[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.
____________________