[Pages S1245-S1251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs. Capito, Ms.
Klobuchar, Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Cassidy, and Ms.
Cantwell):
S. 2456. A bill to reauthorize and expand the Comprehensive Addiction
and Recovery Act of 2016; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I want to address a critical issue today
in Westerville, OH, and, frankly, every community I represent in my
State and communities all over the country. Today, I want to talk about
the opioid epidemic that is gripping our country.
Every State represented in this Chamber has had too many communities
devastated, families broken apart, and lives taken by the opioid
overdoses. The Centers for Disease Control now tells us more than
63,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2016, the last year for
which they have records. It also looks like it was worse in 2017. More
Americans are dying from drug overdoses than the total number of
casualties during the Vietnam war. Every year, more Americans are dying
from drug overdoses than the total number of casualties from the
Vietnam war. Think about that. It is a staggering statistic.
On average, more than 174 Americans died every single day from a drug
overdose in 2016. That is up from 143 Americans in 2015 and 105
Americans in 2010. In other words, it is getting worse, and 2016 was
the deadliest year on record. Initial estimates for 2017 suggest it is
going to be even deadlier, including in my home State of Ohio.
Opioids--prescription drugs, heroin, and synthetic forms of heroin--
are increasingly the reason why. Opioids were involved in about two-
thirds of all overdose deaths in 2016. Opioid overdose deaths were five
times higher in 2016 than they were just back in 1999. In the past 17
years, we have seen a fivefold increase in these overdose deaths. It is
a national epidemic.
It has unfolded in three different waves. It started with
prescription drugs, overprescribing of prescription drugs--pain pills.
The pill mills we saw in Southern Ohio and around our State exploded
about 15 to 20 years ago. Next, there were the heroin deaths. Heroin
moved in and spiked as people moved to less expensive and more
accessible alternatives than prescription drugs. Now, I hate to tell
you, there is a new danger and a threat, and it is deadlier than ever.
It is these synthetic opioids--fentanyl, carfentanil--that have moved
into our States, overcoming our law enforcement, and the results have
been deadly.
By the way, it is a crisis that does not discriminate. Opioid
addiction affects everybody, regardless of age, area code, class, or
color. In Ohio, drug addiction and acts committed to support it have
now become the No. 1 cause of crime in our communities--probably the
same in your community.
Employers, of course, are increasingly pointing to the inability to
find workers who can pass a drug test. They can't fill vacant
positions. There is new data out with regard to people who are not
showing up on the unemployment rolls but have given up looking for work
altogether. There are probably 9 million men between 25 and 55 who are
considered to be able-bodied who aren't even looking for work. Some
really troubling statistics out there indicate that maybe as many as
half--one study says 48 percent--of those individuals are taking
opioids on a daily basis.
This is affecting all of us. Every aspect of our communities is
affected. Everybody has a role to play overcoming this epidemic. There
is an urgency coming up with better strategies to turn the tide on
addiction. Although I believe progress has been made recently--and it
is starting to be made in my State and other States--much more needs to
be done and done urgently.
Part of that starts with understanding that addiction is a disease,
and it is treatable. Too often it is not treated like that. The
appropriate response should include much more aggressive prevention and
education, absolutely, and more aggressive law enforcement keeping
deadly fentanyl out of our communities through the STOP Act and other
means, of course, but we also have to get more effective treatment
strategies. We have a couple hundred thousand people in Ohio who are
addicted. We need to get them into treatment, including more effective
detox, medication-assisted treatment, and longer term recovery. We
know, coupled with the right kind of therapy, the right kind of support
and help, people can get into recovery and get back to their families,
get back to work, and get back to being productive citizens.
We also know recovery results are a lot better with that kind of
continuous support. Closing the gaps that occur is key to overcoming
addiction. There is a gap between the crisis response, which is often a
first responder--like the two brave officers I talked about earlier--
finding someone who has overdosed. Often it is firefighters as well
providing Narcan, this miracle drug that reverses the effect of the
overdose. That is incredibly important to saving lives.
Narcan alone is not sufficient. The key is to get those people into
detox and into treatment and longer term recovery. The gaps we have out
there between the crisis response and Narcan,

[[Page S1246]]

then going to detox, then going to treatment, and then going to
recovery are creating a lot of the inability to solve this problem.
I have probably met a couple of thousand addicts or recovering
addicts in the last few years. What they tell me is: I tried treatment,
but it was for 6, 7, 8 weeks, and then there was nothing for me. It
didn't work for me. Then there are people who overdosed, not once or
twice but several times, and they had never been in detox and
treatment.
One young man I spoke to last weekend has been an addict for 7 years.
Finally, his brother convinced him to seek help. The last time he
overdosed, he did go into detox. He did go into treatment, to a
facility where those gaps were closed, where there was no waiting time,
where he was able to get the help, rather than going back to his old
community and his old friends and a situation that was going to lead
him back into more use and more addiction.
The key, again, is to get those who have overdosed into the treatment
they need. Overdose reversal provides a second chance at life. Let's
face it. Some of these people who are overdosing come out of this after
Narcan is administered. They have seen their life flash before their
eyes, and they are ready for something. We have to be ready for them.
Just as the overdose reversal provides a second chance at life, it is
treatment and longer term recovery that provides that second chance to
live addiction-free--again, to get back with your family, get back to
work, and get back to a productive life. It takes a comprehensive
solution because it is a comprehensive problem.
That is what led some of us in this body, including my colleague
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and me, to introduce the Comprehensive
Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA, back in 2015. We developed that
bill over time by relying on experts in the field and those most
affected by addiction.
Beginning in 2014, when we were in the process of putting together
the legislation, we hosted five national forums here in Washington, DC.
We brought experts and practitioners in from around the country--
prevention, treatment, law enforcement, and recovery communities. We
wanted to get the best practices to find out what was working, what
wasn't working, and how we could improve the response. What role could
the Federal Government play in all of this? We had forums focused on
the science of addiction to understand it better, evidence-based
prevention strategies that actually work; treating pregnant women who
are addicted and babies at risk of being born drug-dependent. There is
nothing more heartbreaking than going into the neonatal units in the
hospitals in my home State and seeing these babies who were born
dependent and watching them go through the painful withdrawal process
as infants Every neonatal unit in our country has seen this. If you go
to your own hospital, they will tell you this is an increasing problem.

We had veterans come in, and we had experts come in to help veterans
make that transition because, sadly, the use of opioids among veterans
is also increasing. They sometimes use opioids for injuries, for
accidents, for PTSD, and they become addicted. How do you build support
around those veterans? We also had people come in and talk about longer
term recovery and housing and how, over time, you can get better
results if you provide those kinds of services. Our goal was to
leverage the expertise and perspectives of everyone involved in this
epidemic, to find best practices, and to create an evidence-based
education, treatment, and recovery bill that works.
With strong bipartisan support, we moved from hearings, to a
unanimous committee markup, to Senate passage of this legislation. By
the way, it passed with a vote of 92 to 2. That is not typical around
here, certainly not for something so comprehensive. Yet everybody has
experienced this back home and is desperate to figure out strategies to
help. In July of 2016, President Obama signed CARA into law. It was the
first comprehensive addiction reform in more than 20 years. It was the
first time Congress had ever provided any support or help for this
longer term recovery piece.
The CARA law targets prevention and education resources to prevent
abuse before it even starts--the most effective way. It helps first
responders reverse overdoses to save lives. It devotes resources to
evidence-based treatment and recovery programs. It expands prescription
drug take-back programs to get addictive pain pills off the bathroom
shelves. More than $180 million was authorized to assist communities in
these efforts to combat this epidemic. Frankly, because of this crisis,
the appropriators decided: You know, we need this so badly, we are
actually going to appropriate more than the $180 million. Last year, as
an example, they appropriated $267 million--almost $100 million beyond
our authorization.
Again, I think it is beginning to make a difference. I see it back
home in Ohio. I see some of these strategies beginning to work. It is
going to take some time, and we need to do more. In Ohio, we received
about $4 million. When I say ``we,'' I mean groups, people who are in
the trenches doing the hard work.
We have also made progress in this fight with separate opioid
legislation that was part of the 21st Century Cures legislation. That
legislation was for substance abuse and mental health. Many of us
successfully fought to help secure a 2-year commitment there of $500
million a year, totaling $1 billion. It goes directly to the States.
This money goes to States that are hardest hit, and States are allowed
to decide how to spend that money. The first installment of funding
from that legislation awarded my State of Ohio with $26 million, and we
are using every penny of it.
I was at a facility over the weekend that gave me hope. It is called
the Maryhaven Addiction Stabilization Center, and it is in Columbus,
OH. They talked about the gaps, where people who overdose are provided
Narcan, and then they go back to their community, and what first
responders will tell you is that sometimes in the same week or even on
the same day on some occasions, there is another overdose. The
revolving door continues without any treatment and without any
solution. Maryhaven Stabilization Center is a response to that. They
used the Cures money we talked about, they used some CARA funding from
the county--the county is a part of the broader strategy of where the
CARA money went--and they said: Let's put together an institution where
there is an emergency room that focuses on overdoses.
I have been to other emergency rooms in Columbus, OH, and I have seen
what they do with the people who overdose. They save lives, and that is
fantastic, but frankly these emergency rooms are equipped for
everything, and they have to be--for gunshot wounds, car accidents,
trauma.
This emergency room would be focused specifically on overdoses, which
makes it more cost-effective but also more effective for those
recovering addicts, those addicts who are coming in. But most
importantly, in that same facility, there is a detox center. In that
same facility, there are 50 treatment beds. Whereas in the typical case
when somebody overdoses, they go to the emergency room and end up going
back to their community, back home, back to the gang, back to the
family, in this case, 103 people who have gone through in the last
month--it has only been open a month--80 percent of them have gone into
treatment. I had the opportunity to meet someone who had been through
that process, and we talked about the difference this makes. You
literally walk through the door into treatment, there is strong
encouragement to do it, and it is working.
These are the kinds of things that are going to make a difference in
our communities. It seems to be common sense, but frankly it is not
happening in other places. Programs like these are what are going to
help us overcome addiction and are examples of how Federal funds can be
used more effectively to leverage, in this case, a lot of private
dollars, some State dollars.
Both of these landmark laws--the CARA Act that we talked about and
the Cures Act--are providing increased resources to local communities,
but this problem is not getting better, it is getting worse.
One of the problems is the availability and the low cost of these
highly addictive, even more dangerous drugs coming in. There are
synthetic opioids. Fentanyl is 50 times stronger than heroin on
average. It is coming in through

[[Page S1247]]

the mail. We need to do more to stop it through law enforcement, but we
also need to acknowledge that it has been sprinkled in other drugs and
is creating a lot of these addiction overdoses and higher rates of
death.
The degree of damage this is causing to our communities, our
families, our local budgets, and our criminal justice system requires
us to take a more aggressive stance, to do more to figure this out. We
need to strengthen our resolve. We made progress recently with the
bipartisan budget agreement President Trump signed into law just a few
weeks ago. We included in there an additional amount of funding--$6
billion over 2 years--to help combat the opioid epidemic. So instead of
the $500 million a year and the $260 million a year that I talked
about, it would be $3 billion a year and then $3 billion the year
after.
I believe that the evidence-based programs we set out in the
Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act provide a good framework as to how
to spend that money effectively. That is why I am pleased to stand here
today as we introduce the next stage of this--CARA 2.0--to help provide
a framework for how these funds to combat opioid addiction can be spent
wisely. It is a roadmap for Congress to build on CARA's successes since
becoming law.
The bipartisan CARA 2.0 act is being introduced by Sheldon Whitehouse
and me and also by six other colleagues--Senators Shelley Moore Capito,
Amy Klobuchar, Dan Sullivan, Maggie Hassan, Bill Cassidy, and Maria
Cantwell--a bipartisan group of four Republicans and four Democrats who
are passionate about this issue. It authorizes $1 billion a year for
specific evidence-based drug prevention, education, treatment, and
recovery programs.
It is very important to have this $6 billion of funding over the next
couple of years. We need it. But we have to be sure it is spent wisely.
It is not a matter of just throwing money at a problem; it is a matter
of being sure we are effectively addressing the real issues.
As I mentioned earlier, the longer term recovery programs are what
really help those gripped by addiction to overcome this disease. That
is evidence that we have. I have certainly seen a lot of evidence of
that firsthand and countless examples of this, where this longer term
recovery and the support networks are what get people back on track,
back with their families, back to work. We need to expand access to
them to those communities that are in need and give everyone a second
chance of living up to their own God-given potential. That is why, in
this new CARA 2.0, we increase funding for recovery.
In addition to expanding the reach of CARA's evidence-based programs,
this bill puts in place new policy reforms to strengthen the
government's response in so many ways. We take what some would consider
a pretty dramatic step by limiting opioid prescriptions to 3 days for
acute pain. Some will push back against that, but this is based on good
evidence and good research. When someone goes in for a simple
procedure--say, a wisdom tooth extraction--and that young person is
given a bottle of opioids when he or she leaves, too often, that leads
to addiction. I don't want more parents coming up to me and saying: My
kid, when he or she was a teenager, was given these opioids by a doctor
or a dentist, so we thought they were safe. Our child then turned to
heroin because the pills became too expensive and less accessible and
then turned to fentanyl and overdosed and died.
I have had two such parents from Ohio come to me and tell me their
story. You probably know others. We need to ensure that these
prescriptions are limited. For those who have chronic pain and those
who have cancer, it wouldn't apply. And after those 3 days, you can go
back to that doctor and tell them why you need it and explain it.
Experts say that about 80 percent of those who overdose from heroin
started on prescription drugs. I am sure the same is true with regard
to fentanyl. Four out of five heroin addicts in my State of Ohio who
overdosed started on prescription drugs. We do need to deal with this
overprescription problem.
By the way, the evidence is that after that fourth day, fifth day,
sixth day--that is when you get into the bigger risk of becoming
addicted to prescription drugs.
As I mentioned, this epidemic started with an explosion of pain pill
use 15 to 20 years ago. We need to stop the addiction at the source,
and for most people that begins with prescription drugs. By ensuring
that clinicians prescribe the appropriate strength and supply of pain
pills for non-life-threatening injuries, we can keep so many more
people from becoming addicted.
The bill also includes legislation very similar to that which passed
the Senate in 2015 but was dropped out in the House-Senate conference.
It is very simple. It requires doctors and pharmacists to use the
prescription drug monitoring programs to ensure that we are not
overprescribing opioids for certain individuals. That helps us identify
where the problems are and to get people into treatment. It also
requires States to share data with other States to prevent people from
crossing State lines to get prescriptions. One of our big problems in
Ohio is people can cross the State lines in West Virginia, Kentucky, or
other States and get their prescription filled even though it has
already been filled once in Ohio. Across State lines, we need to have
prescription drug monitoring programs that work.
CARA 2.0 is going to help turn the tide of this epidemic. The bill
increases Federal funds for specific evidence-based programs to better
protect vulnerable groups--including infants, young adults, pregnant
and postpartum women, and veterans--as well as resources for community
programs, medication-assisted treatment, and first responders.
As the title indicates, it is a comprehensive solution. Every aspect
of our communities is affected, so every aspect of our communities
needs assistance. The opioid epidemic is one of the most urgent
challenges we face as a country.
By the way, ultimately, this crisis is not going to be solved here in
Washington, DC. It is not going to be solved by legislation we pass
here. We get that. It is going to be solved in our communities. It is
going to be solved in our families. It is going to be solved in our
hearts. But this is a national crisis, and the national government
needs to be a much better partner with State government, local
government, communities, and nonprofits--those who are out there doing
the hard work.
The $6 billion commitment over the next 2 years is a real opportunity
to help turn the tide--not by just throwing more money at the problem
but by being sure that money is well spent on an epidemic that is
taking too many lives and devastating too many communities.
CARA 2.0 will build on our accomplishments and continue to give
communities the resources they need to address this issue. Yes, we have
made some progress around here, and that is good, but we need to do
much more. CARA 2.0 gives us that opportunity. It represents the next
step toward helping our communities address this epidemic and helping
our communities heal.
Thank you.
______

By Mr. KAINE (for himself, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. Tester):
S. 2457. A bill to provide a work opportunity tax credit for military
spouses and to provide for flexible spending arrangements for childcare
services for military families; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. We rightfully honor the sacrifice of
veterans and servicemembers and as a member of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, I am proud of the work we do to ensure that we have
the best equipped and most successful fighting force in the world.
Military families are critical to the success and readiness of our
military, but are too often unrecognized for their support to our
servicemembers and left without necessary programs and assistance to
help them succeed. Military families frequently face financial
insecurity due to spousal unemployment, which impacts the overall
success of our military. Somewhere between 12% and 25% of military
spouses are unemployed.
Today, I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues Senators Boozman
and Tester the Jobs and Childcare for Military Families Act of 2018.
This legislation encourages businesses to step up and play a bigger
role in hiring military spouses who sacrifice so much by expanding the
Work Opportunity Tax Credit to also include military spouses.

[[Page S1248]]

The bill also further addresses a real obstacle to professional success
for many military families: access to quality, affordable childcare by
establishing a flexible spending account for military families to use
to reimburse themselves for out of pocket child care costs.
Addressing these issues will help military spouses advance in their
careers despite frequent moves. Being a military family member will
never be easy, but if we can do something to ease the burden in any
way, we should. This legislation follows the introduction of another
bipartisan bill earlier this month, the Military Spouse Employment Act
of 2018, which provides direct employment opportunities and additional
access to childcare, improves educational opportunities and extends
transition and counseling services. I believe if we make it bipartisan
priority to support military families, we will see an improvement in
the readiness of our military and reap the economic benefits of
supporting this underutilized and resilient workforce of military
spouses. I hope to see many of the provisions of these two bills
incorporated into this year's National Defense Authorization Act.
______

By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. Flake, Mr.
Heinrich, Mr. Toomey, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. King, Mr. Nelson, Mr.
Manchin, and Mr. Kaine):
S. 2458. A bill to authorize the Attorney General to deny the
transfer of firearms and explosives and Federal firearms and explosives
licenses and permits to known or suspected terrorists; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Terrorist
Firearms Prevention Act, which would prohibit suspected or known
terrorists from legally purchasing a firearm.
I thank my colleagues--Senators Heitkamp, Flake, Heinrich, Toomey,
Baldwin, King, Nelson, Manchin, and Kaine--for their cosponsorship of
this bipartisan bill. I particularly recognize the leadership of
Senator Heinrich, who has joined me on the floor this evening as we
introduce the bill and explain it to our colleagues.
Often referred to as ``no fly, no buy,'' this bill represents one of
the sensible steps that we can take to reform our Nation's gun laws to
better protect our people. Our bill is based on a simple principle: If
you are considered to be too dangerous to board an airplane, then you
are too dangerous to buy a firearm.
Our legislation would grant the Attorney General the authority to
block the purchase of a gun by a person who is on either the no-fly or
the selectee list. Remarkably, current law does not prohibit a person
known or suspected of engaging in terrorism from walking into a gun
shop and buying a firearm. The no-fly list and the selectee list are
the narrowest subsets of all of the government's terrorist watch lists.
These lists include the names of individuals who pose the greatest
threat of committing an act of terrorism against aviation, against our
homeland, or against U.S. interests abroad. This bill would also
provide an immediate alert to the FBI and to local law enforcement if
an individual who has been on the government's terrorist watch list at
any time during the past 5 years purchases a firearm.
Our hearts are all broken by the horrific shootings of the students
in Florida. There was another horrendous shooting in Florida in 2016
that demonstrates why this look-back provision in this legislation is
so important. The gunman, Omar Mateen, was on the selectee list for
approximately 10 months, but he was no longer on the list when he
purchased the 2 guns that he used to murder 49 people and injure scores
more. If our bill had been enacted, the FBI would have been notified
immediately when Omar Mateen purchased his first firearm in the weeks
leading up to the shooting. Then the FBI would have been notified a
second time that Mateen had sought to purchase additional firearms.
Surely, that would have caused the FBI to reopen its investigation of
Omar Mateen. If our proposal had been law at that time, perhaps that
massacre might have been prevented.
I note that our bill would provide robust due process procedures to
protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Any
American who would be denied a purchase under this bill would have the
opportunity to petition a Federal district court and receive a decision
within 14 days. If the government, which would have the burden of
proof, would fail to prove its case, it would have to pay attorneys's
fees for that individual, and, of course, the purchase of the firearm
would go forward.
In 2016, when the Senate voted on our bill, it won majority and
bipartisan support. Our bill was endorsed by a distinguished group of
military and intelligence leaders. I note that during the 2016
Presidential debates, both candidates agreed with our principle of no
fly, no buy. Surely, this is a sensible, reasonable policy around which
we can build consensus.
Another step that we can take right now is to pass legislation I
introduced with Senator Leahy to explicitly outlaw straw purchasing.
Straw purchasing is intended for one purpose only, and that is to put a
gun into the hands of a criminal who cannot legally obtain one. Our
bill, the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act, would provide law
enforcement with an effective tool to fight the violence that too often
goes hand in hand with drug trafficking and gang-related crimes.
Today, gun traffickers exploit weaknesses in our Federal laws by
targeting individuals who can lawfully purchase firearms. Sadly,
according to briefings that I have had from Federal officials, in the
State of Maine gang members from other States have targeted addicts to
go buy firearms for them, and then they swap firearms for drugs. Right
now a straw purchaser can be prosecuted only for lying on a Federal
form, which is treated far too often as just a paperwork violation.
Instead of a slap on the wrist, our bill would create new, specific
criminal offenses for straw purchasing and trafficking, punishable by
hefty prison terms, particularly for those who have reason to believe
that the firearms will be used to commit violent crimes.
Our bill would also outlaw firearms and ammunition smuggling out of
the United States to another country. That is vitally important for
combating drug trafficking near and across our southern border, which
is contributing to the heroin crisis here at home.
Let me again be clear that the bill I have introduced with Senator
Leahy protects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
These are just two commonsense reforms that we can pass while fully
protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. We can
make it as difficult for a terrorist to obtain a gun as it is for him
to board an airplane. We can outlaw straw purchasing by increasing the
penalties to make a real difference. I urge my colleagues to support
both the bipartisan Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act and the straw
purchasing bill, as well as other commonsense reforms.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my
colleague, Senator Collins of Maine, for her work in crafting this
legislation and the language of this bill and, more generally, for her
leadership, formerly on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee and certainly for the time that I have been on the
Intelligence Committee. Her contributions have not gone unnoticed, and
she has been a pleasure to work with in trying to find reasonable
places where we can make a material difference in the kinds of mass
shootings we have seen.
I should start by speaking a little bit to the recent tragedy in
Florida. As the father of two young boys, I can't begin to imagine the
nightmare that families are living through as they mourn the loss of
their children in the wake of yet another horrific mass shooting.
Frankly, no parent should have to live in fear of their child not
coming home from school. It is pretty unthinkable.
Just last week, one of my own sons went through an active shooter
training at his school. Sadly, that is now the new norm in schools all
across our country. In fact, 91 Americans are killed each day by gun
violence, and we simply cannot accept the status quo as the new normal
when there are real

[[Page S1249]]

and concrete steps we can take to reduce gun violence while respecting
constitutional rights.
Once again, Americans are looking to Congress to finally enact
commonsense reforms to our gun laws, to protect our schools, to protect
our children, to protect our communities. Like so many Americans, I
have been deeply moved by the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School
students and young people all across this country who have spoken out
after losing classmates and friends to demand that we as lawmakers take
action to prevent future tragedies.
It is no secret to my constituents or even my colleagues here that I
am a passionate outdoorsman, hunter, and owner of firearms. I strongly
believe that law-abiding Americans have a right to own guns for sport
and self-defense. I am teaching my own sons how to safely and
responsibly use those firearms. The vast majority of Americans,
including gun owners like me, know that Congress must take action to
close loopholes and reform our laws to keep those deadly weapons out of
the hands of those who would turn them against our communities.
Today I am quite proud to join my colleagues from both sides of the
aisle--Senators Collins, Heitkamp, Flake, and others--to introduce one
of those measures that should have broad bipartisan support. This is a
poster child for the kind of policy that ought to get across the finish
line even in these deeply divided, partisan times.
Our bipartisan legislation, the Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act,
would deny firearms sales to individuals who appear on the Department
of Justice's no-fly or selectee lists. These are the narrowest of
databases, the kinds of lists one would have to work pretty hard to
land on, and for good reason. Our legislation includes due process
procedures for individuals to appeal their placement on those lists.
It seems pretty straightforward to most of my constituents that if
the government and law enforcement have determined that an individual
is so dangerous as to land on the terrorist watch list and is too
dangerous to fly on a commercial airplane, that person should not be
able to walk into a gun shop and purchase a gun. But unless we pass
this legislation, this glaring loophole will continue to allow
individuals identified as terror suspects to buy firearms.
It is time for those Members of Congress who oppose commonsense
reforms like this to finally step up and tell us what they are doing to
protect the public. It is time for all of us to listen to the student
leaders across this country who are rejecting the unacceptable status
quo of our Nation's gun violence epidemic.
Those of us in the Senate who know firearms well have a special duty
to lead these efforts and to get the details right on any legislation
to reshape our Nation's gun laws. Inaction simply won't cut it anymore.
We all need to listen to these students, parents, teachers, and to our
own children who are calling on us to be part of the solution.
New Mexicans can count on me, despite the odds, to continue fighting
for real solutions to keep our children safe, to reduce gun violence,
and to keep our communities safe. That is what our communities and our
constituents deserve.
Thank you.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Daines):
S. 2462. A bill to place restrictions on searches and seizures of
electronic devices at the border; to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President. No American should have to relinquish all
of their privacy rights in their cell phones, laptops, and other
electronic devices, simply because they are coming home from a trip
abroad. Yet that is exactly how our Government views it: currently, if
a Vermonter crosses the border into Canada for a day, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) can search through the Vermonter's emails, text
messages, photos, and anything else contained in their electronic
devices without any reason to suspect the person is in violation of
anything. Let me repeat that: without any suspicion at all. That is
unacceptable.
That is why I am joining with Senator Daines to introduce legislation
to require the Government to have reasonable suspicion or probable
cause to search or seize Americans' electronic devices at the border.
This legislation is a vital step toward protecting our Fourth Amendment
rights, while also ensuring that officers protecting our homeland have
the lawful authorities they need to do their jobs.
Last year, CBP searched the electronic devices of over 30,000
travelers, and this number continues to grow. These searches can take
place at any international airport, or at any land border point such as
U.S.-Canada border crossings in my home state of Vermont or Senator
Daines's home state of Montana.
Nothing in this legislation will prevent CBP officers from doing
their jobs to protect the homeland, detect contraband, and enforce the
law. Our legislation simply says that if an officer of the Government
wants to search an American's electronic device at the border, at a
minimum they should have reasonable suspicion. If they want to seize
the device, they should have probable cause. And if they want to
conduct a forensic examination of the device, they should get a warrant
from a judge.
Our legislation also requires the Department of Homeland Security to
collect statistics on such searches and seizures and report them to
Congress. This will significantly increase transparency on the
Government's use of these invasive tools, providing Congress and the
American people an opportunity to assess the balance between the needs
of law enforcement and the imperative of protecting privacy and civil
liberties.
I urge other Senators to join us in support of this legislation. It
should not be controversial to be concerned at the Government's ability
to search our electronic devices at the border without any suspicion at
all. All of us--Republican and Democrat--can support the goal of
protecting our borders while also protecting the Fourth Amendment.
______

By Mr. FLAKE (for himself and Ms. Heitkamp):
S. 2464. A bill to improve border security and to provide conditional
provision residence to certain long-term residents who entered the
United States as children; read the first time.

S. 2464

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Three-Year
Border and DACA Extension Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--BORDER SECURITY

Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Operations and support.

TITLE II--DACA EXTENSION

Sec. 201. Provisional protected presence for young individuals.

TITLE I--BORDER SECURITY

SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated a total of
$7,639,000,000 to the Department of Homeland Security for
fiscal years 2018 through 2020 for the purpose of improving
border security.

SEC. 102. OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT.

(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to
establish a Border Security Enforcement Fund (referred to in
this section as the ``Fund''), to be administered through the
Department of Homeland Security and, in fiscal year 2018
only, through the Department of State, to provide for costs
necessary to implement this Act and other Acts related to
border security for activities, including--
(1) constructing, installing, deploying, operating, and
maintaining tactical infrastructure and technology in the
vicinity of the United States border--
(A) to achieve situational awareness and operational
control of the border; and
(B) to deter, impede, and detect illegal activity in high
traffic areas; and
(C) to implement other border security provisions under
this section;
(2) implementing port of entry provisions under this
section;
(3) purchasing new aircraft, vessels, spare parts, and
equipment to operate and maintain such craft; and
(4) hiring and recruitment.
(b) Funding.--There are appropriated, to the Fund, out of
any monies in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, a
total of $7,639,000,000, as follows:
(1) For fiscal year 2018, $2,947,000,000, to remain
available through fiscal year 2022.
(2) For fiscal year 2019, $2,225,000,000, to remain
available through fiscal year 2023.

[[Page S1250]]

(3) For fiscal year 2020, $2,467,000,000, to remain
available through fiscal year 2024.
(c) Physical Barriers.--
(1) In general.--In each of the following fiscal years, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall transfer, from the Fund
to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection--Procurement,
Construction and Improvements account, for the purpose of
constructing, replacing, or planning physical barriers along
the United States land border, a total of $5,013,000,000, as
follows:
(A) For fiscal year 2018, $1,571,000,000.
(B) For fiscal year 2019, $1,600,000,000.
(C) For fiscal year 2020, $1,842,000,000.
(2) Availability of funds.--Notwithstanding section 1552(a)
of title 31, United States Code, any amounts obligated for
the purposes described in paragraph (1) shall remain
available for disbursement until expended.
(d) Transfer Authority.--Other than the amounts transferred
by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of
State pursuant to subsections (b) and (c), the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives may provide
for the transfer of amounts in the Fund for each fiscal year
to eligible activities under this section, including--
(1) for the purpose of constructing, replacing, or planning
for physical barriers along the United States land border; or
(2) for any of the activities described in subsection (a).
(e) Use of Fund.--If the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives do not provide for the transfer of funds in a
full-year appropriation in any fiscal year in accordance with
subsection (d), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall
transfer amounts in the Fund to accounts within the
Department of Homeland Security for eligible activities under
this section, including not less than the amounts specified
in subsection (c) for the purpose of constructing, replacing,
or planning for physical barriers along the United States
land border.
(f) Budget Request.--A request for the transfer of amounts
in the Fund under this section--
(1) shall be included in each budget for a fiscal year
submitted by the President under section 1105 of title 31,
United States Code; and
(2) shall detail planned obligations by program, project,
and activity in the receiving account at the same level of
detail provided for in the request for other appropriations
in that account.
(g) Reporting Requirement.--At the beginning of fiscal year
2019, and annually thereafter until the funding made
available under this title has been expended, the Secretary
of Homeland Security shall submit a report to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate,
the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, the Committee
on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives, and the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives
that describes--
(1) the status of border security in the United States; and
(2) the amount planned to be expended on border security
during the upcoming fiscal year, broken down by project and
activity.

TITLE II--DACA EXTENSION

SEC. 201. PROVISIONAL PROTECTED PRESENCE FOR YOUNG
INDIVIDUALS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 4 of title II of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 244A. PROVISIONAL PROTECTED PRESENCE.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) DACA recipient.--- The term `DACA recipient' means an
alien who is in deferred action status on the date of the
enactment of this section pursuant to the Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (`DACA') Program announced on June 15,
2012.
``(2) Felony.--The term `felony' means a Federal, State, or
local criminal offense (excluding a State or local offense
for which an essential element was the alien's immigration
status) punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1
year.
``(3) Misdemeanor.--The term `misdemeanor' means a Federal,
State, or local criminal offense (excluding a State or local
offense for which an essential element was the alien's
immigration status, a significant misdemeanor, and a minor
traffic offense) for which--
``(A) the maximum term of imprisonment is greater than five
days and not greater than 1 year; and
``(B) the individual was sentenced to time in custody of 90
days or less.
``(4) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Homeland Security.
``(5) Significant misdemeanor.--The term `significant
misdemeanor' means a Federal, State, or local criminal
offense (excluding a State or local offense for which an
essential element was the alien's immigration status) for
which the maximum term of imprisonment is greater than 5 days
and not greater than 1 year that--
``(A) regardless of the sentence imposed, is a crime of
domestic violence (as defined in section 237(a)(2)(E)(i)) or
an offense of sexual abuse or exploitation, burglary,
unlawful possession or use of a firearm, drug distribution or
trafficking, or driving under the influence if the State law
requires, as an element of the offense, the operation of a
motor vehicle and a finding of impairment or a blood alcohol
content of .08 or higher; or
``(B) resulted in a sentence of time in custody of more
than 90 days, excluding an offense for which the sentence was
suspended.
``(6) Threat to national security.--An alien is a `threat
to national security' if the alien is--
``(A) inadmissible under section 212(a)(3); or
``(B) deportable under section 237(a)(4).
``(7) Threat to public safety.--An alien is a `threat to
public safety' if the alien--
``(A) has been convicted of an offense for which an element
was participation in a criminal street gang (as defined in
section 521(a) of title 18, United States Code); or
``(B) has engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise (as
defined in section 408(c) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848(c))).
``(b) Authorization.--The Secretary--
``(1) shall grant provisional protected presence to an
alien who--
``(A) files an application demonstrating that he or she
meets the eligibility criteria under subsection (c); and
``(B) pays the appropriate application fee;
``(2) may not remove such alien from the United States
during the period in which such provisional protected
presence is in effect unless such status is rescinded
pursuant to subsection (g); and
``(3) shall provide such alien with employment
authorization.
``(c) Eligibility Criteria.--An alien is eligible for
provisional protected presence and employment authorization
under this section if the alien--
``(1) was born after June 15, 1981;
``(2) entered the United States before reaching 16 years of
age;
``(3) continuously resided in the United States between
June 15, 2007, and the date on which the alien files an
application under this section;
``(4) was physically present in the United States on June
15, 2012, and on the date on which the alien files an
application under this section;
``(5) was unlawfully present in the United States on June
15, 2012;
``(6) on the date on which the alien files an application
for provisional protected presence--
``(A) is enrolled in school or in an education program
assisting students in obtaining a regular high school diploma
or its recognized equivalent under State law, or in passing a
general educational development exam or other State-
authorized exam;
``(B) has graduated or obtained a certificate of completion
from high school;
``(C) has obtained a general educational development
certificate; or
``(D) is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard
or Armed Forces of the United States;
``(7) has not been convicted of--
``(A) a felony;
``(B) a significant misdemeanor; or
``(C) 3 or more misdemeanors not occurring on the same date
and not arising out of the same act, omission, or scheme of
misconduct; and
``(8) does not otherwise pose a threat to national security
or a threat to public safety.
``(d) Duration of Provisional Protected Presence and
Employment Authorization.--Provisional protected presence and
employment authorization provided under this section shall be
effective until the date that is 3 years after the date of
the enactment of the Three-Year Border and DACA Extension
Act.
``(e) Status During Period of Provisional Protected
Presence.--
``(1) In general.--An alien granted provisional protected
presence is not considered to be unlawfully present in the
United States during the period beginning on the date such
status is granted and ending on the date described in
subsection (d).
``(2) Status outside period.--The granting of provisional
protected presence under this section does not excuse
previous or subsequent periods of unlawful presence.
``(f) Application.--
``(1) Age requirement.--
``(A) In general.--An alien who has never been in removal
proceedings, or whose proceedings have been terminated before
making a request for provisional protected presence, shall be
at least 15 years old on the date on which the alien submits
an application under this section.
``(B) Exception.--The age requirement set forth in
subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an alien who, on the date
on which the alien applies for provisional protected
presence, is in removal proceedings, has a final removal
order, or has a voluntary departure order.
``(2) Application fee.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may require aliens
applying for provisional protected presence and employment
authorization under this section to pay a reasonable fee that
is commensurate with the cost of processing the application.
``(B) Exemption.--An applicant may be exempted from paying
the fee required under subparagraph (A) if the alien--
``(i)(I) is younger than 18 years of age;
``(II) received total income during the 12-month period
immediately preceding the date on which the alien files an
application under this section that is less than 150 percent
of the United States poverty level; and
``(III) is in foster care or otherwise lacking any parental
or other familial support;

[[Page S1251]]

``(ii) is younger than 18 years of age and is homeless;
``(iii)(I) cannot care for himself or herself because of a
serious, chronic disability; and
``(II) received total income during the 12-month period
immediately preceding the date on which the alien files an
application under this section that is less than 150 percent
of the United States poverty level; or
``(iv)(I) as of the date on which the alien files an
application under this section, has accumulated $10,000 or
more in debt in the past 12 months as a result of
unreimbursed medical expenses incurred by the alien or an
immediate family member of the alien; and
``(II) received total income during the 12-month period
immediately preceding the date on which the alien files an
application under this section that is less than 150 percent
of the United States poverty level.
``(3) Removal stayed while application pending.--The
Secretary may not remove an alien from the United States who
appears prima facie eligible for provisional protected
presence while the alien's application for provisional
protected presence is pending.
``(4) Aliens not in immigration detention.--An alien who is
not in immigration detention, but who is in removal
proceedings, is the subject of a final removal order, or is
the subject of a voluntary departure order, may apply for
provisional protected presence under this section if the
alien appears prima facie eligible for provisional protected
presence.
``(5) Aliens in immigration detention.--The Secretary shall
provide any alien in immigration detention, including any
alien who is in removal proceedings, is the subject of a
final removal order, or is the subject of a voluntary
departure order, who appears prima facie eligible for
provisional protected presence, upon request, with a
reasonable opportunity to apply for provisional protected
presence under this section.
``(6) Confidentiality.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall protect information
provided in applications for provisional protected presence
under this section and in requests for consideration of DACA
from disclosure to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
and U.S. Customs and Border Protection for the purpose of
immigration enforcement proceedings.
``(B) Referrals prohibited.--The Secretary may not refer
individuals whose cases have been deferred pursuant to DACA
or who have been granted provisional protected presence under
this section to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
``(C) Limited exception.--The information submitted in
applications for provisional protected presence under this
section and in requests for consideration of DACA may be
shared with national security and law enforcement agencies--
``(i) for assistance in the consideration of the
application for provisional protected presence;
``(ii) to identify or prevent fraudulent claims;
``(iii) for national security purposes; and
``(iv) for the investigation or prosecution of any felony
not related to immigration status.
``(7) Acceptance of applications.--Not later than 60 days
after the date of the enactment of the Three-Year Border and
DACA Extension Act, the Secretary shall begin accepting
applications for provisional protected presence and
employment authorization.
``(g) Rescission of Provisional Protected Presence.--The
Secretary may not rescind an alien's provisional protected
presence or employment authorization granted under this
section unless the Secretary determines that the alien--
``(1) has been convicted of--
``(A) a felony;
``(B) a significant misdemeanor; or
``(C) 3 or more misdemeanors not occurring on the same date
and not arising out of the same act, omission, or scheme of
misconduct;
``(2) poses a threat to national security or a threat to
public safety;
``(3) has traveled outside of the United States without
authorization from the Secretary; or
``(4) has ceased to continuously reside in the United
States.
``(h) Treatment of Brief, Casual, and Innocent Departures
and Certain Other Absences.--For purposes of subsections
(c)(3) and (g)(4), an alien shall not be considered to have
failed to continuously reside in the United States due to--
``(1) brief, casual, and innocent absences from the United
States during the period beginning on June 15, 2007, and
ending on August 14, 2012; or
``(2) travel outside of the United States on or after
August 15, 2012, if such travel was authorized by the
Secretary.
``(i) Treatment of Expunged Convictions.--For purposes of
subsections (c)(7) and (g)(1), an expunged conviction shall
not automatically be treated as a disqualifying felony,
significant misdemeanor, or misdemeanor, but shall be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis according to the nature and
severity of the offense to determine whether, under the
particular circumstances, the alien should be eligible for
provisional protected presence under this section.
``(j) Effect of Deferred Action Under Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals Program.--
``(1) Provisional protected presence.--A DACA recipient is
deemed to have provisional protected presence under this
section through the expiration date of the alien's deferred
action status, as specified by the Secretary in conjunction
with the approval of the alien's DACA application.
``(2) Employment authorization.--If a DACA recipient has
been granted employment authorization by the Secretary in
addition to deferred action, the employment authorization
shall continue through the expiration date of the alien's
deferred action status, as specified by the Secretary in
conjunction with the approval of the alien's DACA
application.
``(3) Effect of application.--If a DACA recipient files an
application for provisional protected presence under this
section not later than the expiration date of the alien's
deferred action status, as specified by the Secretary in
conjunction with the approval of the alien's DACA
application, the alien's provisional protected presence, and
any employment authorization, shall remain in effect pending
the adjudication of such application.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 244
the following:

``Sec. 244A. Provisional protected presence.''.

____________________