[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7464-7488]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        HIRE VETS ACT--Continued

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I may speak on the bill before the 
Senate, yesterday the House of Representatives passed the Omnibus 
appropriations bill. Of course, this is the legislation that keeps the 
Congress and the government up and running through the end of the 
fiscal year, the end of September. It actually represents the first 
demonstration of Republicans and Democrats in both Houses of Congress 
working with the White House in order to pass an important piece of 
legislation and keep the government up and running through the end of 
the fiscal year.
  Over the last few weeks, we have had many productive conversations 
and debates about how best to establish our priorities, how much we 
should spend--particularly my concern about underfunding our military 
and our national security funding but also to update our priorities 
because that is one of the things that happens in an appropriations 
bill. When programs are obsolete or ineffective, there is no way to 
eliminate them while operating under a continuing resolution. It takes 
a positive piece of legislation like an appropriations bill--like this 
appropriations bill--to eliminate those obsolete or no longer effective 
programs.
  I am hopeful that once we pass this bill and after the President 
signs it, we will continue to plot a course toward a long-term 
strategic budget that reflects the priorities of the American people. I 
firmly believe we were elected to govern, not to shut down the 
government. In my view, that is an abdication of our responsibilities. 
I hope we will continue to follow on now after we have been able to 
accomplish this bipartisan, bicameral negotiation with the White House, 
and we will continue to govern and to demonstrate our sense of 
responsibility to the American people for doing just that.
  This omnibus package includes a good blueprint for how we can order 
our priorities and take care of our country.
  Yesterday I mentioned the increases in resources to better shore up 
border security. This is the largest increase in border security 
funding in 10 years. That is a significant accomplishment. This funding 
will help the Department of Homeland Security hire more Border Patrol 
agents and Customs officials to improve the infrastructure at our ports 
of entry and checkpoints and hire more immigration judges to process 
more immigration cases.
  It also creates funding for our troops fighting abroad and for our 
military in general and includes a pay raise for our men and women in 
the military, which is very important as well, particularly in an All-
Volunteer military and one that has been stressed by 15 years of 
continuous conflict around the world.
  This bill also takes a more strategic look at the threats we are 
facing, including resources to shore up technology and equipment that 
will help our military stay No. 1. After years of putting military 
improvements and readiness on the back burner, actually cutting defense 
spending by 20 percent during the two terms of President Obama, this 
bill is a solid first step toward regaining our readiness and 
maintaining a capable and modern military.
  While I never will doubt the American people responding or our 
military responding to the needs or the threats to our security, we 
don't want to be roused out of our complacency by a crisis occurring 
somewhere in the world, whether it is North Korea, Syria, Ukraine, 
Crimea, or elsewhere. We want to be ready on day one. Some of that 
readiness has seriously been called into question by some of our lack 
of prioritizing defense spending and military readiness generally.
  In addition to those two important topics, many across the country 
have been impacted by severe weather, including violent storms and 
tornadoes. Of course, Texas has been a part of that sad story. Several 
in Texas have lost their lives due to these storms and the flooding 
caused by them. Of course we mourn for those who have lost loved ones 
and those who have been injured, but we have to do more than just 
grieve for them--we have to help them as well. This omnibus bill 
includes funding for previously approved disaster relief, which will 
help communities in Texas and throughout the country rebuild and 
recover following a natural disaster.
  This legislation also includes money to help reduce the rape kit 
backlog. This is a topic which most people are not all that familiar 
with, but years ago we passed something called the Debbie Smith DNA 
Backlog Reduction Act, named for a heroic woman, Debbie Smith, who 
championed the use of forensic evidence and the tracing of DNA samples 
in order to solve sexual assault cases.
  The amazing thing about this great technology and DNA testing is that 
it is enormously powerful. Even as long as 20 years later, we have had 
rape kits taken out of evidence lockers at law enforcement agencies and 
tested and come up with a hit on the FBI's database, which is the 
purpose of the testing. It also has the power to exonerate people who 
are perhaps falsely accused by excluding them scientifically from the 
possibility of being the assailant in a given case.
  It is very important for us to fund important programs like the 
Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Reduction Act. I know at one point there was 
an estimate that there were 400,000 untested rape kits in America. The 
problem was that we didn't really know how many there were because some 
of them were sitting, as I indicated earlier, in police evidence 
lockers, and others were sitting in the laboratory and not tested.
  The question arose, when the identity of the assailant was known, 
what purpose could be served by testing the rape kit, which is not 
inexpensive? What we found is that the assailant, even if identified in 
the present case, is very likely to have been engaged in a course of 
conduct or serial assaults, and it helps us solve not only the present 
case but also other cases as well. Some of them are very old. That is 
important so that criminals can be brought to justice.
  This bill also funds the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, NASA. It funds a Federal study for a Gulf Coast 
protection project and active-shooter training for first responders--
all priorities important to my home State of Texas.
  This legislation also represents changes in Washington since 
November. It is the first major piece of bipartisan legislation 
negotiated with the new Trump administration. Instead of pushing more 
regulations and rules that cripple our economy and disregarding the 
needs of our military and the stark realities of the border, this 
legislation begins to steer our country in a better direction.
  I know that no piece of legislation is perfect, and perhaps the best 
definition of a negotiation is that both sides are

[[Page 7465]]

dissatisfied because nobody gets everything they want. I look forward 
to voting for this legislation because I believe we were elected last 
November 8 to govern, not to abdicate those responsibilities or somehow 
engage in a shutdown narrative, which I don't think serves anyone well, 
certainly not the American people. I look forward to voting on this 
legislation and encourage all of our colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Strange). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Flake pertaining to the introduction of S. 1039 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Indiana will be recognized 
for up to 20 minutes.


                      Working for the Common Good

  Mr. YOUNG. Today, Mr. President, I rise to speak from the floor of 
this proud Chamber for the first time. My message today is, at once, a 
warning and an invitation.
  Dear colleagues, as our Senate increasingly grows more partisan, we 
move further and further away from the practical governance our 
Founding Fathers espoused, and so today I would like to talk about the 
principle of the common good in the hopes that this body might be 
reminded that is our unifying purpose for serving.
  Two Hoosiers exemplify the principle of working for the common good 
that I believe our Founding Fathers envisioned.
  Governor Ed Whitcomb was the 43rd Governor of Indiana. A hero from 
World War II, he twice escaped capture from the Japanese, making it to 
safety by swimming through shark-infested waters all night to get to 
safety. Whitcomb pursued the common good in the midst of a rift in his 
own Republican Party. He successfully led Indiana in improving our 
State's highways, mental health services, and creating our State's 
Higher Education Commission. He bucked his own party's interests 
frequently to do what he thought was right for Hoosiers. Governor 
Whitcomb has been described as Indiana's most amazing Governor. He 
passed away this past year and in tribute Republicans and Democrats 
alike acknowledged that he served all Hoosiers well.
  Coach John Wooden was born and raised in Indiana, and he learned to 
coach basketball there before heading to UCLA where he became one of 
the most successful college basketball coaches of all time. Wooden 
understood the importance of working together as a team, that working 
together as a team was better than working as individuals. Wooden 
acknowledged this principle in saying, ``Ten field horses couldn't pull 
an empty baby carriage if they worked independently of one another.'' 
He also said, ``If you want to go fast, go alone. But if you want to go 
far, you need a team.''
  These two Hoosiers remind us that we are here not to work for 
ourselves or our parties, but the interest of all Americans for the 
common good of the American people.
  Can we perpetuate our Founders' brilliant system to safeguard our 
liberties by vesting power in the American people themselves?
  Our charge is simple, but it will not be easy: for our republican 
system to endure, we must breathe life back into the notion of the 
``common good'' through the relentless application of common sense.
  Now, I don't profess that Hoosiers have a monopoly on the common 
good, but rather than allowing ideological labels to guide policymaking 
decisions, we should instead be guided by what we in Indiana call 
Hoosier common sense. It is the notion that we should be guided by the 
facts, and that we are open to change or new ideas, regardless of 
ideology, when presented with results.
  The common good--I happen to know from personal experience that any 
young boy or girl who grows up in Indiana already has a keen sense of 
the thing.
  I was raised in a place where neighbor cared for neighbor. This is 
the common good in practice.
  I lived among people of character who made others' concerns their own 
concerns. This is the common good.
  I benefited from the selfless contributions of Americans who invested 
their own time, their own attention, their own resources and talents 
into helping their fellow Americans. This is the common good.
  I came to know rank-and-file citizens who quietly took the initiative 
to care for the forgotten Hoosiers who needed a hand up. This is the 
common good.
  With respect, my colleagues, I note that this outline of the common 
good would fully satisfy any ordinary rank-and-file Hoosier, and most 
ordinary Americans, but sadly, in our modern politics sometimes our 
most stubborn partisans resist even the most self-evident truths. 
Forgive me as I must demonstrate that what works in practice also works 
in theory.
  I will borrow from 18th century political theorist and English 
statesman Edmund Burke, for he brightly illuminated this notion of a 
common good. Burke argued that the common good could only exist where 
rule of law exists. Rule of law, properly understood, requires a shared 
allegiance by which people entrust their collective destiny to others 
who can speak and decide in their name. This, said Burke, is a 
partnership between the living, the unborn, and the dead.
  The common good requires individual cooperation and compromise.
  Burke noted that individuals are not simply a compendium of human 
wants and individual happiness is not realized by merely satisfying 
those wants. Our own happiness is linked to one another's happiness.
  Our purpose, then--our duty--in both our private and public 
capacities, is to preserve a social order which addresses the needs of 
generations past, present, and future. This is our duty.
  In the Marine Corps, I learned something about duty and practice. 
Marine leaders of every rank teach through the power of their example 
that every marine has a duty to serve a cause greater than themselves. 
Marines learn to venerate sacrifice for the greater good. We are 
trained to refrain from self-indulgent behavior, to check our egos at 
the door, and to never let ambition interfere with judgment.
  For marines, our comrades' lives and our country's future depends on 
embracing uncomfortable facts and then improvising, adapting, and 
overcoming those facts together.
  Of course, in the marines, there was no red State or blue State. 
Every marine fights for red, white, and blue. Marines don't have the 
luxury of stubbornly clinging to false doctrines or failed practices, 
and neither do we. Every day our men and women who wear the uniform 
from every branch take up arms ``to provide for the common defense''--
come what may.
  Colleagues, if we are to keep the Republic, we too must remain open 
to fact-based conversations, to new information, and to new, better 
approaches.
  Now look, I understand that this is not the United States Marine 
Corps. We have been issued a pen and a microphone, not rifles, but like 
the marines, we should be working to advance a common mission, common 
goals. We are the trustees of the common good.
  Now, please don't misunderstand me. As a marine, I like a good fight 
as much as the next guy, but let's resolve whenever possible to fight 
together because I know most assuredly we are fighting for the same 
people--and, in most cases, we are fighting for the same ends.

[[Page 7466]]

  I am fighting for Steve, a self-employed laborer from Indianapolis. 
Steve's in his fifties, but he hasn't seen his takehome pay increase in 
decades. Colleagues, you are fighting for Steve, too.
  I am fighting for Whitney, a high school student from Gary. Whitney 
doesn't come from money, and she worries about the future. She is a 
hard-working student who helps her family how she can through a part-
time job, but Whitney doesn't know if she can afford a college 
education. Colleagues, you are fighting for Whitney, too.
  I am fighting for David, an Army helicopter mechanic from Evansville 
who spent nearly 15 years in uniform. David is exhausted by his 
countless overseas deployments, and he prays that his family will find 
relief from the stresses and strains of an overstretched force. 
Colleagues, you are fighting for David, too.
  I am fighting for Carrie, a single mother of three young children 
from Paoli. Carrie is addicted to opioids. Her aging mother tries to 
make a bad situation better, but she is fearful the family will not 
find a way out of the crisis. Colleagues, you are fighting for Carrie, 
too.
  I am fighting for Sherman, a trucker from Fort Wayne. Sherman is 
quickly approaching retirement. Sherman has put a small nest egg away 
for retirement, but in a few years, he and his wife will depend on 
Social Security and Medicare to make ends meet. Colleagues, you are 
fighting for Sherman, too.
  I am fighting for Bob, a single father of two boys from South Bend. 
Bob's been able to pull together care for himself and his children by 
piecing together various forms of public assistance. Bob wants a better 
life for himself and his boys. I hope we are all fighting for Bob--I 
hope we are fighting for every single American.
  Let's resolve to fight for these people. Let's renew our vow to fight 
for them more than we fight with one other.
  Let's come together to grow our economy by simplifying our Tax Code 
and reducing the burden of Federal regulations. I ask you, colleagues, 
to join me in supporting the REINS Act, which I championed in the House 
of Representatives. Let every proposed major regulation come before 
this body for a vote before it can take effect, then let the American 
people hold us accountable when those regulations kill jobs and 
constrain household incomes.
  Let's come together to help Americans acquire the skills to 
meaningfully participate in this 21st century economy. If we cooperate, 
we can develop new solutions for financing higher education that 
liberate students from avoidable student debt, like income share 
agreements. ISAs keep score with outcomes, so people aren't punished if 
they are unemployed or have low incomes.
  Let's come together to better serve the poor, the vulnerable, those 
on the margins of society. My social impact partnership bill passed 
unanimously out of the House last Congress.
  This Congress, the Senate should come together to allow private 
investors to provide operating capital to those social service 
providers with the proven capacity to achieve measurable improvements 
in chronic social problems like homelessness and long-term 
unemployment.
  If targeted improvements are achieved, government saves money and 
repays the project's initial investors, plus a modest return on 
investment.
  Let's come together to restore confidence in our foreign policy and 
protect our men and women in uniform. While we rebuild our military, 
let's ensure we are optimizing every instrument of national power. The 
American people won't tolerate wasteful or ineffective foreign aid 
expenditures, but they will continue to support investments in smart, 
effective diplomacy.
  Let's work with this administration to reform the State Department 
and foreign bodies like the United Nations.
  Earlier, colleagues, I spoke of a former Republican Governor of 
Indiana, Ed Whitcomb--but there was another Whitcomb who was Governor, 
James Whitcomb, a Democrat, who also went on to serve in this body 
before passing. He also made his mark as Governor, saving the State 
from insolvency, establishing institutions for the physically and 
mentally handicapped, and advancing the first system of free public 
education.
  But even more impressive is his dedication to those Hoosiers who 
fought from Indiana in the Mexican-American War. With Indiana's budget 
broke and our credit in shambles, Whitcomb took out personal loans to 
purchase arms and send these Hoosiers out in service of our Nation. Two 
Whitcombs, one Republican and one Democrat, who served our State and 
Nation for the common good.
  In closing, colleagues, allow me to acknowledge that folks in your 
States probably feel a lot like those in Indiana: they are frustrated 
by our failure, and the Federal Government's failure to live up to the 
high expectations Americans have for other pillars of our public life--
our churches, our State governments, and so on. Where good old Hoosier 
common sense seems to inform work in those areas, in Washington, our 
common sense is too often crowded out by stale partisan battles and 
unyielding ideological biases.
  Colleagues, our charge, our duty, is to advance the common good by 
identifying common goals and then using common sense to further advance 
those goals.
  In spite of our principled disagreements, let us disagree without 
questioning each other's motives; let us work through tough problems. 
Let us be principled in our beliefs but pragmatic in advancing those 
beliefs. Let us adapt to new realities. Let us have the courage to 
change our minds. Let us put results over rhetoric. Let us find 
practical solutions to pressing challenges. Let us, first and foremost, 
never forget that we are custodians of the common good.
  My fellow Americans, let us rededicate ourselves to remain one 
nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
  Thank you.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                      Congratulating Senator Young

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Young on his 
first major speech in the Senate. It was truly inspirational. Our 
colleagues who are here on the floor have had an opportunity to listen 
to a very important speech.
  I also acknowledge a former Senator who is with us in the Chamber, 
Richard Lugar of Indiana, who also was an extraordinary representative 
of the people of Indiana.
  I congratulate Senator Young.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, I also congratulate my colleague from 
Indiana. He is a terrific partner. The theme of his speech of working 
together and building on Hoosier common sense couldn't be more 
important, couldn't be more timely, and couldn't have been presented 
any better.
  I am fortunate to work with such a good partner for our State and for 
our Nation. Both of us have benefited from the wisdom, the advice, and 
the counsel of Senator Lugar, who, in our State, has set a benchmark 
for all of us to aspire to in terms of decency, intelligence, ability, 
craftsmanship, and leadership.
  For a maiden speech, it was an extraordinary effort, a terrific job, 
and I am proud to be his partner from Indiana.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on the 
government funding bill the House passed yesterday, and with it, 
critical resources to address a number of issues facing our country.
  As I have noted over the course of this week, the bill includes a 
number of provisions that are important to our country, and today I 
would like to take a closer look at the positive impact they can make 
in the lives of the men and women we represent.
  Our country is suffering from a terrible epidemic. Heroin and 
prescription

[[Page 7467]]

opioid abuse is destroying families and communities all across our 
Nation. On average, overdoses from these drugs claim 91 lives every 
day--91 lives every day. Drug addiction can even devastate the lives of 
babies before they are born.
  States like mine have been hit particularly hard by this epidemic. I 
have heard countless stories from Kentuckians who have experienced the 
heartbreak of addiction firsthand.
  Here is one story that a grandmother from Independence, KY, shared 
with my office: ``[M]y granddaughter is growing up without a father due 
to this evil drug,'' she wrote. ``Our children are the future of this 
country and deserve all the help and support we can give them.''
  Unfortunately, her story is similar to thousands more all across the 
land. Grandparents and other family members are increasingly taking 
care of children when parents fall into addiction. As too many families 
have experienced, addiction can have long-lasting and damaging effects 
on children and can be financially challenging for the caregivers.
  A mom in Florence, KY, contacted my office about her son who is 
battling addiction and frequently runs into trouble with the law. 
``There are so many lives lost and so many more headed in that 
direction,'' she said. ``It's an epidemic, not a crime spree.''
  We took decisive action against heroin and opioid abuse last year 
with the passage of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act and 
the 21st Century Cures Act. This bill before us, when we pass it, will 
provide significant new resources to combat this crisis as well.
  These critical funds will go to prevention, treatment, and 
enforcement programs that can help our communities heal from this 
scourge and help keep more families from ever knowing the suffering 
associated with this epidemic.
  Look, there is still more work to do to get the opioid crisis under 
control, but this funding legislation will take another critical step 
in the right direction. That is why substance abuse treatment 
organizations support it, including one local group that recently 
contacted my office in support of the bill. This legislation, in their 
words, will help ``[enhance] the ability of front lines providers to 
more effectively deploy resources and tackle this epidemic within our 
communities.''
  That is making a positive and meaningful impact in the lives of the 
men and women we represent.
  Healthcare benefits for thousands of retired coal miners were set to 
expire across the country at the end of this week. Men and women who 
dedicated their lives to providing an affordable and reliable source of 
energy to this Nation would have lost their healthcare, many of them 
when they needed it most.
  I have met with retired coal miners numerous times in my office about 
this issue, including one retiree from Georgetown, KY, who worked as an 
underground miner for 10 years. He suffers from diabetes and heart 
disease, and his wife is a breast cancer survivor. ``There is no 
question whether or not we need our health insurance to continue,'' he 
said. ``Without it, we would probably lose our home, [which] would be 
catastrophic not to mention what might happen to our health because we 
could not afford to get coverage or our medicine.''
  These coal miner retirees clearly needed our help, which is why I 
have been fighting for their healthcare at every step of the way. Today 
I am proud that this funding legislation includes my proposal to 
permanently extend healthcare benefits for thousands of retirees across 
the Nation and in Kentucky. These coal miners and their families can 
live with the peace of mind they have been looking for. That is making 
a positive and meaningful impact in the lives of the men and women we 
represent.
  For too long, Federal bureaucrats in Washington imposed one-size-
fits-all education policies on our children. Distant bureaucrats 
dictated nationwide policies, even though the needs of a student in 
Kentucky are different from of a student in Maine or California. For 
this reason, we enacted the Every Student Succeeds Act education reform 
law last Congress, which sends power back to the States, parents, and 
teachers, and this funding bill will support its implementation, giving 
our schools the resources they need to prepare our students.
  This funding legislation also supports school choice through 
reauthorization of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program and through 
increased Federal funding for charter schools. Both of these school 
choice provisions will help expand opportunities for parents to send 
their children to the school that best meets their needs.
  In my home State of Kentucky, the increased support for charter 
schools will be very important, as the new Republican majority in 
Frankfort recently passed a charter schools law.
  Yesterday I met with State Representative Carney and charter school 
advocates who were key to shepherding this legislation into law down in 
Kentucky. I thank them for their efforts on behalf of Kentucky's 
students and families, and I look forward to working with them to 
support charter schools in Kentucky going forward.
  By funding the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act and 
supporting school choice across the country, this legislation will help 
parents and students achieve strong educational outcomes. That is 
making a positive and meaningful impact in the lives of the men and 
women we represent.
  Of course, this bill contains other important wins for the country as 
well. It includes the largest border security funding increase in a 
decade, allowing our country to better support border security agents, 
enhance technology, and update critical infrastructure down at the 
border. It includes important resources to help us begin rebuilding our 
military, allowing our country to give servicemembers more of the tools 
that they need, and fund a much needed raise for our men and women in 
uniform.
  On military funding, we broke out of the years-long insistence by our 
colleagues on the other side that every increase in defense had to be 
met by an increase on the domestic side. That is no longer the law.
  As I have outlined several times this week, this legislation includes 
other conservative priorities as well. Importantly, it achieves these 
things while conforming to spending caps and reducing bureaucracy, even 
consolidating, eliminating, or rescinding funds for over 150 government 
programs and initiatives.
  Because of hard work from both Chambers and both sides of the aisle, 
we have a funding bill before us that can make many important and 
positive impacts in the lives of the people we represent. I know I will 
be supporting it, and I urge colleagues to do the same.
  I look forward to its passage so we can send the agreement to 
President Trump for his signature.
  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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
until 1:45 p.m. today be equally divided in the usual form and that at 
1:45 p.m., the motion to refer with amendment be withdrawn, the motion 
to concur with amendment be withdrawn, and the Senate vote on the 
motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
244.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon the House approved 
the Omnibus appropriations bill that will fund the government through 
September. The bill is the result of weeks and weeks of bipartisan, 
bicameral negotiations, and the final product reflects the give-and-
take of those negotiations. Again, I want to thank the

[[Page 7468]]

majority leader for all of his hard work and his desire to come to a 
good agreement, as well as the House leaders and the leadership of the 
Appropriations Committees. It has proved to many that Washington can 
work when we work together.
  In my view, this is a very good bill for the American people. Not 
only does it explicitly preclude funding for an unnecessary and 
ineffective border wall, it excludes over 160 poison pill riders, it 
increases investments in programs that the middle class relies on, such 
as medical research, education, and infrastructure.
  The National Institutes of Health will get an additional $2 billion--
part of the Cancer Moonshot. Pell grants will be restored for over 1 
million students. Infrastructure programs like CDBG and TIGER will get 
an increase. Programs to combat the terrible scourge of opioid abuse 
will receive an increase. Clean energy research will receive an 
increase. Ninety-nine percent of the EPA's budget was protected.
  In addition, there is a permanent extension of miners' health 
benefits, thanks to the hard work of Joe Manchin and so many others; 
funding to shore up Puerto Rico's Medicaid Program and a mechanism to 
allow the island to restructure its debt; and funding to help States 
like California, West Virginia, Louisiana, and North Carolina recover 
from natural disasters. It has a very good increase for NASA, which I 
will talk about at the end of my remarks before my colleague from 
Florida speaks about the hard and successful work he has done on the 
NASA budget.
  Of course, the bill doesn't include all of the things we wanted. It 
doesn't include all of the things our Republican colleagues wanted. 
That is the nature of compromise. But at the end of the day, this is an 
agreement which reflects our basic principles, and it is something both 
Democrats and Republicans should support.
  The bill shows how bipartisanship in Congress should work--both 
parties negotiating in good faith in order to find consensus. It passed 
in the House with an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 309 votes, and 
I expect it will receive the Senate's approval later today.
  More broadly, I hope this deal provides a blueprint for future budget 
negotiations between our two parties here in Congress. If the four 
corners--the Senate and House Democrats and Republicans--work as well 
on the 2018 budget as we did on the 2017 budget, we will have a product 
we can be proud of, with no worries about any kind of government 
shutdown.


                               TrumpCare

  Mr. President, on healthcare, as the House plans to vote on their new 
vision and version of TrumpCare later today, I just want to remind the 
American people of a few things.
  We are now on the second major attempt to pass TrumpCare. While all 
the focus in the media has been on the changes to the bill, we 
shouldn't forget the bad things that stay in the underlying bill and 
what they would mean for millions of Americans.
  Under the new bill, as under the old, TrumpCare would mean that 
premiums go up 20 percent in the first few years. Average costs go up 
by over $1,500 a year on the middle class.
  It would mean that if you are struggling to make it into the middle 
class with an income, say, around $30,000 a year, your costs could go 
up by $3 or $4,000.
  It would mean insurers could charge older Americans five times or 
more the amount charged to younger folks. Even the 1-to-5 ratio, as bad 
as it was, as much as it raised the hackles of the members of the AARP 
and senior citizens, the 54- through 64-year-olds throughout America--
this bill makes that worse.
  It would devastate Medicaid, a program that covers 68 million 
Americans. That would affect poor people in the inner cities, but it 
would also affect people in nursing homes, and the young men and women 
aged 45 to 50 who have parents in nursing homes are going to have to 
face an awful choice--more money out of their pockets or their parents 
having to find another place to live.
  It would still mean, worst of all, that 24 million fewer Americans 
will have health insurance.
  All those things stay the same. This minor change made by the House 
at the last minute doesn't change any of those things.
  For the same reasons TrumpCare 1 only got the support of 17 percent 
of the American people, TrumpCare 2 will probably have even less 
support.
  All the while, these cuts end up giving a massive tax break to the 
wealthiest Americans--those making over $250,000 a year, 
multimillionaires, billionaires. Even insurance executives who make 
over $500,000 a year will get a tax break, while middle class and older 
Americans get the short end of the stick. Here we are telling average 
Americans they are going to get less coverage, they are going to pay 
more, so we can give the multimillionaires a huge tax break. Who would 
be for that?
  As more and more Americans find out, the vote over there is going to 
be much less popular even than it is today, and it is very unpopular 
today, with only 17 percent of Americans liking the bill. It is hard to 
get lower than that, but I think, as people learn more about this bill, 
it will get even lower.
  The House Republicans have added an amendment that makes the bill 
even more cruel. It would allow States to opt out of the requirement to 
cover folks with preexisting conditions for the services they need. God 
forbid you have a preexisting condition and live in a State that 
doesn't keep the requirement. Your only option might be a poorly 
subsidized high-risk pool where you might be forced to wait in line for 
virtually unaffordable coverage. Remember the death panels scare tactic 
used against ObamaCare? They didn't actually exist in ObamaCare, but 
they might in TrumpCare. These high-risk pools, with long lines and 
unaffordable coverage, are the real death panels.
  That same amendment means an insurance company can charge an older 
American even more than five times the amount they are charged under 
the base bill. It would take us back to the days when insurance 
companies could price sick people out of insurance and drive older 
Americans to bankruptcy by charging outlandish rates. That is what 
House Republicans did with the bill to win more votes. It is 
unfathomable.
  We don't even know how large the negative impact of these changes 
will be because we don't have a CBO score. Does anyone imagine this 
amendment will result in even more Americans being insured? Does anyone 
imagine it will provide better coverage for Americans with preexisting 
conditions? I don't think so.
  That explains why Republican colleagues in the House are rushing it 
through with hardly any debate, no hearings, and no CBO score. They 
don't want the American people to see this bill. The leaders of the 
House were panicked that if they didn't pass the bill today, their 
Members would go home for 2 weeks--they are on recess over in the 
House--get beaten up by their constituents who hate this bill, and they 
would back off.
  Only 17 percent of Americans approved of TrumpCare. The rest of them 
packed townhall meetings and public forums to demand that their House 
Members reject it. They wrote and called, emailed, and contacted 
Members on social media. Those were the voices of average Americans who 
stopped the first TrumpCare proposal from even receiving a vote.
  Now Republicans are trying to sneak through their second, even worse 
version of TrumpCare without debate or any analysis of what it would 
mean for our country. Maybe it raises costs on working Americans even 
more. Maybe it doubles the amount of uninsured Americans. The House 
won't know before voting on the bill.
  I sincerely hope that if this bill passes--I pray it doesn't--the 
Senate won't mimic the House and try to rush a bill through without 
hearings or debate or analysis.
  Mr. President, regardless of the process, TrumpCare is a 
breathtakingly irresponsible piece of legislation that would endanger 
the health of tens of millions of Americans and break the bank for 
millions more. I don't know

[[Page 7469]]

what my friends in the House would say to their constituents if they 
vote for this bill.
  What would you say to a 56-year-old in your district, who is already 
struggling to balance the cost of medicine and rent and groceries, when 
she has to pay more than five times as much in healthcare as someone 
who is 35 and healthy?
  What would you say to the mother in your district whose daughter has 
cancer and who is worried that if she ever lapses in coverage, the 
insurance company can raise the rates so high on her family that she 
couldn't afford to get health insurance for her daughter and would have 
to watch her suffer? The agony a parent would go through. What do you 
say to that mother?
  I don't know how any of my Republican colleagues here in the Senate 
when we get this bill and now in the House can explain why they voted 
to rip away people's healthcare.
  If there were a Hippocratic Oath for Congress, ``Do no harm,'' 
TrumpCare would never come up for a vote. It harms the American people 
in so many ways. It doesn't have to be this way. Republicans could drop 
these efforts for repeal, drop these attempts that are undermining our 
healthcare system and causing insurers to flee the marketplace, and 
come work with Democrats on improving the healthcare system. Our door 
is open.
  So I would just make one final plea to my Republican friends in the 
House. I know they rarely listen to Senate leaders, especially 
Democratic ones, but this is an issue where so much is at stake that I 
hope they forget party labels at the moment. I ask them to do what 
representatives should do, something very simple: Think about your 
constituents. Consult your conscience before you vote for this bill.
  I believe if they truly do and consider what every independent expert 
and medical association is saying about this bill and what it would 
mean for our healthcare system, they will come to the right conclusion 
and vote no today.
  On one final issue, Mr. President, I see my friend from Florida about 
to take the floor. I would like to yield to him for a moment, but 
before I do, I would like to recognize his outstanding efforts in 
securing additional funding in the appropriations bill for NASA.
  NASA had actually been targeted for certain cuts by the Trump 
administration in their budget that would nix the program to send a 
mission to Europa, a Moon of Jupiter. Thanks to the advocacy of Senator 
Nelson, NASA will get an overall increase of $368 million in the 
appropriations bill--enough to fund that mission.
  I know this issue is near and dear to Bill's heart. As a young 
Congressman, he was the second sitting Member of Congress and the first 
Member in the House to serve on a NASA mission, aboard the space 
shuttle Columbia. He has a passion for and a deep knowledge of our 
space program. There is no one in the Senate who has done more for it 
than Bill Nelson. He has worked hard ever since he got to the Senate, 
and he has had great success.
  Once again, he has had a success here today. His constituents in 
Florida and all Americans should be grateful that Bill is a real leader 
on both of these issues in our caucus and in the whole Senate.
  I yield to my friend, the Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, many, many thanks to the leader for his 
kind remarks.
  The final bill was negotiated by the big four--the two leaders in the 
Senate and the two leaders in the House. It was not going to happen 
this way unless the leaders all agreed, so my profound thanks on behalf 
of the explorers and the adventurers of the United States--the ``can 
do'' little agency, NASA, that is now on its way to Mars.
  On behalf of all of the NASA family, I thank the leaders and 
especially the Democratic leader. A personal thanks for his very kind 
comments.
  Mr. President, we have approached the NASA bill in a bipartisan way. 
As a matter of fact, I give great credit to both the chairs and the 
ranking members on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, 
as well as on the subcommittee on appropriations in the House that 
handles NASA appropriations. All of those leaders were absolutely key.
  Of course, the same thing is true here in the Senate. As the ranking 
member, I have the privilege of sharing the leadership with our 
chairman, John Thune, on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
Committee. It is that subcommittee's chairman and ranking member, as 
well as the chairman and ranking member from the subcommittee on the 
Appropriations Committee, from whom we will hear momentarily--to all of 
them, I am very grateful.
  What it says is that NASA--America's civilian space program--should 
not be a partisan subject. What it says is that the leaders of NASA 
should not be partisans. As a matter of fact, they should even be more 
than bipartisans--they should be nonpartisans. That has been the 
tradition of NASA's, so like that of the Secretary of Defense. One 
considers that appointment to be a nonpartisan. So, too, we consider 
the Administrator of NASA to be a nonpartisan. I think, in this 
interim, with the Acting Administrator of NASA, that they are 
conducting themselves in a very significant way in keeping all of the 
advancements that they have done but that are now to be accelerated 
with this appropriations bill.
  I congratulate the whole NASA team. It has been my argument to the 
Vice President and to the President that in the selection of the next 
leader of NASA, they need to do it in a nonpartisan way so that we can 
keep going for this human mission that is going to the planet Mars in 
the decade of the 2030s.
  With the increase in NASA funding, we now stand on the precipice of a 
new golden age of exploration and discovery. In March of this year, 
several of us were at the White House when the President signed the 
NASA authorization bill. What we have worked on for the better part of 
2 years keeps NASA on a steady course, with a balanced and ambitious 
mix of science, technology, and exploration initiatives. Let's not 
forget that the first ``A'' in ``NASA'' is ``aeronautics.'' It keeps 
all of that moving forward.
  This additional $368 million of funding for NASA gives that little 
agency the ability to build off of the momentum that is already there. 
For example, in the White House, the Vice President--and I have 
commended him both privately and publicly--is bringing about the 
reestablishment of the National Space Council. I shared with him that 
all of us look forward to working with him and the Council to develop 
and carry out the ambitious civil, commercial, and national security 
space agenda for this country.
  The $19.65 billion appropriation for NASA, coupled with the NASA 
authorization bill that we already passed a month or two ago, 
demonstrates our firm commitment to one day putting humans on Mars and 
permanently expanding our civilization out into the cosmos. We will 
soon have a regular cadence of missions that will be launching into 
deep space using the Space Launch System--the largest rocket ever, a 
third more powerful than the Saturn V rocket that took us to the Moon. 
Its spacecraft--the Orion--and other systems will be assembled and 
launched, and a lot of that is being done at Florida's Space Coast. The 
first rockets and spacecraft that will start the journey are being 
assembled right now at various sites across the country. Right now, the 
Space Launch System--the SLS rocket, the Orion spacecraft that sits on 
top of it--and the launch infrastructure at Cape Canaveral or, more 
specifically, the Kennedy Space Center, are all in the most challenging 
stages of their development.
  These complex systems are all very intertwined, and it is vital that 
we make sure that NASA has the funding flexibility that it needs to 
address issues as they come up so that they can bring these systems 
together for the launch in early 2019 of the largest rocket ever.
  We have asked NASA to look for new ways to expand commercial space 
activities in Earth's orbit, and we are

[[Page 7470]]

providing NASA with the tools and the direction it needs to expand our 
commercial space activity. We are right on track to begin launching 
astronauts to the International Space Station on American rockets, 
commercially made, and that is going to start next year.
  People do not realize--they thought the space shuttle was being shut 
down in 2011. They thought that was the end of the space program. No. 
No. All of this is being developed aside from the robotic missions that 
there have been with the rovers on Mars and all of the pictures of the 
cosmos. I mean, it is just unbelievable. Next year we are going to 
replace the Hubble Space Telescope, which has peered back into the 
beginning of time. We are going to look back almost to the beginning of 
time with the James Webb Space Telescope.
  All of this is strengthening a flourishing U.S. space industry, 
especially in the areas in which NASA centers are located around the 
country. What is happening at the Kennedy Space Center is that it is 
being transformed into a commercial as well as a government spaceport--
into a busy civil, military, and commercial spaceport.
  This appropriations budget allows us to continue all of this going on 
at the same time. We are going to put up gee-whiz things like the Wide 
Field Infrared Survey Telescope, as well as additional Mars rovers. The 
rovers that are up there show that Mars, at one point, was warm and 
wet. We are going to find out whether there was life there. If there 
were, was it developed? If there were, was it civilized? If there were, 
what happened? These are lingering questions as we peer up into the 
night sky. The funding included in this budget deal moves us ever 
closer to answering that burning question: Are we alone in the 
universe? This budget helps us better understand our own planet by 
funding NASA's Earth Science Program, as well as funding aeronautics 
and education programs for our youth.
  The investments that we as a country make in our space program pay 
immediate dividends to our quality of life right here on Earth. Of 
course, the space program creates thousands and thousands of jobs for 
skilled workers to build machines that help us explore the heavens and 
jobs for the researchers to understand and interpret what we discover 
and jobs for the engineers and the entrepreneurs to develop new 
technologies. These public investments also stimulate complementary 
investments of private capital and the thousands of jobs that follow 
from that, and those are companies that will partner with NASA.
  Again, I thank our colleagues in both the House and the Senate for 
their continued support of our space program. In this time when we find 
ourselves far too divided in our politics, the exploration of space 
continues to be a powerful force that brings us together into our 
search as we explore the universe.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I compliment our colleague from Florida 
on his articulating this powerful vision for humankind, which is the 
ability to look into the night sky and ponder the mysteries of the 
universe, the mysteries of life, in the most complete way. America has 
led this scientific adventure, this scientific journey, and we must 
continue to be at the lead of this journey for all of the reasons he 
has laid out today.
  I thank my colleague from Florida for leading Congress in pursuing 
and advocating for this vision and for developing the instruments on 
the ground and the instruments in space that will advance our 
knowledge.


                              Equality Act

  Mr. President, I rise to speak about a different vision, the vision 
articulated in our Constitution, those first three words of our 
Constitution, ``We the People.''
  It is this vision of a nation founded on the principle of a 
government that would serve not the privileged, not the powerful, not 
the few, not the elite, but serve the entire set of citizenry. Those 
powerful words were put in supersized font in our Constitution. So from 
across the room, you might not be able to read the details, but you can 
read the mission: ``We the People''--a government of, by, and for the 
people, as President Lincoln so eloquently said.
  But this vision in the Constitution followed up on the principles 
articulated in the Declaration of Independence. In 1776, 56 of our 
Nation's best minds, our best leaders, gathered together in 
Philadelphia to debate, to work out a document unlike any other in 
history--a document that changed the course of world history--the 
Declaration of Independence. It said: ``We hold these truths to be 
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by 
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are 
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.''
  Together, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution laid 
out the vision for our grand experiment in democracy, our grand 
experiment in establishing a democratic republic--a nation, of, by, and 
for the people, where each and every person is equal, each and every 
person has the ability to pursue their happiness, to pursue 
opportunity. We may not have always succeeded, but for centuries, the 
story of our Nation--the American story--has been one of striving to 
live up to that promise of a more perfect union, where every citizen is 
equal, every citizen has opportunity, and every citizen can pursue 
happiness.
  Martin Luther King said in the midst of the civil rights struggle:

       Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable. . . . 
     Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, 
     suffering, struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate 
     concern of dedicated individuals.

  And it is with that type of tireless exertion and passionate concern 
that we have been on this path toward equality and opportunity for all.
  We have made a lot of strides. We have broken down a lot of barriers 
in overcoming discrimination and in advancing opportunity for one group 
of Americans after another. For women, for African Americans, for 
indigenous peoples, for immigrants, for Americans with disabilities, 
the journey goes on and on. But regardless of how far we have come, it 
is clear we still have a long way to go.
  There are still too many of our friends, too many of our neighbors, 
too many of our coworkers, our brothers and sisters who don't enjoy the 
same rights and protections as everyone else. They are members of the 
LGBTQ community, and they continue to go through every single day 
confronting discrimination simply because of who they are or whom they 
love. That is simply not right. There should be no room for that kind 
of hate, for that kind of discrimination here in the United States of 
America.
  That is why this week I have reintroduced the Equality Act. I have 
reintroduced it with powerful support from Senator Tammy Baldwin and 
Senator Cory Booker, who have really been the leaders who have driven 
this forward here in the Senate. We have been joined now by 43 
additional colleagues, so that is 46 Senators, original cosponsors, in 
support of this vision of equality. That is a powerful stride from 
where we were just a few years ago, when we didn't even have an 
Equality Act to be presented here in the halls of Congress.
  We launched this act in partnership with the House, where Congressman 
David Cicilline has been the leader, and he has been joined by 194 of 
his colleagues as original cosponsors.
  John Lewis said during the civil rights struggle: ``If not us, then 
who? If not now, when?'' All of us should be called to action in this 
fight for the fundamental principle of equality, for us to stand up 
together and declare once and for all that discrimination based on 
sexuality and gender identity is not welcome in this country. We must 
make nondiscrimination the law of the land here in the United States of 
America.
  It is certainly true that we have made some progress in recent years. 
We passed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act, which expanded the definition of a Federal hate crime 
to include assaults based on sexual identity or gender orientation. We 
repealed don't ask, don't tell, a policy that banned LGBTQ

[[Page 7471]]

soldiers from serving openly in our military for 17 years and that 
forced more than 13,000 servicemembers out of the military with 
dishonorable discharges.
  What we did was undermine the effectiveness of our military by taking 
away the enormous talents and skills of those individuals. And 6 years 
after repealing that policy, our military is stronger for it.
  In the Affordable Care Act, we make sure that no one can be denied 
healthcare because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. 
Then, in 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage 
Act, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, was 
unconstitutional, it was discriminatory, it was in fundamental 
violation of the vision of our Constitution.
  Then, in 2015, the Supreme Court found, in Obergefell v. Hodges, that 
love is love, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, and required 
all States to recognize same-sex marriages and issue marriage licenses 
to same-sex couples.
  One barrier after another--one barrier after another of 
discrimination, one barrier after another that presented an obstruction 
to opportunity has fallen in a relatively short period of time, and 
that is something all of us should celebrate in the vision of equality 
and opportunity embedded in the vision of our Nation. But we cannot 
allow ourselves to lose sight of the fact that as much as these have 
been steps forward, we are still far from ending discrimination to the 
LGBTQ community here in America.
  Today, every State is required to recognize same-sex marriages and 
issue wedding licenses to same-sex couples. But 30 of those States 
still do not have a legal framework that ends discrimination. In 30 of 
those States, the legal framework of the State does not prevent someone 
from being fired from their job for being gay or lesbian or 
transitioning; those States do not have a structure which prohibits a 
same-sex couple to be refused services, to be evicted from an 
apartment, to be banned from a restaurant, to be denied opportunities 
to serve on a jury, to be turned away at the door in pursuit of a 
mortgage.
  We hear these stories from individuals. Ask the science teacher who 
was fired after telling her principal that she and her wife were 
planning to get pregnant or the same-sex couple that was forced to 
leave a park after kissing in public or how about the woman who was 
fired from her job as a security guard in a Savannah hospital, and when 
she took the hospital to court, she lost under the framework of law in 
that State.
  Or ask the LGBTQ community in Orlando. What we see is that when we 
have discriminatory laws, a discriminatory legal structure, that 
engenders discrimination, and the discrimination facilitates and 
engenders hate, and hate leads to violence. So we saw in Orlando when 
last summer a crazed gunman attacked those who were at the Pulse 
Nightclub and took the lives of 49 innocent people.
  The States that have no framework are many. They cross our country--
Idaho and Montana and Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas 
and Oklahoma, Arizona, Alaska and Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, West 
Virginia, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, 
Alabama and Florida--no legal structure to end this sort of 
discrimination.
  At some point in their lives, approximately two-thirds of all LGBTQ 
Americans face discrimination because of their sexuality or gender 
identification. Roughly a quarter of lesbian and gay and bisexual 
working Americans have lost a promotion because of nothing more than 
who they are or whom they love. And nearly--in fact, more than a 
quarter of transgender, working Americans report that in just a single 
year, they have been fired or not hired or denied advancement.
  There is no Federal framework to end discrimination. Today, only 20 
States and the District of Columbia have passed laws banning 
discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the 
workplace, in housing, in public accommodations. Another three States 
have a partial set of protections. But instead of seeing the remaining 
States that still have a framework that provides for discrimination, we 
have seen more and more discriminatory legislation--laws like North 
Carolina's HB2, the so-called bathroom bill, which said that 
transgender individuals had to use a bathroom that matches their birth 
certificate and which blocked local jurisdictions from passing 
antidiscrimination measures to protect LGBTQ citizens; or Senate bill 
149 out of South Dakota, signed into law in March, saying that LGBTQ 
people who want to adopt or foster children can be rejected by State-
funded agencies based on the religious beliefs of the agency.
  Already this year, there have been more than 100 discriminatory 
pieces of draft legislation offered in State legislatures across our 
country.
  As long as people in our Nation are afraid to put their spouse's 
photo on their desk at work, as long as citizens are worried about 
being evicted from their apartment, as long as Americans can be denied 
service at a restaurant or a hotel room or kicked out of a public park 
or denied the right to use a bathroom just for being who they are or 
for whom they love, we need to keep fighting. We need to keep pushing 
to end discrimination.
  Imagine, if you will, when you open a business in America, the 
principle, since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, has been that you open the 
door to all. You don't let in a person with one color of skin and slam 
the door on the next who has darker skin. You don't let in one gender 
and slam the door on the other gender. You don't let in one ethnicity 
and slam the door on the other ethnicity.
  These fundamental provisions of equality, where the door is open to 
each citizen by those who provide services to the public--that is the 
foundation for each individual to be able to live their life fully, to 
be able to fully pursue their potential, to fully pursue their 
opportunity, to fully pursue happiness as envisioned in the Declaration 
of Independence.
  A former Senator of this body, who served here when I was an intern 
in 1974, who served here in 2009 when I came to the U.S. Senate, Ted 
Kennedy said: ``The promise of America will never be fulfilled as long 
as justice is denied to even one among us.'' Yet justice is denied 
every day--every day--in 30 States across our Nation where the door of 
discrimination is slammed shut on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and 
transgender individuals.
  We the people in America understand that it is time to stop slamming 
the door of discrimination shut and open the door to full opportunity 
and full equality as envisioned in our founding documents. Sixty 
percent of Americans support same-sex marriages. More than half oppose 
North Carolina's bathroom bill and other similar bills that 
discriminate against transgender individuals.
  According to one study by the Public Religion Research Institute, 
more than 70 percent of Americans support comprehensive Federal 
legislation. Public opinion is in support of moving forward--moving 
forward to keep the door of opportunity open and to stop slamming the 
door of discrimination in the face of our citizens. It is time for us 
to stand up for our fellow citizens, time for us to speak out against 
this discrimination, time for us to declare once and for all that every 
American, no matter who they are or whom they love, deserves to live 
free from fear, free from violence, and free from discrimination. It is 
time for us to stand with our friends, our neighbors, our coworkers, 
and our brothers and sisters in the LGBTQ community. It is time for us 
to move forward and create nondiscrimination legislation based on the 
same sound foundation that has served so well in regards to addressing 
discrimination in other parts of our society, and that is the 1964 
Civil Rights Act. It is time to consider the Equality Act in the Senate 
of the United States.
  At a time when so much discrimination, so many daily assaults occur 
on our fellow citizens, shouldn't we be

[[Page 7472]]

holding a hearing to have these citizens speak up and share their 
stories? Shouldn't we be holding a vote to determine whether or not we 
truly believe in our constitutional vision? Shouldn't we have to 
confront the fact that we still have discrimination in housing, in 
employment, in schools, in restaurants, and in theaters? In fact, in 
every walk of life in America, in 30 States, we still have this 
discrimination without a legal framework in those States to provide 
protection.
  Under the Equality Act, sexual orientation and gender identity 
receive the same clear level of protection that race, religion, gender, 
and ethnicity already enjoy, thanks to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The 
Equality Act will help us fulfill the promise of America, as Ted 
Kennedy presented it, that justice under the law is not complete when 
it is denied to even one among us.
  I am a steadfast believer in our Nation's founding principle that all 
of us were created equal, that we are ``endowed by our Creator with 
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the 
pursuit of Happiness.'' But you don't have liberty if the door of 
discrimination is slammed in your face when you seek an apartment. You 
don't have liberty when the ugly face of discrimination blocks you from 
an opportunity to serve in a job. You don't have pursuit of happiness 
when you face a discriminatory framework in 30 of our 50 States.
  We all ought to have the same freedom to be who we are, to love whom 
we love, to pursue our lives and careers free of discrimination. I will 
not rest until that is true for everyone in our country. I say to my 
colleagues: Let us all not rest until we complete this vision of 
opportunity and equality for all.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Republican Healthcare Bill

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come this morning to talk about the 
impending passage of a very failed healthcare bill in the House of 
Representatives and to remind my colleagues that this legislation 
moving through the House of Representatives is the first time in the 
50-plus years of the Medicaid Program that they are going to pass 
legislation to cap and cost-shift Medicaid costs to States.
  This is an $839 billion cost shift from the Federal government to 
States and a one-quarter cut to the Federal Medicaid investment over a 
period of ten years. Some 14 million Americans will lose Medicaid 
coverage. These draconian and arbitrary budget caps will leave States 
with impossible choices to cut people from care, cut provider 
reimbursements, or reduce benefits. Overall, 24 million Americans will 
lose their health insurance. That is according to a recent 
Congressional Budget Office analysis.
  Why do I say this is a broken promise? Because it was very clear 
that, when President Trump was a candidate, he said he was not going to 
cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.
  Why is that important? Because these are trusted programs that have 
worked cost effectively for so many Americans in giving them access to 
care. Now is not the time, as we have seen a Medicaid expansion, to now 
cost-shift Medicaid to the States by breaking this promise and putting 
in it, for the first time in 50 years, a substantial change to the way 
Medicaid works. It does represent, in my opinion, a war on Medicaid--
one that we cannot afford to wage.
  Communities that have benefited from Medicaid expansion have seen the 
value of coverage and a healthy population. All you have to do is to 
talk to healthcare providers, hospitals, chambers of commerce, and 
others to get them to say that, yes, having more people with healthcare 
coverage in our community has helped us in raising the standard of 
living.
  Why is that? First of all, uncompensated care is no longer put at the 
hospital's doorstep. Secondly, the population with healthcare coverage 
is healthier, getting treatment in advance as opposed to waiting for a 
crisis. It represents an investment in the community that allows a 
community to stabilize.
  These are important issues for us to discuss. I hope my colleagues in 
the Senate will not fall for this ploy or that they will not go back on 
promises made by this administration not to cut Medicaid.
  There are other aspects of the bill coming over from the House of 
Representatives, obviously, dealing with preexisting conditions, and we 
know from our own experience in the State of Washington that high-risk 
pools have covered only a tiny portion of people with preexisting 
conditions and are inadequate unless properly funded. As an article 
from the Seattle Times, from 2009, entitled ``Dozens of patients cut 
from state's high-risk insurance pool'' stated: ``with premiums that 
can top $20,000 a year, patients don't exactly clamor to join the 
state's high-risk health-insurance pool--a public insurer of last 
resort for patients with cancer, AIDS and other serious diseases . . . 
,'' and ``the premiums cover only about 30 percent of the patients' 
medical and prescription expenses.''
  There are many things that are working in the Affordable Care Act. We 
have done great things on rebalancing; that is, to rebalance people 
from nursing home care to community-based care.
  This chart shows how many States in the United States of America are 
doing this. This is in the Affordable Care Act. We wrote a provision 
encouraging States to try to rebalance their population, not 
encouraging so much nursing home care because it is so expensive, and 
instead, trying to deliver the long-term care people need in their 
individual communities.
  The great success of this is that many States in the Affordable Care 
Act took us up on it--States like Nevada, Iowa, Missouri, Texas, 
Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, 
and Maine. I saw in our own State, over a 15-year period of time, that 
we saved roughly $2.7 billion. That is $2.7 billion of cost. Instead of 
paying for a Medicaid population in expensive nursing home settings, we 
instead innovated and put them into what was a cost-effective delivery 
system in which people love to stay in their home as they age as 
opposed to the notion of expensive nursing home care.
  I mention that because that $2.7 billion could be the kind of savings 
we would see in these States. So I tell my colleagues from the House: 
Innovate; don't capitate. Don't try to say that you have an ingenious 
idea on how to take care of healthcare costs by simply capitating, for 
the first time in 50-plus years, the Medicaid Program and then leaving 
the States to pick up the bill.
  It won't work. Follow the ideas and strategies that are much better 
in helping us cut costs for an aging population that is living longer, 
and look for fixes that are already there in the Affordable Care Act to 
do so.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I note, too, that we are going to be 
moving today, before we leave here, to what is the Omnibus resolution 
to keep the government open.
  I wanted to mention an important aspect of the legislation we are 
going to be voting on. Pursuant to provisions in the Customs bill, we 
are now going to put funding into trade enforcement--a very important 
aspect of our trade agenda.
  We know that more than 96 percent of the world's customers live 
outside the United States. By some estimates, at least 70 percent of 
the world's purchasing power is outside the United

[[Page 7473]]

States. That means that we need to keep working hard to reach these new 
markets and these customers. The growing middle class has great 
purchasing power.
  In 2015, the global middle class spent $33 trillion. By some 
estimates, the middle class could surpass 4 billion people by the year 
2021, making it a majority of the world's population.
  Approximately one in three jobs in the State of Washington are tied 
to international trade. Washington State exported approximately $80 
billion in goods in 2016--from airplanes and coffee to apples and 
software. I know this about our State: we understand that we are in a 
global economy and that we have great products to sell in international 
markets.
  Agriculture exports are very important to our State. Agriculture adds 
about $51 billion a year to our State's GDP, and the agricultural 
sector makes up more than 13 percent of our State's economy. In 2016, 
Washington exported $15 billion worth of food and agriculture products 
with $7 billion being of Washington origin. We are No. 1 in the nation 
in production of apples, hops, spearmint oil, wrinkled seed peas, 
concord grapes, sweet cherries, pears, green peas, raspberries for 
processing, blueberries and aquaculture. We are No. 2 in production of 
potatoes, certain kinds of grapes, nectarines, apricots, prunes, plums, 
sweet corn for processing, and a variety of other things.
  This is to say that in the State of Washington, we grow a lot for 
overseas markets. Why am I talking about this important aspect of this 
bill that is passing to keep our government open today? Because in our 
State and across our country, we need to encourage more small 
businesses to export. And we need to make sure we have enforcement of a 
level playing field so that U.S. companies of all sizes and U.S. 
workers are protected as they compete in that global economy.
  That is why, in the previously passed Customs bill, I created a Trade 
Enforcement Trust Fund at the Office of U.S. Trade Representative. Now, 
with this legislation passing today, we are putting $15 million toward 
that trust fund to be spent exclusively on enforcing trade agreements. 
We need to enforce the agreements and make sure Washington and 
businesses around the country get a fair deal as we work on trade. And 
$15 million in the fund would help us fight trade issues we have seen 
all over the globe.
  For example, sometimes people try to sell their products by taking 
the great labels we have on Washington apples and putting them on 
foreign apples making them seem like Washington apples, when in reality 
they are not. This bill gives us money for trade enforcement to address 
these challenges.
  Sometimes we have intellectual property that is hijacked or stolen 
from companies in our State. This bill puts more enforcement in place 
to fight those crimes and to make sure we are enforcing our trade 
agreements. The trust fund gives the framework and workforce to enforce 
trade laws governing exports to that burgeoning, as I said, growing 
middle class outside the United States. We must make sure our products 
are sold and sold correctly and any disputes that are happening are 
resolved and resolved quickly so our trade with those countries can be 
cost-effective to our growers, to our manufacturers, and to the 
workforce within our State.
  I am sure every Member here who has companies that have done trade in 
this global economy can tell you stories of how the lack of trade 
enforcement has cost them business. This fund is a very positive shot 
in the arm to our U.S. trade office, so they have the resources to do 
more enforcement and make sure our products are winning in the overseas 
markets.
  I yield the floor.


                          BUDGETARY REVISIONS

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, section 251 of the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, BBEDCA, establishes statutory 
limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to 
those limits, while sections 302 and 314(a) of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974 allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to establish and 
make revisions to allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with 
those adjustments. The Senate is considering H.R. 244, the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2017. This measure provides full-year 
appropriations for Federal Government agencies and contains spending 
that qualifies for cap adjustments under current statute.
  This measure includes $93,470 million in budget authority that is 
designated as being for overseas contingency operations/global war on 
terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of BBEDCA. Of that 
amount, $76,985 million is for spending in the security category, and 
$16,485 million is for nonsecurity spending. CBO estimates that this 
budget authority will result in $41,444 million in outlays in fiscal 
year 2017.
  Division F includes $6,713 million in nonsecurity discretionary 
budget authority that is designated as being for disaster relief 
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of BBEDCA. This designation makes the 
spending associated with this provision and its associated outlays of 
$336 million eligible for an adjustment.
  This legislation includes language that increases nonsecurity 
discretionary budget authority by $1,444 million this year and 
designates it as emergency funding pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) 
of BBEDCA. CBO estimates this budget authority will result in $497 
million in outlays in fiscal year 2017.
  Finally, division H provides $1,960 in nonsecurity discretionary 
budget authority for program integrity efforts. This funding is 
designated pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(C) and section 251(b)(2)(B) of 
BBEDCA. CBO estimates that this budget authority will result in $1,635 
million in outlays this year.
  As a result of the aforementioned designations, I am revising the 
budget authority and outlay allocations to the Committee on 
Appropriations by increasing revised security budget authority by 
$76,985 million, revised nonsecurity budget authority by $26,602 
million, and increasing outlays by $43,912 million in fiscal year 2017. 
Further, I am increasing the budgetary aggregate for fiscal year 2017 
by $103,161 million in budget authority and outlays by $43,541 million.
  I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables, which provide 
details about the adjustment, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    REVISION TO BUDGETARY AGGREGATES
 (Pursuant to Sections 311 and 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
                                  1974)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 $s in millions                            2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Spending Aggregates:
    Budget Authority...........................                3,226,128
    Outlays....................................                3,224,630
Adjustments:
    Budget Authority...........................                  103,161
    Outlays....................................                   43,541
Revised Spending Aggregates:
    Budget Authority...........................                3,329,289
    Outlays....................................                3,268,171
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 REVISION TO SPENDING ALLOCATION TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                            FISCAL YEAR 2017
 (Pursuant to Sections 302 and 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
                                  1974)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 $s in millions                            2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Allocation:
    Revised Security Discretionary Budget                        557,015
     Authority.................................
    Revised Nonsecurity Category Discretionary                   526,951
     Budget Authority..........................
    General Purpose Outlays....................                1,187,014
Adjustments:
    Revised Security Discretionary Budget                         76,985
     Authority.................................
    Revised Nonsecurity Category Discretionary                    26,602
     Budget Authority..........................
    General Purpose Outlays....................                   43,912

[[Page 7474]]

 
Revised Allocation:
    Revised Security Discretionary Budget                        634,000
     Authority.................................
    Revised Nonsecurity Category Discretionary                   553,553
     Budget Authority..........................
    General Purpose Outlays....................                1,230,926
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
            Memorandum: Detail of Adjustments Made Above                       OCO               Program Integrity         Disaster Relief             Emergency                  Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised Security Discretionary Budget Authority....................                   76,985                        0                        0                        0                   76,985
Revised Nonsecurity Category Discretionary Budget Authority........                   16,485                    1,960                    6,713                    1,444                   26,602
General Purpose Outlays............................................                   41,444                    1,635                      336                      497                   43,912
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

joint explanatory statement for the intelligence authorization act for 
                            fiscal year 2017

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, this explanation reflects the status of 
negotiations and disposition of issues reached between the House 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select 
Committee on Intelligence.
  The explanation shall have the same effect with respect to the 
implementation of this act as if it were a joint explanatory statement 
of a conference committee. The explanation comprises three parts: an 
overview of the application of the annex to accompany this statement, 
unclassified congressional direction, and a section-by-section analysis 
of the legislative text.
  I ask unanimous consent that the joint explanatory statement for the 
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017 be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    DIVISION N--INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

       The following is the explanation of the Intelligence 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
       This explanation reflects the status of negotiations and 
     disposition of issues reached between the House Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select 
     Committee on Intelligence (hereinafter, ``the Agreement''). 
     The explanation shall have the same effect with respect to 
     the implementation of this Act as if it were a joint 
     explanatory statement of a conference committee.
       The explanation comprises three parts: an overview of the 
     application of the annex to accompany this statement; 
     unclassified congressional direction; and a section-by-
     section analysis of the legislative text.

              Part I: Application of the Classified Annex

       The classified nature of U.S. intelligence activities 
     prevents the congressional intelligence committees from 
     publicly disclosing many details concerning the conclusions 
     and recommendations of the Agreement. Therefore, a classified 
     Schedule of Authorizations and a classified annex have been 
     prepared to describe in detail the scope and intent of the 
     congressional intelligence committees' actions. The Agreement 
     authorizes the Intelligence Community (IC) to obligate and 
     expend funds not altered or modified by the classified 
     Schedule of Authorizations as requested in the President's 
     budget, subject to modification under applicable 
     reprogramming procedures.
       The classified annex is the result of negotiations between 
     the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the 
     Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. It reconciles the 
     differences between the committees' respective versions of 
     the bill for the National Intelligence Program (NIP) and the 
     Homeland Security Intelligence Program (HSIP) for Fiscal Year 
     2017. The Agreement also makes recommendations for the 
     Military Intelligence Program (MIP), and the Information 
     Systems Security Program (ISSP), consistent with the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, and provides 
     certain direction for these two programs.
       The Agreement supersedes the classified annexes to the 
     reports accompanying: H.R. 5077, as passed by the House on 
     May 24, 2016; H.R. 6393, as passed by the House on November 
     20, 2016; H.R. 6480, as passed by the House on December 8, 
     2016; S. 3017, as reported by the Senate Select Committee on 
     Intelligence on June 6, 2016; and S. 133, as reported by the 
     Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on January 20, 2017. 
     All references to the House-passed and Senate-reported 
     annexes are solely to identify the heritage of specific 
     provisions.
       The classified Schedule of Authorizations is incorporated 
     into the bill pursuant to Section 102. It has the status of 
     law. The classified annex supplements and adds detail to 
     clarify the authorization levels found in the bill and the 
     classified Schedule of Authorizations. The classified annex 
     shall have the same legal force as the report to accompany 
     the bill.

          Part II: Select Unclassified Congressional Direction

     Managing intelligence community personnel
       This Agreement by the congressional intelligence committees 
     accepts the Senate's recommendations that IC elements should 
     build, develop, and maintain a workforce appropriately 
     balanced among its civilian, military and contractor 
     workforce sectors to meet the missions assigned to it in law 
     and by the president. The Agreement recognizes that the size 
     and shape of the IC's multi-sector workforce should be based 
     on mission needs, and encourages the IC to adjust its 
     reliance on contractors when appropriate, both as a matter of 
     general policy and as a way to conserve resources. The 
     flexibility afforded in this provision should support this 
     position. In addition, section 103 provides an increase in 
     the number of civilian personnel authorized in the Schedule 
     of Authorizations for the purposes of such contractor 
     conversions in the interim for the remainder of fiscal year 
     2017. Nothing precludes the Congress from addressing the end 
     strength for any element or office of the IC in the annual 
     authorization bills.
       Therefore, the committees direct that the ODNI provide the 
     congressional intelligence committees briefings on the 
     workforce initiative as directed in section 306, beginning 
     July 1, 2017, and each 120 days thereafter until July 1, 
     2018, with benchmarks and milestones, for IC elements to 
     manage a multi-sector workforce without personnel ceilings 
     starting in fiscal year 2019. The ODNI, in coordination with 
     the IC elements, shall establish a common methodology for 
     collecting and reporting data, and include new exhibits in 
     the annual congressional budget justification books that 
     display full-time equivalents (government civilians, core 
     contractors, non-core contractors, and military personnel), 
     by program, expenditure center and project.
       In the absence of authorized position ceiling levels, 
     agencies will be bound to authorized and appropriated 
     personal services funding levels.
       Further, the transfer of non-personal services funding in 
     below-threshold reprogramming is a concern to the committees. 
     Therefore, the committees direct agencies to provide a 
     written notification to the committees of any realignment 
     and/or reprogramming of funding between personal services and 
     non-personal services.
     Commercial Geospatial Intelligence Strategy
       The congressional intelligence committees applaud the 
     National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) for issuing its 
     October 2015 Commercial Geospatial Intelligence (GEOINT) 
     Strategy, which states a goal of fostering a ``more diverse, 
     resilient, agile, and responsive GEOINT program that provides 
     seamless user access to the best mix of commercial GEOINT . . 
     . to fulfill National System for Geospatial-Intelligence 
     (NSG) and Allied System for Geospatial-Intelligence (ASG) 
     mission needs.'' The committees also find merit in the NGA's 
     ``GEOINT Pathfinder'' project, which seeks to maximize the 
     use of unclassified and commercially available data sources 
     that can be easily and rapidly shared with a variety of 
     military, United States and allied government, and non-
     government customers, and supports the project's continuation 
     and expansion.
       The committees further commend the NGA for pursuing new 
     methods of intelligence collection and analysis to inform, 
     complement, and add to its support of warfighter requirements 
     by looking to emerging commercial technology providers, 
     including small satellite companies, which hold the promise 
     of rapid technological innovation and potentially significant 
     future cost savings to the U.S. taxpayer. The committees 
     further encourage the Director of the NGA to ensure 
     sufficient funding is available to acquire new, unclassified 
     sources, including commercial satellite imagery providing 
     unprecedented global persistence, as well as products and 
     services that provide information and context about changes 
     relevant to geospatial intelligence. The committees also 
     encourage the NGA to pursue new business models, including 
     commercial acquisition practices, to enable the NGA's access 
     to data, products, and services in ways consistent with best 
     commercial practices.
       The committees fully support the NGA's course of action in 
     partnering with the commercial GEOINT industry to meet future

[[Page 7475]]

     warfighter intelligence requirements, while recognizing the 
     need to take appropriate steps to protect national security, 
     and encourage the Director of the NGA and the Under Secretary 
     of Defense for Intelligence to keep the committees informed 
     of their progress in implementing this strategy. Therefore, 
     this Agreement directs the Department of Defense (DoD), in 
     building future-year budgets, to ensure continued funding is 
     provided for implementation, through at least Fiscal Year 
     2021, of the Commercial Geospatial Intelligence Strategy 
     issued by the NGA in October 2015.
     Space Launch Facilities
       The congressional intelligence committees continue to 
     believe it is critical to preserve a variety of launch range 
     capabilities to support national security space missions. 
     Spaceports or launch and range complexes may provide 
     capabilities to reach mid-to-low or polar-to-high inclination 
     orbits. The committees believe an important component of this 
     effort may be state-owned and operated spaceports that are 
     commercially licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration, 
     which leverage non-federal public and private investments to 
     bolster U.S. launch capabilities. Additionally, the 
     committees believe that these facilities may be able to 
     provide additional flexibility and resilience to the Nation's 
     launch infrastructure, especially as the nation considers 
     concepts such as the reconstitution of satellites to address 
     the growing foreign counterspace threat. The committees note 
     recent testimony by the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force, 
     General Mark Welsh, who stated,
       As we look at this space enterprise and how we do it 
     differently in the future, as we look more at disaggregation, 
     microsats, cube sats, small sats, things that don't have to 
     go from a large launch complex all the time, I think 
     proliferating launch complexes is probably going to be a 
     natural outshoot of this. I think it's commercially viable, 
     it may be a way for companies to get into the launch business 
     who could not afford to get into it or don't see a future in 
     it and for large national security space launches, but I 
     think this has got to be part of the strategy that this whole 
     national team puts together as we look to the future.
       Therefore, the Agreement directs the IC, in partnership 
     with the U.S. Air Force, to consider the role and 
     contribution of spaceports or launch and range complexes to 
     our national security space launch capacity, and directs the 
     Office of the Director of National Intelligence, in 
     consultation with the Department of Defense and the U.S. Air 
     Force, to brief the congressional intelligence committees on 
     their plans to utilize such facilities within 90 days of 
     enactment of this Act.
     National Reconnaissance Office Workforce Optimization 
         Strategy
       The congressional intelligence committees have had 
     longstanding interest in, and support for, a permanent 
     government cadre to provide the National Reconnaissance 
     Office (NRO) with a stable, expert acquisition workforce. The 
     committees applaud the substantial progress that the NRO has 
     made in the past year in this regard. The committees have 
     parallel interests in providing the IC with flexibility to 
     manage a multi-sector workforce and in continuing the 
     reduction in the reliance on contractors.
       Therefore, the Agreement directs the NRO to conduct a 
     workforce review to optimize the mix between government 
     civilians and contractors and report to the committees with a 
     strategy within 90 days of enactment of this Act.
     Guidance and reporting requirement regarding interactions 
         between the intelligence community and entertainment 
         industry.
       The congressional intelligence committees believe that 
     there are important, valid reasons for elements of the IC to 
     engage with the entertainment industry, among other things to 
     ensure the correction of inaccuracies, demonstrate the IC's 
     commitment to transparency, and to ensure that the IC 
     recruits and retains highly qualified personnel to the 
     fullest extent possible. The committees further believe that 
     IC engagement with the entertainment industry should be 
     conducted in the most cost effective and deliberate fashion 
     possible, while ensuring that classified information is 
     protected from unauthorized disclosure.
       These engagements--some of which have been described in 
     partially-declassified inspector general reports--cost 
     taxpayer dollars, raise potential ethics concerns, increase 
     the risk of disclosure of classified information, and consume 
     the time and attention of IC personnel responsible for United 
     States national security. Neither the production of 
     entertainment nor the self-promotion of IC entities are 
     legitimate purposes for these engagements.
     Review of the National Intelligence University
       The National Intelligence University (NIU) has made 
     significant progress in recent years in its transition from a 
     defense intelligence college to a national intelligence 
     university that provides advanced education in a classified 
     format. Such advanced education is integral to making 
     intelligence a profession with recognized standards for 
     performance and ethics and fostering an integrated IC 
     workforce. While progress has been significant since the 
     Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and Secretary of 
     Defense agreed to redesignate Defense Intelligence Agency's 
     (DIA) National Defense Intelligence College as NIU in 2011, 
     the institution must continue to adapt to functioning as a 
     university with a robust research agenda, and to serving the 
     entire IC, not just elements of DoD.
       Fiscal years 2017 and 2018 are of great significance for 
     NIU, as it moves its principal facility to the IC Campus at 
     Bethesda, completes activities associated with its 2018 
     decennial regional accreditation reaffirmation, and receives 
     a new president. The congressional intelligence committees 
     believe that these developments position NIU to make further 
     progress in its vision to become the center of academic life 
     for the IC.
       To guide these next steps, the Agreement directs DIA, in 
     coordination with ODNI and the Office of the Under Secretary 
     of Defense for Intelligence, to, no later than 30 days after 
     enactment of this Act, select a five member, external, and 
     independent panel to conduct a review of NIU. The panel shall 
     submit a report detailing the results of such review to the 
     congressional intelligence and defense committees within 180 
     days of enactment of this Act. The panel should be composed 
     of recognized academics, personnel from other DoD joint 
     professional military education institutions, national 
     security experts, and at least one member of NIU's Board of 
     Visitors.
       This review and the resulting report shall, among other 
     things, assess:
       (1) Methods for ensuring a student body that is more 
     representative of all IC elements;
       (2) Incentives for IC elements to send personnel to NIU to 
     earn a degree or certificate, to include designating 
     attendance at NIU as positions reimbursable by ODNI and 
     requiring IC elements to employ the workforce concept of 
     ``float'' for personnel enrolled in higher-education 
     programs;
       (3) How certificate programs align with NIU's unique value 
     as an institution of advanced intelligence education;
       (4) Methods to enhance NIU's research program, to include 
     publication of a journal, hosting of conferences and other 
     collaborative fora, and more formalized relationships with 
     intelligence studies scholars;
       (5) Whether and how educational components of other IC 
     elements could provide educational offerings as part of the 
     NIU curriculum;
       (6) Potential advantages and risks associated with 
     alternative governance models for NIU, to include moving it 
     under the auspices of ODNI; and
       (7) The feasibility and resource constraints of NIU 
     tailoring degree offerings to meet the needs of IC personnel 
     at different stages in their careers, similar to DoD's joint 
     professional military education model.
     Cost of living consideration
       The congressional intelligence committees are concerned 
     with the high cost of living for military, civilian, and 
     contractor personnel at overseas Combatant Command 
     intelligence centers. Although the committees recognize the 
     benefits of co-locating intelligence analysts with the 
     operational commander, the intelligence centers for both U.S. 
     European Command (USEUCOM) and U.S. Africa Command 
     (USAFRICOM) are located over 600 miles from their Combatant 
     Command headquarters. Combatant Commanders based in the 
     United States regularly communicate with forward deployed 
     units, and the USEUCOM and USAFRICOM intelligence centers 
     have developed mechanisms to effectively employ various 
     teleconferencing and virtual communication tools to ensure 
     collaboration across large distances.
       The congressional intelligence committees are concerned 
     that despite the utility of these virtual collaboration 
     tools, DoD has not taken action to reduce the number of 
     intelligence personnel stationed in high cost of living 
     areas. These costs can exceed $65,000 per person, per year in 
     annual cost of living allowances compared to the continental 
     United States (CONUS) expenses. The additional costs 
     associated with stationing intelligence personnel in high-
     cost overseas locations detract from other critical 
     intelligence priorities. The committees are further concerned 
     that DoD does not adequately account for the long-run expense 
     of high costs of living when selecting locations for 
     intelligence facilities.
       Therefore, the Agreement directs the DIA to evaluate 
     alternate mechanisms for staffing overseas Combatant Command 
     intelligence centers, particularly those that are not co-
     located with Combatant Command headquarters, and to identify 
     cost-savings opportunities by shifting personnel to lower 
     cost locations, including in the continental United States.
     Defense Intelligence Agency education opportunities
       DIA presently allows DIA employees to receive pay for a 
     single year only while attending certain graduate degree 
     programs on a full-time basis. Employees may pursue such 
     opportunities at the National Intelligence University and 
     similar institutions; and, in certain circumstances, also at 
     public and private civilian universities. However, the one-
     year limit discourages DIA personnel from pursuing multi-year 
     graduate degree

[[Page 7476]]

     programs. Expanding DIA's program to allow highly qualified 
     DIA employees to pursue multi-year graduate degree programs 
     from accredited civilian universities would further improve 
     retention, recruitment, and foster diversity of thought at 
     DIA.
       Therefore, the Agreement directs DIA, no later than 180 
     days after the enactment of this Act, to:
       (1) Provide for and fund a program that allows for DIA 
     employees to attend civilian graduate degree programs for up 
     to two years each, based on the standard length of the 
     relevant program, provided that:
       (a) Where DIA deems appropriate, employees may pursue 
     academic programs extending beyond two years. Consistent with 
     current practices, the program should be made available to at 
     least five employees each year, with each employee receiving 
     a full-time salary while participating in the program; and
       (b) Each DIA participant shall be subject to any program 
     approvals, service obligations, repayment obligations, and 
     other requirements pertaining to academic programs, as 
     prescribed by applicable laws and policies.
       (2) Brief the congressional intelligence committees on the 
     status of the program's implementation.
     Mental health prevalence
       The congressional intelligence committees are committed to 
     supporting the men and women of the IC, who bravely risk 
     their lives serving their country as civilians in conflict 
     zones and other dangerous locations around the world. These 
     individuals often serve next to their military counterparts 
     in areas of active hostilities. As such, they are often 
     exposed to many of the emotional stresses generally 
     associated with a tour of duty abroad. The committees believe 
     there are deficiencies and inconsistencies in the pre- and 
     post-deployment mental health and wellness services available 
     to civilian employees.
       Therefore, the Agreement directs the National Security 
     Agency (NSA), NGA, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and 
     DIA, no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, 
     to provide a joint briefing to the congressional intelligence 
     committees on the mental health screenings and related 
     services that these agencies offer employees, both before and 
     after they deploy to combat zones. Such briefing shall 
     include a description of:
       (1) Existing services available;
       (2) Agency resources for and analysis of these services, 
     including the frequency of use by employees compared to the 
     total number returning from deployment; and
       (3) How agencies with deployed civilian employees are 
     sharing best practices and leveraging services or resources 
     outside their agencies.
     Review of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
       It has been more than ten years since the Congress 
     established the position of the Director of National 
     Intelligence (DNI) in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004, building on its predecessor, the 
     Director of Central Intelligence. Given this experience and 
     the evolving security environment, the committees believe it 
     appropriate to review the DNI's roles, missions and functions 
     and adapt its authorities, organization and resources as 
     needed.
       Therefore, the Agreement directs the President to form an 
     independent, external panel of at least five individuals with 
     significant intelligence and national security expertise to 
     review ODNI's roles, missions and functions and make 
     recommendations, as needed, regarding its authorities, 
     organization and resources. The panel shall:
       (1) Evaluate ODNI's ability to fulfill the responsibilities 
     assigned to it in law given its current scope and structure;
       (2) Assess whether any roles and responsibilities currently 
     assigned to the DNI could be more effectively or efficiently 
     executed by other IC components or government agencies 
     outside the IC;
       (3) Analyze the personnel, funding, and authorities 
     required for each component of ODNI to perform each of its 
     assigned responsibilities;
       (4) Evaluate the organizational structure of ODNI;
       (5) Review the size, role, purpose and function of ODNI's 
     mission centers;
       (6) Assess the value of the national intelligence manager 
     construct;
       (7) Review the size and mix of the ODNI workforce--to 
     include the ratio between cadre and detailees, the balance 
     between government and contractors, and grade structure--to 
     perform its roles, missions and functions; and
       (8) Make recommendations regarding the above.
       The Agreement directs the President, no later than 30 days 
     after the enactment of this Act, to select the individuals 
     who will serve on the external panel and notify the 
     congressional intelligence committees of such selection.
       In addition, the Agreement directs the panel, no later than 
     180 days after the enactment of this Act, to provide a report 
     on this review to the congressional intelligence committees. 
     This report shall be unclassified, but may contain a 
     classified annex. The Agreement further directs ODNI to 
     reimburse the Executive Office of the President for any costs 
     associated with the review.
     Improving pre-publication review
       The congressional intelligence committees are concerned 
     that current and former IC personnel have published written 
     material without completing mandatory pre-publication review 
     procedures or have rejected changes required by the review 
     process, resulting in the publication of classified 
     information. The committees are particularly troubled by 
     press reports suggesting that officials are unaware of the 
     existence or scope of pre-publication review requirements.
       The committees are also aware of the perception that the 
     pre-publication review process can be unfair, untimely, and 
     unduly onerous--and that these burdens may be at least 
     partially responsible for some individuals ``opting out'' of 
     the mandatory review process. The committees further 
     understand that IC agencies' pre-publication review 
     mechanisms vary, and that there is no binding, IC-wide 
     guidance on the subject.
       The committees believe that all IC personnel must be made 
     aware of pre-publication review requirements and that the 
     review process must yield timely, reasoned, and impartial 
     decisions that are subject to appeal. The committees also 
     believe that efficiencies can be identified by limiting the 
     information subject to pre-publication review, to the fullest 
     extent possible, to only those materials that might 
     reasonably contain or be derived from classified information 
     obtained during the course of an individual's association 
     with the IC. In short, the pre-publication review process 
     should be improved to better incentivize compliance and to 
     ensure that personnel fulfill their commitments.
       Therefore, the Agreement directs that, no later than 180 
     days after the enactment of this Act, the DNI shall issue an 
     IC-wide policy regarding pre-publication review. The DNI 
     shall transmit this policy to the congressional intelligence 
     committees concurrently with its issuance. The policy should 
     require each IC agency to develop and maintain a pre-
     publication policy that contains, at a minimum, the following 
     elements:
       (1) Identification of the individuals subject to pre-
     publication review requirements (``covered individuals'');
       (2) Guidance on the types of information that must be 
     submitted for pre-publication review, including works (a) 
     unrelated to an individual's IC employment; or (b) published 
     in cooperation with a third party, e.g.--
       (a) Authored jointly by covered individuals and third 
     parties;
       (b) Authored by covered individuals but published under the 
     name of a third party; or
       (c) Authored by a third party but with substantial input 
     from covered individuals.
       (3) Guidance on a process by which covered individuals can 
     participate in pre-publication reviews, and communicate 
     openly and frequently with reviewers;
       (4) Requirements for timely responses, as well as reasoned 
     edits and decisions by reviewers;
       (5) Requirements for a prompt and transparent appeal 
     process;
       (6) Guidelines for the assertion of interagency equities in 
     pre-publication review;
       (7) A summary of the lawful measures each agency may take 
     to enforce its policy, to include civil and criminal 
     referrals; and
       (8) A description of procedures for post-publication review 
     of documents that are alleged or determined to reveal 
     classified information but were not submitted for pre-
     publication review.
       Additionally, the Agreement directs ODNI, no later than 180 
     days after the enactment of this Act, to provide to the 
     congressional intelligence committees a report on the 
     adequacy of IC information technology efforts to improve and 
     expedite pre-publication review processes, and the resources 
     needed to ensure that IC elements can meet this direction.
       The Agreement further directs the DNI, no later than 270 
     days after the enactment of this Act, to certify to the 
     congressional intelligence committees that IC elements' pre-
     publication review policies, non-disclosure agreements, and 
     any other agreements imposing pre-publication review 
     obligations reflect the policy described above.
     Student loan debt report
       IC components need to be able to recruit talented young 
     professionals. However, the soaring cost of college and post-
     graduate education in the United States is causing many young 
     people to forgo public service in favor of career 
     opportunities with more competitive pay or loan forgiveness 
     benefits.
       Therefore, the Agreement directs ODNI, no later than 180 
     days after the enactment of this Act, to provide a report to 
     the congressional intelligence committees on programs that 
     seek to help IC personnel manage student loan debt. The 
     report shall include details about each IC element's program, 
     including loan forgiveness, loan repayment, and financial 
     counseling programs; efforts to inform prospective and 
     current employees about such programs; and the number of 
     employees who use such programs. The report shall also 
     include an analysis of the benefits and drawbacks of creating 
     new programs and expanding existing programs, and shall 
     identify any barriers to the establishment of IC-wide 
     programs.

[[Page 7477]]


     Workforce development partnership
       The congressional intelligence committees have long 
     promoted novel recruiting, hiring, and retention practices, 
     especially with respect to highly expert, highly sought-after 
     Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) students 
     and professionals. Despite these efforts, the IC continues to 
     struggle with meeting STEM recruitment, hiring, and retention 
     goals inside the IC.
       The committees are therefore encouraged to learn that the 
     IC is considering new and creative practices in this regard. 
     For example, the committees were intrigued by the Pacific 
     Northwest National Laboratory's (PNNL) budding Workforce 
     Development Partnership with the CIA. Partnerships like this 
     may allow IC agencies to leverage PNNL's robust employee 
     recruiting network and seek out STEM students who might not 
     otherwise consider IC employment.
       Similarly, to address concerns that potential hires will 
     accept other job offers while awaiting clearances, NGA has a 
     program to allow interim hires to work on unclassified 
     projects until clearances are adjudicated. In addition, 
     several IC agencies have instituted a unique pay scale for 
     their junior STEM workforce. The committees recognize the 
     benefits of these initiatives, and believes that such efforts 
     could have wider applicability across the IC.
       Therefore, the Agreement directs the DNI Chief Human 
     Capital Officer, no later than 180 days after the enactment 
     of this Act, to provide to the congressional intelligence 
     committees an interagency briefing on new approaches, 
     including outreach and advertising, the IC is considering or 
     conducting to attract a diverse, robust Science, Technology, 
     Engineering, and Math and information technology workforce to 
     meet the increasing demands in the IC.
     Distributed Common Ground/Surface System-Army
       The congressional intelligence committees believe the 
     Distributed Common Ground/Surface System-Army (DCGS-A) 
     provides operational and tactical commanders with enhanced, 
     state-of-the-art intelligence, surveillance, and 
     reconnaissance (ISR) tasking, processing, exploitation, and 
     dissemination capabilities and connectivity to the defense 
     intelligence information enterprise. DCGS-A is a critical 
     tool for enabling military intelligence warfighters to 
     process, fuse, and exploit data. In the past, the Army has 
     struggled to keep pace for pre-deployment and in-theater 
     training for DCGS-A. However, training for military 
     intelligence analysts must be prioritized in the pre-
     deployment readiness cycle to ensure that those using this 
     intelligence tool can effectively utilize its capabilities.
       The Army has fielded over 95 percent of DCGS-A Increment 1 
     systems, with mixed results and often negative feedback from 
     the users. The Army is in the process of fielding Increment 
     1, Release 2, which will address many of the initial concerns 
     and deficiencies of Increment 1. The committees remain 
     concerned that the Army has not sufficiently planned for user 
     training in support of the release of Increment 1, Release 2 
     to operational users.
       Therefore, the congressional intelligence committees 
     request that the Army, no later than 90 days after the 
     enactment of this Act, submit a plan to the congressional 
     intelligence and defense committees on how the Army will 
     fully incorporate Distributed Common Ground/Surface System-
     Army (DCGS-A) training into the readiness cycle for Army 
     personnel. The plan should specifically address any lessons 
     learned from the fielding of DCGS-A Increment 1 and any 
     ongoing corrective actions to improve the roll-out of 
     Increment 1, Release 2.
     Common controller for unmanned aircraft systems
       The congressional intelligence committees support the 
     Army's efforts to develop a common controller for the RQ-7A/B 
     Shadow and the RQ-11B Raven tactical unmanned aerial 
     vehicles. However, the committees are concerned that the Army 
     is not collaborating with the Marine Corps on similar efforts 
     to develop a ground controller for the Marine Corps family of 
     tactical unmanned aerial systems (UAS), including the RQ-11B 
     Raven, the RQ-12A Wasp, and the RQ-20A Puma.
       Therefore, the Agreement requests that the Army and the 
     Marine Corps Intelligence Activity (MCIA), no later than 90 
     days after the enactment of this Act, jointly submit a report 
     to the congressional intelligence and defense committees on 
     the feasibility of developing a common controller for all 
     Brigade and Below unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) airframes, 
     as well as U.S. Marine Corps small unit UAS. The report 
     should address the potential performance and operational 
     benefits of a common controller, anticipated development 
     costs, and anticipated life-cycle cost savings of a common 
     controller.
     Review of dual-hatting relationship
       The congressional intelligence committees support further 
     evaluation of the dual-hatting of a single individual as both 
     Commander of U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) and Director of 
     the National Security Agency (DIRNSA).
       Therefore, the Agreement directs the Secretary of Defense, 
     no later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act, to 
     provide to the congressional intelligence and defense 
     committees a briefing that reviews and provides an assessment 
     of the dual-hatting of DIRNSA and Commander, USCYBERCOM. This 
     briefing should address:
       (1) Roles and responsibilities, including intelligence 
     authorities, of USCYBERCOM and NSA;
       (2) Assessment of the current impact of the dual-hatting 
     relationship, including advantages and disadvantages;
       (3) Plans and recommendations on courses of action that 
     would be necessary to end the dual-hatting of DIRNSA and 
     Commander, USCYBERCOM, which satisfy Section 1642 of the 
     conference report accompanying S. 2943, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017;
       (4) Suggested timelines for carrying out such courses of 
     action;
       (5) Recommendations for any changes in law that would be 
     required by the end of dual-batting; and
       (6) Any additional topics as identified by the intelligence 
     and defense committees.
       The congressional intelligence committees further believe 
     that a larger organizational review of NSA should be 
     conducted with respect to the eventual termination of the 
     dual-hatting relationship. The congressional intelligence 
     committees seek to promote the efficient and effective 
     execution of NSA's national intelligence mission. 
     Specifically, the congressional intelligence committees 
     believe that the organization of NSA should be examined to 
     account for the evolution of its mission since its 
     establishment, the current structure of the intelligence 
     community, and the fact that the NSA is predominantly funded 
     through the NIP.
       Therefore, the Agreement further directs the DNI, no later 
     than 120 days after the enactment of this Act, to conduct an 
     assessment and provide a briefing to the congressional 
     intelligence committees on options to better align the 
     structure, budgetary procedures, and oversight of NSA with 
     its national intelligence mission in the event of a 
     termination of the dual-batting relationship. This briefing 
     should include:
       (1) An assessment of the feasibility of transitioning NSA 
     to civilian leadership appointed by the DNI in lieu of 
     military leadership appointed by the Secretary of Defense;
       (2) How NSA could be organizationally separated from DoD if 
     USCYBERCOM were elevated to become a unified combatant 
     command; and
       (3) Any challenges, such as those requiring changes in law, 
     associated with such a separation.
     Acquisition security improvement
       The congressional intelligence committees remain concerned 
     about supply chain and cybersecurity vulnerabilities in the 
     IC. The committees believe the IC should implement a more 
     comprehensive approach to address these vulnerabilities, 
     particularly during the acquisition process. However, ICD 
     801, the IC guideline governing the acquisition process, is 
     outdated and must be revised to reflect current risks. In 
     particular, despite issuance of ICD 731, Supply Chain Risk 
     Management, in 2013, ICD 801 has not been updated to reflect 
     this policy nor does it include consideration of 
     cybersecurity vulnerabilities and mitigation.
       Therefore, the Agreement directs ODNI, no later than 180 
     days after the enactment of this Act, to review and consider 
     amendments to Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 801 to 
     better reflect and anticipate supply chain and cybersecurity 
     risks and threats, as well as to outline policies to mitigate 
     both risks and threats. In particular, the review should 
     examine whether to:
       (1) Expand risk management criteria in the acquisition 
     process to include cyber and supply chain threats;
       (2) Require counterintelligence and security assessments as 
     part of the acquisition and procurement process;
       (3) Propose and adopt new education requirements for 
     acquisition professionals on cyber and supply chain threats; 
     and
       (4) Factor in the cost of cyber and supply chain security.
       The Agreement further directs ODNI, no later than 210 days 
     after the enactment of this Act, to provide to the 
     congressional intelligence committees a report describing the 
     review, including ODNI's process for considering amendments 
     to ICD 801, and specifically addressing ODNI's analysis and 
     conclusions with respect to paragraphs (1) through (4) above.
     Cyber information sharing and customer feedback
       The congressional intelligence committees commend NSA's new 
     policies and procedures to facilitate greater information 
     sharing of cyber threat indicators and defensive measures 
     with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at the 
     unclassified level.
       With the recent enactment of the Cybersecurity Act of 2015, 
     which encourages greater information sharing between private 
     sector stakeholders, as well as with government entities, the 
     committees believe the next step is to ensure the entire IC 
     is working to disseminate timely, actionable information to 
     private sector stakeholders so they can better protect their 
     information technology networks. The vast majority of U.S. 
     networks reside in the private sector, and it is

[[Page 7478]]

     good governance to ensure that those networks are safe and 
     secure for the general public.
       The committees appreciate that the IC has begun efforts to 
     increase unclassified cyber threat sharing. Because an 
     increase in the quantity of reporting does not necessarily 
     indicate effectiveness or usefulness, this Committee 
     continues to monitor the quality of the information 
     distributed.
       Therefore, the Agreement directs ODNI, no later than 120 
     days after the enactment of this Act, to brief the 
     congressional intelligence committees on IC-wide efforts to 
     share more information with the Department of Homeland 
     Security (DHS) for further dissemination to the private 
     sector. This briefing shall specifically address types of 
     information shared, metrics on output, tabulation of low 
     output producing agencies, recommendations on how low output 
     agencies can increase sharing, timeliness of information 
     shared, and average total time it takes for information to 
     transit the system.
       The Agreement also directs ODNI, in coordination with the 
     DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A), to conduct a 
     survey of government and private sector participants of the 
     National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center 
     (NCCIC). The survey shall be anonymous, provide an accurate 
     assessment of the usefulness and timeliness of the data 
     received, and determine if customers are satisfied with 
     intelligence briefings on threat actors impacting their 
     specific industry. The Agreement further directs ODNI, no 
     later than one year after the enactment of this Act, to 
     provide to the congressional intelligence and homeland 
     security committees an unclassified report detailing the 
     results of this survey.
     Department of Homeland Security utilization of National Labs 
         expertise
       The congressional intelligence committees believe that the 
     Department of Energy (DOE) National Labs represent a unique 
     and invaluable resource for the government and the IC in 
     particular.
       Therefore, the Agreement directs, no later than 180 days 
     after the enactment of this Act, DHS I&A, in coordination 
     with DOE Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence (DOE-
     IN), to provide to the congressional intelligence committees 
     a report on the current utilization of Department of Energy 
     (DOE) National Labs expertise by DHS I&A. This report should 
     address opportunities to increase DHS I&A's utilization of 
     cybersecurity expertise of the National Labs as well as the 
     budgetary implications of taking advantage of these potential 
     opportunities.
     Cybersecurity courses for Centers of Academic Excellence
       The congressional intelligence committees are concerned by 
     a recent analysis from a security firm, which determined that 
     not one of the nation's leading undergraduate computer 
     science programs requires students to take a cybersecurity 
     course before graduating. Cybersecurity depends on IC 
     professionals having a strong understanding of the cyber 
     threat and how to mitigate it--which in turn requires a 
     strong academic background. NSA and DHS cosponsor the Centers 
     of Academic Excellence (CAE) in Cyber Defense program, which 
     includes an emphasis on basic cybersecurity. Nevertheless, 
     even some CAE-designated institutions lack cybersecurity 
     course prerequisites in their computer science curricula.
       Therefore, the Agreement directs ODNI, no later than 180 
     days after the enactment of this Act, to submit to the 
     congressional intelligence committees a report on improving 
     cybersecurity training within NIP-funded undergraduate and 
     graduate computer science programs. The report should 
     specifically address:
       (1) The potential advantages and disadvantages of 
     conditioning an institution's receipt of such funds on its 
     computer science program's requiring cybersecurity as a 
     precondition to graduation;
       (2) How Centers of Academic Excellence programs might 
     bolster cybersecurity educational requirements; and
       (3) Recommendations to support the goal of ensuring that 
     federally-funded computer science programs properly equip 
     students to confront future cybersecurity challenges.

 Part III: Section-by-section Analysis and Explanation of Legislative 
                                  Text

       The following is a section-by-section analysis and 
     explanation of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2017.

                    TITLE I--INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

     Section 101. Authorization of appropriations
       Section 101 lists the United States Government departments, 
     agencies, and other elements for which the Act authorizes 
     appropriations for intelligence and intelligence-related 
     activities for Fiscal Year 2017.
     Section 102. Classified Schedule of Authorizations
       Section 102 provides that the details of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated for intelligence and 
     intelligence-related activities and the applicable personnel 
     levels by program for Fiscal Year 2017 are contained in the 
     classified Schedule of Authorizations and that the classified 
     Schedule of Authorizations shall be made available to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives and to the President.
     Section 103. Personnel ceiling adjustments
       Section 103 provides that the DNI may authorize employment 
     of civilian personnel in Fiscal Year 2017 in excess of the 
     number of authorized positions by an amount not exceeding 
     three percent of the total limit applicable to each IC 
     element under Section 102, and ten percent of the number of 
     civilian personnel authorized under such schedule for the 
     purposes of contractor conversions. The DNI may do so only if 
     necessary to the performance of important intelligence 
     functions.
     Section 104. Intelligence Community Management Account
       Section 104 authorizes appropriations for the Intelligence 
     Community Management Account (ICMA) of the DNI and sets the 
     authorized personnel levels for the elements within the ICMA 
     for Fiscal Year 2017.

 TITLE II--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM

     Section 201. Authorization of appropriations
       Section 201 authorizes appropriations in the amount of 
     $514,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2017 for the Central 
     Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Fund.

           TITLE III--GENERAL INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MATTERS

     Section 301. Restriction on conduct of intelligence 
         activities
       Section 301 provides that the authorization of 
     appropriations by the Act shall not be deemed to constitute 
     authority for the conduct of any intelligence activity that 
     is not otherwise authorized by the Constitution or laws of 
     the United States.
     Section 302. Increase in employee compensation and benefits 
         authorized by law
       Section 302 provides that funds authorized to be 
     appropriated by the Act for salary, pay, retirement, and 
     other benefits for federal employees may be increased by such 
     additional or supplemental amounts as may be necessary for 
     increases in compensation or benefits authorized by law.
     Section 303. Support to nonprofit organizations assisting 
         intelligence community employees
       Section 303 permits the DNI to engage in fundraising in an 
     official capacity for the benefit of nonprofit organizations 
     that provide support to surviving family members of a 
     deceased employee of an element of the IC or otherwise 
     provide support for the welfare, education, or recreation of 
     IC employees, former employees, or their family members. 
     Section 303 requires the DNI to issue regulations ensuring 
     that the fundraising authority is exercised consistent with 
     all relevant ethical limitations and principles. Section 303 
     further requires that the DNI and the Director of the CIA 
     notify the congressional intelligence committees within seven 
     days after they engage in such fundraising.
     Section 304. Promotion of science, technology, engineering, 
         and mathematics education in the intelligence community
       Section 304 requires the DNI to submit a five-year 
     investment strategy for outreach and recruiting efforts in 
     the fields of science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics (STEM), to include cybersecurity and computer 
     literacy. Section 304 further requires elements of the IC to 
     submit STEM investment plans supporting this strategy for 
     each of the fiscal years 2018 through 2022, along with the 
     materials justifying the budget request of each element for 
     these STEM recruiting and outreach activities.
     Section 305. Retention of employees of the intelligence 
         community who have science, technology, engineering, or 
         mathematics expertise
       Section 305 authorizes a new payscale to permit salary 
     increases for employees in the IC with STEM backgrounds. 
     Section 305 also requires notifications to individual 
     employees if a position is removed from this new payscale. 
     Section 305 further requires the head of each IC element to 
     submit to the congressional intelligence committees a report 
     on the new rates of pay and number of positions authorized 
     under this payscale.
     Section 306. Management of intelligence community personnel
       Section 306 prohibits the Congress's use of government 
     personnel ceilings in the management of the IC workforce 
     starting in Fiscal Year 2019. Section 306 requires the DNI to 
     provide briefings on the IC's initiative to maintain both 
     employees and contractors within the IC, as well as both a 
     briefing and a report on the methodology, cost analysis tool, 
     and implementation plans. Section 306 further requires the IC 
     IG to provide a written report on the accuracy of IC 
     workforce data. This section will align the IC's management 
     of personnel consistent with the practices of the Department 
     of Defense and other federal agencies.
     Section 307. Modifications to certain requirements for 
         construction of facilities
       Section 307 clarifies that the requirement to notify the 
     congressional intelligence committees of improvement projects 
     with an estimated cost greater than $1,000,000 for facilities 
     used primarily by IC personnel includes repairs and 
     modifications.

[[Page 7479]]


     Section 308. Guidance and reporting requirement regarding 
         interactions between the intelligence community and 
         entertainment industry
       Section 308 requires the DNI to issue public guidance 
     regarding engagements by elements of the Intelligence 
     Community with entertainment industry entities. The guidance 
     will include DNI providing an annual report to the 
     congressional intelligence committees detailing interactions 
     between the IC and the entertainment industry. Section 308 
     also requires the report to include a description of the 
     nature, duration, costs, benefits, and results of each 
     engagement, as well as a determination that each engagement 
     did not result in a disclosure of classified information and 
     whether any information was declassified for the disclosure. 
     Section 308 further requires that before an IC element may 
     engage with the entertainment industry, the head of that 
     element must approve the proposed engagement. Contractual 
     relationships for professional services and technical 
     expertise are exempt from these reporting requirements.
     Section 309. Protections for independent inspectors general 
         of elements of the intelligence community
       Section 309 requires the ODNI to develop and implement a 
     uniform policy for each identified Inspector General (IG) 
     office in the IC to better ensure their independence. The 
     provision specifies elements to be incorporated in such a 
     policy including (a) guidance regarding conflicts of 
     interest, (b) standards to ensure independence, and (c) a 
     waiver provision. Section 309 further prohibits the DNI from 
     requiring an employee of an OIG to rotate to a position in 
     the element for which such office conducts oversight.
     Section 310. Congressional oversight of policy directives and 
         guidance
       Section 310 requires the DNI to submit to the congressional 
     intelligence committees notifications and copies of any 
     classified or unclassified Presidential Policy Directive, 
     Presidential Policy Guidance, or other similar policy 
     document issued by the President which assigns tasks, roles, 
     or responsibilities to the IC, within the specified 
     timeframes. Section 310 further requires the Director to 
     notify the congressional intelligence committees of guidance 
     to implement such policies.
     Section 311. Notification of memoranda of understanding
       Section 311 requires the head of each element of the IC to 
     submit to the congressional intelligence committees copies of 
     each memorandum of understanding or other agreement regarding 
     significant operational activities or policy entered into 
     between or among such element and any other entity or 
     entities of the federal government within specified 
     timeframes.
       Section 311 does not require an IC element to submit to the 
     congressional intelligence committees any memorandum or 
     agreement that is solely administrative in nature, including 
     a memorandum or agreement regarding joint duty or other 
     routine personnel assignments. An IC element also may redact 
     any personally identifiable information from a memorandum or 
     agreement which must be submitted to the intelligence 
     committees.
     Section 312. Technical correction to Executive Schedule
       Section 312 contains a technical correction regarding the 
     annual rate of basic pay for the Director of the National 
     Counter Proliferation Center.
     Section 313. Maximum amount charged for declassification 
         reviews
       Section 313 prohibits the head of an element of the IC from 
     charging reproduction fees for a mandatory declassification 
     review in excess of reproduction fees that the head would 
     charge for a request for information under the Freedom of 
     Information Act (FOIA). It also permits agency heads to waive 
     processing fees for declassification reviews in the same 
     manner as for FOIA.

  TITLE IV--MATTERS RELATING TO ELEMENTS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY

      Subtitle A--Office of the Director of National Intelligence

     Section 401. Designation of the Director of the National 
         Counterintelligence and Security Center
       Section 401 renames the National Counterintelligence 
     Executive as the ``National Counterintelligence and Security 
     Center,'' with conforming amendments.
     Section 402. Analyses and impact statements by Director of 
         National Intelligence regarding proposed investment into 
         the United States
       Section 402 directs the DNI to submit to the congressional 
     intelligence committees, after the completion of a review or 
     an investigation of any proposed investment into the United 
     States, any analytic materials prepared by the DNI. This 
     requirement includes, but is not limited to, national 
     security threat assessments provided to the Committee on 
     Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in connection 
     with national security reviews and investigations conducted 
     by CFIUS pursuant to Section 721(b) of the Defense Production 
     Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. Sec. 4565). This section is not 
     intended to limit the ability of the DNI to transmit 
     supplementary materials to the congressional intelligence 
     committees along with the threat assessments.
       Section 402 also directs the DNI to provide the committees 
     with impact statements when the DNI determines a proposed 
     investment into the United States will have an operational 
     impact on the IC.
     Section 403. Assistance for governmental entities and private 
         entities in recognizing online violent extremist content
       Section 403 requires the DNI to publish on a publicly 
     available Internet website a list of all logos, symbols, 
     insignia, and other markings commonly associated with, or 
     adopted by, State Department-designated foreign terrorist 
     organizations.

                Subtitle B--Central Intelligence Agency

     Section 411. Enhanced death benefits for personnel of the 
         Central Intelligence Agency
       Section 411 authorizes the Director of the CIA to pay death 
     benefits substantially similar to those authorized for 
     members of the Foreign Service, and requires the Director to 
     submit implementing regulations to the congressional 
     intelligence committees.
     Section 412. Pay and retirement authorities of the Inspector 
         General of the Central Intelligence Agency
       Section 412 amends the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 
     1949 to authorize the IG of the CIA to consider certain 
     positions as law enforcement officers for purposes of 
     calculating retirement eligibility and entitlements under 
     chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States Code, if such 
     officer or employee is appointed to a position with 
     responsibility for investigating suspected offenses against 
     the criminal laws of the United States. Section 412 may not 
     be construed to confer on the IG of the CIA, or any other 
     officer or employee of the CIA, any police or law enforcement 
     or internal security functions or authorities.

                       Subtitle C--Other Elements

     Section 421. Enhancing the technical workforce for the 
         Federal Bureau of Investigation
       Section 421 requires the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     (FBI) to produce a comprehensive strategic workforce report 
     to demonstrate progress in expanding initiatives to 
     effectively integrate information technology expertise in the 
     investigative process. Section 421 further requires the 
     report to include: (1) progress on training, recruitment, and 
     retention of cyber-related personnel; (2) an assessment of 
     whether FBI officers with these skill sets are fully 
     integrated in the FBI's workforce; (3) the FBI's 
     collaboration with the private sector on cyber issues; and 
     (4) an assessment of the utility of reinstituting and 
     leveraging the FBI Director's Advisory Board.
     Section 422. Plan on assumption of certain weather missions 
         by the National Reconnaissance Office
       Section 422 requires the Director of the NRO to develop a 
     plan to carry out certain space-based environmental 
     monitoring missions currently performed by the Air Force. It 
     also authorizes certain pre-acquisition activities and 
     directs that an independent cost estimate be submitted to the 
     congressional intelligence and defense committees. The 
     Director of NRO may waive the requirement of Section 422 if 
     the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 
     and Logistics, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
     jointly submit a certification to the congressional 
     intelligence and defense committees.

             TITLE V--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES

     Section 501. Committee to counter active measures by the 
         Russian Federation to exert covert influence over peoples 
         and governments
       Nothing in this section shall authorize the Committee to 
     take action with regard to activities protected by the First 
     Amendment. Section 501 requires the President to establish an 
     interagency committee to counter active measures by the 
     Russian Federation that constitute Russian actions to exert 
     covert influence over peoples and governments.
     Section 502. Limitation on travel of accredited diplomats of 
         the Russian Federation in the United States from their 
         diplomatic post
       Section 502 requires the Secretary of State, in 
     coordination with the Director of the FBI and the DNI, to 
     establish an advance notification regime governing all 
     Russian Federation accredited diplomatic and consular 
     personnel in the United States, as well as to take action to 
     secure compliance and address noncompliance with the 
     notification requirement. Section 502 also requires the 
     Secretary of State, the Director of the FBI, and the DNI to 
     develop written mechanisms to share such travel information 
     and address noncompliance. Section 502 further requires 
     written reporting to the specified committees detailing the 
     number of notifications, and the number of known or suspected 
     violations of such personnel requirements.
     Section 503. Study and report on enhanced intelligence and 
         information sharing with Open Skies Treaty member states
       Section 503 requires the DNI, with support of other federal 
     agencies, to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
     creating an intelligence sharing arrangement and database 
     among parties to the Open Skies Treaty

[[Page 7480]]

     (OST) with higher frequency, quality, and efficiency than 
     that currently provided by the parameters of the OST. Section 
     503 also requires the Director to issue a report that 
     includes an intelligence assessment on Russian Federation 
     warfighting doctrine, the extent to which Russian Federation 
     flights under the Open Skies Treaty contribute to the 
     warfighting doctrine, a counterintelligence analysis as to 
     the Russian Federation's capabilities, and a list of the 
     covered parties that have been updated with this information.

                  TITLE VI--REPORTS AND OTHER MATTERS

     Section 601. Declassification review of information on 
         Guantanamo detainees and mitigation measures taken to 
         monitor the individuals and prevent future attacks
       Section 601 requires the DNI to complete a declassification 
     review of intelligence reports prepared by the National 
     Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) on the past terrorist 
     activities of each Guantanamo detainee, for a detainee's 
     Periodic Review Board (PRB) sessions, transfer, or release 
     from Guantanamo. To the extent a transfer or release preceded 
     the PRB's establishment, or the NCTC's preparation of 
     intelligence reports, Section 601 requires the DNI to conduct 
     a declassification review of intelligence reports containing 
     the same or similar information as the intelligence reports 
     prepared by the NCTC for PRB sessions, transfers, or 
     releases.
       Section 601 further requires the President to make any 
     declassified intelligence reports publicly available, 
     including unclassified summaries of measures being taken by 
     the transferee countries to monitor the individual and 
     prevent future terrorist activities. Section 601 requires the 
     DNI to submit to the congressional intelligence committees a 
     report setting forth the results of the declassification 
     review, including a description of covered reports that were 
     not declassified. Section 601 also sets the schedule for such 
     reviews and further defines past terrorist activities to 
     include terrorist organization affiliations, terrorist 
     training, role in terrorist attacks, responsibility for the 
     death of United States citizens or members of the Armed 
     Forces, any admission thereof, and a description of the 
     intelligence supporting the past terrorist activities, 
     including corroboration, confidence level, and any dissent or 
     reassessment by the IC.
     Section 602. Cyber Center for Education and Innovation Home 
         of the National Cryptologic Museum
       Section 602 amends 10 U.S.C. Sec. 449 to enable the 
     establishment of a Cyber Center for Education and Innovation-
     Home of the National Cryptologic Museum (the ``Center''). 
     Section 602 also establishes in the Treasury a fund for the 
     benefit and operation of the Center.
     Section 603. Report on national security systems
       Section 603 requires the Director of the National Security 
     Agency, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and 
     Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report on national 
     security systems.
     Section 604. Joint facilities certification
       Section 604 requires that before an element of the IC 
     purchases, leases, or constructs a new facility that is 
     20,000 square feet or larger, the head of that element must 
     first certify that all prospective joint facilities have been 
     considered, that it is unable to identify a joint facility 
     that meets its operational requirements, and it must list the 
     reasons for not participating in joint facilities in that 
     instance.
     Section 605. Leadership and management of space activities
       Section 605 requires the DNI, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
     Staff, to issue an update to the strategy for a comprehensive 
     review of the United States national security overhead 
     satellite architecture required in the Intelligence 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. Section 605 requires 
     the DNI, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to 
     submit a plan to functionally integrate the IC's governance, 
     operations, analysis, collection, policy, and acquisition 
     activities related to space and counterspace. The 
     congressional intelligence committees believe the current 
     fragmented arrangement across the IC does not provide 
     sufficient coherence to meet the threat, fosters duplication, 
     hinders integrated congressional oversight, and impedes 
     effective alignment with the Department of Defense space 
     activities. Section 605 also requires the DNI to submit a 
     workforce plan for space and counterspace operations, policy, 
     and acquisition. Section 605 further requires the Director of 
     the NRO and the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command to submit 
     a concept of operations and requirements documents for the 
     Joint Interagency Combined Space Operations Center, and to 
     conduct quarterly update briefings.
     Section 606. Advances in life sciences and biotechnology
       The congressional intelligence committees recognize the 
     rapid advancements in the life sciences and biotechnology and 
     firmly believes that biology in the twenty-first century will 
     transform the world as physics did in the twentieth century. 
     The potential risks associated with these advancements are 
     less clear. The posture of the IC to follow and predict this 
     rapidly changing landscape is a matter of concern recognizing 
     the global diffusion and dual-use nature of life sciences and 
     biotechnology along with the dispersed responsibility of the 
     life sciences related issues across several National 
     Intelligence Officer portfolios.
       Section 606 requires the DNI to brief the congressional 
     intelligence committees and the congressional defense 
     committees on a proposed plan and actions to monitor advances 
     in life sciences and biotechnology to be carried out by the 
     DNI. The Director's plan should include, first, a description 
     of the IC's approach to leverage the organic life science and 
     biotechnology expertise both within and outside the 
     Intelligence Community; second, an assessment of the current 
     life sciences and biotechnology portfolio, the risks of 
     genetic editing technologies, and the implications of these 
     advances on future biodefense requirements; and, third, an 
     analysis of organizational requirements and responsibilities 
     to include potentially creating new positions. Section 606 
     further requires the DNI to submit a written report and 
     provide a briefing to the congressional intelligence 
     committees and the congressional defense committees on the 
     role of the IC in the event of a biological attack, including 
     a technical capabilities assessment to address potential 
     unknown pathogens.
     Section 607. Reports on declassification proposals
       Section 607 requires the DNI to provide the congressional 
     intelligence committees with a report and briefing on the 
     IC's progress in producing four feasibility studies 
     undertaken in the course of the IC's fundamental 
     classification guidance review, as required under Executive 
     Order 13526. Section 607 further requires the Director to 
     provide the congressional intelligence committees with a 
     briefing, interim report, and final report on the final 
     feasibility studies produced by elements of the IC and an 
     implementation plan for each initiative.
     Section 608. Improvement in government classification and 
         declassification
       Section 608 assesses government classification and 
     declassification in a digital era by requiring the DNI to 
     review the system by which the Government classifies and 
     declassifies national security information to improve the 
     protection of such information, enable information sharing 
     with allies and partners, and support appropriate 
     declassification. Section 608 requires the DNI to submit a 
     report with its findings and recommendations to the 
     congressional intelligence committees. Section 608 further 
     requires the DNI to provide an annual written notification to 
     the congressional intelligence committees on the creation, 
     validation, or substantial modification (to include 
     termination) of existing and proposed controlled access 
     programs, and the compartments and subcompartments within 
     each. This certification shall include the rationale for each 
     controlled access program, compartment, or subcompartment and 
     how each controlled access program is being protected.
     Section 609. Report on implementation of research and 
         development recommendations
       Section 609 requires the DNI to conduct and provide to the 
     congressional intelligence committees a current assessment of 
     the IC's implementation of the recommendations issued in 2013 
     by the National Commission for the Review of the Research and 
     Development (R&D) Programs of the IC.
     Section 610. Report on Intelligence Community Research and 
         Development Corps
       Section 610 requires the DNI to develop and brief the 
     congressional intelligence committees on a plan, with 
     milestones and benchmarks, to implement a R&D Reserve Corps, 
     as recommended in 2013 by the bipartisan National Commission 
     for the Review of the R&D Programs of the IC, including any 
     funding and potential changes to existing authorities that 
     may be needed to allow for the Corps' implementation.
     Section 611. Report on information relating to academic 
         programs, scholarships, fellowships, and internships 
         sponsored administered, or used by the intelligence 
         community
       Section 611 requires the DNI to submit to congressional 
     intelligence committees a report on information that the IC 
     collects on certain academic programs, scholarships, and 
     internships sponsored, administered, or used by the IC.
     Section 612. Report on intelligence community employees 
         detailed to National Security Council
       Section 612 requires the DNI to submit to the congressional 
     intelligence committees a classified written report listing, 
     by year, the number of employees of an element of the IC who 
     have been detailed to the National Security Council during 
     each of the previous ten years.
     Section 613. Intelligence community reporting to Congress on 
         foreign fighter flows
       Section 613 directs DNI to submit to the congressional 
     intelligence committees a report on foreign fighter flows to 
     and from terrorist safe havens abroad.
     Section 614. Report on cybersecurity threats to seaports of 
         the United States and maritime shipping
       Section 614 directs the Under Secretary of Homeland 
     Security for Intelligence and

[[Page 7481]]

     Analysis (I&A) to submit to the congressional intelligence 
     committees a report on the cybersecurity threats to seaports 
     of the United States and maritime shipping.
     Section 615. Report on reprisals against contractors of the 
         intelligence community
       Section 615 directs the IC IG to submit to the 
     congressional intelligence committees a report on known or 
     claimed reprisals made against employees of contractors of 
     elements of the IC during the preceding three-year period. 
     Section 615 further requires the report to include an 
     evaluation of the usefulness of establishing a prohibition on 
     reprisals as a means of encouraging IC contractors to make 
     protected disclosures, and any recommendations the IC IG 
     deems appropriate.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I support the Omnibus appropriations 
bill before us today. While this bill is not perfect, it is a strong 
statement of priorities, especially in light of the misguided and 
dangerous cuts that President Trump proposed for fiscal year 2018.
  As a new member of the Appropriations Committee, I thank the chairman 
and vice chairman and their staffs for their thoughtful work on this 
bill and their careful consideration of Senators' requests and 
priorities.
  This bill contains many critical investments for my home State of 
Maryland, including maintenance for the Port of Baltimore, millions for 
the Chesapeake Bay Program and other programs that support Bay clean-
up, a $6 million increase for the Appalachian Regional Commission, $125 
million for the Purple Line, and full funding for the Washington 
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. The bill also contains a critical 
down payment for the consolidation of the FBI headquarters and a 
commitment to full funding in fiscal year 2018. Prince George's County, 
MD, is home to two of the sites in contention to house the headquarters 
and the FBI's nearly 11,000 employees.
  While President Trump as proposed cuts to medical research at the 
National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD, this omnibus bill 
increases funding by $2 billion to find new cures and treatments. The 
bill continues critical NASA missions that are being worked on in 
Maryland, including the PACE Program, earth science, and the James Webb 
Space Telescope, the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. While the 
bill cuts the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, it does 
so less than what the Trump administration has proposed, and it 
continues funding for the Joint Polar Satellite System weather 
satellite program and the Geostationary Operational Environmental 
Satellite Program, which will help improve weather forecasting and warn 
about natural disasters. There is also important funding for oceanic 
and atmospheric research and the Sea Grant program, which has been a 
partner in Chesapeake Bay restoration. The bill slightly increases 
National Science Foundation funding and supports critical energy 
research at the Department of Energy. While funding for the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology received a small cut, the final 
funding level is higher than what the House of Representatives 
initially proposed, and the bill includes support for the National 
Network for Manufacturing Innovation.
  We were also able to preserve funding in this bill that communities 
across Maryland use to support economic development, affordable 
housing, and safety. That includes the Community Development Block 
Grant, TIGER transportation grants, housing vouchers and housing 
capital funds, the HOME Partnership Program, Community Oriented 
Policing grants, and SAFER and FIRE grants for firefighters. I am 
pleased that this bill includes investments to improve relationships 
between communities and police, which will be helpful as Baltimore 
works to implement its consent decree. We also included critical 
funding for afterschool programs and community schools, preserved 
funding for workforce training and Pell grants, and will finally allow 
students to access Pell year-round so that they can finish school more 
quickly.
  As with any compromise, this bill is not perfect. As this is the 
first appropriations bill since the passage of the Every Student 
Succeeds Act, I would have liked it to include greater investments in 
funding for title I, special education, teacher professional 
development, and student support and academic enrichment grants. The 
bill also continues a few riders that interfere in the District of 
Columbia's ability to use its funds as it sees fit.
  Finally, the bill is notable for the things that it does not include. 
Congress has rejected draconian cuts to the Environmental Protection 
Agency and the State Department. There is important funding for border 
security, but not for a wasteful and ineffective border wall. In 
addition, Democrats successfully blocked many poison-pill riders from 
the bill that would have harmed our environment, banned funding for 
Planned Parenthood and other women's health programs, and rolled back 
important consumer protections. With the passage of the omnibus bill, 
we will avoid a dangerous government shutdown. I urge my colleagues to 
support the bill.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous 
consent that the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that if the 
motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
244 is agreed to, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. 
Res. 53, an enrollment correction to H.R. 244, that the resolution be 
agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I have come to the floor this 
afternoon to speak on the Omnibus appropriations bill that is now 
before the Senate. We will have an opportunity to vote on that very 
shortly here.
  I would like to take a few moments to explain why I intend to support 
this legislative measure. I support this bill because I think it is 
good for the country, and I believe it is good for my State of Alaska.
  I think what we have seen through this appropriations process is a 
negotiated bill going back and forth between both sides, between both 
bodies, and it is a bill that funds the Federal Government through the 
end of this fiscal year. It is far from perfect. I think we recognize 
that, but it is tough to find legislation anyplace where we are all 
going to be in agreement that it has everything each of us wants. I do 
believe it is a solid bill. It is a solid, bipartisan effort, and I 
would urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  The first thing it does is it prevents the government from shutting 
down. Simply put, there are very few things in my mind that would 
warrant a government shutdown. The people of this country expect us to 
govern. They don't expect us to come to work and say we are going to 
shut it down. They expect us to figure out how we are going to fund it, 
to keep it open, and to do so in a responsible way that allows for the 
priorities to be reflected. I think we have done that.
  I feel very strongly that those who would suggest that the way to 
deal with things is to shut it down is not the proper approach. That is 
why I have supported Senator Portman's legislation to put an end to 
government shutdowns. We just don't need disruptions that ultimately 
hurt our economy and hurt our families.
  I certainly would have preferred a process that would allow for 
funding the government by passing appropriations measures on an 
individual basis, one by one. My colleague from Vermont, who is on the 
floor, has been around for a few Congresses, and he knows that used to 
be the way we handled appropriations. We had an approps bill come to 
the floor. We debated it. We amended it. We moved it through. We worked 
through that process. It was somewhat tediously slow at times, but it 
was a very open and collaborative

[[Page 7482]]

process that I think reflected, again, the priorities around the 
country.
  What we have in front of us is a measure that did in fact go through 
the full appropriations process, all 12 appropriations bills. It made 
it through the committee. Sometimes not all of them do, but for fiscal 
year 2017, these appropriations bills did.
  As we saw at the end of last year, there was an agreement that we 
would not move forward with the appropriations bills at that time--
actually, it was probably less than an agreement, but a decision was 
made--and we are here, as of May 4, still working on fiscal year 17.
  This is clearly not the best option, in my view, in terms of how we 
handle our appropriations bills, but it is where we are right now, and 
the option we have in front of us, in my view, is clearly the best 
option.
  Continuing resolutions are just not a way to operate. I think they 
are poor policy. Keeping funding at previous levels doesn't allow for 
Congress to have any input on any new priorities. In some cases, 
programs receive more money than they may actually need at that time; 
thus, you have a situation where you are ending up wasting dollars, 
rather than being good and efficient stewards of the taxpayer dollars.
  I think we saw that with this omnibus bill we have in front of us 
now, it gave our new President the opportunity to weigh in. Clearly, we 
heard President Trump's priorities expressed not only throughout the 
campaign but early in his new administration, his priorities on 
national security, making sure that from a defense perspective and 
border security, these issues were addressed. I think we have done so 
in a responsible way on the defense spending side but also with a 
comprehensive approach to border security and utilizing new 
surveillance and new technologies.
  This bill consolidates or terminates dozens of existing programs and 
rejects unnecessary spending tax dollars. It reduces spending and 
wasteful programs, eliminates unnecessary, ineffective, and duplicative 
programs.
  Again, I think what we have put together within this appropriations 
omnibus is a spending proposal that does apply the taxpayer dollars 
responsibly. Overall, the bill puts real dollars behind our Nation's 
priorities by enhancing our national security, investing in education 
infrastructure and innovation, as well as improving the health and 
well-being of all Americans.
  I would like to take just a few moments to speak specifically to some 
of the provisions that will be helpful in my State of Alaska. The 
omnibus bill sustains Alaska's contributions to our national defense, 
helps to protect our fisheries, address high energy costs, helps our 
very struggling timber industry in Southeastern Alaska, and helps keep 
the Federal Government's commitment to Alaska Natives.
  There are some programs that would appear to be pretty small, but in 
terms of consequence and impact on Alaska, they are quite significant.
  Essential Air Service, we provide funding in this measure that helps 
maintain commercial air service to as many as 60 small communities in 
the State. The reason it is called Essential Air Service is because in 
most of these communities, there is no other way to get to these 
smaller communities. There is no road access. There is no other way. 
You might be able to run a riverboat out, but in terms of ability to 
access, this Essential Air Service is exactly that.
  The bill provides for new investments in the Coast Guard that will 
help increase safety in Alaska's waters. There are infrastructure 
improvements in Kodiak to support homeporting Offshore Patrol Cutters 
in the Arctic region and funding for new cutters that we will see 
stationed throughout Alaska.
  There is a lot going on in the news right now with regard to Russia 
and North Korea, and it certainly is front and foremost for Alaskans. 
We have our neighbors to the west of us there, in Russia, and of course 
we are within range of anything North Korea might consider. So there is 
a very keen interest and a desire to ensure that our Nation is 
investing in our Pacific and our Arctic defense.
  This bill recognizes the issue, and it recognizes the strategic value 
that Alaska has. It provides $4.3 billion for the procurement of F-35s, 
including some of those that will be based in the interior part of the 
State. We saw the need for the next generation of fighter jets in 
Alaska when, just a few weeks ago, Russian planes were buzzing the 
coast for 4 days straight. Well, today's news reups that. F-22s 
intercepted two Russian Bear bombers 50 miles southwest of Alaska, 
according to the news this morning.
  Again, when you are thinking about the investments we make to provide 
for our Nation's security, Alaska sits at the center up there in terms 
of strategic location.
  There is also money for developing the long-range discrimination 
radar at Clear and funds for the ground-based missile defense at Fort 
Greely. Again, this is very significant at this time, given the 
geopolitics not too far from our State.
  Another key part of our Arctic defense strategy is finally being 
realized, after years of me kind of pounding on this drum--funding for 
icebreakers. As of right now, we are woefully behind when it comes to 
our ability to maneuver in the Arctic regions in our waters. So there 
is $150 million in advance procurement funding for an icebreaker that 
is in the DOD budget and an additional $55 million in the Coast Guard 
budget. It is imperative that we move to fund a new icebreaker now.
  We also recognize the role the Coast Guard plays in terms of national 
defense across the country, particularly in the Arctic. So the bill 
provides $1.3 billion in acquisition construction and improvement 
money. The Coast Guard needs to recapitalize its aging fleet, and we 
see this no more apparent than in Alaska. A ship that was built back in 
1971 is still being used to patrol areas that are perhaps some of the 
roughest seas in the world. This is not smooth water sailing. Congress 
needs to recognize the role played by the Coast Guard, not only in 
national defense but in drug interdiction, fisheries patrol, and safety 
encroachment, and we must give it the assets it needs to do its job 
well.
  On the education front, this bill provides funds for our public 
schools, including money for programs that were authorized in ESSA. It 
funds IDEA, Carl Perkins, impact aid, and 21st Century Community 
Learning Centers. Especially important for us in Alaska are the 
programs like ANEEP, Alaska Native Education Equity Program, 
strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions, 
tribally controlled colleges and universities, and Indian education 
national activities.
  We have all come to the floor over the course of these past few 
months this Congress to talk about the impact on our communities of the 
opioid epidemic in this country. This bill helps to get money where it 
is needed to help fight this epidemic.
  Over $1 billion is provided to various programs and agencies to 
specifically address this problem. Over $600 million of that will go to 
SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 
including $500 million for a new program that was created by the 21st 
Century Cures Act that we passed earlier last year. The CDC, the 
Department of Justice, and the VA will see increased funding to help 
deal with this scourge of addiction.
  As chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
Approps Subcommittee, the division G of the omnibus is of particular 
significance to me. The Interior appropriations section probably has 
more impact on the State of Alaska than most would realize. It controls 
funding levels for the Federal agencies and Departments that have a 
huge presence in my State: BLM, Forest Service, EPA, Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Indian Health Service, BIA, and National Park Service. These 
are all within the auspices of Interior.
  I will give you some of the highlights within the Interior bill. This 
is the centennial year of the National Park Service so we were able to 
do more to help address the maintenance backlog within our park system.

[[Page 7483]]

  The two agencies that deliver services for Indian communities, BIA 
and Indian Health Service, we did our best to support those programs 
which are critical to the Indian community. For those agencies, we have 
provided full contract support costs. We continue Tribal court funding 
for those Public Law 280 States. We have really worked to do what we 
can within IHS to address the issues of suicide, domestic violence, 
alcohol, and substance abuse programs. Making sure we are doing right 
by providing the support for our healthcare facilities is critically 
important.
  We also have oversight of the EPA within our jurisdiction. I have 
heard some criticism from some that we didn't do enough to reduce EPA 
spending and then others are saying we took too much from the EPA, but 
what we really looked to try to do was to take a commonsense approach, 
focus resources on the programs that do the concrete things to improve 
the quality of the environment for the public when it comes to clean 
air and clean water. We need to effectively make sure that whether it 
is the WIFIA program, the State revolving funds for our water and our 
waste water programs, making sure we have the resources to do right by 
our communities, and making sure there is clean air and clean water, 
whether it is the Targeted Air Shed Grant Program, which helps 
communities deal with pollution issues and air issues--I think we did a 
fair job with the EPA budget.
  Again, we have worked to reduce in areas where we are just staffing 
up for initiatives that quite honestly have been questioned and 
challenged, making sure we are focusing on the priorities that deliver 
on EPA's mission, which is clean air and clean water.
  Madam President, the last thing I would like to add is what we were 
able to do with regard to wildfires because this is an issue for so 
many of us in the West. We were able to include funding for wildland 
fire management programs to fully fund the 10-year average of 
suppression costs, as well as to allow for emergency funding in the 
event that we have a catastrophic wildfire season. I think we all 
understand the challenges our agencies face when we have fire borrowing 
going back and forth. So this is an effort we have long sought to 
address, and we will continue to work on that.
  It has been interesting to watch and to read the news about this 
omnibus. You have the President who said: This is good. This is what 
winning looks like. You have Democrats who have said: We won.
  It is not about a win for the D's or a win for the R's; it is about 
making sure this is right for the country. I would suggest that if both 
sides are taking credit, we must have hit the sweet spot somewhere in 
the middle.
  I think at this place where we are right now, with over 7 months into 
this fiscal year, it is well past time that Congress pass a bill that 
funds the government for the balance of this fiscal year. These are 
uncertain times for the country--uncertain times certainly in my 
State--and I think it deserves some certainty from us. It is a good 
bill, and I think we owe it to the American people not to create 
unnecessary and unwanted drama about whether the Federal Government 
remains open for business.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor once again to discuss 
the threats facing our country, the challenges confronting the brave 
men and women of our Armed Forces. I feel compelled to remind my 
colleagues about what is at stake because of our failure right here to 
provide them the resources and equipment they need and deserve, placing 
their lives at greater risk. That is not my opinion; it is the opinion 
of the uniformed leaders of our country who have stated time after time 
that because of our sequestration and our mindless meat ax, we are 
putting the lives of the men and women who are serving our Nation in 
uniform at greater risk.
  Don't we have an obligation to try to stop that? Obviously, there is 
not a majority here in the Senate who believes we should, to our 
everlasting shame. Unless we change course, we will only continue that 
failure.
  We are about to vote on yet another Omnibus appropriations bill. It 
is well over 1,000 pages. Look here; this is what we are about to vote 
on without a single amendment--without a single amendment. Is there any 
Member of the U.S. Senate who has read this? Is there any Member who 
has read this bill of over $1 trillion that we are about to vote on? 
Many of us are going to be compelled to vote for it because we don't 
want to shut down the government again. The American people don't want 
the government to shut down, no matter what some colleagues of mine 
say. But here it is.
  I challenge any of my colleagues to come to the floor and tell me 
they have read this bill.
  Is it any wonder that the American people are fed up with this way of 
doing business? There are 1,000 pages--1,000 pages. That is what we are 
going to vote on in a relatively short period of time--haven't read 
it--no amendments.
  I am sure there may be some provisions in this 1,000-page document 
that Members would like to modify, like to add to. But what business 
are we doing? What is the world's greatest deliberative body doing here 
in a couple hours? We are going to vote yes or no on a 1,000-page 
document. Shame on us. Shame on us.
  Not a single appropriations bill--we have an Appropriations 
Committee. They have their subcommittees. My friend and colleague from 
Vermont is here and wants to talk about it. They churn out individual 
bills. I believe there are 13 of them, one of them being Defense, by 
the way. But all of that is without amendment, without debate on the 
floor of the world's greatest deliberative body. Yet we are going to go 
ahead and vote yes or no.
  Many of us are going to vote yes because we don't want to shut down 
the U.S. Government. We don't want to deprive our citizens of the 
goods, services, and provisions that a government is supposed to 
provide people. I don't want to shut down the Grand Canyon again, my 
friends. I don't want to deprive people from all over the world the 
ability to see the Grand Canyon. So what do we do? CRAs.
  I am all in favor of repealing regulations that are onerous and bad 
for America and small businesses and large. Is that a rationale for 
what we are about to do?
  I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: You blocked many 
of these bills that we wanted to bring to the floor. You blocked them. 
Why? For what purpose? Of course, on this side of the aisle, we have 
agreed to do something like that.
  So I just say to my colleagues: You should not be curious when you 
see the approval ratings of the Congress of the United States in the 
teens.
  Again, as I said, we will be blamed for putting our men and women in 
uniform at greater risk. That is not John McCain's view; that happens 
to be the opinion of our uniformed service Chiefs who are telling us 
that when we are not funding the military, we are putting the lives of 
the men and women serving at risk.
  We passed the Budget Control Act 6 years ago as an attempt to address 
our spending problem. This legislation led to a $443 billion cut to 
defense. What has also happened? Deficits came down for a while, and we 
are on track to return to $1 trillion deficits again in a matter of 
years. The national debt is set at $20 trillion and has grown and will 
continue to grow.
  We slashed our military, friends. We slashed it. Yeah, great job, we 
slashed the spending on the military. In fact, if you look, you will 
see the only portion where there has been a reduction in spending is 
where? Defense.
  When you look at the past several years since sequestration, do you 
think the world has gotten safer? Do you think the men and women who 
are serving are better protected, better equipped?
  We have 60 percent of our F-18s not flying. Why? No parts. We have 
two

[[Page 7484]]

submarines tied up at the pier for a year because they cannot leave the 
pier. The Air Force is 1,000 pilots short.
  What have we done? We have cut defense spending by 4 percent. 
Meanwhile, the interest on the debt has increased by 7 percent; 
nondefense, 19 percent; and the elephant in the room, the third rail 
that none of us want to touch is mandatory spending; that is Social 
Security and Medicare, primarily.
  What have we done? We have shortchanged the men and women who are 
serving in the military, trying to defend this Nation while nondefense 
spending has gone up by 19 percent.
  So the next time I hear one of my colleagues say: Well, we should 
continue to cut defense spending because of the debt, we have already 
done that. We have already shortchanged the men and women who are 
defending this Nation.
  Over the past 10 years, as I mentioned, mandatory spending has grown 
by 56 percent, and defense has been cut by 4 percent.
  The death spiral is occurring. We are in budget cuts with a high 
operational tempo, and the military is now in a vicious cycle. The 
death spiral works like this. This is the death spiral, OK? Constant 
and frequent deployments increase costs. To send our men and women 
overseas into harm's way increases costs. The more you fly the plane, 
the more it costs to maintain the plane. The more you deploy a soldier, 
the more you have to pay him or her to stay in the military.
  When budget top lines are determined by politics and not 
requirements, the Department of Defense has to make tradeoffs. For 
example, the military may forgo buying military equipment to keep up 
with wartime costs, but this exacerbates the problem. Our equipment 
gets older as it is used more and the cost of maintaining aging 
equipment skyrockets. Here is the death spiral, why the state of our 
military is what it is today.
  Three--count them--three of our Army brigades are at the highest 
level of readiness. Four of 64 Air Force squadrons are ready to fight 
tonight; that is four out of 64. Less than half of the Marine and Navy 
planes are ready for combat. The Air Force has a pilot shortfall of 
1,500--1,000 of which are fighter pilots. The Navy has a maintenance 
backlog of 5.3 million days. The ship maintenance backlogs are so bad 
that some ships are like the submarine USS Boise, which is tied up in 
port and isn't qualified to dive and recently missed a deployment.
  Look at this graphic. These are the aircraft--all of them that are 
fully mission capable. These are the Army units that are ready to fight 
tonight. This is the U.S. Air Force, and these depict the airplanes 
ready to fight; Marine Corps aircraft, the same way.
  So here we are with this situation, and what are we doing? We aren't 
really addressing the issue because we are going to be faced in the 
next year or so with the same budget problem of sequestration.
  While this is happening, our enemies aren't sitting still. Our 
adversaries are not waiting for this body to wake up to do its job and 
act. While we have forced our military to make tradeoffs between 
supporting immediate operational requirements and future modernization, 
China, Russia, and other adversaries have been singularly focused on 
developing military capabilities to target U.S. forces and take away 
our unique military advantages.
  Our military has multiple missions. Our adversaries have one mission, 
and that is to undermine U.S. military superiority. I regret to inform 
my colleagues that they are succeeding much more than we anticipated.
  The fact is, the U.S. military advantage is eroding. National 
Security Adviser GEN H.R. McMaster summed it up best when he testified 
that the U.S. Army is outgunned and outranged. The reality is not much 
different across the military services.
  The President understands it. Rebuilding the military has been a 
major priority for this administration, but we have to face the simple 
fact that the military buildup proposed by this President is illegal 
because the Budget Control Act forbids it. Over the next 4 years, the 
Budget Control Act's caps on defense spending would leave President 
Trump $216 billion short. Even President Obama's budget was $113 
billion above the BCA caps, and that budget barely slowed the 
deterioration of military readiness and capabilities.
  I regret to say, Chairman Thornberry, the distinguished chairman of 
the House Armed Services Committee, and I fare even worse against the 
BCA. We believe that rebuilding our military will require a defense 
budget of $640 billion in fiscal year 2018. Sustaining that level of 
funding over the remaining years with the Budget Control Act would 
require an additional $433 billion.
  Give our men and women in uniform a budget that will allow them to 
rise to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Congress must change 
the Budget Control Act, and the only way to do that is with a 
bipartisan budget agreement. As we stand here, there is no serious 
conversation that I am aware of in this body or anywhere else in 
Washington about what the agreement would look like or what it would 
achieve.
  The next 4 years can't be like the last 4 years. We must find a way 
to provide the military with the resources they need and deserve to 
perform the missions we assign them. We must provide them with the 
timely authorization of appropriations bills. We must provide them with 
something they have not had for years--certainty--so they can properly 
plan and efficiently use taxpayers' dollars to defend the Nation.
  What are we looking at right now?
  We are going to pass this thing. It will pass. Then, in September--
how many months is that now? It is about 5 months from now--we are 
going to be bumping up against the same ceiling and the threat of 
shutting down the government. Are we going to wait until the beginning 
of September before we start to address this or not? Is that the kind 
of fiscal cowardice we are going to perform? We are going to see this 
movie again and again and again and again unless we repeal the Budget 
Control Act and start providing for the men and women who are serving 
this Nation and the challenges we are facing, which any military expert 
will tell you are the greatest they have been in 70 years. We have to 
stop this.
  We will paper over our failures with continuing resolutions. We will 
cut piecemeal deals in the midnight hour that fail to fix the serious 
challenges this country faces. We will accept these outcomes because 
they are better than yearlong continuing resolutions or shutdowns. We 
will clear the pitifully low bar of success we have set for ourselves, 
and all the while, challenges we will have been charged to address will 
only get worse. We have to break this cycle.
  After several years of political gridlock, we know a bipartisan 
budget deal will be necessary to pass appropriations bills. Let's try a 
novel idea. Why don't we work on the deal now? Why don't we sit down 
together, with all of us recognizing the challenges to our national 
security, and fix this problem instead of kicking the can down the 
road? My friends, if we do not, I guarantee you we will be doing this 
same thing again in September. What is that? We will be looking at 
another 1,000-page bill--1,000 pages that none of us has read. Oh, I 
take it back. There may be four or five Senators who know what is in 
it. Maybe 4, maybe 5, maybe as many as 8 out of 100 will know about it. 
If we do not stop this, this is exactly the movie we are going to see 
come September--not acceptable.
  Don't we owe the men and women who are serving in uniform in harm's 
way today--several of whom have just been killed in the last few days--
more than what we are giving them? Don't we owe them the best equipment 
and the best training we can possibly provide them with rather than 
their being dictated to by a meat-ax called sequestration? Don't we?
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as one of the Senators who has read this 
bill, I would note that most of this bill has

[[Page 7485]]

been here since November. We were prepared to go in November and vote 
on each part of it separately.
  I would advise the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona, who is 
a friend of mine, that his party did not want to go forward in 
November. They were asked by the then-President-elect not to go forward 
with it, and his party said it would not go forward with it. We could 
have passed all of the bills separately in November.
  I would also note, as the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska 
said on the floor a few minutes ago, that Republicans and Democrats 
have been working very closely on this appropriations bill. She 
expressed--and I absolutely join her in this--that we go back to the 
way it always has been. My party is not in control of the schedule in 
the Senate, but I would ask that all of us in both parties work 
together and start doing the appropriations bills one by one, as we 
always have. In fact, this bill is the product of many long weeks and 
days and nights and weekends. I know. A lot of times, I went to bed at 
midnight, and my staff kept on working.
  I thank Republican Chairman Thad Cochran, of Mississippi, for his 
leadership in reaching this agreement of keeping the government open 
for business. It is how Congress can and should work.
  Forget the rhetoric. Forget political brinkmanship. This agreement 
shows something we have worked on and that when we come together and 
work through our differences--both parties here and both parties in the 
other body--that we can do the work of the American people.
  I think the package before us is a good deal for the American people, 
and I will vote for it, but we should not be celebrating this fact. On 
this, I agree with the distinguished Senator from Arizona in that we 
should not be finishing our work 7 months into the fiscal year. I wish 
his party had allowed us to do it last November. These bills could have 
been and should have been finished then. In fact, we were 98 percent 
done with our negotiations, both Republicans and Democrats, when then-
President-elect Trump said: Pencils down, and put everything on hold. 
The Senator from Arizona and his party have been operating on a 
continuing resolution ever since. I am glad to hear him say this is not 
the way he wants to do it.
  I, certainly, agree with the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska 
when she says this is not the way to do it. Those of us who have been 
here for a while know that does not work and it is no way to govern.
  It is my goal--and I believe Chairman Cochran shares this goal--to 
return to regular order, which is when we consider each appropriations 
bill in committee, debate each one publicly on the floor, and then vote 
it up or down. That is the way we should operate. That is what the 
American people deserve. I look forward to working with Chairman 
Cochran to make this a reality when we return, in very short order, to 
the fiscal year 2018 bills.
  I have been on the Appropriations Committee for decades, and I have 
served as either chairman or ranking member of different subcommittees 
there, just as I have served as chairman or ranking member on 
Agriculture and the Judiciary. Yet I decided this year to take on the 
vice chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee because I believe in 
the power of the purse, in the ability of this committee to make a real 
difference in people's lives, and because of the respect I have for 
Chairman Cochran.
  Our national budget is a reflection of our Nation's priorities, and 
the appropriations bills are where our priorities become realities. I 
am pleased to report we have worked hard to reflect Americans' values 
in the fiscal year 2017 consolidated appropriations bill before us. I 
think we have reached a good deal.
  I am pleased that on a bipartisan basis we have rejected President 
Trump's ill-considered proposal to slash domestic programs by $15 
billion, including deep cuts in the NIH and low-income energy 
assistance. I am glad to see a $2 billion increase for the National 
Institutes of Health. I was proud to have brought then-Vice President 
Biden to the University of Vermont last October to discuss his Cancer 
Moonshot Initiative and to see and hear how Vermonters are contributing 
to research to better treat--and hopefully cure--cancer. NIH funding is 
central to this effort.
  Last year, the NIH accounted for nearly $40 million in research 
funding for the University of Vermont. Everybody--Republicans and 
Democrats--agree they have spent it well. This research is leading to 
advancements in lung disease treatments, cancers, and to more 
effectively using genome testing to advance the emerging and promising 
field of precision medicine.
  In this bill, we were able to protect funding for LIHEAP. As the 
distinguished Presiding Officer and I know, we are in States in which 
the temperatures can often plunge way below zero. LIHEAP is a vital 
lifeline--certainly in the State of Vermont--to prevent people from 
being forced to make the wrenching choice of putting food on their 
tables for their families or keeping them warm.
  We have also put in $512 million--nearly double the resources 
available last year--to combat the opioid epidemic. This is a plague 
that grips every community in the country. It does not make any 
difference whether one is a Republican or a Democrat. It is hitting all 
of us. It is a problem that does not know the difference between rich 
or poor, urban or rural, Republican or Democrat. I think every Senator 
probably knows someone or a family with someone who has been in the 
grips of opioid addiction. My wife and I have sat down at kitchen 
tables with grieving parents who have lost their children. We have 
spoken to first responders who have seen so many people die. We have to 
confront this problem head-on in this country.
  We are doing a number of other things. We are protecting funds for 
the EPA at the critical moment of confronting climate change. In that 
regard, I was pleased that Marcelle and I were able to host hundreds of 
Vermonters who had driven all night long in order to join the hundreds 
of thousands of people in the Nation's Capital for the Climate March.
  I see that the distinguished chairman has come on the floor. I ask 
unanimous consent that I be able to yield to him, without losing my 
right to the floor, so I may finish my speech when he is finished.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this afternoon, the Senate will consider 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017. The bill will fund the 
Federal Government for the remainder of this fiscal year. I urge the 
Senate to approve the bill.
  It provides our Armed Forces with the money they need to safeguard 
our homeland and protect our interests around the world. The funding 
levels are within the limits of the Budget Control Act. In total, the 
bill will increase Department of Defense spending by $23.6 billion over 
President Obama's fiscal year 2017 request. These funds are badly 
needed to improve the readiness of our Armed Forces and to continue our 
campaign to defeat ISIL.
  This bill includes the largest investment in border security in 
nearly a decade. Additional funding is provided for fencing and other 
physical infrastructure, communications and surveillance technology, 
the hiring of additional agents, and additional detention beds to help 
stop the practice of catch and release. These funds will help reduce 
human trafficking and the flow of illegal drugs into our country.
  While the additional funds for defense and border security have 
received much of the attention, there are many other important programs 
that are funded within the bill.
  For the second year in a row, providing funding for research at the 
National Institutes of Health is increased by $2 billion. New funding 
is included to combat the opioid epidemic that has plagued communities 
across the country. The FBI receives additional funding to protect 
against terrorist threats and combat illegal cyber activity.

[[Page 7486]]

  Throughout the bill, spending controls are placed on Federal 
agencies. There are more than 150 rescissions, consolidations, or 
program terminations within the bill. These savings have been 
reallocated to higher priorities.
  The basis of this legislation is with regard to the 12 appropriations 
bills that were reported from the Appropriations Committee. This is the 
second year in a row that the committee has reported all 12 bills. This 
bill reflects a year's worth of concerted effort by the chairmen and 
ranking members of our 12 subcommittees. It also reflects a great deal 
of hard work by the committees' staffs, for which I am deeply grateful.
  I urge Senators to support the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I note that the chairman and I are well 
aware of how well things go when we take each one of these bills. He 
certainly has led that effort, and that is the way we should do it.
  I mentioned this when the Vermonters were here last weekend. Marcelle 
and I hosted them, so many of whom had driven through the night to join 
the hundreds of thousands of people in the Nation's Capital for the 
Climate March. Many of them asked: Why can't we do it the way we used 
to? I told them we were ready to go to all of the bills in November, 
and I am sorry that leadership said no.
  There are things on which we have done a lot in this bill. Those of 
us on the Appropriations Committee have read this bill, and we have 
read most of it since last November.
  The EPA provides funding to improve the environmental quality and 
ecological vibrancy of our small State's great Lake Champlain, the 
jewel of New England, as well as crucial funding for similar 
partnerships all over the country.
  I am also pleased to report what is not in this bill. In a bipartisan 
way, we get rid of more than 160 poison pill riders--riders that would 
have undermined the health insurance of millions of Americans by 
attacking the protections they have under the Affordable Care Act and 
riders that would have slapped restrictions on women's access to 
healthcare, especially in rural areas, and riders that would have 
rolled back consumer financial protections of Dodd-Frank regulations 
and weaken environmental protections. Let's have votes up or down on 
those issues, anytime you want, but not in a must-pass spending bill.
  I also particularly welcome the fact that not a single cent in the 
bill will go toward building President Trump's misguided wall on the 
southern border. When that issue came up in our debate, I said: Well 
let's have a vote, up or down, in the House and in the Senate, on the 
wall, where all Republicans and all Democrats vote. If it passes, then 
I will stop my objection. Nobody wants such a vote because not enough 
people support it. The American people should not, and they will not, 
be forced to pay tens of billions of dollars for a bumper-sticker 
solution to an incredibly complex problem--a wall that the President 
promised that Mexico, not American taxpayers, would pay for, even 
though all American taxpayers know that Americans, not Mexicans, would 
pay for it. His own department estimates that it would cost U.S. 
taxpayers $22 billion. Some said during the debate: Show me a 30-foot 
wall, and I will show you a 31-foot ladder. I can also show you 
pictures of small prop planes and boats and tunnels. A wall is nothing 
more than an illusion. It is a false promise of security. Instead of 
debating this boondoggle, which Democrats as well as Republicans and 
Independents oppose, let's consider real solutions with comprehensive 
immigration reform.
  In 2013, the Senate passed the large effort of Republicans and 
Democrats working together on comprehensive immigration reforms. Let's 
resume that debate and not throw money at this expensive illusion, 
where we are cutting vital medical research at the National Institutes 
of Health and others to pay for it.
  There are a lot of anti-science proposals and impulses in the 
proposals that came from the administration, and I am proud that both 
Republicans and Democrats rejected them.
  So I support the bill before us. I am proud to join with Chairman 
Cochran. It is not a perfect bill, but no products we all come together 
on are perfect. But on balance, it is a good deal for the American 
people. It reflects values of both Republicans and Democrats. The 
bipartisan work that brought us to this point shows what is possible 
and it lays the groundwork for our negotiations on the fiscal year 2018 
appropriations bills.
  So I want to extend again my thanks to Chairman Cochran and to the 
subcommittee chairmen and ranking members. It takes a tremendous amount 
of work to draft each of the underlying bills contained in this 
consolidated appropriations bill. While we were negotiating, I remember 
being on the phone at 10, 11 o'clock at night, night after night, but I 
went to bed, and the staff would keep on working until 2 or 3 in the 
morning.
  So I thank the staff of the Appropriations Committee and subcommittee 
clerks on both sides of the aisle, who have been here day in and day 
out for many weeks. I certainly thank my staff director, Charles 
``Chuck'' Kieffer, deputy staff director Chanda Betourney, and Jessica 
Berry, Jay Tilton, JP Dowd, and Jean Kwon, as well as Senator Schumer 
and his staff, including Gerry Petrella, Meghan Taira, Mike Lynch, and 
Mike Kuiken for the assistance they provided. I want to recognize and 
thank Bruce Evans and Fitz Elder from Chairman Cochran's staff, the 
majority staff director, and deputy staff director. They worked very, 
very hard and in their usual professional and courteous manner. I want 
to thank Bob Putnam, Hong Nguyen, and George Castro for the support 
they provide to the committee every day. And finally, I want to thank 
the editorial and printing staff, without whom we could never have 
produced this bill. Valerie Hutton, Penny Myles, Elmer Barnes and 
Karinthia Thames were here day and night, week after week, editing the 
dozens of drafts that ultimately became this consolidated bill. They 
work in relatively obscurity, but their expertise and dedication is not 
lost on us. We depend on them and we greatly appreciate what they do.
  Lastly, on a personal matter, I wish to take a moment for special 
recognition of Charles Kieffer. Chuck is well known to the Senate. He 
is a familiar figure here in this Chamber. He has served on the 
Appropriations Committee for many years, under numerous chairmen and 
vice chairmen. I was grateful that he was willing to take on and 
continue there when I took over as vice chairman.
  What a lot of people don't know is that he has been working around 
the clock on this, and in March he lost his father Jerry. Just a few 
weeks ago, he lost his mother Fran.
  If you know even a little bit about his parents, there is no doubt 
where Chuck gets his dedication to public service. His father Jerry 
served as the executive director of the National Cultural Center at the 
Kennedy Center. He held positions in the Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, 
Ford, and Carter administrations.
  Chuck's mother Fran was a longtime member of the League of Women 
Voters. She dedicated time to numerous civic institutions throughout 
her lifetime. At 93 and 89, respectively, Jerry and Fran lived a long 
and full life, including a marriage of 68 years.
  Their loss will be profoundly felt by their family and friends. My 
and Marcelle's thoughts are with Chuck, his wife Meg, and their family. 
I thank him for his tireless dedication to this institution, even 
during a time of great personal sorrow. I would like to think that his 
parents are looking down from their place of eternal reward with a 
great deal of pride in their son.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I am going to be voting no on this 1,700-
page bill.
  I am not blind to some of the good parts of the bill. It includes 
last year's Intelligence Authorization Act, and it includes some parts 
of the bill that I

[[Page 7487]]

worked on that would counteract Russian activities in the United States 
and Europe--provisions that were blocked by the Obama administration 
since they refused to ever get tough on Russia.
  It increases defense spending, although not to an adequate degree in 
relation to the threats we face.
  For the first time in years, it recognizes that every dollar we spend 
on defense doesn't have to be matched by another dollar elsewhere in 
our budget.
  Now, there are parts of this bill that got dropped that I would like 
to have seen, for instance, blocking Federal funding for sanctuary 
cities. We might as well call them ``outlaw cities'' because they 
refuse to comply with Federal immigration law and turn over illegal 
immigrants facing deportation to Federal authorities.
  But I want to hone in on one particular provision that shows just how 
bad this process is. In a 1,700-page bill, they don't hide the good 
things in the bill. They only hide the bad things. So look to page 735, 
section 543, where you will find an increase in H-2B visas of almost 
79,000--a 120-percent increase over the normal annual cap of a so-
called seasonal visa program for temporary workers that can take up to 
9 or 10 months.
  It is not necessary. It has nothing to do with funding the 
government--nothing. It hasn't been vetted. It hasn't gone through the 
normal legislative process, which would be the Judiciary Committee, 
where the chairman and the senior Democrat both have written that they 
oppose this measure. I don't even know how it got in there. I don't 
know if it was the chairman or the ranking member. They may not know. 
It is 1,700 pages, after all. It takes hours to even figure out what it 
means because it is so complicated in language.
  But this is what it does: It takes jobs away from American workers 
and abuses the immigrants that come into this country.
  In the past 10 years, the Department of Labor has found 800 
employers--800--that have abused 23,000 guest workers--everything from 
stealing their wages, demanding bribes for their visas, and even sexual 
abuse--and those are only the ones that have been caught. That is 
because unlike American workers, these immigrant workers cannot leave 
their job. If they are fired, they go back to their home country, where 
they often have huge families who are depending on them for their 
remittances. Their employers know that, and they take advantage of 
them. It is a newfangled form of indentured servitude.
  Some people in this institution complain about the way Arab countries 
treat guest workers from South Asia and Southeast Asia. The conditions 
under which some of these H-2B workers operate are hardly much better. 
They live in filth and squalor. They are charged exorbitant fees for 
their housing and for their food. The employers largely get away with 
it because they know that these immigrant workers will not complain. 
They will not go to the authorities. They will not report it to the 
Department of Labor because if they do, they go back to their home 
country.
  Those are just the immigrant workers. What about the American 
workers? There are a lot of reasons why unscrupulous American employers 
favor temporary guest workers. They don't have to pay payroll taxes on 
them, for instance. They don't have to pay unemployment taxes on them. 
But the real reason is that those guest workers have virtually no 
leverage to demand higher wages. As I said, they can be sent home 
because they are tied to a single employer. Americans have more 
bargaining power. If they can get a better wage down the road, then 
they will go down the road. If they get better benefits, they can go to 
a new job, but those guest workers cannot.
  So the employers who abuse the H-2B program go to the greatest 
lengths to avoid hiring an American worker. The program says you have 
to advertise for the jobs in advance, and they do, hundreds of miles 
away in obscure newspapers that have nothing to do with the employer's 
local economy.
  Many employers discourage Americans from applying in the first place. 
Remember, these are unskilled labor positions--unskilled. These are not 
high-tech jobs, but unskilled guest workers. They subject American 
workers to the most extreme, unreasonable, extraneous tests before they 
hire them--tests they do not give to those foreign guest workers 
because they can pay them lower wages. When they finally are forced to 
hire an American worker, because they face penalties from the 
Department of Labor if they don't, they try to make conditions as bad 
as possible for them so they can fire them and then replace them with a 
foreigner.
  A lot of arguments for this kind of program boil down to this: No 
American will do that job. That is a lie. It is a lie. There is no job 
that Americans will not do. There is no industry in America where a 
majority of workers are not native born, American citizens, or first 
generation lawful immigrants--not landscapers, not construction 
workers, not ski instructors, not lifeguards, not resort workers--not a 
single one. If the wage is decent and the employer obeys the law, 
Americans will do the job. If it is not, then, they should pay higher 
wages. To say anything else is an insult to the work ethic of the 
American people who make this country run.
  We just had an election in which the President distinguished himself 
more on immigration than on any other single issue. We all realize 
that, right? We all realize that uncontrolled mass migration is 
upending the politics and societies all across Europe. My colleagues 
realize that, right? What is it going to take for the people in 
Washington, DC, to realize just how out of touch they are when it comes 
to protecting the jobs and the wages of American workers?
  I will vote no, and I will say that today is not the day when 
Washington realizes just how out of touch they are.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes, and 
it will probably be less than that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I would like to thank the body for this 
bill.
  This is an omnibus, and I am going to vote for it. There are some 
things that are disturbing about it--there is no doubt about that--not 
to mention the fact that Congress took 7 months to take care of this 
plan for the long term, which created uncertainty out there on the 
ground. There were 7 months when Congress sat on their hands, which 
left towns, hospitals, airports, and our citizenry in the lurch.
  But it does do some good things, and I think it does reflect the 
values of rural America, which I think is really important. I think it 
is a responsible budget for rural America in States like Montana.
  One of the things it does that I think is entirely appropriate is 
that it pushes the Education Department to reconsider the Upward Bound 
grant applications that were denied because of ridiculous--and I do 
mean ridiculous--format requirements, which will allow first-generation 
college kids to be able to go to college.
  What the Department of Education did with the Upward Bound Program is 
the worst of the bureaucracy that government can allow. This bill helps 
fix that. It gives the Department of Education a pair of glasses so 
they can apply a little common sense to their rules.
  It also does some good things for our national parks, it does some 
good things for our bases, and it does some good things to help our 
natural resources. But since I am ranking member on the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Homeland Security, I can tell you that overall, I think 
it really fits the needs of our homeland security, whether it is border 
security or cyber security. I think it is a responsible bill to help 
invest in our economy moving forward while keeping this country secure.
  With that, I would encourage a ``yes'' vote on this bill. I would 
just ask that next time around, which is going to

[[Page 7488]]

start immediately, we let the subcommittees on appropriations do their 
work and bring these subcommittee bills to the floor.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). Under the previous order, the 
motion to refer with amendment is withdrawn and the motion to concur 
with amendment is withdrawn.
  Under the previous order, the question occurs on agreeing to the 
motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
244.
  Mr. WICKER. 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 Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. 
Sasse).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. 
Sasse) would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 121 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--18

     Corker
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Heller
     Kennedy
     Lee
     Paul
     Risch
     Scott
     Strange
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Durbin
     Isakson
     Sasse
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________