[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 31 (Tuesday, March 5, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1129-S1133]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Blunt):
  S. 454. A bill to promote the development of local strategies to 
coordinate use of assistance under sections 8 and 9 of the United 
States Housing Act of 1937 with public and private resources, to enable 
eligible families to achieve economic independence and self-
sufficiency, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Family Self-
Sufficiency Act, and I am pleased this Congress to be joined in this 
effort by my colleague, Senator Blunt of Missouri.
  The Family Self Sufficiency, FSS, program is an existing Department 
of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, employment and savings incentive 
initiative for families that have section 8 vouchers or live in public 
housing. The FSS program provides two key tools for its participants: 
first, it provides access to the resources and training that help 
participants pursue employment opportunities and meet financial goals, 
and second, it encourages FSS families to save by establishing an 
interest-bearing escrow account for them. Upon graduation from the FSS 
program, the family can use these savings to pay for job-related 
expenses, such as additional workforce training or the purchase or 
maintenance of a car needed for commuting purposes.
  Our bipartisan legislation seeks to enhance the FSS program by 
streamlining the administration of this program, by broadening the 
supportive services that can be provided to a participant, and by 
extending the FSS program to tenants who live in privately-owned 
properties with project-based assistance. In short, we seek to make the 
FSS program easier to administer and more effective.
  First, to streamline the FSS program, our bill would combine two 
separate FSS programs into one. Today, HUD operates one FSS program for 
those families served by the Housing Choice Voucher Program and another 
for those families served by the Public Housing program. This is the 
case even though the core purpose of each FSS program, to increase 
economic independence and self-sufficiency, is the same. Unfortunately, 
Public Housing Agencies, PHA, have to operate essentially two programs 
to achieve the same goal. With our bill, PHAs would be relieved of this 
unnecessary burden.
  Second, our legislation broadens the scope of the supportive services 
that may be offered to include attainment of a GED, education in 
pursuit of a post-secondary degree or certification, and training in 
financial literacy. Providing families in need with affordable rental 
housing is critical, but coupling it with the support and services to 
help families get ahead increases the effectiveness of this federal 
investment. Our legislation makes it easier for FSS participants to 
obtain the training necessary to secure employment and the education to 
make prudent financial decisions to better safeguard their earnings.
  Lastly, our bill opens up the FSS program to families who live in 
privately-owned properties subsidized with project-based rental 
assistance. It shouldn't matter what kind of housing assistance a 
family gets, and families seeking to achieve self-sufficiency shouldn't 
be held back by this sort of technicality.
  I thank Senator Blunt for his partnership, and I urge my colleagues 
to support this bipartisan bill, which will help give those receiving 
housing assistance a better chance to build their skills and achieve 
economic independence.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. Thune, and Mr. Johanns):
  S. 458. A bill to improve and extend certain nutrition programs; to 
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, my colleagues, I rise today to introduce 
a bill that has a long title: Improve Nutrition Program Integrity and 
Deficit Reduction Act of 2013. Big title, but it is a good bill.
  Last June, I stood in this body, along with Chairperson Stabenow of 
the Agriculture Committee, to encourage my colleagues to pass 
bipartisan reform legislation known as the farm bill.
  The legislation we put together in the Senate Agriculture Committee 
would have strengthened and preserved the safety net for our farmers 
and ranchers while also being responsible to taxpayers by providing 
billions of dollars for deficit reduction. At the time we were told by 
the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, that the farm bill passed by 
the Agriculture Committee, one of the first bills, by the way, that we 
were able to pass under regular order and in record amount of time, 
2\1/2\ days--the CBO estimated at that time the farm bill that was 
passed by the Agriculture Committee in the Senate would save $24 
billion over 10 years, including $4 billion from the nutrition title.
  However, according to the latest CBO projections, a projection that 
has reverberated in farm country, released just last Friday, the farm 
bill we passed last year would now only save $13 billion and no longer 
represents savings in the nutrition title. We could have done more last 
year, and we must do more this year to rein in the largest expenditure 
within the Department of Agriculture budget.
  No, it does not go to farmers. We are talking about specifically the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, called SNAP, more commonly 
known as food stamps.
  In the context of sequestration, SNAP was exempted from any across-
the-board cuts, along with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It 
was in that pasture. A lot of other things were in different pastures, 
especially national security.
  However, it is clear there are several areas within the program that 
could provide significant savings that were, unfortunately, left 
untouched. The legislation I introduce today, along with Senator 
Johanns and Senator Thune, builds off of several amendments previously 
offered in a piecemeal fashion. We have wrapped them all together. Each 
should be enacted, but combined in this bill they represent over $36 
billion in savings.
  By eliminating loopholes, duplicative programs, unnecessary bonuses, 
inflation adjustments, and restricting lottery winners from receiving 
benefits, this legislation will instill and restore integrity to SNAP 
while still providing benefits to those truly in need. I ought to 
repeat that this restores integrity to SNAP while still providing 
benefits to those truly in need.
  I am not proposing a dramatic change in the policy of nutrition 
programs. Instead, this legislation enforces the principles of good 
government and returns SNAP spending to much more responsible levels. 
While saving over $36 billion, our legislation also makes commonsense 
and comprehensive reforms to SNAP, the Food Stamp Program, that can and 
should be enacted immediately.
  Over one-half of the SNAP food benefits in our country are utilized 
by households with children, and SNAP can play, and does play, a 
critical role in helping people put food on the table in times of need. 
However, at least 17 States, I am sorry to report, 17 States are gaming 
the system by designing their Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program--the acronym for that is

[[Page S1130]]

LIHEAP, a very commonly used term with regards to nutrition programs 
and the energy programs. But these 17 States designed their programs to 
exploit the Food Stamp Program. This is not right. It is not right.
  The LIHEAP loophole works like this: A participating State agency 
annually issues extremely low LIHEAP benefits to qualify otherwise 
ineligible households for standard utility allowances, which then 
result in increased monthly food stamp benefits. For example, today a 
State agency can issue only $1 annually in LIHEAP benefits to increase 
monthly food stamp benefits on an average of $90 a month. That is 
$1,080 per year for households that do not otherwise pay out-of-pocket 
utility bills.
  That is not right. Last year the Senate farm bill included a 
provision to tighten the LIHEAP loophole. Even though it would only 
reduce the loophole, it set the minimum qualifying LIHEAP benefit at 
$10 annually--not $1, $10. At the time it would have saved taxpayers 
nearly $450 million every year for a total of $4 billion over a 10-year 
period.
  Completely eliminating the LIHEAP loophole, as my legislation does, 
will save taxpayers $12 billion. Let me be very clear about it. 
Eliminating the LIHEAP loophole does not affect SNAP eligibility for 
anyone using the Food Stamp Program. Eliminating the LIHEAP loophole 
would only decrease SNAP benefits for those who would not otherwise 
qualify for the higher SNAP benefits, the food stamp benefits.
  Let me point out another area that must be reformed: States using 
categorical eligibility for automatic eligibility to provide food stamp 
benefits. Categorical eligibility is simply known as Cat-El. It was 
designed to help streamline the administration of SNAP by allowing 
households to be certified as eligible for the food stamp benefits and 
be certified without evaluating household assets or gross income, a 
previous requirement.
  Now, 42 States, unfortunately--I do not like to report these kinds of 
things. However, 42 States are exploiting an unintended loophole of the 
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program and simply provided 
informational brochures and informational 1-800 numbers to maximize the 
food stamp enrollment and the corresponding increase in Federal food 
benefits.
  These States are gaming the system to bring otherwise ineligible SNAP 
participants into the program. My legislation ties categorical 
eligibility to cash assistance, thereby eliminating this loophole. That 
saves taxpayers $11.5 billion, a lot of money. To be clear, this 
represents a cut to SNAP food benefits. However, this amount represents 
the amount of benefits to people who would not otherwise be eligible 
for these benefits were it not for States gaming the system.
  In an ongoing effort to streamline government programs and reduce 
redundancy and taxpayer spending, we should also look at the 
unnecessary spending in Federal employment and training programs. 
According to a GAO report last year, there are currently 47 such 
programs that annually cost $18 billion. Let me repeat that. There are 
47 programs annually costing $18 billion--Federal employment and 
training programs.
  Nobody would object to a Federal employment and training program 
given the problems we have with our country. But 47, according to a GAO 
report, $18 billion. Eliminating the duplicative SNAP employment and 
training programs would save more than $4 billion and would not affect 
SNAP food benefits. I repeat. This provision of this legislation would 
not cut the buying power of any food stamp household to put food in 
their refrigerators and also their kitchen cupboards.
  What am I talking about? In addition to the base program funding that 
we are talking about with employment and training help, States have the 
option of providing their own funding to their State education and 
training program. Then the Department of Agriculture is required to 
match that.
  Currently, four States receive over 80 percent of the total 50-50 
match funding. Four States, 80 percent? What about the rest of the 
States? They include New York, California, Pennsylvania, and New 
Jersey. New York, 36, 37, percent; California, 21 percent; 
Pennsylvania, about 13 percent; New Jersey, about 10.
  This optional 50-50 Federal match is uncapped. It can be used by 
States to provide reimbursement for participant expenses in regard to 
education and training that are deemed reasonable and necessary. But 
somebody has to define ``reasonable and necessary.'' The following 
items have come under ``reasonable and necessary,'' especially in these 
four States: union dues, test fees, clothing and tools required for the 
job, relocation expenses, licensing, bonding fees, transportation, 
childcare, tennis lessons. I made that up. I thought it would catch 
your attention, Mr. President. No, there are no tennis lessons. There 
might be, could be. But at least in regards to this reform, let's go to 
another provision of my legislation.
  It ends the USDA practice of giving $48 million in awards every year 
to State agencies for basically doing their job to ensure proper use of 
the American tax dollar. Currently, bonuses are given to States for 
``best program access,'' signing up as many people for food stamps as 
possible. ``Most improved program access.'' How many more people signed 
up for SNAP compared to the previous year? So if you sign up more 
people then you signed up last year, well, you get an award. ``Best 
application timeliness.'' That is handling applications within the 
required guidelines, and we are getting a benefit from that.
  State agencies are rewarded for performing the minimum expectations 
for stewardship of the Food Stamp Program and also of the American tax 
dollar. The bonuses are not even required to be used for food stamp 
administration. A recipient State may choose the funding for any State 
priority. So we are talking about $48 million.
  That goes to State agencies of these four Oscar Awards in regard to 
food stamps, but they can use the funding for anything, for any State 
priority. Eliminating these unnecessary State bonuses will save 
taxpayers, over 10 years, $480 million.
  Another area where my legislation streamlines government programs is 
through the elimination of the SNAP Nutrition Education Grant Program. 
A number of existing nutrition education programs are delivered more 
equitably with a cost-benefit ratio that makes more sense, at least six 
Federal programs administered by the Department of Agriculture and the 
National Institutes of Health and Land Grant University Extension 
Programs.
  In practice, the SNAP Nutrition Education Program is inequitably 
distributed with the top four States--here we go again--receiving over 
54 percent of the funding. The bottom 33 State agencies receive less 
than 1 percent of the total funding. That is not right.
  Additionally our bill ends inflation adjustments for countable 
resources and for emergency food assistance, saving over $600 million.
  The legislation also terminates the ongoing stimulus of several years 
ago enacted by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 
which provided extra funding to increase monthly SNAP food benefits.
  Finally, the legislation does prohibit lottery winners--Senator 
Stabenow insisted on this in the last farm bill and it makes a lot of 
sense--from receiving SNAP benefits and keeps them from receiving new 
benefits if they do not meet the financial requirements of SNAP.
  Overall, by eliminating several duplicative programs, closing 
loopholes, and ending unnecessary spending, the Improve Nutrition 
Program Integrity and Deficit Reduction Act will save taxpayers over 
$36 billion, the latest score by the CBO.
  I understand the importance of domestic food assistance programs for 
many hard-working Americans, including many Kansans. I know that. In 
1996, when I was chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, there was 
an effort to send the Food Stamp Program back to the States--and the 
Governors wanted it. They wanted the money, they didn't want the food 
stamps. We made an effort under a very historic farm bill at that time 
not only to save and reform but restore integrity to the Food Stamp 
Program. We have another opportunity right now. I do understand the 
importance of domestic food assistance programs for many hard-working 
Americans and Kansans.

[[Page S1131]]

  My goal is very simple, again restoring integrity to the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program in a commonsense and comprehensive manner. 
Enacting this package of reforms will allow the Federal Government to 
continue to help those who truly need SNAP food benefits and 
assistance.
  Again, I thank Senators Thune and Johanns for their assistance in 
this effort. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact 
these reforms for the benefit of all Americans.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
        Sanders, Mr. Casey, Mr. Franken, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Baldwin, 
        Mr. Murphy, Ms. Warren, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Rockefeller, 
        Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Schumer, Ms. 
        Stabenow, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Brown, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. 
        Merkley, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Blumenthal, and Mr. Cowan):
  S. 460. A bill to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum 
wage; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, for several years now I have come to the 
floor to talk about the need to bolster the middle class in this 
country and restore the American Dream. The American Dream is supposed 
to be about building a better life. If you work hard and play by the 
rules, you should be able to support your family, join the middle 
class, and provide a bright future for your children.
  But tens of millions of hardworking Americans who are earning at or 
near the minimum wage are not only struggling to reach the middle class 
and achieve the American Dream, they are falling behind. We need to do 
more to support these workers as they try to build opportunity for 
their families and their futures. A critical first step is to ensure 
that they earn a fair day's pay for a hard day's work. That is why 
today I am joining with Congressman George Miller to introduce the Fair 
Minimum Wage Act of 2013 to raise the minimum wage.
  Our bill will do three things: first, it will gradually increase the 
minimum wage to $10.10 an hour in three annual steps. Second, our bill 
will link future increases in the minimum wage to the cost of living, 
through the Consumer Price Index, so that people who are trying to get 
ahead don't fall behind as our economy grows. Finally, our bill will--
for the first time in more than 20 years--raise the minimum wage for 
workers who earn tips, from a paltry $2.13 per hour to a level that is 
70 percent of the regular minimum wage. This will be gradually phased 
in over the course of 6 years, which will give businesses time to 
adjust while providing more fairness for hardworking people in tipped 
industries.
  These raises are long overdue. Over the past several decades, average 
wages in this country have stagnated, but the minimum wage has actually 
declined in real terms. It has not kept up with costs, average wages, 
or rapid growth in productivity.
  Since its peak in 1968, the minimum wage has lost 31 percent of its 
purchasing power. That means minimum-wage workers are effectively 
earning almost a third less than they did four decades ago. In fact, if 
the minimum wage had kept up with rising prices for food, rent, 
utilities, clothing, and other goods, then the wage would be $10.56 
today. But instead it's $7.25. My bill will restore much of the buying 
power of the minimum wage.
  The minimum wage also used to be a meaningful standard compared with 
what most people earned and compared with what workers in the economy 
produced. In 1968, it was just over half of average production wages. 
But today the minimum wage has fallen to 37 percent of the average 
production wage.
  While Americans are working longer and harder than ever, their 
paychecks don't reflect their contribution. Workers are much more 
productive now than in the past. Productivity has risen more than 130 
percent since 1968. But average wages have not budged in real terms and 
the minimum wage has lost ground. So while companies have reaped the 
benefits of all this productivity growth, the people who actually do 
the work have seen none of these gains.
  As Congress has allowed the minimum wage to languish, working 
families have fallen below the poverty line. In the 1960s and 1970s, 
the minimum wage kept a family of three above the poverty line--20 
percent above it in 1968. But today, a family of three with one minimum 
wage earner working full-time, year-round, will bring home a paycheck 
that is 18 percent below the poverty line.
  The Fair Minimum Wage Act will restore the value of the minimum wage, 
bringing families back above the poverty line, to 106 percent of the 
poverty line for a family of three. With its provision to index the 
minimum wage to the cost of living in the future, the minimum wage will 
no longer lose value. It will rise as the economy grows, which will 
allow working families to keep up with rising costs.
  I think it is very important that we talk about the people who will 
benefit from the Fair Minimum Wage Act. There are 30 million Americans 
who will get a fair wage because of this bill, either directly by the 
legislation or indirectly through the ``trickle up'' effects of a 
higher wage floor. That's one out of five workers in our country that 
will be impacted.
  They do the hard, important jobs to keep our economy running. They 
are cashiers and sales help in stores; waiters, waitresses, bussers, 
runners and hostesses in restaurants. They care for our children, 
elders, and other loved ones. They help us at the gas station or in the 
parking garage. They clean offices and homes, and maintain buildings 
and grounds. They provide administrative support in offices. They work 
in the fields to bring food to our tables. They all deserve a fair 
wage.
  The families of these 30 million workers will also benefit. Eighteen 
million children have parents who will get a raise. This will be so 
meaningful for these families, who are working to build a better life. 
For a full-time, year-round worker earning right at the minimum wage, 
it will mean gradually moving from $15,000 a year to $21,000 a year. 
Think about that. Most of us in this Chamber would not take too much 
notice of a $6,000 raise. But for minimum wage workers, that's nearly 
40 percent more, and that will go a long way to buying groceries and 
school supplies, paying rent, and saving for college or retirement.
  Everyone in our country who works hard and plays by the rules 
deserves these opportunities: and not just to survive, but to aspire to 
the middle class.
  Raising the minimum wage will benefit our economy as well. With an 
increase in the minimum wage, workers will have more money to spend. 
This is just basic economics: increased demand means increased economic 
activity. They will spend their money in their local economies, giving 
a boost to Main Street. In fact, economists estimate that the Fair 
Minimum Wage Act will boost our GDP by $33 billion as it is implemented 
over the course of three years, generating 140,000 jobs in that time.
  We know we can afford this. Wages aren't stuck at rock-bottom levels 
because our economy isn't growing. Our economy is growing. The problem 
is that growth is going to profits, to shareholders and executives. 
Inequality is at the highest level we have seen since the eve of the 
Great Depression. CEOs are raking in millions, while the people who do 
the real work in this country are struggling just to get by. In 2011, 
S&P 500 CEOs earned an average of $13 million. The average CEO earns 
more before lunchtime on his first day of work than a minimum wage 
worker earns all year. That is simply appalling.
  Now some people, specially the big corporations with these lavish 
salaries, will criticize my bill, saying it will force businesses to 
lay off workers or cut back their hours. They say workers will be hurt 
if the minimum wage goes up. But history proves that these assertions 
are just plain wrong. We know from decades of rigorous research 
analyzing the real-life effects of minimum wage increases that minimum 
wage raises along the lines what I am proposing do not result in job 
losses or reduced hours. Second, these raises do, in fact, boost 
workers' earnings. This research applies to teenagers, too. I will say 
it again: minimum wage increases do not cause teenage unemployment.
  So we will not see negative effects from raising the minimum wage. 
But

[[Page S1132]]

we will see positive effects for businesses and our economy. We know 
that increased wages boosts productivity and morale. Turnover falls 
significantly, which saves businesses thousands of dollars in 
recruitment, hiring, and training costs. Moreover, all businesses would 
have the same minimum wage, meaning businesses that are doing the right 
thing by paying fair wages will not be undercut by competitors who pay 
rock-bottom wages.
  The American public knows that opponents' outlandish claims about 
raising the minimum wage don't hold water. That is why raising the 
minimum wage is incredibly popular among the American public. A 
national poll last year showed that 73 percent of Americans support 
raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour and linking it in the future to 
the cost of living. Even 50 percent of Republicans support raising and 
indexing the minimum wage. A 2011 poll showed that more than seventy 
percent of Americans believe that indexing the minimum wage to keep up 
with inflation will be good for the country.
  The Fair Minimum Wage Act has been endorsed by nearly 200 national 
and local organizations around the country, and the support is only 
growing. They represent a wide cross-section of the American community. 
They are working to end poverty, hunger, and homelessness; to increase 
community involvement; and to ensure fairness for women and people of 
color. They are organizations of people of faith and organizations of 
workers. They are retirees and moms and members of the LGBT community. 
They are social workers, direct care workers, and steelworkers. And 
they are small businesses. The bill has been endorsed by the US Women's 
Chamber of Commerce, representing 500,000 small businesses around the 
country; by the Main Street Alliance, with chapters in a dozen states 
and 12,000 small business members; by the American Sustainable Business 
Council, which along with its member organizations represents more than 
150,000 businesses nationwide, as well as more than 300,000 
entrepreneurs, managers and investors; and by Business for a Fair 
Minimum Wage and Business for Shared Prosperity.
  Because raising the minimum wage is so popular, and so necessary, 
many States have moved ahead of the Federal Government to do so. 
Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have raised their minimum 
wage above the federal level, all across the country. Ten states have 
already implemented annual indexing of the minimum wage to keep up with 
the rising cost of living. Thirty States have increased their minimum 
wage for tipped workers above the Federal level.
  I am proud to introduce the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013. It is long 
past time to give Americans a raise. Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 460

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Minimum Wage Act of 
     2013''.

     SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES.

       (a) Minimum Wage.--
       (1) In general.--Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not 
     less than--
       ``(A) $8.20 an hour, beginning on the first day of the 
     third month that begins after the date of enactment of the 
     Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 Act;
       ``(B) $9.15 an hour, beginning 1 year after that first day;
       ``(C) $10.10 an hour, beginning 2 years after that first 
     day; and
       ``(D) beginning on the date that is 3 years after that 
     first day, and annually thereafter, the amount determined by 
     the Secretary pursuant to subsection (h);''.
       (2) Determination based on increase in the consumer price 
     index.--Section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 206) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h)(1) Each year, by not later than the date that is 90 
     days before a new minimum wage determined under subsection 
     (a)(1)(D) is to take effect, the Secretary shall determine 
     the minimum wage to be in effect pursuant to this subsection 
     for the subsequent 1-year period. The wage determined 
     pursuant to this subsection for a year shall be--
       ``(A) not less than the amount in effect under subsection 
     (a)(1) on the date of such determination;
       ``(B) increased from such amount by the annual percentage 
     increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners 
     and Clerical Workers (United States city average, all items, 
     not seasonally adjusted), or its successor publication, as 
     determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics; and
       ``(C) rounded to the nearest multiple of $0.05.
       ``(2) In calculating the annual percentage increase in the 
     Consumer Price Index for purposes of paragraph (1)(B), the 
     Secretary shall compare such Consumer Price Index for the 
     most recent month, quarter, or year available (as selected by 
     the Secretary prior to the first year for which a minimum 
     wage is in effect pursuant to this subsection) with the 
     Consumer Price Index for the same month in the preceding 
     year, the same quarter in the preceding year, or the 
     preceding year, respectively.''.
       (b) Base Minimum Wage for Tipped Employees.--Section 
     3(m)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 
     203(m)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) the cash wage paid such employee, which for purposes 
     of such determination shall be not less than--
       ``(A) for the 1-year period beginning on the first day of 
     the third month that begins after the date of enactment of 
     the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, $3.00 an hour;
       ``(B) for each succeeding 1-year period until the hourly 
     wage under this paragraph equals 70 percent of the wage in 
     effect under section 6(a)(1) for such period, an hourly wage 
     equal to the amount determined under this paragraph for the 
     preceding year, increased by the lesser of--
       ``(i) $0.95; or
       ``(ii) the amount necessary for the wage in effect under 
     this paragraph to equal 70 percent of the wage in effect 
     under section 6(a)(1) for such period, rounded to the nearest 
     multiple of $0.05; and
       ``(C) for each succeeding 1-year period after the year in 
     which the hourly wage under this paragraph first equals 70 
     percent of the wage in effect under section 6(a)(1) for the 
     same period, the amount necessary to ensure that the wage in 
     effect under this paragraph remains equal to 70 percent of 
     the wage in effect under section 6(a)(1), rounded to the 
     nearest multiple of $0.05; and''.
       (c) Publication of Notice.--Section 6 of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (as amended by subsection (a)) (29 
     U.S.C. 206) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(i) Not later than 60 days prior to the effective date of 
     any increase in the minimum wage determined under subsection 
     (h) or required for tipped employees in accordance with 
     subparagraph (B) or (C) of section 3(m)(1), as amended by the 
     Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, the Secretary shall publish in 
     the Federal Register and on the website of the Department of 
     Labor a notice announcing the adjusted required wage.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall take effect on the first day of the third month 
     that begins after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Coburn, and Mr. Chambliss):
  S. 464. A bill to declare English as the official language of the 
United States, to establish a uniform English language rule for 
naturalization, and to avoid misconstructions of the English language 
texts of the laws of the United States, pursuant to Congress' powers to 
provide for the general welfare of the United States and to establish a 
uniform rule of naturalization under article I, section 8, of the 
Constitution; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I would like to introduce a piece of 
legislation that I believe is of great importance to the unity of the 
American people--the English Language Unity Act of 2013.
  That English Language Unity Act of 2013 recognizes the practical 
reality of the role of English as our national language and makes 
English the official language of the United States government, a status 
in law it has not had before, and calls on government to preserve and 
enhance the role of English as the official language.
  Let me be clear, nothing in the bill prohibits the use of a language 
other than English. The bill specifically exempts certain actions from 
requiring English, such as actions necessary for national security, 
trade, and protecting the public health and safety. The English 
Language Unity Act is an attempt to legislate a common sense language 
policy that a nation of immigrants needs one national language. Our 
Nation was settled by a group of people with a common vision. As our 
population has grown, our cultural diversity has grown as well. This 
diversity is part of what makes our nation great.
  However, we must be able to communicate with one another so that we 
can

[[Page S1133]]

appreciate our differences. When members of our society cannot speak a 
common language, misunderstandings arise. Furthermore, the individuals 
who do not speak the language of the majority miss out on many 
opportunities to advance in society and achieve the American Dream.
  The English Language Unity Act of 2013 requires the establishment of 
a uniform language requirement for naturalization and requires that all 
naturalization ceremonies be conducted in English. I want to empower 
new immigrants coming to our nation by helping them understand and 
become successful in their new home. I believe that one of the most 
important ways immigrants can achieve success is by learning English.
  There is enormous popular support for English as the official 
language according to polling that has taken place over the last few 
years. A large majority of Americans support making English the 
official language of the United States. There is also widespread and 
bipartisan support for this legislation, and I hope that you will join 
me this Congress in supporting the English Language Unity Act of 2013.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 464

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``English Language Unity Act 
     of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds and declares the following:
       (1) The United States is comprised of individuals from 
     diverse ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds, and 
     continues to benefit from this rich diversity.
       (2) Throughout the history of the United States, the common 
     thread binding individuals of differing backgrounds has been 
     the English language.
       (3) Among the powers reserved to the States respectively is 
     the power to establish the English language as the official 
     language of the respective States, and otherwise to promote 
     the English language within the respective States, subject to 
     the prohibitions enumerated in the Constitution of the United 
     States and in laws of the respective States.

     SEC. 3. ENGLISH AS OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--Title 4, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new chapter:

                     ``CHAPTER 6--OFFICIAL LANGUAGE

     ``Sec. 161. Official language of the United States

       ``The official language of the United States is English.

     ``Sec. 162. Preserving and enhancing the role of the official 
       language

       ``Representatives of the Federal Government shall have an 
     affirmative obligation to preserve and enhance the role of 
     English as the official language of the Federal Government. 
     Such obligation shall include encouraging greater 
     opportunities for individuals to learn the English language.

     ``Sec. 163. Official functions of Government to be conducted 
       in English

       ``(a) Official Functions.--The official functions of the 
     Government of the United States shall be conducted in 
     English.
       ``(b) Scope.--For the purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `United States' means the several States and 
     the District of Columbia; and
       ``(2) the term `official' refers to any function that--
       ``(A) binds the Government;
       ``(B) is required by law; or
       ``(C) is otherwise subject to scrutiny by either the press 
     or the public.
       ``(c) Practical Effect.--This section shall apply to all 
     laws, public proceedings, regulations, publications, orders, 
     actions, programs, and policies, but does not apply to--
       ``(1) teaching of languages;
       ``(2) requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act;
       ``(3) actions, documents, or policies necessary for 
     national security, international relations, trade, tourism, 
     or commerce;
       ``(4) actions or documents that protect the public health 
     and safety;
       ``(5) actions or documents that facilitate the activities 
     of the Bureau of the Census in compiling any census of 
     population;
       ``(6) actions that protect the rights of victims of crimes 
     or criminal defendants; or
       ``(7) using terms of art or phrases from languages other 
     than English.

     ``Sec. 164. Uniform English language rule for naturalization

       ``(a) Uniform Language Testing Standard.--All citizens 
     should be able to read and understand generally the English 
     language text of the Declaration of Independence, the 
     Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in 
     pursuance of the Constitution.
       ``(b) Ceremonies.--All naturalization ceremonies shall be 
     conducted in English.

     ``Sec. 165. Rules of construction

       ``Nothing in this chapter shall be construed--
       ``(1) to prohibit a Member of Congress or any officer or 
     agent of the Federal Government, while performing official 
     functions, from communicating unofficially through any medium 
     with another person in a language other than English (as long 
     as official functions are performed in English);
       ``(2) to limit the preservation or use of Native Alaskan or 
     Native American languages (as defined in the Native American 
     Languages Act);
       ``(3) to disparage any language or to discourage any person 
     from learning or using a language; or
       ``(4) to be inconsistent with the Constitution of the 
     United States.

     ``Sec. 166. Standing

       ``A person injured by a violation of this chapter may in a 
     civil action (including an action under chapter 151 of title 
     28) obtain appropriate relief.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters at the 
     beginning of title 4, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to chapter 5 the following 
     new item:

                   ``Chapter 6. Official Language''.

     SEC. 4. GENERAL RULES OF CONSTRUCTION FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE 
                   TEXTS OF THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 8. General rules of construction for laws of the 
       United States

       ``(a) English language requirements and workplace policies, 
     whether in the public or private sector, shall be 
     presumptively consistent with the Laws of the United States.
       ``(b) Any ambiguity in the English language text of the 
     Laws of the United States shall be resolved, in accordance 
     with the last two articles of the Bill of Rights, not to deny 
     or disparage rights retained by the people, and to reserve 
     powers to the States respectively, or to the people.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 7 the following new item:

``8. General Rules of Construction for Laws of the United States.''.

     SEC. 5. IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary of Homeland Security shall, within 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, issue for public 
     notice and comment a proposed rule for uniform testing 
     English language ability of candidates for naturalization, 
     based upon the principles that--
       (1) all citizens should be able to read and understand 
     generally the English language text of the Declaration of 
     Independence, the Constitution, and the laws of the United 
     States which are made in pursuance thereof; and
       (2) any exceptions to this standard should be limited to 
     extraordinary circumstances, such as asylum.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by sections 3 and 4 shall take effect 
     on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

                          ____________________