[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14550-14571]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2810, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2810) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2018 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       McCain/Reed modified amendment No. 1003, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       McConnell (for McCain) amendment No. 545 (to amendment No. 
     1003), of a perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.


                      Nomination of Makan Delrahim

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the nomination 
of Makan Delrahim as the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust 
Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
  Mr. Delrahim is someone I have known for over 15 years. He is 
eminently qualified, and I have no doubt that he will make an 
outstanding Assistant Attorney General.
  Mr. Delrahim has a long and distinguished career within the antitrust 
world. His service in this area includes service as senior staffer for 
the Senate Judiciary Committee of the Antitrust Modernization 
Commission and previously at the U.S. Department of Justice.
  I could go on and on regarding Mr. Delrahim's accomplishments, 
regarding his character and his aptitude as a lawyer, generally, and as 
an antitrust lawyer, in particular. But instead of taking my word for 
it, allow me to read just a little bit of the wide-ranging support Mr. 
Delrahim's nomination has from both sides of the aisle. People within 
the Senate and outside the Senate on both sides of the aisle have been 
supportive of this nomination.
  A bipartisan group of former Assistant Attorneys General for the 
Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice--including AAGs for 
Antitrust under President Obama, President Clinton, and President 
Carter--submitted a letter expressing strong support for Mr. Delrahim's 
nomination. They explained that ``Mr. Delrahim has the experience, 
intelligence, judgment, and leadership skills necessary to serve as an 
excellent Assistant Attorney General.''
  Similarly, a bipartisan group of former Commissioners of the 
Antitrust Modernization Commission, a group of well-respected, seasoned 
anti-trust officials, submitted a letter supporting Mr. Delrahim's 
nomination. The letter said that Delrahim will ``serve with high 
distinction and be an outstanding Assistant Attorney General for 
antitrust.'' The authors of this letter also ``strongly urge[d] the 
Committee to look favorably upon his nomination, with the hope that the 
Senate can confirm him as soon as possible.''
  Because Mr. Delrahim is so well respected, his nomination is one that 
has enjoyed broad bipartisan support, including broad bipartisan 
support within the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I serve. He was 
voted out of the committee by a vote of 19 to 1. That is not all that 
common these days. Ranking Member Feinstein went out of her way to 
explain that Mr. Delrahim ``will fully and fairly enforce our antitrust 
laws.''
  Despite this strong bipartisan support, Mr. Delrahim's nomination has 
languished on the floor. In fact, the wait to confirm Makan Delrahim is 
the longest for someone appointed to this position in 40 years. Not 
since the Carter administration has a new administration been forced to 
wait this long to fill the vacancy at the Antitrust Division. President 
Carter's wait was largely due to the fact that he took more than twice 
as long to nominate an Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust 
Division than did President Trump.
  Apparently, some Democrats are still so eager to resist that they are 
unwilling to allow us to confirm a nominee who many of them support. 
This is unacceptable. Democrats understand that antitrust is essential 
to ensuring that consumers receive the benefits of a competitive 
economy: lower prices, more innovation, and more choice. You see, when 
you have competition, good things happen. When you have competition, it 
inevitably brings down prices, and it inevitably results in higher 
quality.
  In fact, last month some Democrats reiterated the importance of a 
strong antitrust enforcement to our economy, and they did so by 
releasing their Better Deal plan. The Democrats' plan describes the 
effects that anticompetitive mergers can have, such as harming 
consumers, customers, and suppliers.
  Senator Klobuchar, along with several Democratic colleagues, followed 
up on this plan by proposing legislation to enact some of these 
policies into law. Although I don't agree with all of their proposed 
solutions, I do agree with my colleagues from across the aisle that 
antitrust enforcement should be a priority.
  The best way to ensure that antitrust laws are being properly 
prioritized is to make sure our antitrust agencies are fully staffed 
and have leaders in place--leaders who have the requisite expertise and 
ability; leaders who have

[[Page 14551]]

broad bipartisan support from sitting Senators, practitioners, and 
former agency leaders who know the position and the exacting demands 
required by the position; leaders who fit the description of Makan 
Delrahim.
  Given his broad support, his impeccable qualifications, and the 
importance of this position, there is no good reason to delay this 
confirmation--quite to the contrary. This is a position that is neither 
Republican nor Democratic. It is a position that is neither liberal nor 
conservative. This position is there to advance bipartisan issues that 
affect every American. And Makan Delrahim in this position at a 
critical time in our Nation's history, at a critical time for antitrust 
law--it is especially important that we have him in place.
  Antitrust law is an area in which the United States has excelled 
above and beyond what its peer nations have been able to achieve. We 
developed this area of the law, and we did so with an eye toward 
protecting consumers and competition itself rather than protecting 
individual competitors. We have to lead, and the best way we can start 
is by confirming Makan Delrahim. So I call upon the Senate to confirm 
Makan Delrahim as Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division 
of the U.S. Department of Justice.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.


                        Hurricane Irma Recovery

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the Defense bill, 
but before I do, I want to give the Senate a report.
  Senator Rubio and I have been together quite a bit this past week, as 
Florida has not only encountered a hurricane, but this was quite 
unusual in that it basically affected almost all of the State of 
Florida.
  Florida is a big State. If you went from Key West to Pensacola, it is 
as far as going from Pensacola all the way to Chicago. That is how big 
our State is. With almost 21 million people, it is the third largest 
State, with 75 percent of that a population along the coast. Of course, 
we know what happens when hurricanes start threatening those coasts.
  This was an unusual one because it was first going to hit the east 
coast of Florida. That was the track. The National Hurricane Center has 
gotten quite good in their ability to project the path and the velocity 
of the winds. But once it took an unexpected turn, hitting the north 
coast of Cuba as a category 5, its velocity and forward motion were 
reduced, and it then took a more westerly path, making landfall in the 
Middle and Lower Keys of Florida, where the winds were category 3, 
approaching category 4. Residents were not even let back in to see 
their homes until Sunday morning.
  As of now, although FEMA is present in the Lower Keys--Key West--and 
in the Upper Keys--Key Largo--individual assistance and disaster teams 
were still trying to get into the areas that had the biggest impact, 
the areas around Big Pine Key and Marathon. It is a painfully slow 
process. FEMA is having to deal with the problems in Texas and now the 
enormity of the storm affecting almost all of Florida. FEMA is 
stretched. But FEMA is supposed to bring emergency assistance to 
people, organizations, and local governments in the aftermath of a 
natural disaster. That will be a work in progress as we go on.
  There are places where Senator Rubio and I have gotten personally 
involved in asking FEMA to come in, areas in Lee County and Collier 
County. Areas where FEMA had not visited, they now have come in--Lee 
County, east of Fort Myers, and Lehigh Acres.
  The little farming community of Immokalee was exceptionally torn up. 
There is a great story there. The university president opened up the 
fieldhouse so that a lot of the poor people in Immokalee had a place to 
go if they didn't have another shelter. Indeed, they took in some 400 
people. Elderly people in an apartment complex whose caregivers had 
left were picked up by the sheriff and taken to the university, and the 
students cared for them for 4 nights. This is a great example of 
Floridians helping Floridians, which we have seen throughout.
  This Senator has been all over the State, much of it with my 
colleague, demonstrating that the two Senators, in a bipartisan way, 
actually get along and were there to try to help the people.
  First, right after the storm in the Florida Keys, we saw damage in 
Key West and Boca Chica. But that was the back side of the storm. The 
eye of the storm had gone farther to the east, so the damage was in the 
northeastern quadrant since the most severe winds were in the Big Pine 
Key and the Marathon area. The military, the Coast Guard, FEMA, and the 
engineers came in immediately after the storm. Floridians helping 
Floridians. Americans helping Americans.
  Then Senator Rubio and I went to the Jacksonville area. Quite unusual 
was that all the extra rainfall had flowed into the St. Johns River 
Basin. The river had swollen, and all of that water was trying to get 
its normal outlet into the Atlantic Ocean at Jacksonville. But lo and 
behold, the winds covering up the entire peninsula moving northward, 
now the eye over land between Tampa and Orlando and that northeastern 
quadrant of those winds coming from east going west--what did it do at 
Jacksonville? It pushed back all of the water that needed to get out 
into the Atlantic. That, combined with the incoming high tide--what you 
had was phenomenal flooding, an overflowing of the banks of the St. 
Johns River in many places in the Upper St. Johns, at considerable loss 
of property and considerable distress to the citizens. A good part of 
downtown Jacksonville was flooded.
  The next day, Senator Rubio and I ended up in a citrus grove in Lake 
Wales, FL. Fifty percent of the fruit in this citrus grove was on the 
ground. Farther south, 75 percent of the citrus crop was on the ground. 
They can't salvage that. That is a huge percentage of the loss. So it 
made Senator Rubio and me all the more determined that we are going to 
try to pass an amendment to the Tax Code that would give the citrus 
growers of Florida--not only because of this loss but also because of 
every grove now infected by a bacteria called citrus greening that will 
kill the tree in 5 years--that would give the citrus industry a chance 
to start over by plowing under the grove of those diseased citrus trees 
and replanting new stock that has new promise to outlast the bacteria--
at least for a number of years more than the 5 years that will kill the 
tree--until we can find the cure, and we are working on that. But do 
that in the IRS Code by allowing them to expense in the first year the 
plowing under and replanting in order to save the citrus industry.
  Senator Rubio and I were in that grove and saw all of that lost crop. 
That was going to be a promising crop for the first time in 10 years of 
declines of the citrus crop because of the bacteria. This was going to 
be a good year, but we saw half of that crop on the ground in that 
grove, lost, gone. Citrus crop insurance is not going to really help 
them--only if it is a much greater loss.
  From there, the two of us went on to a poor part of Florida, east of 
Lake Okeechobee, called Belle Glade. A lot of the residences were torn 
up by the winds.
  This was a hurricane whose winds affected virtually all of the 
peninsula of Florida and even reached over into the panhandle as far as 
Tallahassee and even other parts west.
  In Belle Glade, we served a meal. Charities had come together to 
bring food to hungry people because they had no power and they had no 
refrigeration. It had been several days since the hurricane, and 
therefore they had no food.
  From there, we went to another very poor part of Florida, Immokalee, 
FL, which I described earlier, which had been torn up considerably.
  Whether it was what I just described or whether it was feeding poor 
people in Apopka, FL, who at that point had been without power for 5 
days, and they had no food because there was no refrigeration, or 
whether it was going down to Lehigh Acres, where the Florida National 
Guard had organized the distribution of MREs, which are meals ready to 
eat, and gallons of fresh water

[[Page 14552]]

because so many of those homes out in Lehigh Acres, east of Fort Myers, 
were on water wells, and without electricity, there were no pumps to 
give them water--there are so many things that we often take for 
granted. If power is taken away, you suffer not only because of the 90 
degree-plus heat and humidity but also because you can't even get any 
water because you are on a water well.
  It was a privilege to be there with the Florida National Guard, 
handing out food, handing out water, and talking to those local 
residents who are living paycheck to paycheck--and now they have no 
paycheck. Where is the FEMA assistant to help them? Because there is no 
power, they can't go online to apply for individual assistance. In 
fact, they can't pick up the phone because of the intermittent cell 
service. Even if they could get a cell signal, they couldn't get 
through to the FEMA number. That is why we wanted the FEMA 
representatives to come in, and fortunately, just yesterday, they 
finally did come in.
  It has been quite a couple of weeks--first, anticipating the storm 
coming in and getting all of the emergency operation centers ready. 
Fortunately, people obeyed the evacuation orders. It was estimated that 
out of the population of almost 100,000 in the Keys, there were only 
10,000 left. That was a huge evacuation. Those folks did not get in to 
find out what was left of their homes until yesterday. You can imagine, 
a week after the storm had hit--the weekend before the Keys--all of 
that water was in there, setting in with the heat and the humidity, the 
mold and the mildew. You can imagine the mess, the cleanup.
  All the while, FEMA has to worry about Texas, now Florida, and maybe 
another hurricane that is going to come up. It looks as though it is 
going to turn out to sea but is still going to have some of the wind 
effects along the northeast Atlantic Coast.
  Floridians helping Floridians--and then there was a great, great 
tragedy that occurred 4 days after the hurricane. Why there is not a 
requirement that every nursing home or assisted living facility, an 
ALF, have a generator not only for power, for lights, but have a 
generator capacity that will run air conditioning units--I think this 
is going to be the subject of great debate that I hope will change that 
requirement in the State of Florida because eight people died. Eight 
people died in a nursing home right across the street from a major 
hospital in Hollywood, FL--eight frail elderly, from ages 70 to 99--
eight needless deaths as a result. A criminal investigation is 
underway.
  All the phone calls that had been made that were not answered, both 
to the government as well as to the power company, as reported by the 
press, specifically a Miami television station--we don't know all the 
facts; they will come out in the criminal investigation. But it is 
inexcusable that eight frail, elderly people would die from heat 
exhaustion by being left so that their condition deteriorated over the 
course of 3 or 4 days.
  What is wrong with a regulatory scheme that does not have a backup 
generator that would kick in when, in fact, the hospital right across 
the street had one? What was the disconnect there? Why did it take days 
and days until 911 was called? We will find out in this great tragedy.
  I can tell you, the Miami Herald had done a series, over the last 
couple of years, of three investigative pieces, which pointed out that 
these ALFs and these nursing homes had not been properly managed or 
regulated by the State of Florida. That is to be determined.
  Hurricane Irma is just another reminder that we are going to confront 
huge natural occurrences and maybe, just maybe, people will realize 
there is something to the fact that the Earth is getting hotter. 
Because of that, two-thirds of the Earth is covered by oceans, with the 
oceans absorbing 90 percent of that heat. What happens to water when it 
is heated? It expands. Thus, the sea levels are rising.
  Mr. President, as we turn to this Defense bill, this is an issue of 
national security. As Secretary of Defense Mattis has said, ``Climate 
change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops 
are operating today.''
  Maybe we should pay attention to issues like those I have just 
described in Florida or maybe in Texas. Or what about tornadoes causing 
damage to military depots in Georgia? Or what about the severe heat 
canceling military training and hail storms damaging aircraft in Texas? 
What about the coastal erosion, not only in Florida but also 
threatening early-warning radar in Alaska? What about the wildfires 
causing ranges to be closed and the flooding that we saw in not only 
Texas but also the flooding damaging military logistics rail in 
Louisiana and affecting warehouses containing hazardous materials in 
Virginia?
  That is why, in this version of the Defense bill that we will pass 
today, there is a provision that this Senator had something to do with, 
which calls for the Defense Department to conduct a comprehensive 
assessment of the threats to the training and readiness of our Armed 
Forces and the military infrastructure caused by climate-related 
events.
  It is critical that we recognize the threat so we will ensure that 
our forces and installations are resilient enough to withstand and 
quickly recover from all of these natural disasters that we have been 
talking about. Not only must we ensure that our military infrastructure 
is resilient, we must also ensure that it provides our warfighters with 
the space they need to train and the technology they need to stay ahead 
of our adversaries.
  I have opined on this subject over and over in speeches to the 
Senate. I have opined over and over about the Gulf Test and Training 
Range that the Air Force needs to make huge investments in for the 
precise measurements of all of our sophisticated weapons and our 
systems.
  I thank Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed for their good work 
on the bill. It begins to address some of the training and readiness 
shortfalls in our military. I look forward to continuing to discuss 
this.
  I yield the floor.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.


                Thanking the Senior Senator from Florida

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, let me once again thank my friend and 
colleague from Florida. There is no one--no one--who has defended his 
State more diligently, more assiduously, more effectively than the 
senior Senator from the State of Florida. I know there are close to 20 
million people in Florida who are grateful, as are all of us.
  Thank you.
  Mr. President, we will vote today on the final passage of NDAA. I am 
pleased with the bipartisan manner in which the Senate has worked on 
this important legislation. Senators McCain and Reed managed the bill 
with great skill. I commend them for their bipartisan work on this 
important legislation.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. President, I am going to use the rest of my time to address 
something that is not so bipartisan. It is terribly partisan, and that 
is the issue of healthcare. I hope the American people listen closely.
  After a few months of lying dormant, TrumpCare is back, and it is 
meaner than ever. TrumpCare now lives under the name of Cassidy-Graham. 
Guess what. It is another bill that would drastically cut back on 
healthcare funding for Americans who need it most.
  My colleagues, my fellow Americans, this is a red-alert moment for 
the entire country. Our healthcare system again is threatened by a 
hastily constructed piece of legislation, put together in a back room 
by only one party--no CBO score, no committee process, not a single 
hearing. Everyone is totally in the dark about the effects of this 
bill, yet there is an effort to rush it forward.
  This Frankenstein monster of a bill that would harm so many Americans 
keeps coming back and back, and somehow each time it has managed to get 
worse.

[[Page 14553]]

  Here is what we know the new TrumpCare bill would do. It would roll 
back protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. It would 
allow States to impose burdensome requirements as a condition on 
Medicaid coverage. It would defund Planned Parenthood, stripping 
millions of women of their right to access affordable healthcare. Most 
crucially, the new TrumpCare would plunge a dagger deep into the heart 
of Medicaid, immediately ending Medicaid expansion and establishing a 
per capita cap on Medicaid spending. That jeopardizes coverage for 11 
million Americans and puts at great risk the coverage and affordability 
of insurance for the 12 million who buy insurance on the marketplaces.
  It would take the money used for Medicaid expansion and subsidies and 
block-grant it to the States, imposing a massive cut on funding that 
helps so many Americans well into the middle class.
  The term ``block grants'' may sound harmless, but in practice they 
are anything but. Right now, our healthcare system reimburses States 
for the costs of what their citizens actually need and use. Block 
grants are a fixed amount of money given to each State, forcing people 
who need healthcare to fight among each other as to who gets those 
dollars. People with parents in nursing homes will fight with those on 
opioid treatment, who will fight with those who have kids with 
preexisting conditions, who will fight with those who simply need to go 
see a doctor. They will all be pitted against one another in a 
heartless scheme, a heartless scheme that will hurt so many.
  Block grants are a not-so-clever way of disguising a massive, massive 
cut to healthcare--cutting back care, raising premiums, hurting 
millions and millions of average Americans.
  That is the case with this new TrumpCare. The Center on Budget and 
Policy Priorities took a look at the new TrumpCare and found that the 
block grants in the bill would deprive States of hundreds of millions 
and sometimes billions of dollars. I am going to mention a few States 
here. My colleagues should know the effect of the bill. They don't.
  CBO has told us--I will talk more about this later--that they cannot 
give us a full score but simply notes whether it meets the budget 
reconciliation numbers. They say it will cut a billion dollars. That is 
all it will say. We will not know how many citizens are hurt, but the 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, whose numbers are very 
reliable, has done a calculation. I would ask my colleagues to pay 
attention. I just picked out some States. There are more. Arizona would 
lose $1.6 billion in Federal funding. Alaska would lose $255 million in 
Federal funding. Maine would lose $115 million in Federal funding. West 
Virginia would lose $554 million in Federal funding. Colorado would 
lose $823 million in Federal funding. Ohio, the State most racked by 
the opioid epidemic, would lose over $2.5 billion in healthcare 
funding. Iowa would lose $525 million in Federal funding. These are 
devastating numbers. My colleagues, if you don't believe the accuracy 
of these numbers, then have the courage and decency to wait for a CBO 
score. To pass this legislation before CBO measures out the effect on 
your State would be legislative malpractice of the highest order. These 
numbers, we believe, are accurate. They come from a group that has had 
years of expertise and accurately predicted healthcare effects. There 
will be devastating cuts to so many in so many States.
  If you don't believe these numbers, then show us what yours are. Wait 
for CBO, an impartial arbiter, and see what they have to say. The 
numbers are devastating. They represent millions of Americans, 
especially middle-income and low-income, who will receive poorer 
healthcare, face higher costs, or both. Whom do they represent? You are 
an American family--a nice, middle-class family making a good income. 
You have a parent in a nursing home. It is likely to be paid for by 
Medicaid. That parent is at risk if this Graham-Cassidy bill passes. 
You have a young son or daughter afflicted by opioids. The treatment 
they receive would often be at risk if this bill passes. You give birth 
to a child with a preexisting condition who desperately needs help. We 
met so many of these families, every one of us. That child's life, in 
many cases, would be at risk if this bill passes. This is the poorest 
way of legislating I have seen in all my years here. To try to rush 
this bill through with no hearings, no CBO score, no knowledge of how 
it actually affects your constituents--how can we do that?
  Already, some Republican Governors have spoken out against this 
legislation. Governor Kasich, Governor Baker, and 16 patient and 
provider groups have come out against this TrumpCare, including the 
American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association. The ratings 
agency Fitch says Graham-Cassidy would be even ``more disruptive'' than 
all the other ACA bills. The American people have rejected TrumpCare 
repeatedly. Its numbers in the polls are below 20 percent. Hardcore 
supporters of Donald Trump do not want us to pass this bill. Virtually 
only one in five Americans wants us to pass this bill--hardly anybody--
and we are going to go do it for a political scalp? No, we can't.
  I know there are some on the other side of the aisle who say they can 
work it out so each State wouldn't be hurt as badly as under the 
current draft of the bill--these bad numbers--that they can tweak the 
formula for one State or another that would make the cuts less 
devastating. First, they are never going to come up with that kind of 
money. I heard one Governor was told by a Senator: Don't worry about 
the big cuts to your State. We will make it up with disproportionate 
share payments--uncompensated care. It is impossible. The amount of 
money in the DSH Program is so much less than the amount of these cuts 
that we couldn't even come close. That is what is being thrown around 
here. There are lots of different surmises: Maybe we will do this, 
maybe we will do that. We are playing with people's lives. That is so 
wrong. States will end up facing a harsh cut--most of the States in the 
Union--many States represented by my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle who voted for the previous bills.
  We shouldn't do it on substance, but we also shouldn't do it on the 
basis of regular order. To have such a major bill that affects so many 
people be rushed at the last minute in the dark of night--no 
discussion, no analysis, no real knowledge of how it affects each of 
our States--is legislative malpractice of the highest order.
  If the Founding Fathers were looking at this Chamber now and 
watching, they would be turning over in their graves. An America 
founded on debate and discussion and sunlight is veering off all of 
that in a really nasty way. There is no regular order here. There are 
no bipartisan public hearings on the Graham-Cassidy bill. The HELP and 
Finance Committees are not debating the legislation. It is the same 
backroom, one-party sham of a legislative process that ultimately 
brought the previous bill down. A contrived, eleventh-hour hearing on 
block grants in the Homeland Security Committee--a committee that has 
very little jurisdiction over healthcare matters--does not even come 
close to suggesting regular order.
  In conclusion, I think many of us on both sides of the aisle thought 
there was a ray of light in the last few weeks. The partisanship that 
had governed this place for the last 8 months seemed to be breaking. I 
had good meetings in the White House--hopes of working together. 
Senators Alexander and Murray began talking about how we move forward. 
I was joyful that maybe the partisanship could end and we could work 
together. The majority leader and I are getting along very well. This 
bill, if done this way and passed, would dash those hopes.
  There is a way out. Senators Alexander and Murray have had hearings. 
They have had discussions. They are negotiating at this moment. What 
they will come up with will have some things I don't like and some 
things people on the other side of the aisle don't like. That is the 
legislative process. It is not to rush a bill through in

[[Page 14554]]

the dark of night without even knowledge of how it affects people. CBO 
has said they cannot measure how many people would lose coverage and 
how they would be affected until a few weeks because this is a block 
grant. It takes a long time to weigh it.
  So after 2 weeks of thinking bipartisanship--that flickering candle 
might gain some new light--this is the last thing we need. Let's not go 
back to the divisive, destructive healthcare process that paralyzed the 
Senate for much of this year. Let the leader and I encourage our 
Members to talk to one another and come up with bipartisan solutions--
not just on this bill but on bills to come. Let's pursue the bipartisan 
path courageously used by Senators Alexander and Murray.
  In conclusion, I would ask every American who hears these words, who 
longs for us to work together, to call your Senators and Congressmen 
and let them know. Tell them this bill is even worse than the previous 
bills. Tell them it hurts average families dramatically. Tell them 
there is a better way. The same level of activism that we saw on the 
previous bills must be garnered now or this will just slide through in 
the dark of night, with effects that are desperate, devastating, and 
unknown. Democrats in the Senate, we have no choice. Our 
constituencies, our consciousness impels us. We will oppose the Graham-
Cassidy bill in every way we can, using every tool at our disposal, and 
we ask the American people to speak out, once again, and make their 
voices heard. The hour is late, and the need is desperate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I first thank the Democratic leader 
for his efforts to work and reach out to the Republican leader, Senator 
McConnell, as we move forward to try to take some sensible steps to 
improve our healthcare system, not try to blow up the entire healthcare 
system.
  Just last month, the overwhelming majority of the American people 
sighed a great sigh of relief when this Senate voted down the earlier 
TrumpCare proposal that would have destroyed the Affordable Care Act 
and which would have had a devastating impact on the entire American 
healthcare system.
  We all recall, at that point in time, Senator McCain gave a powerful 
and impassioned speech on this floor about the importance of the Senate 
going through the regular order, about working in a transparent way, in 
a bipartisan way, to improve and strengthen our healthcare system--not 
another cynical, partisan effort to ram through a piece of legislation 
that impacts hundreds of millions of our fellow Americans. For a time, 
it seemed we were making headway on that front. Senator Lamar Alexander 
and Senator Patty Murray and the HELP Committee are working together, 
holding hearings, bringing people from all points of view in front of 
that committee to testify about how we can improve and strengthen our 
current system.
  Now, instead of heading down that bipartisan path, we are seeing 
another last-ditch effort to destroy the Affordable Care Act and, in 
the process, wreak incredible damage to our entire healthcare system. 
The latest incarnation of TrumpCare is the Graham-Cassidy legislation. 
Make no mistake, in many ways, this is far worse than the earlier 
proposals we have seen.
  It would end the Medicaid expansion program, which in my State of 
Maryland actually has provided more affordable care to more Marylanders 
than the exchanges that were established under the Affordable Care Act. 
It will dramatically cut the funds under the Medicaid Program through a 
block grant proposal that gives very little, given the huge 
responsibilities that the State has.
  It will give a green light to States throughout the country to 
eliminate the really important patient protections, protections against 
discrimination based on preexisting conditions like diabetes or asthma 
or whatever it may be, and it will give a blank check to those who want 
to eliminate the important essential benefit provisions that provide 
important coverage guarantees for women's health and so many other 
important areas like mental health and substance abuse.
  Doctors in this country take a very simple oath, the Hippocratic 
oath, which says: First, do no harm.
  This piece of legislation--this latest incarnation of TrumpCare--will 
do devastating harm to our healthcare system, and you don't have to 
take my word for it. As more and more groups learn about this piece of 
legislation--and they are just looking at the details--they are 
beginning to phone into our offices and to send us emails and texts. I 
can assure you that Members will see the same outpouring of opposition 
to this bill that they saw to the earlier ones.
  Already we have seen strong statements of opposition from the 
American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, the 
American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and the list 
goes on and on, and it just started.
  It is important for us to remember that these are not Republican 
groups. They are not Democratic groups. They have no partisan 
affiliation at all. Their only interest is to protect patients in this 
country, and we should have the same interest in protecting the health 
of our constituents.
  It is not just the patient advocacy groups that are already strongly 
opposed to this. Those who provide healthcare in our system to our 
loved ones--to our parents, to our children--are coming out strongly 
opposed to this already.
  Here is what the Children's Hospital Association has to say about the 
Graham-Cassidy provision:

       Their legislation would slash funding for Medicaid, the 
     nation's largest health care program for children, by one-
     third, reducing access and coverage for more than 30 million 
     children in the program. Furthermore, the legislation weakens 
     important consumer safeguards, and as a result, millions of 
     children in working families would no longer be assured that 
     their private insurance covers the most basic of services 
     without annual and lifetime limits. . . .

  And they go on. That is the Children's Hospital Association. Those 
are the hospitals that every day are caring for kids throughout this 
country, and they are not alone in already opposing this legislation.
  The American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of 
Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American Nurses 
Association--in short, all of those organizations representing all 
those people out there who are providing healthcare to our fellow 
Americans, to our constituents--are opposed to this bill.
  AARP, which, of course, represents millions--in fact, tens of 
millions--of older Americans is strongly opposed to this bill because, 
once again, it opens the door toward age discrimination in the amount 
of the premiums that are charged. Older Americans and elderly Americans 
will see their premiums go through the roof under this proposal, and 
that is why AARP is also strongly opposed.
  So just when we thought we were at a point where we were going to 
focus on a bipartisan basis on improving our healthcare system, which 
has a whole lot of room for improvement, just when we began to see 
bipartisan hearings and legislation possibly emerge from the HELP 
Committee, we now see this last-ditch effort on the floor of the Senate 
to do what other bills had tried to do but in an even worse fashion.
  We are hearing already from Americans--not with political hats on, 
not with Republican hats on or Democratic hats on or Independent hats 
on, not with political hats on at all, just people who care about the 
healthcare of the people of this country--and they are resoundingly 
opposed to this. So let's not try and ram something through here in the 
next 2 weeks to try to meet an artificial clock that has been set by 
the rules of the Senate. There has been ample time to debate this, and 
we have debated the earlier versions. Let's not allow this final sneak 
attack on the American healthcare system to get through this body. It 
would be a very sad day for the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

[[Page 14555]]


  Mr. YOUNG. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the National 
Defense Authorization Act. I want to begin by thanking Senators McCain 
and Reed, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. I commend their continued bipartisan leadership and 
collaboration on behalf of our servicemembers and our national 
security.
  As someone who served in the U.S. Marine Corps and also served on the 
House Armed Services Committee, I understand the importance of 
Congress's fulfilling its constitutional duties to our men and women in 
uniform.
  This legislation is important for our country. It is also important 
to my neighbors. That includes Hoosiers serving on Active Duty, in the 
Reserves, and in the Indiana National Guard, as well as their families. 
It also helps Hoosiers working at Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane, 
Crane Army Ammunition Activity, and Defense Finance and Accounting 
Service in Indianapolis to perform their important work, which is 
essential to our servicemembers.
  Now, for the last 55 years, Congress has passed the NDAA. Given the 
threats our country confronts, it is important that we once again pass 
this legislation and provide our troops with the training, weapons, and 
support they need to accomplish their missions and return home safely. 
But that is not enough.
  Congress must pass Defense authorization and appropriations bills 
before the end of the fiscal year, stop the habitual use of continuing 
resolutions for the Department of Defense, and end defense 
sequestration once and for all. I stand ready to work with Senators of 
both parties to achieve these objectives.
  I am committed to doing my part, and that is why I voted to end 
debate on this legislation last week and why I will support further 
advancing the bill today, despite the fact that we weren't able to 
debate and vote on amendments here on the floor.
  Today, I will only note that I have introduced a couple of bipartisan 
amendments related to Saudi Arabia's actions in Yemen. These are 
amendment Nos. 585 and 1081. I believe this issue deserves 
consideration by the full Senate, and I look forward to speaking at 
length on this issue again in coming days.
  I share the frustration of Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed 
regarding the lack of floor debate and substantive votes, and I hope 
the Senate can do better next year. I think each Senator, the Americans 
we represent, and the troops who protect us are right to expect better. 
Now, with that said, I applaud Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed 
for working to include over 100 noncontroversial amendments in this 
bill.
  I am proud of the fact that the Defense bill we are going to vote 
on--and, hopefully, pass--this evening includes three amendments 
important to Hoosiers that I introduced and for which I worked with the 
committee to include. I would like to quickly mention two of them and 
then spend a little more time on the third.
  The first provision is amendment No. 793. This provision would press 
the Department of Defense to implement Government Accountability Office 
recommendations or explain why they aren't doing so.
  Now, let me explain why this is so important. Our Nation confronts 
challenges and threats of extraordinary scope. Yet the resources we 
have are limited. That means we need to ensure that the Department of 
Defense is operating as efficiently and as effectively as possible with 
the money the taxpayers provide. That is what our national security 
demands and what U.S. taxpayers are right to expect.
  So when a respected organization such as the GAO, our Federal 
Government's auditor, conducts independent and rigorous analysis and 
identifies key areas for improvement within DOD, Congress and the 
Pentagon should take it seriously.
  Here is the problem. As of this morning, there were 1,008 open GAO 
recommendations, including 75 priority recommendations that DOD alone 
has failed to address fully. Now, some of these priority 
recommendations relate to missile defense, ship maintenance, military 
readiness, servicemember healthcare, and financial management, and some 
of these open recommendations go back to 2009 and even earlier.
  There may be a few of these recommendations in which DOD has a 
persuasive justification for not implementing GAO's recommendation, but 
I believe the burden of proof should be on DOD to either implement 
GAO's recommendations without delay or justify to Congress why they 
believe the recommendation should not be adopted. That is essentially 
what my provision would do.
  I look forward to working with the leaders and staff of the Armed 
Services Committees to ensure that this important provision is included 
in the final legislation.
  I would also like to highlight a second amendment, amendment No. 882, 
that I introduced and worked to include in the bill that we will soon 
vote to adopt. This provisions would require the Navy to conduct and 
provide to Congress a comprehensive review of U.S. maritime 
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting capability, 
also known as ISRT.
  In light of growing Chinese and Russian maritime capabilities, this 
report would require the Navy, among other things, to identify specific 
capability gaps and specific areas of risk when it comes to ISRT, as 
well as offer solutions and resources that are needed to address those 
capability gaps and areas of risk. The review will help to ensure that 
the United States retains the naval supremacy necessary to keep vital 
shipping lanes open, deter aggression, and defend our national security 
interests.
  Now, lastly, I would like to highlight amendment No. 821. I 
introduced it and worked with the committee to include this in the 
bill, and I want to thank Senator Donnelly for cosponsoring my 
amendment.
  On January 27, the President issued a memorandum that emphasized the 
need for a ``modern, robust, flexible, resilient, ready, and 
appropriately tailored nuclear deterrent.'' This memorandum reiterated 
the longstanding and bipartisan consensus that deterring a nuclear 
attack on our country and on our allies depends on our ability to 
maintain a strong, nuclear deterrent.
  Our nuclear deterrent includes three legs, also referred to as the 
nuclear triad, consisting of submarine-launched ballistic missiles, 
land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, and long-range bomber 
aircraft. Now, each of these legs offers an important and complementary 
capability making clear to any potential aggressor that a nuclear 
attack on the United States would be suicidal and, thereby, deterring 
such an attack in the first place. Perhaps that is why Secretary of 
Defense Mattis, referring to the deterrence of potential aggressors, 
said just last week: ``If I wanted to send the most compelling message, 
I have been persuaded that the triad . . . is the right way to go.''
  Now, the challenge is that, in just the next two decades, essentially 
all of our Nation's nuclear delivery systems and all of our nuclear 
weapons will need to be refurbished or replaced.
  According to a February 17 study by the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office, that could cost a total of $400 billion over the next 
decade. That is an enormous cost during a period when our Department of 
Defense has many other modernization bills coming due. Consequently, we 
must identify opportunities to minimize costs while not sacrificing 
capability.
  So consistent with that fact, on January 31, Secretary Mattis issued 
a memorandum calling for an ``ambitious reform agenda, which will 
include a horizontal integration across DOD components to improve 
efficiency and take advantage of economies of scale.''
  Consistent with that memorandum and the memorandum of the President, 
my amendment would require the Office of the Secretary of Defense, 
working with our Navy and Air Force, to submit a report to Congress on 
the potential to achieve more value; that is, enhanced nuclear 
deterrence at a lower

[[Page 14556]]

cost by integrating elements of acquisition programs related to 
modernization and sustainment of the nuclear triad.
  If we can improve efficiency and program management, cost, and 
schedule by increasing integration, colocation, and commonality between 
the strategic deterrent programs of the Navy and the Air Force and 
their associated systems, technologies, and engineering processes, then 
we should do so.
  Back home in Indiana, the skilled workers at Naval Surface Warfare 
Center Crane have supported the Navy Strategic Systems Program for more 
than 60 years. Crane is the largest DOD supplier to the Strategic 
Systems Program. Crane provides the Navy's only organic high-
reliability, radiation-hardening capability. Crane also serves as a 
leader in trusted microelectronics. What is less well known is that 
Crane provides important support to the Air Force's ICBM Ground Based 
Strategic Deterrent Program. More importantly, there is good reason to 
believe that Crane can dramatically increase its level of support to 
the Air Force's strategic programs.
  That is the kind of joint collaboration between the Air Force and the 
Navy my amendment envisions. By breaking down stovepipe barriers 
between our military services, by eliminating unnecessary duplication, 
and by looking for commonsense opportunities for joint cooperation, we 
can keep our country safe and save money in the process. That is not 
only a win for Crane, it is a win for the Navy, it is a win for the Air 
Force, it is a win for taxpayers, and it is a win for the safety and 
security of every American.
  That is why I look forward to working with the leadership and staff 
of the Armed Services Committee to include this amendment in the final 
bill.
  I thank Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed for their work and 
tireless leadership on the Senate Armed Services Committee and for your 
work to bring the National Defense Authorization Act to this point.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I want to clarify something about what 
is going to happen this afternoon. Whenever a Democratic Senator says 
they are worried about the state of our military, that they are 
horrified about the kind of cuts we are making, and they can't sleep at 
night because of what we are doing to our troops in the field, don't 
believe them. They don't mean it. They are not serious. It is all for 
show because they had a perfect opportunity to stop all of these 
terrible cuts--and not just for the troops, for their own State, for 
their constituents, even for their little parochial projects. What did 
they do? They turned it down. They said no.
  Well, actually I take that back. They didn't say no. They couldn't 
even bring themselves to say no. They didn't have the courage to say 
no. They did something much worse. They said nothing because we are not 
even going to vote on the amendment I wanted to offer, which would have 
repealed the sequester spending cuts for defense and nondefense--
defense and nondefense spending.
  Now, the Members of this body know I am no fan of frivolous, pork-
barrel spending. A lot of the projects that my Democratic colleagues 
sponsored could easily fall in that category, and we should rein that 
sort of thing in at a time when we are $20 trillion in debt, but I 
understand the only way we were going to get something done about the 
radical spending cuts to our military was to forge a bipartisan 
compromise.
  After all, it is not like the sequester spending cuts really did that 
much to control spending. Did spending go down in 2011, 2012, 2013? 
Yes, it went from $3.6 trillion to $3.5 trillion, to $3.4 trillion, but 
the sequester wasn't even in effect for those first 2 years. Spending 
went down because Republicans won control of the House in 2010. At the 
end of 2013, however, Congress raised the budget caps and pushed off 
the sequester for those 2 years ahead. So, by 2015, Federal spending 
was back to $3.6 trillion, and it has been growing ever since. Time and 
time again, Congress has proven itself utterly incapable of sticking to 
the caps under the Budget Control Act of 2011.
  Instead of actually saving money, all the sequester does is create an 
endless series of crises for Congress to escape just in the nick of 
time. Take this year. We all know what is going to happen. We just 
passed a 3-month continuing resolution earlier this month. We are going 
to reach a 2-year budget agreement in October or November that doesn't 
control spending. We are going to have an omnibus in December, written 
in secret in our leaders' offices, and then we are going to have 
another omnibus spending bill, written in secret in our leaders' 
offices, next December, and we will repeat that cycle over again in 
2019 and 2020. How do I know that? Because that is exactly what 
happened in 2013 and 2015. We will never make the cuts the Budget 
Control Act called for. We will just pass giant budgets that nobody has 
read in the last minute in an attempt to avoid the crisis of our own 
making.
  My amendment was the last best chance in years to stop this bust-and-
boom cycle of budgeting. But what did the Democrats do? They threw it 
away. They took a perfectly good, bipartisan opportunity to repeal 
these automatic spending cuts, and they threw it away.
  You have to ask yourself what goes through Senators' heads when they 
make such a cynical political calculus. Do they not understand the 
implications of what they are doing? Do they not see the appalling lack 
of readiness that is so apparent to everyone else?
  Did they not see what happened to the USS John McCain? Did they not 
see what happened to the USS Fitzgerald? Did they not see all those 
caskets carrying the dead bodies of America's young coming home to 
families in grief? Do they not see them or do they see them and just 
not care?
  What do they think when they hear respected men like Secretary Jim 
Mattis say: ``No enemy in the field has done more to harm the readiness 
of our military than sequestration''?
  What did they think when Secretary Mattis said, after 4 short years 
of retirement, when he returned to the Department of Defense, ``I have 
been shocked by what I've seen about our readiness to fight''?
  Is it just background noise? Does it not register with Democratic 
Senators? In fact, what must they think when they have been saying the 
exact same thing for years?
  The junior Senator from Connecticut said: ``The so-called sequester 
is another example of governing at its worst.''
  The junior Senator from New Jersey said: ``It is blunt, brutal, and 
blind.''
  He gets bonus points for alliteration.
  The senior Senator from Virginia: ``Sequestration is stupidity on 
steroids.''
  I could make that claim about a lot of things that have been said in 
this Chamber.
  The senior Senator from Washington: ``We need to replace 
sequestration as quickly as possible''; although, apparently, not if it 
requires a vote on the Cotton amendment.
  The junior Senator from Minnesota: ``There are a lot of people 
suffering needlessly because of the sequester.''
  That is not a joke, even coming from him. I guess all of these cries 
of anguish are falling on deaf ears.
  The senior Senator from New Hampshire: ``The blind cuts of 
sequestration are not the right approach,'' but by all means, let's 
keep them in place rather than vote on the Cotton amendment.
  The senior Senator from Connecticut: ``The safety and strength of our 
Nation also requires that Congress eliminate the rightly maligned 
sequestration straightjacket for all Federal programs''--maligned, yet 
not repealed.
  My favorite is by the senior Senator from Rhode Island, the senior 
Democrat on the Armed Services Committee: ``Instead of dodging fiscal 
responsibility, Republicans need to help end sequestration and get back 
to a normal budget process.''
  Republicans gave you a perfect example with which to do that, sir, 
and you turned it down.
  That is what this amendment would have done, but now we will not have 
a

[[Page 14557]]

single dime more for the military. We will not give a dime more to FEMA 
or to the National Weather Service or to NOAA or to NASA or what have 
you. We will not give one penny more to all of those domestic 
priorities that the Democrats claim to care about. It turns out that 
they must not care that much about them or maybe I am being too harsh. 
Maybe they do like them a lot. They like using them to gin up political 
support because, when the time came for them to actually put their 
money where their mouths were, they walked away.
  The Democrats will tell you that they oppose this amendment because 
it will not repeal the automatic sequester of mandatory spending. Don't 
give me that. That is nonsense. That is pure pretext. The automatic 
sequester consists of a small, almost trivial number of cuts, and it 
would not have affected one penny--not one penny--of Social Security or 
Medicare or veterans' benefits.
  Here is what is most important. Every single Democratic Senator has 
voted to extend that mandatory sequester into the foreseeable future. 
So, far from thinking it is a problem, they have voted to extend its 
life.
  Hey, how about I strike a new deal? Here is my offer. I will support 
your hiding behind procedural niceties, hiding in your cloakroom, and 
not voting on my amendment, if you will agree to do one thing--to go 
home, in person, to your military bases that are in your home States 
and explain to the men and women of our Armed Forces, face-to-face, why 
you could not bring yourselves not just to repeal these spending cuts 
but not even to be tough enough to take a vote one way or the other.
  The Democratic leader can go to New York and tell the men and women 
of the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum.
  The Democratic whip can go to the Naval Station Great Lakes.
  The senior Senator from Rhode Island--the senior Democrat on the 
Armed Services Committee--can go to the Naval War College.
  The senior Senator from Missouri can go to the 131st Bomb Wing.
  The junior Senator from New York can go to the soldiers at Fort Drum 
as well.
  The senior Senator from New Hampshire can go to the Portsmouth Naval 
Shipyard.
  The junior Senator from Hawaii can go to the dozen different military 
bases in Hawaii, while the senior Senator from Florida can go to 20 
different military installations in his State.
  The senior Senator from Connecticut can go to the Groton submarine 
base.
  The senior Senator from Indiana can go to AM General in South Bend, 
whose manufacturing he always touts for political purposes.
  The junior Senator from Virginia can go to Norfolk or the Pentagon or 
Fort Myer or to any one of the numerous bases in Virginia.
  The junior Senator from Maine can go to Bath Iron Works.
  The junior Senator from New Mexico can go to the Kirtland and Cannon 
Air Force Bases.
  The junior Senator from Michigan can go to General Dynamics, outside 
Detroit.
  Also, the senior Senator from Massachusetts could shake hands with 
all 115,563 of the people in her State whose jobs are directly tied to 
defending our Nation.
  Every one of those Democrats who sits on the Armed Services Committee 
and has claimed to want to stop these automatic spending cuts can go 
home and tell the men and women in uniform in his State that he had a 
chance to vote on it and that he was too cowardly to even put his name 
on the rolls.
  He can look at all of these Americans in the eye and say: Sorry, just 
politics--hope you understand.
  That is all this is. It is politics of the lowest kind. In 
maneuvering, posturing, and posing, they are caving to the demands of 
the Democratic leader simply because he wants more leverage for more 
pork-barrel spending when we had a budget deal that was negotiated in 
secret in December. He twisted their arms, and they screamed like 
little kids. They are putting politics ahead of our troops. They are 
holding our troops hostage to politics solely because their leader 
wants them to.
  If they were not, they would allow a vote on this amendment. They 
would vote aye. They would vote aye eagerly, and they would vote aye 
enthusiastically, but they cannot even do that. They cannot even put 
their names down as a yes or a no on something that they have all said 
that they have supported for years.
  They just hide behind procedure. They hide in their cloakroom. They 
hide from the voters. They hide in the back corridors and hallways of 
this building. They hide to save their own skin. They hide because they 
are ashamed, and they sure as hell should be ashamed.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, as chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
Subcommittee on Readiness, I would like to make a statement for the 
record regarding an item of special interest inserted into the 
committee report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2018 related to the Department of Defense's use of its 
intellectual property rights of certain medical products.
  The committee report includes language that purports to direct the 
Department of Defense to exercise its rights under the Bayh-Dole Act 
``to authorize third parties to use inventions that benefited from DOD 
funding whenever the price of a drug, vaccine, or other medical 
technology is higher in the United States'' as compared to prices in 
foreign countries. I am concerned that the report language is 
inconsistent with the original intent of Bayh-Dole and could hinder 
critical medical developments.
  Americans, including our men and women in uniform, must have access 
to affordable healthcare, including prescription drugs and medical 
technologies. However, I fear the committee report directive in 
question will slow future innovation, lead to a more complex and 
burdensome regulatory scheme, and make it less likely that our military 
personnel will be able to access cutting-edge medicines in the future, 
while doing nothing meaningful to address healthcare costs. The DOD 
relies on its partnerships with industry to develop vaccines, drugs, 
and diagnostics that target unique threats faced by our warfighters 
during operations in theater. As such, the biopharmaceutical industry 
plays a critical role in enhancing our military and civilian defenses 
against biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear threats.
  Federal agencies, such as the DOD, already face significant 
challenges in attracting top drug and vaccine developers as partners to 
develop lifesaving medical countermeasures necessary to protect the 
warfighter. These challenges include low procurement quantities, high 
regulatory risk, complex Federal contracting regulations, and 
inconsistency in funding, among others. The added risk of diluting or 
compromising intellectual property protections as a means of price 
control will not only fail to meet its objective, but will serve as an 
additional deterrent to private sector development of critical medical 
capabilities offered by DOD.
  Furthermore, companies who partner with the Federal Government rely 
heavily on the strength and scope of their intellectual property to 
generate investment to take their technologies to commercialization. 
The report language invokes the Bayh-Dole Act, the purpose of which is 
to encourage the prompt commercialization of federally funded patents. 
Prior to Bayh-Dole, collaborations between private industry and public 
entities were rare. The act has fostered a delicate balance of 
collaborations between Federal agencies, public research institutions, 
and private industry that have resulted in the commercialization of 
inventions for use by all Americans, especially in the area of medical 
countermeasures for our servicemen and women.
  In the drug development context, Federal funding under the Bayh-Dole 
Act has facilitated the discovery of 153 marketed drugs and vaccines 
over the last 30 years. The act included the creation of so-called 
march-in rights to

[[Page 14558]]

allow agencies to compel additional licensing if good-faith efforts 
toward development are not being made. Agencies can also march-in if a 
licensee cannot produce enough products to meet a national emergency. 
It is these provisions to which the report language refers and I 
believe inappropriately expands the statute's reach to include Federal 
price controls and increases the scope of the government's authority.
  Nothing in the Bayh-Dole Act, whether in march-in rights or 
otherwise, provides a Federal agency the authority to influence the 
price of a commercialized invention. Regulating the price of 
commercialized intellectual property was never intended by Congress 
when passing the Bayh-Dole Act, as evident by the Senate and House 
reports. Congress contemplated the use of march-in rights only ``when 
the invention is not being used.'' Further, Senators Bayh and Dole have 
subsequently explained that the absence of any reference to reasonable 
pricing in the statute was intentional. As Senator Bayh--the author of 
and driving force behind the Bayh-Dole Act--has said: Any attempt to 
use the Bayh-Dole Act to support price controls is a ``flagrant 
misrepresent[ation]'' of Congress's purpose in enacting the statute. 
Consistent with this position, a Federal agency has never invoked the 
Bayh-Dole Act to interfere with the price of a commercialized 
invention. I am aware of petitions to both the NIH and the DOD 
requesting march-in rights be exercised on the basis of pricing, and in 
all of those cases, the petitions were rejected in accordance with the 
law.
  The committee report language seeks to authorize something that the 
statute itself does not. I believe the item of special interest does 
not accurately reflect the current intent of Congress with respect to 
the Bayh-Dole Act, and I encourage the DOD to continue to rely on the 
existing interpretation of Bayh-Dole law when addressing these matters.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to thank Senator McCain and 
Senator Reed for their leadership in producing the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018. Both veterans, they have a 
particular understanding of the sacrifices that members of our Armed 
Services make every day.
  Every year, this authorization bill is drafted to reflect our 
commitment to the men and women serving in uniform, to authorize 
resources needed to maintain our national security, and to demonstrate 
the values and principles on which our country was founded. While I 
believe this bill reflects many sound defense policies, I regrettably 
cannot support its passage.
  Yet again, this Defense authorization bill continues to include the 
shameful and counterproductive measures that block us from ending the 
terrorist recruitment tool that is the Guantanamo Bay detention 
mission, but the core reason for my opposition to this bill is the 
reckless price tag its implementation carries. This bill authorizes 
$700 billion in Defense spending, far above the caps currently 
established by the Budget Control Act and far more than the increase 
requested by the President in his budget proposal. If we met this 
authorization with real dollars, sequestration would take effect for 
Defense spending. Secretary Mattis has testified about the perils of 
sequestration. His message was clear: We must raise the budget caps.
  What is more, this authorization relies on the same tired gimmick we 
have seen for years and includes $60 billion in overseas contingency 
operations funding. For fiscal hawks who call for us to reign in 
Federal spending to reduce the deficit, we cannot continue to treat OCO 
funds as privileged dollars--outside the scope of our budget caps--as a 
means to pay for what should be base spending.
  Further, we cannot unilaterally boost Defense spending without 
similarly addressing other budgets that contribute to our national 
security. Earlier this year, in a hearing before the Senate 
Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, Secretary Mattis clearly asserted 
that ``history is pretty clear, nations that did not keep their fiscal 
house in order and their economies strong lost their military power.'' 
We cannot simply raise spending for the Department of Defense without 
investing in programs that advance our diplomatic missions overseas and 
strengthen our domestic security through economic development, 
infrastructure improvements, environmental protections, and that meet 
the core needs of all Americans. Inflating our Defense spending at the 
cost of all other programs makes us neither stronger nor more secure.
  I do want to thank Senator McCain and Senator Reed for including, 
through managers' packages, more than 100 amendments from both 
Republicans and Democrats, including some that I filed. This kind of 
collaborative process is what has, in the past, yielded results in the 
Senate. I regret that the amendment process was not more extensive, but 
hyperpartisan amendments that seek to upset the discussions of how to 
responsibly fund our government are not the way to reach consensus for 
further votes.
  Make no mistake: This authorization bill invests in our men and women 
in uniform and their families, and it supports competition to keep our 
Defense industry healthy, as it should. I hope the reasons for my 
objection to its passage at this point in the process will be resolved 
as we move to conference this bill with the House. I believe that, 
through an agreement to address the current budget caps, those 
objections can be resolved.
  Mr. COTTON. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Healthcare

  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, 2 months ago, millions of Americans rose 
up and defeated TrumpCare. In doing so, we reaffirmed that, in the 
wealthiest nation on Earth, healthcare is a right and not a privilege 
that is reserved only for those who can afford it.
  The President and the Republican Party believe the opposite. To them, 
healthcare is just another commodity to be bought and sold, but we all 
know that this is not like buying a new car or a big screen TV. The 
Republican position shows no heart, no care, and no compassion. It is 
the exact opposite of what so many of you showed me when I was 
diagnosed with kidney cancer.
  Although we successfully defeated TrumpCare in July, we face fresh 
assaults to deny every American's right to healthcare, but it does not 
have to be this way. In July, so many of us were moved by Senator John 
McCain's impassioned plea for the Senate to return to regular order in 
order to debate how to strengthen our healthcare system on a bipartisan 
basis. Since then, Senators Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray have 
worked to build consensus for a bill that would strengthen insurance 
markets and reduce out-of-pocket costs for consumers. They have done 
this the right way--through committee hearings, bipartisan meetings, 
and careful deliberation.
  Instead of embracing and endorsing this effort, the President and the 
majority leader have now chosen to double down on their obsession with 
depriving healthcare to millions of people across the country through 
the Graham-Cassidy bill. Let me be clear. This bill is not a 
compromise. It is not a new and better idea for delivering healthcare 
in this country. It is just a new version of TrumpCare and, I might 
say, an even worse proposal than the one we defeated in July.
  The details matter. This version of TrumpCare eliminates the 
Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, and that threatens the 
coverage for more than 110,000 Hawaii residents who are now receiving 
such coverage. There are millions all across the country who now get 
healthcare coverage thanks to Medicaid expansion in their States.
  This bill establishes a healthcare block grant, including a per 
capita cap on Medicaid spending that would severely limit Federal 
funding for

[[Page 14559]]

healthcare--funds that States rely upon. Republicans, including the 
cosponsors of this bill, argue that this approach would provide more 
local control over healthcare. This, however, is what we in Hawaii call 
``shibai''--or BS. Local control through a block grant is just an 
excuse that Conservatives and Republicans use as a pretext to make deep 
cuts to programs that Americans depend upon. You see them resorting to 
block-granting everywhere--from education to healthcare.
  A new study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reveals 
the cost of this latest version of TrumpCare firsthand. Under the 
proposal, Hawaii would lose $659 million in Federal funding for 
Medicaid over 10 years--part of some $80 billion in cuts across the 
country. This is a lot of money for Hawaii to lose--money that is being 
put to great use across our State.
  Last month, I visited the Bay Clinic in Hilo, on the Big Island, 
where the Medicaid expansion under the ACA has improved health outcomes 
in poor rural communities across that island. Bay Clinic is the primary 
healthcare provider to 6 of the 10 poorest ZIP Codes in the entire 
State of Hawaii, where many residents went years without having health 
coverage. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, the Bay Clinic has 
successfully enrolled thousands more people in Medicaid and decreased 
the number of uninsured patients who have gone through their doors. It 
is astounding what the numbers show.
  The number of patients who have gone through their doors has been cut 
from 29 percent in 2010 to only 10 percent in 2015. That is how many 
more people on the island of Hawaii are able to get healthcare 
coverage. Over that same time period, the Bay Clinic has seen an almost 
20-percent increase in the number of patients it has served every year.
  In the years following the passage of the ACA, the Bay Clinic and 
community health centers all across Hawaii have hired more doctors and 
nurses, and they have expanded the types of services that they provide. 
The Bay Clinic, for example, has expanded its Mobile Health Unit, by 
which doctors go to rural communities, such as in Keaau, where 
residents would otherwise not have access to primary care providers.
  This program and others like it in Hawaii and across the country face 
an imminent threat from this newest version of TrumpCare. 
Unfortunately, this bill's devastating cuts to Medicaid are only part 
of what makes it so mean and so dangerous.
  It eliminates all premium subsidies that allow lower income Americans 
to afford coverage, and it eliminates cost-sharing subsidies that 
reduce out-of-pocket expenses for consumers. These are the very issues 
relating to the Affordable Care Act that Chairman Lamar Alexander and 
Ranking Member Patty Murray are addressing through regular order--how 
to provide healthcare for more people in our country.
  The Graham-Cassidy bill creates a process by which States can receive 
waivers to roll back essential health benefits and eliminate important 
consumer protections, like guaranteed coverage for millions of 
Americans who are living with preexisting conditions--people like me.
  I have said many times on the floor of the Senate that we are all 
only one diagnosis away from a major illness. Every day, 6,540 people 
are diagnosed with cancer in our country. There are 4,109 who are 
diagnosed with diabetes. There are 1,309 who are diagnosed with 
Alzheimer's disease every day in this country. We are all one diagnosis 
away from a major illness. These are people like me--many of them--
going about their business when, wham, suddenly, you get a devastating 
diagnosis. Not all of these people will have health insurance, and 
under this version of TrumpCare, even more of them will not have access 
to it.
  When I was diagnosed with kidney cancer, I had insurance. Instead of 
worrying about how to pay for my treatment, I could focus on fighting 
my illness. No one facing cancer, heart disease, diabetes, or any other 
chronic or life-threatening medical condition--or, I should say, any 
kind of circumstance in which one needs to have access to a healthcare 
provider--should have to worry about whether one can afford the care 
that might, one day, save one's life--not in the richest country in the 
world, not where healthcare should be a right and not a privilege.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moran). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be up 
to 20 minutes of debate, equally divided, under the control of Senators 
McCain and Reed, following the first vote this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 545 Withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 545 is 
withdrawn.


                    Amendment No. 1003, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 1003, 
as modified, is agreed to.


                             Cloture Motion

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

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 
     175, H.R. 2810, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2018 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.
         John McCain, Mitch McConnell, John Thune, Thom Tillis, 
           Pat Roberts, Mike Crapo, Richard Burr, Michael B. Enzi, 
           Orrin G. Hatch, Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, Dan Sullivan, 
           Roy Blunt, Cory Gardner, Tim Scott, Shelley Moore 
           Capito, David Perdue.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on H.R. 
2810, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military 
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, 
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for 
other purposes, as amended, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Rubio).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 7, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 198 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins

[[Page 14560]]


     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--7

     Durbin
     Gillibrand
     Lee
     Merkley
     Paul
     Sanders
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Graham
     Menendez
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 90, the nays are 7.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Under the previous order, there will now be 20 minutes of debate, 
equally divided, between the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and the 
Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. As we approach the final vote on 
the fiscal year 2018 national defense authorization bill, I would like 
to make a few closing comments.
  When we began considering this bill last week, Senator McCain and I 
were interested in returning to regular order and having debate and 
votes on any amendment that needed a vote. We actually started off very 
well.
  While I disagreed with Senator Paul's amendment to sunset the current 
authorization for the use of military force, I am pleased we were able 
to follow regular order on his amendment and have a debate. It is my 
hope that we can use this as a step to restore regular order going 
forward and work together, along with Senator Paul, in drafting a new 
AUMF that more precisely addresses the threats we face and resolves the 
issue, which is very critical, that Senator Paul has raised; that is, 
updating the AUMF.
  After the Paul amendment, however, we were unable to come to an 
agreement on further votes. As a result, several issues that are 
important to both sides were not fully considered. On the Democratic 
side, Senators Baldwin, Stabenow, and Donnelly had very important 
amendments that would have ensured important protection for American 
workers and that our servicemembers receive high-quality, domestically 
produced equipment.
  In addition, Senator Durbin had an important amendment that supports 
the world-class medical research DOD conducts and has a profound impact 
on the health of our servicemembers and citizens alike. Senator Warren 
would have liked a discussion on the INF Treaty, and Senator Gillibrand 
was interested in a full debate on protections for military personnel 
who are transgender.
  As I indicated, I also know there are Members on the other side of 
the aisle who also had important issues they wanted to debate. I regret 
we were not able to have those debates and votes.
  I am pleased, however, that we are able to include several dozen 
agreed-upon amendments in this bill from both Democrats and Republicans 
which will strengthen the legislation. In the end, this bill represents 
a strong bipartisan effort to provide the military with the resources 
they need and the support they deserve.
  Moving forward, more work needs to be done. It is clear we need to 
find a sustainable, equitable path forward that will end sequestration 
and provide the additional resources needed for our current readiness 
shortfalls. I look forward to working together to continue to address 
the needs of the Department and our servicemembers.
  I would like to close by thanking Senator McCain in my remarks about 
the NDAA for his leadership in guiding this bill through our committee 
markup process and the floor. I believe this bill truly exemplifies 
Senator McCain's unrivaled dedication to the men and women of our Armed 
Forces. His firm hand and unwavering resolve for a bipartisan approach 
were invaluable in achieving a bill that reflects the priorities of 
many Members on both sides of the aisle.
  Additionally, I would like to thank the committee staff who worked 
tirelessly over many weeks to make this bill a reality. I thank the 
majority staff director, Chris Brose, and his staff for their hard work 
and commitment to a bipartisan process. I would also like to thank my 
staff for their expertise and dedication to creating the best bill 
possible--Jody Bennett, Carolyn Chuhta, Jon Clark, Jonathan Epstein, 
Jorie Feldman, Jon Green, Creighton Greene, Ozge Guzelsu, Gary Leeling, 
Kirk McConnell, Maggie McNamara, Bill Monahan, Mike Noblet, John Quirk, 
Arun Seraphin, and Elizabeth King. Finally, I would like to thank the 
floor staff, without whom none of this could be accomplished.
  I must say, having completed a truly bipartisan process using regular 
order, I am disappointed to hear that my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle would like to bring back the partisan efforts to repeal 
the Affordable Care Act and its protections for people with preexisting 
conditions and decimate Medicare as we know it.
  We have already spent so much time this year having this fight--time 
we could have spent working on a bipartisan basis to improve our health 
care system and lower costs. We voted decisively in July to reject the 
partisan bill. With these votes, Senators on both sides of the aisle 
decided we would return to regular order and work toward bipartisan 
health care solutions that could get at least 60 votes in this body.
  As I have highlighted, this kind of bipartisan approach is why we 
have been successful in bringing the NDAA to the floor each year, and 
Senators Alexander and Murray have been doing just that with respect to 
the HELP Committee. They have had four hearings over the last two 
weeks, with witnesses from both parties, from Governors to health 
insurance commissioners, to leaders in the industry. I have great 
confidence in my colleagues and their ability to craft a bipartisan 
bill to improve the ACA that a majority of Senators could support. This 
is a bipartisan, inclusive process, and I should note, it is undertaken 
by one of the two committees that have jurisdiction for health care.
  So for my Republican colleagues to now decide, after this critical 
work is already underway, that we are going to scratch those efforts 
and return instead to a partisan process, in which not even Republican 
Senators have had the opportunity to fully review the bill, make 
changes or even get analysis of the bill, I think that process is 
wrong. Let's not be fooled by the new effort. The legislation would 
have the same effects as the other versions of TrumpCare we saw 
rejected.
  We have heard the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee will hold a hearing on the latest version of TrumpCare. This 
is not the right process. It is not representative of the legislative 
process.
  I would urge my colleagues to reject this approach and, rather, 
follow the example I think we have tried to set in NDAA--a bipartisan, 
regular process, in which amendments are offered by both sides, in 
which debate is undertaken, in which we come to a conclusion based on 
60 votes and move forward to improve the country, particularly to 
protect the men and women in the armed services.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on final 
passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. 
This is the culmination of months of bipartisan work, and it is a 
product in which all Senators and all Americans can take great pride. I 
want to thank, once again, my friend and colleague the Senator from 
Rhode Island. His partnership on this legislation has been invaluable.
  The fundamental purpose of this legislation, which has united 
Senators

[[Page 14561]]

from both sides of the aisle, is to provide our Armed Forces what they 
need to do the jobs we ask of them. We, in this body, have no higher 
duty than to do everything we can to support our fellow Americans who 
serve and sacrifice every day to keep us safe.
  This legislation does that. It keeps faith with our men and women in 
uniform. It supports a national defense budget of $700 billion for 
fiscal year 2018, which exceeds the administration's request by $37 
billion and the defense spending caps in the Budget Control Act by $91 
billion. The decision of the Committee on Armed Services to authorize 
these additional resources was unanimous and bipartisan, and it is a 
significant statement on the troubling state of our military today.
  My friends, for too long, our Nation has asked our men and women in 
uniform to do too much with far too little. Much of the blame lies with 
the last administration, but we in Congress cannot escape 
responsibility. Our military's job is hard enough, but we are making it 
harder through continuing resolutions, unpredictable funding, and 
arbitrary spending caps that we put into law 6 years ago before the 
rise of ISIS, before the current crisis with North Korea, before 
Russia's return to aggression on the world stage, and before so many 
other dangerous developments.
  We have been warned--we have been warned, my friends--that we can't 
go on like this. We have been warned. Earlier this year, the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, warned us: ``In just 
a few years if we don't change the trajectory, we will lose our 
qualitative and our quantitative competitive edge, [and] the 
consequences will be profound.'' The Secretary of Defense, Jim Mattis, 
also warned us, saying: ``We are no longer managing risk; we are now 
gambling.''
  We are gambling, my friends. We are gambling with the lives of the 
best among us, and we are now seeing the cost--the tragic but 
foreseeable cost--of an overworked, strained force, with aging 
equipment and not enough of it.
  On June 17, seven sailors were killed when the USS Fitzgerald 
collided with a container ship off the coast of Japan. On July 10, a 
Marine KC-130 crash in Mississippi killed all 16 troops on board. On 
August 5, an Osprey helicopter crash off the coast of Australia 
resulted in the deaths of three Marines. On August 15, an Army 
helicopter crashed off the coast of Hawaii, with five soldiers presumed 
dead. On August 21, 10 sailors perished when the USS McCain collided 
with a tanker near Singapore. On August 25, an Army Black Hawk 
helicopter went down during a training mission off the coast of Yemen, 
and one soldier died. Earlier this month in Nevada, two Air Force A-10 
aircraft crashed into each other. Thank God the pilots safely ejected, 
but the planes were lost, at a cost of over $100 million.
  Just last week--just last week, as we debated this legislation--there 
were additional accidents. Last Tuesday, one soldier died during 
helicopter training at Fort Hood. Last Wednesday, an amphibious vehicle 
explosion at Camp Pendleton injured 15 marines. Last Thursday, a 
demolition accident at Fort Bragg killed another soldier and injured 
seven others.
  My friends, more of our men and women in uniform are now being killed 
in totally avoidable training accidents and routine operations than by 
our enemies in combat. Let me repeat that. More of our men and women in 
uniform are now being killed in totally avoidable training accidents 
and routine operations than by our enemies in combat.
  Where is the outrage? Where is our sense of urgency to deal with this 
problem? Congress can criticize this administration or the last 
administration all we want, and there is plenty of blame to go around, 
but the constitutional responsibility is to ``raise and support 
Armies'' and ``provide and maintain a Navy.'' That responsibility is 
ours. How can we believe that we are meeting our responsibilities when 
young Americans in uniform are not receiving the necessary resources 
and capabilities to perform their missions? My friends, that blame 
rests with us, the Congress.
  I know many of my colleagues agree. I have heard them--both 
Republicans and Democrats--speak for years about the harmful effects 
sequestration is having on our military and many other Federal agencies 
with a national security mission. How do we explain our failure to deal 
with this problem last week? We had an opportunity. This legislation 
was open for amendments under regular order for an entire week. There 
was an amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas to repeal 
sequestration. The amendment was written in a bipartisan way and would 
have ended sequestration, not only for defense but nondefense spending 
as well. We had an opportunity to tell all of our men and women in 
uniform that the Senate finally was doing everything it could to 
support them. We had an opportunity, and we failed. Worse than that, we 
didn't even try. We couldn't even agree to vote.
  It makes me so angry, but more than that it makes me sad. It breaks 
my heart.
  How do we explain our failure to our men and women who are serving? 
How do we explain to Americans who are risking their lives for us that 
we could not summon the courage to take some hard votes? How can we 
explain we couldn't come together and vote together when it mattered 
most? How do we explain the signal our inaction sends to all who are 
serving that Congress has higher priorities than rebuilding our 
military? We should be ashamed of ourselves.
  For those of you who will soon vote for this National Defense 
Authorization Act, which will authorize the necessary resources to 
begin rebuilding our military, let me thank you; let me thank you; let 
me thank you. You can be proud that you are voting for a good piece of 
legislation, but this legislation is only part of the solution. We 
still have no path to actually appropriate the money that we are about 
to authorize. That requires a bipartisan agreement to adjust the 
spending caps in the Budget Control Act.
  For all of you who will join me in voting to authorize these vital 
additional resources for our military, I would also urge you to join me 
in demanding and passing a bipartisan agreement so that we can 
appropriate those resources. This will require some hard work. It will 
require some teamwork and some trust in each other. It will require 
having the courage of our convictions. But in the end, it will require 
much less of us than the service and sacrifice we ask every day from 
our men and women in uniform, which they so dutifully provide us.
  I do not want to have to call another grieving mother or father or 
spouse after their loved one has perished in a mishap that might have 
been prevented if Congress had done its job. Let's find a way to 
appropriate the resources for our military that we will soon authorize. 
Our men and women in uniform deserve no less.
  Mr. President, I will suggest a short quorum call while we get these 
final agreed-upon amendments on the bill at this time. It shouldn't 
take more than 3 or 4 minutes.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Amendments Nos. 277, 434, 574, 660, 750, 756, 833, 890, 900, 903, 904, 
 950, 976, 995, 1014, 1015, 1021, 1023, 1065, 1087, 1088, 1089, 1094, 
  1100, 470, 601, 712, 780, 873, 874, 879, 908, 927, 943, 945, 1006, 
 1031, 1033, 1034, 1038, 1039, 1050, 1055, 1063, 1073, 1086, 1096, and 
                                  1032

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments to H.R. 2810, as amended, be considered and agreed to en 
bloc: Kaine No. 277, Tester No. 434, Heitkamp No. 574, Merkley No. 660, 
Whitehouse No. 750, Van Hollen No. 756, Murray No. 833, Brown No. 890, 
Cardin No. 900, Leahy No. 903, Baldwin No. 904, Peters No. 950, 
Heitkamp No. 976, Cantwell No. 995, Stabenow No. 1014, Whitehouse No. 
1015, Harris No. 1021, Sanders No. 1023, Cantwell No. 1065, Bennet No. 
1087,

[[Page 14562]]

Wyden No. 1088, Kaine No. 1089, Cortez Masto No. 1094, Lee No. 470, 
Moran No. 601, Portman No. 712, Inhofe No. 780, Ernst No. 873, McCain 
No. 874, Johnson No. 879, Murkowski No. 908, Rubio No. 927, Isakson No. 
943, Flake No. 945, Moran No. 1006, Tillis No. 1031, Perdue No. 1033, 
Strange No. 1034, Lankford No. 1038, Rounds No. 1039, Scott No. 1050, 
Portman No. 1055, Tillis No. 1063, Sullivan No. 1073, Strange No. 1086, 
Graham No. 1096, and Isakson No. 1032.
  Mr. President, I ask to add Durbin No. 1100. I intentionally omitted 
him the first time around in hopes that it wouldn't be noticed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's request is so modified.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
numbers at the desk be reflected in the list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there objection to the modified request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 277, 434, 574, 660, 750, 756, 833, 890, 900, 
903, 904, 950, 976, 995, 1014, 1015, 1021, 1023, 1065, 1087, 1088, 
1089, 1094, 1100, 470, 601, 712, 780, 873, 874, 879, 908, 927, 943, 
945, 1006, 1031, 1033, 1034, 1038, 1039, 1050, 1055, 1063, 1073, 1086, 
1096, and 1032) were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                           Amendment No. 277

   (Purpose: To provide for the establishment of a visitor services 
            facility on the Arlington Ridge tract, Virginia)

       At the end of subtitle E of title XXVIII, add the 
     following:

     SEC. 2850. ESTABLISHMENT OF A VISITOR SERVICES FACILITY ON 
                   THE ARLINGTON RIDGE TRACT.

       (a) Arlington Ridge Tract Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``Arlington Ridge tract'' means the parcel of Federal 
     land located in Arlington County, Virginia, known as the 
     ``Nevius Tract'' and transferred to the Department of the 
     Interior in 1953, that is bounded generally by--
       (1) Arlington Boulevard (United States Route 50) to the 
     north;
       (2) Jefferson Davis Highway (Virginia Route 110) to the 
     east;
       (3) Marshall Drive to the south; and
       (4) North Meade Street to the west.
       (b) Establishment of Visitor Services Facility.--
     Notwithstanding section 2863(g) of the Military Construction 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107; 
     115 Stat. 1332), the Secretary of the Interior may construct 
     a structure for visitor services, including a public restroom 
     facility, on the Arlington Ridge tract in the area of the 
     United States Marine Corps War Memorial.


                           Amendment No. 434

  (Purpose: To convert the authority for a National Language Service 
               Corps into a requirement for such a Corps)

       At the end of subtitle D of title IX, add the following:

     SEC. 953. REQUIREMENT FOR NATIONAL LANGUAGE SERVICE CORPS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a)(1) of 813 of the David L. 
     Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 (50 U.S.C. 
     1913) is amended by striking ``may establish and maintain'' 
     and inserting ``shall establish and maintain''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (b) of such section 
     is amended by striking ``If the Secretary establishes the 
     Corps, the Secretary'' and inserting ``The Secretary''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 574

(Purpose: To expand the SkillBridge initiative to include participation 
                          by Federal agencies)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. EXPANSION OF SKILLBRIDGE INITIATIVE TO INCLUDE 
                   PARTICIPATION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       (a) Modification of Initiative by Secretary of Defense.--
     The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director 
     of the Office of Personnel Management, shall make such 
     modifications to the SkillBridge initiative of the Department 
     of Defense as the Secretary considers appropriate to enable 
     Federal agencies to participate in the initiative as 
     employers and trainers, including the provision of training 
     by Federal agencies under the initiative to transitioning 
     members of the Armed Forces.
       (b) Participation by Federal Agencies.--The Director, in 
     consultation with the Secretary, shall take such actions as 
     may be necessary to ensure that each Federal agency 
     participates in the SkillBridge initiative of the Department 
     of Defense as described in subsection (a).
       (c) Transitioning Members of the Armed Forces Defined.--In 
     this section, the term ``transitioning member of the Armed 
     Forces'' means a member of the Armed Forces who is expected 
     to be discharged or released from active duty in the Armed 
     Forces not more than 180 days after the member commences 
     training under the SkillBridge initiative.


                           amendment no. 660

(Purpose: To treat the service of recipients of Boren scholarships and 
fellowships in excepted service positions as service by such recipients 
under career appointments for purposes of career tenure under title 5, 
                          United States Code)

       At the appropriate place in subtitle B of title XVI, insert 
     the following:

     SEC. ___. CONSIDERATION OF SERVICE BY RECIPIENTS OF BOREN 
                   SCHOLARSHIPS AND FELLOWSHIPS IN EXCEPTED 
                   SERVICE POSITIONS AS SERVICE BY SUCH RECIPIENTS 
                   UNDER CAREER APPOINTMENTS FOR PURPOSES OF 
                   CAREER TENURE.

       Section 802(k) of the David L. Boren National Security 
     Education Act of 1991 (50 U.S.C. 1902(k)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4);
       (2) in paragraph (2), in the matter before subparagraph 
     (A), by striking ``(3)(C)'' and inserting ``(4)(C)''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Career tenure.--In the case of an individual whose 
     appointment to a position in the excepted service is 
     converted to a career or career- conditional appointment 
     under paragraph (1)(B), the period of service described in 
     such paragraph shall be treated, for purposes of the service 
     requirements for career tenure under title 5, United States 
     Code, as if it were service in a position under a career or 
     career- conditional appointment.''.


                           amendment no. 750

 (Purpose: To extend temporarily the extended period of protection for 
     members of uniformed services relating to mortgages, mortgage 
                       foreclosure, and eviction)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF EXTENDED PERIOD OF 
                   PROTECTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF UNIFORMED SERVICES 
                   RELATING TO MORTGAGES, MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE, 
                   AND EVICTION.

       Section 710(d) of the Honoring America's Veterans and 
     Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-
     154; 50 U.S.C. 3953 note) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``December 31, 2017'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2019''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``January 1, 2018'' and 
     inserting ``January 1, 2020''.


                           amendment no. 756

(Purpose: To require a report on compliance with Department of Defense 
           and Service policies regarding runway clear zones)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH RUNWAY CLEAR ZONE 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in 
     consultation with the Service secretaries, shall submit to 
     the congressional defense committees a report on Service 
     compliance with Department of Defense and relevant Service 
     policies regarding Department of Defense runway clear zones.
       (b) Elements.--The report required under subsection (a) 
     shall include the following elements:
       (1) A listing of all Department of Defense runway clear 
     zones in the United States that are not in compliance with 
     Department of Defense and relevant Service policies regarding 
     Department of Defense runway clear zones.
       (2) A plan for bringing all Department of Defense runway 
     clear zones in full compliance with these policies, including 
     a description of the resources required to bring these clear 
     zones into policy compliance, and for providing restitution 
     for property owners.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 833

(Purpose: To provide for the promotion of financial literacy concerning 
             retirement among members of the Armed Forces)

       At the end of part I of subtitle C of title VI, add the 
     following:

     SEC. ___. PROMOTION OF FINANCIAL LITERACY CONCERNING 
                   RETIREMENT AMONG MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) Programs for Promotion Required.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall develop programs of financial literacy for 
     members of the Armed Forces to assist members in better 
     understanding retirement options and planning for retirement.
       (b) Information on Comparative Value of Lump Sum and 
     Monthly Payments of Retired Pay With Conventional Retired 
     Pay.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop information to 
     be provided to members of the Armed Forces who are eligible 
     to make the election provided for in subsection (b)(1) of 
     section 1415 of title 10, United States Code, to assist such 
     members in making an informed comparison for purposes of the 
     election between the following:
       (1) The value of the lump sum payment of retired pay and 
     monthly payments provided

[[Page 14563]]

     for in such subsection (b)(1) by reason of the election, 
     including the manner in which the lump sum and such monthly 
     payments are determined for any particular member.
       (2) The value of retired pay payable under subsection (d) 
     of such section in the absence of the election, including the 
     manner in which such retired pay is determined for any 
     particular member.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 890

 (Purpose: To ensure the continued designation of the Secretary of the 
Air Force as the Department of Defense Executive Agent for the program 
   carried out under title III of the Defense Production Act of 1950)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. LIMITATION ON CANCELLATION OF DESIGNATION OF 
                   SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE AS DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE EXECUTIVE AGENT FOR A CERTAIN DEFENSE 
                   PRODUCTION ACT PROGRAM.

       (a) Limitation on Cancellation of Designation.--The 
     Secretary of Defense may not implement the decision, issued 
     on July 1, 2017, to cancel the designation, under Department 
     of Defense Directive 4400.1E, entitled ``Defense Production 
     Act Programs'' and dated October 12, 2001, of the Secretary 
     of the Air Force as the Department of Defense Executive Agent 
     for the program carried out under title III of the Defense 
     Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 4531 et seq.) until the 
     date specified in subsection (c).
       (b) Designation.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall 
     continue to serve as the Department of Defense Executive 
     Agent for the program described in subsection (a) until the 
     date specified in subsection (c).
       (c) Date Specified.--The date specified in this subsection 
     is the earlier of--
       (1) the date that is two years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act; or
       (2) the date of the enactment of a joint resolution or an 
     Act approving the implementation of the decision described in 
     subsection (a).


                           Amendment No. 900

 (Purpose: To require a report on the National Biodefense Analysis and 
 Countermeasures Center (NBACC) and to provide a limitation on use of 
                                 funds)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. REPORT ON THE NATIONAL BIODEFENSE ANALYSIS AND 
                   COUNTERMEASURES CENTER (NBACC) AND LIMITATION 
                   ON USE OF FUNDS.

       (a) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2017, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense 
     shall jointly submit to the appropriate Congressional 
     committees a report, prepared in consultation with the 
     officials listed in subsection (b), on the National 
     Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (referred to 
     in this section as the ``NBACC'') containing the following 
     information:
       (1) The functions of the NBACC.
       (2) The end users of the NBACC, including end users whose 
     assets may be managed by other agencies.
       (3) The cost and mission impact for each user identified 
     under paragraph (2) of any potential closure of the NBACC, 
     including an analysis of the functions of the NBACC that 
     cannot be replicated by other departments and agencies of the 
     Federal Government.
       (4) In the case of closure of the NBACC, a transition plan 
     for any essential functions currently performed by the NBACC 
     to ensure mission continuity, including the storage of 
     samples needed for ongoing criminal cases.
       (b) Consultation.--The officials listed in this subsection 
     are the following:
       (1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       (2) The Attorney General.
       (3) The Director of National Intelligence.
       (4) As determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
     the leaders of other offices that utilize the NBACC.
       (c) Form.--The report submitted under subsection (a) shall 
     be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a 
     classified annex.
       (d) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term ``appropriate 
     Congressional Committees'' means--
       (1) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
       (2) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (3) the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
       (4) the Committee on Armed Services of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (5) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate;
       (6) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (7) the Committee on Judiciary of the Senate;
       (8) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (9) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the 
     House of Representatives;
       (10) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; 
     and
       (11) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (e) Transition Period.--The report submitted under 
     subsection (a) shall include a transition adjustment period 
     of not less than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, or 180 days after the date on which the report required 
     in under this section is submitted to Congress, whichever is 
     later, during which none of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated under this Act or any other Act may be used to 
     support the closure, transfer, or other diminishment of the 
     NBACC or its functions.


                           amendment no. 903

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a feasibility 
   study and cost estimate for a pilot program that uses predictive 
  analytics and screening to identify mental health risk and provide 
   early, targeted intervention for part-time members of the reserve 
                    components of the Armed Forces)

       At the end of subtitle C of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. 737. FEASIBILITY STUDY ON CONDUCT OF PILOT PROGRAM ON 
                   MENTAL HEALTH READINESS OF PART-TIME MEMBERS OF 
                   THE RESERVE COMPONENTS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     conduct a feasibility study and cost estimate for a pilot 
     program that uses predictive analytics and screening to 
     identify mental health risk and provide early, targeted 
     intervention for part-time members of the reserve components 
     of the Armed Forces to improve readiness and mission success.
       (b) Elements.--The feasibility study conducted under 
     subsection (a) shall include elements to assess the following 
     with respect to the pilot program studied under such 
     subsection:
       (1) The anticipated improvement in quality of behavioral 
     health services for part-time members of the reserve 
     components of the Armed Forces and the impact of such 
     improvement in quality of behavioral health services on their 
     families and employers.
       (2) The anticipated impact on the culture surrounding 
     behavioral health treatment and help-seeking behavior.
       (3) The feasibility of embedding mental health 
     professionals with units that--
       (A) perform core mission sets and capabilities; and
       (B) carry out high-risk and high-demand missions.
       (4) The particular preventative mental health needs of 
     units at different states of their operational readiness 
     cycle.
       (5) The need for additional personnel of the Department of 
     Defense to implement the pilot program.
       (6) The cost of implementing the pilot program throughout 
     the reserve components of the Armed Forces.
       (7) The benefits of an integrated operational support team 
     for the Air National Guard and Army National Guard units.
       (c) Comparison to Full-time Members of Reserve 
     Components.--As part of the feasibility study conducted under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall assess the mental health 
     risk of part-time members of the reserve components of the 
     Armed Forces as compared to full-time members of the reserve 
     components of the Armed Forces.
       (d) Use of Existing Models.--In conducting the feasibility 
     study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall make use of 
     existing models for preventative mental health care, to the 
     extent practicable, such as the approach developed by the 
     United States Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine.


                           Amendment No. 904

  (Purpose: To prohibit or suspend certain health care providers from 
 providing non-Department of Veterans Affairs health care services to 
                               veterans)

       At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1088. PREVENTION OF CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS FROM 
                   PROVIDING NON-DEPARTMENT HEALTH CARE SERVICES 
                   TO VETERANS.

       (a) In General.--On and after the date that is one year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs shall deny or revoke the eligibility of a 
     health care provider to provide non-Department health care 
     services to veterans if the Secretary determines that the 
     health care provider--
       (1) was removed from employment with the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs due to conduct that violated a policy of the 
     Department relating to the delivery of safe and appropriate 
     health care;
       (2) violated the requirements of a medical license of the 
     health care provider;
       (3) had a Department credential revoked and the grounds for 
     such revocation impacts the ability of the health care 
     provider to deliver safe and appropriate health care; or
       (4) violated a law for which a term of imprisonment of more 
     than one year may be imposed.
       (b) Permissive Action.--On and after the date that is one 
     year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary may deny, revoke, or suspend the eligibility of a 
     health care provider to provide non-Department health care 
     services if the Secretary has reasonable belief that such 
     action is necessary to immediately protect the health, 
     safety, or welfare of veterans and--

[[Page 14564]]

       (1) the health care provider is under investigation by the 
     medical licensing board of a State in which the health care 
     provider is licensed or practices;
       (2) the health care provider has entered into a settlement 
     agreement for a disciplinary charge relating to the practice 
     of medicine by the health care provider; or
       (3) the Secretary otherwise determines that such action is 
     appropriate under the circumstances.
       (c) Suspension.--The Secretary shall suspend the 
     eligibility of a health care provider to provide non-
     Department health care services to veterans if the health 
     care provider is suspended from serving as a health care 
     provider of the Department.
       (d) Initial Review of Department Employment.--Not later 
     than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     with respect to each health care provider providing non-
     Department health care services, the Secretary shall review 
     the status of each such health care provider as an employee 
     of the Department and the history of employment of each such 
     health care provider with the Department to determine whether 
     the health care provider is described in any of subsections 
     (a) through (c).
       (e) Comptroller General Report.--Not later than two years 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the implementation by the Secretary of this 
     section, including the following:
       (1) The aggregate number of health care providers denied or 
     suspended under this section from participation in providing 
     non-Department health care services.
       (2) An evaluation of any impact on access to health care 
     for patients or staffing shortages in programs of the 
     Department providing non-Department health care services.
       (3) An explanation of the coordination of the Department 
     with the medical licensing boards of States in implementing 
     this section, the amount of involvement of such boards in 
     such implementation, and efforts by the Department to address 
     any concerns raised by such boards with respect to such 
     implementation.
       (4) Such recommendations as the Comptroller General 
     considers appropriate regarding harmonizing eligibility 
     criteria between health care providers of the Department and 
     health care providers eligible to provide non-Department 
     health care services.
       (f) Non-Department Health Care Services Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``non-Department health care services'' 
     means services--
       (1) provided under subchapter I of chapter 17 of title 38, 
     United States Code, at non-Department facilities (as defined 
     in section 1701 of such title);
       (2) provided under section 101 of the Veterans Access, 
     Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-146; 
     38 U.S.C. 1701 note);
       (3) purchased through the Medical Community Care account of 
     the Department; or
       (4) purchased with amounts deposited in the Veterans Choice 
     Fund under section 802 of the Veterans Access, Choice, and 
     Accountability Act of 2014.


                           Amendment No. 950

 (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to increase the 
Primary Aircraft Authorization of Air Force or Air National Guard A-10 
 aircraft units in the event conversion of an A-10 unit is in the best 
               interest of a long-term Air Force mission)

       At the end of subtitle D of title I, add the following:

     SEC. __. AUTHORITY TO INCREASE PRIMARY AIRCRAFT AUTHORIZATION 
                   OF AIR FORCE AND AIR NATIONAL GUARD A-10 
                   AIRCRAFT UNITS FOR PURPOSES OF FACILITATING A-
                   10 CONVERSION.

       In the event that conversion of an A-10 aircraft unit is in 
     the best interest of a long-term Air Force mission, the 
     Secretary of the Air Force may increase the Primary Aircraft 
     Authorization of Air Force Reserve or Air National Guard A-10 
     units to 24 aircraft to facilitate such conversion.


                           Amendment No. 976

  (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on use of test sites for 
   research and development on countering unmanned aircraft systems)

       At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

     SEC. ___. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON USE OF TEST SITES FOR RESEARCH 
                   AND DEVELOPMENT ON COUNTERING UNMANNED AIRCRAFT 
                   SYSTEMS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the armed unmanned aircraft systems deployed by 
     adversaries for military purposes pose a threat to military 
     installations, critical infrastructure, and members of the 
     Armed Forces in conflict areas like Iraq and Syria;
       (2) the unmanned aircraft systems test sites designated by 
     the Federal Aviation Administration offer unique 
     capabilities, expertise, and airspace for research and 
     development related to unmanned aircraft systems; and
       (3) the Armed Forces should, as appropriate and to the 
     extent practicable, seek to leverage the test sites described 
     in paragraph (2), as well as existing Department of Defense 
     facilities with appropriate expertise, for research and 
     development on capabilities to counter the nefarious use of 
     unmanned aircraft systems.


                           Amendment No. 995

 (Purpose: To extend the authorization of the Advisory Board on Toxic 
                     Substances and Worker Health)

       At the end of subtitle B of title XXXI, add the following:

     SEC. 3116. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF ADVISORY BOARD ON 
                   TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND WORKER HEALTH.

       Section 3687(i) of the Energy Employees Occupational 
     Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7385s-
     16(i)) is amended by striking ``5 years'' and inserting ``10 
     years''.


                           Amendment No. 1014

 (Purpose: To require the Government Accountability Office to evaluate 
 Buy American training policies for the Defense acquisition workforce)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. BUY AMERICAN ACT TRAINING FOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION 
                   WORKFORCE.

       (a) Finding.--Congress finds that the Inspector General of 
     the Department of Defense has issued a series of reports 
     finding deficiencies in the adherence to the provisions of 
     the Buy American Act and recommending improvements in 
     training for the Defense acquisition workforce.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees a report evaluating Buy American training policies 
     for the Defense acquisition workforce.
       (2) Elements.--The report shall include the following 
     elements:
       (A) A summary and assessment of mandated training courses 
     for Department of Defense acquisition personnel responsible 
     for procuring items that are subject to the Berry Amendment 
     and Buy American Act.
       (B) Options for alternative training models for contracting 
     personnel on Buy American and Berry Amendment requirements.


                           amendment no. 1015

   (Purpose: To encourage the United States Trade Representative to 
    consider the impact of marine debris in future trade agreements)

       At the end of subtitle G of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 1285. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CONSIDERATION OF IMPACT OF 
                   MARINE DEBRIS IN TRADE AGREEMENTS.

       Recognizing that the Senate unanimously agreed to S. 756, 
     an Act to reauthorize and amend the Marine Debris Act to 
     promote international action to reduce marine debris, and for 
     other purposes (commonly referred to as the ``Save Our Seas 
     Act of 2017'') on August 3, 2017, Congress encourages the 
     United States Trade Representative to consider the impact of 
     marine debris, particularly plastic waste, in relevant trade 
     agreements entered into or negotiated after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.


                           amendment no. 1021

(Purpose: To require a review of effects of personnel requirements and 
 limitations on the availability of members of the National Guard for 
          the performance of funeral honors duty for veterans)

       At the end of subtitle B of title V, add the following:

     SEC. ___. REVIEW OF EFFECTS OF PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS AND 
                   LIMITATIONS ON THE AVAILABILITY OF MEMBERS OF 
                   THE NATIONAL GUARD FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF 
                   FUNERAL HONORS DUTY FOR VETERANS.

       (a) Review Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     undertake a review of the effects of the personnel 
     requirements and limitations described in subsection (b) with 
     respect to the members of the National Guard in order to 
     determine whether or not such requirements unduly limit the 
     ability of the Armed Forces to meet the demand for personnel 
     to perform funeral honors in connection with funerals of 
     veterans
       (b) Personnel Requirements and Limitations.--The personnel 
     requirements and limitations described in this subsection are 
     the following:
       (1) Requirements, such as the ceiling on the authorized 
     number of members of the National Guard on active duty 
     pursuant to section 115(b)(2)(B) of title 10, United States 
     Code, or end-strength limitations, that may operate to limit 
     the number of members of the National Guard available for the 
     performance of funeral honors duty.
       (2) Any other requirements or limitations applicable to the 
     reserve components of the Armed Forces in general, or the 
     National Guard in particular, that may operate to limit the 
     number of members of the National Guard available for the 
     performance of funeral honors duty.
       (c) Report.--Not later than six months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives a report on the review undertaken pursuant to 
     subsection (a). The report shall include the following:
       (1) A description of the review.

[[Page 14565]]

       (2) Such recommendations as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate in light of the review for legislative or 
     administrative action to expand the number of members of the 
     National Guard available for the performance of funeral 
     honors functions at funerals of veterans.


                           Amendment No. 1023

   (Purpose: To authorize the provision of support for Beyond Yellow 
                            Ribbon programs)

       At the end of subtitle H of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 583. AUTHORIZATION OF SUPPORT FOR BEYOND YELLOW RIBBON 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Section 582 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 10 U.S.C. 10101 note) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (k) and (l) as subsections 
     (l) and (m), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (j) the following new 
     subsection (k):
       ``(k) Support for Beyond Yellow Ribbon Programs.--The 
     Secretary of Defense may award grants to States to carry out 
     programs that provide deployment cycle information, services, 
     and referrals to members of reserve components of the Armed 
     Forces, members of active components of the Armed Forces, and 
     the families of such members throughout the deployment cycle. 
     Such programs may include the provision of access to outreach 
     services, including the following:
       ``(1) Employment counseling.
       ``(2) Behavioral health counseling.
       ``(3) Suicide prevention.
       ``(4) Housing advocacy.
       ``(5) Financial counseling.
       ``(6) Referrals to for the receipt of other services.''.


                           Amendment No. 1065

(Purpose: To increase funding for environmental restoration for the Air 
                    Force, and to provide an offset)

       In the funding table in section 4301, in the item relating 
     to Environmental Restoration, Air Force, increase the amount 
     in the Senate Authorized column by $20,000,000.
       In the funding table in section 4301, in the item relating 
     to Subtotal Environmental Restoration, Air Force, increase 
     the amount in the Senate Authorized column by $20,000,000.
       In the funding table in section 4301, in the item relating 
     to Total Miscellaneous Appropriations, increase the amount in 
     the Senate Authorized column by $20,000,000.
       In the funding table in section 4301, in the item relating 
     to Undistributed, Line number 999, reduce the amount in the 
     Senate Authorized column by $20,000,000.
       In the funding table in section 4301, in the item relating 
     to Fuel Savings, increase the amount of the reduction 
     indicated in the Senate Authorized column by $20,000,000.
       In the funding table in section 4301, in the item relating 
     to Subtotal Undistributed, reduce the amount in the Senate 
     Authorized column by $20,000,000.
       In the funding table in section 4301, in the item relating 
     to Total Undistributed, reduce the amount in the Senate 
     Authorized column by $20,000,000.


                           Amendment No. 1087

  (Purpose: To recognize the National Museum of World War II Aviation)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. RECOGNITION OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF WORLD WAR II 
                   AVIATION.

       (a) Recognition.--The National Museum of World War II 
     Aviation in Colorado Springs, Colorado, is recognized as 
     America's National World War II Aviation Museum.
       (b) Effect of Recognition.--The National Museum recognized 
     by this section is not a unit of the National Park System, 
     and the recognition of the National Museum shall not be 
     construed to require or permit Federal funds to be expended 
     for any purpose related to the National Museum.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1088

(Purpose: To authorize an additional $10,000,000 for the National Guard 
      for training on wildfire response, and to provide an offset)

       At the end of subtitle B of title V, add the following:

     SEC. ___. TRAINING FOR NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL ON WILDFIRE 
                   RESPONSE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army and the 
     Secretary of the Air Force shall, in consultation with the 
     Chief of the National Guard Bureau, provide for training of 
     appropriate personnel of the National Guard on wildfire 
     response, with preference given to States with the most acres 
     of Federal forestlands administered by the U.S. Forest 
     Service or the Department of the Interior.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for the Department of Defense a total of 
     $10,000,000, in addition to amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated by sections 421 and 301, in order to carry out 
     the training required by subsection (a) and provide related 
     equipment.
       (c) Offset.--In the funding table in section 4101, in the 
     item relating to Fuzes, Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force, 
     decrease the amount in the Senate Authorized column by 
     $10,000,000.


                           amendment no. 1089

   (Purpose: To establish opportunities for scholarships related to 
                 cybersecurity, and for other purposes)

       At the end of title XVI, add the following:

              Subtitle F--Cyber Scholarship Opportunities

     SEC. 1661. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Cyber Scholarship 
     Opportunities Act of 2017''.

     SEC. 1662. COMMUNITY COLLEGE CYBER PILOT PROGRAM AND 
                   ASSESSMENT.

       (a) Pilot Program.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this subtitle, as part of the Federal Cyber 
     Scholarship-for-Service program established under section 302 
     of the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014 (15 U.S.C. 
     7442), the Director of the National Science Foundation, in 
     coordination with the Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management, shall develop and implement a pilot program at 
     not more than 10, but at least 5, community colleges to 
     provide scholarships to eligible students who--
       (1) are pursuing associate degrees or specialized program 
     certifications in the field of cybersecurity; and
       (2)(A) have bachelor's degrees; or
       (B) are veterans of the armed forces.
       (b) Assessment.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this subtitle, as part of the Federal Cyber 
     Scholarship-for-Service program established under section 302 
     of the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014 (15 U.S.C. 
     7442), the Director of the National Science Foundation, in 
     coordination with the Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management, shall assess the potential benefits and 
     feasibility of providing scholarships through community 
     colleges to eligible students who are pursuing associate 
     degrees, but do not have bachelor's degrees.

     SEC. 1663. FEDERAL CYBER SCHOLARSHIP-FOR SERVICE PROGRAM 
                   UPDATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 302 of the Cybersecurity 
     Enhancement Act of 2014 (15 U.S.C. 7442) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b)(3) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) prioritize the employment placement of at least 80 
     percent of scholarship recipients in an executive agency (as 
     defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code); and
       ``(4) provide awards to improve cybersecurity education at 
     the kindergarten through grade 12 level--
       ``(A) to increase interest in cybersecurity careers;
       ``(B) to help students practice correct and safe online 
     behavior and understand the foundational principles of 
     cybersecurity;
       ``(C) to improve teaching methods for delivering 
     cybersecurity content for kindergarten through grade 12 
     computer science curricula; and
       ``(D) to promote teacher recruitment in the field of 
     cybersecurity.'';
       (2) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
       ``(d) Post-award Employment Obligations.--Each scholarship 
     recipient, as a condition of receiving a scholarship under 
     the program, shall enter into an agreement under which the 
     recipient agrees to work for a period equal to the length of 
     the scholarship, following receipt of the student's degree, 
     in the cybersecurity mission of--
       ``(1) an executive agency (as defined in section 105 of 
     title 5, United States Code);
       ``(2) Congress, including any agency, entity, office, or 
     commission established in the legislative branch;
       ``(3) an interstate agency;
       ``(4) a State, local, or tribal government; or
       ``(5) a State, local, or tribal government-affiliated non-
     profit that is considered to be critical infrastructure (as 
     defined in section 1016(e) of the USA Patriot Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5195c(e)).'';
       (3) in subsection (f)--
       (A) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) have demonstrated a high level of competency in 
     relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities, as defined by the 
     national cybersecurity awareness and education program under 
     section 401;''; and
       (B) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
       ``(4) be a full-time student in an eligible degree program 
     at a qualified institution of higher education, as determined 
     by the Director of the National Science Foundation, except 
     that in the case of a student who is enrolled in a community 
     college, be a student pursuing a degree on a less than full-
     time basis, but not less than half-time basis; and''; and
       (4) by amending subsection (m) to read as follows:
       ``(m) Public Information.--
       ``(1) Evaluation.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation, in coordination with the Director of the Office 
     of Personnel Management, shall periodically evaluate and make 
     public, in a manner that protects the personally identifiable 
     information of scholarship recipients, information on the 
     success of recruiting individuals for scholarships under this 
     section and on hiring and retaining those individuals in the 
     public sector cyber workforce, including on--
       ``(A) placement rates;
       ``(B) where students are placed, including job titles and 
     descriptions;

[[Page 14566]]

       ``(C) student salary ranges for students not released from 
     obligations under this section;
       ``(D) how long after graduation they are placed;
       ``(E) how long they stay in the positions they enter upon 
     graduation;
       ``(F) how many students are released from obligations; and
       ``(G) what, if any, remedial training is required.
       ``(2) Reports.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation, in coordination with the Office of Personnel 
     Management, shall submit, at least once every 3 years, to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of 
     the House of Representatives a report, including the results 
     of the evaluation under paragraph (1) and any recent 
     statistics regarding the size, composition, and educational 
     requirements of the Federal cyber workforce.
       ``(3) Resources.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation, in coordination with the Director of the Office 
     of Personnel Management, shall provide consolidated and user-
     friendly online resources for prospective scholarship 
     recipients, including, to the extent practicable--
       ``(A) searchable, up-to-date, and accurate information 
     about participating institutions of higher education and job 
     opportunities related to the field of cybersecurity; and
       ``(B) a modernized description of cybersecurity careers.''.
       (b) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this section, or an 
     amendment made by this section, shall affect any agreement, 
     scholarship, loan, or repayment, under section 302 of the 
     Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014 (15 U.S.C. 7442), in 
     effect on the day before the date of enactment of this 
     subtitle.

     SEC. 1664. CYBERSECURITY TEACHING.

       Section 10(i) of the National Science Foundation 
     Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-1(i)) is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (5) to read as follows:
       ``(5) the term `mathematics and science teacher' means a 
     science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or computer 
     science, including cybersecurity, teacher at the elementary 
     school or secondary school level;''; and
       (2) by amending paragraph (7) to read as follows:
       ``(7) the term `science, technology, engineering, or 
     mathematics professional' means an individual who holds a 
     baccalaureate, master's, or doctoral degree in science, 
     technology, engineering, mathematics, or computer science, 
     including cybersecurity, and is working in or had a career in 
     such field or a related area; and''.


                           amendment no. 1094

 (Purpose: To express the sense of Senate on increasing enrollment in 
 Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps programs at minority-serving 
                             institutions)

       At the end of subtitle E of title V, add the following:

     SEC. ___. SENSE OF SENATE ON INCREASING ENROLLMENT IN SENIOR 
                   RESERVE OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS PROGRAMS AT 
                   MINORITY-SERVING INSTITUTIONS.

       (a) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     the Armed Forces should take appropriate actions to increase 
     enrollment in Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (SROTC) 
     programs at minority-serving institutions.
       (b) Minority-serving Institution Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``minority-serving institution'' means an 
     institution of higher education described in section 371(a) 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1067q(a)).


                           amendment no. 1100

 (Purpose: To modify the basis on which an extension of the period for 
  enlistment in the Armed Forces may be made under the Delayed Entry 
                                Program)

       At the end of subtitle C of title V, add the following:

     SEC. ___. MODIFICATION OF BASIS FOR EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR 
                   ENLISTMENT IN THE ARMED FORCES UNDER THE 
                   DELAYED ENTRY PROGRAM.

       Section 513(b) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4);
       (2) by designating the second sentence of paragraph (1) as 
     paragraph (2) and indenting the left margin of such paragraph 
     (2), as so designated, two ems from the left margin;
       (3) in paragraph (2), as so designated, by inserting 
     ``described in paragraph (1)'' after ``the 365-day period'';
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (2), as designated by this 
     section, the following new paragraph (3):
       ``(3)(A) The Secretary concerned may extend by up to an 
     additional 365 days the period of extension under paragraph 
     (2) for a person who enlists under section 504(b)(2) of this 
     title if the Secretary determines that the period of 
     extension under this paragraph is required for the 
     performance of adequate background and security reviews of 
     that person.
       ``(B) The authority to make an extension under this 
     paragraph shall expire on December 31, 2019. The expiration 
     of such authority shall not effect the validity of any 
     extension made in accordance with this paragraph on or before 
     that date.''; and
       (5) in paragraph (4), as redesignated by paragraph (1) of 
     this section, by striking ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting 
     ``this subsection''.


                           amendment no. 470

    (Purpose: Relating to mechanisms to facilitate the obtaining by 
   military spouses of occupational licenses or credentials in other 
                                States)

       At the end of part II of subtitle F of title V, add the 
     following:

     SEC. ___. MECHANISMS TO FACILITATE THE OBTAINING BY MILITARY 
                   SPOUSES OF OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES OR CREDENTIALS 
                   IN OTHER STATES.

       Not later than March 1, 2018, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall--
       (1) develop and maintain a joint Federal-State clearing 
     house to process the occupational license and credential 
     information of military spouses in order--
       (A) to facilitate the matching of such information with 
     State occupational licensure and credentialing requirements; 
     and
       (B) to provide military spouses information on the actions 
     required to obtain occupational licenses or credentials in 
     other States;
       (2) develop and maintain an Internet website that serves as 
     a one-stop resource on occupational licenses and credentials 
     for military spouses that sets forth license and credential 
     requirements for common occupations in the States and 
     provides assistance and other resources for military spouses 
     seeking to obtain occupational licenses or credentials in 
     other States; and
       (3) submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting 
     forth an assessment of the feasibility and advisability of 
     the establishment of a joint Federal-State task force 
     dedicated to the elimination of unnecessary or duplicative 
     occupational licensure and credentialing requirements among 
     the States, including through the use of alternative, less 
     restrictive and burdensome forms of occupational regulation.


                           amendment no. 601

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to declassify certain 
  documents related to incidents in which members of the Armed Forces 
                   were exposed to toxic substances)

       At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1088. DECLASSIFICATION BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OF 
                   CERTAIN INCIDENTS OF EXPOSURE OF MEMBERS OF THE 
                   ARMED FORCES TO TOXIC SUBSTANCES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall declassify 
     documents related to any known incident in which not fewer 
     than 100 members of the Armed Forces were exposed to a toxic 
     substance that resulted in at least one case of a disability 
     that a member of the medical profession has determined to be 
     associated with that toxic substance.
       (b) Limitation.--The declassification required by 
     subsection (a) shall be limited to information necessary for 
     an individual who was potentially exposed to a toxic 
     substance to determine the following:
       (1) Whether that individual was exposed to that toxic 
     substance.
       (2) The potential severity of the exposure of that 
     individual to that toxic substance.
       (3) Any potential health conditions that may have resulted 
     from exposure to that toxic substance.
       (c) Exception.--The Secretary of Defense is not required to 
     declassify documents under subsection (a) if the Secretary 
     determines that declassification of those documents would 
     materially and immediately threaten the security of the 
     United States.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Armed forces.--The term ``Armed Forces'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 101 of title 10, United 
     States Code.
       (2) Exposed.--The term ``exposed'' means, with respect to a 
     toxic substance, that an individual came into contact with 
     that toxic substance in a manner that could be hazardous to 
     the health of that individual, that may include if that toxic 
     substance was inhaled, ingested, or touched the skin or eyes.
       (3) Exposure.--The term ``exposure'' means, with respect to 
     a toxic substance, an event during which an individual was 
     exposed to that toxic substance.
       (4) Toxic substance.--The term ``toxic substance'' means 
     any substance determined by the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to be harmful to the 
     environment or hazardous to the health of an individual if 
     inhaled or ingested by or absorbed through the skin of that 
     individual.


                           amendment no. 712

 (Purpose: To require a plan to meet the demand for cyberspace career 
         fields in the reserve components of the Armed Forces)

       At the end of subtitle B of title V, add the following:

     SEC. ___. PLAN TO MEET DEMAND FOR CYBERSPACE CAREER FIELDS IN 
                   THE RESERVE COMPONENTS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) Plan Required.--Not later than one year after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to

[[Page 14567]]

     Congress a report setting forth a plan for meeting the 
     increased demand for cyberspace career fields in the reserve 
     components of the Armed Forces.
       (b) Elements.--The plan shall take into account the 
     following:
       (1) The availability of qualified local workforces.
       (2) Potential best practices of private sector companies 
     involved in cyberspace and of educational institutions with 
     established cyberspace-related academic programs.
       (3) The potential for Total Force Integration throughout 
     the defense cyber community.
       (4) Recruitment strategies to attract individuals with 
     critical cyber training and skills to join the reserve 
     components.
       (c) Metrics.--The plan shall include appropriate metrics 
     for use in the evaluation of the implementation of the plan.


                           amendment no. 780

 (Purpose: To increase the maximum term for intergovernmental support 
          agreements to provide installation support services)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. INCREASED TERM LIMIT FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SUPPORT 
                   AGREEMENTS TO PROVIDE INSTALLATION SUPPORT 
                   SERVICES.

       Section 2679(a)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``five years'' and inserting ``ten 
     years.''


                           amendment no. 873

     (Purpose: To require the Administrator of the Small Business 
  Administration to submit to Congress a report on the utilization of 
      small businesses with respect to certain Federal contracts)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. REPORT ON UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES FOR 
                   FEDERAL CONTRACTS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) since the passage of the Budget Control Act of 2011 
     (Public Law 112-25; 125 Stat. 240), many Federal agencies 
     have started favoring longer-term Federal contracts, 
     including multiple award contracts, over direct individual 
     awards;
       (2) these multiple award contracts have grown to more than 
     one-fifth of Federal contract spending, with the fastest 
     growing multiple award contracts surpassing $100,000,000 in 
     obligations for the first time between 2013 and 2014;
       (3) in fiscal year 2017, 17 of the 20 largest Federal 
     contract opportunities are multiple award contracts;
       (4) while Federal agencies may choose to use any or all of 
     the various socio-economic groups on a multiple award 
     contract, the Small Business Administration only examines 
     socio-economic performance through the small business 
     procurement scorecard and does not examine potential 
     opportunities by those groups; and
       (5) Congress and the Department of Justice have been clear 
     that no individual socio-economic group shall be given 
     preference over another.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of 
     the Small Business Administration;
       (2) the term ``covered small business concerns'' means--
       (A) HUBZone small business concerns;
       (B) small business concerns owned and controlled by 
     service-disabled veterans;
       (C) small business concerns owned and controlled by women; 
     and
       (D) socially and economically disadvantaged small business 
     concerns, as defined in section 8(a)(4)(A) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)(4)(A)), receiving assistance 
     under such section 8(a); and
       (3) the terms ``HUBZone small business concern'', ``small 
     business concern'', ``small business concern owned and 
     controlled by service-disabled veterans'', and ``small 
     business concern owned and controlled by women'' have the 
     meanings given those terms in section 3 of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 632).
       (c) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the 
     Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House of 
     Representatives a report that includes--
       (A) a determination as to whether small business concerns 
     and each category of covered small business concerns 
     described in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of subsection 
     (b)(2) are being utilized in a significant portion of the 
     Federal market on multiple award contracts, including--
       (i) whether awards are being reserved for 1 or more of 
     those categories; and
       (ii) whether each such category is being given the 
     opportunity to perform on multiple award contracts;
       (B) a determination as to whether performance requirements 
     for multiple award contracts, as in effect on the day before 
     the date of enactment of this Act, are feasible and 
     appropriate for small business concerns; and
       (C) any additional information as the Administrator may 
     determine necessary.
       (2) Requirement.--In making the determinations required 
     under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall use information 
     from multiple award contracts--
       (A) with varied assigned North American Industry 
     Classification System codes; and
       (B) that were awarded by not less than 8 Federal agencies.


                           amendment no. 874

 (Purpose: To limit authorized cost increases in military construction 
                               projects)

       At the end of subtitle A of title XXVIII, add the 
     following:

     SEC. __. AUTHORIZED COST INCREASES.

       Section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``by not more than 10 
     percent'' after ``may be increased''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``limitation on cost variations'' and 
     inserting ``limitation on cost decreases''; and
       (B) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``case of a cost increase or a reduction'' 
     and inserting ``case of a reduction''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``cost increase or reduction in scope, the 
     reasons therefor,'' and inserting ``reduction in scope, the 
     reasons therefor, and''; and
       (II) by striking ``, and a description of the funds 
     proposed to be used to finance any increased costs''.


                           amendment no. 879

  (Purpose: To amend title 46, United States Code, to provide greater 
 flexibility to the Coast Guard in deciding the Federal district court 
     in which to prosecute individuals engaged in drug trafficking)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. VENUE FOR PROSECUTION OF MARITIME DRUG TRAFFICKING.

       (a) In General.--Section 70504(b) of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Venue.--A person violating section 70503 or 70508--
       ``(1) shall be tried in the district in which such offense 
     was committed; or
       ``(2) if the offense was begun or committed upon the high 
     seas, or elsewhere outside the jurisdiction of any particular 
     State or district, may be tried in any district.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1009(d) of the 
     Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 
     959(d)) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection title, by striking ``; Venue''; and
       (2) by striking ``Any person who violates this section 
     shall be tried in the United States district court at the 
     point of entry where such person enters the United States, or 
     in the United States District Court for the District of 
     Columbia.''.


                           amendment no. 908

    (Purpose: To authorize the modification of the Second Division 
                               Memorial)

       At the end of subtitle D of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3___. MODIFICATION OF THE SECOND DIVISION MEMORIAL.

       (a) Authorization.--The Second Indianhead Division 
     Association, Inc., Scholarship and Memorials Foundation, an 
     organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under section 
     501(a) of that Code, may place additional commemorative 
     elements or engravings on the raised platform or stone work 
     of the existing Second Division Memorial located in 
     President's Park, between 17th Street Northwest and 
     Constitution Avenue in the District of Columbia, to further 
     honor the members of the Second Infantry Division who have 
     given their lives in service to the United States.
       (b) Application of Commemorative Works Act.--Chapter 89 of 
     title 40, United States Code (commonly known as the 
     ``Commemorative Works Act''), shall apply to the design and 
     placement of the commemorative elements or engravings 
     authorized under subsection (a).
       (c) Funding.--Federal funds may not be used for 
     modifications of the Second Division Memorial authorized 
     under subsection (a).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 927

   (Purpose: Requiring a report on the availability of postsecondary 
          credit for skills acquired during military service)

       At the end of subtitle D of title V, add the following:

     SEC. __. REPORT ON AVAILABILITY OF POSTSECONDARY CREDIT FOR 
                   SKILLS ACQUIRED DURING MILITARY SERVICE.

       Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
     Secretaries of Veterans Affairs, Education, and Labor, shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the transfer of skills into 
     equivalent postsecondary credits or technical certifications 
     for members of the armed forces leaving the military. Such 
     report shall describe each the following:
       (1) Each skill that may be acquired during military service 
     that is eligible for transfer into an equivalent 
     postsecondary credit or technical certification.
       (2) The academic level of the equivalent postsecondary 
     credit or technical certification for each such skill.

[[Page 14568]]

       (3) Each academic institution that awards an equivalent 
     postsecondary credit or technical certification for such 
     skills, including--
       (A) each such academic institution's status as a public or 
     private institution, and as a non-profit or for-profit 
     institution; and
       (B) the number of veterans that applied to such academic 
     institution who were able to receive equivalent postsecondary 
     credits or technical certifications in the preceding fiscal 
     year, and the academic level of the credits or 
     certifications.
       (4) The number of members of the armed forces who left the 
     military in the preceding fiscal year, and the number of such 
     members who met with an academic or technical training 
     advisor as part of the member's participation in the 
     Transition Assistance Program of the Department of Defense.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 943

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to enter into an 
  agreement providing for the joint use of Dobbins Air Reserve Base, 
                Marietta, Georgia, with civil aviation)

       At the end of subtitle E of title XXVIII, add the 
     following:

     SEC. __. JOINT USE OF DOBBINS AIR RESERVE BASE, MARIETTA, 
                   GEORGIA, WITH CIVIL AVIATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Air Force may enter 
     into an agreement that would provide or permit the joint use 
     of Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Marietta, Georgia, by the Air 
     Force and civil aircraft.
       (b) Conforming Repeal.--Section 312 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1989 (Public Law 100-456; 102 
     Stat. 1950) is hereby repealed.


                           Amendment No. 945

 (Purpose: To require information on Department of Defense funding in 
 Department press releases and related public statements on programs, 
           projects, and activities funded by the Department)

       At the end of subtitle A of title X, add the following:

     SEC. ___. INFORMATION ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FUNDING IN 
                   DEPARTMENT PRESS RELEASES AND RELATED PUBLIC 
                   STATEMENTS ON PROGRAMS, PROJECTS, AND 
                   ACTIVITIES FUNDED BY THE DEPARTMENT.

       (a) Information Required.--
       (1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 134 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     2257 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 2258. Department of Defense press releases and related 
       public statements on Department funded programs, projects, 
       and activities

       ``Any press release, statement, or other document issued to 
     the public by the Department of Defense that describes a 
     program, project, or activity funded, whether in whole or in 
     part, by amounts provided by the Department, including any 
     project, project, or activity of a foreign, State, or local 
     government, shall clearly state the following:
       ``(1) That the program, project, or activity is funded, in 
     whole or in part (as applicable), by funds provided by the 
     Department.
       ``(2) An estimate of the amount of funding from the 
     Department that the program, project, or activity currently 
     receives.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of subchapter II of chapter 134 of such title is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2257 
     the following new item:

``2258. Department of Defense press releases and related public 
              statements on Department funded programs, projects, and 
              activities.''.

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     and shall apply with respect to programs, projects, and 
     activities funded by the Department of Defense with amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years after fiscal 
     year 2018.


                           Amendment No. 1006

(Purpose: To modernize Government information technology, and for other 
                               purposes)

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of September 13, 2017, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')


                           Amendment No. 1031

(Purpose: To require a certification and report related to the enhanced 
                    multi mission parachute system)

       At the end of subtitle C of title I, add the following:

     SEC. ___. CERTIFICATION OF THE ENHANCED MULTI MISSION 
                   PARACHUTE SYSTEM FOR THE UNITED STATES MARINE 
                   CORPS.

       (a) Certification.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a 
     certification--
       (1) whether either the Marine Corps' currently fielded 
     multi mission parachute system or the Army's RA-1 parachute 
     system meet the Marine Corps requirements;
       (2) whether the Marine Corps' PARIS, Special Application 
     Parachute meets the Marine Corps requirement;
       (3) whether the testing plan for the enhanced multi mission 
     parachute system meets all regulatory requirements; and
       (4) whether the Department of the Navy has determined that 
     a high glide canopy is as safe and effective as the currently 
     fielded free fall parachute systems.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall submit 
     to the congressional defense committees a report that 
     includes--
       (1) an explanation for using the Parachute Industry 
     Association specification for a military parachute given that 
     sports parachutes are employed from relatively slow flying 
     civilian aircraft at altitudes below 10,000 feet;
       (2) a cost estimate for any new equipment and training that 
     the Marine Corps will require in order to employ a high glide 
     parachute;
       (3) justification of why the Department of the Navy is not 
     conducting any testing until first article testing; and
       (4) an assessment of the risks associated with high glide 
     canopies with a focus on how the Department of the Navy will 
     mitigate the risk for malfunctions experienced in other high 
     glide canopy programs.


                           Amendment No. 1033

       (Purpose: To require a report related to the E-8C JSTARS 
                       recapitalization program)

       At the end of subtitle D of title I, add the following:

     SEC. __. REQUIREMENT FOR CONTINUATION OF E-8 JSTARS 
                   RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM.

       If the Secretary of the Air Force proposes in a budget 
     request to cancel or modify the current E-8C JSTARS 
     recapitalization program as presented to Congress in May 
     2017, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report at the 
     same time as the Secretary of the Air Force makes such a 
     request budget request. That report shall set forth the 
     following:
       (1) The rationale and appropriate supporting analysis for 
     the proposed cancellation or modification.
       (2) An assessment of the implications of such cancellation 
     or modification for the Air Force, Air National Guard, Army, 
     Army National Guard, Navy and Marine Corps, and combatant 
     commands' mission needs.
       (3) A certification that such cancellation or modification 
     of the previous recapitalization program plan would not 
     result in an increased time during which there is a 
     capability gap in providing Battlefield Management, Command 
     and Control/Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance 
     (BMC2/ISR) to the combatant commanders.
       (4) Such other matters relating to the proposed 
     cancellation or modification as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.


                           Amendment No. 1034

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding fire protection in 
                   Department of Defense facilities)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FIRE PROTECTION IN DEPARTMENT 
                   OF DEFENSE FACILITIES.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) portable fire extinguishers are essential to the safety 
     of members of the Armed Forces and their families;
       (2) the current United Facilities Criteria could be updated 
     to ensure it provides members of the Armed Forces, their 
     families, and other Department of Defense personnel with the 
     most modern fire protection standards that are met by their 
     civilian counterparts, including requiring portable fire 
     extinguishers on military installations;
       (3) United Facilities Criteria 3-600-01, Section 4-9, dated 
     September 26, 2006, addresses the national and international 
     standards for fire safety and Department of Defense 
     Facilities; and
       (4) the Secretary of Defense should consider amending the 
     current United Facilities Criteria Section 9-17.1 to address 
     the standards outlined by United Facilities Criteria 3-600-
     01, Section 4-9, dated September 26, 2006.


                           Amendment No. 1038

       (Purpose: To ensure transparency in acquisition programs)

       At the end of subtitle A of title VIII, add the following:

     SEC. __. ENSURING TRANSPARENCY IN ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall establish 
     and implement a policy that will ensure the acquisition 
     programs of major systems establish cost, schedule, and 
     performance goals at the onset of the program. The policy 
     shall also ensure that acquisition programs of major systems 
     report on the original cost, schedule, and performance goals 
     throughout the program to ensure transparency.
       (b) Major System Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``major system'' has the meaning given the term in section 
     2302d of title 10, United States Code.


                           Amendment No. 1039

   (Purpose: To devolve acquisition authority from the Office of the 
             Secretary of Defense to the military services)

       At the end of subtitle C of title VIII, add the following:

[[Page 14569]]



     SEC. __. ROLE OF THE CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCE IN MATERIAL 
                   DEVELOPMENT DECISION AND ACQUISITION SYSTEM 
                   MILESTONES.

       Section 2547(b) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``(1) The 
     Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Consistent with the performance of duties under 
     subsection (a), the Chief of the armed force concerned, with 
     respect to major defense acquisition programs, shall--
       ``(A) concur with the need for a material solution as 
     identified in the Material Development Decision Review prior 
     to entry into the Material Solution Analysis Phase under 
     Department of Defense Instruction 5000.02;
       ``(B) concur with the cost, schedule, technical 
     feasibility, and performance trade-offs that have been made 
     with regard to the program before Milestone A approval is 
     granted under section 2366a of this title;
       ``(C) concur that appropriate trade-offs among cost, 
     schedule, technical feasibility, and performance objectives 
     have been made to ensure that the program is affordable when 
     considering the per unit cost and the total life-cycle cost 
     before Milestone B approval is granted under section 2366b of 
     this title; and
       ``(D) concur that the requirements in the program 
     capability document are necessary and realistic in relation 
     to program cost and fielding targets as required by paragraph 
     (1) before Milestone C approval is granted.''.


                           Amendment No. 1050

  (Purpose: To increase funding for research, development, test, and 
 evaluation for historically Black colleges and universities and other 
           minority-serving institutions of higher education)

       At the end of subtitle C of title II of division A, add the 
     following:

     SEC. ___. IMPORTANCE OF HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND 
                   UNIVERSITIES AND MINORITY-SERVING INSTITUTIONS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) 
     and minority-serving institutions play a vital role in 
     educating low-income and underrepresented students in areas 
     of national need;
       (2) HBCUs and minority-serving institutions presently are 
     collaborating with the Department of Defense in research and 
     development efforts that contribute to the defense readiness 
     and national security of the Nation;
       (3) by their research these institutions are helping to 
     develop the next generation of scientists and engineers who 
     will help lead the Department of Defense in addressing high-
     priority national security challenges; and
       (4) it is important to further engage HBCUs and minority-
     serving institutions in university research and innovation, 
     especially in prioritizing software development and cyber 
     security by utilizing existing Department of Defense labs, 
     and collaborating with existing programs that help attract 
     candidates, including programs like the Air Force Minority 
     Leaders Programs, which recruit Americans from diverse 
     background to serve their country through service in our 
     Nation's military.
       (b) Increase.--Funds authorized to be appropriated in 
     Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 
     61228D8Z, section 4201, for Basic Research, Historically 
     Black Colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions, Line 
     006, are hereby increased by $12,000,000.
       (c) Offset.--Funding in section 4101 for Other Procurement, 
     Army, for Automated Data Processing Equipment, Line 108, is 
     hereby reduced by $12,000,000.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1055

   (Purpose: To require a report on cyber applications of blockchain 
                              technology)

       At the end of subtitle C of title XVI, add the following:

     SEC. 1630C. REPORT ON CYBER APPLICATIONS OF BLOCKCHAIN 
                   TECHNOLOGY.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, 
     in consultation with the heads of such other agencies and 
     departments as the Secretary considers appropriate, shall 
     submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on 
     the potential offensive and defensive cyber applications of 
     blockchain technology and other distributed database 
     technologies and an assessment of efforts by foreign powers, 
     extremist organizations, and criminal networks to utilize 
     these technologies. Such report shall also include an 
     assessment of the use or planned use of blockchain 
     technologies by the United States Government or critical 
     infrastructure networks and the vulnerabilities of such 
     networks to cyber attacks.
       (b) Form of Report.--The report required by (a) may be 
     submitted--
       (1) in classified form; or
       (2) in unclassified form with a classified annex.
       (c) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Armed Services, the Select Committee 
     on Intelligence, and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
       (2) Committee on Armed Services, the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on Homeland 
     Security of the House of Representatives.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1063

    (Purpose: To modify the definition of custom-developed computer 
                               software)

       In section 886, beginning in the new section 2320a of title 
     10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a)(1) of such 
     section 886, strike subsection (c) of such section 2320a and 
     all that follows through the end of subsection (d)(1) of such 
     section 886 and insert the following:
       ``(c) Applicability to Existing Software.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall, where appropriate--
       ``(1) seek to negotiate open source licenses to existing 
     custom-developed computer software with contractors that 
     developed it; and
       ``(2) release related source code and technical data in a 
     public repository location approved by the Department of 
     Defense.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Custom-developed computer software.--The term 
     `custom-developed computer software'--
       ``(A) means human-readable source code, including 
     segregable portions thereof, that is--
       ``(i) first produced in the performance of a Department of 
     Defense contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other 
     transaction; or
       ``(ii) developed by a contractor or subcontractor 
     exclusively with Federal funds (other than an item or process 
     developed under a contract or subcontract to which 
     regulations under section 9(j)(2) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 638(j)(2)) apply); and
       ``(B) does not include Commercial Off-The-Shelf software, 
     or packaged software developed exclusively at private 
     expense, whether delivered as a Cloud Service, in binary 
     form, or by any other means of software delivery.
       ``(2) Technical data.--The term `technical data' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 2302 of this title.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding after the item 
     relating to section 2320 the following new item:

``2320a. Use of open source software.''.
       (b) Prize Competition.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     create a prize for a research and develop program or other 
     activity for identifying, capturing, and storing existing 
     Department of Defense custom-developed computer software and 
     related technical data. The Secretary of Defense shall create 
     an additional prize for improving, repurposing, or reusing 
     software to better support the Department of Defense mission. 
     The prize programs shall be conducted in accordance with 
     section 2374a of title 10, United States Code.
       (c) Reverse Engineering.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     task the Defense Advanced Research Program Agency with a 
     project to identify methods to locate and reverse engineer 
     Department of Defense custom-developed computer software and 
     related technical data for which source code is unavailable.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Custom-developed computer software.--The term ``custom-
     developed computer software''--
       (A) means human-readable source code, including segregable 
     portions thereof, that is--
       (i) first produced in the performance of a Department of 
     Defense contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other 
     transaction; or
       (ii) developed by a contractor or subcontractor exclusively 
     with Federal funds (other than an item or process developed 
     under a contract or subcontract to which regulations under 
     section 9(j)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     638(j)(2)) apply); and
       (B) does not include Commercial Off-The-Shelf software, or 
     packaged software developed exclusively at private expense, 
     whether delivered as a Cloud Service, in binary form, or by 
     any other means of software delivery.


                           Amendment No. 1073

(Purpose: To improve section 1653, relating to ground-based interceptor 
                 capability, capacity, and reliability)

       Strike section 1653 and insert the following:

     SEC. 1653. GROUND-BASED INTERCEPTOR CAPABILITY, CAPACITY, AND 
                   RELIABILITY.

       (a) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that it is the policy of the United States to maintain and 
     improve, with the allies of the United States, an effective, 
     robust layered missile defense system capable of defending 
     the citizens of the United States residing in territories and 
     States of the United States, allies of the United States, and 
     deployed Armed Forces of the United States.
       (b) Increase in Capacity and Continued Advancement.--The 
     Secretary of Defense shall--
       (1) subject to the annual authorization of appropriations 
     and the annual appropriation of funds for National Missile 
     Defense, increase the number of United States ground-based 
     interceptors, unless otherwise directed by the Ballistic 
     Missile Defense Review, by up to 28;
       (2) develop a plan to further increase such number to the 
     currently available missile

[[Page 14570]]

     field capacity of 104 and to plan for any future capacity at 
     any site that may be identified by the Ballistic Missile 
     Defense Review; and
       (3) continue to rapidly advance missile defense 
     technologies to improve the capability and reliability of the 
     ground-based midcourse defense element of the ballistic 
     missile defense system.
       (c) Deployment.--Not later than December 31, 2021, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall--
       (1) execute any requisite construction to ensure that 
     Missile Field 1 or Missile Field 2 at Fort Greely or 
     alternative missile fields at Fort Greely which may be 
     identified pursuant to subsection (b), are capable of 
     supporting and sustaining additional ground-based 
     interceptors;
       (2) deploy up to 14 additional ground-based interceptors to 
     Missile Field 1 or up to 20 additional ground-based 
     interceptors to an alternative missile field at Fort Greely 
     as soon as technically feasible; and
       (3) identify a ground-based interceptor stockpile storage 
     site for the remaining ground-based interceptors required by 
     subsection (b).
       (d) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Unless otherwise directed or recommended 
     by the Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR), the Director 
     of the Missile Defense Agency shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees, not later than 90 days 
     after the completion of the Ballistic Missile Defense Review, 
     a report on options to increase the capability, capacity, and 
     reliability of the ground-based midcourse defense element of 
     the ballistic missile defense system and the infrastructure 
     requirements for increasing the number of ground-based 
     interceptors in currently feasible locations across the 
     United States.
       (2) Contents.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following:
       (A) An identification of potential sites in the United 
     States, whether existing or new on the East Coast or in the 
     Midwest, for the deployment of 104 ground-based interceptors.
       (B) A cost-benefit analysis of each such site, including 
     tactical, operational, and cost-to-construct considerations.
       (C) A description of any completed and outstanding 
     environmental assessments or impact statements for each such 
     site.
       (D) A description of the existing capacity of the missile 
     fields at Fort Greely and the infrastructure requirements 
     needed to increase the number of ground-based interceptors to 
     20 ground-based interceptors each.
       (E) A description of the additional infrastructure and 
     components needed to further outfit missile fields at Fort 
     Greely before emplacing additional ground-based interceptors 
     configured with the redesigned kill vehicle, including with 
     respect to ground excavation, silos, utilities, and support 
     equipment.
       (F) A cost estimate of such infrastructure and components.
       (G) An estimated schedule for completing such construction 
     as may be required for such infrastructure and components.
       (H) An identification of any environmental assessments or 
     impact studies that would need to be conducted to expand such 
     missile fields at Fort Greely beyond current capacity.
       (I) An operational evaluation and cost analysis of the 
     deployment of transportable ground-based interceptors, 
     including an identification of potential sites, including in 
     the eastern United States and at Vandenberg Air Force Base, 
     and an examination of any environmental, legal, or tactical 
     challenges associated with such deployments, including to any 
     sites identified in subparagraph (A).
       (J) A determination of the appropriate fleet mix of ground-
     based interceptor kill vehicles and boosters to maximize 
     overall system effectiveness and increase its capacity and 
     capability, including the costs and benefits of continued 
     inclusion of capability enhancement II (CE-II) Block 1 
     interceptors after the fielding of the redesigned kill 
     vehicle.
       (K) A description of the planned improvements to homeland 
     ballistic missile defense sensor and discrimination 
     capabilities and an assessment of the expected operational 
     benefits of such improvements to homeland ballistic missile 
     defense.
       (L) The benefit of supplementing ground-based midcourse 
     defense elements with other, more distributed, elements, 
     including both Aegis ships and Aegis Ashore installations 
     with Standard Missile-3 Block IIA and other interceptors in 
     Hawaii and at other locations for homeland missile defense.
       (3) Form.--The report submitted under paragraph (1) shall 
     be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a 
     classified annex.


                           Amendment No. 1086

   (Purpose: To authorize $600,000,000 in increased funding for the 
    procurement of one Littoral Combat Ship for the Navy above the 
                      President's budget request)

       In the funding table in section 4101, in the item relating 
     to Littoral Combat Ship, increase the amount in the Senate 
     Authorized column by $600,000,000.
       In line 999 of the funding table in section 4301, in the 
     item relating to fuel savings, increase the reduction by $600 
     million.


                           Amendment No. 1096

(Purpose: To prohibit multichannel video programming distributors from 
    being required to carry certain video content that is owned or 
        controlled by the Government of the Russian Federation)

       At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:

     SEC. _____. CARRIAGE OF CERTAIN PROGRAMMING.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``local commercial television station'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 614(h) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 534(h));
       (2) the term ``multichannel video programming distributor'' 
     has the meaning given the term in section 602 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 522);
       (3) the term ``qualified noncommercial educational 
     television station'' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 615(l) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     535(l));
       (4) the term ``retransmission consent'' means the authority 
     granted to a multichannel video programming distributor under 
     section 325(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     325(b)) to retransmit the signal of a television broadcast 
     station; and
       (5) the term ``television broadcast station'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 76.66(a) of title 47, Code 
     of Federal Regulations.
       (b) Carriage of Certain Content.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a multichannel video programming 
     distributor may not be directly or indirectly required, 
     including as a condition of obtaining retransmission consent, 
     to--
       (1) carry non-incidental video content from a local 
     commercial television station, qualified noncommercial 
     educational television station, or television broadcast 
     station to the extent that such content is owned, controlled, 
     or financed (in whole or in part) by the Government of the 
     Russian Federation; or
       (2) lease, or otherwise make available, channel capacity to 
     any person for the provision of video programming that is 
     owned, controlled, or financed (in whole or in part) by the 
     Government of the Russian Federation.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed as applying to the editorial use by a local 
     commercial television station, qualified noncommercial 
     educational television station, or television broadcast 
     station of programming that is owned, controlled, or financed 
     (in whole or in part) by the Government of the Russian 
     Federation.


                           Amendment No. 1032

 (Purpose: To prohibit the availability of funds for retirement of E-8 
                            JSTARS aircraft)

       At the end of subtitle D of title I, add the following:

     SEC. ___. PROHIBITION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR RETIREMENT 
                   OF E-8 JSTARS AIRCRAFT.

       (a) Prohibition on Available of Funds for Retirement.--
     Except as provided by subsection (b), none of the funds 
     authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made 
     available for fiscal year 2018 for the Air Force may be 
     obligated or expended to retire, or prepare to retire, any E-
     8 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System aircraft.
       (b) Exception.--The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to individual Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar 
     System aircraft that the Secretary of the Air Force 
     determines, on a case-by-case basis, to be non-operational 
     because of mishaps, other damage, or being uneconomical to 
     repair.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield back my remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All postcloture time has expired.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass?
  Mr. ENZI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) and the Senator from South Carolina 
(Mr. Graham).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) 
would have voted ``yea''.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 8, as follows:

[[Page 14571]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 199 Leg.]

                                YEAS--89

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--8

     Corker
     Gillibrand
     Leahy
     Lee
     Merkley
     Paul
     Sanders
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Graham
     Menendez
     Rubio
  The bill (H.R. 2810), as amended, was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 2810, 
as amended, be printed as passed by the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The bill, H.R. 2810, as amended, will be printed in a future edition 
of the Record.)

                          ____________________