[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[Issue]
[Pages 2885-3082]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 2885]]
VOLUME 162--PART 3
SENATE--Thursday, March 10, 2016
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the President
pro tempore (Mr. Hatch).
____________________
PRAYER
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is Your Name in all the Earth. You are
the giver of everlasting life, and nothing can separate us from Your
limitless love. You know us better than we know ourselves, and You work
for the good of those who love You. You have given us the privilege to
be called Your children.
Give our Senators today a faith sufficient for these challenging
times. May their trust in You empower them to solve problems, to
conquer temptations, and to live more nearly as they ought. Remind them
that all things are possible to those who believe. May their trust in
You create in them both the desire and power to do Your will.
We pray in Your great Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The President pro tempore led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heller). The majority leader is
recognized.
____________________
COMPREHENSIVE ADDICTION AND RECOVERY BILL AND FILLING THE SUPREME COURT
VACANCY
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, later this morning the Senate will have
an opportunity to take decisive action to address our Nation's
devastating prescription opioid and heroin epidemic.
The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act is good legislation that
will help tackle this crisis by expanding education and prevention
initiatives, improving treatment programs, and bolstering law
enforcement efforts. This authorization bill, in conjunction with the
$400 million appropriated for opioid-specific programs just a few
months ago, can make important strides in combating the growing
addiction and overdose problem we have seen in every one of our States.
In Kentucky, what we have seen is some of the highest drug overdose
rates in the country, and we know all too well that the work that must
be done to overcome this crisis lies before us. Kentuckians also know
the positive impact this legislation can have.
Let me remind you of what a top anti-drug official from Northern
Kentucky said about CARA. She said this bill ``will address the growing
needs of our communities in getting appropriate treatment to those who
are suffering . . . [and] allow individuals, families, and communities
to heal from this scourge.'' So we will keep working hard to build on
these efforts so that fewer Americans ever have to know the heartache
of drug addiction and overdose.
I appreciate the work of Senators on both sides of the aisle to
advance this bill. On the Democratic side, that includes the junior
Senator from Rhode Island and the senior Senator from Minnesota. On the
Republican side, that includes Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire. She
cares deeply about this issue and has studied the problem carefully.
She has seen the effect it has had on her home State, and she has
worked hard to do something about it.
Now, of course, today's vote on CARA would not have been possible at
all without the leadership and work of other colleagues. I particularly
want to mention Senator Portman from Ohio, who has been involved with
this for several years, from the very beginning, in developing this
important legislation for our country. He has worked diligently over
the past few years as the lead Republican sponsor of this much-needed
bill. He has held many meetings and expert conferences to get an even
greater understanding of the issue. We appreciate the long hours he has
devoted to addressing this national crisis through the legislation we
will pass today.
And of course, we thank the senior Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley,
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for everything he has done to
make this moment possible. He understands the urgency of addressing
this epidemic, and we all appreciate the very important role he played
in guiding this legislation to passage.
Indeed, this critical legislation to address America's national drug
epidemic languished in a previous Senate Judiciary Committee, but then
Chairman Grassley came along. Under a new chairman and a new Republican
majority, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act became a real
priority. It passed the committee swiftly, and it will pass the Senate
today.
Important legislation to help the victims of modern slavery
languished in a previous Senate Judiciary Committee, but then Chairman
Grassley came along. Under a new chairman and a new Republican
majority, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act became a real
priority. It passed the committee swiftly, and then it passed the
Senate.
The list goes on. Here is the chairman who has worked to give voices
to the voiceless. He also has a passion for letting Iowans and the
American people be heard. No wonder he is working so hard now to give
the people a voice in the direction of the Supreme Court.
The next Supreme Court Justice could dramatically change the
direction of the Court and our country for a generation. It is a change
in direction that could have significant implications for the rights we
hold dear. That includes our Second Amendment rights and our First
Amendment rights, things such as Americans' ability to speak out
politically and practice their religion freely.
The American people obviously deserve to have a voice in this matter.
It is the fairest and most reasonable approach we could take. During
our current national conversation, Americans
[[Page 2886]]
could make their voices heard on the kind of judicial philosophy they
favor.
One view says that judges should be committed to an even-handed
interpretation of the law and the Constitution so that every American
gets a fair shake. Another view--the so-called empathy standard that
President Obama favors--says that judges should, on critical questions,
rely on their personal ideology to resolve a case.
I know which view Justice Scalia took. He said that setting aside
one's personal views is one of the primary qualifications for a judge.
``If you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign
yourself to the fact you're not always going to like the conclusions
you reach.''
The American people will have the chance to make their voices heard
in the matter, and that is thanks to a dedicated Senator from Iowa who
continues to stand strong for Americans' right to have a say. Chairman
Grassley has gotten a lot done under the new majority, just as the
Senate has gotten a lot done under the new majority. We will mark
another important accomplishment for the American people this morning
with the passage of CARA.
Now Senators have a choice. Senators can endlessly debate an issue
where the parties don't agree or they can keep working together in
areas where we do. I say we should continue doing our work, and the
American people should continue making their voices heard. That is good
for the country, and that is the best way forward now.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
____________________
COMPREHENSIVE ADDICTION AND RECOVERY BILL
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are certainly pleased we are going to
pass this opioid bill shortly. Everyone should understand that the bill
would have had some meat if, in fact, we had an opportunity to adopt
the Shaheen amendment. It would have funded the authorization that we
are now talking about.
My friend always talks about the $470 million. That has already been
obligated. That was last year's obligation to take care of this issue.
This authorization bill has no money. For my friend to say we have $470
million is certainly not a factual statement.
____________________
FILLING THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY
Mr. REID. Mr. President, 3 years ago voters went to the ballot to
elect a President of the United States, the most powerful Nation in the
world. The American people spoke, and they overwhelmingly elected
President Obama to a second term.
We know that my friend the Republican leader stated that the
Republicans had two goals: No. 1, to make sure that Obama was not
reelected; and No. 2, that they would oppose everything Obama tried to
do. On the first, they were a failure. Obama was reelected with more
than 5 million votes. The other agreement the Republicans made was to
oppose everything that Obama wanted to do or tried do, and they have
stuck with that. That is why we have had 7 years of turmoil, 7 years of
not doing nearly as much as we should, 7 years of endless filibusters.
So my friend the Republican leader can talk all he wants about the
progress made last year, but anyone studying what has gone on in the
Senate recognizes that simply is without any basis. We have done so
little that some political scientists say it is the most unproductive
year that has ever been spent in Washington. But 3 years ago, voters
went to the ballot box to elect a President. The American people spoke.
They spoke loudly, as I have indicated, and they overwhelmingly elected
Barack Obama for a second term. It was a 4-year term he was elected to,
not a 3-year term--a 4-year term.
During the Presidential term of office, our President has
obligations--constitutional obligations. But Republicans continue to
reject that election. They continue to reject Barack Obama's
Presidency. They say he is illegitimate. They continue to reject the
will of the people.
When he was reelected overwhelmingly, obviously, they gave him the
constitutional powers to do whatever is within the Constitution. One of
those is to nominate Supreme Court Justices, just as he did in his
first term. Yet the Republican leader and the senior Senator from Iowa
remain committed to blocking the President's nominee. They are not
following the Constitution. Republicans are not following the
Constitution. The whole country is taking note. But the State of Iowa
is taking special note.
Earlier this week, a mother wrote an open letter to Senator Grassley
that appeared in the Des Moines Register. Here is what she said:
Refusal to abide by the tenants of our Constitution, and
confirm a qualified candidate to the Supreme Court, is a
violation of our common values. Your example to my children
is that it doesn't really matter what the rules say; if the
stakes are high enough and the chips don't fall your way,
it's OK to arbitrarily change the rules and deny the other
player his/her turn.
That is the Senate Republicans' lesson to the people who elected
them. It doesn't matter who you elected for President, we will refuse
to do our duty just to follow Donald Trump's example. Remember what
Donald Trump told all of my Republican friends and the country on the
Supreme Court nomination. Here is his very, very detailed explanation
of what he wants to do. Here is what he said: ``Delay, delay, delay.''
Then he went on to something else. The Republicans have followed that.
Yesterday, Professor Jonathan Carlson of the University of Iowa--he
is a professor of law there--published an op-ed in the Cedar Rapids
Gazette, a newspaper in Iowa. In the editorial, Professor Carlson
wrote:
Grassley's decision [will] rob Americans of their voice.
He went on to say:
The voters elected President Obama to fill the next Supreme
Court vacancy, and that vacancy is now upon us. Obama should
be allowed to do the job he was elected to do.
Grassley's problem isn't that he wants to give the American
people a chance to decide this issue. His problem is that he
doesn't like the decision they already made.
Republicans should not ignore the voice of the people just because
they don't like what the American people declared, but that is just
what the senior Senator from Iowa continues to do--ignore the people of
Iowa and the rest of America.
Thirty years ago, Senator Grassley had it right. When the Judiciary
Committee began its consideration of the elevation of Justice Rehnquist
to be Chief Justice, he said: ``This committee has the obligation to
build a record and to conduct the most in-depth inquiry that we can.''
Let me repeat that. ``This committee''--he is referring to the
Judiciary Committee--``has the obligation to build a record and to
conduct the most in-depth inquiry that we can.''
Now Senator Grassley isn't interested in inquiries or building a
record. He refuses to meet with the nominee, even if the nominee is
from Iowa. He refuses to hold a hearing, and he refuses, of course, to
have a vote.
Senator Grassley isn't interested in inquiries or building a record.
Through his obstruction, he is already choosing to close the door on a
potential nominee. He has even said that he will not consider the
nomination of his fellow Iowan Judge Jane Kelly, even though she was
overwhelmingly elevated from the trial court to the appellate court in
this body with, of course, Senator Grassley leading the charge on her
behalf. So what he said about his fellow Iowan, Jane Kelly, is a little
strange--a little odd--because it was Senator Grassley who strongly
supported Judge Kelly and pushed her confirmation to the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals. Senator Grassley says he will preemptively reject
Judge Kelly, or any nominee, out of--listen to this one--principle, and
that is because Republicans' only principle is obstruction.
[[Page 2887]]
As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he has fallen in line with
the Republican leader's obstruction and followed what Donald Trump has
suggested: Delay, delay, delay. He is going to great lengths to shut
down voices who simply want to do their jobs. For example, at the
behest of the Republican leader, he met privately with Republicans on
the Judiciary Committee and twisted his colleagues' arms to sign a
loyalty oath, promising to block consideration of the President's
nominees. That point has already been made here and is a part of the
Record. Next, he tried to move a committee markup behind closed doors.
When Democrats objected, he canceled the meeting. He also used the
Presiding Officer's chair here on the floor to shut down debate on the
Supreme Court vacancy, which is really unheard of, but he did it.
Time and again, the senior Senator from Iowa has followed the orders
of the Republican leader and Donald Trump and sought to silence his
critics and shut the American people out of the Senate's business. Why?
If the Senator's obstruction is truly supported by the Constitution and
history, why wouldn't he want to have a debate in the open? Let's
debate it on the Senate floor. President Obama's nominee deserves a
meeting, a hearing, and a vote. The American people deserve a Senate
that honors the Constitution and provides its advice and consent on
Supreme Court nominees.
As Professor Carlson said, by refusing to give President Obama's
nominee consideration, Senator Grassley is robbing Iowans and Americans
of their voice. Listening to the American people is our job, and Senate
Republicans should do their job.
Mr. President, what is the Senate business today?
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the leadership time
is reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will be
in a period of morning business until 11:15 a.m., with Senators
permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The Senator from Illinois.
____________________
NATIONAL SECURITY SATELLITE LAUNCHES
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, yesterday the senior Senator from Arizona
took to the floor to criticize the work of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee. I am honored to be on that subcommittee as the vice
chairman and to work with Senator Cochran, the Republican from
Mississippi.
The senior Senator from Arizona argued that the support for
Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump is somehow connected to
the work of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. I have heard some
pretty outlandish claims by Mr. Trump on the campaign trail, but the
fact that he would capture the hearts and minds of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee with his rhetoric is beyond me.
Senator Cochran has been a Member of the Senate for many years. He is
respected and has worked his way up to be chairman of the full
committee. I have worked with him and found him to be an excellent
partner. He is bipartisan and tries to make sure that we protect our
Nation's national defense. I have never found him to be in the thrall
of Donald Trump, but that suggestion was made yesterday by the senior
Senator from Arizona. I will leave it to the American people to judge
the wisdom or absurdity of that allegation.
I would like to take a moment to correct the record on a few of the
things that the senior Senator from Arizona said. The issues involved
are pretty complex, but the crux of it comes down to this: The senior
Senator from Arizona is proposing to waste $1.5 billion--and perhaps as
much as $5 billion--on a controversial proposal on how the Department
of Defense and intelligence agencies should launch national security
satellites. In addition to costing billions of dollars--that is
billions, not millions--the senior Senator from Arizona's proposal is
opposed by the Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter; the Director of
National Intelligence, James Clapper; the Under Secretary of Defense,
Frank Kendall; and the Secretary of the Air Force, Deborah James. One
would think that the senior Senator from Arizona, who chairs the
Defense Authorization Committee, would note that it is unified
opposition from the Department of Defense to his ideas. Each of these
individuals has expressed strong concern about the ideas of the senior
Senator from Arizona. They have stated as clearly as they can and as
often as they can that what he has in mind will harm our national
security. They have even stated it in the senior Senator's committee
hearings. He is either not listening, paying attention, or refusing to
agree. Nevertheless, all that I did, all that the Senate has done last
year with Senator Cochran on a bipartisan basis, was to listen to our
senior national security leaders while protecting taxpayers from
wasting billions of dollars.
The matter generating all of this discussion is about competition for
launching defense satellites into space. Let me tell you at the outset
that before I came to the subcommittee, we made a terrible decision.
About 10 years ago, the two leading competitors for launching
satellites into space were two private companies, Boeing Aircraft and
Lockheed. They came to the government with a suggestion, and they said:
We've got a great idea. Instead of competing against one another to
launch satellites--listen to this--we will merge our companies
together, and we will save the government lots of money. I don't know
why, but the Department of Defense and the committees on Capitol Hill
bought it, and they created the United Launch Alliance, or ULA. It
became a monopoly. These two merged corporations became a monopoly in
launching satellites. You know what happens when you have monopoly
status? The costs go up dramatically, and that is exactly what
happened.
In the last 10 years, United Launch Alliance has been a reliable
partner with the Department of Defense, and they have launched
satellites and other things into space which have been critical for
national security. But because they are a monopoly with no competition,
they became very expensive.
There are new entries in the market that are promising in terms of
launching satellites, and one of them is SpaceX. SpaceX has matured
into a company that can play an important role in the future of
satellite launches. I noted this fact, and as chairman of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee, I did something that is unusual by Capitol
Hill standards. In January of 2014, I held a hearing. At the same table
I invited the CEO of United Launch Alliance and the CEO of SpaceX to
sit next to one another and testify. They answered questions about
their capabilities and about the history of space launch in the future.
The committee members asked them how they could save money, and each of
them responded. At the end of the hearing, I suggested to each of the
CEOs that they propound up to 10 questions to the other CEO that they
didn't think were covered in our hearing. I tried to make this as open
as possible and to invite a new competitive spirit when it came to
these space launches. I think it was constructive.
It is also clear that there is another element in this issue that
brought the senior Senator from Arizona to the floor. The United Launch
Alliance has several engines that can take a satellite into space. The
most economical one, the RD-180, is not built in America. It is built
in Russia. Now, that has become a major problem. Put Vladimir Putin and
his adventurism to the side here. I have even joined with the senior
Senator from Arizona, condemning what Putin has done in countries such
as Georgia and Ukraine and his threats to the Baltics and Poland. Put
that over to the side for a moment. It is best for us to make our own
engines when it comes to the launching of satellites for America's
national defense and intelligence. We put millions of dollars in the
appropriations bill to incentivize the building of a new engine so we
can finally break away from
[[Page 2888]]
our dependence on this Russian RD-180 engine. For 2 years we have been
putting that money in the bill.
I am not opposed to competition. I favor competition. I favor an
American-made engine. That is not the issue. Here is the problem: You
can't just waive a wand or pass an appropriation and recreate a new
rocket engine. It can take up to 5 years. What will happen in that 5-
year period of time while we in America are developing at least one new
American-made reliable rocket engine? We will have to be dependent
either on that Russian engine in transition or run the risk that we are
not going to have any engines available when we desperately need them
for satellite launches. That is exactly what the Secretary of Defense
has told the senior Senator from Arizona, and he just will not buy it.
He has said: We have to cut the cord and walk away from the Russian
engines.
Here is something he can't answer: NASA also uses engines to launch
satellites and people into space. Why would we launch people into
space? For the space station. How do we get those folks up to the space
station and bring them home? On Russian rocket engines.
If the senior Senator from Arizona says that's it, cold turkey, no
more Russian engines, what in the world is he going to do about NASA's
needs for this engine in supplying the space station and making sure
that the folks in orbit can safely come home? He can't answer that
question because the answer truly tells him the problem he is creating
here.
What we are trying to do is this: Transition to American-made
engines. I am for that. Create competition for space launches in the
future. I am for that. And make sure we do it in a thoughtful, sensible
way and not at the expense of America's national defense, our national
intelligence, or the future of our space program. We can work with the
Senator from Arizona. I would like to do that, but when he comes to the
floor and suggests that all of us who oppose him are somehow cronies of
Vladimir Putin or marching to the orders of Donald Trump, it doesn't
create a very productive environment for conversation.
Let's do the right thing. Let's work together on an appropriations
authorization. Let's put the Russian engines behind us in an orderly
way, let's create the American engine, and let's push for competition.
That is where I got started on this, and that is where I am today.
We need to listen to the experts--the experts at the Pentagon--who
have told us repeatedly that to do this cold turkey and to cut off the
Russian engines is, frankly, to jeopardize our national defense,
security, intelligence gathering, and even our space program. That is
something I hope the senior Senator from Arizona can agree is an
outcome which we should avoid.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
COMPREHENSIVE ADDICTION AND RECOVERY BILL
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to address an issue we are
confronting in the Senate, and it is an issue folks in Pennsylvania and
across the country are dealing with every day; that is, the opioid
crisis. There are a lot of ways to describe this crisis. I am pleased
to be able to talk about this issue with two of my colleagues who will
be following me in succession after my remarks have concluded.
This Senator wants to thank, in a particular way, Senator Whitehouse,
Senator Shaheen, and our leadership for bringing this issue to the
forefront within our caucus and here in the Senate. I know the effort
to pass the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act--known by the
acronym CARA--is a bipartisan effort. I certainly appreciate that.
In the case of Senator Whitehouse, he brings a deep reservoir of
experience as a Federal prosecutor, U.S. attorney, as well as the
attorney general of Rhode Island. He brings a law enforcement set of
experience as well as his caring and concern about those who have
addiction issues. We appreciate his leadership. Senator Brown has
worked on this for many years in the Senate and as a Member of the
House of Representatives. This is an issue that confronts all of us in
our States. Our efforts have to be commensurate to match the severity
of the problem.
This week the Senate missed an important opportunity to invest
substantial resources in our Nation's heroin crisis. The amendment
offered by Senators Shaheen and Whitehouse would have provided $600
million in emergency funding to aid public health professionals and law
enforcement, the two main segments of our society that deal with the
challenge of addiction on a daily basis. That amendment was defeated,
and I think that was the wrong conclusion for the Senate and wrong for
the country.
While the Senate failed to act on this amendment, there is no reason
we shouldn't find other opportunities to invest in anti-heroin
strategies or, expressed another way, strategies that will lessen or
reduce the likelihood that more people will be addicted to some opioid
which often leads to other kinds of challenges such as heroin. It too
often leads not just to the darkness of addiction but literally to the
darkness of death itself. We have some work to do.
We know we can pass the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, the
CARA Act, as I mentioned before. That is good, but it is not nearly
enough. We have to do more than simply pass good legislation that will
authorize policies to better confront the challenge. That will not be
enough. If we have in place new programs, new approaches, and new
strategies, that is a measure of progress, but we can't ask medical
professionals to do more to treat addiction if they don't have the
resources. We cannot ask law enforcement to do more if they don't have
the resources.
Heroin overdose deaths have increased 244 percent from 2007 to 2013.
In roughly a 6-year timeframe, heroin overdose deaths are up 244
percent. It is hard to even comprehend that kind of increase of a death
statistic--not just a number but a number that indicates the increase
in the number of deaths. That alone should motivate us to do everything
possible to do whatever it takes. Whatever authority, whatever policy,
whatever dollars we need to invest in this, we have to do that. There
are lots of other numbers, and sometimes you can get lost in reciting
the numbers. I will mention a few that are relevant to Pennsylvania
before I conclude.
In addition to just passing the CARA bill, we ought to focus on
taking measurable steps to solve the crisis. We don't want to just
address the issue, confront the challenge, we want to solve the crisis.
It will not happen in 1 year, and it will not happen because of one
bill or one policy, but we have to put every possible resource or tool
on the table to actually solve the crisis.
There are lots of ways to illustrate the degree of the problem. I
will talk about a couple of communities in Pennsylvania, just by way of
example.
The Washington Post--a great newspaper here--went to Washington, PA.
We have a county and city just below the city of Pittsburgh, just south
of Pittsburgh, Washington County and the city of Washington. The Post
went there last summer and began to interview people at the local
level.
In one of the more stunning statistics they found in their reporting,
in 70 minutes there were eight overdoses related to heroin--in this
case not yet deaths but overdoses. A newspaper could track in 1 hour 10
minutes, eight overdoses in one community in one State. Then they
tracked it over a 2-day timeframe. In 48 hours there were 25 overdoses
in Washington County, PA, and 3 deaths, in a 48-hour period. I cite
that not just for the compelling nature of those numbers but because of
where it happened. This is not happening in communities we used to
[[Page 2889]]
think of as having a major heroin or drug addiction problem. We tended
to think of it, at least in my lifetime, as being an urban issue that
big cities have this problem and less so in small towns, suburbs, and
rural communities. In this case, this horror, this evil knows no
geographic or class boundaries. It is happening in big cities and very
small towns in Pennsylvania. It is happening in suburban communities,
high- and low-income communities and in middle-income communities. It
is happening everywhere. There is no escaping it.
If it is happening in places like Washington County--the city of
Washington, PA, is not a big city but a moderate-sized city. Other
parts of that county tend to be more rural, small towns to rural. If it
is happening there in those kinds of numbers, in 70 minutes or 48
hours, overdoses and overdose deaths, that gives you an indication of
the gravity of the problem.
The Coroners Association in Pennsylvania, which has to track the
number of deaths in their counties, reported that in just over a few
years in Pennsylvania, the number of deaths from overdoses went from
less than 50 to hundreds of deaths in just a couple of years. The
gravity of this problem is self-evident.
It is not good enough to diagnose the problem and recite statistics.
We have to solve the crisis. There is no doubt this is a huge issue for
the country.
By not passing the funding that we tried to pass, we are missing a
chance to support, for example, the substance abuse prevention and
treatment block grant, the so-called SABG, or the SA block grant. That
is an existing program--an existing block grant program--that works.
The only good news here, in this debate about what policy to put in
place, is that local officials know what they are doing. Addiction and
medical professionals know exactly what to do. They know exactly what
works. They know exactly what they need. What they are asking us for is
a little bit of policy or a significant amount of policy, maybe. But
they are also asking for research and resources, and we have to give
those resources to them.
I conclude with the following. We know that good treatment works. All
the professionals tells us it works. We know so much more today than we
did 25 years ago about what works. We know that good treatment works.
It takes a long time. There is no 90-day program here because it takes
a lot longer than that. So we know that for sure. There is no dispute
about that. We also know that good treatment costs money. You cannot
just have good intentions here.
Lifesaving overdose reversal drugs such as naloxone cost money. The
good news is we have a drug to reverse the adverse impact of an
overdose, and yet a lot of communities cannot afford to get this very
important drug called naloxone, the so-called reversal drug as some
call it.
Intercepting drugs before they reach our streets costs money. The
worse this epidemic gets, the more these services are in demand.
So Congress--the Senate and the House of Representatives--must
provide additional funding to make sure local communities can meet the
demand. We know that investing in programs that treat addiction and
save lives is an abiding obligation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The time of the Senator has
expired.
Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional
seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASEY. It is an abiding obligation that we must fulfill. We have
to tackle this problem. We can't do it without resources.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am delighted to join Senator Casey
of Pennsylvania and Senator Brown of Ohio on the floor this morning to
applaud what appears to be the imminent passage of the Comprehensive
Addiction and Recovery Act. So far we have had less than a handful of
votes against this bill at any stage through the voting on it, and I
suspect that some of those votes may have had to do with amendments and
so forth. We might even do better than that on final passage.
I thank my cosponsors. This was not a bill that was just dreamed up
in back offices. We had five national seminars in Washington, bringing
people in from all around the country to share their experiences, to
share their advice, to share their best practices, and to inform the
development of this bill. It has been years of work in the making.
On our side of the aisle, Senator Klobuchar has been an extremely
valuable colleague. On the other side of the aisle, Senator Portman and
Senator Ayotte were our coconspirators on this bill. I thank them and
extend my appreciation to all of them.
This truly is a comprehensive bill: everything from at the point of
overdose getting naloxone into the hands of first responders so that
lives can be saved; through the prescribing process and the
prescription drug monitoring process; through a whole variety of new
treatment programs; and through intervention for people who are
incarcerated and the prevention of incarceration, particularly for our
people in veterans courts and so forth, who can be diverted out of the
prison system through new means of treatment such as medically assisted
treatment that is emerging as a very promising new strategy; and all
the way, ultimately, to disposal of excess drugs. This truly is a
comprehensive bill.
Its only faults are ones that the Republican leadership are in a
terrific position to remedy, if they would.
The first is that there is no additional funding to support any of
these new programs that I have described. The funding for the accounts
in question was determined months and months and months ago in the
Appropriations Committee before anybody could know what this bill was
going to look like on the floor.
When the final deal was reached, the numbers actually matched the
President's budget, and the President's budget was issued even before
the appropriations measure came out of its relevant subcommittee. So
the President's budget folks would have had to have been astonishing
masters of prediction in order to put in money for programs that
weren't even law at that time.
There has been considerable commentary from the other side that there
is funding for this, but what they overlook is that, yes, there is
funding for these programs, but you would have to take it away from
other treatment and recovery programs to fund these. It would be
robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Now, an argument could be made that under this bill, Paul will be a
more effective program than the pre-CARA Peter would have been, and,
therefore, robbing Peter to pay Paul is a net good. But, please, let's
not pretend there is money for this.
If there is one indication of how there really isn't new money for
this, it is the fact that our friends on the other side can't agree on
how much money there is for this. Some Senators have said that there is
$78 million for funding CARA. The majority leader has said there is
$400 million to fund CARA. The deputy majority leader has said there is
$517 million to fund CARA. If the money were real, I suspect they could
agree on the amount of it. I think the fact of the matter is that there
is no new money for this, and the sooner we can get this funded, the
sooner it will save lives.
The second problem is that the House, under Republican leadership,
has taken no action on this bill. No committee has taken it up and
passed it. So I take this opportunity to call on the leadership here
and in the House to put money where their proverbial mouth is to pass
this bill, to get some funding behind it--Senator Shaheen's measure
would have been terrific--and to get some action out of their
colleagues in the House. If we pass it in the Senate and the House
takes no action, this will be a sham, and that will have been a shame.
With that, I yield the floor for Senator Brown.
[[Page 2890]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you to my colleagues for
the terrific work they have done on such an important issue, which in
my State sort of began in the most rural of the areas of the State and
spread and spread and spread. This is the right kind of comprehensive
response for this, but as Senator Whitehouse just said, it means real
funding for CARA and what we are doing.
I am pleased we are coming together in a bipartisan way overall,
finally taking action on the opioid epidemic that is devastating
communities across our country.
We know some of the statistics. More people died in my State than in
the country as a whole in 2015 from opioid overdoses rather than they
did from auto accidents. We are experiencing a record number of fatal
overdoses. There is no State and probably county untouched by the
scourge.
We need to remember the human cost of addiction. In Warren, OH, a
couple of weeks ago, there was middle-age woman who now has a child now
in his midtwenties who has suffered addiction for a dozen years, has
been in and out and is doing better, and then falls back. His family is
affluent, so his treatment has been better than some. But she says that
when there is an addiction, it afflicts the whole family. Nobody is
really exempt.
In my State, 2,500 Ohio families in one year lost a loved one to
addiction. Thousands more continued to struggle with opioid abuse or
with a family member's addiction. It is not an individual problem or a
character flaw. It is a chronic disease. Right now, it is placing an
unbearable burden on families and communities in our health care
system. That is why we need to tackle this at the national level.
It is why I am encouraged to see us debate this Comprehensive
Addiction and Recovery Act, or the CARA Act. The ideas in this bill are
an important first step in tackling the epidemic, but they are just the
first step. On their own they are not nearly enough to put a dent in
this epidemic. The initiatives are going to mean very little--and here
is the key point that both Senator Casey and Senator Whitehouse made--
without additional funding to back them up.
My colleagues Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire and Senator Whitehouse
introduced an amendment that would have provided an additional $600
million to fight the opioid epidemic. That would be a serious
commitment in putting the ideas in this bill into place into action.
But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle blocked this
investment. Again, they want to do things on the cheap. They want to
pass things to pat ourselves on the back but not provide the funding to
actually accomplish things. It would block the investment in health
professionals and communities who are on the frontlines of this battle.
You simply can't do a roundtable with health professionals and people
working toward recovery and families affected by it without hearing
from them. They need resources locally. The States aren't coming up
with it adequately. They need resources, and they need real investment
in prevention programs. We need real investment in treatment options to
help patients not just get cured and get clean but stay clean.
Earlier this year, I introduced the Heroin and Prescription Drug
Abuse Prevention and Reduction Act with my colleague Senator Baldwin of
Wisconsin. Our bill would boost prevention efforts that would improve
tools for crisis response. It would expand access to treatment, and it
would provide support for lifelong recovery, the kind of serious
investment we need to back up our rhetoric.
In public health emergencies, we are sometimes, somehow able to come
up with necessary money--swine flu, Ebola, Zika virus. But addiction is
not a public health emergency. Addiction is a public health problem,
but one we need to fund in an ongoing way. You can look at the spike in
the number of deaths. You can conclude nothing else but that it is a
long-term public health problem. Too many lives have been destroyed.
Too many communities have been devastated. I am just puzzled why my
colleagues won't come up with $600 million for this very important
public health program. It is time to get serious. It is time to call it
what it is--the public health crisis that demands real and immediate
investment, not more empty rhetoric, not more empty gestures.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for
up to 10 minutes in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
FILLING THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk
about what I have been hearing from people in Wyoming about the issue
of whether President Obama should nominate the next Supreme Court
Justice.
This past last weekend, I was around the State of Wyoming in Rock
Springs, in Rawlings, and in Casper and the weekend before that, as
well, in Casper, Cheyenne, and Big Piney. I am hearing the same thing
from all around the State of Wyoming.
What I am hearing is that President Obama should not be the one to
put another nominee on the Supreme Court and that it should come down
to the people: Give the people a voice. That is what I am hearing back
home.
The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, is doing
exactly what the people of Wyoming are insisting upon--the right thing.
He is doing the right thing by insisting that the American people
decide. I think Senator Grassley is doing a great service to this body,
to the American people, and also to whomever the next President
nominates for the Supreme Court.
On Monday, after traveling around the State of Wyoming, Senator Enzi,
who had also traveled around the State of Wyoming this past weekend,
and I jointly held a telephone townhall meeting. Folks at home are very
familiar with these. We do these just about every month. We have a
chance to visit with people about what is on their mind. Then there is
a little way you can do a poll during that telephone townhall meeting,
and 88 percent of the people of Wyoming agree with Senator Grassley,
agree with Senator Enzi and with me about the next Supreme Court
Justice and giving the people a voice.
Democrats want to turn this all around into a fight on the Senate
floor. They want this to be a backroom deal between the President and
the special interest groups. These are the groups that are pushing the
President to appoint someone who will rule the way they want. But that
is not what the American people want.
The American people--and certainly the people in Wyoming--want this
to be a fight about what happens and what they decide in the voting
booth in November. When an election is just months away, the people
should be allowed to consider possible Supreme Court nominees as one
factor in deciding whom they will support for President. This shouldn't
really even be controversial.
Democrats in the past have come to the floor, and they said it would
be a bad idea to let the President make a lifetime appointment in his
last months in office. In 1992 Senator Joe Biden came to the Senate
floor to explain his rule. He called it the Biden rule, and it had to
do with Supreme Court nominations.
On the Senate floor, Joe Biden--now the Vice President, former
chairman of the Judiciary Committee--said that once the Presidential
election is underway--and I will tell you, Madam President, the
Presidential election is underway--``action on a Supreme Court
nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.''
Those are the words of Joe Biden. Senator Biden said that a temporary
vacancy on the Court was ``quite minor compared to the cost that a
nominee, the President, the Senate, and our Nation would have to pay
for what assuredly would be a bitter fight.''
[[Page 2891]]
That is what Senator Biden at the time was worried about. He was
worried that a bitter fight over a nominee would do damage to the
nominee and to the Senate. He knew there would be Senators who would
come to the floor and try to politicize this process for their own
purposes, and we are seeing the Democrats doing that right now. He knew
it because that is what Democrats have done for years.
This is politics as usual for the Democrats. It is the way they tend
to live their lives here on the Senate floor--talking this way. It is
exactly what Democrats did when Robert Bork was nominated to serve on
the Supreme Court. So Vice President Biden, former Senator Biden,
understands it completely. It is what they did when Miguel Estrada was
nominated to the circuit court. It is what Democrats did when Samuel
Alito was nominated to the Supreme Court. Democrats in the Senate even
filibustered Justice Alito when he was the nominee. They did everything
they could to slander good, qualified people to try to score political
points. It is what they do.
Well, there is no need for us to have this bitter political fight
that Joe Biden worried about. Republicans have said there should not be
a bitter political fight. We have called on the President to spare the
country this fight. The best way to avoid the fight is to agree to let
the people decide. Give the people a voice, and let the next President
put forth the nomination. That is certainly what the people of Wyoming
want us to do. It is what I heard, along with Senator Enzi, on the
telephone townhall meeting this past Monday, and that is what I heard
as I traveled around the State of Wyoming the past several weekends. I
will be back in Wyoming this weekend, and I expect to hear the same
thing as I travel to Buffalo to the health fair and to communities
around the State.
That is what the American people are saying: Give the people a voice.
They are saying that a seat on the Supreme Court should not be just
another political payoff to score points in an election year. They are
saying it should not be a decision for a lameduck President with one
foot out the door. It is too important for that.
The Supreme Court is functioning just fine with eight Justices right
now. That is not me saying it; it is the Justices of the Supreme Court
saying the same thing. Since Justice Scalia died last month, the Court
has heard oral arguments in 10 cases. They have released written
opinions in five cases. They have scheduled more cases for the rest of
the term, and they are doing their jobs. That is exactly what Justice
Breyer said they would do. He is a liberal Supreme Court Justice who
was appointed by President Bill Clinton.
A reporter asked Justice Breyer about the death of Justice Scalia,
and he said: ``We'll miss him, but we'll do our work.'' He said: ``For
the most part, it will not change.''
So there is no urgency to fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court
right now. There is no danger in waiting for the next President to act.
There is tremendous danger, however, if we rush through a nomination in
the last few months of a Presidential election, to the nominee, to the
Senate, and to the Nation, just as Joe Biden said 24 years ago. The
stakes are very high, too high to let that happen.
The people are telling us what they want. Eighty-eight percent of the
people in Wyoming involved in our telephone townhall meeting on Monday
said exactly that: Give the people a voice. We must let the people
decide.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.
____________________
COMPREHENSIVE ADDICTION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2015
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 524, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 524) to authorize the Attorney General to award
grants to address the national epidemics of prescription
opioid abuse and heroin use.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:30
a.m. will be equally divided between the two managers or their
designees.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy
Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I understand we are on the bill, but
there are no speakers presently here, so I would like to address the
Chair and my colleagues for a few moments about the matter my colleague
from Wyoming was discussing just now, and that is the very serious
matter of how we will fill the vacancy of Justice Scalia.
I want to read to my colleagues a message I got from one of my
constituents in Columbus, MS. As you can imagine, we have all received
quite a bit of opinion from the people who put us in office, but I
think this constituent really hits it on the head when she says: ``The
next appointment is probably the most crucial in our history and will
have ramifications on future generations.''
I really agree with that, and I think it is such a profound decision
that we ought to feel comfortable, as the Senator from Wyoming just
said, in letting the people decide. We are in the midst of a great
debate about the direction our country will take, the executive branch
will take, over the next 4 and possibly 8 years.
The Court has been relatively balanced, with a slight 5-4 tilt toward
the conservative side. Clearly there is an effort in this city and on
the part of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle to shift
that balance. I think it is reasonable to conclude, with so much
involved and with the ramifications on future generations, as my
constituent has said, that it is very appropriate that this be a matter
of debate in this Presidential election and, frankly, in the Senate
elections also. And I realize there is a lot of heat and light on this
issue, but I would simply suggest that we are on the right track in
letting the American people speak to this.
There is another matter in this regard that I have been reluctant to
bring to the attention of my colleagues until today, but I think it has
gotten to the point where we need to be reminded that there are rules
of decorum that apply to this debate and to all debates we have on the
Senate floor. I would direct the Chair's attention and the attention of
my colleagues to rule XIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
Paragraph 2 of that rule states: ``No Senator in debate shall, directly
or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to
other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a
Senator.''
I read that paragraph in its entirety because it is quite obvious to
me, to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, and I think to
objective observers, that what has ensued over the last week or two has
been a concerted effort to impugn the reputation and honor of the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished Senator from
Iowa, Mr. Grassley.
I would just suggest to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and
particularly to my friend the distinguished minority leader that in
reviewing some of the statements that have been made on this floor--and
I have them in my hand, although I will not read them again to the
Chair because they are in the Record--particularly those statements
coming from the very top leadership of the other side of the aisle,
there has been statement after statement that crosses the line, that is
prohibited under the rules. It is a breach of our rules to suggest
about any other Senator motives unworthy or unbecoming of a Senator.
I hope we can continue this debate, and certainly we will, but I hope
we will confine it to the merits of the issue, and there are merits on
both sides. This is not the place to conduct an election or reelection
campaign--the floor of the Senate is not that place--and it seems to me
that in recent days that line has been crossed and crossed repeatedly.
I will get back to my original point. We are prepared to let the
American people speak on this issue, and it is of
[[Page 2892]]
vital importance not just for the next 4 years but perhaps for the next
decade, two decades, or three decades. And I would ask us to dial the
rhetoric back, dial the heat back, and stay on the issues. We are
comfortable making the case that this is a decision that should be left
to the American people.
I thank the Chair for giving me the time.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to take a few minutes to
describe the funding that my substitute amendment for S. 524, the
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016, is intended to
authorize.
Section 202 of the amendment authorizes SAMHSA's grants to prevent
prescription drug/opioid overdose-related deaths. These grants were
appropriated $12 million in H.R. 2029, the Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2016. The specific appropriating language is located on page 50
of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
report to H.R. 2029.
Section 204 authorizes the COPS Anti-Heroin Task Force and Anti-
Methamphetamine Task Force. These two task forces were appropriated $7
million each in H.R. 2029, for a total of $14 million. The specific
appropriating language is located in paragraphs three and four under
the section entitled ``Community Oriented Policing Services'', on page
70 of H.R. 2029.
Section 301 authorizes SAMHSA's grants for targeted capacity
expansion--medicated assisted treatments. Grants under this program
were appropriated $25 million in H.R. 2029. The specific appropriating
language for this program is located in the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education report to H.R. 2029, on page
47.
Section 501 authorizes SAMHSA's Services Grant Program for
Residential Treatment for Pregnant & Postpartum Women. This grant
program was appropriated $15.9 million in H.R. 2029. The specific
appropriating language for this program is located in the Departments
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education report to H.R. 2029,
on page 46.
Finally, some of the other sections in CARA are being authorized
through 42 U.S.C. section 3797cc, which was appropriated $11 million in
H.R. 2029. The specific appropriating language is located in paragraph
one under the section entitled ``Community Oriented Policing
Services'', on page 69 of H.R. 2029. Therefore, the managers' amendment
authorizes a total of $77.9 million in total.
Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COTTON. I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time
has expired.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall it pass?
Ms. AYOTTE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the
Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would
have voted ``nay.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs.
McCaskill) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 34 Leg.]
YEAS--94
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
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
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--1
Sasse
NOT VOTING--5
Cruz
Lee
McCaskill
Rubio
Sanders
The bill (S. 524), as amended, was passed, as follows:
S. 524
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
TITLE I--PREVENTION AND EDUCATION
Sec. 101. Development of best practices for the prescribing of
prescription opioids.
Sec. 102. Awareness campaigns.
Sec. 103. Community-based coalition enhancement grants to address local
drug crises.
TITLE II--LAW ENFORCEMENT AND TREATMENT
Sec. 201. Treatment alternative to incarceration programs.
Sec. 202. First responder training for the use of drugs and devices
that rapidly reverse the effects of opioids.
Sec. 203. Prescription drug take back expansion.
Sec. 204. Heroin and methamphetamine task forces.
TITLE III--TREATMENT AND RECOVERY
Sec. 301. Evidence-based prescription opioid and heroin treatment and
interventions demonstration.
Sec. 302. Criminal justice medication assisted treatment and
interventions demonstration.
Sec. 303. National youth recovery initiative.
Sec. 304. Building communities of recovery.
TITLE IV--ADDRESSING COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES
Sec. 401. Correctional education demonstration grant program.
Sec. 402. National Task Force on Recovery and Collateral Consequences.
TITLE V--ADDICTION AND TREATMENT SERVICES FOR WOMEN, FAMILIES, AND
VETERANS
Sec. 501. Improving treatment for pregnant and postpartum women.
Sec. 502. Report on grants for family-based substance abuse treatment.
Sec. 503. Veterans' treatment courts.
TITLE VI--INCENTIVIZING STATE COMPREHENSIVE INITIATIVES TO ADDRESS
PRESCRIPTION OPIOID AND HEROIN ABUSE
Sec. 601. State demonstration grants for comprehensive opioid abuse
response.
TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 701. GAO report on IMD exclusion.
Sec. 702. Funding.
Sec. 703. Conforming amendments.
Sec. 704. Grant accountability.
Sec. 705. Programs to prevent prescription drug abuse under the
Medicare program.
TITLE VIII--TRANSNATIONAL DRUG TRAFFICKING ACT
Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Possession, manufacture or distribution for purposes of
unlawful importations.
Sec. 803. Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The abuse of heroin and prescription opioid painkillers
is having a devastating effect on public health and safety in
communities across the United States. According to
[[Page 2893]]
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, drug overdose
deaths now surpass traffic accidents in the number of deaths
caused by injury in the United States. In 2014, an average of
more than 120 people in the United States died from drug
overdoses every day.
(2) According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse
(commonly known as ``NIDA''), the number of prescriptions for
opioids increased from approximately 76,000,000 in 1991 to
nearly 207,000,000 in 2013, and the United States is the
biggest consumer of opioids globally, accounting for almost
100 percent of the world total for hydrocodone and 81 percent
for oxycodone.
(3) Opioid pain relievers are the most widely misused or
abused controlled prescription drugs (commonly referred to as
``CPDs'') and are involved in most CPD-related overdose
incidents. According to the Drug Abuse Warning Network
(commonly known as ``DAWN''), the estimated number of
emergency department visits involving nonmedical use of
prescription opiates or opioids increased by 112 percent
between 2006 and 2010, from 84,671 to 179,787.
(4) The use of heroin in the United States has also spiked
sharply in recent years. According to the most recent
National Survey on Drug Use and Health, more than 900,000
people in the United States reported using heroin in 2014,
nearly a 35 percent increase from the previous year. Heroin
overdose deaths more than tripled from 2010 to 2014.
(5) The supply of cheap heroin available in the United
States has increased dramatically as well, largely due to the
activity of Mexican drug trafficking organizations. The Drug
Enforcement Administration (commonly known as the ``DEA'')
estimates that heroin seizures at the Mexican border have
more than doubled since 2010, and heroin production in Mexico
increased 62 percent from 2013 to 2014. While only 8 percent
of State and local law enforcement officials across the
United States identified heroin as the greatest drug threat
in their area in 2008, that number rose to 38 percent in
2015.
(6) Law enforcement officials and treatment experts
throughout the country report that many people who have
misused prescription opioids have turned to heroin as a
cheaper or more easily obtained alternative to prescription
opioids.
(7) According to a report by the National Association of
State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors (commonly referred to
as ``NASADAD''), 37 States reported an increase in admissions
to treatment for heroin use during the past 2 years, while
admissions to treatment for prescription opiates increased
500 percent from 2000 to 2012.
(8) Research indicates that combating the opioid crisis,
including abuse of prescription painkillers and,
increasingly, heroin, requires a multipronged approach that
involves prevention, education, monitoring, law enforcement
initiatives, reducing drug diversion and the supply of
illicit drugs, expanding delivery of existing treatments
(including medication assisted treatments), expanding access
to overdose medications and interventions, and the
development of new medications for pain that can augment the
existing treatment arsenal.
(9) Substance use disorders are a treatable disease.
Discoveries in the science of addiction have led to advances
in the treatment of substance use disorders that help people
stop abusing drugs and prescription medications and resume
their productive lives.
(10) According to the National Survey on Drug Use and
Health, approximately 22,700,000 people in the United States
needed substance use disorder treatment in 2013, but only
2,500,000 people received it. Furthermore, current treatment
services are not adequate to meet demand. According to a
report commissioned by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (commonly known as ``SAMHSA''), there
are approximately 32 providers for every 1,000 individuals
needing substance use disorder treatment. In some States, the
ratio is much lower.
(11) The overall cost of drug abuse, from health care- and
criminal justice-related costs to lost productivity, is
steep, totaling more than $700,000,000,000 a year, according
to NIDA. Effective substance abuse prevention can yield major
economic dividends.
(12) According to NIDA, when schools and communities
properly implement science-validated substance abuse
prevention programs, abuse of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit
drugs is reduced. Such programs help teachers, parents, and
healthcare professionals shape the perceptions of youths
about the risks of drug abuse.
(13) Diverting certain individuals with substance use
disorders from criminal justice systems into community-based
treatment can save billions of dollars and prevent sizeable
numbers of crimes, arrests, and re-incarcerations over the
course of those individuals' lives.
(14) According to the DEA, more than 2,700 tons of expired,
unwanted prescription medications have been collected since
the enactment of the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act
of 2010 (Public Law 111-273; 124 Stat. 2858).
(15) Faith-based, holistic, or drug-free models can provide
a critical path to successful recovery for a number of people
in the United States. The 2015 membership survey conducted by
Alcoholics Anonymous (commonly known as ``AA'') found that 73
percent of AA members were sober longer than 1 year and
attended 2.5 meetings per week.
(16) Research shows that combining treatment medications
with behavioral therapy is an effective way to facilitate
success for some patients. Treatment approaches must be
tailored to address the drug abuse patterns and drug-related
medical, psychiatric, and social problems of each individual.
Different types of medications may be useful at different
stages of treatment or recovery to help a patient stop using
drugs, stay in treatment, and avoid relapse. Patients have a
range of options regarding their path to recovery and many
have also successfully addressed drug abuse through the use
of faith-based, holistic, or drug-free models.
(17) Individuals with mental illness, especially severe
mental illness, are at considerably higher risk for substance
abuse than the general population, and the presence of a
mental illness complicates recovery from substance abuse.
(18) Rural communities are especially susceptible to heroin
and opioid abuse. Individuals in rural counties have higher
rates of drug poisoning deaths, including deaths from
opioids. According to the American Journal of Public Health,
``[O]pioid poisonings in nonmetropolitan counties have
increased at a rate greater than threefold the increase in
metropolitan counties.'' According to a February 19, 2016,
report from the Maine Rural Health Research Center,
``[M]ultiple studies document a higher prevalence [of abuse]
among specific vulnerable rural populations, particularly
among youth, women who are pregnant or experiencing partner
violence, and persons with co-occurring disorders.''
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act--
(1) the term ``first responder'' includes a firefighter,
law enforcement officer, paramedic, emergency medical
technician, or other individual (including an employee of a
legally organized and recognized volunteer organization,
whether compensated or not), who, in the course of
professional duties, responds to fire, medical, hazardous
material, or other similar emergencies;
(2) the term ``medication assisted treatment'' means the
use, for problems relating to heroin and other opioids, of
medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration in
combination with counseling and behavioral therapies;
(3) the term ``opioid'' means any drug having an addiction-
forming or addiction-sustaining liability similar to morphine
or being capable of conversion into a drug having such
addiction-forming or addiction-sustaining liability; and
(4) the term ``State'' means any State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.
TITLE I--PREVENTION AND EDUCATION
SEC. 101. DEVELOPMENT OF BEST PRACTICES FOR THE PRESCRIBING
OF PRESCRIPTION OPIOIDS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health
and Human Services; and
(2) the term ``task force'' means the Pain Management Best
Practices Interagency Task Force convened under subsection
(b).
(b) Interagency Task Force.--Not later than December 14,
2018, the Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Defense, and the
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, shall
convene a Pain Management Best Practices Interagency Task
Force to review, modify, and update, as appropriate, best
practices for pain management (including chronic and acute
pain) and prescribing pain medication.
(c) Membership.--The task force shall be comprised of--
(1) representatives of--
(A) the Department of Health and Human Services;
(B) the Department of Veterans Affairs;
(C) the Food and Drug Administration;
(D) the Department of Defense;
(E) the Drug Enforcement Administration;
(F) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
(G) the National Academy of Medicine;
(H) the National Institutes of Health;
(I) the Office of National Drug Control Policy; and
(J) the Office of Rural Health Policy of the Department of
Health and Human Services;
(2) physicians, dentists, and nonphysician prescribers;
(3) pharmacists;
(4) experts in the fields of pain research and addiction
research;
(5) representatives of--
(A) pain management professional organizations;
(B) the mental health treatment community;
(C) the addiction treatment community;
(D) pain advocacy groups; and
(E) groups with expertise around overdose reversal; and
(6) other stakeholders, as the Secretary determines
appropriate.
(d) Duties.--The task force shall--
(1) not later than 180 days after the date on which the
task force is convened under subsection (b), review, modify,
and update, as
[[Page 2894]]
appropriate, best practices for pain management (including
chronic and acute pain) and prescribing pain medication,
taking into consideration--
(A) existing pain management research;
(B) recommendations from relevant conferences and existing
relevant evidence-based guidelines;
(C) ongoing efforts at the State and local levels and by
medical professional organizations to develop improved pain
management strategies, including consideration of
alternatives to opioids to reduce opioid monotherapy in
appropriate cases;
(D) the management of high-risk populations, other than
populations who suffer pain, who--
(i) may use or be prescribed benzodiazepines, alcohol, and
diverted opioids; or
(ii) receive opioids in the course of medical care; and
(E) the Proposed 2016 Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for
Chronic Pain issued by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (80 Fed. Reg. 77351 (December 14, 2015)) and any
final guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention;
(2) solicit and take into consideration public comment on
the practices developed under paragraph (1), amending such
best practices if appropriate; and
(3) develop a strategy for disseminating information about
the best practices to stakeholders, as appropriate.
(e) Limitation.--The task force shall not have rulemaking
authority.
(f) Report.--Not later than 270 days after the date on
which the task force is convened under subsection (b), the
task force shall submit to Congress a report that includes--
(1) the strategy for disseminating best practices for pain
management (including chronic and acute pain) and prescribing
pain medication, as reviewed, modified, or updated under
subsection (d); and
(2) recommendations for effectively applying the best
practices described in paragraph (1) to improve prescribing
practices at medical facilities, including medical facilities
of the Veterans Health Administration.
SEC. 102. AWARENESS CAMPAIGNS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall
advance the education and awareness of the public, providers,
patients, consumers, and other appropriate entities regarding
the risk of abuse of prescription opioid drugs if such
products are not taken as prescribed, including opioid and
methadone abuse. Such education and awareness campaigns shall
include information on the dangers of opioid abuse, how to
prevent opioid abuse including through safe disposal of
prescription medications and other safety precautions, and
detection of early warning signs of addiction.
(b) Drug-Free Media Campaign.--
(1) In general.--The Office of National Drug Control
Policy, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and
Human Services and the Attorney General, shall establish a
national drug awareness campaign.
(2) Requirements.--The national drug awareness campaign
required under paragraph (1) shall--
(A) take into account the association between prescription
opioid abuse and heroin use;
(B) emphasize the similarities between heroin and
prescription opioids and the effects of heroin and
prescription opioids on the human body; and
(C) bring greater public awareness to the dangerous effects
of fentanyl when mixed with heroin or abused in a similar
manner.
SEC. 103. COMMUNITY-BASED COALITION ENHANCEMENT GRANTS TO
ADDRESS LOCAL DRUG CRISES.
Part II of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797cc et seq.) is amended by
striking section 2997 and inserting the following:
``SEC. 2997. COMMUNITY-BASED COALITION ENHANCEMENT GRANTS TO
ADDRESS LOCAL DRUG CRISES.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997' means
chapter 2 of the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988
(21 U.S.C. 1521 et seq.);
``(2) the term `eligible entity' means an organization
that--
``(A) on or before the date of submitting an application
for a grant under this section, receives or has received a
grant under the Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997; and
``(B) has documented, using local data, rates of abuse of
opioids or methamphetamines at levels that are--
``(i) significantly higher than the national average as
determined by the Secretary (including appropriate
consideration of the results of the Monitoring the Future
Survey published by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and
the National Survey on Drug Use and Health published by the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration);
or
``(ii) higher than the national average, as determined by
the Secretary (including appropriate consideration of the
results of the surveys described in clause (i)), over a
sustained period of time;
``(3) the term `local drug crisis' means, with respect to
the area served by an eligible entity--
``(A) a sudden increase in the abuse of opioids or
methamphetamines, as documented by local data;
``(B) the abuse of prescription medications, specifically
opioids or methamphetamines, that is significantly higher
than the national average, over a sustained period of time,
as documented by local data; or
``(C) a sudden increase in opioid-related deaths, as
documented by local data;
``(4) the term `opioid' means any drug having an addiction-
forming or addiction-sustaining liability similar to morphine
or being capable of conversion into a drug having such
addiction-forming or addiction-sustaining liability; and
``(5) the term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Health
and Human Services.
``(b) Program Authorized.--The Secretary, in coordination
with the Director of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy, may make grants to eligible entities to implement
comprehensive community-wide strategies that address local
drug crises within the area served by the eligible entity.
``(c) Application.--
``(1) In general.--An eligible entity seeking a grant under
this section shall submit an application to the Secretary at
such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such
information as the Secretary may require.
``(2) Criteria.--As part of an application for a grant
under this section, the Secretary shall require an eligible
entity to submit a detailed, comprehensive, multisector plan
for addressing the local drug crisis within the area served
by the eligible entity.
``(d) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity shall use a grant
received under this section--
``(1) for programs designed to implement comprehensive
community-wide prevention strategies to address the local
drug crisis in the area served by the eligible entity, in
accordance with the plan submitted under subsection (c)(2);
and
``(2) to obtain specialized training and technical
assistance from the organization funded under section 4 of
Public Law 107-82 (21 U.S.C. 1521 note).
``(e) Supplement Not Supplant.--An eligible entity shall
use Federal funds received under this section only to
supplement the funds that would, in the absence of those
Federal funds, be made available from other Federal and non-
Federal sources for the activities described in this section,
and not to supplant those funds.
``(f) Evaluation.--A grant under this section shall be
subject to the same evaluation requirements and procedures as
the evaluation requirements and procedures imposed on the
recipient of a grant under the Drug-Free Communities Act of
1997, and may also include an evaluation of the effectiveness
at reducing abuse of opioids, methadone, or methamphetamines.
``(g) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--Not more than
8 percent of the amounts made available to carry out this
section for a fiscal year may be used by the Secretary to pay
for administrative expenses.''.
TITLE II--LAW ENFORCEMENT AND TREATMENT
SEC. 201. TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE TO INCARCERATION PROGRAMS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means a
State, unit of local government, Indian tribe, or nonprofit
organization.
(2) Eligible participant.--The term ``eligible
participant'' means an individual who--
(A) comes into contact with the juvenile justice system or
criminal justice system or is arrested or charged with an
offense that is not--
(i) a crime of violence, as defined under applicable State
law or section 3156 of title 18, United States Code; or
(ii) a serious drug offense, as defined under section
924(e)(2)(A) of title 18, United States Code;
(B) has been screened by a qualified mental health
professional and determined to suffer from a substance use
disorder, or co-occurring mental illness and substance use
disorder, that there is a reasonable basis to believe is
related to the commission of the offense; and
(C) has been, after consideration of any potential risk of
violence to any person in the program or the public if the
individual were selected to participate in the program,
unanimously approved for participation in a program funded
under this section by, as applicable depending on the stage
of the criminal justice process--
(i) the relevant law enforcement agency;
(ii) the prosecuting attorney;
(iii) the defense attorney;
(iv) the pretrial, probation, or correctional officer;
(v) the judge; and
(vi) a representative from the relevant mental health or
substance abuse agency.
(b) Program Authorized.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, in coordination with the Attorney General, may make
grants to eligible entities to--
(1) develop, implement, or expand a treatment alternative
to incarceration program for eligible participants,
including--
(A) pre-booking, including pre-arrest, treatment
alternative to incarceration programs, including--
[[Page 2895]]
(i) law enforcement training on substance use disorders and
co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorders;
(ii) receiving centers as alternatives to incarceration of
eligible participants;
(iii) specialized response units for calls related to
substance use disorders and co-occurring mental illness and
substance use disorders; and
(iv) other pre-arrest or pre-booking treatment alternative
to incarceration models; and
(B) post-booking treatment alternative to incarceration
programs, including--
(i) specialized clinical case management;
(ii) pretrial services related to substance use disorders
and co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorders;
(iii) prosecutor and defender based programs;
(iv) specialized probation;
(v) programs utilizing the American Society of Addiction
Medicine patient placement criteria;
(vi) treatment and rehabilitation programs and recovery
support services; and
(vii) drug courts, DWI courts, and veterans treatment
courts; and
(2) facilitate or enhance planning and collaboration
between State criminal justice systems and State substance
abuse systems in order to more efficiently and effectively
carry out programs described in paragraph (1) that address
problems related to the use of heroin and misuse of
prescription drugs among eligible participants.
(c) Application.--
(1) In general.--An eligible entity seeking a grant under
this section shall submit an application to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services--
(A) that meets the criteria under paragraph (2); and
(B) at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such
information as the Secretary of Health and Human Services may
require.
(2) Criteria.--An eligible entity, in submitting an
application under paragraph (1), shall--
(A) provide extensive evidence of collaboration with State
and local government agencies overseeing health, community
corrections, courts, prosecution, substance abuse, mental
health, victims services, and employment services, and with
local law enforcement agencies;
(B) demonstrate consultation with the Single State
Authority for Substance Abuse (as defined in section 201(e)
of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17521(e)));
(C) demonstrate consultation with the Single State criminal
justice planning agency;
(D) demonstrate that evidence-based treatment practices,
including if applicable the use of medication assisted
treatment, will be utilized; and
(E) demonstrate that evidenced-based screening and
assessment tools will be utilized to place participants in
the treatment alternative to incarceration program.
(d) Requirements.--Each eligible entity awarded a grant for
a treatment alternative to incarceration program under this
section shall--
(1) determine the terms and conditions of participation in
the program by eligible participants, taking into
consideration the collateral consequences of an arrest,
prosecution, or criminal conviction;
(2) ensure that each substance abuse and mental health
treatment component is licensed and qualified by the relevant
jurisdiction;
(3) for programs described in subsection (b)(2), organize
an enforcement unit comprised of appropriately trained law
enforcement professionals under the supervision of the State,
tribal, or local criminal justice agency involved, the duties
of which shall include--
(A) the verification of addresses and other contacts of
each eligible participant who participates or desires to
participate in the program; and
(B) if necessary, the location, apprehension, arrest, and
return to court of an eligible participant in the program who
has absconded from the facility of a treatment provider or
has otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the
program, consistent with Federal and State confidentiality
requirements;
(4) notify the relevant criminal justice entity if any
eligible participant in the program absconds from the
facility of the treatment provider or otherwise violates the
terms and conditions of the program, consistent with Federal
and State confidentiality requirements;
(5) submit periodic reports on the progress of treatment or
other measured outcomes from participation in the program of
each eligible participant in the program to the relevant
State, tribal, or local criminal justice agency;
(6) describe the evidence-based methodology and outcome
measurements that will be used to evaluate the program, and
specifically explain how such measurements will provide valid
measures of the impact of the program; and
(7) describe how the program could be broadly replicated if
demonstrated to be effective.
(e) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity shall use a grant
received under this section for expenses of a treatment
alternative to incarceration program, including--
(1) salaries, personnel costs, equipment costs, and other
costs directly related to the operation of the program,
including the enforcement unit;
(2) payments for treatment providers that are approved by
the relevant State or tribal jurisdiction and licensed, if
necessary, to provide needed treatment to eligible
participants in the program, including medication assisted
treatment, aftercare supervision, vocational training,
education, and job placement;
(3) payments to public and nonprofit private entities that
are approved by the State or tribal jurisdiction and
licensed, if necessary, to provide alcohol and drug addiction
treatment and mental health treatment to eligible
participants in the program; and
(4) salaries, personnel costs, and other costs related to
strategic planning among State and local government agencies.
(f) Supplement Not Supplant.--An eligible entity shall use
Federal funds received under this section only to supplement
the funds that would, in the absence of those Federal funds,
be made available from other Federal and non-Federal sources
for the activities described in this section, and not to
supplant those funds.
(g) Geographic Distribution.--The Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall ensure that, to the extent practicable,
the geographical distribution of grants under this section is
equitable and includes a grant to an eligible entity in--
(1) each State;
(2) rural, suburban, and urban areas; and
(3) tribal jurisdictions.
(h) Priority Consideration With Respect to States.--In
awarding grants to States under this section, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services shall give priority to--
(1) a State that submits a joint application from the
substance abuse agencies and criminal justice agencies of the
State that proposes to use grant funds to facilitate or
enhance planning and collaboration between the agencies,
including coordination to better address the needs of
incarcerated populations; and
(2) a State that--
(A) provides civil liability protection for first
responders, health professionals, and family members who have
received appropriate training in the administration of
naloxone in administering naloxone to counteract opioid
overdoses; and
(B) submits to the Secretary a certification by the
attorney general of the State that the attorney general has--
(i) reviewed any applicable civil liability protection law
to determine the applicability of the law with respect to
first responders, health care professionals, family members,
and other individuals who--
(I) have received appropriate training in the
administration of naloxone; and
(II) may administer naloxone to individuals reasonably
believed to be suffering from opioid overdose; and
(ii) concluded that the law described in subparagraph (A)
provides adequate civil liability protection applicable to
such persons.
(i) Reports and Evaluations.--
(1) In general.--Each fiscal year, each recipient of a
grant under this section during that fiscal year shall submit
to the Secretary of Health and Human Services a report on the
outcomes of activities carried out using that grant in such
form, containing such information, and on such dates as the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall specify.
(2) Contents.--A report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall--
(A) describe best practices for treatment alternatives; and
(B) identify training requirements for law enforcement
officers who participate in treatment alternative to
incarceration programs.
(j) Funding.--During the 5-year period beginning on the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services may carry out this section using not more than
$5,000,000 each fiscal year of amounts appropriated to the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for
Criminal Justice Activities. No additional funds are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section.
SEC. 202. FIRST RESPONDER TRAINING FOR THE USE OF DRUGS AND
DEVICES THAT RAPIDLY REVERSE THE EFFECTS OF
OPIOIDS.
Part II of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797cc et seq.), as amended by
section 103, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 2998. FIRST RESPONDER TRAINING FOR THE USE OF DRUGS
AND DEVICES THAT RAPIDLY REVERSE THE EFFECTS OF
OPIOIDS.
``(a) Definition.--In this section--
``(1) the terms `drug' and `device' have the meanings given
those terms in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321);
``(2) the term `eligible entity' means a State, a unit of
local government, or an Indian tribal government;
``(3) the term `first responder' includes a firefighter,
law enforcement officer, paramedic, emergency medical
technician, or
[[Page 2896]]
other individual (including an employee of a legally
organized and recognized volunteer organization, whether
compensated or not), who, in the course of professional
duties, responds to fire, medical, hazardous material, or
other similar emergencies;
``(4) the term `opioid' means any drug having an addiction-
forming or addiction-sustaining liability similar to morphine
or being capable of conversion into a drug having such
addiction-forming or addiction-sustaining liability; and
``(5) the term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Health
and Human Services.
``(b) Program Authorized.--The Secretary, in coordination
with the Attorney General, may make grants to eligible
entities to allow appropriately trained first responders to
administer an opioid overdose reversal drug to an individual
who has--
``(1) experienced a prescription opioid or heroin overdose;
or
``(2) been determined to have likely experienced a
prescription opioid or heroin overdose.
``(c) Application.--
``(1) In general.--An eligible entity seeking a grant under
this section shall submit an application to the Secretary--
``(A) that meets the criteria under paragraph (2); and
``(B) at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such
information as the Secretary may require.
``(2) Criteria.--An eligible entity, in submitting an
application under paragraph (1), shall--
``(A) describe the evidence-based methodology and outcome
measurements that will be used to evaluate the program funded
with a grant under this section, and specifically explain how
such measurements will provide valid measures of the impact
of the program;
``(B) describe how the program could be broadly replicated
if demonstrated to be effective;
``(C) identify the governmental and community agencies that
the program will coordinate; and
``(D) describe how law enforcement agencies will coordinate
with their corresponding State substance abuse and mental
health agencies to identify protocols and resources that are
available to overdose victims and families, including
information on treatment and recovery resources.
``(d) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity shall use a grant
received under this section to--
``(1) make such opioid overdose reversal drugs or devices
that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, such
as naloxone, available to be carried and administered by
first responders;
``(2) train and provide resources for first responders on
carrying an opioid overdose reversal drug or device approved
by the Food and Drug Administration, such as naloxone, and
administering the drug or device to an individual who has
experienced, or has been determined to have likely
experienced, a prescription opioid or heroin overdose; and
``(3) establish processes, protocols, and mechanisms for
referral to appropriate treatment, which may include an
outreach coordinator or team to connect individuals receiving
opioid overdose reversal drugs to follow-up services.
``(e) Technical Assistance Grants.--The Secretary shall
make a grant for the purpose of providing technical
assistance and training on the use of an opioid overdose
reversal drug, such as naloxone, to respond to an individual
who has experienced, or has been determined to have likely
experienced, a prescription opioid or heroin overdose, and
mechanisms for referral to appropriate treatment for an
eligible entity receiving a grant under this section.
``(f) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall conduct an
evaluation of grants made under this section to determine--
``(1) the number of first responders equipped with
naloxone, or another opioid overdose reversal drug, for the
prevention of fatal opioid and heroin overdose;
``(2) the number of opioid and heroin overdoses reversed by
first responders receiving training and supplies of naloxone,
or another opioid overdose reversal drug, through a grant
received under this section;
``(3) the number of calls for service related to opioid and
heroin overdose;
``(4) the extent to which overdose victims and families
receive information about treatment services and available
data describing treatment admissions; and
``(5) the research, training, and naloxone, or another
opioid overdose reversal drug, supply needs of first
responder agencies, including those agencies that are not
receiving grants under this section.
``(g) Rural Areas With Limited Access to Emergency Medical
Services.--In making grants under this section, the Secretary
shall ensure that not less than 25 percent of grant funds are
awarded to eligible entities that are not located in
metropolitan statistical areas, as defined by the Office of
Management and Budget.''.
SEC. 203. PRESCRIPTION DRUG TAKE BACK EXPANSION.
(a) Definition of Covered Entity.--In this section, the
term ``covered entity'' means--
(1) a State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency;
(2) a manufacturer, distributor, or reverse distributor of
prescription medications;
(3) a retail pharmacy;
(4) a registered narcotic treatment program;
(5) a hospital or clinic with an onsite pharmacy;
(6) an eligible long-term care facility; or
(7) any other entity authorized by the Drug Enforcement
Administration to dispose of prescription medications.
(b) Program Authorized.--The Attorney General, in
coordination with the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
and the Director of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy, shall coordinate with covered entities in expanding
or making available disposal sites for unwanted prescription
medications.
SEC. 204. HEROIN AND METHAMPHETAMINE TASK FORCES.
Part II of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797cc et seq.), as amended by
section 202, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 2999. HEROIN AND METHAMPHETAMINE TASK FORCES.
``(a) Definition of Opioid.--In this section, the term
`opioid' means any drug having an addiction-forming or
addiction-sustaining liability similar to morphine or being
capable of conversion into a drug having such addiction-
forming or addiction-sustaining liability.
``(b) Authority.--The Attorney General may make grants to
State law enforcement agencies for investigative purposes--
``(1) to locate or investigate illicit activities through
statewide collaboration, including activities related to--
``(A) the distribution of heroin or fentanyl, or the
unlawful distribution of prescription opioids; or
``(B) unlawful heroin, fentanyl, and prescription opioid
traffickers; and
``(2) to locate or investigate illicit activities,
including precursor diversion, laboratories, or
methamphetamine traffickers.''.
TITLE III--TREATMENT AND RECOVERY
SEC. 301. EVIDENCE-BASED PRESCRIPTION OPIOID AND HEROIN
TREATMENT AND INTERVENTIONS DEMONSTRATION.
Part II of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797cc et seq.), as amended by
section 204, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 2999A. EVIDENCE-BASED PRESCRIPTION OPIOID AND HEROIN
TREATMENT AND INTERVENTIONS DEMONSTRATION.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the terms `Indian tribe' and `tribal organization'
have the meaning given those terms in section 4 of the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1603));
``(2) the term `medication assisted treatment' means the
use, for problems relating to heroin and other opioids, of
medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration in
combination with counseling and behavioral therapies;
``(3) the term `opioid' means any drug having an addiction-
forming or addiction-sustaining liability similar to morphine
or being capable of conversion into a drug having such
addiction-forming or addiction-sustaining liability;
``(4) the term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Health
and Human Services; and
``(5) the term `State substance abuse agency' means the
agency of a State responsible for the State prevention,
treatment, and recovery system, including management of the
Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant under
subpart II of part B of title XIX of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-21 et seq.).
``(b) Grants.--
``(1) Authority to make grants.--The Secretary, acting
through the Director of the Center for Substance Abuse
Treatment of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, and in coordination with the Attorney General
and other departments or agencies, as appropriate, may award
grants to State substance abuse agencies, units of local
government, nonprofit organizations, and Indian tribes or
tribal organizations that have a high rate, or have had a
rapid increase, in the use of heroin or other opioids, in
order to permit such entities to expand activities, including
an expansion in the availability of medication assisted
treatment and other clinically appropriate services, with
respect to the treatment of addiction in the specific
geographical areas of such entities where there is a high
rate or rapid increase in the use of heroin or other opioids.
``(2) Nature of activities.--The grant funds awarded under
paragraph (1) shall be used for activities that are based on
reliable scientific evidence of efficacy in the treatment of
problems related to heroin or other opioids.
``(c) Geographic Distribution.--The Secretary shall ensure
that grants awarded under subsection (b) are distributed
equitably among the various regions of the United States and
among rural, urban, and suburban areas that are affected by
the use of heroin or other opioids.
[[Page 2897]]
``(d) Additional Activities.--In administering grants under
subsection (b), the Secretary shall--
``(1) evaluate the activities supported by grants awarded
under subsection (b);
``(2) disseminate information, as appropriate, derived from
the evaluation as the Secretary considers appropriate;
``(3) provide States, Indian tribes and tribal
organizations, and providers with technical assistance in
connection with the provision of treatment of problems
related to heroin and other opioids; and
``(4) fund only those applications that specifically
support recovery services as a critical component of the
grant program.''.
SEC. 302. CRIMINAL JUSTICE MEDICATION ASSISTED TREATMENT AND
INTERVENTIONS DEMONSTRATION.
(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``criminal justice agency'' means a State,
local, or tribal--
(A) court;
(B) prison;
(C) jail; or
(D) other agency that performs the administration of
criminal justice, including prosecution, pretrial services,
and community supervision;
(2) the term ``eligible entity'' means a State, unit of
local government, or Indian tribe; and
(3) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health
and Human Services.
(b) Program Authorized.--The Secretary, in coordination
with the Attorney General, may make grants to eligible
entities to implement medication assisted treatment programs
through criminal justice agencies.
(c) Application.--
(1) In general.--An eligible entity seeking a grant under
this section shall submit an application to the Secretary--
(A) that meets the criteria under paragraph (2); and
(B) at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such
information as the Secretary may require.
(2) Criteria.--An eligible entity, in submitting an
application under paragraph (1), shall--
(A) certify that each medication assisted treatment program
funded with a grant under this section has been developed in
consultation with the Single State Authority for Substance
Abuse (as defined in section 201(e) of the Second Chance Act
of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17521(e))); and
(B) describe how data will be collected and analyzed to
determine the effectiveness of the program described in
subparagraph (A).
(d) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity shall use a grant
received under this section for expenses of--
(1) a medication assisted treatment program, including the
expenses of prescribing medications recognized by the Food
and Drug Administration for opioid treatment in conjunction
with psychological and behavioral therapy;
(2) training criminal justice agency personnel and
treatment providers on medication assisted treatment;
(3) cross-training personnel providing behavioral health
and health services, administration of medicines, and other
administrative expenses, including required reports; and
(4) the provision of recovery coaches who are responsible
for providing mentorship and transition plans to individuals
reentering society following incarceration or alternatives to
incarceration.
(e) Priority Consideration With Respect to States.--In
awarding grants to States under this section, the Secretary
shall give priority to a State that--
(1) provides civil liability protection for first
responders, health professionals, and family members who have
received appropriate training in the administration of
naloxone in administering naloxone to counteract opioid
overdoses; and
(2) submits to the Secretary a certification by the
attorney general of the State that the attorney general has--
(A) reviewed any applicable civil liability protection law
to determine the applicability of the law with respect to
first responders, health care professionals, family members,
and other individuals who--
(i) have received appropriate training in the
administration of naloxone; and
(ii) may administer naloxone to individuals reasonably
believed to be suffering from opioid overdose; and
(B) concluded that the law described in subparagraph (A)
provides adequate civil liability protection applicable to
such persons.
(f) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary, in coordination
with the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and
the Attorney General, shall provide technical assistance and
training for an eligible entity receiving a grant under this
section.
(g) Reports.--
(1) In general.--An eligible entity receiving a grant under
this section shall submit a report to the Secretary on the
outcomes of each grant received under this section for
individuals receiving medication assisted treatment, based
on--
(A) the recidivism of the individuals;
(B) the treatment outcomes of the individuals, including
maintaining abstinence from illegal, unauthorized, and
unprescribed or undispensed opioids and heroin;
(C) a comparison of the cost of providing medication
assisted treatment to the cost of incarceration or other
participation in the criminal justice system;
(D) the housing status of the individuals; and
(E) the employment status of the individuals.
(2) Contents and timing.--Each report described in
paragraph (1) shall be submitted annually in such form,
containing such information, and on such dates as the
Secretary shall specify.
(h) Funding.--During the 5-year period beginning on the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary may carry out
this section using not more than $5,000,000 each fiscal year
of amounts appropriated to the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration for Criminal Justice
Activities. No additional funds are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section.
SEC. 303. NATIONAL YOUTH RECOVERY INITIATIVE.
Part II of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797cc et seq.), as amended by
section 301, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 2999B. NATIONAL YOUTH RECOVERY INITIATIVE.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means--
``(A) a high school that has been accredited as a recovery
high school by the Association of Recovery Schools;
``(B) an accredited high school that is seeking to
establish or expand recovery support services;
``(C) an institution of higher education;
``(D) a recovery program at a nonprofit collegiate
institution; or
``(E) a nonprofit organization.
``(2) Institution of higher education.--The term
`institution of higher education' has the meaning given the
term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1001).
``(3) Recovery program.--The term `recovery program'--
``(A) means a program to help individuals who are
recovering from substance use disorders to initiate,
stabilize, and maintain healthy and productive lives in the
community; and
``(B) includes peer-to-peer support and communal activities
to build recovery skills and supportive social networks.
``(b) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, in coordination with the Secretary of Education,
may award grants to eligible entities to enable the entities
to--
``(1) provide substance use disorder recovery support
services to young people in high school and enrolled in
institutions of higher education;
``(2) help build communities of support for young people in
recovery through a spectrum of activities such as counseling
and health- and wellness-oriented social activities; and
``(3) encourage initiatives designed to help young people
achieve and sustain recovery from substance use disorders.
``(c) Use of Funds.--Grants awarded under subsection (b)
may be used for activities to develop, support, and maintain
youth recovery support services, including--
``(1) the development and maintenance of a dedicated
physical space for recovery programs;
``(2) dedicated staff for the provision of recovery
programs;
``(3) health- and wellness-oriented social activities and
community engagement;
``(4) establishment of recovery high schools;
``(5) coordination of recovery programs with--
``(A) substance use disorder treatment programs and
systems;
``(B) providers of mental health services;
``(C) primary care providers and physicians;
``(D) the criminal justice system, including the juvenile
justice system;
``(E) employers;
``(F) housing services;
``(G) child welfare services;
``(H) high schools and institutions of higher education;
and
``(I) other programs or services related to the welfare of
an individual in recovery from a substance use disorder;
``(6) the development of peer-to-peer support programs or
services; and
``(7) additional activities that help youths and young
adults to achieve recovery from substance use disorders.''.
SEC. 304. BUILDING COMMUNITIES OF RECOVERY.
Part II of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797cc et seq.), as amended by
section 303, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 2999C. BUILDING COMMUNITIES OF RECOVERY.
``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `recovery
community organization' means an independent nonprofit
organization that--
``(1) mobilizes resources within and outside of the
recovery community to increase the prevalence and quality of
long-term recovery from substance use disorders; and
[[Page 2898]]
``(2) is wholly or principally governed by people in
recovery for substance use disorders who reflect the
community served.
``(b) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services may award grants to recovery community organizations
to enable such organizations to develop, expand, and enhance
recovery services.
``(c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the costs of a
program funded by a grant under this section may not exceed
50 percent.
``(d) Use of Funds.--Grants awarded under subsection (b)--
``(1) shall be used to develop, expand, and enhance
community and statewide recovery support services; and
``(2) may be used to--
``(A) advocate for individuals in recovery from substance
use disorders;
``(B) build connections between recovery networks, between
recovery community organizations, and with other recovery
support services, including--
``(i) substance use disorder treatment programs and
systems;
``(ii) providers of mental health services;
``(iii) primary care providers and physicians;
``(iv) the criminal justice system;
``(v) employers;
``(vi) housing services;
``(vii) child welfare agencies; and
``(viii) other recovery support services that facilitate
recovery from substance use disorders;
``(C) reduce the stigma associated with substance use
disorders;
``(D) conduct public education and outreach on issues
relating to substance use disorders and recovery, including--
``(i) how to identify the signs of addiction;
``(ii) the resources that are available to individuals
struggling with addiction and families who have a family
member struggling with or being treated for addiction,
including programs that mentor and provide support services
to children;
``(iii) the resources that are available to help support
individuals in recovery; and
``(iv) information on the medical consequences of substance
use disorders, including neonatal abstinence syndrome and
potential infection with human immunodeficiency virus and
viral hepatitis; and
``(E) carry out other activities that strengthen the
network of community support for individuals in recovery.''.
TITLE IV--ADDRESSING COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES
SEC. 401. CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION DEMONSTRATION GRANT PROGRAM.
Part II of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797cc et seq.), as amended by
section 304, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 2999D. CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION DEMONSTRATION GRANT
PROGRAM.
``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `eligible
entity' means a State, unit of local government, nonprofit
organization, or Indian tribe.
``(b) Grant Program Authorized.--The Attorney General may
make grants to eligible entities to design, implement, and
expand educational programs for offenders in prisons, jails,
and juvenile facilities, including to pay for--
``(1) basic education, secondary level academic education,
high school equivalency examination preparation, career
technical education, and English language learner instruction
at the basic, secondary, or post-secondary levels, for adult
and juvenile populations;
``(2) screening and assessment of inmates to assess
education level and needs, occupational interest or aptitude,
risk level, and other needs, and case management services;
``(3) hiring and training of instructors and aides,
reimbursement of non-corrections staff and experts,
reimbursement of stipends paid to inmate tutors or aides, and
the costs of training inmate tutors and aides;
``(4) instructional supplies and equipment, including
occupational program supplies and equipment to the extent
that the supplies and equipment are used for instructional
purposes;
``(5) partnerships and agreements with community colleges,
universities, and career technology education program
providers;
``(6) certification programs providing recognized high
school equivalency certificates and industry recognized
credentials; and
``(7) technology solutions to--
``(A) meet the instructional, assessment, and information
needs of correctional populations; and
``(B) facilitate the continued participation of
incarcerated students in community-based education programs
after the students are released from incarceration.
``(c) Application.--An eligible entity seeking a grant
under this section shall submit to the Attorney General an
application in such form and manner, at such time, and
accompanied by such information as the Attorney General
specifies.
``(d) Priority Considerations.--In awarding grants under
this section, the Attorney General shall give priority to
applicants that--
``(1) assess the level of risk and need of inmates,
including by--
``(A) assessing the need for English language learner
instruction;
``(B) conducting educational assessments; and
``(C) assessing occupational interests and aptitudes;
``(2) target educational services to assessed needs,
including academic and occupational at the basic, secondary,
or post-secondary level;
``(3) target career and technology education programs to--
``(A) areas of identified occupational demand; and
``(B) employment opportunities in the communities in which
students are reasonably expected to reside post-release;
``(4) include a range of appropriate educational
opportunities at the basic, secondary, and post-secondary
levels;
``(5) include opportunities for students to attain industry
recognized credentials;
``(6) include partnership or articulation agreements
linking institutional education programs with community sited
programs provided by adult education program providers and
accredited institutions of higher education, community
colleges, and vocational training institutions; and
``(7) explicitly include career pathways models offering
opportunities for incarcerated students to develop academic
skills, in-demand occupational skills and credentials,
occupational experience in institutional work programs or
work release programs, and linkages with employers in the
community, so that incarcerated students have opportunities
to embark on careers with strong prospects for both post-
release employment and advancement in a career ladder over
time.
``(e) Requirements.--An eligible entity seeking a grant
under this section shall--
``(1) describe the evidence-based methodology and outcome
measurements that will be used to evaluate each program
funded with a grant under this section, and specifically
explain how such measurements will provide valid measures of
the impact of the program; and
``(2) describe how each program described in paragraph (1)
could be broadly replicated if demonstrated to be effective.
``(f) Control of Internet Access.--An entity that receives
a grant under this section may restrict access to the
Internet by prisoners, as appropriate and in accordance with
Federal and State law, to ensure public safety.''.
SEC. 402. NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON RECOVERY AND COLLATERAL
CONSEQUENCES.
(a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``collateral
consequence'' means a penalty, disability, or disadvantage
imposed on an individual who is in recovery for a substance
use disorder (including by an administrative agency,
official, or civil court ) as a result of a Federal or State
conviction for a drug-related offense but not as part of the
judgment of the court that imposes the conviction.
(b) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish a
bipartisan task force to be known as the Task Force on
Recovery and Collateral Consequences (in this section
referred to as the ``Task Force'').
(2) Membership.--
(A) Total number of members.--The Task Force shall include
10 members, who shall be appointed by the Attorney General in
accordance with subparagraphs (B) and (C).
(B) Members of the task force.--The Task Force shall
include--
(i) members who have national recognition and significant
expertise in areas such as health care, housing, employment,
substance use disorders, mental health, law enforcement, and
law;
(ii) not fewer than 2 members--
(I) who have personally experienced a substance abuse
disorder or addiction and are in recovery; and
(II) not fewer than 1 of whom has benefitted from
medication assisted treatment; and
(iii) to the extent practicable, members who formerly
served as elected officials at the State and Federal levels.
(C) Timing.--The Attorney General shall appoint the members
of the Task Force not later than 60 days after the date on
which the Task Force is established under paragraph (1).
(3) Chairperson.--The Task Force shall select a chairperson
or co-chairpersons from among the members of the Task Force.
(c) Duties of the Task Force.--
(1) In general.--The Task Force shall--
(A) identify collateral consequences for individuals with
Federal or State convictions for drug-related offenses who
are in recovery for substance use disorder; and
(B) examine any policy basis for the imposition of
collateral consequences identified under subparagraph (A) and
the effect of the collateral consequences on individuals in
recovery in resuming their personal and professional
activities.
(2) Recommendations.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the first meeting of the Task Force, the Task Force
shall develop recommendations, as it considers appropriate,
for proposed legislative and regulatory changes related to
the collateral consequences identified under paragraph (1).
[[Page 2899]]
(3) Collection of information.--The Task Force shall hold
hearings, require the testimony and attendance of witnesses,
and secure information from any department or agency of the
United States in performing the duties under paragraphs (1)
and (2).
(4) Report.--
(A) Submission to executive branch.--Not later than 1 year
after the date of the first meeting of the Task Force, the
Task Force shall submit a report detailing the findings and
recommendations of the Task Force to--
(i) the head of each relevant department or agency of the
United States;
(ii) the President; and
(iii) the Vice President.
(B) Submission to congress.--The individuals who receive
the report under subparagraph (A) shall submit to Congress
such legislative recommendations, if any, as those
individuals consider appropriate based on the report.
TITLE V--ADDICTION AND TREATMENT SERVICES FOR WOMEN, FAMILIES, AND
VETERANS
SEC. 501. IMPROVING TREATMENT FOR PREGNANT AND POSTPARTUM
WOMEN.
(a) In General.--Section 508 of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb-1) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``(referred to in this
section as the `Director')'' after ``Director of the Center
for Substance Abuse Treatment''; and
(2) in subsection (p), in the first sentence--
(A) by striking ``Committee on Labor and Human Resources''
and inserting ``Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions''; and
(B) by inserting ``(other than subsection (r))'' after
``this section''.
(b) Pilot Program Grants for State Substance Abuse
Agencies.--Section 508 of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 290bb-1) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (r); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (q) the following:
``(r) Pilot Program for State Substance Abuse Agencies.--
``(1) In general.--The Director shall carry out a pilot
program under which the Director makes competitive grants to
State substance abuse agencies to--
``(A) enhance flexibility in the use of funds designed to
support family-based services for pregnant and postpartum
women with a primary diagnosis of a substance use disorder,
including opioid use disorders;
``(B) help State substance abuse agencies address
identified gaps in services furnished to such women along the
continuum of care, including services provided to women in
non-residential based settings; and
``(C) promote a coordinated, effective, and efficient State
system managed by State substance abuse agencies by
encouraging new approaches and models of service delivery
that are evidence-based, including effective family-based
programs for women involved with the criminal justice system.
``(2) Requirements.--In carrying out the pilot program
under this subsection, the Director--
``(A) shall require State substance abuse agencies to
submit to the Director applications, in such form and manner
and containing such information as specified by the Director,
to be eligible to receive a grant under the program;
``(B) shall identify, based on such submitted applications,
State substance abuse agencies that are eligible for such
grants;
``(C) shall require services proposed to be furnished
through such a grant to support family-based treatment and
other services for pregnant and postpartum women with a
primary diagnosis of a substance use disorder, including
opioid use disorders;
``(D) notwithstanding subsection (a)(1), shall not require
that services furnished through such a grant be provided
solely to women that reside in facilities; and
``(E) shall not require that grant recipients under the
program make available all services described in subsection
(d).
``(3) Required services.--
``(A) In general.--The Director shall specify minimum
services required to be made available to eligible women
through a grant awarded under the pilot program under this
subsection. Such minimum services--
``(i) shall include the requirements described in
subsection (c);
``(ii) may include any of the services described in
subsection (d);
``(iii) may include other services, as appropriate; and
``(iv) shall be based on the recommendations submitted
under subparagraph (B)
``(B) Stakeholder input.--The Director shall convene and
solicit recommendations from stakeholders, including State
substance abuse agencies, health care providers, persons in
recovery from a substance use disorder, and other appropriate
individuals, for the minimum services described in
subparagraph (A).
``(4) Duration.--The pilot program under this subsection
shall not exceed 5 years.
``(5) Evaluation and report to congress.--
``(A) In general.--Out of amounts made available to the
Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, the
Director of the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and
Quality, in cooperation with the recipients of grants under
this subsection, shall conduct an evaluation of the pilot
program under this subsection, beginning 1 year after the
date on which a grant is first awarded under this subsection.
The Director of the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics
and Quality, in coordination with the Director of the Center
for Substance Abuse Treatment, not later than 120 days after
completion of such evaluation, shall submit to the relevant
Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report on such evaluation.
``(B) Contents.--The report to Congress under subparagraph
(A) shall include, at a minimum, outcomes information from
the pilot program, including any resulting reductions in the
use of alcohol and other drugs, engagement in treatment
services, retention in the appropriate level and duration of
services, increased access to the use of drugs approved by
the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of
substance use disorders in combination with counseling, and
other appropriate measures.
``(6) Definition of state substance abuse agency.--For
purposes of this subsection, the term `State substance abuse
agency' means, with respect to a State, the agency in such
State that manages the substance abuse prevention and
treatment block grant program under part B of title XIX.
``(s) Funding.--
``(1) In general.--For the purpose of carrying out this
section, there are authorized to be appropriated $15,900,000
for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2020.
``(2) Limitation.--Of the amounts made available under
paragraph (1) to carry out this section, not more than 25
percent may be used each fiscal year to carry out subsection
(r).''.
SEC. 502. REPORT ON GRANTS FOR FAMILY-BASED SUBSTANCE ABUSE
TREATMENT.
Section 2925 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797s-4) is amended--
(1) by striking ``An entity'' and inserting ``(a) Entity
Reports.--An entity''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Attorney General Report on Family-Based Substance
Abuse Treatment.--The Attorney General shall submit to
Congress an annual report that describes the number of grants
awarded under section 2921(1) and how such grants are used by
the recipients for family-based substance abuse treatment
programs that serve as alternatives to incarceration for
custodial parents to receive treatment and services as a
family.''.
SEC. 503. VETERANS' TREATMENT COURTS.
Section 2991(j)(1)(B)(ii) of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3797aa(j)(1)(B)(ii)), as amended by the Comprehensive Justice
and Mental Health Act of 2015 (S. 993, 114th Congress), is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(I)'' after ``(ii)'';
(2) in subclause (I), as so designated, by striking the
period and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(II) was discharged or released from such service under
dishonorable conditions, if the reason for that discharge or
release, if known, is attributable to a substance use
disorder.''.
TITLE VI--INCENTIVIZING STATE COMPREHENSIVE INITIATIVES TO ADDRESS
PRESCRIPTION OPIOID AND HEROIN ABUSE
SEC. 601. STATE DEMONSTRATION GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE OPIOID
ABUSE RESPONSE.
(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``dispenser'' has the meaning given the term
in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
802);
(2) the term ``prescriber'' means a dispenser who
prescribes a controlled substance, or the agent of such a
dispenser;
(3) the term ``prescriber of a schedule II, III, or IV
controlled substance'' does not include a prescriber of a
schedule II, III, or IV controlled substance that dispenses
the substance--
(A) for use on the premises on which the substance is
dispensed;
(B) in a hospital emergency room, when the substance is in
short supply;
(C) for a certified opioid treatment program; or
(D) in other situations as the Attorney General may
reasonably determine; and
(4) the term ``schedule II, III, or IV controlled
substance'' means a controlled substance that is listed on
schedule II, schedule III, or schedule IV of section 202(c)
of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)).
(b) Planning and Implementation Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General, in coordination with
the Secretary of Health and Human Services and in
consultation with the Director of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, may award grants to States, and combinations
thereof, to prepare a comprehensive plan for and implement an
integrated opioid abuse response initiative.
(2) Purposes.--A State receiving a grant under this section
shall establish a comprehensive response to opioid abuse,
which shall include--
(A) prevention and education efforts around heroin and
opioid use, treatment, and
[[Page 2900]]
recovery, including education of residents, medical students,
and physicians and other prescribers of schedule II, III, or
IV controlled substances on relevant prescribing guidelines
and the prescription drug monitoring program of the State;
(B) a comprehensive prescription drug monitoring program to
track dispensing of schedule II, III, or IV controlled
substances, which shall--
(i) provide for data sharing with other States by statute,
regulation, or interstate agreement; and
(ii) allow for access to all individuals authorized by the
State to write prescriptions for schedule II, III, or IV
controlled substances on the prescription drug monitoring
program of the State;
(C) developing, implementing, or expanding prescription
drug and opioid addiction treatment programs by--
(i) expanding programs for medication assisted treatment of
prescription drug and opioid addiction, including training
for treatment and recovery support providers;
(ii) developing, implementing, or expanding programs for
behavioral health therapy for individuals who are in
treatment for prescription drug and opioid addiction;
(iii) developing, implementing, or expanding programs to
screen individuals who are in treatment for prescription drug
and opioid addiction for hepatitis C and HIV, and provide
treatment for those individuals if clinically appropriate; or
(iv) developing, implementing, or expanding programs that
provide screening, early intervention, and referral to
treatment (commonly known as ``SBIRT'') to teenagers and
young adults in primary care, middle schools, high schools,
universities, school-based health centers, and other
community-based health care settings frequently accessed by
teenagers or young adults; and
(D) developing, implementing, and expanding programs to
prevent overdose death from prescription medications and
opioids.
(3) Planning grant applications.--
(A) Application.--
(i) In general.--A State seeking a planning grant under
this section to prepare a comprehensive plan for an
integrated opioid abuse response initiative shall submit to
the Attorney General an application in such form, and
containing such information, as the Attorney General may
require.
(ii) Requirements.--An application for a planning grant
under this section shall, at a minimum, include--
(I) a budget and a budget justification for the activities
to be carried out using the grant;
(II) a description of the activities proposed to be carried
out using the grant, including a schedule for completion of
such activities;
(III) outcome measures that will be used to measure the
effectiveness of the programs and initiatives to address
opioids; and
(IV) a description of the personnel necessary to complete
such activities.
(B) Period; nonrenewability.--A planning grant under this
section shall be for a period of 1 year. A State may not
receive more than 1 planning grant under this section.
(C) Strategic plan and program implementation plan.--A
State receiving a planning grant under this section shall
develop a strategic plan and a program implementation plan.
(4) Implementation grants.--
(A) Application.--A State seeking an implementation grant
under this section to implement a comprehensive strategy for
addressing opioid abuse shall submit to the Attorney General
an application in such form, and containing such information,
as the Attorney General may require.
(B) Use of funds.--A State that receives an implementation
grant under this section shall use the grant for the cost of
carrying out an integrated opioid abuse response program in
accordance with this section, including for technical
assistance, training, and administrative expenses.
(C) Requirements.--An integrated opioid abuse response
program carried out using an implementation grant under this
section shall--
(i) require that each prescriber of a schedule II, III, or
IV controlled substance in the State--
(I) registers with the prescription drug monitoring program
of the State; and
(II) consults the prescription drug monitoring program
database of the State before prescribing a schedule II, III,
or IV controlled substance;
(ii) require that each dispenser of a schedule II, III, or
IV controlled substance in the State--
(I) registers with the prescription drug monitoring program
of the State;
(II) consults the prescription drug monitoring program
database of the State before dispensing a schedule II, III,
or IV controlled substance; and
(III) reports to the prescription drug monitoring program
of the State, at a minimum, each instance in which a schedule
II, III, or IV controlled substance is dispensed, with
limited exceptions, as defined by the State, which shall
indicate the prescriber by name and National Provider
Identifier;
(iii) require that, not fewer than 4 times each year, the
State agency or agencies that administer the prescription
drug monitoring program of the State prepare and provide to
each prescriber of a schedule II, III, or IV controlled
substance an informational report that shows how the
prescribing patterns of the prescriber compare to prescribing
practices of the peers of the prescriber and expected norms;
(iv) if informational reports provided to a prescriber
under clause (iii) indicate that the prescriber is repeatedly
falling outside of expected norms or standard practices for
the prescriber's field, direct the prescriber to educational
resources on appropriate prescribing of controlled
substances;
(v) ensure that the prescriber licensing board of the State
receives a report describing any prescribers that repeatedly
fall outside of expected norms or standard practices for the
prescriber's field, as described in clause (iii);
(vi) require consultation with the Single State Authority
for Substance Abuse (as defined in section 201(e) of the
Second Chance Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17521(e))); and
(vii) establish requirements for how data will be collected
and analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the program.
(D) Period.--An implementation grant under this section
shall be for a period of 2 years.
(5) Priority considerations.--In awarding planning and
implementation grants under this section, the Attorney
General shall give priority to a State that--
(A)(i) provides civil liability protection for first
responders, health professionals, and family members who have
received appropriate training in the administration of
naloxone in administering naloxone to counteract opioid
overdoses; and
(ii) submits to the Attorney General a certification by the
attorney general of the State that the attorney general has--
(I) reviewed any applicable civil liability protection law
to determine the applicability of the law with respect to
first responders, health care professionals, family members,
and other individuals who--
(aa) have received appropriate training in the
administration of naloxone; and
(bb) may administer naloxone to individuals reasonably
believed to be suffering from opioid overdose; and
(II) concluded that the law described in subclause (I)
provides adequate civil liability protection applicable to
such persons;
(B) has in effect legislation or implements a policy under
which the State shall not terminate, but may suspend,
enrollment under the State plan for medical assistance under
title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.)
for an individual who is incarcerated for a period of fewer
than 2 years;
(C) has a process for enrollment in services and benefits
necessary by criminal justice agencies to initiate or
continue treatment in the community, under which an
individual who is incarcerated may, while incarcerated,
enroll in services and benefits that are necessary for the
individual to continue treatment upon release from
incarceration;
(D) ensures the capability of data sharing with other
States, such as by making data available to a prescription
monitoring hub;
(E) ensures that data recorded in the prescription drug
monitoring program database of the State is available within
24 hours, to the extent possible; and
(F) ensures that the prescription drug monitoring program
of the State notifies prescribers and dispensers of schedule
II, III, or IV controlled substances when overuse or misuse
of such controlled substances by patients is suspected.
(c) Authorization of Funding.--For each of fiscal years
2016 through 2020, the Attorney General may use, from any
unobligated balances made available under the heading
``GENERAL ADMINISTRATION'' to the Department of Justice in an
appropriation Act, such amounts as are necessary to carry out
this section, not to exceed $5,000,000 per fiscal year.
TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 701. GAO REPORT ON IMD EXCLUSION.
(a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Medicaid
Institutions for Mental Disease exclusion'' means the
prohibition on Federal matching payments under Medicaid for
patients who have attained age 22, but have not attained age
65, in an institution for mental diseases under subparagraph
(B) of the matter following subsection (a) of section 1905 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) and subsection (i)
of such section.
(b) Report Required.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit to Congress a report on the impact
that the Medicaid Institutions for Mental Disease exclusion
has on access to treatment for individuals with a substance
use disorder.
(c) Elements.--The report required under subsection (b)
shall include a review of what is known regarding--
(1) Medicaid beneficiary access to substance use disorder
treatments in institutions for mental disease; and
(2) the quality of care provided to Medicaid beneficiaries
treated in and outside of institutions for mental disease for
substance use disorders.
SEC. 702. FUNDING.
Part II of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42
[[Page 2901]]
U.S.C. 3797cc et seq.), as amended by section 401, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 2999E. FUNDING.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney
General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
carry out this part $62,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016
through 2020.''.
SEC. 703. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
Part II of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797cc et seq.) is amended--
(1) in the part heading, by striking ``confronting use of
methamphetamine'' and inserting ``comprehensive addiction and
recovery''; and
(2) in section 2996(a)(1), by striking ``this part'' and
inserting ``this section''.
SEC. 704. GRANT ACCOUNTABILITY.
(a) Grants Under Part II of Title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.--Part II of title I of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3797cc et seq.); as amended by section 702, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 2999F. GRANT ACCOUNTABILITY.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `applicable committees'--
``(A) with respect to the Attorney General and any other
official of the Department of Justice, means--
``(i) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and
``(ii) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives; and
``(B) with respect to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services and any other official of the Department of Health
and Human Services, means--
``(i) the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions of the Senate; and
``(ii) the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives;
``(2) the term `covered agency' means--
``(A) the Department of Justice; and
``(B) the Department of Health and Human Services; and
``(3) the term `covered official' means--
``(A) the Attorney General; and
``(B) the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
``(b) Accountability.--All grants awarded by a covered
official under this part shall be subject to the following
accountability provisions:
``(1) Audit requirement.--
``(A) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `unresolved
audit finding' means a finding in the final audit report of
the Inspector General of a covered agency that the audited
grantee has utilized grant funds for an unauthorized
expenditure or otherwise unallowable cost that is not closed
or resolved within 12 months after the date on which the
final audit report is issued.
``(B) Audit.--Beginning in the first fiscal year beginning
after the date of enactment of this section, and in each
fiscal year thereafter, the Inspector General of a covered
agency shall conduct audits of recipients of grants awarded
by the applicable covered official under this part to prevent
waste, fraud, and abuse of funds by grantees. The Inspector
General shall determine the appropriate number of grantees to
be audited each year.
``(C) Mandatory exclusion.--A recipient of grant funds
under this part that is found to have an unresolved audit
finding shall not be eligible to receive grant funds under
this part during the first 2 fiscal years beginning after the
end of the 12-month period described in subparagraph (A).
``(D) Priority.--In awarding grants under this part, a
covered official shall give priority to eligible applicants
that did not have an unresolved audit finding during the 3
fiscal years before submitting an application for a grant
under this part.
``(E) Reimbursement.--If an entity is awarded grant funds
under this part during the 2-fiscal-year period during which
the entity is barred from receiving grants under subparagraph
(C), the covered official that awarded the grant funds
shall--
``(i) deposit an amount equal to the amount of the grant
funds that were improperly awarded to the grantee into the
General Fund of the Treasury; and
``(ii) seek to recoup the costs of the repayment to the
fund from the grant recipient that was erroneously awarded
grant funds.
``(2) Nonprofit organization requirements.--
``(A) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph and the
grant programs under this part, the term `nonprofit
organization' means an organization that is described in
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is
exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code.
``(B) Prohibition.--A covered official may not award a
grant under this part to a nonprofit organization that holds
money in offshore accounts for the purpose of avoiding paying
the tax described in section 511(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986.
``(C) Disclosure.--Each nonprofit organization that is
awarded a grant under this part and uses the procedures
prescribed in regulations to create a rebuttable presumption
of reasonableness for the compensation of its officers,
directors, trustees, and key employees, shall disclose to the
applicable covered official, in the application for the
grant, the process for determining such compensation,
including the independent persons involved in reviewing and
approving such compensation, the comparability data used, and
contemporaneous substantiation of the deliberation and
decision. Upon request, a covered official shall make the
information disclosed under this subparagraph available for
public inspection.
``(3) Conference expenditures.--
``(A) Limitation.--No amounts made available to a covered
official under this part may be used by the covered official,
or by any individual or entity awarded discretionary funds
through a cooperative agreement under this part, to host or
support any expenditure for conferences that uses more than
$20,000 in funds made available by the covered official,
unless the covered official provides prior written
authorization that the funds may be expended to host the
conference.
``(B) Written authorization.--Written authorization under
subparagraph (A) shall include a written estimate of all
costs associated with the conference, including the cost of
all food, beverages, audio-visual equipment, honoraria for
speakers, and entertainment.
``(C) Report.--
``(i) Department of justice.--The Deputy Attorney General
shall submit to the applicable committees an annual report on
all conference expenditures approved by the Attorney General
under this paragraph.
``(ii) Department of health and human services.--The Deputy
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit to the
applicable committees an annual report on all conference
expenditures approved by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services under this paragraph.
``(4) Annual certification.--Beginning in the first fiscal
year beginning after the date of enactment of this section,
each covered official shall submit to the applicable
committees an annual certification--
``(A) indicating whether--
``(i) all audits issued by the Office of the Inspector
General of the applicable agency under paragraph (1) have
been completed and reviewed by the appropriate Assistant
Attorney General or Director, or the appropriate official of
the Department of Health and Human Services, as applicable;
``(ii) all mandatory exclusions required under paragraph
(1)(C) have been issued; and
``(iii) all reimbursements required under paragraph (1)(E)
have been made; and
``(B) that includes a list of any grant recipients excluded
under paragraph (1) from the previous year.
``(c) Preventing Duplicative Grants.--
``(1) In general.--Before a covered official awards a grant
to an applicant under this part, the covered official shall
compare potential grant awards with other grants awarded
under this part by the covered official to determine if
duplicate grant awards are awarded for the same purpose.
``(2) Report.--If a covered official awards duplicate
grants to the same applicant for the same purpose, the
covered official shall submit to the applicable committees a
report that includes--
``(A) a list of all duplicate grants awarded, including the
total dollar amount of any duplicate grants awarded; and
``(B) the reason the covered official awarded the duplicate
grants.''.
(b) Other Grants.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
(A) the term ``applicable committees''--
(i) with respect to the Attorney General and any other
official of the Department of Justice, means--
(I) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and
(II) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives; and
(ii) with respect to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services and any other official of the Department of Health
and Human Services, means--
(I) the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
of the Senate; and
(II) the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives;
(B) the term ``covered agency'' means--
(i) the Department of Justice; and
(ii) the Department of Health and Human Services;
(C) the term ``covered grant'' means a grant under section
201, 302, or 601 of this Act or section 508 of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb-1) (as amended by section
501 of this Act); and
(D) the term ``covered official'' means--
(i) the Attorney General; and
(ii) the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(2) Accountability.--All covered grants awarded by a
covered official shall be subject to the following
accountability provisions:
(A) Audit requirement.--
(i) Definition.--In this subparagraph, the term
``unresolved audit finding'' means a finding in the final
audit report of the Inspector General of a covered agency
that the audited grantee has utilized grant funds for an
unauthorized expenditure or otherwise unallowable cost that
is not closed or resolved within 12 months after the date on
which the final audit report is issued.
(ii) Audit.--Beginning in the first fiscal year beginning
after the date of enactment
[[Page 2902]]
of this Act, and in each fiscal year thereafter, the
Inspector General of a covered agency shall conduct audits of
recipients of covered grants awarded by the applicable
covered official to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of funds
by grantees. The Inspector General shall determine the
appropriate number of grantees to be audited each year.
(iii) Mandatory exclusion.--A recipient of covered grant
funds that is found to have an unresolved audit finding shall
not be eligible to receive covered grant funds during the
first 2 fiscal years beginning after the end of the 12-month
period described in clause (i).
(iv) Priority.--In awarding covered grants, a covered
official shall give priority to eligible applicants that did
not have an unresolved audit finding during the 3 fiscal
years before submitting an application for a covered grant.
(v) Reimbursement.--If an entity is awarded covered grant
funds during the 2-fiscal-year period during which the entity
is barred from receiving grants under clause (iii), the
covered official that awarded the funds shall--
(I) deposit an amount equal to the amount of the grant
funds that were improperly awarded to the grantee into the
General Fund of the Treasury; and
(II) seek to recoup the costs of the repayment to the fund
from the grant recipient that was erroneously awarded grant
funds.
(B) Nonprofit organization requirements.--
(i) Definition.--For purposes of this subparagraph and the
covered grant programs, the term ``nonprofit organization''
means an organization that is described in section 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is exempt from
taxation under section 501(a) of such Code.
(ii) Prohibition.--A covered official may not award a
covered grant to a nonprofit organization that holds money in
offshore accounts for the purpose of avoiding paying the tax
described in section 511(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
(iii) Disclosure.--Each nonprofit organization that is
awarded a covered grant and uses the procedures prescribed in
regulations to create a rebuttable presumption of
reasonableness for the compensation of its officers,
directors, trustees, and key employees, shall disclose to the
applicable covered official, in the application for the
grant, the process for determining such compensation,
including the independent persons involved in reviewing and
approving such compensation, the comparability data used, and
contemporaneous substantiation of the deliberation and
decision. Upon request, a covered official shall make the
information disclosed under this clause available for public
inspection.
(C) Conference expenditures.--
(i) Limitation.--No amounts made available to a covered
official under a covered grant program may be used by the
covered official, or by any individual or entity awarded
discretionary funds through a cooperative agreement under a
covered grant program, to host or support any expenditure for
conferences that uses more than $20,000 in funds made
available by the covered official, unless the covered
official provides prior written authorization that the funds
may be expended to host the conference.
(ii) Written authorization.--Written authorization under
clause (i) shall include a written estimate of all costs
associated with the conference, including the cost of all
food, beverages, audio-visual equipment, honoraria for
speakers, and entertainment.
(iii) Report.--
(I) Department of justice.--The Deputy Attorney General
shall submit to the applicable committees an annual report on
all conference expenditures approved by the Attorney General
under this subparagraph.
(II) Department of health and human services.--The Deputy
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit to the
applicable committees an annual report on all conference
expenditures approved by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services under this subparagraph.
(D) Annual certification.--Beginning in the first fiscal
year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act, each
covered official shall submit to the applicable committees an
annual certification--
(i) indicating whether--
(I) all audits issued by the Office of the Inspector
General of the applicable agency under subparagraph (A) have
been completed and reviewed by the appropriate Assistant
Attorney General or Director, or the appropriate official of
the Department of Health and Human Services, as applicable;
(II) all mandatory exclusions required under subparagraph
(A)(iii) have been issued; and
(III) all reimbursements required under subparagraph (A)(v)
have been made; and
(ii) that includes a list of any grant recipients excluded
under subparagraph (A) from the previous year.
(3) Preventing duplicative grants.--
(A) In general.--Before a covered official awards a covered
grant to an applicant, the covered official shall compare
potential grant awards with other covered grants awarded by
the covered official to determine if duplicate grant awards
are awarded for the same purpose.
(B) Report.--If a covered official awards duplicate grants
to the same applicant for the same purpose, the covered
official shall submit to the applicable committees a report
that includes--
(i) a list of all duplicate grants awarded, including the
total dollar amount of any duplicate grants awarded; and
(ii) the reason the covered official awarded the duplicate
grants.
SEC. 705. PROGRAMS TO PREVENT PRESCRIPTION DRUG ABUSE UNDER
THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.
(a) Drug Management Program for At-Risk Beneficiaries.--
(1) In general.--Section 1860D-4(c) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-104(c)) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(5) Drug management program for at-risk beneficiaries.--
``(A) Authority to establish.--A PDP sponsor may establish
a drug management program for at-risk beneficiaries under
which, subject to subparagraph (B), the PDP sponsor may, in
the case of an at-risk beneficiary for prescription drug
abuse who is an enrollee in a prescription drug plan of such
PDP sponsor, limit such beneficiary's access to coverage for
frequently abused drugs under such plan to frequently abused
drugs that are prescribed for such beneficiary by a
prescriber (or prescribers) selected under subparagraph (D),
and dispensed for such beneficiary by a pharmacy (or
pharmacies) selected under such subparagraph.
``(B) Requirement for notices.--
``(i) In general.--A PDP sponsor may not limit the access
of an at-risk beneficiary for prescription drug abuse to
coverage for frequently abused drugs under a prescription
drug plan until such sponsor--
``(I) provides to the beneficiary an initial notice
described in clause (ii) and a second notice described in
clause (iii); and
``(II) verifies with the providers of the beneficiary that
the beneficiary is an at-risk beneficiary for prescription
drug abuse, as described in subparagraph (C)(iv).
``(ii) Initial notice.--An initial written notice described
in this clause is a notice that provides to the beneficiary--
``(I) notice that the PDP sponsor has identified the
beneficiary as potentially being an at-risk beneficiary for
prescription drug abuse;
``(II) information, when possible, describing State and
Federal public health resources that are designed to address
prescription drug abuse to which the beneficiary may have
access, including substance use disorder treatment services,
addiction treatment services, mental health services, and
other counseling services;
``(III) a request for the beneficiary to submit to the PDP
sponsor preferences for which prescribers and pharmacies the
beneficiary would prefer the PDP sponsor to select under
subparagraph (D) in the case that the beneficiary is
identified as an at-risk beneficiary for prescription drug
abuse as described in clause (iii)(I);
``(IV) an explanation of the meaning and consequences of
the identification of the beneficiary as potentially being an
at-risk beneficiary for prescription drug abuse, including an
explanation of the drug management program established by the
PDP sponsor pursuant to subparagraph (A);
``(V) clear instructions that explain how the beneficiary
can contact the PDP sponsor in order to submit to the PDP
sponsor the preferences described in subclause (IV) and any
other communications relating to the drug management program
for at-risk beneficiaries established by the PDP sponsor;
``(VI) contact information for other organizations that can
provide the beneficiary with information regarding drug
management program for at-risk beneficiaries (similar to the
information provided by the Secretary in other standardized
notices to part D eligible individuals enrolled in
prescription drug plans under this part); and
``(VII) notice that the beneficiary has a right to an
appeal pursuant to subparagraph (E).
``(iii) Second notice.--A second written notice described
in this clause is a notice that provides to the beneficiary
notice--
``(I) that the PDP sponsor has identified the beneficiary
as an at-risk beneficiary for prescription drug abuse;
``(II) that such beneficiary has been sent, or informed of,
such identification in the initial notice and is now subject
to the requirements of the drug management program for at-
risk beneficiaries established by such PDP sponsor for such
plan;
``(III) of the prescriber and pharmacy selected for such
individual under subparagraph (D);
``(IV) of, and information about, the right of the
beneficiary to a reconsideration and an appeal under
subsection (h) of such identification and the prescribers and
pharmacies selected;
``(V) that the beneficiary can, in the case that the
beneficiary has not previously submitted to the PDP sponsor
preferences for which prescribers and pharmacies the
beneficiary would prefer the PDP sponsor select under
subparagraph (D), submit such preferences to the PDP sponsor;
and
``(VI) that includes clear instructions that explain how
the beneficiary can contact the PDP sponsor in order to
submit to the PDP sponsor the preferences described in
subclause (V).
[[Page 2903]]
``(iv) Timing of notices.--
``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), a second
written notice described in clause (iii) shall be provided to
the beneficiary on a date that is not less than 30 days after
an initial notice described in clause (ii) is provided to the
beneficiary.
``(II) Exception.--In the case that the PDP sponsor, in
conjunction with the Secretary, determines that concerns
identified through rulemaking by the Secretary regarding the
health or safety of the beneficiary or regarding significant
drug diversion activities require the PDP sponsor to provide
a second notice described in clause (iii) to the beneficiary
on a date that is earlier than the date described in
subclause (II), the PDP sponsor may provide such second
notice on such earlier date.
``(III) Form of notice.--The written notices under clauses
(ii) and (iii) shall be in a format determined appropriate by
the Secretary, taking into account beneficiary preferences.
``(C) At-risk beneficiary for prescription drug abuse.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term
`at-risk beneficiary for prescription drug abuse' means a
part D eligible individual who is not an exempted individual
described in clause (ii) and--
``(I) who is identified through criteria developed by the
Secretary in consultation with PDP sponsors and other
stakeholders described in subsection section __(g)(2)(A) of
the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 based on
clinical factors indicating misuse or abuse of prescription
drugs described in subparagraph (G), including dosage,
quantity, duration of use, number of and reasonable access to
prescribers, and number of and reasonable access to
pharmacies used to obtain such drug; or
``(II) with respect to whom the PDP sponsor of a
prescription drug plan, upon enrolling such individual in
such plan, received notice from the Secretary that such
individual was identified under this paragraph to be an at-
risk beneficiary for prescription drug abuse under a
prescription drug plan in which such individual was
previously enrolled and such identification has not been
terminated under subparagraph (F).
``(ii) Exempted individual described.--An exempted
individual described in this clause is an individual who--
``(I) receives hospice care under this title;
``(II) resides in a long-term care facility, a facility
described in section 1905(d), or other facility under
contract with a single pharmacy; or
``(III) the Secretary elects to treat as an exempted
individual for purposes of clause (i).
``(iii) Program size.--The Secretary shall establish
policies, including the criteria developed under clause
(i)(I) and the exemptions under clause (ii)(III), to ensure
that the population of enrollees in a drug management program
for at-risk beneficiaries operated by a prescription drug
plan can be effectively managed by such plans.
``(iv) Clinical contact.--With respect to each at-risk
beneficiary for prescription drug abuse enrolled in a
prescription drug plan offered by a PDP sponsor, the PDP
sponsor shall contact the beneficiary's providers who have
prescribed frequently abused drugs regarding whether
prescribed medications are appropriate for such beneficiary's
medical conditions.
``(D) Selection of prescribers.--
``(i) In general.--With respect to each at-risk beneficiary
for prescription drug abuse enrolled in a prescription drug
plan offered by such sponsor, a PDP sponsor shall, based on
the preferences submitted to the PDP sponsor by the
beneficiary pursuant to clauses (ii)(III) and (iii)(V) of
subparagraph (B) if applicable, select--
``(I) one, or, if the PDP sponsor reasonably determines it
necessary to provide the beneficiary with reasonable access
under clause (ii), more than one, individual who is
authorized to prescribe frequently abused drugs (referred to
in this paragraph as a `prescriber') who may write
prescriptions for such drugs for such beneficiary; and
``(II) one, or, if the PDP sponsor reasonably determines it
necessary to provide the beneficiary with reasonable access
under clause (ii), more than one, pharmacy that may dispense
such drugs to such beneficiary.
``(ii) Reasonable access.--In making the selection under
this subparagraph, a PDP sponsor shall ensure, taking into
account geographic location, beneficiary preference, impact
on cost-sharing, and reasonable travel time, that the
beneficiary continues to have reasonable access to drugs
described in subparagraph (G), including--
``(I) for individuals with multiple residences; and
``(II) in the case of natural disasters and similar
emergency situations.
``(iii) Beneficiary preferences.--
``(I) In general.--If an at-risk beneficiary for
prescription drug abuse submits preferences for which in-
network prescribers and pharmacies the beneficiary would
prefer the PDP sponsor select in response to a notice under
subparagraph (B), the PDP sponsor shall--
``(aa) review such preferences;
``(bb) select or change the selection of a prescriber or
pharmacy for the beneficiary based on such preferences; and
``(cc) inform the beneficiary of such selection or change
of selection.
``(II) Exception.--In the case that the PDP sponsor
determines that a change to the selection of a prescriber or
pharmacy under item (bb) by the PDP sponsor is contributing
or would contribute to prescription drug abuse or drug
diversion by the beneficiary, the PDP sponsor may change the
selection of a prescriber or pharmacy for the beneficiary. If
the PDP sponsor changes the selection pursuant to the
preceding sentence, the PDP sponsor shall provide the
beneficiary with--
``(aa) at least 30 days written notice of the change of
selection; and
``(bb) a rationale for the change.
``(III) Timing.--An at-risk beneficiary for prescription
drug abuse may choose to express their prescriber and
pharmacy preference and communicate such preference to their
PDP sponsor at any date while enrolled in the program,
including after a second notice under subparagraph (B)(iii)
has been provided.
``(iv) Confirmation.--Before selecting a prescriber or
pharmacy under this subparagraph, a PDP sponsor must notify
the prescriber and pharmacy that the beneficiary involved has
been identified for inclusion in the drug management program
for at-risk beneficiaries and that the prescriber and
pharmacy has been selected as the beneficiary's designated
prescriber and pharmacy.
``(E) Appeals.--The identification of an individual as an
at-risk beneficiary for prescription drug abuse under this
paragraph, a coverage determination made under a drug
management program for at-risk beneficiaries, and the
selection of a prescriber or pharmacy under subparagraph (D)
with respect to such individual shall be subject to an
expedited reconsideration and appeal pursuant to subsection
(h).
``(F) Termination of identification.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall develop standards
for the termination of identification of an individual as an
at-risk beneficiary for prescription drug abuse under this
paragraph. Under such standards such identification shall
terminate as of the earlier of--
``(I) the date the individual demonstrates that the
individual is no longer likely, in the absence of the
restrictions under this paragraph, to be an at-risk
beneficiary for prescription drug abuse described in
subparagraph (C)(i); or
``(II) the end of such maximum period of identification as
the Secretary may specify.
``(ii) Rule of construction.--Nothing in clause (i) shall
be construed as preventing a plan from identifying an
individual as an at-risk beneficiary for prescription drug
abuse under subparagraph (C)(i) after such termination on the
basis of additional information on drug use occurring after
the date of notice of such termination.
``(G) Frequently abused drug.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `frequently abused drug' means a drug
that is determined by the Secretary to be frequently abused
or diverted and that is--
``(i) a Controlled Drug Substance in Schedule CII; or
``(ii) within the same class or category of drugs as a
Controlled Drug Substance in Schedule CII, as determined
through notice and comment rulemaking.
``(H) Data disclosure.--
``(i) Data on decision to impose limitation.--In the case
of an at-risk beneficiary for prescription drug abuse (or an
individual who is a potentially at-risk beneficiary for
prescription drug abuse) whose access to coverage for
frequently abused drugs under a prescription drug plan has
been limited by a PDP sponsor under this paragraph, the
Secretary shall establish rules and procedures to require
such PDP sponsor to disclose data, including necessary
individually identifiable health information, about the
decision to impose such limitations and the limitations
imposed by the PDP sponsor under this part.
``(ii) Data to reduce fraud, abuse, and waste.--The
Secretary shall establish rules and procedures to require PDP
sponsors operating a drug management program for at-risk
beneficiaries under this paragraph to provide the Secretary
with such data as the Secretary determines appropriate for
purposes of identifying patterns of prescription drug
utilization for plan enrollees that are outside normal
patterns and that may indicate fraudulent, medically
unnecessary, or unsafe use.
``(I) Sharing of information for subsequent plan
enrollments.--The Secretary shall establish procedures under
which PDP sponsors who offer prescription drug plans shall
share information with respect to individuals who are at-risk
beneficiaries for prescription drug abuse (or individuals who
are potentially at-risk beneficiaries for prescription drug
abuse) and enrolled in a prescription drug plan and who
subsequently disenroll from such plan and enroll in another
prescription drug plan offered by another PDP sponsor.
``(J) Privacy issues.--Prior to the implementation of the
rules and procedures under this paragraph, the Secretary
shall clarify privacy requirements, including requirements
under the regulations promulgated pursuant to section 264(c)
of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
[[Page 2904]]
of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 note), related to the sharing of
data under subparagraphs (H) and (I) by PDP sponsors. Such
clarification shall provide that the sharing of such data
shall be considered to be protected health information in
accordance with the requirements of the regulations
promulgated pursuant to such section 264(c).
``(K) Education.--The Secretary shall provide education to
enrollees in prescription drug plans of PDP sponsors and
providers regarding the drug management program for at-risk
beneficiaries described in this paragraph, including
education--
``(i) provided through the improper payment outreach and
education program described in section 1874A(h); and
``(ii) through current education efforts (such as State
health insurance assistance programs described in subsection
(a)(1)(A) of section 119 of the Medicare Improvements for
Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 1395b-3 note))
and materials directed toward such enrollees.
``(L) CMS compliance review.--The Secretary shall ensure
that existing plan sponsor compliance reviews and audit
processes include the drug management programs for at-risk
beneficiaries under this paragraph, including appeals
processes under such programs.''.
(2) Information for consumers.--Section 1860D-4(a)(1)(B) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-104(a)(1)(B)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(v) The drug management program for at-risk beneficiaries
under subsection (c)(5).''.
(3) Dual eligibles.--Section 1860D-1(b)(3)(D) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-101(b)(3)(D)) is amended by
inserting ``, subject to such limits as the Secretary may
establish for individuals identified pursuant to section
1860D-4(c)(5)'' after ``the Secretary''.
(b) Utilization Management Programs.--Section 1860D-4(c) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-104(c)), as amended
by subsection (a)(1), is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting after subparagraph (D)
the following new subparagraph:
``(E) A utilization management tool to prevent drug abuse
(as described in paragraph (5)(A)).''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Utilization management tool to prevent drug abuse.--
``(A) In general.--A tool described in this paragraph is
any of the following:
``(i) A utilization tool designed to prevent the abuse of
frequently abused drugs by individuals and to prevent the
diversion of such drugs at pharmacies.
``(ii) Retrospective utilization review to identify--
``(I) individuals that receive frequently abused drugs at a
frequency or in amounts that are not clinically appropriate;
and
``(II) providers of services or suppliers that may
facilitate the abuse or diversion of frequently abused drugs
by beneficiaries.
``(iii) Consultation with the contractor described in
subparagraph (B) to verify if an individual enrolling in a
prescription drug plan offered by a PDP sponsor has been
previously identified by another PDP sponsor as an individual
described in clause (ii)(I).
``(B) Reporting.--A PDP sponsor offering a prescription
drug plan in a State shall submit to the Secretary and the
Medicare drug integrity contractor with which the Secretary
has entered into a contract under section 1893 with respect
to such State a report, on a monthly basis, containing
information on--
``(i) any provider of services or supplier described in
subparagraph (A)(ii)(II) that is identified by such plan
sponsor during the 30-day period before such report is
submitted; and
``(ii) the name and prescription records of individuals
described in paragraph (5)(C).
``(C) CMS compliance review.--The Secretary shall ensure
that plan sponsor annual compliance reviews and program
audits include a certification that utilization management
tools under this paragraph are in compliance with the
requirements for such tools.''.
(c) Treatment of Certain Complaints for Purposes of Quality
or Performance Assessment.--Section 1860D-42 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-152) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Treatment of Certain Complaints for Purposes of
Quality or Performance Assessment.--In conducting a quality
or performance assessment of a PDP sponsor, the Secretary
shall develop or utilize existing screening methods for
reviewing and considering complaints that are received from
enrollees in a prescription drug plan offered by such PDP
sponsor and that are complaints regarding the lack of access
by the individual to prescription drugs due to a drug
management program for at-risk beneficiaries.''.
(d) Sense of Congress Regarding Use of Technology Tools To
Combat Fraud.--It is the sense of Congress that MA
organizations and PDP sponsors should consider using e-
prescribing and other health information technology tools to
support combating fraud under MA-PD plans and prescription
drug plans under parts C and D of the Medicare Program.
(e) GAO Study and Report.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study on the implementation of the amendments
made by this section, including the effectiveness of the at-
risk beneficiaries for prescription drug abuse drug
management programs authorized by section 1860D-4(c)(5) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-10(c)(5)), as added
by subsection (a)(1). Such study shall include an analysis
of--
(A) the impediments, if any, that impair the ability of
individuals described in subparagraph (C) of such section
1860D-4(c)(5) to access clinically appropriate levels of
prescription drugs;
(B) the effectiveness of the reasonable access protections
under subparagraph (D)(ii) of such section 1860D-4(c)(5),
including the impact on beneficiary access and health;
(C) how best to define the term ``designated pharmacy'',
including whether the definition of such term should include
an entity that is comprised of a number of locations that are
under common ownership and that electronically share a real-
time, online database and whether such a definition would
help to protect and improve beneficiary access;
(D) the types of--
(i) individuals who, in the implementation of such section,
are determined to be individuals described in such
subparagraph; and
(ii) prescribers and pharmacies that are selected under
subparagraph (D) of such section;
(E) the extent of prescription drug abuse beyond Controlled
Drug Substances in Schedule CII in parts C and D of the
Medicare program; and
(F) other areas determined appropriate by the Comptroller
General.
(2) Report.--Not later than July 1, 2019, the Comptroller
General of the United States shall submit to the appropriate
committees of jurisdiction of Congress a report on the study
conducted under paragraph (1), together with recommendations
for such legislation and administrative action as the
Comptroller General determines to be appropriate.
(f) Report by Secretary.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 12 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall submit to the appropriate committees of
jurisdiction of Congress a report on ways to improve upon the
appeals process for Medicare beneficiaries with respect to
prescription drug coverage under part D of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act. Such report shall include an analysis
comparing appeals processes under parts C and D of such title
XVIII.
(2) Feedback.--In development of the report described in
paragraph (1), the Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall solicit feedback on the current appeals process from
stakeholders, such as beneficiaries, consumer advocates, plan
sponsors, pharmacy benefit managers, pharmacists, providers,
independent review entity evaluators, and pharmaceutical
manufacturers.
(g) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (d)(2),
the amendments made by this section shall apply to
prescription drug plans for plan years beginning on or after
January 1, 2018.
(2) Stakeholder meetings prior to effective date.--
(A) In general.--Not later than January 1, 2017, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall convene
stakeholders, including individuals entitled to benefits
under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act or
enrolled under part B of such title of such Act, advocacy
groups representing such individuals, clinicians, plan
sponsors, pharmacists, retail pharmacies, entities delegated
by plan sponsors, and biopharmaceutical manufacturers for
input regarding the topics described in subparagraph (B). The
input described in the preceding sentence shall be provided
to the Secretary in sufficient time in order for the
Secretary to take such input into account in promulgating the
regulations pursuant to subparagraph (C).
(B) Topics described.--The topics described in this
subparagraph are the topics of--
(i) the impact on cost-sharing and ensuring accessibility
to prescription drugs for enrollees in prescription drug
plans of PDP sponsors who are at-risk beneficiaries for
prescription drug abuse (as defined in paragraph (5)(C) of
section 1860D-4(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395w-10(c)));
(ii) the use of an expedited appeals process under which
such an enrollee may appeal an identification of such
enrollee as an at-risk beneficiary for prescription drug
abuse under such paragraph (similar to the processes
established under the Medicare Advantage program under part C
of title XVIII of the Social Security Act);
(iii) the types of enrollees that should be treated as
exempted individuals, as described in clause (ii) of such
paragraph;
(iv) the manner in which terms and definitions in paragraph
(5) of such section 1860D-4(c) should be applied, such as the
use of clinical appropriateness in determining whether
[[Page 2905]]
an enrollee is an at-risk beneficiary for prescription drug
abuse as defined in subparagraph (C) of such paragraph (5);
(v) the information to be included in the notices described
in subparagraph (B) of such section and the standardization
of such notices;
(vi) with respect to a PDP sponsor that establishes a drug
management program for at-risk beneficiaries under such
paragraph (5), the responsibilities of such PDP sponsor with
respect to the implementation of such program;
(vii) notices for plan enrollees at the point of sale that
would explain why an at-risk beneficiary has been prohibited
from receiving a prescription at a location outside of the
designated pharmacy;
(viii) evidence-based prescribing guidelines for opiates;
and
(ix) the sharing of claims data under parts A and B with
PDP sponsors.
(C) Rulemaking.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall, taking into account the input gathered pursuant to
subparagraph (A) and after providing notice and an
opportunity to comment, promulgate regulations to carry out
the provisions of, and amendments made by subsections (a) and
(b).
TITLE VIII--TRANSNATIONAL DRUG TRAFFICKING ACT
SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Transnational Drug
Trafficking Act of 2015''.
SEC. 802. POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE OR DISTRIBUTION FOR
PURPOSES OF UNLAWFUL IMPORTATIONS.
Section 1009 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export
Act (21 U.S.C. 959) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections
(c) and (d), respectively; and
(2) in subsection (a), by striking ``It shall'' and all
that follows and inserting the following: ``It shall be
unlawful for any person to manufacture or distribute a
controlled substance in schedule I or II or flunitrazepam or
a listed chemical intending, knowing, or having reasonable
cause to believe that such substance or chemical will be
unlawfully imported into the United States or into waters
within a distance of 12 miles of the coast of the United
States.
``(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture or
distribute a listed chemical--
``(1) intending or knowing that the listed chemical will be
used to manufacture a controlled substance; and
``(2) intending, knowing, or having reasonable cause to
believe that the controlled substance will be unlawfully
imported into the United States.''.
SEC. 803. TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES.
Chapter 113 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 2318(b)(2), by striking ``section 2320(e)''
and inserting ``section 2320(f)''; and
(2) in section 2320--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (4) and
inserting the following:
``(4) traffics in a drug and knowingly uses a counterfeit
mark on or in connection with such drug,'';
(B) in subsection (b)(3), in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A), by striking ``counterfeit drug'' and
inserting ``drug that uses a counterfeit mark on or in
connection with the drug''; and
(C) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (6) and
inserting the following:
``(6) the term `drug' means a drug, as defined in section
201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
321).''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to
speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that on
Monday, March 14, at 4 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to
consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 476, that there be 90
minutes for debate only on the nomination, equally divided in the usual
form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on
the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed,
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table;
that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and
then the Senate resume legislative session without any intervening
action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Iowa.
____________________
SENATE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, as many Iowans know, I made a practice
of holding townhall meetings in each of the 99 counties of my State
every year. It has become known in the media as a ``Full Grassley.''
That is not something I named it. That is something someone else named
it. It is kind of a flattering name, but in some ways it does not make
sense because the townhalls are not about Senator Grassley. They are
about hearing from Iowans whom I am proud to serve. They are about
hearing about the real problems my constituents have, and, of course,
from our end, trying to find practical solutions to those problems.
That is what I work on every day. I suppose all of my colleagues would
say that is what they work on every day.
On many occasions at my townhall meetings in recent years, Iowans
have asked me why the Senate never gets anything done. Both parties
probably shoulder some of the blame for this attitude out there at the
grassroots, but the reality is that the most obvious, the most glaring,
the most unmistakable reason for the Senate's recent paralysis is the
way Democratic Leader Reid ran it before he was toppled as majority
leader.
When the Democratic leader was in control of the Senate, he was the
one who decided not to empower his committee chairs to craft and
advance bipartisan legislation. He decided not to give all Members,
Republican and Democratic alike, a real opportunity to participate in
the process. He decided not to empower the Senate to address real
problems that real people face every day.
Instead, he chose dysfunction and gridlock over practicality and
problem solving. By November 2014, the American people had finally had
enough. After the American people spoke, the Democratic leader no
longer controlled the Senate. Since the Senate has been under
Republican leadership, things have started to work again. You see it in
the latest example of this bill passing almost unanimously. So this is
an example of Senators partnering across the aisle. Legislation is
moving. The result is real progress on real issues facing our country.
I am proud the Judiciary Committee has played its part. As chairman,
my goal has been to open the process and seek as much consensus as
possible. The results reflect that. We have reported 21 bills out of
committee, all with bipartisan support. I would like to walk through
some of these results because there is a lot of credit to go around on
both sides of the aisle.
Last February the committee passed the Justice for Victims of
Trafficking Act. We passed it unanimously, 19 to 0. The bill enhances
penalties for human trafficking and equips law enforcement with new
tools to target predators who traffic in innocent young people. The
bill passed the Senate 99 to 0 and was passed into law.
Yes, there were some bumps along the way. When the Democratic leader
realized that genuine bipartisanship had broken out and that we might
actually accomplish something, a controversy had to be manufactured
about the Hyde amendment on that particular trafficking bill, but
eventually the Democratic leader took yes for an answer and the bill
got done.
This victory was a credit to the leadership of one Democrat and one
Republican--Senator Cornyn and Senator Klobuchar. Their bill provided
real solutions for real victims of trafficking. A few months later, in
October, the committee passed the Sentencing Reform and Corrections
Act. Sentencing reform is a difficult and complex issue. Many Senators
have strongly held views. Despite that, the bill emerged from our
committee with a strong 15-to-5 bipartisanship vote. My bill would
recalibrate prison sentences for certain drug offenders, target violent
criminals, and grant judges greater discretion at sentencing for low-
level, nonviolent drug crimes. I am grateful for the Senators who have
partnered with me on this legislation, especially Senators Durbin,
Cornyn, Whitehouse,
[[Page 2906]]
and Lee. I am hopeful that if we keep working together, landmark
sentencing reform can be another major accomplishment of this Senate.
Time is growing short, but I cannot think of a more productive use of
the Senate's time than to make our criminal laws more just. This is
another example of a real problem we can solve together.
Also, in July of last year, the committee passed my Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act, again, without
opposition. The bill will ensure that at-risk youth are fairly and
effectively served by juvenile justice grant programs. These important
programs provide the chance for kids to get back on the right track so
they will not enter the criminal justice system as adults. Every one of
these young people are worth helping to reach their greatest potential.
Senator Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, and I are working
hard to move this bill through the full Senate. I thank him for working
with me on it.
There are many other bipartisan accomplishments of this Senate that
the Judiciary Committee cannot take credit for. I will not try to go
through all of them, of course, but one example that comes to mind was
the outstanding work of Senator Burr, a Republican, Senator Feinstein,
a Democrat, on the cyber security bill. That legislation passed the
Senate on a solid 74-to-21 vote. A conference version of it was later
signed into law by the President. With reports of breaches of our
personal data on an almost daily basis, it is self-evident that this
bill helped to address a real problem that has affected millions of
Americans.
That brings me to the Senate's passage of the bill that was just
voted on, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act--CARA, for
short. It passed today with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. This
legislation reflects the Senate at its finest, working in a bipartisan
way to address an awful epidemic that is gripping our country.
I thank the authors of CARA for their leadership in crafting the
legislation and working with me to move it through the Judiciary
Committee and out of that committee unanimously. In particular, I thank
Senators Portman, Ayotte, Whitehouse, and Klobuchar; you see, two
Democrats and two Republicans. Real lives will be saved because of the
leadership of this bipartisan group. That is not something we can say
every day around the Senate. I know the efforts of those Senators and
others to address this epidemic stretch back a few years.
It is a shame the Democratic leader decided not to address this
crisis at the early stage when he was deciding the agenda of the
Senate, but he decided not to act, even in the face of mounting
evidence that the country was facing a grave and gathering epidemic of
heroin and opioid painkiller overdoses. Deaths from prescription opioid
painkillers rose over 30 percent from 2007 to 2014. Heroin overdose
deaths more than quadrupled during that time. Heroin seizures at the
southwest border more than quadrupled as well. All the while, the
Democratic leader never brought a bill to the floor to address the
crisis.
So given the dysfunction that had overtaken the Senate not long ago,
we should take a moment to appreciate the bipartisan process through
which the Senate just passed this CARA bill. As the Republican chairman
of the Judiciary Committee, I moved a Democratic bill through the
committee. It passed without opposition. Then the Republican leader
promptly scheduled the bill for floor consideration. I don't recall
that ever happening under the former Democratic leadership. The Senate
had rollcall votes on four amendments, although the Republican leader
offered more such votes on Democratic amendments. All four of those
amendments were offered by Democratic Senators, and the bill passed
overwhelmingly, as amended. This process would have been unthinkable
under the Democratic leader. This simply would not have happened. You
know the statistics. There were 18 rollcall votes on amendments all
during the year 2014. During 2015, we had 198 rollcall votes on
amendments and only 4 more Republican amendments than Democratic
amendments.
Yes, once again the Democratic leader tried to manufacture a
controversy when this bill first came to the floor about a week ago
Monday, this time over some alleged funding for this heroin-opioid
epidemic. But when $400 million in newly appropriated money for it
hasn't even been spent yet, well, that argument by the Democratic
leader was a tough one to sell.
Over the last few days, the Democratic leader played some games with
negotiations on a managers' package of amendments. The Republican side,
the majority side, worked hard to clear amendments offered by many
Democrats, including Senators Durbin, Gillibrand, Heinrich, Kaine,
McCaskill, Blumenthal, Schatz, Heitkamp, and Cardin, but the Democratic
leader objected to completely uncontroversial, commonsense amendments
that would be in the package offered by two Republicans, Senator
Johnson and Senator Kirk. Why? Simply because these Republican Senators
are up for reelection this year, and under those circumstances, we
couldn't reach an agreement. So all these Democratic amendments didn't
go because the Democratic leader had objection to two Republican,
relatively noncontroversial amendments, one of them absolutely
noncontroversial.
How noncontroversial were these amendments? Let me give you one
example. Senator Johnson wanted to add the Indian Health Service as a
member of the task force the bill creates to develop best prescribing
practices for opioids. I suspect many Americans, including even people
living in the State of Nevada, would think Senator Johnson's idea is a
good one. Addiction is a problem for so many in our country, and the
Native American community is unfortunately no exception. But this is
the kind of dysfunction, the kind of gridlock that the Democratic
leader is known for. A good idea becomes a bad idea if it is simply
offered by a Member of the Republican Party, and that especially is the
case if you are a Republican up for reelection.
As CARA's name reflects, the bill addresses this epidemic
comprehensively, supporting prevention, education, treatment, recovery,
and law enforcement. CARA begins with prevention and education. The
bill authorizes awareness and education campaigns so that the public
understands the dangers of becoming addicted. It also creates a
national task force to develop best prescribing practices, as I
mentioned. The bill encourages the use of prescription drug monitoring
programs, such as those in my State of Iowa, which help to detect and
deter what is called doctor shopping behaviors by addicts. The bill
authorizes an expansion of the Federal program that allows patients to
safely dispose of old or unused medications so that these drugs don't
fall into the hands of young people. In fact, along with a few other
committee members, I helped start the original take-back program in
2010 through the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act.
CARA also focuses on treatment and recovery. The bill authorizes
programs to provide first responders with training to use naloxone, a
drug that can reverse the effects of an opioid overdose and directly
save lives. Critically, the bill provides that a set portion of
naloxone funding go to rural areas, like much of Iowa, which are being
affected most acutely. This is critical when someone overdoses and
isn't near a hospital.
The bill also authorizes an expansion of Drug-Free Communities Act
grants to those areas that are most dramatically affected by the opioid
epidemic. And it also authorizes funds for programs that encourage the
use of medication-assisted treatment, provide community-based support
for those in recovery, and address the unique needs of pregnant and
postpartum women who are addicted to opioids.
Finally, the bill also bolsters law enforcement efforts as well. The
bill reauthorizes Federal funding for State task forces that
specifically address heroin trafficking.
So in all these ways, CARA will help real people address the very
real epidemic. The eastern part of my State has been hit the hardest.
The human
[[Page 2907]]
costs of what is happening across so many of these communities is
incalculable. Every life that is lost or changed forever by this crisis
is precious, especially for many young people who fall victim to
addiction early in their lives. There is so much human potential at
stake.
I can't wait until my next townhall meeting. I am going to be proud
to explain how the Senate did something today that will help so many
people in Iowa and around the Nation, Republicans and Democrats working
together. Let's keep it going.
I yield the floor.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in
morning business for such time as I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
REMEMBERING DR. MIGUEL ENCINIAS
Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I rise today to remember a great New
Mexican and a great American, Dr. Miguel Encinias, who passed away on
Saturday, February 20, at the age of 92.
New Mexico has a long and proud tradition of military service. Dr.
Encinias is often called ``New Mexico's most decorated veteran.'' He
fought in three wars and was the recipient of 3 Distinguished Flying
Crosses, 14 Air Medals, and 2 Purple Hearts. His military career is one
of courage and sacrifice. He later played an important role in the
creation of the World War II Memorial here in Washington, DC.
If the measure of a life is living to the utmost of one's talents and
giving the utmost of one's self, Miguel Encinias is an inspiration to
all of us. I think that is why he will long be remembered with such
admiration and gratitude.
His service began at the young age of 16 when he joined the New
Mexico National Guard in 1939. Within 4 years, he had become a second
lieutenant and a pilot in the Army Air Corps. Over the next three
decades he fought with distinction in three wars: World War II, the
Korean war, and Vietnam.
As his friend and mine, Ralph Arellanes, who is chairman of the
Hispano Roundtable of New Mexico, said of Miguel: Miguel flew 245
combat missions as a fighter pilot. Few American aviators in history
have flown combat missions in three wars. Miguel was one of them.
He was shot down over Italy in 1944 and served over 15 months in a
Nazi prison camp. He volunteered to go to Korea and was shot down again
but not captured. He answered the call of his country many times with
great courage and sacrifice.
Dr. Encinias retired as a lieutenant colonel in 1971, but if that was
the conclusion of his storied military career, it was just the
beginning of new accomplishments and new achievements. He returned to
New Mexico and earned a doctorate in Hispanic literature at the
University of New Mexico.
In an article about his life, the Albuquerque Journal said: ``As a
scholar, educator, New Mexico historian, and decorated combat flyer in
three wars, Miguel Encinias both studied and shaped history in a life
that spanned nine decades.''
There was an article about Miguel in the Santa Fe New Mexican, and
they put it this way: ``An ace in the air, a scholar on the ground.''
He earlier obtained a degree in political science at Georgetown
University and a master's degree at the Institute of Political Studies
in Paris.
In 1995 he was requested by President Clinton to serve on the World
War II Memorial Advisory Board. By the time the memorial was built in
2004, Dr. Encinias was the only living member of the board to see it
completed. It was a happy day for him.
In an interview with the Albuquerque Journal, Dr. Encinias's son,
Juan-Pablo Encinias, summed up what so many who knew Dr. Encinias
understood: ``It's kind of amazing how much he accomplished,'' his son
said. ``He really didn't stop.''
Those accomplishments, according to the Journal, included teaching
Hispanic literature at two universities and developing bilingual
education in New Mexico schools.
Dr. Encinias also found the time to write several books on New Mexico
history and to fund a theater group and a light opera company in
Albuquerque.
His son Juan-Pablo also remarked to the Journal that Dr. Encinias
``was very just and felt very strongly about people getting their fair
shake in life.''
Dr. Encinias was honored for his work for civil rights and social
justice by the New Mexico LULAC branch in 2007 and the Hispano
Roundtable of New Mexico in 2011. As important as the medals and honors
are, they aren't the most important thing we will remember about Dr.
Encinias. It is the example he set in always doing his best, in always
giving back, both in wartime and at home.
His daughter Isabel shared with me that although her father had
incredibly high standards and was very tough, he had an incredible
amount of compassion and always fought for the underdog.
Whether risking his own life to save that of his fellow airmen or
fighting for quality education and opportunity for everyone, Miguel
Encinias committed himself to the needs of others.
On November 11, 1995, at the World War II Memorial site dedication,
Dr. Encinias was introduced by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. He received a standing ovation from President Clinton and
everyone present. They knew they were seeing a true patriot and a true
hero and a great American. On that day, President Clinton thanked Dr.
Encinias and said for ``your truly remarkable service to our nation.''
To all who knew this extraordinary man and who mourn him now, we know
his life was indeed a remarkable story of courage, of dedication, and
of generosity of spirit.
Madam President, my State has lost one of its heroes. Over the course
of a long and distinguished life, Dr. Miguel Encinias always found ways
to serve, and New Mexico and our Nation are better for it.
My wife Jill and I extend our sincere condolences to the Encinias
family on the passing of Dr. Encinias. We honor his courage, we honor
his service, and we mourn his loss with the family.
Thank you very much.
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. CORKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
SALE OF FIGHTER JETS TO PAKISTAN
Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I rise to speak about the discharge vote
that will take place momentarily. I just want to say that I know that
many people in our country and certainly in this body have significant
frustrations with the country of Pakistan. This Senator is one of
those. I have been to Afghanistan multiple times. I have visited
Pakistan multiple times. Our relationship is one that is very complex.
Certainly, Pakistan has been duplicitous in many ways with us relative
to their relationship with the Taliban and with Al Qaeda and, certainly
and most importantly, as it relates to this particular topic, the
Haqqani network.
Our country has worked with them to clear out the FATA areas, the
Federally Administered Tribal Areas. I think most of us have seen the
work that has taken place there, and they have worked with us closely
in that regard.
There still are issues undoubtedly that exist relative to their
relationship with the Haqqani network, in particular, but also the
Taliban. At the same time, there are negotiations that
[[Page 2908]]
are underway that are very important to create a lasting peace in
Afghanistan. Even though they play both sides of the fence--and I
understand that--and even though we have concerns about their
relationship with the Haqqani network, they do play a role relative to
how those negotiations are taking place.
I have issues with them. I think everyone in the country of Pakistan
by this point knows that I have issues with them, at least those who
are paying attention to this issue.
What this discharge petition is about today is that it is voting to
discharge something to the Senate floor so that there can be a vote on
ending the allowance of a sale of some fighter jets. These will be
U.S.-made fighter jets. In spite of some of the rhetoric around this,
this has nothing to do with the potential subsidy that could take place
by U.S. taxpayers.
This is about one thing. It is about whether we as a country would
prefer for Pakistan to buy American-made fighter jets or whether we
would prefer for them to buy Russian jets or French jets. This is what
this is about.
There are some issues that people have raised about potential
subsidies for this. I know Senator Cardin, who is on the floor right
now, and myself both have a hold on that--a hold to ensure that there
is some behavior changes that take place in Pakistan before any U.S.
dollars go toward this sale.
But this vote is not about that. This vote is a vote about whether we
believe that countries around the world are better off buying U.S. made
materials or whether we think they should buy them from Russia or
France. That is what this is about in its entirety.
We are seeking some behavior changes with Pakistan relative to how
they are dealing with the Taliban, with how they are dealing with the
Haqqani network. It is something that General Campbell, who has been in
charge of Afghanistan from a military standpoint, has pushed for. We
are working closely with our military and others to try to effect the
behavior changes that are necessary for us to have an appropriate
response in Afghanistan--but this is a foreign policy issue.
Again, everyone in this body, thankfully, is very concerned about our
foreign policy. Foreign policy, I might say, sometimes has to have a
degree of nuance to it. We are working with people and with
relationships that matter. It matters deeply to the people who we have
on the ground, the men and women in uniform in Afghanistan and other
places. Our efforts around foreign policy are to do everything we can
to ensure we are not utilizing men and women in uniform to solve a
problem, because that happens when diplomacy fails.
So this is a very nuanced topic, and I can just say that the Senate
deciding en bloc to block a sale to Pakistan of U.S.-made fighter jets
is going to be a huge public embarrassment to the country of Pakistan,
and there are better ways, in my opinion, for solving this problem. All
of us want to see the behavior change, and I am privileged to be in a
position to have some effect on the financing, as does Senator Cardin,
and we can deal with this issue in a more nuanced way.
I know some people will say that this is a great thing for back home.
Our people back home will love this. Surely, surely, in this body when
it comes to dealing with a country with nuclear arms and dealing with
Afghanistan, where we have been for 14 years, how we deal with foreign
policy will rise above just the immediate response and maybe
misunderstandings even that people back home can have about this type
of issue.
This relationship with Pakistan needs to move beyond the
transactional way that it is carried out. I understand that. I
understand that people are frustrated. But at the end of the day, our
goal here as representatives of the United States is to see through
good things happening for our country. That is what foreign policy is
about. It is about pursuing our national interests.
It is my strong belief that the Senate's voting today, in essence, to
begin the process of denying Pakistan the ability to purchase U.S.
fighter jets is not a way to engender things that are good for our own
U.S. national interests. A better way is for us to continue to put
pressure on them as we are doing at present, placing holds on financing
until they do some things to change their behavior and work with us
more fully relative to the Haqqani network, in particular, but also Al
Qaeda and the Taliban.
So I would urge my fellow citizens and fellow Senators to please
think about the long-term interests of our country, to think about when
a country is radicalized and has so many problems as the country of
Pakistan has, the public embarrassment that will take place by our body
doing this. Let's work together in other ways that actually can
generate behavior change by dealing with this in a more subtle way than
this blunt object that we are dealing with today.
I want to close with this--and I know Senator Cardin wants to speak,
and I know he has a meeting to go to. What we are voting on, if we
discharge this, is that we are voting on whether we would rather for
Pakistan to purchase U.S.-made fighter jets, which carry with that at
least 30 years of maintenance, meaning that every single year the
United States would be involved with these fighter jets. We could
withdraw that at any time if we thought their behavior continued to be
such that we didn't want to support it. It can stop. It maintains our
leverage with Pakistan over the longer haul. That is what our selling
them these pieces of equipment does. It maintains our leverage over
them.
Today, publicly embarrassing them and sending them to Russia or to
France to buy fighter jets ends that leverage and humiliates them at a
time when, in spite of the fact that we don't like some of the things
they do, it in essence damages our ability to continue the negotiations
that are taking place relative to trying to bring a more lasting peace
in Afghanistan.
I thank you for the time, Madam President. I yield the floor for my
good friend and ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee,
Senator Cardin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Madam President.
I want to thank Senator Corker. The two of us have worked on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee without any partisanship. These are
foreign policy issues that require the Senate to work together, and I
want to thank Senator Corker for his leadership on the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee on this issue and on many other issues.
Let me first try to explain what we believe will happen in the next
45 minutes. Under the Arms Export Control Act, the sale of military
armament to Pakistan requires the administration to give formal
notification to the Congress. Prior to that formal notification, there
is an informal process where the administration will inform the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee
that they intend to make a sale. They did that in regard to the F-16s
for Pakistan, and that is the issue we are talking about.
For several months we have been in negotiations with the
administration--as well as with stakeholders with regard to the sale of
the F-16 to Pakistan--because quite frankly we did have concerns. We
had concerns as to how it would impact the region, including India. We
had concerns about Pakistan being a nuclear weapons state. We had
concerns about Pakistan's efforts for counterinsurgency. We had
concerns about Pakistan's participation in the peace process with
Afghanistan. All of those are issues we were able to get some
discussions on and we think some progress to the F-16 sale.
The administration formally notified Congress of the F-16 sale on
February 25. At that time the bipartisan leadership of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee had
agreed the administration should go forward with the sale.
What we think will happen under the Arms Export Control Act--and any
[[Page 2909]]
Member can offer a resolution of disapproval--is that Senator Paul will
be offering to bring up a resolution of this approval. We think that
will take place in about 45 minutes. It is likely it will require a
motion to proceed or to bring the motion forward, and it is possible
the leader, the Republican leader, the majority leader, may offer a
motion to table in regard to that motion.
I urge my colleagues to understand the next vote will be whether we
are going to take up--or not--the resolution of disapproval.
Senator Corker and I both urge our colleagues that this resolution
not be approved, not be taken up; that we allow the sale to go forward
but that we maintain our leverage, as Senator Corker has explained,
because there are many more issues involved before the sale becomes
complete.
Quite frankly, the reason the F-16s are being recommended is because
Pakistan needs the F-16s for their fight against counterinsurgency. I
think all of my colleagues are aware of the mountainous terrain,
territory that is in Pakistan on the Afghan border. Pakistan needs an
air force capacity to deal with that counterinsurgency.
It is our military's judgment that these F-16s are important in
regard to that fight against counterinsurgency; that it is in our
interests, U.S. interests; that it is in the regional interests,
including the stability of its neighbor, India; and it is in the
interests of dealing with the fight against the extremists.
As I said earlier, the relationship with Pakistan is complicated. We
have several areas of major concern in that relationship, and we fully
understand the reasons Members would be concerned. We are a strategic
partner with Pakistan in rooting out terrorism. Let me remind my
colleagues, the people of Pakistan have had 40,000 deaths as a result
of extremist activities within their borders. That is an incredible
sacrifice that has been made in their campaign against terrorists,
against extremists. They have the Haqqani network, which we know has
taken out American interests in that region, they had the fight against
ISIS, and they had the fight against LeT, which is a terrorist
organization within Pakistan that has committed terrorist attacks in
India.
We want them to focus on all of these extremists. At times we don't
get the full cooperation of Pakistan for these to be the priorities
they go after. Obviously, we want to continue our partnership with
Pakistan, but we want them to deal with the threat of the Haqqani
network. We want them to focus on the threats of ISIS. We want them to
concentrate on the destabilizing impact that LeT has on the
relationship between Pakistan, India, and the cause of problems in
India. We want to see more progress.
On the second front, on the nuclear phase, Pakistan is the fastest
growing nuclear stockpile in the world. Our relationship with Pakistan
is critically important for the certainty, safety, and security of the
command and control network of their nuclear arsenal. Are they doing
everything we want them to do in that regard? No. Have we made
significant progress in the safety of their nuclear stockpile? Yes. Do
we want to continue our relationship so we can continue to make
progress? Absolutely.
The third area we need Pakistan's cooperation is in bringing together
all the stakeholders for a peaceful discussion of the peace talks in
Afghanistan. The extreme elements that are located in Pakistan need to
be part of those discussions. Pakistan can play a critical role in
helping that come about. Has Pakistan been helpful? Quite frankly, they
have. They have been working with us to get all the stakeholders
together in the talks. Could they do more? Yes, we think they could do
more.
What Chairman Corker said is absolutely accurate. We would encourage
our colleagues to vote against the resolution of disapproval or to
support our efforts to keep that off the floor, first and foremost
because the F-16s are needed by Afghanistan and U.S. interests to fight
the extremists, but just as important, it maintains the ability of the
United States to deal with Pakistan to bring about further progress in
all the areas I have talked about. As the chairman said, the worst-case
scenario is that we break our relationship with Pakistan and other
countries step in, and our ability to get changes in Pakistan's
practices as they relate to support or fighting terrorist organizations
or nuclear nonproliferation and participation in the Afghan peace talks
could be marginalized.
In order to maintain the type of bipartisan, bilateral pressure on
the problematic elements of the security sector, but while supporting
reformers in the military and civilian governments, we urge our
colleagues that it is important we take this sale to the next level.
The last point--and Chairman Corker pointed this out--we are not
signing off on the foreign military financing part. The administration
has brought forward a proposal for some reprogramming of funds to help
pay for the F-16 sale to Pakistan. In other words, we would use some of
the moneys we have already programmed for Afghanistan to be used to pay
for the sale of the F-16s. That requires a signoff from the leadership
of the two authorizing committees. Senator Corker and I had not signed
off on that--nor do we intend to sign off on that until we have further
explanations on a lot of the issues Senator Corker and I have already
raised. We have ample ways of dealing with our bilateral relationship
with Pakistan, allowing the sale formally to go forward by how the sale
will be financed.
For all those reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose Senator Paul's
resolution and allow us to continue the diplomatic path in regard to
that region.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I thank Senator Cardin and Senator
Corker for how diligently they have worked over the course of the last
several months, as both of them have stated on the floor, to make this
sale much more palatable and to address many of the concerns that both
the chairman and the ranking member had about the nature of the sale
and this long history of conflict with the Pakistanis when it comes to
our mutual concern of confronting terrorism.
The reason I come to the floor is because this body historically has
had a history of deep engagement on questions of major arms sales,
especially in regions as dangerous and as complicated as the Middle
East. As it stands today, virtually the only two Members who are deeply
and meaningfully engaged in the question of attaching conditions to
these very important arms sales are the ranking member and the chairman
of the Foreign Relations Committee. I trust their ability to hold the
administration's feet to the fire--whether it be the Pakistanis', the
Saudis', the Emirates' feet to the fire as they request weapons from
the United States, but this body writ large has to get back into the
game of providing meaningful oversight on a radical and significant
increase in the amount of arms sales the United States is providing to
the rest of the world.
From 2011 to 2015, our arms exports have increased by 27 percent.
When you compare these two periods, it is striking to note that during
that period of time our arms sales to the Middle East have increased by
61 percent.
This Senate has, at its best moments, raised important questions
about these sales. I bring you back to the 1980s, when the Senate
raised important questions and concerns about the sale of AWACS to
Saudi Arabia. On this side of the aisle, it was Senator Biden and
Senator Kerry opposing those sales. Those motions of disapproval were
ultimately unsuccessful, but through that process of deep congressional
introspection, new conditions were placed on the sale of that
technology to the Saudis that ended up a much better and safer deal for
American national security interests and for the security of our
partners in the region.
With respect to the specific sale of F-16 to Pakistan, my colleagues
have already pointed out--and I think Senator Paul will do a better job
than I of pointing out--the ways in which our aims of fighting
terrorism have been
[[Page 2910]]
contradictory with the actions of the Pakistanis, whether it be their
unwillingness to confront the Haqqani network, whether it be their
oftentimes open coordination with elements of the Taliban that the
United States is fighting inside Afghanistan. The Pakistanis have been
an unreliable partner over the course of the last 10 years in the fight
against extremism, but what I worry more about is that these F-16s will
provide cover, will provide a substitute for truly meaningful action
inside Pakistan to take on the roots of extremism. Frankly, it is too
late in many respects to beat these extremist groups if they are so
big, so powerful, so deadly that you have to bomb them from the air.
Today there are 20,000 madrassa, religious schools. Many, if not
most, are funded by the Saudis, the Gulf States, and the Iranians and
are often preaching an intolerant version of Islam that when perverted,
forms the basis of the extremist groups the United States is fighting
in the Middle East and throughout the world.
The Pakistanis have done little to nothing to try to reduce the
influence of those madrassas, of those religious schools, and of the
foreign funding that often breeds this intolerant version of religious
teaching. In a sense, we let them off the hook by selling them new
weapons systems that will, in effect, constantly force the Pakistanis
to chase their own tail.
I think it is important to understand that the Pakistanis are not
making the real meaningful contributions to rooting out extremism, and
just handing out weapon systems on the back end doesn't do the job.
I would point this body to the path forward. This is an incredibly
important conversation that we are having with respect to the F-16s,
but we have other pending military sales that will directly involve the
United States in regional civil wars and conflicts, unbeknownst often
to the American people.
One of them is a major military sales agreement with the Saudis that
would eventually resupply them for their bombing campaign in Yemen, a
campaign that has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, that has
stopped emergency relief from reaching those who have been the victims
of this humanitarian disaster, and frankly that has created space for
the expansion of ISIS and Al Qaeda, groups that want to do damage and
attack the United States, inside the newly ungovernable territory of
Yemen. Yet we are going to be confronted with another military sale to
Saudi Arabia that would double down the U.S. commitment on one side of
a civil war that if you look at the reality, doesn't seem to be
advancing our national security interests. It doesn't seem to be
helping us win the fight against ISIS and Al Qaeda.
I hope that after the break we will have the opportunity to discuss
that military sale as well because it is time for Congress to get back
into the game when it comes to our constitutional responsibility to
oversee the foreign policy led by the executive branch. It is time for
Congress to start having a meaningful impact when it comes to these
massive arms sales that often undermine U.S. national security and come
without the necessary conditions to change the reality of the decisions
made in places such as Pakistan.
I am going to support Senator Paul's resolution today, although I
hope in the future we will approach these resolutions of disapproval
with a slightly greater degree of subtlety in this respect. This is an
outright disapproval. If we vote in favor of it, this sale will not go
forward. There is another way. Congress could pass a motion of
disapproval with conditions. We could disapprove of a sale to Pakistan
pending, for instance, their commitment to join the fight against the
Haqqani network; contingent upon, for instance, their movement to
implement a law to shut down the worst and most intolerant of the
madrasas. I would suggest that should be our path forward when it comes
to the sale to the Saudis. Simple conditions could be applied to that
resolution--making sure the munitions we are selling to the Saudis
aren't used to target civilians inside Yemen; committing the Saudis to
open up pathways of humanitarian relief and assistance; a promise that
none of the funding from the United States to the partners in the
coalition to fight the Houthis will be used to directly aid extremist
groups. That is probably the better path forward for this body to take.
This is a very blunt instrument, a resolution of disapproval. I think
it is important for some of us to be on record supporting it to show
that Congress is getting back in the game when it comes to overseeing
this fairly substantial increase in arms sales to our named partners in
the Middle East, but I think there is a better way forward. I hope that
Senator Paul and others, as we start to go about doing due diligence on
future sales, will take a look at maybe a more meaningful contribution
this body can take rather than expressing our outright unconditional
disapproval. How can we make sure, if these arms sales go forward, that
they go forward with conditions attached that are in the best interest
of the United States and our partner nations?
Again, I thank Senators Corker and Cardin for their important work in
the Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am a member, and I thank
Senator Paul for having the courage to bring this resolution to the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, let me first of all thank my colleague
from the State of Connecticut for his comments. I, too, will be joining
him and others in supporting the resolution to be brought forward in
some moments by Senator Paul. I, too, agree that this is a rather blunt
instrument. A more strategic use of bringing some leverage to this kind
of action would be a more appropriate path, and I hope that in future
times, when we have a chance to review foreign arms sales, we will take
that more nuanced approach.
Madam President, while I approve of much of what the Senator from
Connecticut has said, I want to speak to this issue from a slightly
different perspective, and that is the message that at least
inadvertently we will be sending with approval of the sale of these
jets. And let me again commend Senator Corker and Senator Cardin for
appropriately looking at the issue of public financing of these sales.
If we move forward with these sales without putting some markers down,
I think we potentially not only do damage to holding Pakistan's feet to
the fire in terms of the threat of terrorists in Afghanistan and
elsewhere in the region but also potentially do damage to one of the
most important relationships our country has, and that is the strategic
relationship between the United States and India. This relationship has
been one of enormous, growing importance. India has been a valuable and
strategic partner of the United States and is a tremendous ally in
promoting global peace and security. That has not always been the case.
Relations between our two nations have been steadily improving over the
past decade, ranging from approval on the Civilian Nuclear Agreement,
to frequent coordination between our militaries, and at this point over
$100 billion in bilateral trade. Prime Minister Modi in India has made
a personal commitment to improving the ties between the United States
and India. The Prime Minister will come back to the United States at
the end of this month.
Nowhere is the potential for our strategic relationship greater than
in our bilateral defense relationship, which again has seen great
progress over the past decade. Last year our two nations signed the
framework that will advance military-to-military exchanges. We are also
proceeding with joint development of defense technology, which seeks to
increase defense sales and to create a cooperative technology and
industrial relationship that can promote both capabilities in the
United States and in India.
I viewed with some concern last month when the administration
announced the sale of these eight F-16s to Pakistan. And again I want
to commend the leadership of the Foreign Relations Committee for making
very clear that even if this sale should go forward, the financing of
this sale is still subject to further American review.
What brings me to wanting to support Senator Paul's resolution is the
[[Page 2911]]
fact that as recently as January of
this year, Pakistani-based terrorists claimed responsibility for an
attack against an Indian military base at Pathankot. The attack on this
air force base, which resulted in the killing of Indian military
forces, was a great tragedy. So far, Pakistan has refused to share
intelligence or to turn over those suspects to the Indian Government.
With those kinds of actions, I cannot go ahead and continue this
policy where we continue, in effect, to give Pakistan a pass, whether
it is actions in the region vis-a-vis Afghanistan or within their own
country but also in terms of their unwillingness to meet India even
halfway in terms of trying to bring a greater stability to one of the
regions that could potentially become a tinderbox in terms of the
border regions between India and Pakistan.
So I will be supporting Senator Paul's resolution. I hope the
Government of Pakistan hears the concern of this Senator and other
Senators. I hope they will act aggressively in terms of bringing
justice to those terrorists who invaded Indian space and attacked the
Indian Air Force base. Showing that kind of responsible behavior might
lead to at least this Senator taking a different view in terms of
future military sales.
With that, I yield the floor, and I recognize my colleague, who I
believe will bring this resolution to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
____________________
MOTION TO DISCHARGE--S.J.
RES. 31
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act of
1976, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from
further consideration of S.J. Res. 31, relating to the disapproval of
the proposed foreign military sale to the Government of Pakistan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is debatable for up to 1 hour.
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the American
taxpayers being forced to pay for fighter jets for Pakistan. Over $300
million from the American taxpayers will be designated to go to
Pakistan to pay for eight new F-16s for Pakistan. We have a lot of
problems here in our country, my friends. We have a lot of things going
on in our country that need to be taken care of, and we don't have
enough money to be sending it to Pakistan. I can't in good conscience
look away as America crumbles at home and politicians tax us to send
the money
to corrupt and duplicitous regimes abroad.
When I travel across Kentucky and I see the look of despair in the
eyes of out-of-work coal miners, when I see the anguish in the faces of
those who live in constant poverty, I wonder why the establishment of
both parties continues to send our money overseas to countries that
take our money, take our arms, and laugh in our faces.
We have given $15 billion to Pakistan--$15 billion over the last
decade--yet their previous President admits that Pakistan armed, aided,
and abetted the Taliban. You remember the Taliban in Afghanistan that
harbored and hosted bin Laden for a decade? Pakistan helped them.
Pakistan was one of only two countries that recognized the Taliban. Why
in the world would we be taxing the American people to send this money
to Pakistan?
Remember when bin Laden escaped? We chased him and he escaped. Where
did he go? To Pakistan. He lived for a decade in Pakistan. Where? About
a mile away from their military academy. Somehow they missed him. There
in a 15-foot-high walled compound, bin Laden stayed in Pakistan while
we funneled billions upon billions of dollars to them.
Pakistan to this day is said to look away, to not look at the Haqqani
network. In fact, it is accused that many members of their government
are complicit with the Haqqani network. Who is the Haqqani network? It
is a network of terrorists who kill Americans. We have American
soldiers dying at the hands of Pakistani terrorists while that
government looks the other way.
GEN John F. Campbell testified before Congress that the Haqqani
network remains the most capable threat to U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
Yet we are asked to send F-16s and good money after bad to a government
in Pakistan that looks the other way.
Pakistan is, at best, a frenemy--part friend and a lot enemy. If
Pakistan truly wants to be our ally, if Pakistan truly wants to help in
the war on radical Islam, it should not require a bribe; it should not
require the American taxpayer to subsidize arms sales. They already
have 70 F-16s. They have an air force of F-16s. What would happen if we
didn't send them eight more that we are being asked to pay for? Maybe
they would listen. Maybe they would help us. Maybe they would be an
honest broker in the fight against terrorism.
We are $19 trillion in debt. We borrow $1 million a minute. We don't
have any money to send to Pakistan to bribe them to buy planes from us.
We don't have the money. We have problems at home. Our infrastructure
crumbles at home. We have longstanding poverty at home. We have
problems in America, and we can't afford to borrow the money from China
to send it to Pakistan.
In my State, in Kentucky, we have a dozen counties with unemployment
nearly double the national rate. In Magoffin County, KY, 12.5 percent
of people are out of work. Today, those who will vote to send money to
Pakistan need to come with me to Kentucky. They need to come to
Magoffin County, and they need to look people in the face who are out
of work in America and explain to them why we should send money to
Pakistan. We have people hurting here at home.
In Harlan, the President's war on coal has led to longstanding
double-digit unemployment. In Harlan, KY, people are out of work.
People live in poverty, and they don't understand why Congress is
sending money to Pakistan.
In Leslie County, high unemployment prompts their citizens to ask:
Why? Why is the government spending billions of dollars for advanced
fighter jets for foreigners? They don't understand it. They can't
understand, when they live from day to day, why their government is
sending money to Pakistan.
As I travel around Kentucky, I ask my constituents: Should America
send money and arms to a country that persecutes Christians? I have yet
to meet a single voter who wants their tax dollars going to countries
that persecute Christians.
In Pakistan, it is the law; it is in their Constitution that if you
criticize the state religion, you can be put to death. Asia Bibi has
been on death row for nearly 5 years. Asia Bibi is a Christian. Her
crime? She went to the well to draw water, and the villagers began to
stone her. They beat her with sticks until she was bleeding. They
continued to stone her as they chanted ``Death, death to the
Christian.''
The police finally arrived, and she thought she had been saved, only
to be arrested by the Pakistani police. There she sits on death row for
5 years. Is it an ally? Is it a civilized nation that puts Christians
to death for criticizing the state religion? I defy any Member of this
body to go home and talk to the first voter. Go outside the Beltway.
Leave Congress and drive outside the Beltway and stop at the first gas
station or stop at the first grocery store and ask anybody--Republican,
Democrat, or Independent: Should we be sending money to a country that
persecutes Christians?
Asia Bibi sits on death row for criticizing the state religion, and
your money goes to support her government. What will happen to Pakistan
if they don't get eight more F-16s? They will have only 70 F-16s.
Most of the politicians here simply don't care. They don't care
whether Pakistan persecutes Christians. They know only one way. The one
way is to open our wallet and bleed us dry and hope that someday
Pakistan will change its behavior. Guess what. If you are not strong
enough to vote for this resolution, if you think some kind of
[[Page 2912]]
cajoling, flattery, and nice talk with empty words are going to change
the behavior of Pakistan, you have another thought coming. It has been
going on for decades.
When I forced a vote in the Foreign Relations Committee to say that
countries which put Christians to death for criticizing the state
religion--there are about 34 of these countries, a couple of dozen of
them who received money from us, American tax dollars going to
countries that persecute Christians. When I introduced the amendment to
say: Guess what. Let's not do it anymore. Any country that has a law
that compels a Christian and puts a Christian to death, that country
would no longer receive our money. Do you know what the vote was? It
was 18 to 2 from Washington politicians to keep sending good money
after bad because they say: Oh, the moderates there are going to change
their minds someday.
We have given them $15 billion, and I see no evidence of change in
behavior. I see insolence, arrogance, and people who laugh as they cash
our checks.
Is Pakistan our ally in the War on Terror? Well, not only did they
help the Taliban that hosted Bin Laden for a decade, but when they
finally got Bin Laden, we got him with evidence that was given to us by
a doctor in Pakistan. His name is Shakil Afridi. Where is he now?
Pakistan has locked him away in a dark, dank prison from which he will
probably never be released.
Shakil Afridi has essentially been given a life sentence by Pakistan
for the crime of helping the United States and helping all civilized
nations get to Bin Laden. He sat under the noses of the Pakistani
Government for a decade. We finally got him when Shakil Afridi helped
us.
People aren't going to continue to help America if we don't help
them, if we don't protect our human intelligence, if we don't protect
those who are willing to help America. He sits and rots in a prison.
What message do we send to Pakistan if we send them eight more F-16s
and we tell you, the American taxpayer, you are paying for it? What
message does that send to Pakistan? The message to Pakistan is that we
will just keep thumbing our nose at America, we will keep cashing their
checks, and we will laugh all the way to the bank as we do nothing to
release the Christians on death row or to release the doctor who helped
us.
Should we give planes to a country that imprisons these heroes--
heroes who helped and put their lives on the line for our country?
Today we will vote on whether the American taxpayers should foot the
bill. I have yet to meet a voter in my State of Kentucky or across
America who thinks it is a good idea to send more money to Pakistan. We
have a $19-trillion debt. We borrow $1 million a minute. We have no
money. It is not even a surplus. They say we are going to influence
Pakistan or they may rise up and say: Oh, the resolution will not stop
the money. The heck it will not. If my resolution passes, if it becomes
law, the eight jets will not go to Pakistan, they will not be
subsidized, and not one penny of American tax dollars will go to
Pakistan. That is the absolute truth. No matter what they tell you,
this stops the sale. It stops the subsidy.
We have to borrow money from China to send it to Pakistan. Such a
policy is insane and supported by no one outside of Washington. You go
anywhere in America and ask them: Should we give money? Should the
taxpayer be forced to give money to Pakistan, a country that persecutes
Christians? Nobody is for it. Yet the vast and out-of-touch
establishment in Washington continues to do it. Is it any wonder that
people are unhappy with Washington? Is it any wonder that Americans are
sick and tired of the status quo, sick and tired of people not
listening to them?
We have no money in the Treasury. We are all out of money. This
influences nothing, other than to tell the Pakistanis they can continue
doing what they want. I urge my colleagues to vote against subsidized
sales of fighter jets to Pakistan.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Can the Chair tell me how much time I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). The Senator has used 14 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. So I have 16 remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to say a few remarks about
this resolution of disapproval.
While I oppose this measure, I share the junior Senator from
Kentucky's frustration with some aspects of our relationship with
Pakistan. Notably, I think the jailing of Dr. Shakil Afridi for 23
years under highly questionable charges is an outrage.
For those of you who don't remember, Dr. Afridi helped the United
States locate Osama bin Laden. His approach may have been debatable,
but one thing is clear--he doesn't deserve to languish in a Pakistani
jail for more than two decades on manufactured charges.
I have also been troubled by the Pakistani military and intelligence
service's support for militant groups that work against U.S. interests
in the region. In fact, I would argue that many of these groups are
also working against the long term interests of our friends in Pakistan
as well, as evidenced by its own domestic terrorist problem.
I am also concerned that, despite important foreign aid given to
Pakistan, there remains a troubling failure to address basic and urgent
development needs--particularly education and schooling for girls. We
also see continued cases of extreme religious intolerance, including
death sentences for dubious charges of blasphemy.
At the same time, I also want to take a moment to acknowledge that
Pakistan has suffered horrible losses in taking on militant groups
within its own borders--something I don't think we always recognize.
And most importantly, I want to stress the importance of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee--let's allow it to do its work and
thoroughly consider this resolution first, rather than rush it through
the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time
be yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. I move to table the motion to discharge.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the
Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would
have voted ``nay.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs.
McCaskill) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 24, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 35 Leg.]
YEAS--71
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Graham
Hatch
Heitkamp
Hirono
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Markey
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
[[Page 2913]]
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--24
Ayotte
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Capito
Collins
Daines
Gillibrand
Grassley
Heinrich
Heller
Hoeven
Kirk
Manchin
Moran
Murphy
Paul
Schatz
Scott
Tester
Udall
Vitter
Warner
Warren
NOT VOTING--5
Cruz
Lee
McCaskill
Rubio
Sanders
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
____________________
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today I would like to address a very
important issue, which is the right for American citizens to know what
is in their food. I am going to be talking about the topic of
genetically modified ingredients in food. I will be pointing out that
there are genetic modifications that are largely considered to have
been beneficial and others that are largely considered to be causing
significant challenges. In both cases, there is science to bring to
bear around the benefits and there is science to bring to bear around
the disadvantages. Ultimately, I will conclude--to give a preface
here--that this is not a debate about the pros and cons. There is
information on both sides, different aspects. What is at debate is
whether our Federal Government wants to be the large, overbearing
presence in the lives of Americans and tell them what to think, or
whether we believe in our citizens' ability to use their own minds and
make their own decisions. To be able to do that, they have to be able
to know when there are genetically modified ingredients in the foods
they are consuming.
Let's start with the point that there are significant benefits from
various GM modified plants. One example is golden rice. Golden rice, as
seen here, has been modified in order to produce a lot more vitamin A.
So growing this in an area where there is a vitamin A deficiency has
been beneficial to the help of local populations.
Let's take, for example, a certain form of carrot. It has been
modified to produce an enzyme that helps rid the body of fatty
substances. When you can't do that, you have Gaucher's disease. We have
a lot of trouble with Gaucher's disease, with brain and bone damage,
anemia, and bruises. But through the modification of these carrots,
there is a solution, and should you be afflicted with Gaucher's
disease, you would be very happy about that.
Let's take another example. These are sweet potatoes that have been
modified to resist a number of viral infections common in South Africa.
So a place where otherwise you may not be able to grow these sweet
potatoes, where the local population might not be able to benefit from
nutrition in these sweet potatoes, they can now do so. These are some
of the examples of some of the benefits that have come from some forms
of genetic modification of plants.
But just as there is science that shows benefits, there is also
science showing concerns. I am going to start by explaining that the
largest modification in America--the largest deployed modification--is
to make plants such as corn, soybeans, and sugar beets resistant to an
herbicide called glyphosate.
The use of glyphosate has increased dramatically over the last two
decades. In 1994 we are talking about 7.4 million pounds--not very
much. But by 2012, we are talking about 160 million pounds of this
herbicide being put onto our crops.
Well, one's reaction may be this: OK, but is there any downside to
that massive deployment of herbicides? Yes, in fact, there is. This
herbicide is so efficient in killing weeds that it kills milkweed.
Well, milkweed happens to grow in disturbed soil. So it has been a
common companion to our agricultural world. Milkweed is the single
substance that monarch butterflies feed on. So as the glyphosate
expansion has increased over this time period, the monarch butterfly
has radically decreased because its food supply has been dramatically
reduced. This is not the only factor considered to affect the Monarch
butterfly, but it is an example of a significant factor. That is
something of which you think: What else could happen in the natural
world as a result of changing dramatically the variety of plants that
surround our farm fields?
Let's turn to another impact. Millions of pounds of glyphosate go on
the fields, and much of it ends up running off the fields and running
into our streams and rivers. It is an herbicide. So it has a profound
impact on the makeup of organisms in those streams and rivers.
For example, it can have an impact on microorganisms, algae, and
things that feed on that up the food chain--fish, mussels, amphibians,
and so forth. We don't understand all the impacts of massive amounts of
herbicides in our streams and rivers, but scientists are saying: Yes,
there is an impact. Studies are underway to understand those impacts
more thoroughly. Of course, we care about the health of our streams and
rivers.
Let's take another example. Sometimes you just can't fool Mother
Nature. One impact of the massive application of glyphosate is that
weeds start to develop a resistance to it, and then you have to start
to use more of it. Also, that is true in a different sphere. I am
talking about a particular genetic modification that goes into the
cells of plants and is designed to fend off the western corn rootworm.
The western corn rootworm eats corn when it is in the larvae stage--
that is the worm stage--and it does so when it is in the beetle stage.
Some beautiful examples are shown here. It can eat the pollination part
of the corn so that the corn doesn't produce healthy kernels as well.
It can eat the leaves. It pretty much loves the entire corn plant.
This genetic modification produces a pesticide inside the cell and
was in the beginning very effective in killing these corn rootworms.
But guess what. Mother Nature has a continuous stream of genetic
mutations, and if you apply this to millions and millions of acres and
millions of pounds, eventually Mother Nature produces a mutation that
makes it immune to this pesticide. Then those immune rootworms start
multiplying, and you have to start applying a pesticide again, and
maybe you have to apply even more than before because they develop a
resistance to it. That is exactly what is happening here. So that is a
significant reverberation.
All I am trying to point out here is that this is not really an
argument about science. Science can tell us that there have been
occasions in which genetic modifications have had an initial beneficial
impact, and science will tell us that there are situations in which the
reverberations of using the genetically modified plants are having a
negative impact. So that is where it stands. It is like any other
technology. It can be beneficial. It can be harmful.
So the question is this: Does our government--the big hand of the
Federal Government--reach out and say to our cities, our counties, and
our States that there is only one answer to this and that is why we are
going to ban you from letting citizens know what is in their food. Of
course, there is no one answer. We have seen there are benefits and
there are disadvantages. Quite frankly, I think it is just wrong for
the Federal Government to take away our citizens' right to know. That
is why I am doing all I can to publicize this at this moment.
Various States have wrestled on whether to provide information to
citizens so that the citizens can decide on their own whether they have
a product that has genetically modified ingredients. Most of our food
products do because virtually all of our corn, sugar beets, and
soybeans are genetically modified, but citizens can look at what type
of genetic modification. They can respond and use their minds with
information.
This is really what is beautiful in democracy. Government doesn't
make up your mind for you. Government doesn't impose a certain
framework in which you have to view the world.
Yet, right now, at this very moment, there are a group of Senators in
this body who want to impose those blinders on you, American citizens.
They
[[Page 2914]]
want to tell you how to think. They are supporting a bill that says the
Federal Government will take one side of this argument and tell you it
is the truth and spend your tax dollars publicizing it. This is the
type of propaganda machine that you would expect outside of a democracy
but not here in the ``we the people'' government of the United States
of America--not here, where we value our citizens' ability to make
their own choices. So it is very important that we wake up quickly and
respond to this, because the simple truth is a group of very powerful
companies are working right now to get a bill passed that will take
away our citizens' right to know about GM ingredients in their
products. This bill is called the DARK Act, or the Deny Americans the
Right to Know Act, and it has passed out of committee. The majority
leader has said it is a priority for him to put the DARK Act on the
floor of this Senate next week with virtually no notice to the United
States of America.
Most of these positions percolate inside committees for a length of
time and then get digested on the floor for a length of time. But, no,
there is an effort to slam this through--this imposition on the right
to know in America. That is just absolutely wrong.
Now let me talk a little bit about how American citizens feel about
this. There was a survey done at the end of 2015, just a couple of
months ago. This was a nationwide survey of likely 2016 election voters
done in November of 2015.
The question that was asked of the participants was this: As you may
know, it has been proposed that the Food and Drug Administration, or
the FDA, require foods that have been genetically engineered or contain
genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled to indicate that.
Would you favor or oppose requiring labels for foods that have been
genetically engineered or contain genetically engineered ingredients?
After the respondent gives the answer, then the follow-up question is
this: Is that strongly or not so strongly? Well, 89 percent of
Americans say they favor mandatory labels on foods that have
genetically modified ingredients. That is powerful. That is nine 9 of
10 Americans.
Furthermore, 77 percent of the respondents said that they not only
favor mandatory labels but they strongly favor the proposal. Now, this
is very unusual to have nine Americans line up on one side versus one
on the other.
Is this something that has to do with party affiliation? Absolutely
not. Across the great spectrum of ideologies in America, citizens agree
in this poll, with 89 percent of Independents--the same as overall--84
percent of Republicans, and 92 percent of Democrats. In other words,
regardless of party, basically 9 out of 10 individuals say the same
thing on the right, on the left, and in the middle.
Well, that should be listened to up here on Capitol Hill because we
are intended by constitutional design to be a ``we the people''
government, not the government of, by, and for powerful ag companies.
If you want to serve in that kind of government, go to some other
country because that is not the design of our Constitution.
Our responsibility is to the people of America. They don't like Big
Government trying to tell them how to think, and that is why this DARK
Act is just wrong.
There are some ideas floating around this building today. One of
those ideas is, well, we will put a label on a food product that will
be just a phone number, and if you, the citizen, want to know details
about this product--whether it contains genetically modified
ingredients--well, you can ring up this phone number and maybe somebody
will answer your question. You can call the company, and the company
will tell you what they think about their product.
Well, first, Americans don't want to stand there in the grocery store
and start making phone calls to companies. Can you imagine, you are
standing there--and you actually care about whether there is a GMO in
this product. You are going to make a phone call. You are going to wait
while you go through a telephone tree. You are probably going to have
to speak to somebody overseas who may not even understand what you are
asking, or you get a company spokesman who is going to lay out the
company line and never really give you an answer. Why should you have
to do that?
Think about the parallel situation. We have all these other
ingredients on the package. We include things such as sea salt as
opposed to salt. We have preservatives. We have colors that are
incorporated into the food because people want to know about the
colors, the food dyes that have gone into the food. They want to know
about the preservatives that have gone into the food.
We even tell companies that on the label they have to tell the
consumer whether the fish has been caught in the wild or raised on a
farm. Why do we require that label? Well, we require that label because
citizens want to know about the ingredients in their food--in this
case, the makeup of their fish, because it is different. There are
different farming practices between catching wild salmon and raising
salmon on a farm, in a pond, or in an ocean-contained area. There are
different impacts. Citizens care about that, so we require it to be
disclosed.
We require our juice companies to say whether the juice is fresh or
reconstituted. Why do we provide that information? Why do we require
that? Because citizens want to know. There is a difference between the
two products, and they want to know. It is their right to know what
they put into their own bodies, what they feed to their families, what
their children consume. It is their right to know. Again, 9 out of 10
Americans say this is important to them.
This telephone idea is just the worst possible scam. Let's put it
frankly. Nobody is going to stand there comparing soups, making phone
call after phone call after phone call. Nobody who wants to know if
there is high fructose corn syrup in their food is going to stand
there, look at a can, and dial phone number after phone number. That is
why it is printed on the label. That makes it very simple.
There is another idea floating around here: Put a computer code on
the product, and people can scan it with their smartphone and get
information. Well, this may be even more ludicrous than the phone idea
in terms of stripping the power of American citizens' right to know.
First, you have to be in the grocery store, and here are the different
cans of soup you are going to compare. Oh, let me take a picture of the
first one with my phone. Oh, OK, now I have to go to the Web site. I am
taking a picture of the bar code, and I am going to go to the Web site.
OK, which page of this Web site do I go to? Oh, look, this Web site was
written by the company that makes it.
They are making it hard for this information to be found. They are
making it hard for this to be understood. They are not disclosing the
details of the type of genetic modification. Well, that is absurd. Can
any Member of this Chamber really tell me--can you stand and tell me
that you are going to take pictures of 10 different products while your
child is sitting in your grocery cart? And that is just to buy one
thing on your grocery list. Does anyone here want to stand and claim
they would do that? I think the silence speaks for itself.
Certainly we are in a situation where people don't want to take
pictures of these codes with their cell phones because it reveals
information about them that the companies collect on them. Why should
they have to give up their privacy to know about an ingredient in their
food?
Let's be clear. There are two scams being discussed right now by the
majority leaders of this Chamber, this esteemed Chamber which should
stand for free speech and knowledge, not suppressed speech and lack of
knowledge. They want to send you down this rabbit hole of 800 numbers
or this blind alley of computer bar codes rather than a simple
indication on a package.
Let's recognize that this is a pretty easy problem to resolve because
most of the world has figured it out--64 other countries, 28 members of
the European Union, Japan, Australia, and
[[Page 2915]]
Brazil. They all have a simple disclosure on the package, a consumer-
friendly phrase or symbol. That symbol is straightforward. There is no
smokescreen. There is no blind alley. There is no rabbit hole. There is
no cleverness over an 800 number or a bar code or another computer code
called a quick response code. No, they simply give the information, the
way we do on everything else, the way we do on preservatives, food
colorings, core ingredients, wild-caught fish versus farm fish, and
juice from concentrate versus fresh juice. They make it simple. They
just have a simple marking on the package.
Do you know who else provides this simple information to their
consumers? China. Do our citizens deserve less information than the
Chinese, who live in a dictatorship? Why are Members of this Chamber
trying to strip more information away from American citizens than does
the dictatorship of China? That is just wrong.
There is an easy solution here. There are a number of reasonable
arguments that Big Agriculture is making. They say: Look, we do not
want 50 States producing 50 different label standards.
I absolutely agree.
They say: We don't want a bunch of counties and cities producing yet
other label standards; that could go into the thousands.
Fair point.
One common way of doing this would make sense. You cannot have a
warehouse that is serving three or four different States or multiple
communities that need to have this product sorted and distributed, one
group to here and one group to there. You can't keep it all straight.
It is expensive. There are all these different labels. It is confusing.
That is a fair point. I agree. Let's do one 50-State solution.
The industry says: We don't want anything pejorative. We don't want
anything that says GM is scary or GM is bad.
I pointed out that there are some advantages to genetic modifications
and there are some disadvantages. So I agree there too. Let's not put a
marking on a package that is pejorative.
The industry says: We don't want anything on the front of the
package. It takes up space. It may suggest there is something scary
about this if you are putting it on the front of the package.
OK, fair enough. Let's not put it on the front of the package. I
completely accept that point.
The industry says: There are several different ways we could do this.
We would like flexibility.
Absolutely. Let's have flexibility.
So I have put together a bill which hits all these key points the
food industry has raised. It is a 50-State solution. There is nothing
on the front of the package. There is nothing pejorative. And it gives
the type of flexibility the industry has talked about.
Under the bill I have put forward, they are allowed to put initials
behind an ingredient in parentheses or to put an asterisk on the
ingredient and put an explanation below or to put in a phrase--as
Campbell Soup plans to do--that simply says: This product contains
genetically modified ingredients. Campbell Soup is planning to do that
because they say they want a relationship of full integrity with their
customers. Shouldn't we all be for full integrity with our citizens?
Doesn't that make a lot of sense?
Yet another option would be to put a simple symbol--any symbol chosen
by the FDA, so certainly not one that suggests there is anything
pejorative about it. Brazil uses a little ``t.'' OK, how about a little
``t'' in a triangle or in a box or something else that the FDA or the
food companies would like?
The point is, if someone cares enough to pick up a package, turn it
over, and look at the fine print on the ingredients, if they care
enough to look, just as they might care enough to look up whether there
is high fructose corn syrup, just as they might care enough to see if
there are peanuts in it because they have a peanut allergy, or just
because they want to look at the ingredients to see how many calories
are in a product, if they care enough to pick it up and turn it over, a
little symbol--all of those options are available under this type of
reasonable compromise. It would appear on each product involved in
interstate commerce. OK, so that is consistent, and that is a point
made. It is clear. These symbols are clear.
The public that cares get educated. They know what to look for. It is
easy to find. It is right there on the package. There is no sending you
off on a wild goose chase through a phone tree and an 800 number. There
is no proceeding to tell you that you have to use a smartphone, which
many people don't have. They might not even have reception to be able
to use it effectively if they wanted to. No. It is a simple,
straightforward phrase or initials right there on the ingredients
package. What could be more appropriate than the simplicity of that?
Many folks have stepped forward to say this makes tremendous sense.
Campbell Soup said: Yes, we endorse this. This makes sense. Also,
Nature's Path, Stonyfield, Ben & Jerry's, Amy's Kitchen, Consumers
Union, the American Association for Justice, the National Sustainable
Agriculture Coalition, and the Just Label It coalition.
Yes, OK, that is fine, we are not asking for something on the front
of the package. It doesn't have to be on the front. It doesn't have to
be scary. It can be in that tiny print on the ingredients page. When an
earnest, sincere citizen wants to know, they have the right to know in
a consumer-friendly fashion.
I particularly thank the Senators who have already signed on to
endorse this legislation: Senator Leahy and Senator Bernie Sanders, who
come from Vermont, which has a State labeling bill that would be
preempted by this bill. It would be replaced by this 50-State national
standard. But because this is a fair standard for consumers, they are
endorsing this bill. I also thank Senator Tester of Montana, Senator
Feinstein of California, Senator Murphy of Connecticut, Senator
Gillibrand of New York, Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut, Senator
Boxer of California, Senator Markey of Massachusetts, and Senator
Heinrich of New Mexico. All parts of the country, different parts of
the country, and they are all saying: You know what, our citizens, 9 to
1, want a simple, fair statement or symbol on the ingredients list.
That is just the right way to go.
If you are going to step on the authority of States to provide
information that citizens want, you have to provide a simple, clear,
indication on the package. That is the deal. That is the fair
compromise. That is standing up for citizens' right to know. That is
honoring the public interest. That is a compromise in the classic sense
that works for the big issues the companies are talking about. They
don't want the expense from individual States and they don't want the
complexity and confusion from individual States. What consumers want is
a simple indication on the package.
Let's do the right thing. Let's not be worse than China and block our
consumers from having access to information. Let's do the right thing
that virtually every developed country has done and provide a simple,
clear system for citizens to be able to know what is in their food.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
____________________
FILLING THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to come to
the floor and talk a little about the ongoing dialogue we are having on
the Supreme Court nomination.
Before I start this speech, I wanted to comment on something for
those who think all we do is fight here. I think the Presiding Officer
was at our bipartisan lunch. I think it is a great opportunity. So
often we see the debate on the floor and the dialogue in the committee
rooms, but we take the opportunity every month or so and Democrats and
Republicans come together and we enjoy each other's company. We talk a
little about policy but more about the folks back home. So I just
wanted to let the American people know that because we happen to have
differences, it doesn't mean we don't like and respect so many of our
colleagues.
[[Page 2916]]
Today, though, I am talking about something that is a point of
contention between Democrats and Republicans, and it relates to the
open Supreme Court seat as a result of the tragic passing of Justice
Scalia. Originally, I was going to come to the floor and provide a
speech I had prepared, but I was in the Judiciary Committee today and I
decided--probably against my staff's wishes--to deviate a little from
the script and to talk about some of the facts that were put forth in
the Judiciary Committee today.
One of the arguments we hear from Members of the Democratic Party is
that somehow the Supreme Court has been shut down. That couldn't be
further from the truth. Actually, since the passing of Justice Scalia,
there have been some 12 arguments heard in the Supreme Court and 5
opinions. There will be several more.
As a matter of fact, over the course of history there have been a
number of instances where the Supreme Court has had Justices recuse
themselves or Justices go on a leave of absence for another duty. So
there have been a number of instances where the Court continues to
function just fine with eight, and sometimes even fewer than eight,
Justices active in any given opinion. So to say for some reason until
we make an appointment to the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court is
going to cease to function defies the facts.
As a matter of fact, in the October 2014 session--the Supreme Court
has two sessions, the first half of the year and the second half of the
year. In October of 2014, there were 72 arguments heard before the
Supreme Court. There were only 18 of them that actually were divided
along ideological lines within the Court. So three-fourths of all the
cases in 2014 were actually settled with significant numbers of people
joining together to render an opinion. So the Court is working just
fine, and it will continue to work just fine.
I would also argue that the idea put forth by some Members that the
Supreme Court is suddenly going to be shut down for a year defies logic
and history. The Supreme Court is already in session. They will go
through probably the end of June or the beginning of July. There is no
possible way, under normal circumstances, that we would have time to
appoint a Supreme Court Justice who would be participating in this
term. So what we are really talking about is the October term. If the
October term of this year bears any resemblance to the October term of
2014, there may be 5 or 10 cases where the 9-member Court would be
material. The vast majority of them are going to move through. That is
why this idea of shutting down the third branch of government is
disingenuous and really supporting a political agenda and less about
whether the government is functioning properly.
The other thing I wanted to talk about before I get into some of the
reasons I do not support nomination proceedings going through under
President Obama is related to some history. Before I get to the history
that specifically relates to the constitutional obligation of the
Senate, the Senate rules, and maybe some of the positions that have
been taken by Members of the minority in the past, I also want to talk
about one other area that concerns me in this dialogue.
There has been a discussion about the backroom meetings, making the
decisions. Well, members meet oftentimes--we tend to meet the majority
of the time--in public settings, but members got together and we
decided to come up with a policy that was a clear position that the
majority of the members of the Judiciary Committee--and the majority of
the members are today Republicans--that we were going to take on the
nomination. We all agreed--all 11 of us--that we are not going to move
forward with the nomination.
They can call it a backroom deal, but whether you would argue that is
an improper practice, what I found interesting is that members of the
Judiciary Committee who brought this up did something that I think was
a profound show of disrespect to this institution. It happened a few
years ago, when in a back room the leader of the then-majority, Senator
Reid, convinced all the members of the Democratic conference to vote on
the nuclear option. The nuclear option is--well, it is great I guess
for TV--but structurally the nuclear option is that throughout decades
there was a 60-vote threshold for moving nominations through the Senate
unless you had consensus to hold it down to 51 votes. In a back room,
the then-majority leader, Senator Reid, convinced his conference to
come to this floor and break the rules to change the rules in order to
prevent the minority from being able to weigh in on judicial
nominations and a number of other nominations. In fact, after that rule
was passed, after that decision was made in a back room and after those
folks came to the floor and broke the rules to change the rules, they
ended up confirming judges without any input from the then-minority
Republicans.
So when people want to stand up here and say that somehow what we did
was different, this is one nomination. This is a decision we made about
one nomination, but we have a group of people--every single person on
the Judiciary Committee, in fact, who are in the Democratic conference,
voted to deny the minority from having what has been a decades-old
tradition in the Senate to have the minority weigh in on nominations.
I would now like to get to some of the other discussions. First off,
we have to recognize we are in the throes of the primary season for the
Presidential nomination. It would be very difficult to live in the
United States and not know a little about the primary that is going on.
The people are in a position where, over a very few short months, they
are going to make a decision. They are going to voice their vote, and
I, for one, think the people should be allowed to weigh into this
decision. I do believe many of the Senators on the other side of the
aisle have felt the same way. In fact, I will go through a couple of
quotes where they made it very clear. In fact, they are very trained
and very articulate and can probably voice their position--which now is
my position--better than I ever could.
One thing that comes up in this discussion is our constitutional
obligation, and that is the obligation to advise and consent. Keep in
mind, the advice and consent is not a constitutional obligation for the
Senate to rubberstamp the decisions of the President. Quite the
contrary. The whole idea of the three branches was to have certain
checks and balances in place. So there absolutely was no concept on the
part of the Founding Fathers to say when the President makes a
decision, the Congress will rubberstamp that decision. We then have an
equal authority to determine whether that nomination will come to a
nominations process or we will simply decide not to take up the
nomination.
Now, a lot of people think that is a new concept, but the reality is,
it is a concept that has been in place for many years in the Senate
rules. For people to say we always dispose of nominations in the term
we are in defies the existence of this rule, which simply says: Should
the Senate choose not to take up a nomination, then the next President
will put forth another nomination for consideration.
Again, I think people are finessing what our responsibilities are and
whether this is really something different or something that wasn't
anticipated by the people who have come before us and who established
the rules that govern the Senate.
I want to talk a little about what I think must be a very
uncomfortable place for some Members of the minority to be; that is,
their own history on the current situation in the Senate. We are in the
middle of a campaign. We are in the middle of a tough campaign on both
sides of the aisle, whether it is the Democratic primary or the
Republican primary. People are engaging in a way they haven't in many
years. Turnouts in many of the primaries have been more significant
than they have been in many years. People are watching. So we have an
opportunity to educate the people on this very important choice in
terms of a Supreme Court nomination.
[[Page 2917]]
I, for one, think the nomination should be instructed by the vote
that is cast in November for the President, and, actually, for that
matter, the Senate congressional elections. Some people say: Well, the
people have spoken and President Obama was reelected to a second term.
That is true. And 2 years later the people spoke again, and I was
elected to the Senate and Republicans were brought to a majority. So
the people spoke in a different way. Just a few months from now we will
get the most up-to-date read of where the American people are, who they
want to lead the country, and who they want to nominate as the next
Supreme Court Justice.
This quote has been famously reported in the press, and I couldn't
say it any better than then-Senator Biden did. He talked about the
need, at a certain point in time during the political process, to set
things aside, let the people speak, and let that be instructive to the
Supreme Court nomination.
Incidentally, I know the Vice President, at the time he made this
quote, was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the position
Senator Grassley currently holds. He was basically saying what Senator
Grassley has said and that I fully support. So I think Vice President
Biden was right the first time. He seems to be stepping back on his
words, but I don't think his words can be parsed. They were pretty
well-articulated right here on the Senate floor.
Then we come to the minority leader. We now have the minority leader
and others coming to the floor talking about what our constitutional
duty is, but the minority leader came to this floor--right over there,
not very far from where I am now--and he said:
The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S.
Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate
has a duty to give presidential appointees a vote.
I agree with Senator Reid. And finally, we have one from my good
friend from New York, Senator Schumer. Senator Schumer is a very
articulate man. He is a practiced attorney, and there are many aspects
of the man I admire. In another instance, in a very passionate speech
given--it is on YouTube so you can all watch it--he has taken a very
similar position; that circumstances get to a point to where maybe we
need to hold nominations until we get the information we need that is
instructive to the future nomination or the future vote or consent
matter.
I agree with Senator Reid's 2005 statement, I agree with Senator
Biden, Chairman Biden, now-Vice President Biden's statement of 1992,
and I agree with Senator Schumer's of 2007.
My colleagues, it is time for us to move on and recognize the
position we have taken is a position that is going to stand. We can go
to the American people back in our States, States like North Carolina,
where we have a primary next week, and I will be traveling all across
the State tomorrow and Saturday, back again on Monday. I will explain
to them why I have taken the position I have, and when we do, all the
games that are being played now, with one poll saying one thing or
another poll saying another thing, we can cut through the noise and
talk about what we are really trying to do.
What we are trying to do is to give the people an opportunity to
voice where they want to take the direction of the Supreme Court, where
they want to take the Nation in terms of the Presidency, and where they
want to take the Nation in terms of the Congress. I am willing to bet
on the people's voice, and I am looking forward to it being instructive
to the ultimate decision I make about a Supreme Court nominee.
I love getting letters from folks in my State, so the last thing I
leave you with is a quote from a lady named Lois from North Carolina. I
think she does a good job of summing up my own feelings. She said:
I really wish the discussions and hoopla could have waited
a little longer after Judge Scalia's passing, but we are
having the back and forth of what to do. As your constituent,
I'm in agreement with the committee position of waiting until
after we have a new President. Word out of the White House to
the Senate is: Do your job. Well, I, for one, think you are
doing your job. It's called checks and balances.
In the coming weeks, I am looking forward to continuing this debate.
I want to especially note that Senator Grassley is a wonderful Member
of the Senate. He has support and admiration from both sides of the
aisle. I appreciate his leadership on this matter. I appreciate Leader
McConnell's leadership on this matter. I look forward to getting back
to North Carolina and hearing what the people would like for me to
consider as we move forward with the nomination process.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
AIR SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CUBA
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, last month we reached a milestone in the
continuing reform of our policy toward Cuba. The United States and Cuba
completed a bilateral air service agreement that is key to ensuring the
continued travel of Americans to the island. The newly minted air
services agreement will, for the first time in 50 years, provide
scheduled air service between the United States and Cuba, including 20
daily flights to Havana and 10 daily flights to other Cuban airports.
As someone who believes that all Americans should have a chance to
see a living museum of a failed socialistic experiment, I look forward
to the day when all Americans can use Web sites they are familiar with
to make reservations, even with their frequent flyer miles, to book
flights to Havana and elsewhere in Cuba. Clearly, there is interest on
our side of the Florida Strait. With easing of regulatory restrictions,
authorized travel to Cuba by Americans has increased by more than 50
percent in just one year. Freedom to travel between the two countries
will continue to open cultural and economic ties, benefiting the Cuban
people and Americans alike.
While I ardently support everyone's right to travel to Cuba, key to
the success will be ensuring that the initial flights being awarded by
the Department of Transportation provide for the continued and expanded
ability of the Cuban American community to travel to the island via
regular air service. This should include adequate regular service to
accommodate the growing demand from the largest and closest Cuban
American population located in Miami-Dade County.
In addition, having traveled to Cuba multiple times over the years, I
hope that the Department closely evaluates the complexity of operating
there and ensures that those selected to operate these routes are up to
the task--those with experience.
A failure-to-launch scenario would represent a critically missed
opportunity represented by the potential of successfully scheduled air
services between the United States and Cuba. We can't afford to let
this opportunity go to waste.
I have long supported efforts to restore the rights of American
citizens to travel to Cuba and have introduced legislation to lift the
statutory ban on travel, along with my colleague from Vermont, Senator
Leahy. I am pleased to say that our legislation continues to gain
bipartisan support.
As the situation changes on the ground with developments like regular
air service, direct air service, and scheduled air service, I hope that
thousands upon thousands of Americans will visit Cuba and Congress will
do the right thing when it comes to changing our outdated law.
I yield back, Mr. President.
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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page 2918]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
REMEMBERING JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Nation has lost one of the greatest
Justices ever to sit on the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia. My
condolences and prayers go out to his wife of 55 years, Maureen, his 9
children, and 36 grandchildren.
My thought is that Justice Scalia's greatness was founded on the
power of his ideas. His defense of those founding principles of America
at the highest intellectual level is unprecedented, to my knowledge, in
the United States. Over his career, he moved the legal world. As a
young lawyer out of law school, I remember what the trends were and how
Justice Scalia relentlessly, intellectually, aggressively, and soundly
drove the message that many of the ideas that are out there today are
inconsistent with the rule of law and the American tradition.
The trend was relentlessly toward activism. Judges were praised if
they advanced the law--not when they followed the law, or served under
the law, or the Constitution, but if they advanced it. By advancing it,
what that really means is you change it. If you advance it, it means
the legislature hadn't passed something that you would like, or the
Constitution doesn't advance an idea that you like, then you figure out
a way to reinterpret the meaning of the words so it says what you would
like it to say and what you wish the legislature had passed.
One of the bogus ideas at that time--you don't hear much about it
anymore, but it was current, and it was mainstream then--was that the
ink-stained parchment, well over 200 years old and right over in the
Archives Building, was alive. Our Constitution, they said, was a living
document.
Well, how ridiculous is that? The judges said that the Constitution
gave them the power to update it, advance it, and make it say what they
wanted it to say. They even contended that it was the duty of the
judge, not just the privilege of the judge, to advance the words of the
Constitution. Justice Scalia saw this as a direct threat, and he
understood at the most fundamental level who was threatened by it, and
that was ``we the people.''
You know how the Constitution begins with ``We the People of the
United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare . . . do ordain and establish''? Well,
friends and colleagues, we establish this Constitution, the one we
have, not the one some judge would like it to be or some politician
would like it to be but the one we have.
He boldly criticized the idea that a mere five judges--it just takes
five out of nine--with lifetime appointments who are totally
unaccountable to the American people. We are prohibited from even
reducing their pay, which I support because we want an independent
judiciary.
Judges need to know they are given independence and a lifetime
appointment because we trust them to serve under the Constitution and
not above it. They serve under the laws duly passed by the elected
representatives of the people of the United States, not above those
laws. They were not given the power to set policies that they would
like to set no matter how strongly they feel about it. That is not what
they have been given to do. He boldly criticized those ideas and those
individuals and didn't mind saying it in plain words: You are setting
policy, you are not following the law.
I would say that Professor Van Aylstyne--while at William & Mary or
Duke--had a great quote about this. He said: If you really honor the
Constitution, if you really respect the Constitution, you will
reinforce it as it is written whether you like it or not.
If judges today can twist the Constitution to make it say something
it was not intended to mean, how might a new Court--five judges in a
new age a decade or two from now--reinterpret the words to advance an
agenda during that time? Isn't that a blow to the very concept of the
democratic Republic we have? I think so.
I will tell you that this has been a long and tough intellectual
battle. You don't hear many people say that paper document over in the
Archives is a living thing. Of course it is not a living thing. It is a
contract. The American people have a contract with their government.
They gave it certain powers and reserved certain powers for themselves.
They reserved certain powers for their States, and the Federal
Government is a government with limited power. This is absolutely,
undeniably fundamental, and people don't fully understand it today.
I remember when I was a U.S. attorney back in Alabama and an
individual brought me a high school textbook. He said: I want you to
see this.
The book said: How do you amend the Constitution? It talked about
several different ways to amend the Constitution, such as Congress and
the Constitutional Convention, but it also said by judicial decision.
He said: Mr. U.S. Attorney, I thought the judges were bound by the
Constitution. They don't get to change the Constitution.
Well, of course that is correct. But, in effect, we have had many
instances when judges, through their interpretation, have in effect
amended the Constitution. It is an absolute legal heresy, and they
should not do that. It weakens the power of the democracy.
One of the things that I think is very unfortunate is that judges
have created an incredible amount of law that is contrary to common
sense in the area of religion in the public life of America. Many of
these cases are very confusing. But Justice Scalia, in a series of
cases where he wrote the majority opinion, or wrote the dissent, or
wrote concurring opinions, applied the principles of the Constitution
as they were intended to lay out a lawful and commonsense framework for
faith in the public square. I think that is a significant achievement.
When Chief Justice Roberts came before our committee for
confirmation, I remember telling him: Sir, I would like you to try to
clear up and bring some common sense to the expression of faith. You
have a right to free speech in America, you have a right to the free
exercise of religion under the Constitution, so how has it gotten
around that you can be protected more in filthy speech than you can be
protected in religious speech?
So as I said, Justice Scalia issued a series of opinions that were
important on this subject. For example, in 1992, the Supreme Court
decided Lee v. Weisman. This case involved a challenge to a Rhode
Island public school policy that permitted a member of the clergy to
deliver prayers at middle school graduation ceremonies. In this
instance, a rabbi had delivered a prayer at one such ceremony, and one
of the families in attendance that objected brought suit, alleging that
the school's policy permitting prayer at graduation was a violation of
the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. By a vote of 5-to-4, the
Supreme Court concluded that the school's policy violated the
Establishment Clause. Justice Scalia dissented. He wrote:
In holding that the Establishment Clause prohibits
invocations and benedictions at public school graduation
ceremonies, the Court--with nary a mention that it is doing
so--lays waste a tradition that is as old as public school
graduation ceremonies themselves, and that is a component of
an even more longstanding American tradition of nonsectarian
prayer to God at public celebrations generally.
Two years later, the Supreme Court decided Board of Education of
Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet. This case involved a
challenge to a New York statue that tracked village boundaries to
create a public school district for practitioners of a strict form of
Judaism known as Satmar Hasidim. By a vote of 6-to-3, the Court
concluded that the government had drawn political boundaries on the
basis of religious faith in violation of the First Amendment's
Establishment Clause. Justice Scalia dissented. He wrote:
the Founding Fathers would be astonished to find that the
Establishment Clause--which they designed to insure that no
one powerful sect or combination of sects could
[[Page 2919]]
use political or governmental power to punish dissenters, has
been employed to prohibit characteristically and admirably
American accommodation of the religious practices--or more
precisely, cultural peculiarities--of a tiny minority sect. .
. . Once this Court has abandoned text and history as guides,
nothing prevents it from calling religious toleration the
establishment of religion.
Ten years later, in 2004, the Supreme Court decided Locke v. Davey.
In this case, a student challenged a Washington State statute which
created a scholarship for students enrolled ``at least half time in an
eligible postsecondary institution in the state of Washington,'' but
excluded from eligibility for this scholarship students seeking degrees
in devotional theology. A student sued to enjoin Washington from
refusing to award him a scholarship. By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme
Court upheld the statute. Justice Scalia dissented. He wrote that:
When the State makes a public benefit generally available,
that benefit becomes part of the baseline against which
burdens on religion are measured; and when the State
withholds that benefit from some individuals solely on the
basis of religion, it violates the Free Exercise Clause no
less than if it had imposed a special tax. That is precisely
what the State of Washington has done here. It has created a
generally available public benefit, whose receipt is
conditioned only on academic performance, income, and
attendance at an accredited school. It has then carved out a
solitary course of study for exclusion: theology.
The next year, the Supreme Court decided McCreary County v. ACLU of
Kentucky. This case involved a challenge to the placement of the Ten
Commandments on the walls inside two Kentucky courthouses. By a vote of
5-to-4, the Supreme Court held that the placement of the Ten
Commandments inside of courthouses was a violation of the First
Amendment's Establishment Clause. Justice Scalia dissented. He wrote
that:
Historical practices demonstrate that there is a distance
between the acknowledgment of a single Creator and the
establishment of a religion. The former is, as Marsh v.
Chambers put it, ``a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs
widely held among the people of this country.'' The three
most popular religions in the United States, Christianity,
Judaism, and Islam--which combined account for 97.7% of all
believers--are monotheistic. All of them, moreover (Islam
included), believe that the Ten Commandments were given by
God to Moses, and are divine prescriptions for a virtuous
life. Publicly honoring the Ten Commandments is thus
indistinguishable, insofar as discriminating against other
religions is concerned, from publicly honoring God. Both
practices are recognized across such a broad and diverse
range of the population--from Christians to Muslims--that
they cannot be reasonably understood as a government
endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint.
More recently in 2014, Justice Scalia dissented from a denial of
certiorari in the case of Elmbrook School District v. Doe. In this
case, the entire seventh circuit, over three dissents, held that a
suburban Milwaukee public high school district violated the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by holding its graduation
in a nondenominational church. Justice Scalia wrote that:
Some there are--many, perhaps--who are offended by public
displays of religion. Religion, they believe, is a personal
matter; if it must be given external manifestation, that
should not occur in public places where others may be
offended. I can understand that attitude: It parallels my own
toward the playing in public of rock music or Stravinsky. And
I too am especially annoyed when the intrusion upon my inner
peace occurs while I am part of a captive audience, as on a
municipal bus or in the waiting room of a public agency.
In this case, at the request of the student bodies of the
two relevant schools, the Elmbrook School District decided to
hold its high-school graduation ceremonies at Elmbrook
Church, a nondenominational Christian house of worship. The
students of the first school to move its ceremonies preferred
that site to what had been the usual venue, the school's
gymnasium, which was cramped, hot, and uncomfortable. The
church offered more space, air conditioning, and cushioned
seating. No one disputes that the church was chosen only
because of these amenities.
In this case, it is beyond dispute that no religious
exercise whatever occurred. At most, respondents complain
that they took offense at being in a religious place. It
bears emphasis that the original understanding of the kind of
coercion that the Establishment Clause condemns was far
narrower than the sort of peer-pressure coercion that this
Court has recently held unconstitutional.
Although many of his dissents were memorable, not all of Justice
Scalia's notable opinions on religion in public life were issued in
dissent. In 1995, Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for the Court in
Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette, where the Court
rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to the Christmas season
display of an unattended Latin cross in a plaza next to the Ohio State
Capitol. Writing for the Court, Justice Scalia said:
Respondents' religious display in Capitol Square was
private expression. Our precedent establishes that private
religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is
as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular
private expression. Indeed, in Anglo-American history, at
least, government suppression of speech has so commonly been
directed precisely at religious speech that a free-speech
clause without religion would be Hamlet without the prince.
And just last term, Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for the Court in
EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, a case about accommodation on the
basis of religion in the employment environment. In this case, a Muslim
individual who wore a head scarf as part of her religious observation
applied for a job at a clothing retailer, but was not hired due to the
company's policy, which prohibited employees from wearing ``caps.'' In
reversing the court of appeals in favor of the applicant, Justice
Scalia wrote that:
Congress defined ``religion'' for Title VII purposes as
``including all aspects of religious observance and practice,
as well as belief.'' Thus, religious practice is one of the
protected characteristics that cannot be accorded disparate
treatment and must be accommodated.
As we see, these opinions by Justice Scalia involve parties of varied
faiths--Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Regardless of the identity of
the party, Justice Scalia's opinions on religion in public life
consistently evidence a deep respect for the unique history of
religious pluralism in this country and a heartfelt appreciation for
its positive impact across the landscape of the nation. While some may
say his opinions are not consistent, I disagree. Religion in American
life is an important and complex subject. Judges must think carefully
but not abandon common sense as so many opinions have. Justice Scalia
saw limits on free exercise of religion when it came to the contention,
for example, that one's religion required the use of drugs that a State
had declared illegal.
So this is an important area that needs to be cleared up so that we
can bring some reality to the question of the expression of religious
conviction in public life. Because the Constitution says we shall not
establish a religion--Congress shall not establish a religion. It
doesn't say States couldn't establish a religion; it says Congress
can't establish a religion. It also says ``nor shall Congress prohibit
the free exercise thereof.'' So you can't prohibit the free exercise of
religion.
I think we have forgotten the free exercise clause and over-
interpreted the establishment of religion. Some States at the time had
established religions. Most of the countries in Europe had a religion
that they put in law for their country, and we said: No, we are not
going to establish any religion here. You have the right to exercise
your religious faith as you choose.
Madison and Jefferson particularly believed it was absolutely
unacceptable for this government to tell people how to relate to that
person they considered to be their creator. That was a personal
relationship that ought to be respected and the government ought to
have no role in it.
Like Madison and Jefferson, Justice Scalia, too, believed in American
exceptionalism. Indeed, he was truly exceptional. Although he will be
impossible to replace, his seat on the Supreme Court will eventually be
filled by the next President. After that nominee is confirmed, his or
her decisions will likely impact our Nation for the next 30 years and
far beyond. Next year, when we debate this eventual nominee's
qualifications to assume Justice Scalia's seat, we need look no further
than his own words for wisdom
[[Page 2920]]
to guide us as we consider our decision. In no uncertain terms, Justice
Scalia's McCreary County dissent reminds us that:
What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of
a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely
indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded
in consistently applied principle. That is what prevents
judges from ruling now this way, now that--thumbs up or
thumbs down--as their personal preferences dictate.
That is the governing principle that Justice Scalia abided by--
unwavering commitment to the rule of law even when reaching the outcome
that the law dictated did not align with his
policy preferences. This--above all things--is the duty of a judge or
Justice, and it is a principle that has fallen by the wayside far too
often in recent years. It is imperative that we keep these words in
mind when we consider appointments not only to the Supreme Court, but
all lifetime appointments to the Federal judiciary.
I thank the Presiding Officer and 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. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
COMPREHENSIVE ADDICTION AND RECOVERY BILL
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, now that the Senate has passed the
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, I wish to take a few moments
to reflect on what I believe are going to be additional steps that are
needed to really put an end to the horrible opioid epidemic. This is a
horrible, horrible health scourge that has carved a path of destruction
throughout communities in Oregon and across our country.
Now, over the last several weeks, I have traveled around Oregon to
spend time listening to experts. We heard powerful testimony in the
Finance Committee, and I have spoken with colleagues here in the Senate
about the urgency and the important scale of this national crisis. The
message has been very clear: Our country is paying for a distorted set
of priorities. Our citizens get hooked on opioids, there is not enough
treatment, and enforcement falls short. My view is that is a trifecta
of misplaced priorities.
What it says to me is that our country needs a fresh approach where
prevention, better treatment, and tougher enforcement work in tandem.
We have to have all three working together to really get on top of this
horrible, horrible health scourge. The Congress ought to be working
overtime on policies that start moving our Nation towards this tandem
approach that I have described.
Now, my view is that the bill that was passed by the Senate takes the
first step toward updating the country's out-of-date approach to
substance abuse. More needs to be done, and that is what I and other
colleagues have pushed hard to do. I very much hope that more can be
done in this Congress.
As ranking member of the Finance Committee, we are required to pay
for Medicare and Medicaid. I wish to spend a few minutes talking about
the fundamental role that is going to play in stemming the tide of
opioid abuse.
These are bedrock health programs, and they are expected to account
for over a third of substance abuse-related spending in the upcoming
years. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars. Medicare
and Medicaid have an important role when it comes to preventing
addiction at its source, and talking about prevention has to include
talking about how these drugs are prescribed in the first place.
As I visited with citizens around Oregon, I was struck--and I know of
the Presiding Officer's expertise in health care as a practitioner--by
what I have come to call the prescription pendulum. Doctors were once
criticized for not treating pain aggressively enough, and today they
are criticized for prescribing too many opioids to manage pain. So in
the days ahead, our country is going to have to look for solutions that
get the balance right.
During the debate on this bill, the Senate considered an amendment I
wrote that would have doubled the penalties for opioid manufacturers
who give kickbacks to prescribers and put profits over patients. It has
been well documented in recent years that companies are pushing the
unapproved use of some drugs at the expense of patient safety. It is
high time for real accountability when the manufacturers go too far.
My amendment would also have made significant progress to connect
those struggling with addiction to appropriate treatment. Some parts of
the bill the Senate passed crack down on those on Medicare who are
suspected of abusing opioids. It is an enforcement-only approach, and
my view is that the story cannot stop there. Without treatment, those
addicted to opioids might try to get their pills on the street or turn
to heroin. My amendment would have ensured that those who are at risk
for opioid abuse are connected to meaningful treatment choices so they
can better manage their pain and limit excessive prescriptions.
I also proposed an amendment that would have helped some of the most
vulnerable Americans, including pregnant women on Medicaid who struggle
with addiction. The costs of inaction here add up every single day for
moms and their babies. A recent Reuters investigation found that, on
average, an opioid-dependent baby is born every 19 minutes. These are
high-risk pregnancies that can have lifelong consequences for mothers
and their children. Some of these babies tragically aren't going to
make it. Many of them are going to be placed in foster care if their
mothers cannot break their addiction.
So it is critical that these women have and retain full access to
pre- and post-natal care as well as addiction treatment. Yet, today, if
a pregnant woman on Medicaid receives treatment for drug or alcohol
dependency, in certain in-patient facilities, that woman loses her
health coverage for the duration of her stay. That just defies common
sense.
The good news is, the country has a pretty good idea of a
straightforward solution. There is no reason someone who is pregnant
should lose access to their health insurance. This amendment simply
states that no pregnant woman would lose her Medicaid while she
receives treatment for addiction. To be clear, this amendment doesn't
instruct Medicaid to pay for these treatment services. That charge
requires a broader debate. I do believe, though, in the meantime,
access to services like prenatal care should not be restricted for
pregnant women who want to receive care for their addiction.
It is unfortunate these amendments didn't make it into the Senate
legislation today, but I have seen a number of times--and I look
forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate--that sometimes we
don't win on day one, and you have to come back again and again and
again. A few weeks ago, a bill I authored well over a decade ago, the
Internet Tax Freedom Act, finally got passed permanently into law. So
sometimes when something is important, you just have to stay at it, and
I want colleagues to know I think the CARA bill is a good start. It
focuses on enforcement, but unless you get the prevention and treatment
part of it in addition to enforcement, you are not going to get the job
done properly.
The Congress obviously has some tough choices to make. If prevention
and treatment aren't addressed upfront, the costs are going to be even
higher--pregnant mothers giving birth to opioid-dependent babies, EMTs
in emergency rooms dealing with overdose calls every night, county
jails taking the place of needed treatment, able-bodied adults in the
streets instead of working at a family wage job. American tax dollars
need to be spent more wisely, and it is my view the Senate has to come
back to this issue. It has to come back to this issue and get the job
done right.
[[Page 2921]]
I indicated earlier that I am very much aware of the expertise of the
Presiding Officer in health care and his involvement as a practitioner,
and I look back, as I said, to how the prescription pendulum has moved.
It wasn't very long ago when I was of the view that there wasn't enough
done to manage pain. As patients began to insist on those kinds of
drugs and therapies to help them with their pain, we saw they were able
to get relief. The pendulum may have swung the other way now, and there
is too much prescribing. I don't pretend to be the authority on how to
get the prescription pendulum right, but I do know from listening to
practitioners in the field, to citizens, to grieving parents, that you
have to have more than enforcement. That is what the Senate has done
with the bill that was passed today. The story must not end there. The
Senate can do better in the days ahead. The Senate can fill in the rest
of the story and ensure that in addition to enforcement, there will be
prevention, there will be treatment, and a sensible policy that ensures
that these three priorities work in tandem and is what the Senate
pursues on a bipartisan basis in the days ahead.
____________________
WOMEN'S HEALTH CARE
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to spend just a few minutes to
discuss women's health care because I believe women's health care in
America is in trouble--very deep trouble. It is in trouble in Congress,
it is in trouble in the courts, and it is in trouble in our
statehouses. In these bodies, I think there is a serious risk to
women's access to affordable, high-quality health care. There is an
assault on women's right to choose their own physicians and their own
providers, and that assault is wrong. Drip by drip, State by State, the
assault goes on.
The latest example is in Florida, where lawmakers seem to be heading
down the same road that Texas and Louisiana have traveled, restricting
the choices of women. This all began with a Texas law, HB2, that has
been challenged all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Arguments were
heard just last week. HB2 backers have argued the law is about
protecting women's health. My view is that is pretty much fiction. HB2
has very little to do with women's health. It is a thinly veiled scheme
to block women's health choices with unjustifiable requirements for
abortion clinics. The AMA and the American Congress of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists--people who obviously have expertise on this issue--
have said very clearly in a legal brief, an amicus brief, that the
restrictions are ``contrary to accepted medical practice and are not
based on scientific evidence.'' Despite the advice of the American
Medical Association and the American Congress of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, Texas went ahead with the law anyway. If it stands, the
number of clinics that provide abortion care will drop by more than
three-quarters. Now HB2 backers say it is about preventing
complications from abortion. Yet they ignore other procedures--
colonoscopies, for example, that have much higher rates of
complications. HB2 backers say women who live where these clinics have
shuttered could go to other States, but the fact is, we are hearing
that really isn't an option for so many women.
Louisiana just passed its own version of HB2. Just yesterday the news
came down that legislators in Florida have passed a similar measure.
The Florida bill goes one dangerous step further by going after funding
for Planned Parenthood. Attacks on Planned Parenthood aren't anything
new, not in statehouses like Tallahassee or here in the Congress. When
you threaten Planned Parenthood in this way, you are going far beyond
restricting access to abortion. Here is the list of vital women's
health care services which have absolutely nothing to do with abortion,
and these services which have nothing to do with abortion are under
threat: pregnancy testing, birth control, prenatal services, HIV
testing, cancer screenings, vaccinations, testing and treatment for
sexually transmitted infections, basic physical exams, treatment for
chronic conditions, pediatric care, hospital and specialist referrals,
adoption referrals, nutrition programs.
The fact is, this assault on women's health care is going to hit
disadvantaged, struggling women hard across our country. There are
countless women across America enrolled in Medicaid who rely on Planned
Parenthood and similar programs for their basic, essential medical
care. It is their first line of defense for basic health care,
particularly in rural communities in rural Oregon. The women know and
trust their doctors at those clinics. Without those clinics, they
aren't going to have anywhere to turn for their care. If you are
working an hourly job, you have kids to care for on your own, it is
pretty clear you are not going to find an easy way to take a day off
work and travel far away for medical care. Yet these are the kind of
laws that are being passed in States across America. These anti-woman
laws are unfair and they are dangerous.
This will not be the last time I come to the floor to discuss this.
My view is access to health care for women in this country is in
trouble, and a number of the services I have talked about are
essentially part of what is a constitutional right--a constitutional
right. It doesn't just mean it is a constitutional right if you are
well-off. It is a constitutional right because the U.S. Supreme Court
has said it, and I intend to defend that constitutional right. I intend
to do everything I can to build bipartisan support so that instead of
women's health services being in deep trouble as I described today,
women can know that those essential services are available for them
across the country.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
STUDENTS' FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about
one of our most cherished rights as U.S. citizens; that is, the freedom
of speech and why allowing our children and young people to exercise
this right at a young age is critical to learning and understanding
complex and tough issues and ideas.
The ability to effectively teach and learn journalism--and for other
students to be challenged to engage in public discourse on tough
issues--was severely hindered by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1988
in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. The Hazelwood case
legitimized a school's decision to remove material about divorce and
teen pregnancy from the pages of a student newspaper on the grounds
that the material was overly mature for a high school audience.
Justice William Brennan, one of the First Amendment's greatest
judicial champions, dissented from that ruling in words that resonate
with us here today. He said: ``Instead of teaching children to respect
the diversity of ideas that is fundamental to the American system and
that our Constitution is a living reality, not parchment preserved
under glass, the Court today teaches youth to discount important
principles of our government as mere platitudes.''
History has vindicated Justice Brennan's dire warning. Students
regularly report that they have been prevented from discussing matters
of public importance in the pages of student media or, perhaps worse,
they have restrained themselves from even attempting to address an
issue of social or political concern in fear of adverse consequences.
That is not an environment that values and empowers student voices, and
it is not a climate conducive to the effective learning of civic
participation. We can and must do better.
On the 25th anniversary of the Hazelwood decision in 2013, every
major journalism education organization in the
[[Page 2922]]
Nation enacted a resolution calling on schools and colleges to abandon
reliance on the Hazelwood level of institutional control. The sentiment
was perhaps best expressed by the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication, the largest organization in the
country of college journalism instructors, which stated that ``no
legitimate . . . purpose is served by the censorship of student
journalism even if it reflects unflatteringly on school policies and
programs, candidly discusses sensitive social and political issues, or
voices opinions challenging to majority views on a matter of public
concern.''
Since then, nine States have statutes protecting the independence of
student journalists to report on issues of public concern without fear,
and two have comparable protections by way of the State board of
education rules. The combined experience of these 11 States spans well
over 160 years, demonstrating that young people are fully capable of
exercising a measure of legally protected press freedom responsibly and
without incident or harm.
I am proud to say that my own home State of North Dakota established
a position of national leadership by enacting the John Wall New Voices
of North Dakota Act in 2015. The statute was named in memory of a truly
amazing educator, John Wall, who lived his own civics lesson by running
for the North Dakota House of Representatives, where he served with
great distinction for 10 years after retiring from a 34-year career as
a public school teacher.
The New Voices Act passed the North Dakota State Legislature with
bipartisan sponsorship and without a single negative vote. That is
truly an amazing fact. As we think about the importance of student
journalism, the importance of voicing opinions and the importance of
learning the value of participation through the First Amendment or
through speech, I am often reminded of a personal incident that I had
in my family.
My daughter was not on the school newspaper when she was in high
school, but she frequently wrote a column. One column that she wrote
generated a lot of controversy in a very small town at a time when it
was much more controversial. It was an article that promoted marriage
equality. She ended up getting a lot of grief and a lot of negative
attention as a result of writing that article. My daughter is pretty
opinionated. So it didn't bother her too much.
But many years later, I received a letter from a mother. That letter
from a mother talked about how she was in a same-sex relationship, had
been most of her life and most of her daughter's life, and how once my
daughter had published this article in the Mandan school newspaper, it
changed the outcome. It changed the way her daughter went to school
every day because she knew she wasn't alone. She knew someone was there
in that school who understood her challenges and supported her family.
So where it may not move big issues--and it may not be a big, moving
example like Hazelwood--it can, in fact, change outcomes. The ability
to express yourself, the ability to be part of a community where we
have open ideas is absolutely instrumental and critical to the future
of our country.
When you look at the restrictions that still today are put on student
press and student newspapers, we know we have to do better.
I applaud the new voices of North Dakota organization and its
founder, Professor Steven Listopad of Valley City State University and
those teachers, professors, and students around the country who engage
in similar efforts for helping shine the Nation's attention on the
urgent need to protect meaningful and candid journalism so that young
people have an opportunity to participate and drive the civic dialogue
about the world in which they live and they will eventually lead.
The skills learned and developed by student journalists and the roles
they can play in driving public conversation among their peers speak to
the indispensable role that journalism can play--if adequately
supported by our schools--in educating the next generation for the
careers of the future and for preparing our children to discuss,
debate, and lead on important and controversial issues.
I think that, as we are moving forward and taking a look at what can
be done, it is important that we all appreciate that the First
Amendment is not something that you should just learn in school books.
It is something that you must exercise. And the sooner you exercise
that First Amendment right to speech, the sooner we recognize that
young voices in this country are as critical as older voices and no
student should be restricted or prevented from expressing an opinion
and the stronger we will grow in our democracy.
I look forward to continuing to work on this issue. I look forward to
taking on the difficult task of talking about what we can do nationally
to advance this, but I mainly came to the floor to applaud the great
State of North Dakota for recognizing the importance of students' First
Amendment rights.
I encourage all Members in this Chamber to examine what happens at
home with students' First Amendment rights, to provide leadership, to
promote those rights in their State, and to potentially look at how we
can reverse the Hazelwood decision so that we can grow a more
confident, a more educated, and a more diverse population for our
future.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
REMEMBERING DOCTOR QUENTIN YOUNG
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to talk
about an extraordinary person who passed away on Monday, March 7, at
the age of 92. Dr. Quentin Young was a dedicated physician and an
advocate for civil rights in Chicago.
Some of Dr. Quentin's patients included the Rev. Martin Luther King,
Jr., the Beatles, Studs Terkel, the late Mayor Harold Washington, and
even President Obama.
Dr. Young's commitment to the common good is what makes him a legend.
He spent 35 years at Cook County Hospital and 56 years of private
practice in Hyde Park improving health care while fighting for social
justice and racial equality. His autobiography is titled, ``Everybody
In, Nobody Out: Memoirs of a Rebel Without a Pause.'' And he meant it.
Doctor Quentin Young grew up in Hyde Park in Chicago's Southside. And
when America entered World War II, he enlisted in the Army and served
his country honorably.
After returning from the war, Dr. Young graduated from medical school
at Northwestern University and would go on to spend 35 years at Cook
County Hospital treating patients and becoming a moral voice during the
Civil Rights era. When people outside of Chicago hear the words Cook
County and hospital, people think about the show ``ER'' and doctors
resembling George Clooney. For the people in Chicago, they think of Dr.
Quentin Young.
Dr. Young's experience at Cook County Hospital and his efforts during
the Civil Rights movement were intertwined. In 1951, he was a founder
of the Committee to End Discrimination in Chicago Medical Institutions,
which focused on ending racist practices in Chicago's hospitals and
clinics.
By 1960, the Cook County Hospital was serving the Black community and
immigrant Mexican community almost exclusively. Eighty percent of
Chicago's Black births and nearly half of all Black deaths were at Cook
County Hospital. This place was one of the frontlines of social
inequality and Dr. Young and his family fought to change that. His
efforts were not limited to the Chicagoland area. Dr. Young was a
founder and national chairman of the Medical Committee for Human Rights
or MCHR, which formed in June 1964 to
[[Page 2923]]
offer support and medical care for civil rights workers, community
activists, and summer volunteers working in Mississippi during the
Freedom Summer.
It was the MCHR that provided help and emergency medical care to
anti-war protesters at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in
Chicago. In October of that year, Dr. Young received a summons by the
House Un-American Activities Committee for his involvement in MCHR. He
valiantly defended the MCHR's work.
After Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., was struck in the head by a rock
while marching through a White neighborhood, Dr. Young was there to
patch him up. He was not only Dr King's physician but a fellow marcher
during the Marquette Park protest in 1966.
Dr. Young and the late Dr. Jorge Prieto, former head of the Chicago
Board of Health, became the primary force behind the movement to found
neighborhood medical clinics in the late 1960s. These clinics gave
medical help to countless people when they couldn't afford to go to the
doctor.
From 1972 to 1981, he served as chairman of Medicine at Cook County
Hospital. His example helped bring many dedicated people back to the
hospital, but it wasn't without challenges. The staff went on strike
because of the lack of resources in 1975. Dr. Young sided with the
young doctors, and the governing commission fired him for it. With
loyalty, the striking staff took his office door off its hinges so
management couldn't change the locks and held a 24-hour vigil outside
his office until he regained his position after a court fight.
In 1980, Dr. Young founded the Chicago-based and Illinois-focused
Health & Medicine Policy Research Group, which conducts research,
education, policy development, and advocacy for policies that impact
health systems to improve the health status of all people. He would go
on to serve as Mayor Harold Washington's appointment as president to
the Chicago Board of Health.
Dr. Quentin Young never lost his passion for providing equal access
to health care for the people of Illinois. Since retiring from private
practice in 2008, he fought hard for a single-payer system.
In 2001, at the age of 78, he walked 167 miles across Illinois, from
Mississippi River to Lake Michigan, with former Governor Pat Quinn to
promote access to health care.
He never wavered in his belief in humanity's ability and
responsibility to make a more equal and just nation. My prayers and
thoughts go out to his family, Michael, Ethan, Nancy, Polly, Barbara,
William, Karen, and his nine grandchildren.
____________________
COMPREHENSIVE ADDICTION AND RECOVERY BILL
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, 8 years ago, I convened the first in a
series of hearings in Vermont where the Senate Judiciary Committee
examined the growing problem of drug addiction in rural communities. As
we gathered in Rutland in March 2008, the mayor noted in his opening
statement that there was a part of him that wished that the committee
did not have to be there in his city that day. He wished that his
community was not facing the scourge of drug abuse and addiction that
was creeping across rural America.
But in true Vermont fashion, Mayor Louras and the other community
leaders, law enforcement officials, and health professionals who
gathered with us that day in March 2008 did not shy away from the
problem. Instead, we had an honest discussion about how to fight this
problem together and about how the Federal Government could help. Over
the past 8 years, we have continued this important conversation at
other hearings I convened in St. Albans, in Barre, and again in
Rutland. We have heard testimony from community leaders and officials
throughout Vermont about the growing problem of opioid addiction. In
St. Albans, for example, Dr. Fred Holmes told us tragic stories about
teenagers getting hooked on OxyContin and other opioids and then
committing crimes to support their habits. These stories have been
heartbreaking.
Despite these difficult circumstances, I am struck by the
determination of Vermonters to come together to address this crisis--
and to do so not just through law enforcement and locking people up,
but through comprehensive prevention, treatment, and recovery programs.
In Rutland, for example, Project VISION brings together city
officials, law enforcement, and social services to work together, all
in the same office, to confront the problems of drug abuse and related
crime. What they have found is that something as simple as sharing
office space improves communication and coordination and begins to turn
the tide.
Mary Alice McKenzie, executive director of the Boys & Girls Club,
testified at the most recent hearing in Rutland about children who are
neglected because their parents are opioid addicts and how there is
sometimes no money for food because parents have spent it on drugs.
Kids are also becoming addicts at younger and younger ages. The Boys &
Girls Club has responded by extending evening hours and staying open on
Saturdays. They now serve dinner 6 nights a week and drive kids home
after dark. They provide safety for these children. They are also
working with schools and public health officials to provide education
and prevent them from getting swept up in that world.
At that same hearing, Vermont's health department commissioner, Harry
Chen, described to us Vermont's innovative and successful ``hub and
spoke'' treatment model. This system has two levels of care, with the
patients' needs determining the appropriate level. Although challenges
remain and waiting lists are still too long, I believe this system can
be a model for the Nation's response to the opioid crisis.
Earlier this year, we heard powerful testimony from Governor Shumlin
about the progress that Vermont has made because of this comprehensive
approach--but also about the work that still remains to be done.
Vermont's focused and persistent efforts are now drawing attention and
replication in communities across the Nation.
In many ways, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA,
builds upon the work in Vermont.
To specifically address the opioid problem in Vermont and other rural
areas, I made sure that CARA will help get the overdose-reversal drug
naloxone into more of our rural communities. Getting naloxone into more
hands will save lives. I also ensured that CARA includes a new Federal
grant program to fund expanded treatment options for heroin and opioid
abuse and Federal funding to expand State-led anti-heroin task forces.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of CARA, and I am glad to see the Senate
pass this bill. This bill is historic because it marks the first time
that we are treating addiction like the public health crisis that it
is. We are not imposing harsh and arbitrary mandatory minimum sentences
on those who abuse drugs. We are not condemning the poor and sick among
us to be warehoused in our Nation's jails. Today I am hopeful that we
have finally learned our lesson from the failed war on drugs.
But our work is not done. The Senate missed an opportunity to provide
real funding for this effort when Republicans blocked Senator Shaheen's
amendment that would have provided for emergency supplemental
appropriations, so we need to keep fighting to ensure that we provide
the necessary resources to support implementation of this bill. In
Vermont and across this country, there are few issues more pressing
than opioid and heroin addiction, and I will not stop working with
people throughout our State to help fight this epidemic.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, earlier today the Senate overwhelming
passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which is a good
first step toward combatting the opioid addition epidemic facing our
Nation. The bill authorizes expanded treatment options
[[Page 2924]]
and empowers local health and law enforcement agencies to intensify
efforts to combat opioid addiction. This bill is a good start, but
there is a lot of work left to do to address this increasingly dire
situation. This body needs to put real resources behind the initiatives
we approved today and place a greater priority on investing in research
for non-opioid alternatives to pain management.
The CDC estimated that, in 2014, overdose related to prescription
pain killers killed nearly 19,000 Americans. In Montana alone,
according to the Montana Department of Public Health and Human
Services, prescription drug overdoses led to at least 369 deaths and
more than 7,200 hospital inpatient admissions and emergency department
encounters statewide over a recent 3-year period. The effects of opioid
addiction are undisputedly devastating.
It is also important to keep in mind that chronic pain is a very real
problem that affects millions of Americans. When discussing the
negative consequences of opioids, we must also remember that effective
treatments for chronic pain are absolutely necessary for those
struggling with long-term pain management.
That is why I believe it is time to devote more energy and funding to
the development of non-opioid painkillers. Early stage research in my
home State of Montana is demonstrating incredible promise in developing
non-opioid drugs that could help treat both chronic and acute pain. I
am confident that medical professionals will eventually be empowered to
offer their patients effective pain management alternatives that may
significantly reduce our society's reliance on opioids.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming months to
find ways to invest in the research and development of non-opioid
painkillers. In the meantime, I encourage Federal agencies, such as the
National Institutes of Health, to ramp up focus on finding alternative
treatments for chronic pain to reduce our Nation's dependency on
opioids. Thank you.
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
____________________
VOTE EXPLANATION
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for
today's votes.
On S. 524, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2015, I
would have voted yea.
On the motion to table S.J. Res. 31, a joint resolution relating to
the disapproval of the proposed foreign military sales to the
Government of Pakistan of F-16 Block 52 aircraft, I would have voted
yea.
____________________
REMEMBERING JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on February 13, 2016, Supreme Court
Justice Antonin Scalia passed away in his sleep. He was an enduring
legacy of the Reagan administration and the conservative standard not
only on the Supreme Court but for the entire American judicial
community.
History will remember Scalia as a stalwart defender of the
Constitution and a brilliant legal mind. He authored the majority
opinion on countless rulings of the Court, preserving and protecting
our Nation's founding principles. His intellectual honesty, as well as
his humor, will be greatly missed.
Justice Scalia played a pivotal role in the shaping of constitutional
interpretation throughout his 30-year tenure on the Supreme Court. He
had within him a fervor for law and order; yet he demonstrated a warmth
that resonated with many colleagues on both sides of the political
divide.
Scalia built meaningful relationships across that divide which were
indicative of the strength of his character. Hadley Arkes, an expert in
constitutional law, said that Scalia was able to ``find something
redeeming and likeable in just about everyone he met, regardless of
politics.'' This was no doubt a reflection of his strong Christian
background and tremendous character.
You can learn the character of a man best by listening to how those
who knew him speak of him. Former colleagues and intellectual
adversaries alike are unrestrained in their kind words for Justice
Scalia.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer spoke fondly of the late
Justice, saying: ``Nino sparkled with enthusiasm, energy, sense of
humor, insight, and seriousness of purpose--the very qualities that I
and his other colleagues have benefited from in more recent years.''
Justice Thomas described Scalia as a patriot with a true calling for
interpreting the Constitution and noted that their relationship
flourished based on that common interest. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
also described their relationship as close and ``how blessed she was to
have a friend of such brilliance, high spirits, and quick wit.''
Scalia had a positive impact on so many lives as a Justice, a
colleague, a father, and a friend. His demeanor was just and fair, but
marked with personality and humor. Late Justice Scalia was a staunch
defender of the Constitution, rendering unbiased opinions and a unique
perspective.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I honor the late Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States Antonin Scalia.
During his many years of serving our country, Justice Scalia proved
to be a great defender of our constitutional liberties. Regardless of
one's politics, it is undeniable that Justice Scalia was a true patriot
whose passion for upholding our American principles was matched only by
his eloquence and intellect.
Justice Scalia's record of public service stretched from the time
President Nixon appointed him as general counsel of the Office of
Telecommunications Policy in 1971 to when President Reagan nominated
him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in 1986, where he
served until his death in February 2016. Before and intermingled during
this service, Justice Scalia also served as an extremely talented
attorney in private practice, a brilliant law professor, including for
my alma mater Tulane Law School in its summer programs, and an
effective leader in the U.S. Justice Department at a number of levels.
One of the single most memorable events in my time in the Senate was
when Justice Scalia agreed to visit with and speak to me and my staff.
His presence and authority impressed all of us and, as he discussed a
number of topics including the importance of protecting our
constitutional rights; I admit to being awestruck. It was a great honor
to hear directly from one of most significant jurists in American
history, and I know my staff remember that day as clearly as I do.
One thing that distinguished Justice Scalia was not necessarily what
he did, but what he chose not to do. As a staunch adherent of limited,
constitutional government, on numerous occasions, he advocated for the
Court to separate itself from political fights or matters involving
individuals who are free to decide their own fate. Originalism, the
theory that the clear meaning given to words in the Constitution by our
Founding Fathers should be honored, was prevalent in Justice Scalia's
decisions. He abhorred judicial activism, and he correctly understood
that the place for instituting laws was in the legislature, where the
will of the people is democratically represented.
I know that Justice Scalia will also be remembered for his upbeat
nature, affability, charm, and wit. At the heart of his larger-than-
life personality was an educator, a person who not only ruled on the
law, but also took the opportunity to inform readers of his opinions
about the history behind the decisions.
I commend his lifetime commitment as a public servant and hope his
example will inspire us all as we work to respect the Constitution and
protect the freedoms of all Americans. We would be wise to follow
Justice Scalia's lead in remembering America's founding principles as
we are deciding matters of the future.
I also wish to express our deepest condolences to his wife, Maureen,
and to the rest of his family. I am honored
[[Page 2925]]
to join with the rest of the United States Senate in celebrating the
wonderful memory and lasting legacy of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in expressing the
deepest respect and admiration for Supreme Court Justice Antonin
Scalia. Our country has lost a brilliant, principled, and determined
jurist.
For three decades, Justice Scalia invigorated the Supreme Court,
becoming an icon for constitutional originalism. He had a remarkable
ability to espouse legal theory with memorable turns of phrase, and he
could expose gaps in opposing opinions with laserlike precision. He did
not fear differences of opinion but embraced the intellectual challenge
that conflicting viewpoints could offer. The enduring friendships he
made with those across the ideological spectrum are a true testament to
his indomitable scholarship.
Antonin Scalia had a distinguished career in law, academia, and
public service before being confirmed to the DC Circuit and later the
Supreme Court. The many accolades and achievements of his biography are
well known. But Antonin, fondly known as ``Nino,'' was much more than
an extraordinary legal mind. He was a man of faith and family, raising
nine children with his wife, Maureen.
His son, Christopher, wrote this in the Washington Post following his
father's death: ``As proud as we are of his legacy as a jurist, of
course it's his presence in our personal lives that we'll miss the
most.'' To his children, he was a loving father who took them to Sunday
mass, listened to Bach in his study, and never shied away from
playfulness at the dinner table.
We will remember Justice Scalia in my home State of Mississippi,
where we were honored to host him over the years. We shared with him
our variety of southern hospitality during his regular visits to the
Magnolia State in pursuit of duck, deer, and turkey. When he wasn't
outdoors, he spent time educating the public, especially college
students, delivering thought-provoking lectures at the University of
Mississippi, Mississippi State University, the University of Southern
Mississippi, William Carey University, and MUW.
Justice Scalia's unanimous confirmation as the first Italian-American
Justice was a historic moment for the Supreme Court and the beginning
of a legendary tenure that will have a profound effect for generations
to come. He leaves a vibrant legacy--perhaps most notably characterized
by his steadfast protection of the Constitution as the Framers intended
it. As I said shortly after learning the news of his death, ``I like to
think Antonin Scalia and James Madison are having the damnedest visit
right now.''
Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, today we honor the life and public service
of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, whose passing signifies a
great loss for our country. Justice Scalia was a devoted family man,
scholar, and tireless public servant. He faithfully served Nevadans and
all Americans for over 30 years on our Nation's highest Court. My
thoughts and prayers continue to go out to his wife, Maureen, and the
entire Scalia family.
Born on March 11, 1936, to Salvatore and Catherine Scalia, Justice
Scalia was a disciplined, intellectual conservative from a young age. A
diligent student who studied his way to become valedictorian at
Georgetown University and graduating magna cum laude at Harvard Law
School, Justice Scalia began his legal career in Cleveland, OH in 1961.
After practicing law for 6 years in Cleveland, Justice Scalia accepted
a position teaching administrative law at the University of Virginia.
Justice Scalia entered public service in 1972, during which he served
as general counsel for the Office of Telecommunications Policy and
chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States. In
these positions, he expanded his expertise in administrative law, a
topic that interested him throughout his career. In 1974, Justice
Scalia became the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal
Counsel. It was here that Justice Scalia would argue and later win his
first case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In 1982, President Ronald Reagan appointed Justice Scalia to the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Justice Scalia's
originalist mindset, keen perception, and witty writing caught the
attention of President Reagan, making Justice Scalia a top prospect to
fill a potential Supreme Court vacancy. In 1986, Justice Scalia was
confirmed by the Senate upon the retirement of Chief Justice Warren
Burger. As a Supreme Court Justice, Justice Scalia would dramatically
change the Court through his powerful dissents and sharp oral
arguments.
Throughout his over 30-year tenure on the bench, Justice Scalia never
strayed from his conservative principles and steadfast dedication to
upholding the Constitution. His prominent leadership and originalist
philosophy will never be forgotten as his legacy will live on through
generations. I ask my colleagues and all Nevadans to join me today in
remembering and celebrating the life of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, Antonin Scalia was one of the
greatest Supreme Court Justices in the history of our country. A lion
of the law, Justice Scalia spent his tenure on the bench championing
federalism, the separation of powers, and our fundamental liberties. He
was a passionate defender of the Constitution--not the Constitution as
it has been contorted and revised by generations of activist Justices,
but the Constitution as it was understood by the people who ratified it
and made it the law of the land. Scalia understood that if the
Constitution's meaning was not grounded in its text, history, and
structure, but could instead by revised by judicial fiat, then the
people were no longer sovereign. No longer would the Nation be governed
by law, which expresses the will of the people; it would be governed
by, as Scalia put it, ``an unelected committee of nine.'' This, he
believed, ``robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted
in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776:
the freedom to govern themselves.''
As one of the leading advocates of this restrained judicial
philosophy, Justice Scalia became an intellectual force on the Court,
where he authored a number of noteworthy majority opinions. In 1997,
for example, Scalia wrote the opinion in Printz v. United States, one
of the few cases in the last century where the Supreme Court has
actually limited the Federal Government's power to coerce the states.
In 2001, in Kyllo v. United States, he led the Court in holding that
the Fourth Amendment requires the government to obtain a warrant before
using high-tech equipment to invade the sanctity of the home. And in
2008, he penned the lead opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller,
which finally recognized the people's individual right under the Second
Amendment to keep and bear arms.
As important as these majority opinions were, though, Justice Scalia
was even better known for his dissents, in which he let his true
personality--jovial, acerbic, and witty--fully shine through. Scalia
understood that changing the languishing legal culture would take
drastic measures, so he wrote his dissents with a specific target in
mind: law students. His aim? To delight their senses and engage their
brains. To this end, he liberally employed colorful metaphors, pithy
phrases, and biting logic; and he mercilessly, yet playfully, exposed
the abundant flaws in the writing and reasoning of other Justices. Pure
applesauce. Jiggery-pokery. Argle-bargle. If you squinted hard enough,
you could almost convince yourself that G.K. Chesterton had taken a
seat on the Supreme Court.
But perhaps the highest compliment I can pay to Justice Scalia is
this: Several of his key opinions went against some of his staunchest
supporters--and they still loved him. Why is that?
The answer is simple: Even in disagreement, Justice Scalia's
supporters had confidence that he did not make up his mind by reading
the political tea leaves, by voting lockstep with ideological cohorts,
or by working his way backward from a desired end to whatever means was
necessary to reach that end. Rather, he actually attempted to
[[Page 2926]]
interpret the law; that is, he consistently did his best to come to a
conclusion based on the only items that make a Supreme Court opinion
valid in the first place: text and logic.
You don't have to take my word on this, though. Unlike many in our
modern society who espouse ``diversity'' yet surround themselves with
ideological yes-men, Justice Scalia actively sought out opposing views.
His typical practice was to hire at least one ``liberal'' law clerk per
term so that he would always have someone calling him out for
unexpected mistakes and weaknesses. And in the wake of Scalia's
passing, one of those clerks--a self-identified liberal--wrote the
following:
If there was a true surprise during my year clerking for
Scalia, it was how little reference he made to political
outcomes. What he cared about was the law, and where the
words on the page took him. More than any one opinion, this
will be his lasting contribution to legal thought. Whatever
our beliefs, he forced lawyers and scholars to engage on his
terms--textual analysis and original meaning. He forced us
all to acknowledge that words cannot mean anything we want
them to mean; that we have to impose a degree of discipline
on our thinking. A discipline I value to this day.
I first met Justice Scalia in 1996, when I was serving as a law clerk
for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who was a judicial gamechanger in
his own right. And I had the good fortune of knowing Scalia personally
for 20 years. He was brilliant, passionate, and full of humor. He
adored his wife, Maureen; his nine children; and his 36 grandchildren.
He had a zest for life. He relished anchovy pizzas at A.V. Ristorante
Italiano, where he would take his law clerks and the clerks of other
Justices. Over the decades, Scalia inspired and mentored a generation
of conservatives on the bench and in the legal academy.
Any advocate who stood before Justice Scalia, as I was privileged to
do nine times, knew to expect withering questions that would cut to the
quick of the case. When he was with you--when he believed the law was
on your side--he was ferociously with you. And when he was against you,
he would relentlessly expose the flaws in your case.
President Ronald Reagan could not have picked a better person to
exemplify the true, nonpartisan role of a judge. A philosopher-king
Justice Scalia was not. Rather, he showed the world, with his trademark
wit and impassioned personality, what a legitimate, limited, and
principled judiciary would actually look like. An incomparable writer,
Scalia's legacy will live on for generations. He wasn't perfect, but he
was close. What his supporters--myself included--treasured especially
was the rock-solid ground he gave us on which to expect so much more
from everyone else. And in doing so, he, along with Chief Justice
Rehnquist and others, helped spark a revolution on a Court where
politics and power had been the only guideposts for decisionmaking for
far too long. That, more than anything else, is Scalia's great
contribution to the Nation and will be his steadfast legacy.
____________________
HARRIET TUBMAN
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to honor the life and legacy of
Harriet Tubman on Harriet Tubman Day. Harriet Tubman is a true
trailblazer and one of the most inspiring people in the history of our
Nation and in the history of the State of Maryland.
Tubman was born into slavery around 1822 in Maryland's Dorchester
County on the Eastern Shore. After 30 years of enslavement, she
escaped. But instead of staying up North with her newfound freedom, she
returned to the Eastern Shore 13 times to lead her family and hundreds
of other slaves to freedom, becoming the most well-known ``conductor''
of the Underground Railroad. Harriet Tubman was such a central figure
in liberating slaves that many simply knew her as Moses.
In addition to her work liberating slaves through the Underground
Railroad, Tubman served as a Union scout and spy during the Civil War.
She was the first woman to lead an armed expedition, guiding the raid
at Combahee Ferry and liberating 700 slaves. After the war, she became
an active leader in the women's suffrage movement and opened a home to
serve the aging African-American community in her new hometown of
Auburn, NY.
In 2014, Congress established the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad
National Historical Park, which creates a National Park on Maryland's
Eastern Shore dedicated to tracing Tubman's early life and work leading
the Underground Railroad. Congress also established the Harriet Tubman
National Historical Park in Auburn, NY, which will commemorate her
later years as an active participant in the women's suffrage movement
and a caregiver for aging African Americans.
I am proud that Congress has recognized Harriet Tubman's lifelong
dedication to our country through the establishment of these two
national parks. We must continue to tell the stories of heroes like
Harriet Tubman, amplify the voices of more women and people of color,
and make sure they are equally represented in our national parks and
monuments. I also urge Secretary Lew to include Harriet Tubman's
portrait on our currency as the U.S. Department of the Treasury
redesigns the $10 bill.
As Harriet Tubman said, ``Every great dream begins with a dreamer.
Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and
the passion to reach for the stars to change the world.''
It is my hope that, as we commemorate this Harriet Tubman Day, we can
all follow Harriet Tubman's example and work together to change the
world for the better.
____________________
HONORING OFFICER ASHLEY GUINDON
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, people across the Washington area were
saddened by the death of Officer Ashley Guindon, slain in the line of
duty just one day after being sworn into the Prince William County
Police Department in Virginia. This brave police officer is also being
mourned in New Hampshire, especially in her hometown of Merrimack,
where the law enforcement community considers her one of their own. As
Merrimack Police Chief Mark Doyle said: ``When any law enforcement
officer is struck down, it leaves a hole in our hearts. The fact that
she and her family are part of the Merrimack community drives that
point home even more so.''
Ashley was the only child of Sharon and the late David Guindon, a
Navy veteran who also served in the Marine Corps Reserve and later the
New Hampshire National Guard. After graduating from Merrimack High in
2005, she followed in her father's footsteps by joining the Marine
Corps Reserve. Ashley loved flying and went on to earn a bachelor's
degree in aeronautical science from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University in Florida and later a master's degree in forensic science.
As a Marine Reservist for 6 years, she flew helicopters and used her
forensic skills to assist the Mortuary Affairs Office.
Ashley had a passion for public service and was always eager to help
people in need. She volunteered with a suicide prevention program and
regularly spent Thanksgiving helping out at a soup kitchen. She is
fondly remembered by teachers and classmates at Merrimack High as
exceptionally kind and friendly and as the talented leader of the
Merrimack Cardinals cheerleading team.
As a newly sworn-in police officer, Ashley was struck down while
coming to the assistance of a woman who was being threatened by her
husband. ``She has accomplished more in 28 years than I think I could
in 100,'' Prince William County Police Chief Stephan Hudson told The
Washington Post. ``That was her desire: to serve, to be involved with
things that mattered, to give her life to something worth giving it to.
And that's exactly what she did.''
In New Hampshire as in Virginia, the loss of a police officer is felt
deeply in the local community and far beyond. We know that the work of
law enforcement professionals is difficult and dangerous. They perform
their duties with
[[Page 2927]]
great professionalism and selflessness, putting their lives on the line
every day.
Ashley Guindon worked and studied hard to become a superbly qualified
law enforcement professional. She was proud to wear the badge and to be
a police officer. She gave her life in the line of duty, coming to the
assistance of a stranger. I join with so many others in the Granite
State and across the Washington area in expressing my respect and
admiration for this remarkable young woman and my deep condolences to
Sharon Guindon and the entire family. I know how proud they are of
Ashley. We are all proud of Ashley. She was America at its finest.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JAMES BROWN
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize James Walter
Brown, a true public servant, an accomplished businessman, and a
longtime family friend. Over the course of the last 30 years, Jim has
served at some of the highest levels of the State and Federal
Governments; most recently, as my chief of staff here in the Senate.
For 9 years, my staff and I benefitted from his considerable
experience, sage counsel, and signature personal charm.
Jim's impressive academic credentials prepared him well for success:
a diploma from Scranton Preparatory School; an undergraduate degree
from Villanova University; and a J.D. from the University of Virginia.
He also has a combination of substantial public and private sector
experience from which to draw. He began his public service career as a
counsel and, later, staff director for the Subcommittee on Oversight
for the House Banking Committee. After serving the Federal Government,
Jim returned to Pennsylvania to join the prestigious Pennsylvania law
firm, Dilworth Paxson, where my father was a partner. In a pattern that
would be repeated throughout his career, Jim's skill and dedication
were quickly recognized by those around him, and he made partner
himself in just 4 short years.
When my father was elected Governor of Pennsylvania in 1986, he asked
Jim to return to public service as the Secretary of the Department of
General Services for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He would serve
only 10 months in that position before being called on again by my
father, this time to take on the role of executive secretary to the
Governor. Jim continued to prove his commitment to his work and to
Pennsylvania, and in 1989, Governor Casey named him chief of staff at
the young age of 37. Serving as one of the chief executive officers in
one of the most populous States in the Nation is a daunting task, but
Jim approached this challenge like he would every other in his life:
with poise, determination, and a commitment to excellence. He served as
chief of staff until late 1994. His strong and patient manner was
crucial in guiding State government through the difficult months of
1993 while Governor Casey recuperated from serious health issues. After
leaving State service, he continued his dedication to Pennsylvania
through his service as chairman of the Pennsylvania Higher Education
Facilities Authority, chairman of the Pennsylvania Public School
Building Authority, and chairman of the Finance Committee of the
Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency.
When I was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006, I knew Jim would be
the best architect to help me build my Senate organization. He moved to
recruit the best and brightest for our team and quickly set up a highly
functional and transparent office to work for the best interests of the
citizens of Pennsylvania. He fostered an internal culture of hard work
and mutual respect and established a firm open door policy within the
office. Jim eschewed the notion of a hierarchical Senate office and
referred to himself as the ``first among equals,'' rolling up his
sleeves ``for the good of the order,'' as he was fond of saying. He
took a particular interest in the professional development of our
junior staff and interns, happily engaging in countless career
counseling sessions, as he called them. While some managers quickly
forget about the staff who move on, Jim did the opposite; instead, he
grew with care a formidable alumni association of past staff and
interns, staying in touch with people as their careers took them to
different posts here in Washington and beyond.
It is a rare honor to work with anyone of Jim's caliber, but rarer
still when that person can be counted as one of your closest friends.
Over the years, from his time as a mid-level staffer in the House of
Representatives, to the chief of staff to the Governor of Pennsylvania,
from his success in the private sector, to his public service in the
Senate, Jim has always stood out as exceptional. Serving in the Senate
has been one the highest honors of my life, equaled only by the
privilege of working with a man of such integrity and professionalism.
As Jim leaves Senate service, I must thank his patient wife Lynne,
who tolerated her husband living in Washington for half of every week
in the name of public service. While Jim's day job kept him closer to
his son, Patrick; daughter-in law, Michelle; and daughter, Laura, I
know he is eager to give his Buick a rest and spend more time back at
home in the Commonwealth. I wish Jim and his entire family good health
and good fortune as they embark on this next phase of their lives.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
REMEMBERING LIEUTENANT JAMES J. GERAGHTY
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I join with people across my
State of New Hampshire in mourning the loss of State police Lieutenant
James J. Geraghty, who passed away late last month after a valiant
battle with cancer. He devoted his career to public service, serving in
the U.S. Army, later as a police officer in Hudson, NH, and for the
last 24 years as a State trooper.
``His priorities in life were well defined,'' said his friend and
colleague, State police Lieutenant John Marasco. ``He was committed to
his family, he was committed to this organization, and he was committed
as the lieutenant overseeing the Major Crimes Unit to delivering
justice to victims, many of whom were victims of homicide and relied on
his voice to bring that justice to them.''
Jim, as he was known to family and friends, was born in Boston, MA,
and grew up in Tewksbury. He attended St. John's Prep in Danvers, MA,
and the University of Lowell before joining the U.S. Army in 1984.
After assignments at U.S. Army bases in the southern United States and
Germany, his love of New England motivated him to end his military
service and return home for what would be a long career in law
enforcement. He began his service with the police department in Hudson,
NH, and went on to serve for two decades as a State trooper, respected
by his colleagues as a model officer, mentor, and leader. He was
promoted to detective sergeant in 2008 and took command of the major
crimes unit. He retired in 2015.
Jim was deeply devoted to his wife of 30 years, Valerie, and their
four adult children, Jimmy, Colleen, Katie, and Erin. Friends say that
his mantra was ``family first.'' He cherished annual family vacations
in Wells, ME. Instead of talking about himself, he would often speak
glowingly about the achievements of his children.
At the 2015 Congressional Achievement Awards ceremony, Lieutenant
Geraghty received a richly deserved Lifetime Achievement Award--the
capstone of a distinguished career in public service. An inscription at
Arlington National Cemetery accurately describes his service both in
the military and in law enforcement: ``Not for fame or reward, nor
lured by ambition or goaded by necessity, but in simple obedience to
duty.''
I would like to express my gratitude to New Hampshire State police
Lieutenant James Geraghty for his service and my sincere condolences to
his beloved wife and family.
[[Page 2928]]
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:
By Mr. McCAIN for the Committee on Armed Services.
*Eric K. Fanning, of the District of Columbia, to be
Secretary of the Army.
By Mr. SHELBY for the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
*Adam J. Szubin, of the District of Columbia, to be Under
Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes.
By Mr. CORKER for the Committee on Foreign Relations.
*Robert Annan Riley III, of Florida, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Federated States of Micronesia.
Nominee: Robert Annan Riley, III.
Post: Micronesia.
(The following is a list of all members of my immediate
family and their spouses. I have asked each of these persons
to inform me of the pertinent contributions made by them. To
the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this
report is complete and accurate.)
Contributions, amount, date, and donee:
1. Self: $10.00, 2015 Democratic National Committee;
$25.00, 2015 Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee;
$30.00, 2014 Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee;
$10.00, 2013 Alison Lundergan Grimes; $5.00, 2013 Michelle
Nunn; $5.00, 2013 Natalie Tennant; $396.75, 2012 Obama for
America; $52.50, 2012 Democratic Senatorial Campaign
Committee; $12.00, 2012 Democratic Party Wisconsin; $10.00,
2012 Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; $35.00,
2011 Obama for America; $22.00, 2011 DFA Wisconsin.
2. Spouse: None.
3. Children and Spouses: Susan Kadidia Riley: None; Carol
Ina Riley: None.
4. Parents: Elfrieda Mueller Riley (mother): None; Robert
Annan Riley, Jr. (father): Deceased; John Kenny (stepfather):
$125.00, 2015 Republican National Committee; $50.00, 2015
Heritage Funds; $10.00, 2015 Reagan Ranch; $65.00, 2015
National Republican Senatorial Committee; $121.00, 2014
Republican National Committee; $10.00, 2014 National
Republican Survey; $80.00, 2014 Heritage Funds; $40.00, 2014
Reagan Ranch; $55.00, 2014 Ben Carson; $100.00, 2014 National
Republican Senatorial Committee; $10.00, 2013 Republican
National Committee; no contributions years 2011-2012.
5. Grandparents: Marie DeHez Riley (grandmother), Deceased;
Robert Annan Riley, Sr. (grandfather), Deceased; Mathilda
Engebrecht Mueller (grandmother), Deceased; Arthur Mueller
(grandfather), Deceased.
6. Brothers and Spouses: Frank Arthur Riley (brother):
$25.00, 2014 Ann McLane Kuster; $295.00, 2014 Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee; $35.00, 2013 Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee; $325.00, 2012 Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee; $50.00, 2012 Patrick
Leahy's Green Mountain PAC; $50.00, 2012 Bob Kerrey; no
contributions years 2011, 2015; Unni Skog (Frank Riley
spouse): None; Richard Mueller Riley (brother): None; Tracey
Riley (Richard Riley spouse): None.
7. Sisters and Spouses: Carol Marie DeHez Riley Gauer
(sister): None; Richard John Gauer (Carol Riley spouse):
None.
____
*Karen Brevard Stewart, of Florida, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
Nominee: Karen Brevard Stewart.
Post: Marshall Islands.
The following is a list of all members of my immediate
family and their spouses. I have asked each of these persons
to inform me of the pertinent contributions made by them. To
the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this
report is complete and accurate.
Contributions, amount, date, and donee:
1. Self: None.
2. Spouse: No spouse.
3. Children and Spouses: No children.
4. Parents: Selden L. Stewart II--Deceased; Brevard N.
Stewart--Deceased.
5. Grandparents: Selden L. Stewart--Deceased; Nancy
Stewart--Deceased; Roy D. Stubbs--Deceased; Georgia S.
Stubbs--Deceased.
6. Brothers and Spouses: Selden L. Stewart III--Deceased;
(Spouse) Kathryn H. Stewart--None.
David N. Stewart and (Spouse) Christine L. Stewart: $75,
2011, Club for Growth, $80, 2011, Libertarian Party; $11,
2011, National Republican Senatorial Committee; $50, 2011,
Jeff Flake for U.S. Senate; $40, 2012, Club for Growth
Action; $40, 2012, Libertarian Party; $25, 2012, Republican
National Committee; $75, 2013, Libertarian Party; $50, 2013,
Club for Growth; $30, 2013, National Republican Senatorial
Committee; $50, 2013, Rubio Victory Committee; $25, 2013,
Madison Project; $25, 2014, Libertarian National Committee;
$25, 2014, Club for Growth; $70, 2014, Terri Lynn Land for
Senate; $25, 2015, Libertarian Party; $25, 2015, Marco Rubio
for President; $7, 2015, Marco Rubio for President; $25,
2015, Ben Carson for President.
7. Sisters and Spouses: No sisters.
____
*Catherine Ann Novelli, of Virginia, to be United States
Alternate Governor of the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development.
*Matthew John Matthews, of Oregon, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, for the
rank of Ambassador during his tenure of service as United
States Senior Official for the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) Forum.
*Amos J. Hochstein, of the District of Columbia, to be an
Assistant Secretary of State (Energy Resources).
*Marcela Escobari, of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant
Administrator of the United States Agency for International
Development.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I
report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in
the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save
the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these
nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
*Foreign Service nominations beginning with Eric Del Valle
and ending with Ryan Truxton, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on May
7, 2015.
*Foreign Service nominations beginning with Cheryl L.
Anderson and ending with Melissa A. Williams, which
nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record on November 19, 2015.
*Foreign Service nominations beginning with Jennifer M.
Adams and ending with Sunil Sebastian Xavier, which
nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record on November 19, 2015.
*Foreign Service nominations beginning with Daryl Arthur
Brehm and ending with Melinda D. Sallyards, which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 19, 2016.
*Foreign Service nominations beginning with Scott D.
Hocklander and ending with Catherine Mary Trujillo, which
nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record on January 19, 2016.
*Foreign Service nomination of Holly S. Higgins.
*Foreign Service nomination of John McCaslin.
*Foreign Service nominations beginning with Laurie Farris
and ending with James Rigassio, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on February 22, 2016.
*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed
subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear
and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. ROUNDS:
S. 2660. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide for an
evaluation and report on the costs of health care furnished
by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. BROWN (for himself, Mr. Tillis, and Mr. Coons):
S. 2661. A bill to clarify the period of eligibility during
which certain spouses are entitled to assistance under the
Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. BROWN (for himself, Mr. Durbin, and Mr.
Schumer):
S. 2662. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code to
include in income the unrepatriated earnings of groups that
include an inverted corporation; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. MORAN:
S. 2663. A bill to nullify certain guidance of the Bureau
of Consumer Financial Protection and to provide requirements
for guidance issued by the Bureau with respect to indirect
auto lending; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
By Mr. GARDNER:
S. 2664. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 4910 Brighton Boulevard in
Denver, Colorado, as the ``George Sakato Post Office''; to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
[[Page 2929]]
By Mr. PETERS (for himself and Mr. Perdue):
S. 2665. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002
to require State and local coordination on cybersecurity with
the national cybersecurity and communications integration
center, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Brown, Mr.
Cardin, Mr. Nelson, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Menendez, and
Ms. Warren):
S. 2666. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to prevent earnings stripping of domestic corporations which
are members of a worldwide group of corporations which
includes an inverted corporation and to require agreements
with respect to certain related party transactions with those
members; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. WICKER:
S. 2667. A bill to designate the Gulf of Mexico Alliance as
a Regional Coordination Partnership of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kirk, Mr.
Durbin, and Mr. Schatz):
S. 2668. A bill to provide housing opportunities for
individuals living with HIV or AIDS; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Carper):
S. 2669. A bill to amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social
Security Act to require States to provide to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services certain information with respect to
provider terminations, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. VITTER:
S. 2670. A bill to provide for the operation of micro
unmanned aircraft systems; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. Moran, Mr. Gardner, Mr.
Cotton, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Kirk,
Mr. Boozman, Mr. Cruz, Mrs. Ernst, Mr. Isakson, Mr.
Scott, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Perdue):
S. Res. 396. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate that individuals captured by the United States for
supporting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant should be
detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Tester,
Mrs. Murray, and Ms. Heitkamp):
S. Res. 397. A resolution supporting the recognition of
2016 as the ``Year of Pulses'' and acknowledging the
nutritional benefit and important contribution to soil health
of pulse crops; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 275
At the request of Mr. Isakson, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Coons) was added as a cosponsor of S. 275, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for the coverage of home as
a site of care for infusion therapy under the Medicare program.
S. 553
At the request of Mr. Corker, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Whitehouse) was added as a cosponsor of S. 553, a bill to
marshal resources to undertake a concerted, transformative effort that
seeks to bring an end to modern slavery, and for other purposes.
S. 624
At the request of Mr. Brown, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte) was added as a cosponsor of S. 624, a bill to
amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to waive coinsurance under
Medicare for colorectal cancer screening tests, regardless of whether
therapeutic intervention is required during the screening.
S. 683
At the request of Mr. Booker, the name of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham) was added as a cosponsor of S. 683, a bill to
extend the principle of federalism to State drug policy, provide access
to medical marijuana, and enable research into the medicinal properties
of marijuana.
S. 979
At the request of Mr. Nelson, the name of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Boxer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 979, a bill to amend title
10, United States Code, to repeal the requirement for reduction of
survivor annuities under the Survivor Benefit Plan by veterans'
dependency and indemnity compensation, and for other purposes.
S. 1110
At the request of Mr. Enzi, the names of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator
from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Heinrich), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly), the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall),
the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), the Senator from Oregon (Mr.
Wyden), the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Franken) were added as cosponsors of S. 1110, a bill to
direct the Secretary of Agriculture to publish in the Federal Register
a strategy to significantly increase the role of volunteers and
partners in National Forest System trail maintenance, and for other
purposes.
S. 1252
At the request of Mr. Casey, the names of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Corker) and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1252, a bill to authorize a comprehensive strategic
approach for United States foreign assistance to developing countries
to reduce global poverty and hunger, achieve food and nutrition
security, promote inclusive, sustainable, agricultural-led economic
growth, improve nutritional outcomes, especially for women and
children, build resilience among vulnerable populations, and for other
purposes.
S. 1390
At the request of Mr. Gardner, the name of the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Udall) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1390, a bill to help
provide relief to State education budgets during a recovering economy,
to help fulfill the Federal mandate to provide higher educational
opportunities for Native American Indians, and for other purposes.
S. 1446
At the request of Ms. Heitkamp, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Mr. Sullivan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1446, a bill to establish
the Stop, Observe, Ask, and Respond to Health and Wellness Training
pilot program to address human trafficking in the health care system.
S. 1512
At the request of Mr. Casey, the name of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Bennet) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1512, a bill to eliminate
discrimination and promote women's health and economic security by
ensuring reasonable workplace accommodations for workers whose ability
to perform the functions of a job are limited by pregnancy, childbirth,
or a related medical condition.
S. 1566
At the request of Mr. Franken, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Brown) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1566, a bill to amend the Public
Health Service Act to require group and individual health insurance
coverage and group health plans to provide for coverage of oral
anticancer drugs on terms no less favorable than the coverage provided
for anticancer medications administered by a health care provider.
S. 1890
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the names of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters)
were added as cosponsors of S. 1890, a bill to amend chapter 90 of
title 18, United States Code, to provide Federal jurisdiction for the
theft of trade secrets, and for other purposes.
S. 2066
At the request of Mr. Sasse, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. Vitter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2066, a bill to amend title
18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from
failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child
who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.
[[Page 2930]]
S. 2185
At the request of Ms. Heitkamp, the names of the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
Cochran), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. Crapo), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator
from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Thune), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) and the Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) were added as cosponsors of S. 2185, a
bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in
recognition of the fight against breast cancer.
S. 2348
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the names of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Rounds) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue) were
added as cosponsors of S. 2348, a bill to implement the use of Rapid
DNA instruments to inform decisions about pretrial release or detention
and their conditions, to solve and prevent violent crimes and other
crimes, to exonerate the innocent, to prevent DNA analysis backlogs,
and for other purposes.
S. 2476
At the request of Mr. Portman, the name of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Alexander) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2476, a bill to exclude
power supply circuits, drivers, and devices designed to be connected
to, and power, light-emitting diodes or organic light-emitting diodes
providing illumination or ceiling fans using direct current motors from
energy conservation standards for external power supplies.
S. 2495
At the request of Mr. Crapo, the name of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. Paul) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2495, a bill to amend the
Social Security Act relating to the use of determinations made by the
Commissioner.
S. 2496
At the request of Mr. Coons, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Peters) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2496, a bill to provide
flexibility for the Administrator of the Small Business Administration
to increase the total amount of general business loans that may be
guaranteed under section 7(a) of the Small Business Act.
S. 2512
At the request of Mr. Franken, the names of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar)
and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) were added as cosponsors
of S. 2512, a bill to expand the tropical disease product priority
review voucher program to encourage treatments for Zika virus.
S. 2559
At the request of Mr. Burr, the name of the Senator from Texas (Mr.
Cornyn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2559, a bill to prohibit the
modification, termination, abandonment, or transfer of the lease by
which the United States acquired the land and waters containing Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
S. 2563
At the request of Mr. Moran, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Perdue) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2563, a bill to affirm the
importance of the land forces of the United States Armed Forces and to
authorize fiscal year 2016 end-strength minimum levels for the active
and reserve components of such land forces, and for other purposes.
S. 2572
At the request of Mr. Tester, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Coons) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2572, a bill to make
demonstration grants to eligible local educational agencies or
consortia of eligible local educational agencies for the purpose of
increasing the numbers of school nurses in public elementary schools
and secondary schools.
S. 2595
At the request of Mr. Crapo, the names of the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Risch) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) were added as
cosponsors of S. 2595, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to permanently extend the railroad track maintenance credit.
S. 2621
At the request of Mr. Merkley, the name of the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2621, a bill to
amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to
genetically engineered food transparency and uniformity.
S. 2646
At the request of Mr. Burr, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. Vitter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2646, a bill to amend title
38, United States Code, to establish the Veterans Choice Program of the
Department of Veterans Affairs to improve health care provided to
veterans by the Department, and for other purposes.
S. 2650
At the request of Mr. Thune, the name of the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
Sullivan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2650, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income any prizes
or awards won in competition in the Olympic Games or the Paralympic
Games.
S.J. RES. 31
At the request of Mr. Paul, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Kirk) was added as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 31, a joint resolution
relating to the disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to
the Government of Pakistan of F-16 Block 52 aircraft.
S. RES. 368
At the request of Mr. Cardin, the names of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the
Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) were added as cosponsors of S. Res.
368, a resolution supporting efforts by the Government of Colombia to
pursue peace and the end of the country's enduring internal armed
conflict and recognizing United States support for Colombia at the 15th
anniversary of Plan Colombia.
S. RES. 370
At the request of Mr. Cardin, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Coons) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 370, a resolution
recognizing that for nearly 40 years, the United States and the
Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) have worked toward
stability, prosperity, and peace in Southeast Asia.
S. RES. 378
At the request of Mr. Johnson, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Coons) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 378, a resolution
expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the courageous work and
life of Russian opposition leader Boris Yefimovich Nemtsov and renewing
the call for a full and transparent investigation into the tragic
murder of Boris Yefimovich Nemtsov in Moscow on February 27, 2015.
S. RES. 383
At the request of Mr. Perdue, the names of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) were
added as cosponsors of S. Res. 383, a resolution recognizing the
importance of the United States-Israel economic relationship and
encouraging new areas of cooperation.
At the request of Mr. Coons, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr.
Wyden) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 383, supra.
S. RES. 388
At the request of Mrs. Shaheen, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Coons) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 388, a resolution
supporting the goals of International Women's Day.
S. RES. 391
At the request of Mr. Roberts, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Inhofe) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 391, a resolution
expressing the sense of the Senate to oppose the transfer of foreign
enemy combatants from the detention facilities at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States homeland.
[[Page 2931]]
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Durbin, and
Mr. Schatz):
S. 2668. A bill to provide housing opportunities for individuals
living with HIV or AIDS; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joining my
colleague, Senator Collins, in introducing a bill to update the funding
formula for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, or HOPWA,
program.
HOPWA is a program within the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, HUD, that provides state and local governments with
resources to ensure that stable housing and supportive services are
available for low-income individuals living with HIV/AIDS and their
families.
Stable and affordable housing is a critical component of treatment
for HIV-positive individuals. More than half of this population will
face homelessness or an unstable housing situation at some point during
the course of their illness. Medication for treatment is extremely
expensive, and the assistance offered by HOPWA results in better
management of this illness, reduces the risk of HIV transmission, and
ensures that better public health outcomes can be achieved.
Our bipartisan legislation seeks to strengthen HOPWA by improving the
accuracy of the formula used to distribute funding to housing programs
that benefit people living with HIV/AIDS. This improved funding formula
would take into account the number of persons currently living in a
community with HIV/AIDS.
HOPWA's current funding formula instead considers the cumulative
number of individuals diagnosed with HIV in a community since 1981, and
includes those individuals who have since passed away. In fact,
according to HUD, 55 percent of the cases used to determine funding
allocations under the current formula are deceased individuals. As a
result, this diverts already limited funding from communities that are
dealing with the effects of this epidemic most acutely today
Our bill proposes a more accurate formula that will protect low-
income individuals living with HIV/AIDS and their families and will
better target federal resources to the states and localities with the
greatest need today. In short, we hope to make the program more
effective and responsive in addressing the current needs of
communities.
Furthermore, to ease the move to a fairer allocation of resources,
the bill transitions current grantees to the new formula over a 5-year
period. Grantees will not lose more than 5 percent of their share of
HOPWA formula funds in each successive year until fiscal year 2021 and
cannot gain more than 10 percent of their share in each successive
fiscal year.
I thank Senator Collins for her partnership, and I urge my colleagues
to support this bipartisan bill, which will enable communities to
provide care to those living with HIV/AIDS by ensuring that their
current housing challenges can be addressed.
______
By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Carper):
S. 2669. A bill to amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security
Act to require States to provide to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services certain information with respect to provider terminations, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2669
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Ensuring Removal of
Terminated Providers from Medicaid and CHIP Act''.
SEC. 2. INCREASING OVERSIGHT OF TERMINATION OF MEDICAID
PROVIDERS.
(a) Increased Oversight and Reporting.--
(1) State reporting requirements.--Section 1902(kk) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(kk)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (9); and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following new
paragraph:
``(8) Provider terminations.--
``(A) In general.--Beginning on July 1, 2018, in the case
of a notification under subsection (a)(41) with respect to a
termination for a reason specified in section 455.101 of
title 42, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on
November 1, 2015), or for any other reason specified by the
Secretary, of the participation of a provider of services or
any other person under the State plan, the State, not later
than 21 business days after the effective date of such
termination, submits to the Secretary with respect to any
such provider or person, as appropriate--
``(i) the name of such provider or person;
``(ii) the provider type of such provider or person;
``(iii) the specialty of such provider's or person's
practice;
``(iv) the date of birth, Social Security number, national
provider identifier, Federal taxpayer identification number,
and the State license or certification number of such
provider or person;
``(v) the reason for the termination;
``(vi) a copy of the notice of termination sent to the
provider or person;
``(vii) the date on which such termination is effective, as
specified in the notice; and
``(viii) any other information required by the Secretary.
``(B) Effective date defined.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `effective date' means, with respect to a
termination described in subparagraph (A), the later of--
``(i) the date on which such termination is effective, as
specified in the notice of such termination; or
``(ii) the date on which all appeal rights applicable to
such termination have been exhausted or the timeline for any
such appeal has expired.''.
(2) Contract requirement for managed care entities.--
Section 1932(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-
2(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(5) Contract requirement for managed care entities.--With
respect to any contract with a managed care entity under
section 1903(m) or 1905(t)(3) (as applicable), no later than
July 1, 2018, such contract shall include a provision that
providers of services or persons terminated (as described in
section 1902(kk)(8)) from participation under this title,
title XVIII, or title XXI be terminated from participating
under this title as a provider in any network of such entity
that serves individuals eligible to receive medical
assistance under this title.''.
(3) Termination notification database.--Section 1902 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(ll) Termination Notification Database.--In the case of a
provider of services or any other person whose participation
under this title, title XVIII, or title XXI is terminated (as
described in subsection (kk)(8)), the Secretary shall, not
later than 21 business days after the date on which the
Secretary terminates such participation under title XVIII or
is notified of such termination under subsection (a)(41) (as
applicable), review such termination and, if the Secretary
determines appropriate, include such termination in any
database or similar system developed pursuant to section
6401(b)(2) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395cc note).''.
(4) No federal funds for items and services furnished by
terminated providers.--Section 1903 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b) is amended--
(A) in subsection (i)(2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking the comma at the end
and inserting a semicolon;
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) beginning not later than July 1, 2018, under the plan
by any provider of services or person whose participation in
the State plan is terminated (as described in section
1902(kk)(8)) after the date that is 60 days after the date on
which such termination is included in the database or other
system under section 1902(ll); or''; and
(B) in subsection (m), by inserting after paragraph (2) the
following new paragraph:
``(3) No payment shall be made under this title to a State
with respect to expenditures incurred by the State for
payment for services provided by a managed care entity (as
defined under section 1932(a)(1)) under the State plan under
this title (or under a waiver of the plan) unless the State--
``(A) beginning on July 1, 2018, has a contract with such
entity that complies with the requirement specified in
section 1932(d)(5); and
``(B) beginning on January 1, 2018, complies with the
requirement specified in section 1932(d)(6)(A).''.
(5) Development of uniform terminology for reasons for
provider termination.--Not later than July 1, 2017, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, in consultation
with the heads of State agencies
[[Page 2932]]
administering State Medicaid plans (or waivers of such
plans), issue regulations establishing uniform terminology to
be used with respect to specifying reasons under subparagraph
(A)(v) of paragraph (8) of section 1902(kk) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(kk)), as amended by paragraph
(1), for the termination (as described in such paragraph) of
the participation of certain providers in the Medicaid
program under title XIX of such Act or the Children's Health
Insurance Program under title XXI of such Act.
(6) Conforming amendment.--Section 1902(a)(41) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(41)) is amended by
striking ``provide that whenever'' and inserting ``provide,
in accordance with subsection (kk)(8) (as applicable), that
whenever''.
(b) Increasing Availability of Medicaid Provider
Information.--
(1) FFS provider enrollment.--Section 1902(a) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)) is amended by inserting
after paragraph (77) the following new paragraph:
``(78) provide that, not later than January 1, 2017, in the
case of a State plan that provides medical assistance on a
fee-for-service basis, the State shall require each provider
furnishing items and services to individuals eligible to
receive medical assistance under such plan to enroll with the
State agency and provide to the State agency the provider's
identifying information, including the name, specialty, date
of birth, Social Security number, national provider
identifier, Federal taxpayer identification number, and the
State license or certification number of the provider;''.
(2) Managed care provider enrollment.--Section 1932(d) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-2(d)), as amended by
subsection (a)(2), is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(6) Enrollment of participating providers.--
``(A) In general.--Beginning not later than January 1,
2018, a State shall require that, in order to participate as
a provider in the network of a managed care entity that
provides services to, or orders, prescribes, refers, or
certifies eligibility for services for, individuals who are
eligible for medical assistance under the State plan under
this title and who are enrolled with the entity, the provider
is enrolled with the State agency administering the State
plan under this title. Such enrollment shall include
providing to the State agency the provider's identifying
information, including the name, specialty, date of birth,
Social Security number, national provider identifier, Federal
taxpayer identification number, and the State license or
certification number of the provider.
``(B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in subparagraph (A)
shall be construed as requiring a provider described in such
subparagraph to provide services to individuals who are not
enrolled with a managed care entity under this title.''.
(c) Coordination With CHIP.--
(1) In general.--Section 2107(e)(1) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1397gg(e)(1)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), (E), (F),
(G), (H), (I), (J), (K), (L), (M), (N), and (O) as
subparagraphs (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (I), (J), (K), (M),
(N), (O), (P), (Q), and (R), respectively;
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraphs:
``(B) Section 1902(a)(39) (relating to termination of
participation of certain providers).
``(C) Section 1902(a)(78) (relating to enrollment of
providers participating in State plans providing medical
assistance on a fee-for-service basis).'';
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (K) (as redesignated by
subparagraph (A)) the following new subparagraph:
``(L) Section 1903(m)(3) (relating to limitation on payment
with respect to managed care).''; and
(D) in subparagraph (P) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(A)), by striking ``(a)(2)(C) and (h)'' and inserting
``(a)(2)(C) (relating to Indian enrollment), (d)(5) (relating
to contract requirement for managed care entities), (d)(6)
(relating to enrollment of providers participating with a
managed care entity), and (h) (relating to special rules with
respect to Indian enrollees, Indian health care providers,
and Indian managed care entities)''.
(2) Excluding from medicaid providers excluded from chip.--
Section 1902(a)(39) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396a(a)(39)) is amended by striking ``title XVIII or any
other State plan under this title'' and inserting ``title
XVIII, any other State plan under this title, or any State
child health plan under title XXI''.
(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as changing or limiting the appeal rights of
providers or the process for appeals of States under the
Social Security Act.
(e) OIG Report.--Not later than March 31, 2020, the
Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human
Services shall submit to Congress a report on the
implementation of the amendments made by this section. Such
report shall include the following:
(1) An assessment of the extent to which providers who are
included under subsection (ll) of section 1902 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a) (as added by subsection
(a)(3)) in the database or similar system referred to in such
subsection are terminated (as described in subsection (kk)(8)
of such section, as added by subsection (a)(1)) from
participation in all State plans under title XIX of such Act.
(2) Information on the amount of Federal financial
participation paid to States under section 1903 of such Act
in violation of the limitation on such payment specified in
subsections (i)(2)(D) and subsection (m)(3) of such section,
as added by subsection (a)(4).
(3) An assessment of the extent to which contracts with
managed care entities under title XIX of such Act comply with
the requirement specified in section 1932(d)(5) of such Act,
as added by subsection (a)(2).
(4) An assessment of the extent to which providers have
been enrolled under section 1902(a)(78) or 1932(d)(6)(A) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(78), 1396u-2(d)(6)(A)) with
State agencies administering State plans under title XIX of
such Act.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 396--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT
INDIVIDUALS CAPTURED BY THE UNITED STATES FOR SUPPORTING THE ISLAMIC
STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT SHOULD BE DETAINED AT UNITED STATES NAVAL
STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA
Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. Moran, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Cotton, Mr.
Roberts, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Cruz, Mrs.
Ernst, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Scott, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Perdue)
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee
on Foreign Relations:
S. Res. 396
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has
declared war on the United States;
(2) the United States Armed Forces are currently engaged in
combat operations against ISIL;
(3) in conducting combat operations against ISIL, the
United States has captured and detained individuals
associated with ISIL and will likely capture and hold
additional ISIL detainees;
(4) following the horrific terrorist attacks on September
11, 2001, the United States determined that it would detain
at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
individuals who had engaged in, aided, or abetted, or
conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism, or acts
in preparation therefor, that have caused, threaten to cause,
or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects
on the United States, its citizens, national security,
foreign policy, or economy;
(5) members of ISIL captured by the United States during
combat operations against ISIL meet such criteria for
continued detention at United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay; and
(6) all individuals captured by the United States during
combat operations against ISIL that meet such criteria by
their affiliation with ISIL must be detained outside the
United States and its territories and should transferred to
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 397--SUPPORTING THE RECOGNITION OF 2016 AS THE ``YEAR
OF PULSES'' AND ACKNOWLEDGING THE NUTRITIONAL BENEFIT AND IMPORTANT
CONTRIBUTION TO SOIL HEALTH OF PULSE CROPS
Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Tester, Mrs. Murray, and
Ms. Heitkamp) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry:
S. Res. 397
Whereas the United States will celebrate 2016 as the ``Year
of Pulses'';
[[Page 2933]]
Whereas the 68th United Nations General Assembly declared
2016 as the International Year of Pulses;
Whereas a pulse is a dry, edible seed of a plant in the
legume family, including a dry bean, dry pea, lentil, or
chickpea;
Whereas pulse crops are grown in abundance in Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, South
Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming;
Whereas a pulse is an important component of a nutritious
diet and is high in plant-based protein, vitamins, fiber, and
minerals, including iron, potassium, magnesium, and zinc;
Whereas a pulse helps prevent serious and chronic illness,
including heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and stroke;
Whereas a legume serves as an important rotation crop,
keeps soil fertile, and improves overall soil health by
replenishing nitrogen;
Whereas a pulse crop provides food security and nutrition
to much of the developing world as a low-cost source of
protein; and
Whereas a pulse crop is an important economic development
crop for small farmers, for both domestic production and
export potential: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate supports--
(1) the recognition of 2016 as the ``Year of Pulses'';
(2) the participation by representatives of the Federal
Government in events and activities organized pursuant to the
observance by the United Nations of the International Year of
Pulses in 2016; and
(3) the future funding of programs to support the
cultivation and consumption of pulses.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on armed services
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on March 10, 2016, at 10 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on March 10, 2016, at 11:30 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on foreign relations
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on March 10, 2016, at 10 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on foreign relations
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on March 10, 2016, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled
``Nominations.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on the judiciary
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate
on March 10, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate
Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
select committee on intelligence
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on March 10, 2016, at 2 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Hart
Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on small business and entrepreneurship
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on March 10, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SR-428A of
the Russell Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Up in the
Air: Examining the Commercial Applications of Unmanned Aircraft for
Small Business.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
permanent subcommittee on investigations
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on March 10, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing
entitled ``Review of the Affordable Care Act Health Insurance CO-OP
Program.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to executive session for the en bloc consideration of Calendar
Nos. 474 and 475; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc and the
motions to be reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table
with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in
order; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the
Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's
action and the Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:
in the coast guard
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Coast Guard Reserve in the grade indicated under title
10, U.S.C., section 12203(a):
To be rear admiral
Francis S. Pelkowski
The following named officer for appointment to a position
of importance and responsibility as Deputy Commandant for
Operations in the United States Coast Guard and to the grade
indicated under title 14, U.S.C., section 50:
To be vice admiral
Rear Adm. Fred M. Midgette
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume legislative
sessions.
____________________
ORDERS FOR MONDAY,
MARCH 14, 2016
Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m., Monday,
March 14; that following the prayer and pledge the morning hour be
deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the
time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day;
further, that following leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of
morning business until 4 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein
for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2016, AT 3 P.M.
Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned
under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 5:27 p.m., adjourned until
Monday, March 14, 2016, at 3 p.m.
____________________
CONFIRMATIONS
Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate March 10, 2016:
IN THE COAST GUARD
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES COAST GUARD RESERVE IN THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE
10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203(A):
To be rear admiral
FRANCIS S. PELKOWSKI
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO A POSITION
OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY AS DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR
OPERATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD AND TO THE GRADE
INDICATED UNDER TITLE 14, U.S.C., SECTION 50:
To be vice admiral
REAR ADM. FRED M. MIDGETTE
[[Page 2934]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, March 10, 2016
The House met at 11:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker
pro tempore (Mr. Holding).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
March 10, 2016.
I hereby appoint the Honorable George Holding to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
PRAYER
Reverend Michael Siconolfi, Society of Jesus, Quantico, Virginia,
offered the following prayer:
Lord, You are the author and sustainer of our lives; Yours is the
love that bears mercy and the sweet waters that never run dry. By the
power of Your word, You stilled the chaos of primeval seas, made the
raging waters of the flood subside and etched the channels of fruitful
rivers from the Jordan to the Nile, from the Mississippi to the Rio
Grande.
We gather this day not far from the river called Potomac to pray for
Your blessing upon the Members of this House. Much has been given them;
and from them much will be required. Assist them with Your help that
they may arrive at the final rollcall vote in Your grace and favor.
Grant all of us here on the shores of this nearby river a sense of
hope as we strive to be instruments of Your peace. ``In this brief
transit . . . teach us to care and not to care. Teach us to sit still.
Our peace is in Your will.''
We ask this for Your greater glory.
Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 2(a) of House Resolution
635, the Journal of the last day's proceedings is approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Whitfield) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. WHITFIELD led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
PERMISSION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ON H.R. 4596
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Energy and Commerce be authorized to file a supplemental
report on the bill, H.R. 4596.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 9, 2016.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
The Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in
Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Clerk received the following message
from the Secretary of the Senate on March 9, 2016 at 9:29
a.m.:
That the Senate passed S. 2426.
That the Senate concur in the House amendment to the bill
S. 1580.
That the Senate concur in the House amendment to the bill
S. 1172.
That the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 1755.
That the Senate agreed to without amendment H. Con. Res.
113.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Karen L. Haas.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM CHAIR OF COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Chair of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure; which was read and, without objection, referred to the
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, March 3, 2016.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House,
House of Representatives,
The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: On March 2, 2016, pursuant to section
3307 of Title 40, United States Code, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure met in open session to
consider 24 resolutions included in the General Services
Administration's Capital Investment and Leasing Programs.
The Committee continues to work to reduce the cost of
federal property and leases. Of the 24 resolutions
considered, the six alteration projects include space
consolidations, security improvements, and improvements to
space efficiency; the three construction projects include two
land ports of entry and a federal courthouse consistent with
existing funding; the prospectus for site acquisition and
design and the prospectus for a building purchase both will
result in significant cost savings from avoided lease costs;
and the 13 lease prospectuses include significant reductions
of leased space. In total, these resolutions represent $386
million in avoided lease costs and offsets.
I have enclosed copies of the resolutions adopted by the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on March 2,
2016.
Sincerely,
Bill Shuster,
Chairman.
Enclosures.
Committee Resolution
ALTERATION--CONSOLIDATION ACTIVITIES PROGRAM, VARIOUS BUILDINGS
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307, appropriations are
authorized for the reconfiguration and renovation of space
within government-owned and leased buildings during fiscal
year 2016 to improve space utilization, optimize inventory,
and decrease reliance on leased space at a total cost of
$75,000,000, a prospectus for which is attached to and
included in this resolution.
Provided, that consolidation projects result in reduced
annual rent paid by the tenant agency.
Provided, that no consolidation project exceeds $20,000,000
in costs.
Provided further, that preference is given to consolidation
projects that achieve an office utilization rate of 130
usable square feet or less per person.
Provided further, that the General Services Administration
shall not delegate to any other agency the authority granted
by this resolution.
[[Page 2935]]
[[Page 2936]]
[[Page 2937]]
[[Page 2938]]
Committee Resolution
ALTERATION--ENERGY AND WATER RETROFIT AND CONSERVATION MEASURES
PROGRAM, VARIOUS BUILDINGS
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307, appropriations are
authorized for alterations to implement energy and water
retrofit and conservation measures, as well as high
performance energy projects, in Government-owned buildings
during Fiscal Year 2016 at a total cost of $10,000,000, a
prospectus for which is attached to and included in this
resolution.
Provided further, that the General Services Administration
shall not delegate to any other agency the authority granted
by this resolution.
[[Page 2939]]
[[Page 2940]]
[[Page 2941]]
[[Page 2942]]
[[Page 2943]]
Committee Resolution
alteration--judiciary court security program, various buildings
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307, appropriations are
authorized for alterations to improve physical security in
government-owned buildings occupied by the Judiciary and U.S.
Marshals Service during Fiscal Year 2016 at a total cost of
$20,000,000, a prospectus for which is attached to and
included in this resolution.
Provided further, that the General Services Administration
shall not delegate to any other agency the authority granted
by this resolution.
[[Page 2944]]
[[Page 2945]]
[[Page 2946]]
Committee Resolution
alteration--william j. green, jr. federal building, philadelphia, pa
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307, appropriations are
authorized for Phase I of a two phase repair and alteration
project for the approximately 841,000 gross square feet of
William J. Green, Jr., Federal Building located at 600 Arch
Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at an additional design
cost of $1,200,000, a total estimated construction cost of
$39,950,000 and a total management and inspection cost of
$3,850,000 for an estimated project cost of $45,000,000, a
prospectus for which is attached to and included in this
resolution.
Provided, that the General Services Administration shall
not delegate to any other agency the authority granted by
this resolution.
[[Page 2947]]
[[Page 2948]]
[[Page 2949]]
[[Page 2950]]
[[Page 2951]]
[[Page 2952]]
[[Page 2953]]
[[Page 2954]]
[[Page 2955]]
Committee Resolution
alteration--U.S. Land Port of Entry, Pacific Highway, Blaine, WA
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307, appropriations are
authorized for repairs and alterations to resolve exterior
envelope deficiencies and promote energy savings at the U.S.
Land Port of Entry located at Pacific Highway in Blaine,
Washington at a design cost of $1,030,000, an estimated
construction cost of $9,956,000 and a management and
inspection cost of $944,000 for a total estimated project
cost of $11,930,000, a prospectus for which is attached to
and included in this resolution.
Provided, that the General Services Administration shall
not delegate to any other agency the authority granted by
this resolution.
[[Page 2956]]
[[Page 2957]]
[[Page 2958]]
[[Page 2959]]
[[Page 2960]]
Committee Resolution
site acquisition and design--federal office building, boyers, pa
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307, appropriations are
authorized for site acquisition and design for the
construction of 462,000 gross square feet of space to provide
a long-term housing solution for the Office of Personnel
Management, the Social Security Administration, and the
Department of Defense in the vicinity of Boyers, Pennsylvania
to allow the Government to consolidate these operations,
currently housed in leased space in an underground mine, into
an owned facility at a site acquisition cost of $12,000,000,
a design cost of $11,562,000, and a Management and Inspection
cost of $7,638,000 for a total estimated project cost for
design and site acquisition of $31,200,000, a prospectus for
which is attached to and included in this resolution.
Provided, that the General Services Administration shall
not delegate to any other agency the authority granted by
this resolution.
[[Page 2961]]
[[Page 2962]]
[[Page 2963]]
[[Page 2964]]
[[Page 2965]]
[[Page 2966]]
Committee Resolution
building acquisition--irs annex building purchase, austin, tx
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307, appropriations are
authorized for the acquisition of the Internal Revenue
Service Annex Building composed of 144,101 rentable square
feet of space and 179 parking spaces located at 2021 Woodward
Street in Austin, Texas at a building, site acquisition and
total estimated project cost of $12,756,000, a prospectus for
which is attached to and included in this resolution.
Provided, that the General Services Administration shall
not delegate to any other agency the authority granted by
this resolution.
[[Page 2967]]
[[Page 2968]]
[[Page 2969]]
[[Page 2970]]
[[Page 2971]]
Committee Resolution
construction--u.s. land port of entry, columbus, nm
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307, appropriations are
authorized for the construction of new replacement land port
of entry facilities of 69,243 gross square feet (including
canopies) to safely and efficiently accommodate steady
increases in car, truck and pedestrian traffic as well as
incorporate extensive site improvements to address
significant stormwater drainage issues at the port at an
estimated construction cost of $79,600,000 and a management
and inspection cost of $6,045,000 for an estimated project
cost of $85,645,000, a prospectus for which is attached to
and included in this resolution.
Provided, that the General Services Administration shall
not delegate to any other agency the authority granted by
this resolution.
[[Page 2972]]
[[Page 2973]]
[[Page 2974]]
[[Page 2975]]
[[Page 2976]]
[[Page 2977]]
[[Page 2978]]
[[Page 2979]]
Committee Resolution
CONSTRUCTION--U.S. LAND PORT OF ENTRY, ALEXANDRIA BAY, NY
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307, appropriations are
authorized for the construction of facilities of 261,000
gross square feet (including canopies and structured parking)
to replace the existing land port of entry in Alexandria Bay,
New York in support of Phase II of a two-phase project at an
estimated construction cost of $91,617,000 and a management
and inspection cost of $8,854,000 for a total estimated
project cost of $100,471,000, a prospectus for which is
attached to and included in this resolution.
Provided, that the General Services Administration shall
not delegate to any other agency the authority granted by
this resolution.
[[Page 2980]]
[[Page 2981]]
[[Page 2982]]
[[Page 2983]]
[[Page 2984]]
[[Page 2985]]
[[Page 2986]]
[[Page 2987]]
[[Page 2988]]
Committee Resolution
CONSTRUCTION--NEW U.S. COURTHOUSE, NASHVILLE, TN
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307, appropriations are
authorized for the minimal additional site-related work,
design and construction of a U.S. Courthouse, up to 386,000
gross square feet (including underground parking), located in
Nashville, Tennessee, at additional site costs of $2,417,000,
an additional design costs of $1,955,000, a total estimated
construction cost of $172,193,000, and total management and
inspection costs of $9,860,000 at a proposed total additional
authorization of $186,425,000, for which a prospectus and
fact sheet, amending the prospectus, is attached to, and
included in this resolution. This resolution amends the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure resolutions of
July 26, 2000, July 18, 2001, and July 21, 2004.
Provided, that the Administrator of General Services shall
ensure that construction of the new courthouse complies, at a
minimum, with courtroom sharing requirements adopted by the
Judicial Conference of the United States.
Provided further, that the Administrator of General
Services shall ensure that the construction of the new
courthouse contains no more than eight courtrooms, including
four for District Judges, two for Senior District Judges, and
two for Magistrate Judges.
Provided further, that the design of the new courthouse
shall not deviate from the design as reflected in the
attached prospectus as amended by the fact sheet and any
additional design shall conform with the requirements of the
U.S. Courts Design Guide.
[[Page 2989]]
[[Page 2990]]
[[Page 2991]]
[[Page 2992]]
[[Page 2993]]
[[Page 2994]]
[[Page 2995]]
[[Page 2996]]
[[Page 2997]]
[[Page 2998]]
[[Page 2999]]
[[Page 3000]]
[[Page 3001]]
[[Page 3002]]
[[Page 3003]]
[[Page 3004]]
Committee Resolution
LEASE--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307, appropriations are
authorized for a lease extension of up to 75,269 rentable
square feet of space, including 2 official parking spaces,
for the Department of Education currently located at 50 Beale
Street in San Francisco, California at a proposed total
annual cost of $5,494,637 for a lease term of up to 3 years,
a prospectus for which is attached to and included in this
resolution.
Approval of this prospectus constitutes authority to
execute an interim lease for all tenants, if necessary, prior
to the execution of the new lease.
Provided that, the Administrator of General Services and
tenant agencies agree to apply an overall utilization rate of
468 square feet or less per person, except that, if the
Administrator determines that the overall utilization rate
cannot be achieved, the Administrator shall provide an
explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided that, except for interim leases as described
above, the Administrator may not enter into any leases that
are below prospectus level for the purposes of meeting any of
the requirements, or portions thereof, included in the
prospectus that would result in an overall utilization rate
of 468 square feet or higher per person.
Provided that, to the maximum extent practicable, the
Administrator shall include in the lease contract(s) a
purchase option that can be exercised at the conclusion of
the firm term of the lease.
Provided further, that the Administrator shall require that
the delineated area of the procurement is identical to the
delineated area included in the prospectus, except that, if
the Administrator determines that the delineated area of the
procurement should not be identical to the delineated area
included in the prospectus, the Administrator shall provide
an explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided further, that the General Services Administration
shall not delegate to any other agency the authority granted
by this resolution.
[[Page 3005]]
[[Page 3006]]
[[Page 3007]]
[[Page 3008]]
[[Page 3009]]
Committee Resolution
lease--u.s. department of defense, army corps of engineers, san
francisco, ca
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307, appropriations are
authorized for a lease extension of up to 71,728 rentable
square feet of space for the Army Corps of Engineers
currently located at 1455 Market Street in San Francisco,
California at a proposed total annual cost of $4,662,320 for
a lease term of up to 2 years, a prospectus for which is
attached to and included in this resolution.
Approval of this prospectus constitutes authority to
execute an interim lease for all tenants, if necessary, prior
to the execution of the new lease.
Provided that, the Administrator of General Services and
tenant agencies agree to apply an overall utilization rate of
204 square feet or less per person, except that, if the
Administrator determines that the overall utilization rate
cannot be achieved, the Administrator shall provide an
explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided that, except for interim leases as described
above, the Administrator may not enter into any leases that
are below prospectus level for the purposes of meeting any of
the requirements, or portions thereof, included in the
prospectus that would result in an overall utilization rate
of 204 square feet or higher per person.
Provided that, to the maximum extent practicable, the
Administrator shall include in the lease contract(s) a
purchase option that can be exercised at the conclusion of
the firm term of the lease.
Provided further, that the Administrator shall require that
the delineated area of the procurement is identical to the
delineated area included in the prospectus, except that, if
the Administrator determines that the delineated area of the
procurement should not be identical to the delineated area
included in the prospectus, the Administrator shall provide
an explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided further, that the General Services Administration
shall not delegate to any other agency the authority granted
by this resolution.
[[Page 3010]]
[[Page 3011]]
[[Page 3012]]
[[Page 3013]]
[[Page 3014]]
Committee Resolution
lease--u.s. department of justice, executive office of immigration
review and u.s. department of homeland security, immigration and
customs enforcement, san francisco, ca
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307, appropriations are
authorized for a succeeding lease of up to 85,000 rentable
square feet of space, including 25 official parking spaces,
for the Department of Justice, Executive Office for
Immigration Review and the Department of Homeland Security,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Office of Principle
Legal Advisors currently located at 100 Montgomery Street in
San Francisco, California at a proposed total annual cost of
$6,460,000 for a lease term of up to 10 years, a prospectus
for which is attached to and included in this resolution.
Approval of this prospectus constitutes authority to
execute an interim lease for all tenants, if necessary, prior
to the execution of the new lease.
Provided that, the Administrator of General Services and
tenant agencies agree to apply an overall utilization rate of
556 square feet or less per person for the Executive Office
of Immigration Review and 253 square feet or less per person
for the Office of Principle Legal Advisors, except that, if
the Administrator determines that the overall utilization
rates cannot be achieved, the Administrator shall provide an
explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided that, except for interim leases as described
above, the Administrator may not enter into any leases that
are below prospectus level for the purposes of meeting any of
the requirements, or portions thereof, included in the
prospectus that would result in an overall utilization rate
of 556 square feet or higher per person for the Executive
Office of Immigration Review or 253 square feet or higher per
person for the Office of Principle Legal Advisors.
Provided that, to the maximum extent practicable, the
Administrator shall include in the lease contract(s) a
purchase option that can be exercised at the conclusion of
the firm term of the lease.
Provided further, that the Administrator shall require that
the delineated area of the procurement is identical to the
delineated area included in the prospectus, except that, if
the Administrator determines that the delineated area of the
procurement should not be identical to the delineated area
included in the prospectus, the Administrator shall provide
an explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided further, that the General Services Administration
shall not delegate to any other agency the authority granted
by this resolution.
[[Page 3015]]
[[Page 3016]]
[[Page 3017]]
[[Page 3018]]
[[Page 3019]]
[[Page 3020]]
Committee Resolution
lease--federal election commission, washington, dc
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307, appropriations are
authorized for a replacement lease of up to 105,000 rentable
square feet of space, including 2 official parking spaces,
for the Federal Election Commission currently located at 999
E Street, NW in Washington, DC at a proposed total annual
cost of $5,250,000 for a lease term of up to 15 years, a
prospectus for which is attached to and included in this
resolution.
Approval of this prospectus constitutes authority to
execute an interim lease for all tenants, if necessary, prior
to the execution of the new lease.
Provided that, the Administrator of General Services and
tenant agencies agree to apply an overall utilization rate of
218 square feet or less per person, except that, if the
Administrator determines that the overall utilization rate
cannot be achieved, the Administrator shall provide an
explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided that, except for interim leases as described
above, the Administrator may not enter into any leases that
are below prospectus level for the purposes of meeting any of
the requirements, or portions thereof, included in the
prospectus that would result in an overall utilization rate
of 218 square feet or higher per person.
Provided that, to the maximum extent practicable, the
Administrator shall include in the lease contract(s) a
purchase option that can be exercised at the conclusion of
the firm term of the lease.
Provided further, that the Administrator shall require that
the delineated area of the procurement is identical to the
delineated area included in the prospectus, except that, if
the Administrator determines that the delineated area of the
procurement should not be identical to the delineated area
included in the prospectus, the Administrator shall provide
an explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided further, that the General Services Administration
shall not delegate to any other agency the authority granted
by this resolution.
[[Page 3021]]
[[Page 3022]]
[[Page 3023]]
[[Page 3024]]
[[Page 3025]]
Committee Resolution
LEASE--U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, BALTIMORE,
MD
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307, appropriations are
authorized for a replacement lease of up to 143,000 rentable
square feet of space, including 44 official parking spaces,
for the Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers
currently located at 10 South Howard Street in Baltimore,
Maryland at a proposed total annual cost of $4,842,200,
including an annual parking cost of $123,200, for a lease
term of up to 20 years, a prospectus for which is attached to
and included in this resolution.
Approval of this prospectus constitutes authority to
execute an interim lease for all tenants, if necessary, prior
to the execution of the new lease.
Provided that, the Administrator of General Services and
tenant agencies agree to apply an overall utilization rate of
183 square feet or less per person, except that, if the
Administrator determines that the overall utilization rate
cannot be achieved, the Administrator shall provide an
explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided that, except for interim leases as described
above, the Administrator may not enter into any leases that
are below prospectus level for the purposes of meeting any of
the requirements, or portions thereof, included in the
prospectus that would result in an overall utilization rate
of 183 square feet or higher per person.
Provided that, to the maximum extent practicable, the
Administrator shall include in the lease contract(s) a
purchase option that can be exercised at the conclusion of
the firm term of the lease.
Provided further, that the Administrator shall require that
the delineated area of the procurement is identical to the
delineated area included in the prospectus, except that, if
the Administrator determines that the delineated area of the
procurement should not be identical to the delineated area
included in the prospectus, the Administrator shall provide
an explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided further, that the General Services Administration
shall not delegate to any other agency the authority granted
by this resolution.
[[Page 3026]]
[[Page 3027]]
[[Page 3028]]
[[Page 3029]]
[[Page 3030]]
Committee Resolution
LEASE--U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, CUSTOMS AND BORDER
PROTECTION, NEWARK, NJ
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307, appropriations are
authorized for a replacement lease of up to 123,000 rentable
square feet of space, including 58 official parking spaces,
for the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border
Protection currently located at 1100 Raymond Boulevard in
Newark, New Jersey at a proposed total annual cost of
$4,551,000 for a lease term of up to 15 years, a prospectus
for which is attached to and included in this resolution.
Approval of this prospectus constitutes authority to
execute an interim lease for all tenants, if necessary, prior
to the execution of the new lease.
Provided that, the Administrator of General Services and
tenant agencies agree to apply an overall utilization rate of
290 square feet or less per person, except that, if the
Administrator determines that the overall utilization rate
cannot be achieved, the Administrator shall provide an
explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided that, except for interim leases as described
above, the Administrator may not enter into any leases that
are below prospectus level for the purposes of meeting any of
the requirements, or portions thereof, included in the
prospectus that would result in an overall utilization rate
of 290 square feet or higher per person.
Provided that, to the maximum extent practicable, the
Administrator shall include in the lease contract(s) a
purchase option that can be exercised at the conclusion of
the firm term of the lease.
Provided further, that the Administrator shall require that
the delineated area of the procurement is identical to the
delineated area included in the prospectus, except that, if
the Administrator determines that the delineated area of the
procurement should not be identical to the delineated area
included in the prospectus, the Administrator shall provide
an explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided further, that the General Services Administration
shall not delegate to any other agency the authority granted
by this resolution.
[[Page 3031]]
[[Page 3032]]
[[Page 3033]]
[[Page 3034]]
[[Page 3035]]
Committee Resolution
Lease--Environmental Protection Agency, Northern Virginia
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 3307, appropriations are authorized for
a lease extension of up to 326,057 rentable square feet of
space, including 15 official parking spaces, for the
Environmental Protection Agency currently located at 2777
Crystal Drive (One Potomac Yard) and 2733 Crystal Drive in
Arlington, Virginia at a proposed total annual cost of
$12,716,223 for a lease term of up to 5 years, a prospectus
for which is attached to and included in this resolution.
Approval of this prospectus constitutes authority to
execute an interim lease for all tenants, if necessary, prior
to the execution of the new lease.
Provided that, the Administrator of General Services and
tenant agencies agree to apply an overall utilization rate of
196 square feet or less per person, except that, if the
Administrator determines that the overall utilization rate
cannot be achieved, the Administrator shall provide an
explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided that, except for interim leases as described
above, the Administrator may not enter into any leases that
are below prospectus level for the purposes of meeting any of
the requirements, or portions thereof, included in the
prospectus that would result in an overall utilization rate
of 196 square feet or higher per person.
Provided that, to the maximum extent practicable, the
Administrator shall include in the lease contract(s) a
purchase option that can be exercised at the conclusion of
the firm term of the lease.
Provided further, that the Administrator shall require that
the delineated area of the procurement is identical to the
delineated area included in the prospectus, except that, if
the Administrator determines that the delineated area of the
procurement should not be identical to the delineated area
included in the prospectus, the Administrator shall provide
an explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided further, that the General Services Administration
shall not delegate to any other agency the authority granted
by this resolution.
[[Page 3036]]
[[Page 3037]]
[[Page 3038]]
[[Page 3039]]
[[Page 3040]]
Committee Resolution
LEASE--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, WASHINGTON, DC
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307, appropriations are
authorized for a replacement lease of up to 97,000 rentable
square feet of space for the Department of Veterans Affairs
currently located at 801 I Street, NW in Washington, DC at a
proposed total annual cost of $4,850,000 for a lease term of
up to 15 years, a prospectus for which is attached to and
included in this resolution.
Approval of this prospectus constitutes authority to
execute an interim lease for all tenants, if necessary, prior
to the execution of the new lease.
Provided that, the Administrator of General Services and
tenant agencies agree to apply an overall utilization rate of
184 square feet or less per person, except that, if the
Administrator determines that the overall utilization rate
cannot be achieved, the Administrator shall provide an
explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided that, except for interim leases as described
above, the Administrator may not enter into any leases that
are below prospectus level for the purposes of meeting any of
the requirements, or portions thereof, included in the
prospectus that would result in an overall utilization rate
of 184 square feet or higher per person.
Provided that, to the maximum extent practicable, the
Administrator shall include in the lease contract(s) a
purchase option that can be exercised at the conclusion of
the firm term of the lease.
Provided further, that the Administrator shall require that
the delineated area of the procurement is identical to the
delineated area included in the prospectus, except that, if
the Administrator determines that the delineated area of the
procurement should not be identical to the delineated area
included in the prospectus, the Administrator shall provide
an explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided further, that the General Services Administration
shall not delegate to any other agency the authority granted
by this resolution.
[[Page 3041]]
[[Page 3042]]
[[Page 3043]]
[[Page 3044]]
[[Page 3045]]
Committee Resolution
LEASE--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS, DENVER,
CO
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307, appropriations are
authorized for a replacement lease of up to 176,000 rentable
square feet of space, including 40 official parking spaces,
for the Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 Headquarters
currently located at 1595 Wynkoop Street in Denver, Colorado
at a proposed total annual cost of $8,096,000 for a lease
term of up to 15 years, a prospectus for which is attached to
and included in this resolution.
Approval of this prospectus constitutes authority to
execute an interim lease for all tenants, if necessary, prior
to the execution of the new lease.
Provided that, the Administrator of General Services and
tenant agencies agree to apply an overall utilization rate of
200 square feet or less per person, except that, if the
Administrator determines that the overall utilization rate
cannot be achieved, the Administrator shall provide an
explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided that, except for interim leases as described
above, the Administrator may not enter into any leases that
are below prospectus level for the purposes of meeting any of
the requirements, or portions thereof, included in the
prospectus that would result in an overall utilization rate
of 200 square feet or higher per person.
Provided that, to the maximum extent practicable, the
Administrator shall include in the lease contract(s) a
purchase option that can be exercised at the conclusion of
the firm term of the lease.
Provided further, that the Administrator shall require that
the delineated area of the procurement is identical to the
delineated area included in the prospectus, except that, if
the Administrator determines that the delineated area of the
procurement should not be identical to the delineated area
included in the prospectus, the Administrator shall provide
an explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided further, that the General Services Administration
shall not delegate to any other agency the authority granted
by this resolution.
[[Page 3046]]
[[Page 3047]]
[[Page 3048]]
[[Page 3049]]
[[Page 3050]]
Committee Resolution
LEASE--DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307, appropriations are
authorized for a replacement lease of up to 115,000 rentable
square feet of space for the Department of State currently
located at 2121 Virginia Avenue, NW in Washington, DC at a
proposed total annual cost of $5,750,000 for a lease term of
up to 15 years, a prospectus for which is attached to and
included in this resolution.
Approval of this prospectus constitutes authority to
execute an interim lease for all tenants, if necessary, prior
to the execution of the new lease.
Provided that, the Administrator of General Services and
tenant agencies agree to apply an overall utilization rate of
195 square feet or less per person, except that, if the
Administrator determines that the overall utilization rate
cannot be achieved, the Administrator shall provide an
explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided that, except for interim leases as described
above, the Administrator may not enter into any leases that
are below prospectus level for the purposes of meeting any of
the requirements, or portions thereof, included in the
prospectus that would result in an overall utilization rate
of 195 square feet or higher per person.
Provided that, to the maximum extent practicable, the
Administrator shall include in the lease contract(s) a
purchase option that can be exercised at the conclusion of
the firm term of the lease.
Provided further, that the Administrator shall require that
the delineated area of the procurement is identical to the
delineated area included in the prospectus, except that, if
the Administrator determines that the delineated area of the
procurement should not be identical to the delineated area
included in the prospectus, the Administrator shall provide
an explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided further, that the General Services Administration
shall not delegate to any other agency the authority granted
by this resolution.
[[Page 3051]]
[[Page 3052]]
[[Page 3053]]
[[Page 3054]]
[[Page 3055]]
[[Page 3056]]
Committee Resolution
lease--u.s. department of justice, drug enforcement administration,
northern virginia
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307, appropriations are
authorized for a replacement lease of up to 575,000 rentable
square feet of space, including 85 official parking spaces,
for the U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement
Administration currently located at 600-700 Army Navy Drive
in Arlington, Virginia at a proposed total annual cost of
$22,425,000 for a lease term of up to 15 years, a prospectus
for which is attached to and included in this resolution.
Approval of this prospectus constitutes authority to
execute an interim lease for all tenants, if necessary, prior
to the execution of the new lease.
Provided that, the Administrator of General Services and
tenant agencies agree to apply an overall utilization rate of
192 square feet or less per person, except that, if the
Administrator determines that the overall utilization rate
cannot be achieved, the Administrator shall provide an
explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided that, except for interim leases as described
above, the Administrator may not enter into any leases that
are below prospectus level for the purposes of meeting any of
the requirements, or portions thereof, included in the
prospectus that would result in an overall utilization rate
of 192 square feet or higher per person.
Provided that, to the maximum extent practicable, the
Administrator shall include in the lease contract(s) a
purchase option that can be exercised at the conclusion of
the firm term of the lease.
Provided further, that the Administrator shall require that
the delineated area of the procurement is identical to the
delineated area included in the prospectus, except that, if
the Administrator determines that the delineated area of the
procurement should not be identical to the delineated area
included in the prospectus, the Administrator shall provide
an explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided further, that the General Services Administration
shall not delegate to any other agency the authority granted
by this resolution.
[[Page 3057]]
[[Page 3058]]
[[Page 3059]]
[[Page 3060]]
[[Page 3061]]
Committee Resolution
LEASE--DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES, DALLAS, TX
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307, appropriations are
authorized for a replacement lease of up to 261,000 rentable
square feet of space, including 8 official parking spaces,
for the Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and
Immigration Services currently located at 4141 N. St. in
Augustine, Mesquite, Texas, 7701 N. Stemmons Freeway in
Dallas, Texas, and 8001 N. Stemmons Freeway in Dallas, Texas
at a proposed total annual cost of $7,830,000 for a lease
term of up to 20 years, a prospectus for which is attached to
and included in this resolution.
Approval of this prospectus constitutes authority to
execute an interim lease for all tenants, if necessary, prior
to the execution of the new lease.
Provided that, the Administrator of General Services and
tenant agencies agree to apply an overall utilization rate of
218 square feet or less per person, except that, if the
Administrator determines that the overall utilization rate
cannot be achieved, the Administrator shall provide an
explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided that, except for interim leases as described
above, the Administrator may not enter into any leases that
are below prospectus level for the purposes of meeting any of
the requirements, or portions thereof, included in the
prospectus that would result in an overall utilization rate
of 218 square feet or higher per person.
Provided that, to the maximum extent practicable, the
Administrator shall include in the lease contract(s) a
purchase option that can be exercised at the conclusion of
the firm term of the lease.
Provided further, that the Administrator shall require that
the delineated area of the procurement is identical to the
delineated area included in the prospectus, except that, if
the Administrator determines that the delineated area of the
procurement should not be identical to the delineated area
included in the prospectus, the Administrator shall provide
an explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided further, that the General Services Administration
shall not delegate to any other agency the authority granted
by this resolution.
[[Page 3062]]
[[Page 3063]]
[[Page 3064]]
[[Page 3065]]
[[Page 3066]]
[[Page 3067]]
Committee Resolution
ALTERATION--EDWARD R. ROYBAL FEDERAL BUILDING AND U.S. COURTHOUSE, LOS
ANGELES, CA
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 3307, appropriations are authorized for
repairs and alterations for the building system upgrades and
the reconfiguration and alteration of space currently
occupied by the U.S. District Courts in the Edward R. Roybal
Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Los Angeles,
California to allow for the consolidation of court operations
currently housed in the Roybal Federal Building and in 312
North Spring Street at a design cost of $2,207,000, an
estimated construction cost of $15,753,000 and a management
and inspection cost of $1,423,000 for a total estimated
project cost of $19,383,000, a prospectus for which is
attached to and included in this resolution.
Provided, that the General Services Administration shall
not delegate to any other agency the authority granted by
this resolution.
[[Page 3068]]
[[Page 3069]]
[[Page 3070]]
[[Page 3071]]
[[Page 3072]]
[[Page 3073]]
Amended Committee Resolution
LEASE--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, DALLAS, TX
Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, that
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 3307, appropriations are authorized for
a replacement lease of up to 229,000 rentable square feet of
space, including 40 official parking spaces, for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency currently located at 1445
Ross Street in Dallas, Texas, at a proposed total annual cost
of $6,412,000 for a lease term of up to 20 years, a
prospectus for which is attached to and included in this
resolution as amended by this resolution. This resolution
amends the Committee resolution dated February 12, 2015,
authorizing a lease with an overall utilization rate of 188
square feet or less per person.
Approval of this prospectus constitutes authority to
execute an interim lease for all tenants, if necessary, prior
to the execution of the new lease.
Provided that, the Administrator of General Services and
tenant agencies agree to apply an overall utilization rate of
210 square feet or less per person, except that, if the
Administrator determines that the overall utilization rate
cannot be achieved, the Administrator shall provide an
explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided that, except for interim leases as described
above, the Administrator may not enter into any leases that
are below prospectus level for the purposes of meeting any of
the requirements, or portions thereof, included in the
prospectus that would result in an overall utilization rate
of 210 square feet or higher per person.
Provided that, to the maximum extent practicable, the
Administrator shall include in the lease contract(s) a
purchase option that can be exercised at the conclusion of
the firm term of the lease.
Provided further, that the Administrator shall require that
the delineated area of the procurement is identical to the
delineated area included in the prospectus, except that, if
the Administrator determines that the delineated area of the
procurement should not be identical to the delineated area
included in the prospectus, the Administrator shall provide
an explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to
exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution.
Provided further, that the General Services Administration
shall not delegate to any other agency the authority granted
by this resolution.
[[Page 3074]]
[[Page 3075]]
[[Page 3076]]
[[Page 3077]]
[[Page 3078]]
There was no objection.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 2(b) of House Resolution
635, the House stands adjourned until noon on Monday, March 14, 2016,
for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.
Thereupon (at 11 o'clock and 35 minutes a.m.), under its previous
order, the House adjourned until Monday, March 14, 2016, at noon for
morning-hour debate.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
4593. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement and
Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement: Uniform Procurement Identification
(DFARS Case 2015-D011) [Docket No.: DARS-2015-0025] (RIN:
0750-AI54) received March 8, 2016, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); Added by Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110
Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services.
4594. A letter from the Assistant to the Board, Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the
Board's joint interim final rules -- Expanded Examination
Cycle for Certain Small Insured Depository Institutions and
U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks [Docket No.: R-
1531] (RIN: 7100-AE45] received March 7, 2016, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Added by Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251;
(110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services.
4595. A letter from the Assistant to the Board, Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the
Board's Major interim final rule -- Federal Reserve Bank
Capital Stock [Regulation I; Docket No.: R-1533] (RIN: 7100-
AE47) received March 7, 2016, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); Added by Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110
Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services.
4596. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for
Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services,
transmitting the Department's report entitled ``Report to
Congress on the Social and Economic Conditions of Native
Americans: Fiscal Year 2013'', pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2992-1;
Public Law 88-452, Sec. 811A (as added by Public Law 102-375,
Sec. 822(12)); (106 Stat. 1299); to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
4597. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for
Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services,
transmitting the Department's report entitled ``2015 Annual
Report to the Congress on the Native Hawaiian Revolving Loan
Fund'', pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2991b-1(g)(1); Public Law 88-
452, Sec. 803A (as amended by Public Law 102-375, Sec.
822(2)); (106 Stat. 1296); to the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
4598. A letter from the PRAO Branch Chief, Food and
Nutrition Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting
the Department's final rule -- Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC): Implementation
of Electronic Benefit Transfer-Related Provisions (RIN: 0584-
AE21) received March 7, 2016, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); Added by Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110
Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
4599. A letter from the General Counsel, Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's final
rule -- Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans;
Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits received March 4,
2016, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Added by Public Law
104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
4600. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for
Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services,
transmitting the Department's report entitled ``Annual Report
to Congress on the Use of Mandatory Recall Authority'' for FY
2015, pursuant to Sec. 206(f) of the FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act of 2011, Public Law 111-353; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4601. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator,
Office of Diversion Control, DEA, Department of Justice,
transmitting the Department's final order -- Schedules of
Controlled Substances: Extension of Temporary Placement of 10
Synthetic Cathinones in Schedule 1 of the Controlled
Substances Act [Docket No.: DEA-386] received March 4, 2016,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Added by Public Law 104-
121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
4602. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator,
Office of Diversion Control, DEA, Department of Justice,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Removal of
Exemption From Registration for Persons Authorized Under U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission or Agreement State Medical Use
Licenses or Permits and Administering the Drug Product
DaTscan [Docket No.: DEA-394F] (RIN: 1117-AB38) received
March 4, 2016, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Added by
Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4603. A letter from the Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's report entitled
``Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act Program'', as required by the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 16134(a); Public
Law 109-58, Sec. 794(a); (119 Stat. 843); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
4604. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's direct final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Base
Year Emission Inventories for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard
[EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0658; FRL-9943-46-Region 5] received March
8, 2016, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Added by Public
Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
4605. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Fluopyram; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-
HQ-OPP-2015-0443; FRL-9943-21] received March 8, 2016,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Added by Public Law 104-
121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
4606. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's direct final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Air Quality Implementation Plans: New Mexico; and
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County; Revisions to Establish Small
Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental
Compliance Assistance Programs [EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0642; FRL-
9943-43-Region 6] received March 8, 2016, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Added by Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251;
(110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4607. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- Promoting Diversification of
Ownership in the Broadcasting Services [MB Docket No.: 07-
294]; Review of Media Bureau Data Practices [MB Docket No.:
10-103]; Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules,
Concerning Practice and Procedure, Amendment of CORES
Registration System [MB Docket No.: 10-234] received March 4,
2016, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Added by Public Law
104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
4608. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the
Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the
national emergency with respect to South Sudan that was
declared in Executive Order 13664 of April 3, 2014, and,
pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec.
401(c); (90 Stat. 1257); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4609. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the
Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the
national emergency with respect to significant malicious
cyber-enabled activities that was declared in Executive Order
13694 of April 1, 2015, and, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c);
Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257); to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4610. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting notification that the national emergency
with respect to Iran, originally declared on March 15, 1995,
is to continue in effect beyond March 15, 2016, pursuant to
50 U.S.C. 1622(d); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 202(d); (90 Stat.
1257) (H. Doc. No. 114--115); to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and ordered to be printed.
4611. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the Department's
report covering the period from August 15, 2015, to October
13, 2015 on the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolutions, pursuant to Public Law 107-248,
Sec. 8137; (116 Stat. 1569) and 50 U.S.C. 1541 note; Public
Law 107-243, Sec. 4; (116 Stat. 1498); to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
4612. A letter from the Director, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense, transmitting a
notice of the Navy's proposed lease amendment, to the
Government of Canada, Transmittal No. 03-16, pursuant to Sec.
62(a) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
4613. A letter from the Director, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense, transmitting
reports of the Department's first quarter FY 2016 sales
agreements developed in accordance with Secs. 36(a) and 26(b)
of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
4614. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Export
Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department
of Commerce, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Export Control Reform: Conforming Change to Defense Sales
Offset Reporting Requirements [Docket No.: 150825780-6125-02]
(RIN: 0694-AG38) received March 4, 2016, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); Added by Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110
Stat. 868); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4615. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative
Affairs, Department of State,
[[Page 3079]]
transmitting the Department's report on progress toward a
negotiated solution of the Cyprus question covering the
period of October 1, 2015 through November 30, 2015, pursuant
to Sec. 620C(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, and in accordance with Sec. 1(a)(6) of Executive
Order 13313; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4616. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 21-325, ``Marion S. Barry
Summer Youth Employment Expansion Temporary Amendment Act of
2016'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87
Stat. 814); to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
4617. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 21-323, ``Chancellor of
the District of Columbia Public Schools Salary and Benefits
Approval Temporary Amendment Act of 2016'', pursuant to
Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 814); to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
4618. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 21-324, ``Protecting
Pregnant Workers Fairness Temporary Amendment Act of 2016'',
pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat.
814); to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
4619. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's 2016 Annual
Performance Plan, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1115(b); Public Law
111-352, Sec. 3; (124 Stat. 3867); to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
4620. A letter from the Acting Secretary, Department of
Education, transmitting the FY 2015 Annual Performance Report
and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan, pursuant to 31 U.S.C.
1115(b); Public Law 111-352, Sec. 3; (124 Stat. 3867); to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
4621. A letter from the Senior Procurement Executive,
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Federal Acquisition Regulation; Technical Amendment [FAC
2005-87; Item II; Docket No.: 2016-0052; Sequence No.: 1]
received March 4, 2016, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
Added by Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
4622. A letter from the Senior Procurement Executive,
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services
Administration, transmitting the Administration's Small
Entity Compliance Guide -- Federal Acquisition Regulation;
Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-87 [Docket No.: FAR 2016-
0051, Sequence No.: 1] received March 4, 2016, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Added by Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251;
(110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
4623. A letter from the Senior Procurement Executive,
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services
Administration, transmitting the Administration's summary
presentation of final rules -- Federal Acquisition
Regulation; Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-87;
Introduction [Docket No.: FAR 2016-0051, Sequence No.: 1]
received March 4, 2016, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
Added by Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
4624. A letter from the Senior Procurement Executive,
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Federal Acquisition Regulation; Information on Corporate
Contractor Performance and Integrity [FAC 2005-87; FAR Case
2013-020; Item I; Docket 2013-0020, Sequence 1] (RIN: 9000-
AM74) received March 4, 2016, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); Added by Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110
Stat. 868); to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
4625. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's temporary
rule -- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Pacific Cod by Vessels Using Pot Gear in the Central
Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska [Docket No.: 140918791-
4999-02] (RIN: 0648-XE419) received March 4, 2016, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Added by Public Law 104-121, Sec.
251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
4626. A letter from the Attorney General, Department of
Justice, transmitting a copy of the decision of the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for the National
Association of Manufacturers v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 800 F.3d 518 (D.C. Cir. 2015), pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 530D(a); Public Law 107-273, Sec. 202(a); (116 Stat.
1771); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
4627. A letter from the Chief Counsel, FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Suspension of Community Eligibility; Pennsylvania:
Abington, Township of, Montgomery County; [Docket ID: FEMA-
2015-0001] [Internal Agency Docket No.: FEMA-8419] received
March 4, 2016, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Added by
Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4628. A letter from the Director, Tax Issues, Strategic
Issues Team, Government Accountability Office, transmitting
the Office's report entitled ``List of Active and Completed
Tax-Related Assignments as of December 31, 2015''; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
4629. A letter from the Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy
Office, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the
Department's Privacy Office's 2015 Data Mining Report to
Congress, as required by the Federal Agency Data Mining
Reporting Act, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000ee-3(c)(1); Public
Law 110-53, Sec. 804(c)(1); (121 Stat. 363); to the Committee
on Homeland Security.
4630. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting the Department's FY 2015 report
of the Federal Coordinated Health Care Office, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 1315b(e); Public Law 111-148, Sec. 2602(e); (124 Stat.
316); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and
Ways and Means.
4631. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, CCIIO,
Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the
Department's Major final rule -- Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment
Parameters for 2017 [CMS-9937-F] (RIN: 0938-AS57) received
March 7, 2016, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Added by
Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); jointly to the
Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Mr. UPTON: Committee on Energy and Commerce. Supplemental
report on H.R. 4596. A bill to ensure that small business
providers of broadband Internet access service can devote
resources to broadband deployment rather than compliance with
cumbersome regulatory requirements (Rept. 114-444, Pt. 2).
Mr. BISHOP of Utah: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R.
1820. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
retire coal preference right lease applications for which the
Secretary has made an affirmative commercial quantities
determination, and for other purposes (Rept. 114-446).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R.
2857. A bill to facilitate the addition of park
administration at the Coltsville National Historical Park,
and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 114-447).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R.
3079. A bill to take certain Federal land located in Tuolumne
County, California, into trust for the benefit of the
Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians, and for other purposes; with
an amendment (Rept. 114-448). Referred to the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions of the
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. SHUSTER (for himself and Mr. Brady of Texas):
H.R. 4721. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to
extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding
and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the
Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas:
H.R. 4722. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to require inclusion of the taxpayer's social security
number to claim the refundable portion of the child tax
credit; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. JENKINS of Kansas (for herself, Mr. Tiberi, Mr.
Roskam, Mrs. Black, and Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas):
H.R. 4723. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide for the recovery of improper overpayments
resulting from certain Federally subsidized health insurance;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BRADY of Texas:
H.R. 4724. A bill to repeal the program of block grants to
States for social services; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. PITTS:
H.R. 4725. A bill to reduce the Federal deficit through
reforms in spending under Medicaid, CHIP, and the Prevention
and Public Health Fund; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
By Mr. GRAVES of Missouri:
H.R. 4726. A bill to prohibit the obligation of funds to
pay the salary of the Secretary of Homeland Security until a
biometric entry and exit data system has been fully
implemented, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Homeland Security.
[[Page 3080]]
By Mr. GRAYSON:
H.R. 4727. A bill to require the Secretary of the
Department of Energy to issue a report on fusion innovation;
to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
By Mr. SMITH of Washington:
H.R. 4728. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security
Act to expand the exception to the windfall elimination
provision based on years of coverage; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
____________________
MEMORIALS
Under clause 3 of rule XII,
177. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the General
Assembly of the State of Colorado, relative to the members of
the General Assembly, recognizing the bravery and sacrifice
of the crew of the U.S.S. Pueblo; which was referred jointly
to the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Armed Services.
____________________
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the following statements are submitted regarding the
specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the
accompanying bill or joint resolution.
By Mr. SHUSTER:
H.R. 4721.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution,
specifically Clause 1, Clause 3, and Clause 18.
By Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas:
H.R. 4722.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
By Ms. JENKINS of Kansas:
H.R. 4723.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I of the United States Constitution, Section 8,
Clause 1 (``The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect
Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises . . .''), and from the
16th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
By Mr. BRADY of Texas:
H.R. 4724.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States
Constitution, to ``provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States.''
By Mr. PITTS:
H.R. 4725.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States
Constitution.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States;
By Mr. GRAVES of Missouri:
H.R. 4726.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 8, requires Congress to provide for the
common defense and the general welfare of the United States.
By Mr. GRAYSON:
H.R. 4727.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution.
By Mr. SMITH of Washington:
H.R. 4728.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, section 8 of the constitution
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions, as follows:
H.R. 605: Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Blumenauer, and Mr. Costello of
Pennsylvania.
H.R. 611: Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York.
H.R. 721: Mr. Fleming.
H.R. 746: Mr. Cicilline.
H.R. 923: Mr. Bucshon, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Duncan of
Tennessee, Mr. Fleischmann, and Mr. Westmoreland.
H.R. 1578: Mr. Jordan.
H.R. 1625: Mr. Larsen of Washington.
H.R. 2144: Mr. DesJarlais.
H.R. 2237: Mr. Honda and Mr. Rangel.
H.R. 2737: Mr. Olson, Mr. O'Rourke, Mr. Doggett, and Mr.
Forbes.
H.R. 2817: Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
H.R. 2894: Mrs. Kirkpatrick and Ms. Loretta Sanchez of
California.
H.R. 3071: Mr. Larson of Connecticut.
H.R. 3394: Mr. Forbes.
H.R. 3559: Ms. Norton.
H.R. 3846: Mr. Ashford and Ms. Moore.
H.R. 4055: Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York.
H.R. 4160: Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 4266: Ms. McCollum.
H.R. 4336: Mr. Walz, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Joyce, Mr.
Walberg, Mr. Posey, Mr. Norcross, Mr. DesJarlais, Mr.
Grayson, Mr. Takai, and Mr. Kilmer.
H.R. 4438: Ms. Norton.
H.R. 4522: Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 4626: Mr. Shuster, Mr. Huelskamp, and Mr. Huffman.
H. Con. Res. 89: Mr. Barton, Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania,
Mr. Collins of New York, Mr. Smith of Texas, and Mr. Fleming.
H. Res. 112: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
H. Res. 220: Ms. Norton and Mr. King of Iowa.
H. Res. 343: Mr. Kennedy.
H. Res. 584: Mr. Ellison.
H. Res. 617: Mr. Gohmert.
H. Res. 637: Ms. Brown of Florida and Mr. Perlmutter.
____________________
PETITIONS, ETC.
Under clause 3 of rule XII,
49. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the Bannock County
Commissioners, Idaho, relative to asking Congress to work
together, urging a long-term sustainable solution to fully
fund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program and eliminate the
uncertainty communities face with ongoing funding issues;
which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.
[[Page 3081]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
CONGRATULATING JUDGE CYNTHIA RUFE ON WINNING THE 2016 BUCKS CO. WOMEN'S
HISTORY MONTH AWARD
______
HON. MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, U.S. District Court Judge Cynthia M.
Rufe is the recipient of the 2016 Bucks County Women's History Month
Award, presented annually to distinguished women whose professional and
civic achievements have ``made a difference.''
Her career began as a high school teacher, later an attorney, leader
and mentor. Judge Rufe was a member of the panel that established a
county-wide system to provide free legal representation to civil
litigants and also worked with the Bucks County district attorney's
office to establish safe protocols for women and child abuse victims.
Prior to her appointment to the federal bench, Judge Rufe served with
honor and distinction in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County,
Pennsylvania. I had the great pleasure of working with Judge Rufe on
issues of mutual concern during my years as a County Commissioner in
Doylestown.
Judge Rufe continues to advocate for legal education and mentors law
students and new attorneys and regularly presents legal and ethics
courses to state and local bar associations. Additionally, she serves
as a faculty member of the TIPS Trial Academy. As the granddaughter of
immigrants, Judge Rufe takes great pride in her frequent role in
naturalization ceremonies, welcoming new American citizens with sincere
and inspiring words.
The Women's History Month Award presented to Judge Rufe is one page
in the story of generations of women whose belief in equality and
justice motivated them to make a difference in society, ultimately
affecting the lives of subsequent generations. Judge Rufe exemplifies a
belief in our nation's inherent values, including the rule of law and
justice and, in so doing, has set an example for women who may choose
to follow in her footsteps.
____________________
FEMA DISASTER ASSISTANCE REFORM ACT OF 2015
______
HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for
H.R. 1471, the ``FEMA Disaster Assistance Reform Act of 2015.''
The Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA), which was signed into
law in 1979 by President Carter, provides support to improve our
capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from
and mitigate all hazards.
Under the Clinton Administration FEMA became the premier emergency
response organization in the world.
Mr. Speaker, we all remember the disastrous response to Hurricane
Katrina in New Orleans, Louisiana and the management mistakes that cost
so many innocent Americans their lives.
Since that time FEMA has vastly improved its organization and
response protocols to disasters throughout the country.
An example is FEMA's response to the 2015 historic floods in of
Houston, Texas, which helped saved countless lives.
H.R. 1471 reauthorizes FEMA through Fiscal Year 2018 authorizes
millions per year up to $947 million in annual appropriations, and
authorizes the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System.
This legislation also contains several provisions intended to reduce
future losses from disasters and to improve the recovery process for
victims and affected communities.
In addition the bill provides for a study of disaster costs and why
they have continued to increase and gives greater weight to severe
localized impact and adjusts disaster relief policies to reflect this
change.
To protect families and individuals H.R. 1471 prohibits FEMA from
initiating new action to recover disaster assistance payments made to
an individual or household more than three years after the payments
were made, or to recover emergency assistance funds owed by an
individual or household more than three years after the funds were
determined to be owed.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1471, ``FEMA Disaster Assistance Reform Act of
2015'' provides many changes that will allow this vital agency to
operate effectively and respond quickly to the areas in this country
where its services are needed most.
____________________
HONORING THE NATIONAL CHAMPION NORTHWEST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY
FOOTBALL PROGRAM
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I proudly pause to congratulate
the Northwest Missouri State University Football Program on their ninth
appearance and fifth title in the NCAA Division II National
Championship. It isn't every day that a team from the 6th District of
Missouri wins a National Championship, but thanks to the Northwest
Bearcats it is starting to become a tradition.
On December 19, 2015, the Northwest Bearcats took on the Shepard
University Rams in a game at Children's Mercy Park in Kansas City,
Kansas. Although the competition was undeniably tough, I never doubted
the ability of our team. So when Representative Alex Mooney of West
Virginia challenged me to a wager over the game--I gladly accepted. As
all of Missouri cheered, the Bearcat football team, under the
leadership and direction of Head Coach Adam Dorrel, defeated the Rams
34-7 and sealed their place in sports history as one of only two NCAA
Division II teams to win five National Championship titles.
Mr. Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending the
accomplishments of the Northwest Missouri Football Team for their
tremendous undefeated season and title.
____________________
CONGRATULATING CAPTAIN THOMAS ROCHE
______
HON. MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, congratulations to Captain Thomas M.
Roche on the occasion of his retirement from the Lower Makefield
Township Police Department. Throughout his 42-year career in the
township, Capt. Roche distinguished himself with his contributions,
service and responsibilities, including oversight of the police
department's internal affairs investigations, traffic safety unit,
events and planning and as deputy emergency management coordinator.
Furthermore, his supervisors recognized the key role he played in the
Lower Makefield department's award and designation in the Pennsylvania
Accreditation program. Prior to joining the department, Capt. Roche was
a proud member of the United States Army in Chu Lai, Republic of
Vietnam and also as a member of the military police, stationed at
several Army bases in the U.S. He is a decorated veteran and a
dedicated member of the law enforcement community, Capt. Roche has set
a fine example of public service for others to follow and begins his
retirement with the appreciation of the citizens he willingly served.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE 125TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE WILLIAM FENTON HOWE FAMILY IN
PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON
______
HON. DEREK KILMER
of washington
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Mr. KILMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the William Fenton
Howe family for their
[[Page 3082]]
contributions to the history of the Pacific Northwest and to recognize
their 125th anniversary of calling the city of Port Orchard,
Washington, home.
In 1888 the William Fenton Howe family migrated from Altoona,
Pennsylvania, to Tacoma in what was then the Washington Territory.
On March 6, 1891, William Fenton Howe moved his family to the town of
Sidney, now known as Port Orchard, on the shores of the Sinclair Inlet
of Puget Sound. The family, which consisted of his wife Emma and
children Harry, William, Edwin, Roy, and Edith, moved into the house
located at 307 Cline Street, which remains standing today.
At the time of the Howe family's arrival, Sidney was becoming known
for its lumber industry, pottery works, small business, and
agricultural opportunities. In 1890, Sidney became the first town in
Kitsap County to incorporate and was chosen as the county seat, and
later renamed Port Orchard. The Howe family was a leader in the
business community and contributed to the town's growth by establishing
Howe Hardware, the first hardware store in the community.
In 1895 the Howe family suffered a devastating year with the death of
Emma Howe and a fire at Howe Hardware. After the losses, William Fenton
Howe left his children with various families in the community and
headed north to Alaska to pursue opportunities to provide for them.
William Fenton Howe, a savvy businessman, set out to make his mark in
Alaska's booming mining industry. Not only did Mr. Howe know how to
manage a hardware store, but he was also a skilled tinsmith and built
stoves for the miners while they looked for gold. One of his sons,
Edwin Scott Howe, joined in the pursuit of ``mining the miner'' as they
built stoves that prevented the miners from facing certain death in the
Arctic wilderness of Nome, Alaska.
In Port Orchard, William Fenton Howe's children continued their
father's legacy in the business community. After the death of William
Fenton Howe, sons Edwin and Harry opened Howe Brothers Hardware as
partners. The family also owned and operated Howe Oil Company and Howe
Motor Company, a Ford dealership still in operation after 103 years.
Deeply embedded in the community, members of the Howe family served on
town council, were engaged in civic organizations, and rallied the
community to bring electric power to Port Orchard and the Washington
Veterans Home Retsil to Kitsap County.
Mr. Speaker, the Howe family has a long lineage of public service in
the business community as well as in local government and local
organizations. In 2013, the Howe family was one of five families to be
recognized for their contributions to Port Orchard and the surrounding
area by the Kitsap County Historical Society. I am honored to recognize
the Howe family's contributions to the community of Port Orchard and
recognize their 125th anniversary on this past Sunday, March 6, 2016.
____________________
NANCY DAVIS REAGAN: TIRELESS ADVOCATE FOR DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION,
ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE RESEARCH AND FORMER FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES
______
HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Nancy Davis
Reagan, the former First Lady of the United States, who died on March
6, 2016 at her home in California at the age of 94.
Born July 6, 1921, in New York, New York, Nancy Davis Reagan was the
only child of Kenneth Robbins, a salesman, and Edith Luckett Robbins,
an actress.
In 1929, Edith Luckett Robbins married a prominent Chicago
neurosurgeon, Loyal Davis, who adopted young Nancy in 1931.
Nancy Davis studied drama at Smith College where she earned a
baccalaureate degree in 1943.
After college, Nancy Davis followed her dreams to pursue a career in
acting.
Her first role was a nonspeaking part in the touring company
production of Ramshackle Inn.
The play eventually made it to Broadway in New York City, where Nancy
Davis landed a minor role in the 1946 musical Lute Song, starring Yul
Brynner and Mary Martin.
In 1949, Nancy Davis noticed that her name was listed on the
Hollywood blacklist, which was established by the film industry to warn
studios and producers of individuals suspected of being communist
sympathizers.
This case of mistaken identity resulted in Nancy Davis meeting the
love of her life and husband, Ronald Reagan, who at that time was the
president of the Screen Actors Guild.
They were married on March 4, 1952, and within a few years daughter
Patty and son Ronald were born, joining Maureen and Michael, Ronald
Reagan's children by a prior marriage.
Nancy Reagan became California's first lady in 1967, when her husband
was elected to Governor of California.
In 1980, Nancy Reagan became the First Lady of the United States when
her husband was elected the 40th President of the United States.
As First lady she championed the ``Just Say No'' campaign to help
dissuade youth from using and abusing drugs.
Nancy Reagan worked tirelessly to retrieve a number of White House
antiques, which had been in storage, and placed them throughout the
Executive Mansion.
During the Reagan Administration, Nancy Reagan was known most
importantly as the president's personal protector.
After her husband's term was completed Nancy established the Nancy
Reagan Foundation to support after-school drug prevention programs.
Nancy Reagan and President Ronald Reagan retired to the ``Reagan
Ranch'' in Santa Barbara where they devoted much of their time to the
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
After President Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease in
1994, the couple founded the Ronald and Nancy Reagan Research
Institute, located in Chicago, Illinois.
As Ronald Reagan's disease progressed, Nancy became the primary
caregiver for her husband.
After President Ronald Reagan's death in 2004, Nancy Reagan became a
supporter of stem-cell research.
Nancy Reagan was a true symbol of American elegance during her time
as First Lady of the United States and a tireless advocate for those
Americans who suffer from Alzheimer's Disease.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to take a moment of silence in
remembrance of this extraordinary woman who transcended political
lines.
____________________
HONORING PERCY CONWAY AND THE HI-STYLING BEAUTY CENTER ON 50 YEARS OF
SUCCESS
______
HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Percy Conway
who is celebrating 50 years as owner of Conway's Hi-Styling Beauty
Center in Fairmont, Illinois.
Mr. Conway has been barbering since he was ten years old on his
father's porch in Canton, Mississippi. Looking for work he moved to
Illinois in 1950 and settled in Fairmont, an unincorporated area
between Lockport and Joliet. He got a job at Mastic Tile Company in
Joliet, but was called to serve his country in the Korean War.
After his return from the Army, he saw a need for jobs and services
in Fairmont so he decided to become an entrepreneur and opened the Hi-
Styling Beauty Center. When he opened his shop, roads in Fairmont
barely existed and some areas had no water service. While serving his
customers, he frequently listened to their concerns with the state of
the community.
Rather than confine himself to his barbershop. Mr. Conway saw an
opportunity to help his community. He was elected to the Lockport
Township Board of Trustees where he served for twenty years.
While on the Board of Trustees he worked to secure a $1.3 million
loan from the federal government to install sewer and water services.
This work opened the door to new improvements to the area including
paved roads and small business opportunities.
Through his work, Fairmont has changed into the diverse community it
is today. Percy Conway can still be found most days at Hi-Styling
Beauty Center, imparting his wisdom. He also serves on the boards of
several non-profits and remains involved at Shiloh Baptist Church.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Mr. Percy
Conway for all he has done for his community and to congratulate him on
50 years of business success.