that I know he and 
many Cuban Americans understand to be an abuse and want to see ended. 
This would be a good opportunity for us to pass it, and I understand 
Senator Rubio's frustrations that we seem to be unable to fix problems 
around this body.
  That is my feeling this afternoon, too--this frustration that we are 
not able to finally take action on things like the entry-exit visa 
system and complete it, as we promised to do for years. We get very 
close, but we don't get there. I thank Senator Rubio for his excellent 
leadership on this issue and support for the amendment that I have 
worked on. I think it is very reasonable and an appropriate amendment. 
It gives plenty of opportunity for us to carry out the necessary 
program in a reasonable way.
  The amendment I submitted will ensure the implementation of the 
statutorily required biometric exit system. It has been in law for a 
long time. It was first set in law in 1996--20 years ago. There were at 
least eight or more times where we mandated this legislation. The first 
one was in 1996. These requirements were basically ignored. They were 
eventually modified and then the terrorist attacks of September 11, 
2001, occurred.
  Congress responded to that by demanding the government implement this 
entry-exit system when we passed the PATRIOT Act to provide greater 
security for America. It stated that an entry-exit data system should 
be fully implemented for airports, seaports, land border ports of entry 
``with all deliberate speed and as expeditiously as practical.'' That 
was in 2001.
  If you remember what happened after 9/11, we had a 9/11 Commission--
and it was a bipartisan Commission--and that Commission was charged 
with a serious responsibility of analyzing our immigration system, 
analyzing our public safety system, our intelligence system, and all 
kinds of problems that made us more vulnerable than we need to be. One 
of their recommendations was that we have a system when you come into 
America on a visa, you clock yourself in--like many workplaces have--
and you clock yourself out when you leave the country and your time on 
your visa expires. Then the United States would know who would come and 
who had exited.
  Of course, we also know, if you recall back to that day, a number of 
the 9/11 attackers who killed 3,000 Americans came on visas lawfully. 
Several of them overstayed with the visas they had. So this was the 
response.
  We have the capability of doing this. We have had the capability for 
many years, and it has not happened. Ten years after 2001, the 9/11 
attack, the 
9/11 Commissioners met again. The purpose of their meeting was to 
ascertain how much of what they had recommended had actually been 
accomplished by the U.S. Government. One of the very first things they 
noted was the failure to complete the exit system. This is why it has 
become such a big issue.
  In 2002 we passed a law that further moved forward with the system. 
It required the government to install biometric readers and scanners at 
all ports of entry of the United States. In fact, we have a system to 
collect biometric information from individuals who wish to enter the 
country, but oddly we don't have the exit system. Why is it so much 
harder to have a system to allow you to document your exit than it is 
to document your entry? This is a serious problem.
  Subsequently, and consistent with the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004, which mandated the entry-exit system be 
complete and be biometrically based. That is different from biographic. 
In a biographically-based system, you give your Social Security number 
and name and they check to see if somebody has a warrant out for your 
arrest or if you should be on a no-fly list or if you are connected 
with terrorism or organized crime or drug-dealing gangs or whatever is 
in our systems. You can just give a false name. That is not a very 
secure system at all.
  What the 9/11 Commission correctly concluded was, if you used a 
biometric

[[Page 4289]]

system where they read your fingerprints, somebody couldn't come in and 
say they are John Jones and they are really Ralph Smith, who has a 
warrant out for his arrest for terrorism somewhere. That is the kind of 
thing this system was designed to do and can be done.
  Despite the relatively successful implementation of a biometric entry 
system, the Department has largely failed to implement the 
requirements. To date, the Department of Homeland Security has only 
implemented a handful of pilot programs. It is not hard to do. Yet they 
have been dragging their feet for years now. However, there are some 
promising developments on this system. The Consolidated Appropriations 
Act of 2016 created a dedicated source of money for implementation of 
the biometric exit. It has been estimated that this will result in 
approximately $1 billion in funds that will be used solely for the 
implementation of the biometric exit system. That is already in law and 
required to be a part of our legal and immigration system.
  Yet, even with this source of funding, hurdles remain to the 
implementation this system. My amendment will remove one of the biggest 
remaining hurdles to the implementation of the system. It simply states 
that no funds from this Federal aviation bill, which funds airports, 
runways, safety systems, and all of those different systems, can be 
expended ``for the physical modification of any existing air navigation 
facility that is a port of entry or construction of a new air 
navigation facility intended to be a port of entry, unless the 
Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the owner or sponsor of 
the facility has agreed to a plan that guarantees the installation and 
implementation of the [biometric exit system] at such facility not 
later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of the Act.'' In 
other words, it gives them 2 years. They have to reach an agreement to 
actually take steps to fix this problem.
  I modified my amendment in an attempt to address some concerns that 
were raised by the airlines by explicitly referring to the $1 billion 
appropriated for this system. We received positive feedback from U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection, which has to deal with this every day. 
My amendment also has been endorsed by the Border Patrol Union. They 
know this is a loophole in our system, a gaping hole in our security. 
They want to see it completed, and it is long overdue.
  The amendment allows the U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers 
and each airport that serves as a port of entry to create a solution 
that works specifically for the needs of the CBP and the limitations of 
each individual airport. It does require, however, that the parties 
agree to a plan that guarantees the system will be installed and 
implemented.
  The suggestions we have had in response as to the kind of language 
critics and objectors would like to see--it never has an end date. They 
say, well, you can begin a pilot project or you can do this, that, and 
the other, but they never give a date as to when it should actually be 
completed.
  Colleagues, this system can be made to work. In my opinion, it can be 
implemented in every airport in 6 months. We have companies that have 
this kind of system that is used all over the place, and even Disney 
World and Disneyland use a fingerprint system. It is on our cell 
phones. This is the kind of thing that is really no problem to make 
happen, but we lack the will and determination to see it through, and 
we let people who don't like it--special interest groups--push back, 
and as a result, it somehow never gets completed.
  In fact, Homeland Security, airports, and airlines have already had a 
generous amount of time in which to get this completed. It could be 
done quickly.
  One manufacturer said: We should host a special products day. You 
should just have a day out here. People think it can't be done. Have a 
day and ask all the manufacturers around the country to bring forth 
their equipment that is being used in businesses and places all over 
the country, such as nuclear plants, and set them up and let us show 
you what we can do with it.
  Another company said: You don't even have to touch a screen. You can 
wave your hand in front of the screen, and it will read your 
fingerprints.
  These are proven products, and the prices are low and falling and at 
the most basic level. If Apple and Samsung can put it on their phones, 
we can certainly do it at the airports.
  The special interests also say it will take up a lot of space. It 
will not take up a lot of space. Police officers have these kinds of 
fingerprint-reading systems in their automobiles. When they arrest 
somebody for a crime and want to know if there is a warrant for that 
person's arrest somewhere around the country, they ask that person to 
put their hand on the screen. The computer reads it and runs the 
fingerprint against the National Crime Information Center records. If 
it says bingo, there is a warrant for his arrest for murder, robbery, 
or drug dealing, they can detain that person.
  CBP can work with larger airports with international terminals and 
install physical equipment at their international departure gates. It 
is only the international departure gates. CBP--Customs and Border 
Patrol--can work with smaller airports and even deploy handheld systems 
similar to the ones that are in cars at the gates that handle 
international flights. Ultimately, all passengers exiting the United 
States need to do is place their hands on a simple screen--or with some 
devices, just wave their hands at it--and it will biometrically 
identify the passenger as truly the one shown on the flight documents 
as exiting the United States.
  You can come here with a false document. Terrorists work on these 
things all the time. Terrorists use false identification. We know there 
are systems out there making them by the thousands and tens of 
thousands. But if your fingerprint doesn't match the fingerprint of the 
person whose name you are using and it turns out to match somebody who 
is on a terrorist watch list, then you can stop it and create safety. 
If a person puts out their hand and there is a hit because the person 
boarding the plane is on a no-fly list, the passenger can be denied 
boarding or removed from the plane before it takes off, and their 
baggage can be removed from the plane before it takes off.
  Importantly, the United States will have a unified, automatically 
produced list of people who departed when their visa said they should 
depart and a list of people who did not depart when their visa expired.
  By the way, colleagues, several years ago the Congressional Budget 
Office found that 40-plus percent of people illegally in America came 
by visa. They came legally; they just did not leave. They said that 
number is increasing. I believe it is increasing rather rapidly, and we 
are going to see more of it in the future. If you don't have a system 
to identify people who overstay their lawful entry, then you do not 
have a lawful system of immigration. It is just that simple.
  For a host of reasons, this system should be based on fingerprints.
  The former Secretary of Homeland Security and former Governor of 
Pennsylvania, Secretary Ridge, set up this system some time ago. When I 
talked to him about it, I told him as a former prosecutor that it 
needed to be based on the fingerprint system. Some people had other 
ideas about it, such as eye or facial recognition. These things can 
technically be done, but they can't run a check on somebody who 
committed murder somewhere and has a warrant out for their arrest and 
is fleeing the United States, because our basic law enforcement system 
only has certain data of people who are wanted for criminal activity. 
You need to use the fingerprint. It has been proven, it works, and it 
is used in every criminal justice system in the United States.
  When he left office after going round and round about this subject, 
Secretary Ridge said: I have one bit of advice for my successors, and 
that is, use the fingerprint. I believe he was totally correct, and it 
still remains the only real system that will work.
  Let's also be aware that numerous countries across the world--
including

[[Page 4290]]

New Zealand, Singapore, and Hong Kong--have been using biometric 
systems for years. This is nothing new. Others do it, and we can do it 
too.
  Ending this failure has bipartisan support. My subcommittee, the 
Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, held a hearing 
on January 20 of this year entitled--I thought it was a pretty good 
title--``Why is the biometric exit tracking system still not in 
place?'' That is a pretty good question. Well, during the hearing, we 
got promises from government officials, but there was no commitment 
that they would actually complete the system. They said: Oh, we are 
doing pilot projects. We are considering this and working on it. Well, 
they have been working on it for 20 years. We had our members who were 
there--all three Democratic members who were at that subcommittee 
hearing said they favor this. There is no real opposition to it.
  Just a few weeks after the hearing, Secretary Johnson of Homeland 
Security made public statements directing DHS to begin implementation 
of the system at our airports by 2018. To begin implementation when? In 
2018. There was no promise that it would be completed, and there was no 
assurance that they were going to make the system a reality. This is at 
least an acknowledgement that it is needed, but we need a completion 
date.
  It is these kinds of lulling comments that we have heard for years 
that have resulted in no action. If people in the Senate would like to 
know why the American people are not happy with the performance of 
Congress, this is a very good example. Congress promises to fix the 
problem, even claims we voted for and passed laws to fix a problem, and 
then it stands by while two decades go by and nothing happens. Why? 
Well, their special interests speak up. We have lobbyists sending out 
letters telling Members to oppose the Sessions amendment.
  It is time for us to represent the national interest. The time for 
the special interests is over on this subject. Congress has spoken 
repeatedly. The American people are getting tired of this. I am getting 
tired of this. Who runs this place? Elected representatives or some 
high-paid lobbyist somewhere? They have been dragging this out and 
fighting it tenaciously with every effort they have had for years, and 
it has not happened and America is at risk because of it. Airports and 
airlines are happy to get Federal assistance whenever they can. They 
better be trying to cooperate and make their airlines even safer than 
they are today.
  It is time to fulfill the promise and commitment we made to the 
American people. How much longer can this go on? We promised the 
American people a system that will demonstrably improve our national 
security. We voted for it time and again. We have bipartisan support 
for it. If we can get a vote on this amendment, we will see a huge 
bipartisan majority vote for it. I don't know who would vote against 
it. But we don't get to vote, and as a result nothing happens for 
years.
  This was noted by the former Commissioners on the 9/11 Commission in 
a report issued in 2014:

       Without exit-tracking, our government does not know when a 
     foreign visitor admitted to the United States on a temporary 
     basis has overstayed his or her admission. Had this system 
     been in place on 9/11, we would have had a better chance of 
     detecting the plotters before they struck.

  That is why it is important. We have long known that visa overstays 
pose a serious national security risk. A number of the hijackers on 
September 11 overstayed their visas. The number of visa overstays 
implicated in terrorism since that date is certainly a significant 
number.
  A new poll came out earlier this year that indicates that three out 
of four Americans not only want the Obama administration to find those 
aliens who overstay their visas but to also deport them.
  Why not? They came here for a limited period of time. We have a law 
that says they can stay for a certain amount of time. It is not that 
hard to get a visa to the United States, but shouldn't they leave when 
their visa is up? Do they just get to stay here and take a job, perhaps 
from an unemployed American citizen?
  The same poll indicates that 68 percent of Americans consider visa 
overstays as a ``serious national security risk'' and 31 percent 
consider visa overstays as a ``very serious'' national security risk. 
There is no doubt as to why.
  The risk to our national security is too high for us to maintain the 
status quo. We must fulfill this promise. We must do everything we can 
to implement the system. I hope that some way, somehow, before this 
bill goes to final passage--dealing with airports and public safety 
issues--we fix this problem. Why not? I don't know a single person who 
opposes it, but we couldn't get the amendment up; we couldn't make it 
pending. The Democrats objected to it. Now we have an objection to 
having a vote on it before final passage of the legislation.
  So I am frustrated. I have been pushing this for years. Even the Gang 
of 8 bill had it in there. So this is not something that I think is in 
any way unreasonable. It is time to bring it to a conclusion. I urge my 
colleagues: Let's figure out a way to make this happen.
  I appreciate Senator Thune, who is managing the bill. He is 
definitely for it and wants to see it happen. But right now we have 
objections from the Democratic side, and we don't seem to be able to 
get it through.
  I urge my colleagues to reevaluate and approve passage of this 
amendment that should have virtually unanimous support in the Senate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the opening on the 
Supreme Court. Today I am going to focus my remarks on how important 
filling the current vacancy on the Supreme Court is for our system of 
governance.
  When our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, they envisioned a 
system of governance upheld by three branches of government. The 
Federalist Papers outline this balance of power in detail. In 
Federalist Paper No. 51, James Madison spoke about the importance of 
checks and balances among three branches of government. As Madison 
stated: ``It is . . . evident that the members of each department 
should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others.'' I 
don't think we always refer to ourselves as members of a department, 
but what he meant by this is that there are three departments in our 
government--the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the 
judicial branch. In Federalist Papers 78 and 80, Alexander Hamilton 
wrote about the important role of the Federal judiciary in particular. 
The writings of the Founders make clear that our democracy only works 
when all three branches are functioning.
  In recent years, gridlock has hobbled the ability of the legislative 
branch to function. Although we have made some progress in starting to 
turn that around with the passage of the recent Transportation bill, 
the Education bill, and the budget, we also have had some very 
difficult times--fiscal cliff, the government shutdown. We cannot take 
that dysfunction to the third--as was called by James Madison--
department of government, which is the judiciary. We cannot have a 
Supreme Court that doesn't function, which is exactly what is happening 
as some continue to obstruct the process, when all we want is a 
hearing.
  We have already witnessed the Court split evenly without a ninth 
Justice to break the tie this year. These types of decisions can 
prevent the Court from responding to pressing issues in a timely 
fashion. In some decisions where there has been a 4-to-4 split, the 
result is effectively the same as if the Supreme Court never heard the 
case to begin with.

[[Page 4291]]

  What if there was an emergency case like we had with Bush v. Gore? 
Again, do we want a 4-to-4 split in a case like that? Justice Kagan has 
said the current Justices on the Court are doing everything they can to 
avoid a 4-to-4 split, but that is not how it should work. Often these 
types of decisions provide less guidance to States, offering them less 
legal certainty.
  Last week I held a meeting of the Steering and Outreach Committee, 
where I heard firsthand about what a serious issue this is for State 
and local governments. You have patchwork decisions across the country 
with perhaps 2 years that will go by before you have a High Court of 
the land that can decide which case and which decision rules when there 
is a split in the circuit. You can't continue to have a split on the 
Court.
  As the former chief prosecutor from Minnesota's largest county, I 
know from my own experience how important it is to have an ultimate 
arbiter to settle the law of the land. Cases challenging critical laws 
are now before the Supreme Court. We want those laws to rise or fall 
because the Supreme Court has decided the issue--not because of a 4-to-
4 split, not because they were unable to do their job.
  More split decisions are not the only risks we are facing. The 
current vacancy on the Supreme Court also has implications for the 
number of cases the Court is able to take in the first place.
  In March of last year, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari--
that means they took the case--in eight cases. This year, it only did 
so for two cases. The current situation is compromising the integrity 
of our judiciary. If we allow the Supreme Court to become a casualty of 
the polarization in our politics, if we let politics impede the Court 
from having another Justice and from doing its job, people will lose 
confidence in the Court.
  That is what sets our country apart. When you talk to companies 
across the world that want to invest in different countries, they look 
at the fact that we have a functioning judiciary.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 
p.m. on Monday, April 18, notwithstanding rule XXII, the Thune 
amendment No. 3680 be agreed to; the substitute amendment, as amended, 
No. 3679, be agreed to; and the Senate vote on the motion to invoke 
cloture on H.R. 636.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, again I say to my colleagues that we made a 
lot of good headway on the FAA reauthorization bill. Throughout the day 
today--as we did quite late last night--we have attempted to negotiate 
a path forward to adopt more amendments. We have a package of 
amendments that have been cleared. A number of our colleagues wanted 
votes on their amendments, but there have been objections on both sides 
of the aisle which prevented us from getting to a final resolution.
  This morning we adopted cloture on the substitute with a very big 
vote, but we still have to have a cloture vote on Monday on the 
underlying bill, which will occur at 5:30 p.m. So I am here to inform 
my colleagues that there will be no further rollcall votes during 
today's session of the Senate and we will proceed with the cloture vote 
on the underlying bill at 5:30 p.m. on Monday. Shortly after that vote, 
I hope to get to final passage on the FAA reauthorization so we can 
move on to other business in the Senate.

                          ____________________