[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 6, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12-S20]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Markey, Mr. Coons, Mr. Whitehouse,
Mr. Franken, and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 23. A bill to amend title 17, United States Code, with respect to
the definition of ``widow'' and ``widower'', and for other purposes; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, over the past few years we have seen
remarkable progress in one of the defining civil rights issues of our
era--ensuring that all lawfully married couples are treated equally
under the law. In 2011, when I chaired the first Congressional hearing
to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, only 5 States, including
Vermont, recognized same-sex marriage. With today's lifting of
Florida's unconstitutional same-sex marriage ban, couples in 36 States
and the District of Columbia now have the freedom to marry. This is
welcome progress, and I hope we will see similar advancements in even
more States this year so that all Americans can marry the one they
love.
Despite this tremendous progress, there is still more to be done to
ensure that no person faces discrimination based on who they marry or
wish to marry. As I said when the Supreme Court struck down Section 3
of the Defense of Marriage Act, ``All couples who are lawfully married
under state law, including in Vermont, should be entitled to the same
Federal protections afforded to all other married couples.'' Court
challenges will continue this year in the remaining States that do not
recognize marriage equality. But in Congress, there are several steps
we can take immediately to help ensure our Federal laws treat all
marriages equally.
Surprisingly, the Copyright Act, which protects our Nation's diverse
creative voices, still bears vestiges of discrimination. A provision in
the Act grants rights to the surviving spouse of a copyright owner only
if the marriage is recognized in the owner's State of residence at the
time he or she dies. This means that a writer who lawfully marries his
or her partner in Vermont or California is not a ``spouse'' under the
Copyright Act if they move to Michigan, Georgia, or one of the other
States that do not currently recognize their marriage.
Congress should close this discriminatory loophole to ensure our
Federal statutes live up to our Nation's promise of equality under the
law. As the Supreme Court recognized in striking down key portions of
the Defense of Marriage Act, it is wrong for the Federal Government to
deny benefits or privileges to couples who have lawfully wed.
Today I am reintroducing the Copyright and Marriage Equality Act in
the Senate to correct this problem. The bill, which I introduced in the
Senate last Congress and which a bipartisan group of lawmakers
including Representatives Derek Kilmer, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Jared
Polis plans to reintroduce in the House of Representatives soon, amends
the Copyright Act to look simply at whether a couple is lawfully
married--not where a married couple happens to live when the copyright
owner dies. It will ensure that the rights attached to the works of our
Nation's gay and lesbian authors, musicians, painters, photographers,
and other creators pass to their widows and widowers. Artists are part
of the creative lifeblood of our Nation, and our laws should protect
their families equally.
When I introduced this bill last year, it failed to get the support
of a single Republican in the Senate. I hope that in this Congress,
Republicans will consider joining this effort to correct
[[Page S13]]
these remnants of discrimination in our Federal laws. On the issue of
marriage equality, the arc of history is at long last bending towards
justice, so that all Americans one day will be free to marry the one
they love. Statutes like the Copyright Act, or laws governing the
Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs which
also contain remnants of discrimination, are no place for inequality in
our country. I urge the Senate to take up and pass this important piece
of legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
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. 23
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 ``Copyright and Marriage
Equality Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF WIDOW AND WIDOWER IN TITLE 17, UNITED
STATES CODE.
(a) In General.--Section 101 of title 17, United States
Code, is amended by striking the definition of `` `widow' or
`widower' '' and inserting the following:
``An individual is the `widow' or `widower' of an author if
the courts of the State in which the individual and the
author were married (or, if the individual and the author
were not married in any State but were validly married in
another jurisdiction, the courts of any State) would find
that the individual and the author were validly married at
the time of the author's death, whether or not the spouse has
later remarried.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to the death of any author that
occurs on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Lee):
S. 24. A bill to clarify that an authorization to use military force,
a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the
detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent
resident of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S13, January 6, 2015, in the first column, the following
appears: By Mrs. FEINSTEIN: S. 24. A bill to clarify that an
authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any
similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge
or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United
States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The online Record has been corrected to read: By Mrs. FEINSTEIN
(for herself and Mr. Lee): S. 24. A bill to clarify that an
authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any
similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge
or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United
States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Due
Process Guarantee Act, which passed the Senate in 2012 with 67 votes as
an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013.
Unfortunately, the amendment was taken out in the Conference
Committee that year. It is my hope that the Senate will pass this
legislation again this year, and this time the House will support it so
that it can finally be enacted into law to protect Americans from being
detained indefinitely.
The bipartisan bill I am introducing today, with Senator Lee as the
lead co-sponsor, is almost identical to the amendment that passed the
Senate in December 2012 with 67 votes. The previous version of this
bill had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee on February 29, 2012.
This legislation is necessary to prevent the U.S. Government from
detaining its citizens indefinitely.
Unfortunately, indefinite detention has been a part of America's not-
too-distant past. The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War
II remains a dark spot on our Nation's legacy, and is something we
should never repeat.
To ensure that this reprehensible experience would never happen
again, Congress passed and President Nixon signed into law the Non-
Detention Act of 1971, which repealed a 1950 statue that explicitly
allowed the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.
The Non-Detention Act of 1971 clearly states:
No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained the
United States except pursuant to an act of Congress.
Despite the shameful history of indefinite detention of Americans and
the legal controversy over the issue since 9/11, during debate on the
defense authorization bill in past years, some in the Senate have
advocated for allowing the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.
Proponents of indefinitely detaining U.S. citizens argue that the
Authorization for Use of Military Force, AUMF, that was enacted shortly
after 9/11 is, quote, ``an act of Congress,'' in the language of the
Non-Detention Act of 1971, that authorizes the indefinite detention of
American citizens regardless of where they are captured.
They further assert that their position is justified by the U.S.
Supreme Court's plurality decision in the 2004 case of Hamdi v.
Rumsfeld. However, the Hamdi case involved an American captured on the
battlefield in Afghanistan.
Yaser Esam Hamdi was a U.S. citizen who took up arms on behalf of the
Taliban and was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. The divided
Court did effectively uphold his military detention, so some of my
colleagues use this case to argue that the military can indefinitely
detain even American citizens who are arrested domestically here on
U.S. soil, far from the battlefield of Afghanistan.
However, the Supreme Court's opinion in the Hamdi case was a muddled
decision by a four-vote plurality that recognized the power of the
government to detain U.S. citizens captured in such circumstances as
``enemy combatants'' for some period, but otherwise repudiated the
government's broad assertions of executive authority to detain citizens
without charge or trial.
In particular, the Court limited its holding to citizens captured in
an area of, quote, ``active combat operations'', unquote, and concluded
that even in those circumstances the U.S. Constitution and the Due
Process Clause guarantees U.S. citizens certain rights, including the
ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial
judge.
The plurality's opinion stated:
It [the Government] has made clear, however, that, for
purposes of this case, the `enemy combatant' that it is
seeking to detain is an individual who, it alleges, was `part
of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or
coalition partners' in Afghanistan and who `` `engaged in an
armed conflict against the United States'' there. Brief for
Respondents 3. We therefore answer only the narrow question
before us: whether the detention of citizens falling within
that definition is authorized.''
The opinion goes on to say at page 517 that ``we conclude that the
AUMF is explicit congressional authorization for the detention of
individuals in the narrow category we describe . . .''
Indeed, the plurality later emphasized that it was discussing a
citizen captured on a foreign battlefield. Criticizing Justice Scalia's
dissenting opinion, the opinion says, ``Justice Scalia largely ignores
the context of this case: a United States citizen captured in a foreign
combat zone.'' The plurality italicized and emphasized the word
``foreign'' in that sentence.
Thus, to the extent the Hamdi case permits the government to detain a
U.S. citizen ``until the end of hostilities,'' it does so only under a
very limited set of circumstances, namely citizens taking an active
part in hostilities, who are captured in Afghanistan, and who are
afforded certain due process protections, at a minimum.
Additionally, decisions by the lower courts have contributed to the
current state of legal ambiguity when it comes to the indefinite
detention of U.S. citizens, such as Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who
was arrested in Chicago in 2002. He was initially detained pursuant to
a material witness warrant based on the 9/11 terrorist attacks and
later designated as an ``enemy combatant'' who conspired with al-Qaeda
to carry out terrorist attacks including a plot to detonate a ``dirty
bomb'' inside the U.S.
Padilla was transferred to the military brig in South Carolina where
he was detained for three and a half years while seeking habeas corpus
relief. Padilla was never charged with attempting to carry out the
``dirty bomb'' plot. Instead, Padilla was released from military
custody in November 2005 and transferred to Federal civilian custody in
Florida where he was indicted on other charges in Federal court related
to terrorist plots overseas.
While he was indefinitely detailed by the military, Padilla filed a
habeas corpus petition which was litigated at first in the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals, and then in the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals. In a 2003 decision by the Second Circuit known as Padilla v.
Rumsfeld, the Court of Appeals held that the AUMF did not authorize his
detention, saying: ``we conclude that clear congressional authorization
is required for detentions of American citizens on American soil
because 18 U.S.C.
[[Page S14]]
Sec. 4001(a) the ``Non-Detention Act'', prohibits such detentions
absent specific congressional authorization. Congress's Authorization
for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution, . . . passed shortly after
the attacks of September 11, 2001, is not such an authorization.''
This requirement for ``clear congressional authorization'' to detain
is known as the Second Circuit's ``Clear Statement Rule.''
However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reached the opposite
conclusion, finding that the AUMF did authorize his detention. It is
worth pointing out, however, that their analysis turned entirely on the
disputed claims that ``Padilla associated with forces hostile to the
United States in Afghanistan,'' and, ``like Hamdi, Padilla took up arms
against United States forces in that country in the same way and to the
same extent as did Hamdi.''
Facing an impending Supreme Court challenge and mounting public
criticism for holding a U.S. citizen arrested inside the U.S. as an
enemy combatant, the Bush administration relented, and ordered Padilla
transferred to civilian custody to face criminal conspiracy and
material support for terrorism charges in Federal court.
I believe that the time is now to end the legal ambiguities, and have
Congress state clearly, once and for all, that the AUMF or other
authorities do not authorize indefinite detention of Americans
apprehended in the U.S.
To accomplish this, we are introducing legislation again this year
which affirms and strengthens the principles behind the Non-Detention
Act of 1971.
It amends the Non-Detention Act to provide clearly that no military
authorization allows the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens or Green
Card holders who are apprehended inside the U.S.
Like the amendment that passed with 67 votes in 2012, the bill
creates a new subsection (b) of the Non-Detention Act which clearly
states: ``A general authorization to use military force, a declaration
of war, or any similar authority, on its own, shall not be construed to
authorize the imprisonment or detention without charge or trial of a
citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended
in the United States.''
Like the previous version, this bill amends the Non-Detention Act to
codify the Second Circuit's ``Clear Statement Rule'' from the Padilla
case. So new subsection (a) will read, ``No citizen or lawful permanent
resident of the United States shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained
by the United States except consistent with the Constitution and
pursuant to an act of Congress that expressly authorizes such
imprisonment or detention.''
Making the Clear Statement Rule part of subsection (a) strengthens
the Non-Detention Act even more by requiring Congress to be explicit if
it wants to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely. Subsection (b) clarifies
that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or
any similar authority does not authorize the indefinite detention of a
U.S. citizen or a Lawful Permanent Resident of the U.S., also known as
a Green Card holder.
Some may ask why this legislation protects Green Card holders as well
as citizens. And others may ask why the bill does not protect all
persons'' apprehended in the U.S. from indefinite detention.
Let me make clear that I would support providing the protections in
this amendment to all persons in the United States, whether lawfully or
unlawfully present. But the question comes, is there enough political
support to expand this amendment to cover others besides U.S. citizens
and Green Card holders?
Wherever we draw the line on who should be covered by this
legislation, I believe it violates fundamental American rights to allow
anyone apprehended on U.S. soil to be detained without charge or trial.
The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have proven, time and
again, that they are up to the challenge of detecting, stopping,
arresting, and convicting terrorists found on U.S. soil, having
successfully arrested, detained and convicted hundreds of these heinous
people, both before and after 9/11.
Specifically, there have been 556 terrorism-related convictions in
federal criminal court between 9/11 and the end of 2013, according to
the Department of Justice.
Also, it is important to understand that suspected terrorists who may
be in the U.S. illegally can be detained within the criminal justice
system using at least the following 4 options:
They can be charged with a Federal or State crime and held; they can
be held for violating immigration laws; they can be held as material
witnesses as part of Federal grand jury proceedings; and they can be
held for up to 6 months under Section 412 of the Patriot Act.
I want to be very clear about what this bill is and is not about. It
is not about whether citizens such as Hamdi and Padilla, or others who
would do us harm, should be captured, interrogated, incarcerated, and
severely punished. They should be.
But what about an innocent American? What about someone in the wrong
place at the wrong time? The beauty of our Constitution is that it
gives everyone in the United States basic due process rights to a trial
by a jury of their peers.
As President Obama said when referring to the indefinite detention of
non-Americans at Guantanamo:
``Imagine a future--10 years from now or 20 years from
now--when the United States of America is still holding
people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land
that is not part of our country. . . . Is that who we are? Is
that something that our Founders foresaw? Is that the America
we want to leave to our children? Our sense of justice is
stronger than that.''
The same questions could be asked of those who would indefinitely
detain Americans arrested on U.S. soil.
Is that who we are?
Does that reflect the America we want to leave to our children?
Now is the time to clarify U.S. law to state unequivocally that the
government cannot indefinitely detain American citizens and Green Card
holders captured inside this country without trial or charge.
The Federal Government experimented with indefinite detention of U.S.
citizens during World War II, a mistake we now recognize as a betrayal
of our core values.
Let us not repeat it. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Graham):
S. 27. A bill to make wildlife trafficking a predicate offense under
racketeering and money laundering statutes and the Travel Act, to
provide for the use for conservation purposes of amounts from civil
penalties, fines, forfeitures, and restitution under such statutes
based on such violations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wildlife
Trafficking Enforcement Act of 2015, which I authored along with my
colleague Senator Lindsey Graham.
This bill will allow the Federal Government to crack down on poachers
and transnational criminal organizations involved in the global trade
in illegal wildlife products.
Wildlife trafficking has become a global crime that the State
Department estimates is valued at between $8 to $10 billion annually.
This ranks it as one of the most lucrative types of organized crime in
the world, along with drug and human trafficking.
Besides being a major international crime, wildlife trafficking is a
morally repugnant practice that threatens some of our world's most
iconic species with extinction.
The most disturbing example is that of elephants and rhinoceroses. A
recent study estimates that over 100,000 elephants were illegally
poached in Africa from 2010 to 2012. At this rate, the African elephant
is being killed faster than the species can reproduce, putting it at
risk of being wiped off the face of the earth.
Most disturbingly, poachers are slaughtering very young and juvenile
elephants for their tusks due to the record high demand for ivory in
places like China and the United States.
But the illicit ivory trade is not just a threat to African
elephants; it is also a problem for global security. The State
Department reports that there is increasing evidence that wildlife
trafficking is funding armed insurgencies like Al Shabaab and the
Lord's Resistance Army. The illegal ivory trade fuels corruption and
violence in Africa.
[[Page S15]]
The rhinoceros has also been decimated by poaching due to record high
demand for its horn. Conservation organizations estimate that hundreds
of rhinoceroses are illegally slaughtered in Africa each year. It is
deeply concerning that the poaching rate for rhinoceroses in Africa
appears to be increasing.
Some populations of rhinoceroses are on the brink of extinction. The
population of the Sumatran rhinoceros has plummeted by over 50 percent
in the last two decades due to poaching, and it is estimated that only
about 100 remain in existence. It is estimated that fewer than 10
Northern White Rhinoceroses remain alive in the wild.
The problem is not just confined to elephants and rhinoceroses.
Tigers, leopards, endangered sea turtles, and many other wildlife
species are being decimated by poaching.
At its core, this legislation increases criminal penalties for
wildlife trafficking crimes. The federal government needs stiffer
penalties in order to go after organized and high volume traffickers.
The President asked for this authority in the National Strategy to
Combat Wildlife Trafficking released last year.
Specifically, this bill makes violations of the Endangered Species
Act, the African Elephant Conservation Act, and the Rhinoceros and
Tiger Conservation Act that involve more than $10,000 of illegal
wildlife products predicate offenses under the money laundering and
racketeering statutes and the Travel Act.
Currently, each of these wildlife laws carries a maximum prison
sentence of only one year for a violation. Under this bill, wildlife
trafficking violations can be subject to up to a 20-year prison
sentence, as well as increased fines and penalties of up to $500,000
for an offense.
These new penalties will allow the government to change the equation
on wildlife crimes. Wildlife trafficking has increased at dramatic
rates because the crime is high value and low risk due to weak
penalties across the world. Under the new authorities, the Federal
Government will have a full range of tools to prosecute the worst
wildlife trafficking offenders and to put them behind bars with
significant sentences. The new authorities will also act as a deterrent
to the criminal organizations currently trafficking illicit wildlife
products into and through the United States.
As one of the largest markets for products of illicit poaching in the
world, the United States has a responsibility to step up and help to
combat this scourge. With this legislation, the United States will set
an example for other countries on the need for each country to
strengthen penalties for wildlife trafficking. It is critical that
other nations around the world with large markets for illicit wildlife
products step up to tackle this global problem.
The Wildlife Trafficking Enforcement Act of 2015 will also allow
fines, penalties, forfeitures, and restitution recovered through use of
the bill's new authorities to be transferred to established
conservation funds at the Departments of the Interior and of Commerce.
This will enable the Federal Government to use the monetary penalties
from a wildlife trafficking conviction to benefit the species that was
harmed. Thus, the bill will both act to punish and deter criminals
while supporting the conservation of those species that are directly
harmed by poaching.
Addressing the issue of wildlife trafficking speaks to our values and
morals as a Nation. We have a responsibility to help prevent these
endangered species, which have existed for thousands of years, from
becoming extinct in our lifetime. It is also clear that Federal law's
weak penalties for wildlife crimes have been exploited by poachers and
transnational criminals.
I therefore ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
work with me to enact this legislation this year. The stakes for
endangered species like elephants, tigers, and rhinoceroses could not
be higher. If we don't crack down on wildlife trafficking, we will be
complicit in the slaughter.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Cardin, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. Franken, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Udall, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 28. A bill to limit the use of cluster munitions; to the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues
Senators Leahy, Boxer, Durbin, Klobuchar, Murray, Udall, Franken, Wyden
and Whitehouse to introduce the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection
Act of 2015.
Our legislation places common sense restrictions on the use of
cluster munitions. It prevents any funds from being spent to use
cluster munitions that have a failure rate of more than one percent.
In addition, the rules of engagement must specify that: cluster
munitions will only be used against clearly defined military targets;
and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in
areas normally inhabited by civilians.
Our legislation also includes a national security waiver that allows
the President to waive the prohibition on the use of cluster munitions
with a failure rate of more than one percent if he determines it is
vital to protect the security of the United States to do so.
However, if the President decides to waive the prohibition, he must
issue a report to Congress within 30 days on the failure rate of the
cluster munitions used and the steps taken to protect innocent
civilians.
Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that
contain up to hundreds of small submunitions, or individual
``bomblets.''
They are intended for attacking enemy troop and armor formations
spread over a wide area.
But, in reality, they pose a far more deadly threat to innocent
civilians.
According to the Cluster Munitions Monitor, over the past fifty
years, there have been 19,419 documented cluster munitions deaths in 31
nations. The estimated number of total cluster munitions casualties,
however, is an astonishing 55,000 people.
While cluster munitions are intended for military targets, in
actuality civilians have accounted for 94% of cluster munition
casualties.
Death and injury from unexploded ordnance left behind by cluster
munitions continues to kill civilians to this day. Today, 23 States
remain contaminated by unexploded ordnance left from cluster munitions.
Last year, nine of these countries suffered casualties from
unexploded ordnance. They were: Croatia, Iraq, Laos, Lebanon, Cambodia,
South Sudan, Sudan, Syria and Vietnam.
More tragically, despite the risk they pose to civilians, cluster
bombs continue to be used in conflicts.
Since July 2012, Syrian government forces have used cluster munitions
in 10 of the country's 14 governates.
Human Rights Watch has documented that the Syrian government has used
seven types of cluster munitions to date, six of which were
manufactured in the former Soviet Union and the seventh of which is
Egyptian-made.
In 2012 and 2013, the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor recorded
1,584 deaths from government-launched cluster munitions in Syria.
Approximately 97 percent of the deaths directly linked to cluster
munitions were civilians.
For the first time, Human Rights Watch has also obtained evidence
that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, known as ISIL, has also
used cluster bombs.
According to witness testimony and photographic evidence, ISIL used
cluster bombs on at least two occasions near the besieged town of
Kobani.
Terrorist groups and other non-state actors would not be able to
obtain and use cluster bombs if the world adopted the Oslo Treaty on
Cluster munitions.
The Oslo Treaty bans the production, sale, stockpiling and use of
cluster munitions. It came into effect in 2010 and to date has been
ratified by 88 nations.
Under the Treaty, 22 nations have destroyed 1.16 million cluster
bombs and nearly 140 million submunitions.
Unfortunately, the United States is neither a signatory nor state
party to the Oslo Treaty.
In fact, the United States maintains a stockpile of 5.5 million
cluster munitions containing 728 million submunitions. These bomblets
have an estimated failure rate of between 5 and 15 percent.
[[Page S16]]
Rather than adopting the increasing international consensus that
cluster bombs should be banned, the Pentagon continues to assert that
they are ``legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat.''
I respectfully disagree. The benefit of using cluster bombs is
outweighed by the continuing threat they pose to civilians long after
the cessation of hostilities.
The Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act would immediately ban
cluster bombs with unacceptable unexploded ordnance rates and in areas
where civilians are known to be present.
Passing this legislation would move the United States closer to
abiding by the requirements of the Oslo Treaty, which has been ratified
by many of our allies, including the United Kingdom, France and
Germany.
Since 2008 the Congress has banned the export of cluster munitions
with a greater than one percent unexploded ordnance rate. While banning
the export of these indiscriminate weapons was a positive first step, I
strongly believe the United States can do better.
This body cannot compel the administration to sign the Oslo Treaty.
However, we can surely take steps to abide by its spirit. Passing the
Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act would do exactly that.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Bennet, Mr.
Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Brown, Ms. Cantwell,
Mr. Cardin, Mr. Carper, Mr. Casey, Mr. Coons, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Franken, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Kaine,
Mr. King, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Markey, Mrs. McCaskill,
Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Murphy, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Peters, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. Sanders, Mr.
Schatz, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Tester,
Mr. Udall, Mr. Warner, Ms. Warren, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr.
Wyden):
S. 29. A bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure
respect for State regulation of marriage; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, and ensure that married
same-sex couples are accorded equal treatment by the federal
government.
When I first introduced this bill in 2011, only 5 States and the
District of Columbia recognized same-sex marriage.
Today, due to a combination of actions by legislatures, voters, and
the courts, 36 States and D.C. recognize same-sex marriage. Florida
joined the group just this week.
This progress is nothing short of amazing. Over 70 percent of
Americans now live in a State where same-sex couples can marry.
The Supreme Court's landmark decision in United States v. Windsor,
which struck down Section 3 of DOMA, has caused most federal agencies
to accord equal rights and responsibilities to married same-sex
couples.
But, despite this progress, the mission of ensuring full equality
under Federal law for married same-sex couples is still unaccomplished.
This bill will accomplish that mission. It will strike DOMA from
Federal law, and ensure that legally married same-sex couples are
treated equally by the federal government, period.
I want to thank my 41 colleagues who have cosponsored this bill.
For my colleagues who have not yet supported this bill: if you
believe that couples who are married should be treated that way by the
federal government, you should cosponsor this bill. It is as simple as
that.
Two major agencies, which serve millions and millions of Americans--
the Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs--
still deny benefits to some married couples depending on where the
couple has lived. This bill would fix that problem.
Let me address Social Security first. An example of the
discrimination married same-sex couples still face is the case of Kathy
Murphy and Sara Barker. According to a legal filing, this couple
married in Massachusetts and shared a ranch house in Texas for nearly
30 years.
In 2010, when Sara was 60 years old, she was diagnosed with an
aggressive form of cancer. Sara went through several surgeries and
chemotherapy, and Kathy was Sara's caregiver.
Sara passed away on March 10, 2012. As the complaint states: ``Kathy
lost her partner of more than thirty years and the love of her life.''
In July 2014--over a year after she applied--Kathy's application for
survivor's benefits from Social Security was denied because they lived
in Texas together, and Texas does not recognize them as married.
This cost her an estimated $1,200 per month in Federal survivor's
benefits.
Veterans and active-duty military personnel in same-sex marriages
also are being denied equal treatment by the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
Many of these brave individuals have served our country overseas or
in war zones, but they may nevertheless be denied a huge range of
benefits our nation grants to those who have served in the Armed
Forces.
A court filing by the American Military Partners Association explains
that:
lesbian and gay veterans and their spouses and survivors .
. . will be denied or disadvantaged in obtaining spousal
veterans benefits such as disability compensation, death
pension benefits, home loan guarantees, and rights to burial
together in national cemeteries.
This is wrong. Our married gay and lesbian soldiers put their lives
on the line for our country the same way other soldiers do.
We owe them the same debt of gratitude we owe to all other men and
women who serve, and this bill would ensure that we fulfill that solemn
obligation.
Continued discrimination against married same-sex couples is not
limited to these benefits programs.
Other Federal laws are not part of programs administered by agencies,
but they nevertheless are designed to protect families, including
spouses.
Let me just give one example--Section 115 of Title 18. Among other
things, this law makes it a crime to assault, kidnap, or murder a
spouse of Federal law enforcement officer, with the intent to
influence or retaliate against the officer.
This law protects the ability of people like FBI agents and federal
prosecutors to serve the public knowing there is protection from
violence against their families.
These agents and prosecutors investigate and prosecute people like
drug kingpins, terrorists, and organized crime figures.
But, even today, it is not clear whether this vital protection for
these officers covers those in lawful same- sex marriages everywhere in
the country.
These public servants, who protect all of us, should not have to
worry that they lack the full protection we provide to their
colleagues--but that is the situation we confront today. This bill
would fix it.
In addition, Section 2 of DOMA--which was not expressly addressed by
the Supreme Court--continues to pose a serious risk to legal relief
received by victims of crime and civil wrongs. This bill would repeal
it.
Section 2 of DOMA is the full faith and credit provision of DOMA, and
it has been the subject of many misconceptions.
When DOMA was enacted, some claimed Section 2 was designed to prevent
the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution from forcing a
state to recognize a marriage from another state.
But states have never needed permission from Congress to decide
whether to recognize an out-of-state marriage. States have done that
under their own laws, subject to other constitutional guarantees like
the Equal Protection Clause.
Thus, repealing Section 2 of DOMA simply would not force a State, or
a religious institution, to recognize a particular marriage.
While it is on the books, Section 2 may have a very serious impact:
it may nullify legal relief awarded to victims of crime and other civil
wrongs.
There is a general rule that the judgments of one state's courts will
be enforced in another state's courts.
But Section 2 purports to exempt any ``right or claim arising from''
a same-sex marriage from this rule.
[[Page S17]]
Imagine a woman killed by a drunk driver. Her surviving spouse would
have a civil claim for wrongful death, or might obtain restitution in a
criminal case.
But DOMA could prevent the court judgments in those cases from being
enforced in the perpetrator's home State, allowing him to avoid the
consequences of his actions.
The same problem could arise in numerous types of cases, such as
assaults, batteries, and insurance claims.
Same-sex married couples are the only class of people who are
burdened by this sort of legal disability, which hinders the court
system from protecting them the same way that it does other citizens.
This is wrong, and it must be repealed.
As a Senator from California, I come to this bill with a strong sense
of history.
In 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state court to
find that a ban on interracial marriage violates the Equal Protection
Clause. At the time, 29 states still prohibited interracial marriage.
Prohibitions on interracial marriage then were eliminated in 13 other
states, so that when the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia in
1967, only 16 states retained bans on interracial marriage.
I very much hope that is where we are today on same-sex marriage.
People of all stripes have come to believe that loving and committed
same-sex couples are worthy of the same dignity and respect other
couples receive. Public opinion has changed dramatically, and 36 states
now recognize same-sex marriage.
The tide has shifted, I hope irreversibly so.
But here, in Congress, we still have work to do.
We must end the discrimination married same-sex couples continue to
face at the federal level.
DOMA remains on the books, where it should never have been placed. It
could be revived by a different Supreme Court majority.
A future administration also could interpret other laws differently
than this Administration has done, potentially restricting the
availability of key benefits even further.
The solution is simple: pass this bill, which would eliminate DOMA
and accord equal treatment under Federal law for married same-sex
couples.
Let me again thank my cosponsors for joining me in this effort, and
to urge my other colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
legislation.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Donnelly, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr.
Manchin):
S. 30. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
the definition of full-time employee for purposes of the employer
mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; to the
Committee on Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, Senator Donnelly and I are
reintroducing the Forty Hours is Full-time Act to correct a serious
flaw in the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, that is
already causing workers to have their hours reduced and their pay cut.
We are pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort by Senators
Murkowski and Manchin. Our legislation would raise the threshold for
``full-time'' work in Obamacare to the standard 40 hours a week. This
is consistent with the threshold for overtime eligibility under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the common-sense understanding of ``full-
time'' work.
Under Obamacare, an employee working just 30 hours a week is defined
as ``full-time,'' a definition that is completely out-of-step with
standard employment practices in the U.S. today. According to a survey
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average American
actually works 8.7 hours per day, which equates to roughly 44 hours a
week. The Obamacare definition is nearly one-third lower than actual
practice.
Similarly, the Obamacare definition of ``full-time'' employee is ten
hours a week fewer than the 40 hours per week used by the GAO in its
study of the budget and staffing required by the IRS to implement
Obamacare. In that report, the GAO described a ``full-time equivalent''
as: ``a measure of staff hours equal to those of an employee who works
2,080 hours per year, or 40 hours per week. . . .'' Even the Office of
Management and Budget recognizes that 30-hours is not ``full-time.'' A
circular it issued to Federal agencies actually directs them to
calculate staffing levels using more than 40 hours a week as a ``full-
time equivalent.''
The effect of using the 30-hour a week threshold is to artificially
drive-up the number of ``full-time'' workers for purposes of
calculating the penalties to which employers are exposed under
Obamacare. These penalties begin at $40,000 for businesses with 50
employees, plus $2,000 for each additional ``full-time equivalent''
employee. While these draconian penalities were scheduled to begin in
January of last year, we have yet to feel their full effect because the
Obama administration delayed their implementation through 2014, perhaps
knowing the negative impact that will result. But that artificial
grace-period expired January 1 for employers with 100 or more workers
and will end for employers with between 50 and 99 employees in January
of next year.
Needless to say, these penalties will force many employers to
restrict or reduce the hours their employees are allowed to work, so
they are no longer considered ``full-time'' for the purposes of the
law. In addition, these penalties will discourage employers from
growing or adding jobs, particularly those close to the 50-job trigger.
These are not hypothetical concerns. According to the Investors
Business Daily, more than 450 employers had cut work hours or staffing
levels in response to Obamacare as of September of last year. Employees
of for-profit businesses are not the only ones threatened by
Obamacare's illogical definition of full-time work. Public sector
employees and those who work for non-profits are also affected.
I am concerned that educators, school employees, and students will be
particularly hard hit. As the ASAA, the School Superintendents
Association, explained in a letter in support of our bill, Obamacare's
30-hour threshold puts an ``undue burden on school systems across the
Nation, many of [which] will struggle to staff their schools to meet
their educational mission'' while complying with this requirement.
For example, the school superintendent of Bangor, ME, has told me
that Obamacare will require that school district to reduce substitute
teacher hours to make sure they don't exceed 29 hours a week. This will
harm not only the substitute teachers who want and need more work, but
it will also harm students by causing unnecessary disruption in the
classroom.
Likewise, in Indiana, a county school district had to reduce the
hours of part-time school bus drivers to make sure they do not work
more than the 30-hour threshold. As a result, the school district has
been forced to cut field trips and transportation to athletic events,
and employees who used to work more than 30 hours total in two jobs
have been forced to give up one of their jobs, hurting their financial
security.
The 30-hour rule will also affect our Nation's institutions of higher
education. According to the College and University Professional
Association for Human Resources, Obamacare's full-time work definition
has already caused 122 schools to announce new policies capping hours
for students and faculty.
It is troubling that the 30-hour threshold will also harm delivery of
home care services. The requirement will likely result in reduced
access to needed services for some of our Nation's most vulnerable
citizens: home-bound seniors, individuals with disabilities, and
recently discharged hospital and nursing home patients. Information
provided to my office by the Home Care & Hospice Alliance of Maine
shows that many of its member organizations will be forced to reduce
work hours for employees or even to cease operations due to Obamacare's
definition of ``full-time'' work. If that happens, hundreds of home
care workers could lose their jobs, and a thousand seniors could lose
access to home care services--in Maine alone.
Data from Maine's Medicaid program show that home care services are
extremely cost-effective compared to alternatives. Thus, by making it
harder for home care service providers to give their workers the hours
they need,
[[Page S18]]
Obamacare's definition of ``full-time'' work will end up reducing the
home care services available to seniors, depriving them of care or
forcing them into costlier care, driving up Federal costs.
Before I close, I would like to read a few lines from a letter I
recently received from Randy Wadleigh, the owner of a well-known and
much-loved restaurant institution in Maine called ``Governor's.''
Randy's letter sums up what Maine employers have always told me--their
employees are the heart and souls of their businesses, and are the face
of their companies to the public. As Randy puts it, businesses
recognize the importance of their workers ``because without GREAT
employees, businesses really don't have anything. [The 30-hour
threshold] is hurting many of our employees. They don't understand it,
they can't afford it and they just want to work more hours.''
The bipartisan bill we are introducing today will protect these
workers by changing the definition of ``full-time'' work in the ACA to
40 hours a week, and making a corresponding change in the definition of
``full-time equivalent'' employee to 174 hours per month. This is a
sensible definition in keeping with actual practice.
Among the many organizations that have endorsed our bill are: the
College & University Professional Association for Human Resources, the
National Association for Home Care & Hospice, the American Hotel &
Lodging Association, the American Staffing Association, the Asian
American Hotel Owners Association, the Associated Builders and
Contractors, the Food Marketing Institute, the International Franchise
Association, the National Association of Convenience Stores, the
National Association of Health Underwriters, the American Rental
Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National
Association of Theatre Owners, the National Grocers Association, the
National Federation of Independent Business, the National Restaurant
Association, the National Retail Federation, the Retail Industry
Leaders Association, ASAA, the School Superintendents Association, the
Society for Human Resource Management, and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce.
Regardless of the varying views of Senators on the Affordable Care
Act, surely we ought to be able to agree to fix this problem in the law
that is hurting workers' paychecks and creating chaos for employers. I
urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
December 19, 2014.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of AASA: The School
Superintendents Association, the Association of Educational
Service Agencies, the National Rural Education Association
and the National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition, I write
to express our support for the Forty Hours is Full Time Act.
Collectively, we represent public school superintendents,
educational service agency administrators and school system
leaders across the country, as well as our nation's rural
schools and communities. We have followed closely the
Affordable Care Act and stand ready to implement the law, and
see your proposed legislation as one way to alleviate an
unnecessarily burdensome regulation.
The Forty House is Full Time Act would change the
definition of ``full time'' in the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
to 40 hours per week and the number of hours counted toward a
``full time equivalent'' employee to 174 hours per month. The
current ACA arbitrarily sets the bar for a full work week to
30 hours. This is inconsistent with how most Americans think:
full-time is a 40 hour work week. The current definition
causes confusion among employers who struggle to understand
and comply with the new requirements, especially ones that
are in conflict with long-standing practices built on the
long-standing 40-hour work week premise.
We welcome the opportunity to ensure our employees have a
positive work environment and we remain committed to
providing a robust set of work benefits. We are concerned
that the ACA, as currently written, puts additional, undue
burden on school systems across the nation, many of whom will
struggle to staff their schools to meet their educational
mission while meeting the strict 30-hour regulation.
We applaud your continued leadership on this issue and look
forward to seeing the Forty Hours is Full Time Act move
forward.
Sincerely,
Noelle M. Ellerson,
AASA, The School Superintendents Association, Associate
Executive Director, Policy & Advocacy, AESA, NREA and NREAC
Legislative Liaison.
____
Governor's Restaurant & Bakery, Governor's Management
Company, Inc.,
Old Town, ME, December 22, 2014.
Re Definition of full time hours for the ACA
Hon. Susan Collins,
413 Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Susan: Governor's Restaurants have been a staple in
Maine since 1959. We have 6 locations and employ over 300
full and part time fine Maine folks while serving the great
people of Maine. In general, we've had longevity because we
pay attention to business and play by the rules dictated to
us by local, state and federal agencies. In a nutshell, we
take pride in doing the right things.
As our company's CEO, I recently conducted health insurance
enrollment meetings at all of our locations for those 100+
eligible full time employees (as currently defined at 30
hours per week}. We are strongly in favor of changing the
current definition of a full time employee from 30 hours to
40 hours . . . but not necessarily for the reason(s} you may
think.
On behalf of our employees, we've just got to increase the
threshold to 40 hours. Our offered health plan is defined as
affordable and meets minimum standards as defined by the law,
but when you express to the employee that they must
contribute +/-$30 per week it becomes a heartfelt choice to
pay for food, child care, rent OR pay for health care. On
more than one occasion, I had employees (all of whom worked
less than 32 hours per week} break down in tears because they
just can't afford coverage. At the same time, those that
worked over 38 hours, were more likely to participate and in
fact could afford coverage.
When ACA was first introduced, I could never understand why
the law defined 30 hours per week. Our company has had to
make dramatic cuts in hours to some staffers to reduce
exposure. But once again this hurts the employee.
So you see the obvious selfish thing to do as a business
person is to cry foul about the health care law and how it
affects our bottom line. But our company takes a bit of a
different approach. We recognize the importance of our people
because without GREAT employees, business owners really don't
have anything. This law is hurting many of our employees.
They don't understand it, they can't afford it and they just
want to work more hours. 30 hours is too restrictive to them.
40 would be better for them and ultimately for business and
such change would benefit both the employee and the employer.
Thanks for your great work in Washington.
Sincerely,
Randy Wadleigh,
Owner and CEO,
Governor's Management Company.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Udall, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms.
Klobuchar, Mr. Grassley, and Ms. Heitkamp):
S. 32. A bill to provide the Department of Justice with additional
tools to target extraterritorial drug trafficking activity, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the
Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2015 with my colleagues and
friends, Senators Charles Grassley, Richard Blumenthal, Heidi Heitkamp,
Amy Klobuchar and Tom Udall.
This bill, which passed the Senate unanimously in the last Congress,
supports the Obama Administration's Strategy to Combat Transnational
Organized Crime by providing the Department of Justice with crucial
tools to combat the international drug trade. As drug traffickers find
new and innovative ways to avoid prosecution, we cannot allow them to
exploit loopholes because our laws lag behind.
This legislation has three main components. First, it puts in place
penalties for extraterritorial drug trafficking activity when
individuals have reasonable cause to believe that illegal drugs will be
trafficked into the United States. Current law says that drug
traffickers must know that illegal drugs will be trafficked into the
United States and this legislation would lower the knowledge threshold
to reasonable cause to believe.
The Department of Justice has informed my office that, it sees drug
traffickers from countries like Colombia, Bolivia and Peru who produce
cocaine but then outsource transportation of the cocaine to the United
States to violent Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Under current
law, our ability to prosecute source-nation traffickers from these
countries is limited since there is often no direct evidence of their
knowledge that illegal drugs were intended for the United
[[Page S19]]
States. But let me be clear: drugs produced in these countries fuel
violent crime throughout the Western Hemisphere as well as addiction
and death in the United States.
Second, this bill puts in place penalties for precursor chemical
producers from foreign countries, such as those producing
pseudoephedrine used for methamphetamine, who illegally ship precursor
chemicals into the United States knowing that these chemicals will be
used to make illegal drugs.
Third, this bill makes a technical fix to the Counterfeit Drug
Penalty Enhancement Act, which increases penalties for the trafficking
of counterfeit drugs. The fix, requested by the Department of Justice,
puts in place a ``knowing'' requirement which was unintentionally left
out of the original bill. The original bill makes the mere sale of a
counterfeit drug a Federal felony offense regardless of whether the
seller knew the drug was counterfeit. Under the original bill, a
pharmacist could be held criminally liable if he or she unwittingly
sold counterfeit drugs to a customer. Adding a ``knowing'' requirement
corrects this problem.
As Co-Chair of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control
and as a public servant who has focused on narcotics issues for many
years, I know that we cannot sit idly by as drug traffickers find new
ways to circumvent our laws. The illegal drug trade is constantly
evolving and it is critical that our legal framework keeps pace. We
must provide the Department of Justice with all of the tools it needs
to prosecute drug kingpins both here at home and abroad.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Ayotte, Mr.
Schumer, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Portman, and Mr. Whitehouse):
S. 36. A bill to address the continued threat posed by dangerous
synthetic drugs by amending the Controlled Substances Act relating to
controlled substance analogues; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the
Protecting Our Youth from Dangerous Synthetic Drugs Act of 2015, with
my colleagues, Senators Kelly Ayotte, Richard Blumenthal, Barbara
Boxer, Amy Klobuchar, Rob Portman, Charles Schumer, Jeanne Shaheen and
Sheldon Whitehouse. This legislation addresses the significant harm
that synthetic drugs cause our communities.
When Congress outlawed several synthetic drugs in 2012, traffickers
did not stop producing them. Instead, they slightly altered the drugs'
chemical structure to skirt the law, producing ``controlled substance
analogues'' which are dangerous, chemically similar to Schedule I
substances, and mimic the effects of drugs like ecstasy, cocaine, PCP,
and LSD.
Manufacturers of synthetic drugs often prey upon youth, selling
products such as Scooby Snax, Potpourri, and Joker Herbal. But make no
mistake: these products are dangerous. In the first ten months of 2014
alone, poison centers nationwide responded to approximately 3,900 calls
related to synthetic drugs.
Under current law, determining whether a substance meets the vague
legal criteria of a ``controlled substance analogue'' results in a
``battle of experts'' inside the courtroom. Significantly, a substance
ruled to be an analogue in one case is not automatically an analogue in
a second case.
The Protecting Our Youth from Dangerous Synthetics Drug Act addresses
these issues. This bill creates an interagency committee of scientists
that will establish and maintain an administrative list of controlled
substance analogues. The Committee is structured to respond quickly
when new synthetic drugs enter the market.
Because virtually all of these controlled substance analogues arrive
in bulk from outside our borders, the bill makes it illegal to import a
controlled substance analogue on the list unless the importation is
intended for non-human use.
Finally, the bill directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review,
and if appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing guidelines for
violations of the Controlled Substances Act pertaining to controlled
substance analogues.
In sum, this bill sends a strong message to drug traffickers who
attempt to circumvent our Nation's laws: no matter how you alter the
chemical structure of synthetic drugs to try to get around the law, we
will ban these substances to keep them away from our children.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Brown):
S. 37. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 to provide for State accountability in the provision of access to
the core resources for learning, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to reintroduce the Core
Opportunity Resources for Equity and Excellence Act with my colleague
Senator Brown. I would also like to thank Representative Fudge for
introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. This
year, we will be commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act. Now is the time to reaffirm our commitment
to educational equity, and in the words of President Johnson ``bridge
the gap between helplessness and hope.''
As we embark upon reauthorizing this landmark legislation, we must
ensure that our accountability systems in education measure our
progress towards equity and excellence for all children. The CORE Act
will help advance that goal by requiring states to include fair and
equitable access to the core resources for learning in their
accountability systems.
More than 60 years after the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of
Education, one of the great challenges still facing this nation is
stemming the tide of rising inequality. We have seen the rich get
richer while middle class and low-income families have lost ground. We
see disparities in opportunity starting at birth and growing over a
lifetime. With more than one in five school-aged children living in
families in poverty, according to Department of Education statistics,
we cannot afford nor should we tolerate a public education system that
fails to provide resources and opportunities for the children who need
them the most.
We should look to hold our education system accountable for results
and resources. And we know that resources matter. A recent study by
researchers at Northwestern University and the University of California
at Berkeley found that increasing per pupil spending by 20 percent for
low-income students over the course of their K-12 schooling results in
greater high school completion, higher levels of educational
attainment, increased lifetime earnings, and reduced adult poverty.
In addition to funding, there are other opportunity gaps that we need
to address. Survey data from the Department of Education's Office of
Civil Rights show troubling disparities, such as the fact that Black,
Latino, American Indian, Native Alaskan students, and English learners
attend schools with higher concentrations of inexperienced teachers;
nationwide, one in five high schools lacks a school counselor; and
between 10 and 25 percent of high schools across the nation do not
offer more than one of the core courses in the typical sequence of high
school math and science, such as Algebra I and II, geometry, biology,
and chemistry.
We are reintroducing the CORE Act to ensure that equity remains at
the center of our federal education policy. Specifically, the CORE Act
will require state accountability plans and state and district report
cards to include measures on how well the state and districts provide
the core resources for learning to their students. These resources
include: high quality instructional teams, including licensed and
profession-ready teachers, principals, school librarians, counselors,
and education support staff; rigorous academic standards and curricula
that lead to college and career readiness by high school graduation and
are accessible to all students, including students with disabilities
and English learners; equitable and instructionally appropriate class
sizes; up-to-date instructional materials, technology, and supplies;
effective school library programs; school facilities and technology,
including physically and environmentally sound buildings and well-
equipped instructional space, including laboratories and libraries;
specialized instructional support teams, such as counselors, social
[[Page S20]]
workers, nurses, and other qualified professionals; and effective
family and community engagement programs.
These are things that parents in well-resourced communities expect
and demand. We should do no less for children in economically
disadvantaged communities. We should do no less for minority students
or English learners or students with disabilities.
Under the CORE Act, States that fail to make progress on resource
equity would not be eligible to apply for competitive grants authorized
under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. For school districts
identified for improvement, the State would have to identify gaps in
access to the core resources for learning and develop an action plan in
partnership with the local school district to address those gaps.
The CORE Act is supported by a diverse group of organizations,
including the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education,
American Federation of Teachers, American Library Association,
Coalition for Community Schools, Education Law Center, Fair Test, First
Focus Campaign for Children, League of United Latin American Citizens,
National Association of School Psychologists, National Education
Association, National Latino Education Research and Policy Project,
Opportunity Action, Public Advocacy for Kids, Public Advocates, Inc.,
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, and the Texas Center for
Education Policy.
Working with this strong group of advocates and my colleagues in the
Senate and in the House, it is my hope that we can build the support to
include the CORE Act in the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. I urge my colleagues to join us by
cosponsoring this legislation.
____________________