[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7743-7746]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DAINES:
  S. 1097. A bill to postpone the deadline for the completion of the 
conversion of certain military technician (dual status) positions to 
positions of civilian employment by the Federal Government, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1097

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Armed Forces Reserve and 
     National Guard Dual-Status Review and Modernization Act''.

     SEC. 2. POSTPONEMENT OF DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF CONVERSION 
                   OF CERTAIN MILITARY TECHNICIAN (DUAL STATUS) 
                   POSITIONS TO POSITIONS OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT 
                   BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) A September 2013 study conducted by a federally funded 
     research and development center found that 21 percent of the 
     military technician (dual status) positions are 
     administrative in nature--the largest category as a 
     percentage of military technician (dual status) positions. 
     The study recommends investigation on whether ``some Dual 
     Status MilTech positions supporting general administration 
     functions could be converted to Title 5 Federal civilian 
     full-time support positions without compromising unit 
     readiness''. The study further recommends investigation on 
     whether ``it is more appropriate to use military full-time 
     support for other reasons (such as currency in military 
     operations and training and augmentation)''.
       (2) Section 1053 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2016 directs the conversion of not fewer than 
     20 percent of all military technician positions to positions 
     of Federal civilian employment under title 5, United States 
     Code, by January 1, 2017. Section 1084 of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 extends the 
     deadline for that conversion from January 1, 2017, to October 
     1, 2017.
       (3) The Department of Defense submitted a report on the 
     management of military technicians in December 2016 that 
     finds that 12.6 percent of the military technician (dual 
     status) positions were administrative in nature, and 
     recommended a conversion of 4.8 percent of such positions to 
     positions of Federal civilian employment.
       (4) The Chief of the National Guard Bureau testified before 
     Congress in April 2017 that a conversion of 20 percent of 
     military technician (dual status) positions to positions of 
     Federal civilian employment would degrade readiness, but that 
     a lower number could be converted with minimal impact. The 
     Chief of the National Guard Bureau also testified that the 
     Department of Defense had not conducted an analysis of the 
     associated costs and benefits of a conversion of 20 percent 
     of military technician (dual status) positions to positions 
     of Federal civilian employment.
       (b) Postponement of Deadline for Completion of 
     Conversion.--Notwithstanding the deadline otherwise specified 
     in paragraph (1) of section 1053(a) of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (10 U.S.C. 113 note) 
     for the completion of the conversion of military technician 
     positions as described in that subsection, the deadline for 
     the completion of such conversion shall be 180 days after the 
     date on which the Secretary of Defense transmits to Congress 
     under paragraph (6) of subsection (c) the report of the 
     working group required by paragraph (5) of that subsection.
       (c) Working Group on Full Time Support of the Reserve 
     Components.--
       (1) In general.--There shall be established in the 
     Department of Defense a working group to be known as the 
     ``Working Group on Full Time Support of the Reserve 
     Components'' (in this subsection referred to as the ``working 
     group'').
       (2) Co-chairs.--The co-chairs of the working group shall be 
     the following:
       (A) The Director of the Army National Guard.
       (B) The Director of the Air National Guard.
       (C) The Chief of the Army Reserve.
       (D) The Chief of the Air Force Reserve.
       (3) Members.--The members of the working group shall 
     include the co-chairs of the working group and such other 
     personnel of the Department of Defense as the Secretary shall 
     appoint from among organizations and elements of the 
     Department with an interest in full time support of the 
     reserve components of the Armed Forces, including the 
     National Guard Bureau and the Adjutants General of the 
     States.
       (4) Duties.--The working group shall undertake a 
     comprehensive review of full time support of the reserve 
     components of the Armed Forces, including the following:
       (A) An identification of the missions, purposes, and 
     objectives of military technicians (dual status) in support 
     of an operational reserve force.
       (B) A review of the posture of current military technician 
     (dual status) positions, and of their current role in meeting 
     the objectives identified pursuant to subparagraph (A).
       (C) An analysis of potential restructurings of the 
     workforce of military technicians (dual status) in order to 
     identify a restructuring that fully aligns military 
     technician (dual status) positions with objectives for full 
     time support of the reserve components.
       (D) An identification of the military technician (dual 
     status) positions whose conversion to positions of Federal 
     civilian employment under title 5, United States Code, would 
     best ensure the achievement of objectives for full time 
     support of the reserve components.
       (E) An assessment of the impact on the readiness of the 
     National Guard for domestic operations of the conversion of 
     positions identified pursuant to subparagraph (D) as 
     described in that subparagraph.
       (F) An assessment of costs and potential savings associated 
     with the conversion of positions identified pursuant to 
     subparagraph (D) as described in that subparagraph.
       (5) Report to secretary of defense.--Not later than 180 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the working 
     group shall submit to the Secretary of Defense a report on 
     the comprehensive review undertaken pursuant to paragraph 
     (4). The report shall include the following:
       (A) A comprehensive description of the review and the 
     results of the review.
       (B) The percentage of military technician (dual status) 
     positions whose conversion to

[[Page 7744]]

     positions of Federal civilian employment under title 5, 
     United States Code, would best ensure the achievement of 
     objectives for full time support of the reserve components of 
     the Armed Forces as an operational reserve.
       (C) A transition plan for implementing a new force 
     structure for full time support of the reserve components, 
     including for the conversion of positions as described in 
     subparagraph (B) which mitigates any risks to readiness 
     identified pursuant to paragraph (4)(E).
       (D) Recommendations for the reform of personnel management 
     policy for military technician (dual status) positions that 
     address--
       (i) the eligibility of military technicians (dual status) 
     for civilian retirement upon retirement from the Armed 
     Forces; and
       (ii) the process for appealing employment decisions.
       (E) Recommendations for reforms of compensation and 
     benefits policies for military technician (dual status) 
     positions in order to provide military technicians (dual 
     status) with parity in compensation and benefits with other 
     Federal civilian employees of the Department of Defense under 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (6) Transmittal of report to congress.--The Secretary shall 
     transmit to the congressional defense committees the report 
     of the working group under paragraph (5), together with such 
     discussion and recommendations in connection with the report 
     as the Secretary considers appropriate. The Secretary shall 
     publish the report, and any such discussions and 
     recommendations, in the Federal Register at the time of 
     transmittal.
       (7) Congressional defense committees defined.--In this 
     subsection, the term ``congressional defense committees'' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(16) of title 
     10, United States Code.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, under current law, twenty-percent of our 
military dual-status technicians in the National Guard, Army Reserve, 
and Air Force Reserve will become federal civilians on October 1st. 
This will leave the state Governors to respond to wildfires, floods, 
and other natural disasters with twenty-percent fewer people. The 
benefits of this conversion are unclear. In fact, the Chief of the 
National Guard Bureau testified that no formal analysis has been 
conducted as to whether there is any benefit at all. It seems prudent 
to me to take a pause, bring all of the affected stakeholders together, 
and figure this problem out before we take any irreversible action. 
Today, I'm introducing the ``Armed Forces Reserve and National Guard 
Dual-Status Review and Modernization Act,'' to do exactly that.
  As I've studied this situation, I understand there are a number of 
valid concerns involved. The current statutory construct for dual-
status military technicians is nearly 50 years old and the role of the 
Reserve components has changed dramatically just in the past 15 years, 
let alone the last half-century. I agree we should update the statute 
to better meet the needs of the total force and my bill addresses this 
concern. Similarly, many Guardsmen and Reservists feel that personnel 
management practices under this aging construct doesn't fit the needs 
of a 21st century workforce. My bill addresses those concerns as well.
  Most importantly, the bill ensures that there is no adverse impact to 
the Guard's ability to respond to domestic emergencies on October 1st, 
by postponing that date until Department of Defense leadership conducts 
a thorough, comprehensive review on the requirements of a 21st Century 
total force, and how our current structure should be aligned to meet 
those requirements. This will allow Congress to make an informed and 
measured judgement on how to update current law. I urge my colleagues 
to give this matter their full consideration and support.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 1113. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
ensure the safety of cosmetics; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to 
improve the safety oversight of products that affect every single 
family on a daily basis. Whether it's shampoo or shaving cream, lotion 
or make-up, hair dye or deodorant, personal care products are a part of 
our everyday lives. I thank Senator Collins for her support and hard 
work on this important legislation.
  However, even though our bodies absorb many chemicals in these 
products through our skin and even our nails, their ingredients are 
largely unregulated. It's time to modernize our safety oversight and 
correct this problem. Most people assume these products have up-to-date 
federal oversight, but in reality the Food and Drug Administration's 
authority to do so is sorely outdated--in fact, it's based on a law 
from the 1930s that has changed little over the past eight decades. 
There are questions about the safety of some ingredients in these 
products, which not only leads to health concerns but also causes 
uncertainty for companies working to innovate and expand domestically.
  Over the last several years, Senator Collins and I have worked with a 
wide group of stakeholders that represent both industry and consumer 
groups. Those stakeholders include small and large companies, doctors, 
consumer advocates, patient advocates, scientists, and the Food and 
Drug Administration. Together, we have drafted bipartisan legislation 
that puts commonsense measures in place and has the support of both 
industry and consumer and health organizations.
  The Personal Care Products Safety Act sets up a process for reviewing 
the safety of ingredients in personal care products. The bill requires 
manufacturers to register so consumers know who produces personal care 
products sold in the United States.
  The legislation also modernizes authority for the Food and Drug 
Administration so the agency is better equipped to deal with public 
health concerns, such as being able to recall contaminated products if 
companies choose not to do so voluntarily. The updated system is 
completely paid for by industry fees. Companies will provide 
information about the ingredients in their products to the Food and 
Drug Administration, and attest to their safety. Many companies 
manufacturing in the United States currently follow strict voluntary 
standards for manufacturing under proper conditions, but the lack of 
federal standards leaves this to chance. Under this legislation, the 
agency sets Good Manufacturing Practice guidelines to ensure companies 
meet minimum requirements. Companies will also need to report adverse 
health events related to their products to the Food and Drug 
Administration.
  Last year, we heard about WEN shampoo, a product that was causing 
significant hair loss. Among those affected were children, including a 
little girl named Eliana who lost all of her hair after using WEN. She 
shared her story with my office and several of my colleagues. What's 
shocking is that the company received more than 20,000 reports of this 
happening, but under current law WEN had no legal obligation to tell 
the Food and Drug Administration. Under this legislation, companies 
would be required to do so.
  Another example of concern is the ongoing use of formaldehyde, also 
called methylene glycol when mixed with water, in the popular hair 
treatment called a Brazilian blowout. Formaldehyde is released into the 
air during this beauty treatment. It can cause shortness of breath, 
headaches, and dizziness in the short-term. Over the long-term, 
formaldehyde has been linked to cancer.
  I am also greatly concerned about the effect on the health of salon 
professionals who are constantly exposed to a variety of chemicals 
daily. In addition to reviewing the safety of chemicals they may be 
exposed to, this legislation also ensures that the salon products they 
use are properly labeled with ingredients and warnings.
  The Food and Drug Administration will be required to evaluate at 
least five ingredients per year for safety and use in personal care 
products. In addition to reviewing the latest scientific and medical 
studies, the agency will consider how prevalent the ingredient is, the 
likely exposure, adverse event reports, and information from public 
comments. Public input will be critical to the review process. There 
will be opportunities for companies, scientists, consumer groups, 
medical professionals, and members of the public to

[[Page 7745]]

weigh in on, not only the safety of particular ingredients but also, 
which ingredients should be a priority for review. After review, the 
Food and Drug Administration may deem an ingredient safe, unsafe, or 
safe under certain uses or under certain conditions. The agency will 
also have the authority to require warning labels as needed for certain 
ingredients and limit the amount of an ingredient that may be used in 
personal care products. For example, some ingredients may only be safe 
for use by adults or when used by professionals in a salon or spa 
setting.
  The Personal Care Products Safety Act is the result of many diverse 
groups working together with the common goal of modernizing the federal 
oversight system to ensure the safest products possible are on the 
market. We have worked closely with small businesses to ensure that the 
legislation recognizes their needs and supports their growth. This 
legislation incorporates changes to increase flexibility for small 
businesses, particularly those making low-risk products. The bill 
recognizes the unique nature of the handmade cosmetic industry and 
meets their needs to encourage growth and innovation.
  I am pleased that the major organizations representing these small 
businesses (Handmade Cosmetic Alliance, Coalition of Handcrafted 
Entrepreneurs, Handcrafted Soap and Cosmetic Guild), have said that the 
provisions within this legislation ``afford producers in the handmade 
cosmetic industry the opportunity to continue to innovate, grow, create 
jobs and produce safe, quality handmade products in communities across 
the nation.''
  I am pleased to have the support of a broad coalition, including 
Environmental Working Group, Society for Women's Health Research, 
Endocrine Society, National Alliance for Hispanic Health, Au Naturale, 
Coalition of Handcrafted Entrepreneurs, Handcrafted Soap and Cosmetic 
Guild, Handmade Cosmetic Alliance, Herban Lifestyle, The Honest 
Company, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Babo 
Botanicals, Goddess Garden Organics, Caregiver Action Network, March of 
Dimes, EO Products, Eclair Naturals, Juice Beauty, National Psoriasis 
Foundation, and the following major companies that together represent 
over 99 brands of products: The Estee Lauder Companies, Johnson and 
Johnson, Procter and Gamble, Revlon, Unilever, and L'Oreal.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this much needed 
legislation to modernize our outdated regulatory system for personal 
care products, and I hope the Senate will pass this long overdue 
legislation this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Wyden, Mr. 
        Franken, Mr. Markey, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. 
        Harris, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Booker, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Hirono, Mr. 
        Coons, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Reed, Mr. 
        Blumenthal, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 1114. A bill to nullify the effect of the recent Executive order 
laying a foundation for discrimination against LGBTQ individuals, 
women, religious minorities, and others under the pretext of religious 
freedom; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today to join with my 
colleagues in introducing a rescission bill to nullify President 
Trump's Executive Order 13798, titled ``Promoting Free Speech and 
Religious Liberty.'' Unfortunately, this Executive Order does not live 
up to its title. Instead, it furthers the aim of this administration to 
diminish critical protections for women, minorities, and LGBT 
Americans.
  I am deeply troubled by Section 3 of the Order, which paves the way 
for the Trump administration to roll back protections to preventive 
health services under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), especially for 
women and LGBT individuals. Through new regulations issued pursuant to 
this Order, companies could use ``conscience-based'' objections to deny 
their employees coverage for preventive services that they have a right 
to under the ACA. This means that because of their employers' moral 
objection, women could lose access to contraception, and those in the 
LGBT community could lose access to essential services, including 
cancer screenings or counseling for domestic violence.
  I respect that we all have religious and moral convictions, but it is 
wrong to put employers' religious views above individuals' rights to 
access basic health care. I also note that this section of the Order 
invites members of the President's Cabinet to eliminate an 
accommodation President Obama administration made allowing religiously 
affiliated nonprofit employers, including large universities and 
hospital systems, to opt out of providing their employees with 
contraception coverage based on religious objections.
  Importantly, women working for objecting employers can receive 
contraception coverage directly through their insurance companies. 
Seven federal courts of appeals have upheld this accommodation in the 
face of religiously based challenges. But with this Order, the 
President signals that his administration is likely to do away with the 
accommodation, which would deny contraception access to women whose 
bosses want to make this important and intimate decision for them.
  The Order also directs the Attorney General to issue guidance to all 
agencies on ``religious liberty protections in Federal law.'' This 
language is concerning as it opens the door for the Attorney General to 
eliminate protections in federal rules and regulations for LGBT 
individuals and minorities. The Attorney General's duty is to enforce 
and protect the civil rights and constitutional freedoms of all 
Americans. This Order's direction for guidance that could change the 
implementation of critical rules affording equal treatment for all in 
America is a disturbing step backward. For example, there are rules 
protecting same-sex spouses' ability to visit their partners in the 
hospital and ensuring that LGBT individuals have equal access to 
federally funded emergency housing. Under this provision, however, new 
religious exemptions may be implemented to weaken these protections. 
Shelters could turn LGBT families away because of who they love. As the 
Human Rights Campaign has described, this provision opens the door to a 
``license to discriminate'' even where basic services funded with 
government dollars are at stake.
  This Executive Order opens the door to weakening the enforcement of 
longstanding tax laws against individuals, houses of worship, and other 
religious organizations engaging in political campaign speech. Notably, 
the Johnson Amendment was proposed by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1954 and is 
part of our tax code. It prohibits 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entities, 
including churches, from engaging in political campaign activity on 
behalf of candidates. The Johnson Amendment does not bar nonpartisan 
voter education and registration activities, which are important to a 
strong democracy, nor does it prohibit speech on moral issues.
  The President has promised to repeal the Johnson Amendment. Doing so 
could have a significant impact on political campaign fundraising and 
would change the current tax consideration for certain political 
contributions. While repeal of the Johnson Amendment is something only 
Congress has the power to do, this Executive Order clearly indicates 
the administration's intention to undermine the separation between tax-
exempt charities and religious organizations and political campaign 
activity in the tax code.
  It remains to be seen whether the President and the administration 
will implement this Order in ways that will realize our worst fears 
about the kind of discrimination it could enable. But we know for 
certain that this Order represents a disturbing statement of principles 
and values. Instead of seeking even greater protections from 
discrimination, this administration has set the stage to undermine 
protections, especially for women and LGBT individuals. That is not 
what our country stands for.
  Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
the

[[Page 7746]]

bill I am introducing today to nullify this troubling Executive Order.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________