December 19, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 206 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S7178-S7185]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT ACCURACY AND TECHNOLOGICAL AVAILABILITY ACT

  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of Calendar No. 328, S. 1822.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1822) to require the Federal Communications 
     Commission to issue rules relating to the collection of data 
     with respect to the availability of broadband services, and 
     for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to proceeding to the 
measure?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, 
which had been reported from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting 
clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Broadband Deployment 
     Accuracy and Technological Availability Act'' or the 
     ``Broadband DATA Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Broadband internet access service.--The term 
     ``broadband internet access service'' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 8.1(b) of title 47, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, or any successor regulation.
       (2) Broadband map.--The term ``Broadband Map'' means the 
     map created by the Commission under section 3(c)(1)(A).
       (3) Cell edge probability.--The term ``cell edge 
     probability'' means the likelihood that the minimum threshold 
     download and upload speeds with respect to broadband internet 
     access service will be met or exceeded at a distance from a 
     base station that is intended to indicate the ultimate edge 
     of the coverage area of a cell.
       (4) Cell loading.--The term ``cell loading'' means the 
     percentage of the available air interface resources of a base 
     station that are used by consumers with respect to broadband 
     internet access service.
       (5) Clutter.--The term ``clutter'' means a natural or man-
     made surface feature that affects the propagation of a signal 
     from a base station.
       (6) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Communications Commission.
       (7) Fabric.--The term ``Fabric'' means the Broadband 
     Serviceable Location Fabric established under section 
     3(b)(1)(B).
       (8) Form 477.--The term ``Form 477'' means Form 477 of the 
     Commission relating to local telephone competition and 
     broadband reporting.
       (9) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian Tribe'' has the 
     meaning given the term ``Indian tribe'' in section 4 of the 
     Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 
     U.S.C. 5304).
       (10) Mobility fund phase ii.--The term ``Mobility Fund 
     Phase II'' means the second phase of the proceeding to 
     provide universal service support from the Mobility Fund (WC 
     Docket No. 10-90; WT Docket No. 10-208).
       (11) Propagation model.--The term ``propagation model'' 
     means a mathematical formulation for the characterization of 
     radio wave propagation as a function of frequency, distance, 
     and other conditions.
       (12) Provider.--The term ``provider'' means a provider of 
     fixed or mobile broadband internet access service.
       (13) Shapefile.--The term ``shapefile'' means a digital 
     storage format containing geospatial or location-based data 
     and attribute information--
       (A) regarding the availability of broadband internet access 
     service; and
       (B) that can be viewed, edited, and mapped in geographic 
     information system software.
       (14) Standard broadband installation.--The term ``standard 
     broadband installation''--
       (A) means the initiation by a provider of new fixed 
     broadband internet access service with no charges or delays 
     attributable to the extension of the network of the provider; 
     and
       (B) includes the initiation of fixed broadband internet 
     access service through routine installation that can be 
     completed not later than 10 business days after the date on 
     which the service request is submitted.

     SEC. 3. BROADBAND MAPS.

       (a) Rules.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall issue final rules 
     that shall--
       (A) allow for the collection by the Commission of accurate 
     and granular data, not less frequently than biannually--
       (i) relating to the availability of terrestrial fixed, 
     fixed wireless, satellite, and mobile broadband internet 
     access service; and
       (ii) that the Commission shall use to compile the maps 
     created under subsection (c)(1) (referred to in this section 
     as ``coverage maps''), which the Commission shall make 
     publicly available; and
       (B) establish--
       (i) processes through which the Commission can verify the 
     accuracy of data submitted under subsection (b)(2);
       (ii) processes and procedures through which the Commission, 
     and, as necessary, other entities or persons submitting 
     information under this Act, can protect the security, 
     privacy, and confidentiality of--

       (I) information contained in the Fabric;
       (II) the dataset created under subsection (b)(1) supporting 
     the Fabric; and
       (III) the data submitted under subsection (b)(2);

       (iii) the challenge process described in subsection (b)(5); 
     and
       (iv) the process described in section 5(b).
       (2) Other data.--In issuing the rules under paragraph (1), 
     the Commission shall develop a process through which the 
     Commission can collect verified data for use in the coverage 
     maps from--
       (A) State, local, and Tribal governmental entities that are 
     primarily responsible for mapping or tracking broadband 
     internet access service coverage for a State, unit of local 
     government, or Indian Tribe, as applicable;
       (B) third parties, if the Commission determines that it is 
     in the public interest to use such data in--
       (i) the development of the coverage maps; or
       (ii) the verification of data submitted under subsection 
     (b); and

[[Page S7179]]

       (C) other Federal agencies.
       (3) Updates.--The Commission shall revise the rules issued 
     under paragraph (1) to--
       (A) reflect changes in technology;
       (B) ensure the accuracy of propagation models, as further 
     provided in subsection (b)(3); and
       (C) improve the usefulness of the coverage maps.
       (b) Content of Rules.--
       (1) Establishment of a serviceable location fabric 
     regarding fixed broadband.--
       (A) Dataset.--
       (i) In general.--The Commission shall create a common 
     dataset of all locations in the United States where fixed 
     broadband internet access service can be installed, as 
     determined by the Commission.
       (ii) Contracting.--

       (I) In general.--Subject to subclauses (II) and (III), the 
     Commission may contract with an entity with expertise with 
     respect to geographic information systems (referred to in 
     this subsection as ``GIS'') to create and maintain the 
     dataset under clause (i).
       (II) Application of the federal acquisition regulation.--A 
     contract into which the Commission enters under subclause (I) 
     shall in all respects comply with applicable provisions of 
     the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
       (III) Limitations.--With respect to a contract into which 
     the Commission enters under subclause (I)--

       (aa) the entity with which the Commission contracts shall 
     be selected through a competitive bid process that is 
     transparent and open; and
       (bb) the contract shall be for a term of not longer than 5 
     years, after which the Commission may enter into a new 
     contract--
       (AA) with an entity, and for the purposes, described in 
     subclause (I); and
       (BB) that complies with the requirements under subclause 
     (II) and this subclause.
       (B) Fabric.--The rules issued by the Commission under 
     subsection (a)(1) shall establish the Broadband Serviceable 
     Location Fabric, which shall--
       (i) contain geocoded information for each location 
     identified under subparagraph (A)(i);
       (ii) serve as the foundation upon which all data relating 
     to the availability of fixed broadband internet access 
     service collected under paragraph (2)(A) shall be reported 
     and overlaid;
       (iii) be compatible with commonly used GIS software; and
       (iv) at a minimum, be updated annually by the Commission.
       (C) Implementation priority.--The Commission shall 
     prioritize implementing the Fabric for rural and insular 
     areas of the United States.
       (2) Collection of information.--The rules issued by the 
     Commission under subsection (a)(1) shall include uniform 
     standards for the reporting of broadband internet access 
     service data that the Commission shall collect--
       (A) from each provider of terrestrial fixed, fixed 
     wireless, or satellite broadband internet access service, 
     which shall include data that--
       (i) documents the areas where the provider--

       (I) has actually built out the broadband network 
     infrastructure of the provider such that the provider is able 
     to provide that service; and
       (II) could provide that service, as determined by 
     identifying where the provider is capable of performing a 
     standard broadband installation, if applicable;

       (ii) includes information regarding download and upload 
     speeds, at various thresholds established by the Commission, 
     and, if applicable, latency with respect to broadband 
     internet access service that the provider makes available;
       (iii) can be georeferenced to the GIS data in the Fabric;
       (iv) the provider shall report as--

       (I) with respect to providers of fixed wireless broadband 
     internet access service--

       (aa) propagation maps and propagation model details that--
       (AA) satisfy standards that are similar to those applicable 
     to providers of mobile broadband internet access service 
     under subparagraph (B) with respect to propagation maps and 
     propagation model details, taking into account material 
     differences between fixed wireless and mobile broadband 
     internet access service; and
       (BB) reflect the speeds and latency of the service provided 
     by the provider; or
       (bb) a list of addresses or locations that constitute the 
     service area of the provider, except that the Commission--
       (AA) may only permit, and not require, a provider to report 
     the data using that means of reporting; and
       (BB) in the rules issued under subsection (a)(1), shall 
     provide a method for using that means of reporting with 
     respect to Tribal areas; and

       (II) with respect to providers of terrestrial fixed and 
     satellite broadband internet access service--

       (aa) polygon shapefiles; or
       (bb) a list of addresses or locations that constitute the 
     service area of the provider, except that the Commission--
       (AA) may only permit, and not require, a provider to report 
     the data using that means of reporting; and
       (BB) in the rules issued under subsection (a)(1), shall 
     provide a method for using that means of reporting with 
     respect to Tribal areas; and
       (v) the Commission determines is appropriate with respect 
     to certain technologies in order to ensure that the Broadband 
     Map is granular and accurate; and
       (B) from each provider of mobile broadband internet access 
     service, which shall include propagation maps, and the 
     propagation models on which those maps are based, that 
     indicate the current (as of the date on which the information 
     is collected) fourth generation Long-Term Evolution (commonly 
     referred to as ``4G LTE'') mobile broadband internet access 
     service coverage of the provider, which shall--
       (i) take into consideration the effect of clutter; and
       (ii) satisfy--

       (I) the requirements of having--

       (aa) a download speed of 5 megabits per second and an 
     upload speed of 1 megabit per second with a cell edge 
     probability of not less than 90 percent; and
       (bb) cell loading of 50 percent; and

       (II) any other parameter that the Commission determines to 
     be necessary to create a map under subsection (c)(1)(C) that 
     is more precise than the map produced as a result of the 
     submissions under the Mobility Fund Phase II information 
     collection.

       (3) Update of reporting standards for mobile broadband 
     internet access service.--For the purposes of paragraph 
     (2)(B), if the Commission determines that the reporting 
     standards under that paragraph are insufficient to collect 
     accurate propagation maps and propagation model details with 
     respect to future generations of mobile broadband internet 
     access service technologies, the Commission shall immediately 
     commence a rule making to adopt new reporting standards with 
     respect to those technologies that--
       (A) shall be the functional equivalent of the standards 
     required under paragraph (2)(B); and
       (B) allow for the collection of propagation maps and 
     propagation model details that are as accurate and granular 
     as, or more accurate and granular than, the maps and model 
     details collected by the Commission under paragraph (2)(B).
       (4) Certification and verification.--With respect to a 
     provider that submits information to the Commission under 
     paragraph (2)--
       (A) the provider shall include in each submission a 
     certification from a corporate officer of the provider that 
     the officer has examined the information contained in the 
     submission and that, to the best of the officer's actual 
     knowledge, information, and belief, all statements of fact 
     contained in the submission are true and correct; and
       (B) the Commission shall verify the accuracy and 
     reliability of the information in accordance with measures 
     established by the Commission.
       (5) Challenge process.--
       (A) In general.--In the rules issued under subsection (a), 
     and subject to subparagraph (B), the Commission shall 
     establish a user-friendly challenge process through which 
     consumers, State, local, and Tribal governmental entities, 
     and other entities may submit coverage data to the Commission 
     to challenge the accuracy of--
       (i) the coverage maps;
       (ii) any information submitted by a provider regarding the 
     availability of broadband internet access service; or
       (iii) the information included in the Fabric.
       (B) Considerations; verification; response to challenges.--
     In establishing the challenge process required under 
     subparagraph (A), the Commission shall--
       (i) consider--

       (I) the types of information that an entity submitting a 
     challenge should provide to the Commission in support of the 
     challenge;
       (II) the appropriate level of granularity for the 
     information described in subclause (I);
       (III) the need to mitigate the time and expense incurred 
     by, and the administrative burdens placed on, entities in--

       (aa) challenging the accuracy of a coverage map; and
       (bb) responding to challenges described in item (aa); and

       (IV) the costs to consumers and providers resulting from a 
     misallocation of funds because of a reliance on outdated or 
     otherwise inaccurate information in the coverage maps;

       (ii) include a process for verifying the data submitted 
     through the challenge process in order to ensure the 
     reliability of that data;
       (iii) allow providers to respond to challenges submitted 
     through the challenge process; and
       (iv) develop an online mechanism, which--

       (I) shall be integrated into the coverage maps; and
       (II) allows for an entity described in subparagraph (A) to 
     submit a challenge under the challenge process.

       (C) Use of challenges.--The rules issued to establish the 
     challenge process under subparagraph (A) shall include--
       (i) a process for the speedy resolution of challenges; and
       (ii) a process for the regular and expeditious updating of 
     the coverage maps as challenges are resolved.
       (6) Reform of form 477 process.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date on 
     which the rules issued under subsection (a) take effect, the 
     Commission shall--
       (i) reform the Form 477 broadband deployment service 
     availability collection process of the Commission to make the 
     process consistent with this Act and the rules issued under 
     this Act; and
       (ii) remove duplicative reporting requirements and 
     procedures regarding the deployment of broadband internet 
     access service that, as of that date, are in effect.
       (B) Continued collection and reporting.--On and after the 
     date on which the Commission carries out subparagraph (A), 
     the Commission shall continue to collect and publicly report 
     subscription data that the Commission collected through the 
     Form 477 broadband deployment service availability process, 
     as in effect on July 1, 2019.
       (c) Maps.--The Commission shall--
       (1) create--
       (A) the Broadband Map, which shall depict--
       (i) the extent of the availability of broadband internet 
     access service in the United States, without regard to 
     whether that service is fixed

[[Page S7180]]

     broadband internet access service or mobile broadband 
     internet access service, which shall be based on data 
     collected by the Commission from all providers; and
       (ii) the areas of the United States that remain unserved by 
     providers;
       (B) a map that depicts the availability of fixed broadband 
     internet access service, which shall be based on data 
     collected by the Commission from providers under subsection 
     (b)(2)(A); and
       (C) a map that depicts the availability of mobile broadband 
     internet access service, which shall be based on data 
     collected by the Commission from providers under subsection 
     (b)(2)(B);
       (2) use the maps created under paragraph (1)--
       (A) to determine the areas in which terrestrial fixed, 
     fixed wireless, mobile, and satellite broadband internet 
     access service is and is not available; and
       (B) when making any new award of funding with respect to 
     the deployment of broadband internet access service;
       (3) update the maps created under paragraph (1) not less 
     frequently than biannually using the most recent data 
     collected from providers under subsection (b)(2);
       (4) establish a process requiring the Department of 
     Agriculture and the National Telecommunications and 
     Information Administration to consult the maps created under 
     paragraph (1) when, as of the date on which the process is 
     established or on any future date, distributing funds 
     relating to the deployment of broadband internet access 
     service under any program administered by the Rural Utilities 
     Service or the Administration, respectively; and
       (5) establish a process to make the data collected under 
     subsection (b)(2) available to the National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration.

     SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for a person or 
     entity to willfully and knowingly, or recklessly, submit 
     information or data under this Act that is materially 
     inaccurate or incomplete with respect to the availability of 
     broadband internet access service.
       (b) Violations.--A violation of this Act shall be treated 
     as a violation of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     151 et seq.), and the Commission shall enforce this Act in 
     the same manner, by the same means, and with the same 
     jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable 
     terms and provisions of that Act were incorporated into and 
     made a part of this Act.

     SEC. 5. IMPROVING DATA ACCURACY.

       (a) Audits.--The Commission shall conduct regular audits of 
     information submitted to the Commission by providers under 
     section 3(b)(2) to ensure that the providers are complying 
     with this Act.
       (b) Crowdsourcing.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall develop a process 
     through which persons in the United States may submit 
     specific information about the deployment and availability of 
     broadband internet access service in the United States so 
     that the information may be used to verify and supplement 
     information provided by providers of broadband internet 
     access service for inclusion in the maps created under 
     section 3(c)(1).
       (2) Collaboration.--As part of the efforts of the 
     Commission to facilitate the ability of persons to submit 
     information under paragraph (1), the Commission shall issue 
     guidance and other information as appropriate to ensure that 
     the information submitted is uniform and consistent with the 
     data submitted by providers under section 3(b)(2).
       (c) Technical Assistance to Indian Tribes.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Commission 
     shall hold workshops for Tribal governments in each of the 12 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs regions to provide technical 
     assistance with the collection and submission of data under 
     section 3(a)(2).
       (2) Annual review.--Each year, the Commission, in 
     consultation with Indian Tribes, shall review the need for 
     continued workshops required under paragraph (1).
       (d) Technical Assistance to Small Service Providers.--The 
     Commission shall establish a process through which a provider 
     that has fewer than 100,000 active broadband internet access 
     service connections may request and receive assistance from 
     the Commission with respect to geographic information system 
     data processing to ensure that the provider is able to comply 
     with the requirements under section 3(b) in a timely and 
     accurate manner.

     SEC. 6. COST.

       (a) In General.--Beginning with the first full fiscal year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall 
     include in the budget submission of the Commission to the 
     President under sections 1105(a) and 1108 of title 31, United 
     States Code, amounts sufficient to ensure the proper and 
     continued functioning of the responsibilities of the 
     Commission under this Act.
       (b) Cost of Fabric.--
       (1) USF.--The Commission may not use funds from the 
     universal service programs of the Commission established 
     under section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 254), and the regulations issued under that section, 
     to pay for any costs associated with this Act.
       (2) Other funds.--The Commission may recover costs 
     associated with this Act under section 9 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 159) to the extent 
     provided for in an appropriation Act, as required under 
     subsection (a) of that section.

     SEC. 7. OTHER PROVISIONS.

       (a) OMB.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     initial rule making required under section 3(a)(1) shall be 
     exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget.
       (b) PRA.--Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code 
     (commonly known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act''), shall 
     not apply to the initial rule making required under section 
     3(a)(1).
       (c) Execution of Responsibilities.--Except as provided in 
     section 3(b)(1)(A)(ii), the Commission--
       (1) including the offices of the Commission, shall carry 
     out the responsibilities assigned to the Commission under 
     this Act; and
       (2) may not delegate any of the responsibilities assigned 
     to the Commission under this Act to any third party, 
     including the Universal Service Administrative Company.
       (d) Reporting.--Each fiscal year, the Commission shall 
     submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives a report that 
     summarizes the implementation of this Act and associated 
     enforcement activities conducted during the previous fiscal 
     year.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
committee-reported amendment be withdrawn; that the Wicker substitute 
amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be 
considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee-reported amendment was withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 1268), in the nature of a substitute, was agreed 
to as follows:
  (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The bill (S. 1822), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a 
third reading, was read the third time, and passed.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4998

  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, with regard to the so-called ``Rip and 
Replace Act'' that would facilitate the United States joining our 
allies and protecting us, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 
4998, which was received from the House; that the bill be considered 
read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEE. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, this is 
clearly an effort to push through last-minute changes on a single bill.
  In my view, these changes are reckless, unnecessary, and unwise, and 
in any event they were made without debate by Members of this body and 
specifically contrary to the manner in which this very same legislation 
was reported out of the Senate Commerce Committee.
  I am glad to see the passage of a couple of pieces of legislation 
just now, including the TRACED Act, which will help us fight damaging 
robocalls. This is good legislation. I am also supportive of S. 1822, 
the Broadband DATA Act, which will require much needed updates to our 
broadband maps. These are good pieces of legislation. I am glad they 
are passed.
  I am also very supportive of the legislation that is the subject of 
the immediate unanimous consent request; that is, the Commerce 
Committee's reported version of S. 1625, the United States 5G 
Leadership Act.
  This is an important bill. It would help us identify Huawei equipment 
posing an espionage risk in the United States. It will ban the use of 
Universal Service Fund dollars to purchase the equipment and help 
reimburse small companies for the costs associated with ripping and 
replacing vulnerable equipment.
  This is an important bill, and it received careful consideration 
during the Senate Commerce Committee's markup on July 24, 2019.
  The version of this bill that passed the committee was supported 
unanimously by Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the aisle. 
That version required $700 million to be set aside in a fund to help 
reimburse companies for Huawei equipment replacements. The bill 
specified that the source of this funding was to come from the proceeds 
of spectrum auctions. This was a smart and good and carefully tailored 
pay-for that did not add to our out-of-control Federal spending.

[[Page S7181]]

  As currently written, the bill contains a reference to a 
reimbursement fund and assumes there will be reimbursements, but the 
bill does not specify how much funding is allocated, nor does it 
specify the source of these funds. I can only assume this means the 
House and Senate Appropriations Committees will default to authorizing 
new funds rather than using the smart pay-for that the Senate Commerce 
Committee unanimously and wisely agreed to in July.
  For these reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1625

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 1625 and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments ordered 
reported by the Commerce Committee be agreed to; that the bill, as 
amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WICKER. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, the Senator, my good friend from Utah, 
has asked unanimous consent that we pass the version of the bill I 
authored. Ordinarily, I would very much appreciate that. The problem 
with his request is that in this Congress, it prevents us from acting 
today to get to this ZTE and Huawei problem. We have a solution, and we 
need to get started on it.
  Let me also make the point that some things are worth paying for, and 
protecting Americans, protecting our electronic system, our broadband 
communications from the Chinese-owned Huawei and ZTE is worth paying 
for.
  What my unanimous consent request would have done, had the Senator 
not objected, is we would have passed the bill and leave the issue of 
how we fund it to another day. Perhaps the appropriators would have 
decided to appropriate money for it. Had they done so, they would have 
operated within the budget caps, as the Appropriations Committee has 
done, and found room, found some offsets, and paid for it that way.
  The proposal I made, that was objected to by my friend from Utah, 
would also have left open the possibility of having a pay-for by the 
sale of some spectrum.
  I regret that the Senator is objecting based on how we will pay for 
this very needed expenditure down the road. So I am compelled to object 
to my good friend's unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, where I come from in Utah, $700 million is 
a lot of money. Seven hundred million dollars is something we ought to 
worry about where we are going to get it.
  It is not unreasonable for us to request that the House of 
Representatives agree to the language we unanimously, on a bipartisan 
basis, passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee.
  In my mind, it is unfortunate that we are allowing the House of 
Representatives' unreasonable, unwarranted demand--a demand the 
chairman of the Commerce Committee himself acknowledges is one they 
shouldn't object to--to rule the day and prevent this legislation from 
becoming law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Tribute to Bill Murat

  Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, I rise today with great pride to 
recognize and honor my chief of staff and dear friend Bill Murat, who 
will retire at the end of this year after 21 years of working in 
Congress.
  It is a rare thing in Washington to work side by side with the same 
person for more than 20 years.
  So on the eve of your retirement, Bill, I want to share a few words 
about how much you have meant to me and the countless others you have 
encountered during your long and storied career.
  Bill Murat is a proud son of Stevens Point, WI. He graduated from 
high school and college there, earned his GD from UW Law School and his 
MBA from Columbia University.
  Civically engaged since his youth, he served as district attorney for 
Portage County, WI, prior to his election to the Wisconsin State 
Assembly in 1994. It was there that Bill and I developed a friendship 
as colleagues in the Wisconsin State Assembly in the 1990s. I found him 
to be earnest, hard-working, a brilliant strategist, and lovely 
storyteller. He also knew when to add good humor or a note of levity.
  I remember fondly one night, during a midnight session of the 
assembly, when Bill and I and a few of our Republican colleagues were 
on the floor waiting for a vote while many of our colleagues were still 
in their respective caucuses trying to hash out an agreement on an 
issue. Being a big fan of Broadway, Bill was reflecting on how this 
moment felt like a particular song from the musical ``Oklahoma.'' 
There, on the floor of the Wisconsin State Assembly, while in recess in 
the wee hours, on a bipartisan basis, he broke out in song, singing: 
``The farmer and the cowman should be friends.'' Because this is a 
speech about Bill Murat, this will not be the last time I mention show 
tunes.
  After I was elected to the House of Representatives, Bill came to 
work with me, first, as my district director and then, starting in 
2001, as my chief of staff. Bill's steady hand of leadership has helped 
me weather the storms Washington brings and stay focused on what 
matters most--the people we serve in Wisconsin.
  I remember the days after September 11, 2001. It was chaotic, 
weighty, and, frankly, a scary time in Washington and across our 
Nation. I had to get back to Wisconsin, but planes were still grounded. 
So Bill walked into my office and simply said: ``Need a ride?'' So, 
together, we made that 14-hour trip home from Washington, DC, to 
Madison, WI, noting the American flags that were hung from nearly every 
highway bridge we passed under and considering the gravity of the new 
world we were seeing emerge.
  Bill has been by my side for the highs and the lows of my time in 
Congress. I am so proud of what we have done together, working to do 
right by the people of Wisconsin and to pass on to the next generation 
a country that is more equal, not less. His generosity of spirit 
extends to every constituent in Wisconsin, every colleague in Congress, 
and every staffer who has worked for him. His door is always open, and 
he has been a mentor to so many people who have worked in the Baldwin 
offices over the years.

  In fact, I know there are several former staff members of mine who 
have Bill to thank for their love of Broadway, since he used to host 
``Better Living through Show Tunes'' as evening staff events. To be 
honest, I am still jealous that these show tune nights always happened 
after ``wheels up'' and I was headed home to Wisconsin.
  On a more serious note, Bill is a fierce advocate and ardent 
supporter of our Team Tammy family. He has led by example, encouraging 
young people to pursue their passions, doling out career advice to 
those who need it and listening to the concerns of others, whether they 
are a Senate employee or a Wisconsinite looking for some assistance.
  Bill has spent over three decades working on behalf of the great 
State of Wisconsin. He and I have accomplished much together. I would 
not be here today without him, and I am grateful for his friendship. I 
thank him from the bottom of my heart for the years of service, and I 
wish him the most fabulous retirement.


                             appropriations

  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, very shortly, the Senate will vote on 
the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to 
accompany H.R. 1865, Further Consolidated Appropriations Act. As part 
of this appropriations package. a

[[Page S7182]]

version of my bill, the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of 
Terrorism Act of 2019, is included in section 903. This bipartisan bill 
seeks to restore U.S. court jurisdiction over the Palestinian 
Authority, PA/Palestine Liberation Organization, PLO, while promoting 
U.S. foreign policy interests in the Middle East through the resumption 
of U.S. security assistance to PA security forces. It is a testament to 
the hard work of my Democratic and Republican colleagues in this 
Chamber that we are about to take up this important legislation.
  In 1992, Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism Act, ATA. This law, as 
well as future amending legislation, sought to deter and defeat 
international terrorism by giving American citizens who are victims of 
terrorism overseas the power to sue perpetrators in U.S. court. I was 
privileged to work with the original ATA's author, Senator Grassley, in 
drafting the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism 
Act of 2019.
  What our bill--also sponsored by Senators Duckworth, Coons, 
Blumenthal, and Rubio--does is strike a balance between Congress's 
desire to provide a path forward for American victims of terror to have 
their day in court and the toleration by the Members of this body to 
allow the PA/PLO to conduct a very narrow scope of activities on U.S. 
soil--such as activities pertaining to official business at the United 
Nations, engagements with U.S. officials necessary to our national 
interest, and legal expenses related to adjudicating or resolving 
claims filed in U.S. courts--without consenting to personal 
jurisdiction in civil ATA cases. This delicate balance is supported by 
a bipartisan coalition of Members of Congress, the executive branch, 
and American victims of international terrorism and their families.
  For 25 years, the Federal courts struck this balance by holding that 
the PLO's and PA's presence and activities in the United States subject 
them to jurisdiction in our courts unless they can demonstrate that 
their offices in the United States deal exclusively with the official 
business of the United Nations and that their activities in this 
country are commensurate with their special diplomatic need for being 
present here.
  The courts correctly held that the PLO's and PA's fundraising and 
public relations activities such as press releases and public 
appearances, whether characterized as diplomatic public speaking or 
proselytizing, are not essential to their diplomatic functions at the 
United Nations Headquarters. The bill codifies the distinction 
recognized in these cases while giving the PLO and PA a clear choice. 
Unless they limit their presence to official business with the United 
Nations and their U.S. activities commensurate with their special 
diplomatic need to be in the United States, they will be consenting to 
personal jurisdiction in ATA cases.
  In this regard, the exception in the language for ``ancillary'' 
activities is intended to permit only essential support or services 
that are absolutely necessary to facilitate the conduct of diplomatic 
activities expressly exempted in the bill.
  By applying the bill to any case pending on or after August 30, 2016, 
we are making clear Congress's intent that courts have the power to 
restore jurisdiction in cases previously dismissed for lack of 
jurisdiction after years of litigation. It is to be liberally construed 
to carry out the purposes of Congress to provide relief for victims of 
terrorism, and it specifies Congress's intent to enable victims to 
pursue justice without being subjected to repetitive, unnecessary, or 
protracted litigation, which would just reopen the pain that many 
Americans have already suffered through.
  As the Congress finishes its final week of the first session of the 
116th Congress, I look forward to voting in favor of this important 
legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, in October the Senate Judiciary 
Committee marked up and passed S. 2132, the Promoting Security and 
Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019. I am happy to say that 
after further good faith negotiations among key stakeholders within and 
outside of Congress, a version of the bill is included in the 
appropriations package the Senate will soon consider.
  I am proud to be a lead cosponsor of this bipartisan bill and to have 
helped lead it through the Judiciary Committee. Senator Lankford, who 
introduced this legislation, has tirelessly worked to get it across the 
finish line in the Senate. From day one of this effort, American 
victims of terrorism have had a tremendous ally in the Senator from 
Oklahoma and his staff, and I thank him for his leadership.
  Earlier today, Senator Lankford discussed parts of this bipartisan 
legislation in greater detail. I would like to associate myself with 
his remarks.
  I am also very grateful to Senators Duckworth, Rubio, Blumenthal, and 
Coons for their support and work on behalf of victims.
  It is not easy to find common ground here in the Senate, but there is 
one issue where we should all agree: Those who aid or carry out 
terrorist attacks overseas that kill or injure Americans should be held 
fully accountable in our justice system.
  For over 25 years, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1992, ATA, which I 
authored and Congress unanimously passed, has empowered American 
victims of international terrorism to bring lawsuits in Federal courts 
to vindicate their rights and obtain compensation for their injuries--
providing some semblance of justice.
  Equally important, these lawsuits disrupt and deter the financial 
support of terrorist organizations. By cutting terrorists' financial 
lifelines, the ATA is a key part of the U.S. arsenal in fighting 
terrorism and protecting American citizens.
  The 1992 law removed the jurisdictional hurdles that had for so long 
frustrated or outright prevented American victims' ability to seek 
justice in U.S. courts for attacks committed overseas. Congress passed 
the ATA in the wake of international terrorist attacks, including the 
Palestine Liberation Front's 1985 killing of Leon Klinghoffer, a Jewish 
American aboard the Achille Lauro cruise ship.
  For 25 years the law worked as intended. The Palestine Liberation 
Organization, PLO, and Palestinian Authority themselves were repeatedly 
held to account in U.S. courts and paid a price for terrorist attacks 
that harmed or killed Americans. But starting in 2015, lower court 
decisions made it impossible for American victims injured abroad to 
hold sponsors of international terrorism accountable in our own courts. 
These decisions nullified the fundamental purpose of the ATA--to 
protect Americans wherever in the world they may be--and disrespected 
Congress's power to protect U.S. citizens and U.S. interests.
  Last year, I introduced the bipartisan Anti-Terrorism Clarification 
Act of 2018, ATCA, in direct response to those court decisions, 
including Sokolow v. PLO in the second Circuit and Livnat v. 
Palestinian Authority in the DC Circuit. Congress passed the ATCA--once 
again, without objection--to restore jurisdiction and thereby finally 
secure justice for victims.
  The ATCA expressed a clear principle: If the PLO and Palestinian 
Authority continued to maintain any office or facility in the United 
States, or accepted taxpayer-funded U.S. assistance, they would be 
answerable in our courts for perpetrating or supporting terrorism that 
harmed or killed Americans. The bipartisan bill was considered through 
regular order as a standalone bill, with markups in both Chambers, 
passed Congress without objection, and was signed into law by President 
Trump in October of 2018.
  Shortly thereafter, instead of facing justice in our courts, the 
Palestinian Authority rejected all U.S.-backed humanitarian assistance 
provided to the West Bank and Gaza. In its zeal to dodge legal 
responsibility, the Palestinian Authority even prevented non-
governmental organization, NGO, from receiving U.S. assistance.
  The Palestinian Authority's strategically overbroad interpretation of 
the ATCA harmed the very people it claims to represent on the 
international stage.
  After inexcusable objections and delays--which I previously outlined 
on the Senate floor--the State Department finally began to 
constructively work with me and my colleagues to improve upon the ATCA, 
respond to the Palestinian Authority's actions, and finally remove the 
jurisdictional hurdles imposed on American victims by flawed court 
decisions.

[[Page S7183]]

  The Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 
2019 is the product of those negotiations and enables victims of 
terrorism to vindicate their rights in U.S. courts. It also responds 
directly to the Palestinian Authority's shameful blocking of security 
assistance and humanitarian services. This bill marks a rare compromise 
reached by American victims of terrorism and the State Department.
  I hope it in some way also sets a new precedent for our own State 
Department to continue working on behalf of and never again at odds 
with American victims.
  During the bill's markup this past October, Senator Coons offered an 
amendment that I cosponsored to add another important means of securing 
jurisdiction in our courts over the PLO and Palestinian Authority: If 
they pay terrorists or families of terrorists who injured or killed 
Americans, then that reprehensible conduct will be grounds for 
jurisdiction in ATA cases. This is a sound addition to the bill to 
support the United States' global fight against terrorism, as reflected 
in years of legislation--most recently the Taylor Force Act. The PLO 
and Palestinian Authority's ``pay to slay'' policies are nothing short 
of an incitement for further acts of terrorism. Connecting these 
payments to jurisdiction in ATA cases is perhaps the least Congress 
should do to further discourage such conduct and protect Americans 
abroad.
  The bill also sends a clear signal that Congress intends to empower 
courts to restore jurisdiction in cases previously dismissed.
  The American principle that everyone deserves meaningful access to 
justice is as old as the Constitution itself. This bipartisan bill will 
reopen the courthouse doors to American victims and their families. I 
am grateful for its inclusion in the appropriations measure that the 
Senate will soon consider.
  Once again, I want to thank Senator Lankford for his leadership and 
tireless work these past several months on behalf of American victims 
of terrorism.
  Finally, I also want to thank Chairman Graham for making this bill a 
priority in the Judiciary Committee. I now urge all of my colleagues' 
support for this important and bipartisan measure.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today in support of the fiscal 
year 2020 Appropriations bill for the Departments of Transportation, 
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies. This bill is 
included in the appropriations package that is before this Chamber.
  Let me begin my remarks by thanking Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman 
Leahy for their bipartisan leadership in successfully finishing the 
conference and advancing all of these appropriations bills to the 
Senate floor.
  I also want to acknowledge the hard work and strong commitment of my 
friend and colleague Senator Jack Reed, the ranking member of the T-HUD 
Subcommittee. We have worked closely together in negotiating this bill 
and have crafted a truly bipartisan product.
  The fiscal year 2020 transportation and housing appropriations bill 
provides $74.3 billion to continue to improve our Nation's 
infrastructure and maintain HUD rental assistance for low-income 
seniors, homeless youths, and other vulnerable populations. This year, 
we once again faced the funding challenge of rising rental costs across 
the country and a reduction in the receipts from the Federal Housing 
Administration that are used to offset some of the spending in this 
bill.
  However, we were successful in maintaining many of the Senate 
priorities in the final bill. For example, the bill provides $1 billion 
for the highly effective and popular BUILD grant program, which has 
provided $205 million in critical infrastructure improvements in Maine 
since 2009. In addition, the bill includes $1.15 billion for bridge 
repair and rehabilitation, with a focus on those States with the 
greatest needs. The need for additional bridge funding is clear across 
the country and was highlighted in my home State of Maine by grant 
awards for projects such as the Station 46 Bridge and the Sarah Mildred 
Long Bridge.
  The infrastructure funding in this bill not only addresses the 
transportation challenges we face but also creates jobs and economic 
growth in each and every one of our homes. The American Society of 
Civil Engineers' most recent report card from 2017 shows that America's 
infrastructure remains in poor condition with a grade of D+. This poor 
rating is not only detrimental for the movement of people and goods but 
also harmful from a safety perspective.
  I am also particularly proud of the $300 million for the third 
National Security Multi-Mission Vessel which will serve as the new 
training vessel for Maine Maritime Academy. The new NSMV will play a 
critical role in training the next generation of U.S. mariners. This 
new ship will ensure that cadets receive the training hours they need 
to graduate and join the workforce in the merchant marine, Navy, and 
Coast Guard.
  Another important issue, particularly to Senator Reed and me, is 
reducing lead paint in homes. That is of particular health concern to 
families with children under the age of 6. The bill provides $290 
million to combat lead hazards, a historic level of funding. Lead paint 
hazards are a significant concern for Maine families, as 57 percent of 
our housing stock was constructed prior to 1978, the year lead-based 
paint was banned. These grants will help communities protect children 
from the harmful lifelong effects of lead poisoning.
  Finally, I do want to mention that the bill provides additional 
funding for the FAA's aviation safety programs in light of two Boeing 
crashes. This funding ensures that the agency has the necessary staff 
and training, as well as safety data reporting systems going forward. 
Our Committee remains focused on this issue to ensure that we maintain 
the Nation's safest airspace.
  I appreciate the opportunity to present this important legislation to 
the Chamber. As we begin debate on the Transportation-HUD bill, I urge 
my colleagues to support the investments in this bill that benefit our 
communities all across this Nation and the families, veterans, 
children, and our seniors that rely on these programs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today as a member of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee to express my support for this 
appropriations bill and to highlight a number of important provisions 
for both our national security and the State of Maine.
  I would first like to thank Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member 
Durbin, as well as Vice-Chairman Leahy, for their work and leadership 
on the committee and their willingness to come together to complete 
what is a strong, bipartisan final bill.
  The bipartisan work of the Defense Subcommittee is vitally important 
to ensure our men and women in uniform are able to fight and defend our 
Nation as well as deter potential adversaries. It also ensures our DOD 
civilians have the resources they need to support those servicemembers 
and keep our ships, planes, and vehicles at the ready.
  The bill before us today supports a military pay increase of 3.1 
percent--the largest in a decade. It also recognizes the value of our 
civilian workforce by also supporting an average pay increase of 3.1 
percent for DOD civilians.
  The bill recognizes the necessity of building and maintaining a 
strong Navy. It provides nearly $24 billion for new Navy battle force 
ships, including more than $5 billion for three DDG-51 destroyers. 
Looking ahead to next year, it also provides an additional $390 million 
above the amount requested in the President's budget request for DDG-51 
advanced procurement. This demonstrates Congress's intent that the 
Department sustain an aggressive growth rate for large surface 
combatants in fiscal year 2021 and beyond.
  In Maine, we are very proud of the role that Bath Iron Works plays in 
contributing to our national security, building the finest ships in our 
fleet. This bill includes $130 million to invest in our Nation's large 
surface combatant industrial base, ensuring Bath Iron Works can 
efficiently design and build our Navy's fleet long into the future.
  BIW is known throughout the Navy for the high-quality of the ships 
they build, with many Sailors using our motto that ``Bath Built is Best 
Built.'' BIW employs the finest shipbuilders, engineers, and designers 
in the world, and this bill rightly recognizes the great value that 
these tried-and-tested warships bring to the Navy.

[[Page S7184]]

  This bill supports our nation's public shipyards, which are truly the 
backbone of our Navy's submarine fleet. It funds our Navy's maintenance 
activities, ensuring workers at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and other 
shipyards can carry out their work keeping our Nation's submarines at 
sea.
  The bill also makes clear that the Navy should continue to invest in 
the very successful apprenticeship programs at our public shipyards--
which has been incredibly successful at PNSY--as well as work to 
address the availability of Virginia-class submarine materials at our 
shipyards.
  This bill makes critical investments in research and development 
programs, which are being carried out in partnership with research 
institutions, including the University of Maine. These programs include 
producing jet fuel from Maine's forest biomass; developing hybrid 
composite structures for the Navy; and funding for DOD to utilize 
UMaine's new 3D printer, the largest in the world, for cutting-edge 
defense research and rapid prototyping.
  This bill invests in fifth-generation aircraft we need to deter 
Russia and China by funding 98 F-35 aircraft 20 more than initially 
requested by the Department. These advanced, stealthy jets are key to 
dominating the skies, and I am proud of Pratt and Whitney's 
contributions to the program through its construction of the F135 
engine at its facility in North Berwick, ME. Additionally, the bill 
procures six CH-53K Heavy Lift helicopters for the Marine Corps. The 
rotating drive shafts are a critical moment of the aircraft and are 
produced at Hunting Dearborn's facility in Fryeburg, ME.
  The National Guard provides our country with both a strategic and 
operational reserve which has proven itself time and time again. I 
applaud the bill's inclusion of $1.3 billion to the National Guard and 
Reserve equipment account to help modernize our Reserve forces. It also 
notes the critical capability that the National Guard provides to State 
governments in DOD's cyber defense mission and urges the Department to 
ensure there are cyber capabilities within the Guard in every State.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass 
this important legislation.
  Mr.VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I rise to express my concerns with 
H.R. 158, the appropriations package to fund the Department of Defense, 
the Census Bureau, the Department of Justice, NASA, the Treasury, and 
the Department of Homeland Security.
  As a representative of many Federal employees in the State of 
Maryland and a member of the Appropriations Committee, I take the 
responsibility of funding the government extremely seriously. The 
decisions we make in the appropriations bills govern the operations of 
the Federal Government and its programs to serve the American people, 
keep them safe, and foster opportunity.
  I have also been deeply disturbed by this Administration's efforts to 
disregard the appropriations bills that Congress has passed and the 
President has signed by transferring funds from one account to another 
and, in some cases, failing to spend duly appropriated dollars in a 
timely fashion. In order to assert Congress's authority to make the 
laws that the administration must faithfully execute, I have advocated 
for greater transparency through disclosure of the apportionment 
documents used by the Office of Management and Budget to plan spending 
schedules among agencies and for restrictions on the administration's 
authority to transfer funds between programs. We have seen that this 
President does not care about, congressional intent and will flout the 
law to use American taxpayer money build a border wall that he said 
Mexico would pay for. The funds appropriated by Congress cannot be not 
be allowed to be taken away and redirected on the whim of a President. 
So I am disappointed that this bill does not include meaningful 
restrictions on transfer authority.
  It also does not include House language to require disclosure of 
apportionment documents--language that is similar to an amendment I 
offered that was passed on a bipartisan basis as part of a bill in the 
Budget Committee. I appreciate the hard-won provisions in the bill to 
bolster efforts to oversee and correct abuses in this administration's 
disgraceful detention policy that has separated children from their 
parents and funding for alternatives to detention family case 
Management. The bill rightfully rejects the President's request to 
increase his ICE and Border Patrol forces and prohibits border fencing 
in environmentally sensitive areas. But I remain deeply concerned that 
the President still can--and judging by past actions, likely will--
transfer resources to support his damaging agenda.
  I am pleased that this bill provides a well-deserved 3.1 percent pay 
increase for Federal employees who serve our Nation admirably every 
day. I am a cosponsor of the legislation to do that and glad that it 
has been included in this bill However, I am concerned that the bill 
does not include House-passed language to counter the President's 
Executive orders that undermine Federal employee collective bargaining 
and have resulted in a number of anti-worker contracts. Federal 
employees are prohibited from bargaining on wages and benefits, so they 
focus their efforts on improving the operations of their offices. We 
should not impede their efforts to establish better working conditions, 
protect the civil service from political reprisals, and arbitrate 
disputes between management and the rank-and-file. I will continue to 
fight for fair treatment of Federal workforce.
  I appreciate the willingness of Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman 
Leahy to work with me and with Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton to 
provide the District of Columbia with funding to cover past 
inauguration and Fourth of July expenses. But I am deeply disappointed 
that the bill continues to include shameful political policy riders for 
the District of Columbia that place restrictions on how the District 
spends its own money. The U.S. Congress should stop acting like we run 
the city of Washington, DC. Elected officials from the District should 
be able to enact laws that address the needs of their constituents 
without Congress looking over their shoulder. As I stated during our 
full committee markup of the Financial Services and General Government 
Appropriations bill, we must remove these restrictions--which none of 
us would accept for our own States.
  Despite my reservations about the bill, it does include funding for 
many important programs. It fully funds the First Step Act to implement 
needed criminal justice reform, rejects the President's request to 
eliminate the Legal Services Corporation, and includes resources for 
law enforcement to address crime and fight opioid and drug trafficking. 
It fully funds the Census, a constitutionally mandated effort to count 
everyone in the United States and ensure that every community receives 
the resources it needs. It rejects the President's cuts to a number of 
important programs at NASA Goddard in Maryland, including the PACE 
Program, W-FIRST, and carbon monitoring. These programs are essential 
to our understanding of the universe and to own world and have been on 
the Trump chopping block year after year. I will continue to fight to 
make sure they are adequately funded. It fully funds the James Webb 
Space Telescope, supports RESTORE-L, and increases the base budget for 
Earth Science. NOAA and NIST, which are also headquartered in Maryland, 
will receive modest increases instead of the Administration's proposed 
cuts. The bill also includes important funding for defense 
installations in Maryland. This funding, coupled with the National 
Defense Authorization Act, which I was proud to support and which 
included a military pay increase and for the first time paid parental 
leave for federal employees, will ensure that the men and women of the 
military will receive benefits they deserve. Finally, the bill rejects 
the President's request to eliminate the Economic Development 
Administration and preserves funding for cooperative agreements between 
the Minority Business Development Agency and Minority Business 
Development Centers--three of which serve Maryland.
  I recognize that no bill is perfect and that appropriations bills 
require compromise. I respect the work that Chairman Shelby, Vice 
Chairman Leahy, and their staffs have put into this legislation and am 
grateful for their willingness to work with me on many Maryland 
priorities. However, I believe

[[Page S7185]]

that we must take steps to assert Congress's role in the appropriations 
process in the face of a President who is willing to disregard the laws 
we pass--and he signs--to further his individual agenda. Because this 
bill does not restrict the President's ability to flout Congress's 
stated intent, I regret that I cannot vote for it.

                          ____________________