[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 116 (Thursday, July 23, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5528-S5537]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. HOEVEN (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Heitkamp, Mr.
Grassley, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Thune, Mr. Brown, Mr. Enzi, and
Mr. Rounds):
S. 1844. A bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to
provide for voluntary country of origin labeling for beef, pork, and
chicken; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, today I filed, along with a bipartisan
group of cosponsors, the Voluntary Country of Origin Labeling and Trade
Enhancement Act of 2015. I wish to thank the cosponsors on the
legislation. The lead cosponsor on the Democratic side is Senator
Debbie Stabenow, ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee.
Also joining us in this bipartisan group are Senator John Thune from
South Dakota, another member of the agriculture committee, Senator Amy
Klobuchar, Senator Chuck Grassley, Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Senator Mike
Enzi, and Senator Sherrod Brown. With the exception of Senator Enzi,
all of the cosponsors are members of our agriculture committee.
What we are trying to do is come up with a solution to the country-
of-origin labeling issue. This is an issue that has been in a WTO court
for some time and involves the United States, Canada, and Mexico, our
very good trading partners. Essentially what we are working to do is to
find a solution that addresses the WTO issues as far as country-of-
origin labeling in a way that makes sure that we are WTO compliant so
that there are no duties or tariffs that can be levied against any of
our agricultural exports or any other exports. At the same time, for
those who want to use country-of-origin labeling on a voluntary basis,
they are able to do so. That would preserve what is known as the
``Grade A'' label, which simply means born, raised, and slaughtered or
processed in the United States. So for beef, pork, and chicken, if it
is born and raised and processed in the United States, one can still
use that ``Grade A'' label, but it is a voluntary program, it is not a
mandatory program. We do that purposely so that we meet the WTO
requirements. I have spoken with the U.S. Trade Representative's office
about that issue, which I will go into in just a minute.
What we have done is we have simply taken the House legislation--
sponsored by the Agriculture Committee chairman in the House,
Representative Mike Conaway, which passed in the House--essentially, we
take the same bill, the same language as far as repealing mandatory
COOL. So we repeal mandatory COOL, which puts us in compliance with
what the WTO is asking for, then we simply add some language that
allows for a voluntary program, so that for processors, marketers, and
producers that want to participate in a voluntary program, they can. If
they believe consumers want to know, then they have that opportunity to
provide their product with the ``Grade A'' label on a voluntary basis.
That is reasonable because that is what Canada does. Canada has a
voluntary program. It is called their ``Product of Canada'' label. So
all we are doing is what Canada does. We repeal the mandatory program
and we put in place a voluntary program just as our good friends and
neighbors do in Canada.
When I spoke with the U.S. Trade Representative about this issue,
essentially what they said is whether we repeal mandatory COOL by
itself or repeal mandatory COOL and have a voluntary program,
essentially we are in the same position vis-a-vis meeting the WTO
requirements.
So this is really an effort to build bipartisan support for a
solution to the COOL issue, which has been a challenging issue. This is
an issue we worked on on the farm bill. I was one of the conferees on
the conference committee, and COOL and some of the other issues were
some of the last--dairy, for example--issues we were able to resolve in
finally getting an agreement on a farm bill.
Again, this is an effort in a practical way to bring people together
on both sides of the issue to solve the problem. We make sure we are
WTO compliant. Then, on a voluntary basis, there is the option for
people to label as they want to. We work to create enough bipartisan
support in this body so we can deal with the issue now, so we can
resolve the issue now and pass this legislation and then get it to
conference with the House and have a resolution before the end of this
month and before the August recess so that this issue is taken care of.
I look forward to working with everybody involved on both sides of
the aisle, including our esteemed chairman of the Agriculture
Committee, Senator Roberts. I appreciate all the time we have spent
working together on this issue. I look forward to working with Members
on both sides of the aisle, both on the Agriculture Committee and
everyone else, to craft a solution, advance it through this body, and
get it to conference with the House.
As I said, I have spoken with Chairman Conaway, the Agriculture
Committee chairman in the House. We have a good relationship, and we
had a good dialogue about the sooner we get to work together to resolve
this, the better, and we look forward to that.
Again, I ask my colleagues to join with us, our bipartisan group, in
a bipartisan way. Let's get this done and make sure we not only have
addressed the issue with the World Trade Organization court so there
are no duties but also make sure we have put forward a solution that
works for the American consumer and for the American agriculture
industry, that on a voluntary basis gives them the opportunity to
provide country-of-origin labeling as well as solving the WTO
challenge.
______
By Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Sanders, Mr.
Brown, Mr. Tester, and Ms. Hirono):
S. 1856. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for
suspension and removal of employees of the Department of Veterans
Affairs for performance or misconduct that is a threat to public health
or safety and to improve accountability of employees of the Department,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, going back to my colleagues who have
appeared to talk about issues of accountability for the Department of
Veterans Affairs, I want to say how grateful I am for the spirit of
collaboration that prevailed yesterday in our meeting.
Very generously and responsibly, the chairman of that committee,
Senator Isakson--my good friend and distinguished colleague from
Georgia--offered and committed to continue the effort to improve the
measures we approved yesterday in our committee to hold accountable the
Department of Veterans Affairs and all of its employees--just as we do
any other agency of government--to make sure we keep faith with our
veterans and leave no veteran behind.
Our Nation needs to make sure we provide the robust resources and the
prompt delivery of health care services
[[Page S5529]]
and other measures to our veterans with the honest and efficient
management our veterans deserve.
So many of us were repulsed and outraged by the revelation just a
little more than 1 year ago about delays in health care, irresponsible
and reprehensible and, indeed, criminal obstruction of justice in
cooking the books that prevailed at health care facilities of the
Department of Veterans Affairs around the country, and the
ramifications were sweeping. There were indeed changes in management,
beginning at the very top, with a new Secretary. There were also
measures approved by this Congress in the last session, the Veterans
Access, Choice and Accountability Act, to make sure no veteran
suffering 30 days or more in delays in health care be denied a private
provider if he or she chooses one or is living more than 40 miles from
any facility.
We are working on additional measures, constructive and positive
measures, to make sure this Nation fulfills its promise of prompt,
world-class, first-class health care to every veteran who needs it,
regardless of what that need is, the specialty or the illness, and to
make sure we also cure the other deficiencies, such as the delays in
disability claims, homelessness, joblessness, the need for job training
and skills among our veterans.
Part of our task is accountability to make sure members of the
Department of Veterans Affairs are held accountable. That is one reason
why I insisted and urged from the very beginning of those revelations
of wrongdoing and criminality in the Department of Veterans Affairs
that there be a Department of Justice investigation. I called on the
Attorney General of the United States to investigate, not the inspector
general of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Attorney General of
the United States because only the Department of Justice has the
resources and expertise, direction, and leadership to successfully
pursue the wide-ranging criminality and wrongdoing that I thought was
revealed.
For all of us who hope there is honesty and fair dealing in our
government, regrettably there has now been a criminal indictment. The
indications are that more should follow, that there was and is reason
for a Department of Justice investigation, that there are and need to
be continued reports and results of the IG investigation. I have called
in hearing after hearing that we be given those reports and results of
the ongoing inspector general investigation, and we still are lacking
in the full work product from that office. There is clearly more work
to be done on the wrongdoing that has been committed in the past, and
there is clearly more work to be done to prevent it in the future.
Part of what needs to be done is to protect the whistleblowers.
Indeed, those revelations of wrongdoing came in part from
whistleblowers who had the courage and fortitude to step forward and
who were intimidated and ostracized and sometimes persecuted within the
VA. They need protection. One part of what we need to do is to make
sure they are protected.
There ought to be accountability going forward in disciplining
employees within the VA when there is malfeasance or waste or fraud.
That involves eliminating some of the redtape and rigaramole that in
the past have hampered the VA Secretary or other managers in making
sure that there is accountability. That is why I welcome the focus of
our committee on assuring accountability and transparency.
Those changes in the law are necessary to enable the VA Secretary and
his team to make sure that there is not only accurate and effective
prompt discipline but also the appearance of it so that employees at
the VA will know that there is a standard of conduct and it will be
enforced and it will be upheld in the courts when it is challenged.
That is true not only in the VA but of every department of the U.S.
Government. There needs to be that perception and reality of the
enforcement of codes of conduct and ethics.
There needs to be a recognition that it is in the interest not only
of the American taxpayer but the employees of the U.S. Government
themselves. The majority of them are honest and hard-working. Those
nurses, counselors, therapists, doctors, and administrators at the VA
who are doing their job--in fact, working overtime often without
additional pay--who are serving valiantly and responsibly, their
clients deserve that wrongdoers be rooted out and held accountable.
They are the vast majority of those honest and hard-working employees,
and we owe them thanks for what they do to serve our veterans, but the
wrongdoers need to be disciplined.
The idea that they should receive bonuses is absolutely abhorrent. I
welcome legislation that stops bonuses for employees who fail the most
basic notions of effective and honest service. They deserve that those
bonuses be stopped.
My colleague Senator Isakson has spoken about S. 627, the bill that
has been sponsored by Senator Ayotte and was approved yesterday. I want
to make sure in the improvements I am going to offer to it and that my
colleague Senator Brown offered yesterday--that we actually make it
more effective. That is the nature of this deliberative process, that
we try to improve on what we are doing to make enforcement more
effective.
I know as an enforcer, as a former U.S. attorney and a Federal and
State official, enforcement is key to making the law work. The same is
true of S. 1082, sponsored by our colleague Senator Rubio, which also
was approved yesterday by our committee. I have offered a bill that
will improve the measure we approved yesterday in a number of different
respects.
First of all, there are serious questions about the constitutionality
of the provision approved yesterday. I think in fairness to all of the
American taxpayers as well as this body, we should face whatever
deficiencies there are constitutionally in the law before that law
becomes unenforceable.
The importance of making sure a law is constitutional goes to
enforcement. A law that is unconstitutional, that fails to provide
sufficient notice, a statement of causes, a right to be heard, an
opportunity to achieve basic constitutional protection that the U.S.
Security Court has repeatedly said is necessary, those deficiencies can
make law unenforceable.
As I said yesterday in our committee meeting, as a former attorney
general, and there are others in this body, we know how difficult the
task is to defend a law or defend State action that is based on a
constitutional and firm statute.
A law that is unenforceable is worse than no law at all because it
creates a false sense of security, an expectation that never can be
fulfilled because a law that is unenforceable will never be effective
in preventing the wrong that it is designed to do.
I want to improve S. 1082--in fact, to make it more effective--but to
make sure it is done in a way that can be upheld, also to protect those
whistleblowers, and to make sure that if there are firings and
disciplines, it is done on the merits, that it is done on the basis of
real cause and evidence, not as part of a political witch hunt.
We have been through the spoils system. This Nation has lived through
a time when, in effect, offices were bought and sold. That certainly is
nobody's intention here, and I am sure my colleagues and I can work
together to move toward a measure that fulfills our common shared
objective in making sure that merit and effective action is rewarded
with bonuses and through other means and that wrongdoing is punished
and deterred.
There can be no enforcement unless the law is framed as well as
possible, and there can be no deterrence unless there is enforcement.
That is what we want to do: prevent this kind of wrongdoing going
forward, not just looking backward and pursuing and prosecuting the
wrongdoers, which I hope will be done. There is more than ample
evidence to support it but also to prevent it going forward.
I am tremendously heartened by our committee chairman's commitment to
work with me and others on that committee. He said to me very
explicitly, and it is on the record, that he will, in fact, work with
us. We will engage in collaboration.
I think we are going to improve these measures. They may not be huge
or sweeping changes in what we approved yesterday, but we all know that
words can sometimes lead to courts concluding that there are defects in
the law that were never intended by the
[[Page S5530]]
Framers. That is a consequence, an unintended result that we should
avoid if possible. It may seem like lawyer talk, but it has
ramifications in the courts. That is the reason we heard from the DAV
at our June 24 hearing that it is ``vitally important to VA's long-term
future to create an environment in which the best and brightest
professionals choose VA over other Federal or private employers.''
We need those best of the best in the VA, not working in the private
sector alone. Fairness and due process in our workplace will encourage
talented doctors, lawyers, nurses, and other professionals to come to
the VA, which is where we need them, for the strength of that system.
As the independent U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board stated in its
statement for the record in the committee's June 24th hearing, there is
a need to follow and respect constitutional due process. The
Partnership for Public Service said much of the same thing in this
letter of July 21, 2015.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Partnership for Public Service,
Washington DC, July 21, 2015.
Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Members of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee: On
behalf of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan,
nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the
effectiveness of our federal government, I am writing to
express my views on S. 1082, the Department of Veterans
Affairs Accountability Act of 2015, and a substitute
amendment to be offered by Senator Blumenthal, which would
address employee accountability and broader management
challenges at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
As members of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, you
have a unique opportunity to fix serious problems at the
Department and improve the ability of the Department to
deliver on its mission to provide high-quality services to
veterans. Unfortunately, the reforms promoted in S. 1082 will
not accomplish these objectives. As drafted, the bill
eliminates due process protections for employees--which will
silence the very whistleblowers we rely on to sound the
alarm--and could lead to removals for partisan or
discriminatory reasons. The bill will also have an adverse
impact on the ability of VA to recruit and retain top talent,
as seasoned reformers may be less inclined to pursue VA
leadership positions without due process protections. In
addition, the bill expedites the appeals process without
providing additional resources, which, according to a
statement for the record from the Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB), could overwhelm MSPB's capacity to manage its
workload.
The Partnership strongly agrees that poor performance is a
real problem at VA and that federal employees at all agencies
must be held accountable for their performance and conduct.
We have recommended dozens of reforms to the current civil
service system that, we believe, will lead to a better
managed government and a higher performing workforce.
However, moving to at-will employment will have many
unintended consequences and will not solve the critical
management challenges that are hobbling VA and jeopardizing
the care of our veterans. We believe a better solution lies
in Sen. Blumenthal's substitute amendment that would give the
Secretary an additional tool to remove individuals who are a
threat to public health or safety, and improve the management
of the Department.
Among other things, the substitute amendment would do the
following:
Hold senior political leaders accountable in performance
plans for recruiting and selecting the right people for
employment at the agency, engaging and motivating employees,
training and developing employees and holding managers
accountable for making difficult performance decisions.
Accountability for management in government starts at the
very top and this provision will ensure all leaders, career
and political, are held accountable.
Ensure managers are fully using the probationary period to
develop high-potential employees and to remove someone if
they are not the right fit for the position. The amendment
would require managers to make an affirmative decision as to
whether an individual who serves in a probationary period has
demonstrated successful performance and should continue past
the probationary period. It also requires new supervisors to
demonstrate management competencies, in addition to technical
skills, in order to remain in a management position.
Require periodic training for managers on the rights of
whistleblowers and how to address an employee allegation of a
hostile work environment, reprisal or harassment; how to
effectively motivate, manage and reward employees; and how to
effectively manage employees who are performing at an
unacceptable level.
Hold VA managers accountable in performance plans for
taking action to address poor performance and misconduct and
for taking steps to improve or sustain high levels of
employee engagement.
Create a separate promotion track for technical experts so
they can advance in their careers without having to go into
management positions for which they are ill-suited. Too often
we hear that supervisors promote their employees to
management positions because they want to pay them more, even
when the employees are technical experts who may be
uninterested or unskilled in managing people.
Require GAO to study the implementation of Section 707 of
the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014,
which was enacted last year, to understand its impact on
performance, accountability, recruitment and retention at VA,
particularly at the executive level. The provision would also
require GAO to review VA's internal policies for dealing with
performance issues and make recommendations for how the
Department could expedite the process for addressing
performance and misconduct administratively.
The challenges at VA are critical and must be addressed. We
encourage the Committee to adopt the substitute amendment and
ensure these critical management provisions are included as
the bill moves to the floor. Our veterans deserve the very
best care and this is the time for real reform, not simple
expediency.
Very best wishes,
Max Stier,
President and CEO.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask that my colleagues join in this collaboration
because I know how deeply you and I feel, how we share that common
goal, not just in our committee. I ask that we work to incorporate the
measure I have introduced today, S. 1856, with the cosponsorship
Senators Murray, Sanders, Brown, Tester, and Hirono, my colleagues on
the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the Department of Veterans Affairs
Equitable Employee Accountability Act. This measure is introduced
today, and it will help us improve and enhance S. 1082 and the
supremely important objectives that motivate it.
I thank my colleagues for our work together, and I look forward to
pursuing it.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
______
By Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Booker, Mr. Bennet,
Mr. Blumenthal, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Brown, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Cardin, Mr. Carper, Mr. Coons, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Franken, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Kaine,
Mr. King, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Markey, Mrs. McCaskill,
Mr. Menendez, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Murphy, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Peters, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Schatz, Mr.
Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Udall, Mr. Warner, Ms.
Warren, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 1858. A bill to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex,
gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Equality
Act of 2015--comprehensive civil rights legislation for our LGBT
community.
There are few concepts as fundamentally American as equality. We were
founded on this principle with these simple words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with
unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness.
For more than two centuries, we have been working to fulfill that
vision of equality. We have taken direct action as a nation so that our
laws align more closely with these founding ideals. We have challenged
unjust rules and destructive prejudices and chosen to advance basic
civil rights.
Martin Luther King put forth the vision that the arc of the moral
universe is long but it bends towards justice. He knew that in the
1950s and 1960s Americans were hard at work making that moral arc of
the universe bend towards justice. That is the work we continue here in
the Senate, here on Capitol Hill, here in the House of Representatives
just 100 yards away.
Step by step, stride by stride, the barriers that once prevented
people from enjoying the full measure of liberty, the full measure of
opportunity, the full measure of equality have broken down.
[[Page S5531]]
At the same time, we recognize there is much more to be done to
secure that reality for each and every American. In cities and towns
across our Nation, many of our citizens do not receive equal treatment,
not because of anything they have done but because of who they are--
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, whom they love, and who they are.
Yes, we have made progress in advancing rights for the LGBT
community. We passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act
after I came to the Senate in 2009. We repealed don't ask, don't tell,
which prevented all Americans from serving openly in the U.S. military.
We reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, with
protections for services for the LGBT community. We passed the
Affordable Care Act so that no one could be denied health care because
of their sexual orientation or gender identity. And we have seen
landmark victories in the Supreme Court, first in the Edith Windsor
case when the Court ruled it was unconstitutional for the Federal
Government to discriminate and just last month when the Court
reaffirmed that ``love is love'' and ensured that marriage equality
would come to all 50 States.
That is a significant number of steps, a significant number of
strides on the path toward full equality, and it happened in a
relatively short period of time. But we are far from where we need to
be--full equality for every American. As long as people are afraid to
put their spouse's photo on their desk at work, as long as they are
worried about being evicted from their apartment if they do not pretend
to be just roommates, we have a lot of work to do.
The harsh reality remains that in far too many States there are still
no laws specifically prohibiting discrimination against LGBT Americans.
Nearly two-thirds of the LGBT community reports they have faced
discrimination in their lives. In Pennsylvania, a transgender woman can
be denied service and kicked out of a restaurant just for being who she
is and it would be perfectly legal. In Michigan, a newly married couple
can be denied the chance to buy their first house just because they are
both women and that would be perfectly legal. In North Carolina, a gay
man can be fired from his job today just for being gay and that would
be perfectly legal.
Only 22 States and the District of Columbia have passed legislation
that prevents workers from being fired because they are gay. Only 19 of
those States and the District of Columbia include language protecting
against gender identity bias.
The time has come to right this wrong. The time has come for us as a
nation to be bolder and better at ensuring full rights and full
equality for the LGBT community. Not only is it within our power, it is
something America must work to lead. And the most powerful form of
leadership is the example we set.
In 1962, Bobby Kennedy said:
Nations around the world look to us for leadership not
merely by strength of arms, but by the strength of our
convictions. We not only want, but we need, the free exercise
of rights by every American.
Our commitment to the vision of equality and fairness is a
significant part of America's soul. It makes us strong. It makes us who
we are as a people. And we should settle for nothing less. These
fundamental principles served as the guiding force behind the
comprehensive legislation--the Equality Act of 2015--we are introducing
today here in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
I thank my lead cosponsors in the Senate, Cory Booker and Tammy
Baldwin, who have done enormous good work in setting the stage for
today's introduction.
I thank four staff members who worked very hard on this on my team,
including my chief of staff, Michael Zamore; my legislative director,
Jeremiah Baumann; my legislative assistant, Adrian Snead; and my
legislative correspondent, Elizabeth Eickelberg. There are many other
members of the team who pitched in, but they have worked day and night
to help make this moment arrive.
We have had support, such critical support and involvement from
numerous outside groups.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a list of dozens of groups endorsing this legislation.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Organizations that endorse the legislation:
9to5, National Association of Working Women, Advocates for
Youth, Aids United, American Civil Liberties Union, American
Federation of Teachers, American Federation of Teachers,
Anti-Defamation League, Athlete Ally, Bend the Arc Jewish
Action, CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers, Central
Conference of American Rabbis, Family Equality Council,
Family Equality Council, Freedom to Work, Generation
Progress, GLSEN, Hindu American Foundation, Human Rights
Campaign, Interfaith Alliance, JWI.
Lambda Legal, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Black
Justice Coalition, National Center for Lesbian Rights,
National Center for Transgender Equality, National Council of
La Raza (NCLR), National Education Association, National
Education Association, National Employment Law Project,
National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, National LGBTQ
Task Force Action Fund, National Organization for Women,
National Partnership for Women & Families, National Women's
Law Center, People For the American Way, PFLAG National,
PFLAG National, Planned Parenthood Federation of America,
Secular Coalition for America, Sexuality Information and
Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS), The Trevor Project,
Union for Reform Judaism.
State organizations that endorse the legislation:
9to5 California, CA; 9to5 Colorado, CO; 9to5 Georgia, GA;
9to5 Wisconsin, WI; Equality Michigan, MI; Equality Michigan,
MI; Gender Justice, MN and Upper Midwest; Gender Rights
Maryland, MD; PROMO (Missouri), MO; Southwest Women's Law
Center, NM.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I particularly want to draw attention to
several organizations that played a leading role, and I apologize to
others that were also very involved. The Human Rights Campaign played a
central role in organizing today's introduction. I also thank the
American Civil Liberties Union, the National Council of La Raza, the
National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund, the National Women's Law Center,
and so many others.
The Equality Act will create uniform Federal standards to protect all
LGBT Americans from discrimination in housing, in workplaces, in
schools, in public accommodations, and in financial transactions. It is
a vision of equality deeply rooted in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It is
setting the same foundation to end discrimination for the LGBT
community that was set for ethnicity and set for gender and set for
race. That is the foundation for the vision of eliminating
discrimination in area after area, and it is time we place LGBT
nondiscrimination on that same foundation. That is what we are doing
today--comprehensively taking on discrimination.
The bill also addresses gaps in legal protections against sex
discrimination--ensuring women are treated equally in all aspects of
their lives. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and a steadily
increasing number of courts have recognized that sexual orientation and
gender identity discrimination are properly understood as forms of sex
discrimination in light of multiple controlling sex discrimination
cases. The EEOC has done this through several decisions, most notably
Macy v. Holder in 2012, which held that transgender discrimination is
sex discrimination, and Baldwin v. Foxx very recently, which held that
sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination.
The bill we are introducing today, the Equality Act, codifies this
understanding, making it clear that sexual orientation and gender
identity are correctly understood as sex discrimination.
In addition, the bill adds the terms ``sexual orientation'' and
``gender identity'' to the list of protected characteristics throughout
the code. This change should not be read to mean that sexual
orientation and gender identity are not correctly understood as sex
discrimination. These additions were made so covered entities as well
as LGBT people can clearly see that these protections exist. Employers,
businesses, and institutions are often not aware of the decisions by
the EEOC and the courts holding that sexual orientation or gender
identity are protected.
This bill represents a paradigm shift in two ways. First, our civil
rights community has worked incredibly hard
[[Page S5532]]
to defend the principles established in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and
today we are asking for their engagement to not simply defend this act
but to expand this act. Second, we have worked very hard to take on
pieces of discrimination, whether it be don't ask, don't tell, whether
it be Federal benefits for same-sex partners. But today we are saying
we need a vision of comprehensive nondiscrimination. That is the
expression of full opportunity. You cannot access full opportunity if
the door is closed in financial transactions or jury selection or
public accommodations if you can still be turned away from a restaurant
because of whom you love or whom you are. Every American deserves
equality in every basic function of our society. Discrimination has no
place in our Nation's laws.
If it is wrong in marriage, as the Court has held, as numerous States
have established, it is wrong also in employment. If it is wrong in
employment, it is wrong in housing. If it is wrong in housing, it is
wrong, too, in education.
Overwhelmingly, Americans believe discrimination is wrong.
Overwhelmingly, they believe it is already illegal, and they believe it
has no place in our society and no place being condoned by our laws.
Even though the Equality Act addresses multiple dimensions of
discrimination, it is quite simple. It says that people deserve to live
free from fear, free from violence, and free from discrimination,
regardless of who they are or whom they love.
Writing these protections into law will bring us another stride
forward in our Nation's long march toward inclusion and equality. It
will extend the full promise of America to every American. I will keep
fighting until this bill is on the President's desk. I will not be
satisfied until everyone in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender
community is guaranteed the dignity and the freedom they deserve, the
whole sense of opportunity provided through participation in American
society. A full measure of equality: equal citizen.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in this fight. I thank the 40
Senators who stood up today to be original cosponsors of the Equality
Act of 2015. Let's make our democracy more inclusive and our freedom
more perfect by bringing our laws and our actions in line with the
founding principle that all are created equal.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last month, the Supreme Court took a
significant step towards a more perfect union when it ruled that every
American has the right to marry the person they love and have that
lawful marriage recognized. It was a victory for love and justice over
bigotry and intolerance. This historic milestone should be celebrated,
but we must remember that the journey is not complete. The Fourteenth
Amendment's principles of liberty and equality safeguard all couples'
right to marry, and also serves as a bulwark against discriminatory
treatment in the other aspects of everyday life, including where we
live, where we work, and our interactions with the government.
While LGBT Americans are now able to marry the person they love, they
continue to experience discrimination in many other aspects of their
lives. Achieving full equality means that LGBT individuals should be
able to provide security for their families without fear that they will
be fired from their jobs or denied housing. It means that a restaurant
cannot refuse to serve an LGBT couple because the owner disapproves of
that couple's relationship.
These are not abstract concepts. In our country today, LGBT Americans
continue to experience discrimination, and it must end. In a June 27
article in the New York Times, entitled ``Next Fight for Gay Rights:
Bias in Jobs and Housing,'' the author Erik Eckholm provides clear
documentation of such discrimination. A landlord in East Nashville, TN,
refused to rent his apartment to two women in a loving relationship
after he learned of their partnership because it made him
``uncomfortable.'' He refused their rental application even after they
offered to raise the rent by $150. A transgender individual was fired
from her job as an industrial electrician because, according to her
boss, her identity was becoming ``too much of a distraction,'' in spite
of the fact that she was doing ``great work.''
If such discrimination were based on race, religion, sex, or national
origin, these individuals would be protected under Federal law. But
because Federal civil rights law, as well as many state and local laws,
do not provide explicit protections based on sexual orientation and
gender identity, these individuals continue to experience
discrimination without any legal protection. Their stories show us that
LGBT Americans continue to be treated as second class citizens in their
daily lives.
That is why I am an original cosponsor of the Equality Act. The bill
would amend existing Federal law to provide explicit civil rights
protections for LGBT individuals. This non-discrimination bill would
ensure that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected under
Federal law in the same way that race, sex, religion, national origin,
and disability are also protected classes. The result would be to
protect LGBT individuals against discrimination in public
accommodations, federally-funded programs, employment, housing,
education, credit, and other aspects of daily life. This is the kind of
equality and security that all American families should enjoy.
I am proud that Vermont was one of the first States to pass a
comprehensive law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation in 1992, and also passed a law explicitly prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of gender identity in 2007. All Vermonters
are protected from discrimination in employment, places of public
accommodation, housing, credit, and other services. This is what we
need on the Federal level as well.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times
article referenced above be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, June 27, 2015]
Next Fight for Gay Rights: Bias in Jobs and Housing
(By Erik Eckholm)
Exhilarated by the Supreme Court's endorsement of same-sex
marriage, gay rights leaders have turned their sights to what
they see as the next big battle: obtaining federal, state and
local legal protections in employment, housing, commerce and
other arenas, just like those barring discrimination based on
race, religion, sex and national origin.
The proposals pit advocates against many of the same
religious conservatives who opposed legalizing same-sex
marriage, and who now see the protection of what they call
religious liberty as their most urgent task. These opponents
argue that antidiscrimination laws will inevitably be used to
force religious people and institutions to violate their
beliefs, whether by providing services for same-sex weddings
or by employing gay men and lesbians in church-related jobs.
Nationally, antidiscrimination laws for gay people are a
patchwork with major geographic inequities, said Brad Sears,
executive director of the Williams Institute at the School of
Law of the University of California, Los Angeles. ``Those who
don't live on the two coasts or in the Northeast have been
left behind in terms of legal protection,'' he said.
At least 22 states bar discrimination based on sexual
orientation, and most of them also offer protections to
transgender people.
Tennessee is one of the majority of states that do not bar
such discrimination. There, in East Nashville, Tiffany Cannon
and Lauren Horbal thought they had found the perfect house to
share with a friend, and the landlord seemed ready to rent
when they applied in April.
Then he called them to ask what their relationship with
each other was, Ms. Horbal, 26, recalled.
She said that when the landlord learned that she and Ms.
Cannon, 25, were partners, he said, ``I'm not comfortable
with that.'' He refused to process their application, even
after they offered to raise their rent by $150, to $700 a
month, Ms. Horbal said.
The women, both restaurant workers, are still looking for a
place to live.
In many states, some local governments have
antidiscrimination laws, but they are often weak or poorly
enforced, said Ruth Colker, an expert on discrimination law
at Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University.
``Typically, the penalty for violating a city ordinance is
more akin to a traffic violation,'' she said. ``State-level
penalties can be much more significant.''
As they push for more state and local safeguards, rights
advocates are also starting a long-term campaign for a broad
federal shield that would give sexual orientation and gender
identity protected status under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The goal is to achieve overlapping local, state and federal
laws, an approach that has proved effective in curbing other
kinds of discrimination, said Sarah Warbelow, legal
[[Page S5533]]
director at the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy
group. Visible laws can not only permit lawsuits, she said,
but also deter employers and others from biased behavior.
Although a majority of states lack such protections,
federal orders and court decisions, especially in employment,
are gradually offering more safeguards.
With executive orders last year, President Obama barred
discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender
identity by federal agencies and federal contractors,
including companies employing about one in five American
workers, Mr. Sears said.
At the same time, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, charged with enforcing federal law in the
workplace, has determined that discrimination against gay
men, lesbians and transgender people amounts to illegal sex
discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and
it is bringing or endorsing lawsuits under that provision.
That application of existing law is still being tested in
court and is more established for transgender workers than
for gay and lesbian workers. In the past two years, the
agency has successfully pursued 223 cases involving gay or
transgender people who faced workplace harassment or other
discrimination, gaining settlements or court orders, said
Chai R. Feldblum, one of the agency's five commissioners.
Patricia Dawson of Pangburn, Ark., 46, hopes to join that
list. Ms. Dawson, who grew up as Steven, had more than 15
years' experience as an industrial electrician and had been a
rising employee at H & H Electric, an industrial contractor,
for four years when she informed her boss in 2012 that she
was transitioning to female and had changed her name.
The boss, she said in a Title VII-based lawsuit brought by
the American Civil Liberties Union, told her to keep her
plans secret and not to ``rock the boat'' with clients.
When her identity became obvious and gossip raged at the
work site, she said, the boss said to her, ``I'm sorry,
Steve, you do great work, but you are too much of a
distraction, and I am going to have to let you go.''
Ms. Dawson said she was devastated by her treatment. ``I
love what I do; I get the greatest joy out of fixing
things,'' she said in an interview. ``Treating us as second-
class citizens, it's hurtful.''
Civil rights groups worked for years for an employment
antidiscrimination act, an effort that was blocked by House
Republicans and collapsed this year over discord about
religious exemptions. Buoyed by the rapid advance of same-sex
marriage, these groups are now determined to seek a far wider
law.
``I think there's a very strong consensus now among
advocacy groups that we need a broader bill that puts
discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender
identity on the same footing as race, religion and gender,''
said Shannon P. Minter, legal director at the National Center
for Lesbian Rights.
``No court decision could accomplish all of that,'' Mr.
Minter said.
Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, said he planned
to introduce a bill within the next few months to add
protections for gays and transgender people to the Civil
Rights Act.
``People are going to realize that you can get married in
the morning and be fired from your job or refused entry to a
restaurant in the afternoon,'' Mr. Merkley said. ``That is
unacceptable.''
But the effort will take years, he said, because it appears
unlikely that Republican committee heads in Congress will
advance such a bill.
In the emerging state-by-state battles for
antidiscrimination laws, the strongest opposition has come
from conservative religious groups that have been alarmed by
a few well-publicized cases, like that of a florist in
Washington State who was fined for refusing to provide
flowers for a same-sex wedding.
``We've got good reason to be concerned about these laws,
because they've been found to be coercive where they've been
enacted,'' said Greg Scott, vice president of communications
at Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group.
Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious
Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, said
that it was wrong to equate religious objections to
homosexual behavior with racism, and that proposed
antidiscrimination laws could ``do more harm than good.''
``Some have suggested that we work out a compromise,
addressing housing and employment discrimination and
protecting religious freedom for those who dissent from the
ideas of the sexual revolution,'' he said. ``But I have yet
to see any proposal that would do both of those things
well.''
There is some common ground. For example, under the Civil
Rights Act, religious organizations have the right to give
preference in hiring to those of their faith, Ms. Warbelow of
the Human Rights Campaign noted. In housing, federal rules
exempt owner-occupied rentals with four or fewer units from
discrimination provisions.
``We wouldn't expect these things to change,'' Ms. Warbelow
said. ``We really want L.G.B.T. people to be protected the
same as those in other protected categories.''
But some disagreements, especially involving private
businesses, may be unbridgeable. The major gay and civil
rights groups are united in their opposition to ``religious
liberty'' bills, a priority of conservative Christian
advocates, which would allow religious vendors to refuse to
serve gay couples or wedding celebrations.
``Religious liberty does not authorize discrimination,''
said James D. Esseks, the director of gay rights issues at
the American Civil Liberties Union.
``It's profoundly harmful to walk into a business open to
the public and be told, `No, we don't actually serve your
kind here,' '' he said. ``That's not how America works.''
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am proud to join in sponsoring the
Equality Act.
Last month, the Supreme Court ruled on the right side of history by
deciding that loving and committed same-sex couples have the right to
be married. While same-sex couples now can be legally wed, Federal law
still does not protect them from being fired or evicted from their
homes on the basis of their sexual identity or gender identity. The
Equality Act addresses this issue and represents a major step forward
in protecting the civil rights of all Americans.
At the same time we celebrate this historic bill, we must ensure that
religious institutions have the right to their own views of marriage.
As the Supreme Court noted in its decision, ``it must be emphasized
that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may
continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine
precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.'' I look forward to
working with colleagues to address these issues as the bill advances
through the legislative process.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
S. 1860. A bill to protect and promote international religious
freedom; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DURBIN. 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. 1860
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 ``Further Independence of
Religion for Security and Tolerance Freedom Act of 2015'' or
the ``FIRST Freedom Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Many of our Nation's founders fled religious
persecution and placed great importance on religious freedom.
President George Washington summed up the prevailing view of
our founders when he wrote, in 1793, ``in this Land of equal
liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will
not forfeit the protection of the Laws''.
(2) In 1791, the First Amendment to the Constitution was
ratified, enshrining freedom of religion as the ``First
Freedom'' of all Americans and becoming an inspiration to
people all over the world who struggle to throw off the yoke
of religious persecution.
(3) Throughout our Nation's history, the United States has
sought to protect and promote fundamental human rights,
including religious freedom, in the United States and
throughout the world.
(4) After World War II, under Eleanor Roosevelt's
leadership, the United States spearheaded the ratification of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted at Paris
December 10, 1948, which recognized freedom of religion as a
fundamental right of all people. Article 18 of that treaty
states ``Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to
change his religion or belief, and freedom either alone or in
community with others and in public or private, to manifest
his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and
observance.''.
(5) The International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, adopted at New York December 16, 1966, and which was
ratified by the United States in 1992, states, ``Everyone
shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to
adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either
individually or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship,
observance, practice and teaching.''.
(6) Since the enactment of the International Religious
Freedom Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-292), referred to in this
section as ``IRFA'', which established the Department of
State's Office on International Religious Freedom, the
Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, and
the United States Commission on International Religious
Freedom (referred to in this section as ``USCIRF''), the
state of religious freedom throughout the world has
significantly worsened.
(7) In section 2(a)(4) of IRFA (2 U.S.C. 6401(a)(4)),
Congress stated, ``More than one-half of the world's
population lives under regimes that severely restrict of
prohibit the freedom of their citizens to study, believe,
observe, and freely practice the religious faith of their
choice.''.
(8) According to ``Rising Tide of Restrictions on
Religion,'' the most recent report of
[[Page S5534]]
the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life,
three-quarters of the world's population lives in countries
in which restrictions on religion were high or very high.
(9) According to the 2014 USCIRF Annual Report, ``The past
10 years have seen a worsening of the already-poor religious
freedom environment in Pakistan, a continued dearth of
religious freedom in Turkmenistan, backsliding in Vietnam,
rising violations in Egypt before and after the Arab Spring,
and Syria's decent [sic] into sectarian civil war with all
sides perpetrating egregious religious freedom violations.''.
(10) Under section 402 of IRFA (22 U.S.C. 6442), the
President is required to designate a country as a country of
particular concern (referred to in this section as ``CPC'')
if the government of the country has engaged in or tolerated
systematic, ongoing and egregious violations of religious
freedom.
(11) According to the 2015 USCIRF Annual Report, since
October 1999, when the first countries were designated as
CPCs, ``the list has been largely unchanged. Of the nine
countries designated as CPCs in July 2014, most had been
named as CPCs for over a decade . . . Since IRFA's inception,
only one country has been removed from the State Department's
CPC list due to diplomatic activity.'' This track record
calls into serious question the utility of the CPC mechanism
and the utility of IRFA to improve the state of religious
freedom throughout the world.
(12) The United States has a long tradition of providing
safe haven to refugees, including members of religious
minority groups and those fleeing religious persecution.
Following the international community's tragic failure to
shelter Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazi genocide, the United
States played a leadership role in establishing the
international legal regime for the protection of refugees.
Since that time, the American people have generously welcomed
millions of refugees fleeing war and totalitarian regimes,
and the United States traditionally accepts at least 50
percent of resettlement cases handled by the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (referred to in
this section as ``UNHCR'').
(13) According to the 2014 UNHCR Global Trends Report, more
than 59,500,000 people were forcibly displaced in 2014--
(A) which is equal to 1 displacement for every 122 people
worldwide;
(B) which is the most displacements in a year in recorded
history;
(C) including--
(i) 38,200,000 individuals who were internally displaced
within their own country;
(ii) 19,500,000 refugees; and
(iii) 1,800,000 asylum-seekers;
(D) many of whom were victims of serious human rights
violations, including religious persecution; and
(E) many are whom are members of vulnerable populations,
including religious minorities.
(14) The ongoing conflict in Syria has led to the world's
worst ongoing humanitarian crisis and worst refugee crisis
since World War II. More than 50 percent of Syria's
23,000,000 people have been forcibly displaced from their
homes and, as of 2015, 20 percent of the world's refugees are
Syrians. UNHCR is seeking to resettle 130,000 Syrian refugees
during 2015 and 2016, with a particular focus on vulnerable
individuals such as religious minorities. Although the United
States traditionally accepts at least 50 percent of UNHCR
resettlement cases, the United States has only accepted
approximately 800 Syrian refugees since the beginning of the
Syrian conflict, which is an unacceptably low number.
(15) There are several steps that would facilitate the
efforts of the United States Government to protect and
provide safe haven to refugees from religious persecution.
The 2015 USCIRF Annual Report recommends that Congress ``work
to provide the President with permanent authority to
designate as refugees specifically-defined groups based on
shared characteristics identifying them as targets for
persecution on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion''.
(16) The United States Government has limited tools to hold
accountable the perpetrators of religious freedom violations.
Section 604 of IRFA added section 212(a)(2)(G) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(G)),
which made foreign government officials who commit
particularly severe violations of religious freedom
inadmissible to the United States, but it has only been
applied once, to deny entry to Narendra Modi, who was Chief
Minister of Gujarat, India. In its 2015 Annual Report, USCIRF
recommends that the State Department: ``Make greater efforts
to ensure foreign government officials are denied entry into
the United States due to their inadmissibility under U.S. law
for their responsibility for religious freedom violations
abroad.'' The effectiveness of this law is also limited
because it does not apply to non-state actors, such as
international terrorists, and it can only be used to deny
entry to a perpetrator who has not yet arrived in the United
States, not to deport a perpetrator who has already entered
the country.
(17) In the 2015 USCIRF Annual Report, USCIRF recommended
that the United States Government ``should call for or
support a referral by the UN Security Council to the
International Criminal Court to investigate ISIL violations
in Iraq and Syria against religious and ethnic minorities,
following the models used in Sudan and Libya, or encourage
the Iraqi government to accept ICC jurisdiction to
investigate ISIL violations in Iraq after June 2014''. Given
the weakness of the international criminal justice system,
particularly that an ICC referral is subject to a UN Security
Council veto, the United States Government should have the
ability to prosecute members of ISIL in United States courts
for crimes against humanity, including religious persecution.
(18) Under United States law, it is a crime for a non-
United States national to commit genocide, torture,
terrorism, or several other violations of the law of nations,
but it is not a crime under United States law to commit
crimes against humanity, including religious persecution.
Since the United States Government is unable to prosecute
perpetrators of these crimes, many foreign war criminals have
found safe haven in this country.
(19) In 2006, the United States Government learned that
Marko Boskic, a man who participated in the Srebrenica
massacre in the Bosnian conflict, was living in
Massachusetts. Rather than charging him with crimes against
humanity, or religious persecution, Mr. Boskic was charged
with visa fraud and sentenced to only 5 years in prison.
(20) There is bipartisan agreement about the need for the
United States Government to promote and protect international
human rights, including religious freedom. USCIRF is, by
design, a bipartisan organization, with Commissioners
appointed by the President and Congressional leaders. USCIRF
can most effectively promote religious freedom on a
bipartisan basis.
(21) In its 2014 Annual Report entitled ``Additional
Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and
Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits'', which
identifies unnecessary duplication in the Federal government,
the Government Accountability Office (referred to in this
section as ``GAO'')--
(A) highlighted the lack of coordination and overlapping
missions of USCIRF and the Office of International Religious
Freedom in the Department of State;
(B) found that ``the lack of a definition regarding how
State and the Commission are to interact has sometimes
created foreign policy tensions that State has had to
mitigate.''; and
(C) concluded that the lack of coordination between the
USCIRF and the Department of State may undermine the efforts
of the United States Government to promote international
religious freedom by sending mixed messages to foreign
governments and human-rights activists who are fighting to
defend religious freedom in their countries.
(22) Congress, which is responsible for overseeing the work
of USCIRF and ensuring that it is effectively pursuing its
mission, should provide greater oversight of USCIRF's
practices, including addressing concerns regarding financial
irregularities and the work environment for religious
minorities.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the protection and promotion of international human
rights, including religious freedom, should be an important
priority for the United States Government; and
(2) the United States Government should pursue new
strategies for protecting and promoting religious freedom
throughout the world, including--
(A) the creation of new tools--
(i) to deter and punish the perpetrators of particularly
severe violations of religious freedom, including non-state
actors; and
(ii) to protect the victims of such violations; and
(B) increased diplomatic engagement that does not focus
primarily on CPC designations.
SEC. 3. ENHANCED PROTECTIONS FOR REFUGEES AND ASYLEES FLEEING
RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.
(a) Authority to Designate Certain Groups of Refugees for
Consideration.--Section 207(c)(1) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1157(c)(1)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``Subject to the numerical
limitations''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B)(i) The Secretary of State, in consultation with the
Secretary of Homeland Security, may designate specifically
defined groups of aliens--
``(I) whose resettlement in the United States is justified
by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national
interest; and
``(II) who--
``(aa) share common characteristics that identify them as
targets of persecution on account of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion; or
``(bb) having been identified as targets under item (aa),
share a common need for resettlement due to a specific
vulnerability.
``(ii) An alien who establishes membership in a group
designated under clause (i) to the satisfaction of the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall be considered a refugee
for purposes of admission as a refugee under this section
unless the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that
such alien ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise
participated in the persecution of any person on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion.
``(iii) A designation under clause (i) is for purposes of
adjudicatory efficiency and may be revoked by the Secretary
of State at any time after notification to Congress.
[[Page S5535]]
``(iv) Categories of aliens established under section
599D(b) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and
Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1990 (Public Law 101-
167; 8 U.S.C. 1157 note)--
``(I) shall be designated under clause (i) until the end of
the first fiscal year commencing after the date of the
enactment of the FIRST Freedom Act; and
``(II) shall be eligible for designation thereafter at the
discretion of the Secretary of State, considering, among
other factors, whether a country under consideration has been
designated as a country of particular concern under section
402 of International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C.
6442) for engaging in or tolerating systematic, ongoing, and
egregious violations of religious freedom.
``(v) A designation under clause (i) shall not influence
decisions to grant, to any alien, asylum under section 208,
protection under section 241(b)(3), or protection under the
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, done at New York December
10, 1984.
``(vi) A decision to deny admission under this section to
an alien who establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary
of Homeland Security that the alien is a member of a group
designated under clause (i) shall--
``(I) be in writing; and
``(II) state, to the maximum extent feasible, the reason
for the denial.
``(vii) Refugees admitted pursuant to a designation under
clause (i)--
``(I) shall be subject to the numerical limitations under
subsection (a); and
``(II) shall be admissible under this section.''.
(b) Time Limits for Filing for Asylum.--Section 208(a)(2)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2))
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or the Secretary of
Homeland Security'' after ``Attorney General'' both places
such term appears;
(2) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (D);
(3) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B);
(4) in subparagraph (B), as redesignated, by striking
``subparagraph (D)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (C) and
(D)''; and
(5) by inserting after subparagraph (B), as redesignated,
the following:
``(C) Changed circumstances.--Notwithstanding subparagraph
(B), an application for asylum of an alien may be considered
if the alien demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the
Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, the
existence of changed circumstances that materially affect the
applicant's eligibility for asylum.
``(D) Motion to reopen certain meritorious claims.--
Notwithstanding subparagraph (B) or section 240(c)(7), an
alien may file a motion to reopen an asylum claim during the
2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of the
FIRST Freedom Act if the alien--
``(i) was denied asylum based solely upon a failure to meet
the 1-year application filing deadline in effect on the date
on which the application was filed;
``(ii) was granted withholding of removal pursuant to
section 241(b)(3) and has not obtained lawful permanent
residence in the United States pursuant to any other
provision of law;
``(iii) is not subject to the safe third country exception
under subparagraph (A) or a bar to asylum under subsection
(b)(2) and should not be denied asylum as a matter of
discretion; and
``(iv) is physically present in the United States when the
motion is filed.''.
(c) Conditions for Granting Asylum.--Section
208(b)(1)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)) is amended by striking ``at least
one central reason for persecuting the applicant'' and
inserting ``a factor in the applicant's persecution or fear
of persecution''.
(d) Study on the Effect of Expedited Removal and Processing
Delays on Asylum Claims.--
(1) Study.--
(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph--
(i) the term ``immigration officer'' means an officer of
the Department of Homeland Security performing duties under
section 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1225(b)) with respect to aliens who--
(I) are apprehended after entering the United States; and
(II) may be eligible to apply for asylum under section 208
or 235 of such Act; and
(ii) the term ``improper conduct'' means conduct whereby an
immigration officer--
(I) improperly encourages an alien described in clause (i)
to withdraw or retract claims for asylum;
(II) incorrectly fails to refer such an alien for an
interview by an immigration officer to determine whether the
alien has a credible fear of persecution (as defined in
section 235(b)(1)(B)(v) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1225(b)(1)(B)(v)));
(III) incorrectly removes such an alien to a country in
which the alien may be persecuted; or
(IV) detains such an alien improperly or under
inappropriate conditions.
(B) Authorization.--The United States Commission on
International Religious Freedom (referred to in this section
as the ``Commission'') is authorized to conduct a study to
determine--
(i) whether immigration officers are engaging in improper
conduct; and
(ii) the impact of delays in interviews by immigration
officers and immigration court hearings on asylum claims.
(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date on which
the Commission initiates the study under subsection (a), the
Commission shall submit a report containing the results of
the study to--
(A) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate;
(B) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
(C) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
(D) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives;
(E) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives; and
(F) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives.
(3) Staff.--
(A) From other agencies.--
(i) Identification.--The Commission may identify employees
of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of
Justice, and the Government Accountability Office who have
significant expertise and knowledge of refugee and asylum
issues.
(ii) Designation.--At the request of the Commission, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the
Comptroller General of the United States shall authorize
staff identified under subparagraph (A) to assist the
Commission in conducting the study under paragraph (1).
(B) Additional staff.--The Commission may hire additional
staff and consultants to conduct the study under paragraph
(1).
(C) Access to proceedings.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General shall
provide staff designated under subparagraph (A) or hired
under subparagraph (B) with unrestricted access to all stages
of all proceedings conducted under section 235(b) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)).
(ii) Exceptions.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and
the Attorney General may not permit unrestricted access under
clause (i) if--
(I) the alien subject to a proceeding under such section
235(b) objects to such access; or
(II) the Secretary or Attorney General determines that the
security of a particular proceeding would be threatened by
such access.
SEC. 4. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
(a) Particularly Severe Violations of Religious Freedom.--
(1) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(2)(G) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(G)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(G) Aliens who have committed particularly severe
violations of religious freedom.--Any alien who was
responsible for, or directly carried out, at any time,
particularly severe violations of religious freedom (as
defined in section 3 of the International Religious Freedom
Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6402)) is inadmissible.''.
(2) Removability.--Section 237(a)(4)(E) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(E)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(E) Aliens who have committed particularly severe
violations of religious freedom.--Any alien who was
responsible for, or directly carried out, at any time,
particularly severe violations of religious freedom (as
defined in section 3 of the International Religious Freedom
Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6402)) is deportable.''.
(b) Religious Persecution.--Chapter 118 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 2443. Religious persecution
``(a) Offense.--Any person who outside the United States
commits, or attempts or conspires to commit, religious
persecution--
``(1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not
more than 20 years, or both; and
``(2) if the death of any person results from the violation
of this subsection, shall be fined under this title and
imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
``(b) Jurisdiction.--There is jurisdiction over an offense
under subsection (a), and any attempt or conspiracy to commit
such an offense, if--
``(1) the victim is a United States person;
``(2) the offender is a United States person or an alien
residing in the United States, regardless of whether the
alien is lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
``(3) the offender is a stateless person whose habitual
residence is in the United States; or
``(4) after the conduct required for the offense occurs,
the offender is brought into or found in the United States,
even if the conduct required for the offense occurs outside
the United States.
``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Admission to the united states; alien; immigrant;
lawfully admitted for permanent residence; nonimmigrant.--The
terms `admission to the United States', `alien', `immigrant',
`lawfully admitted for permanent residence', and
`nonimmigrant' have the meanings given such terms in section
101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)).
``(2) Religious persecution.--The term `religious
persecution' means conduct that--
``(A) is intended--
[[Page S5536]]
``(i) to obstruct any person in the free exercise of
religious belief or practice; or
``(ii) to terrorize or coerce any person because of the
actual or perceived religion of any person; and
``(B) if the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurred
in the United States or in the special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction of the United States, would
violate--
``(i) section 81 (relating to arson);
``(ii) section 1111 (relating to murder);
``(iii) section 1201(a) (relating to kidnapping),
regardless of whether the offender is the parent of the
victim;
``(iv) section 1203 (relating to hostage taking),
notwithstanding any exception under subsection (b) of such
section;
``(v) section 1581(a) (relating to peonage);
``(vi) section 1583(a)(1) (relating to kidnapping or
carrying away individuals for involuntary servitude or
slavery);
``(vii) section 1584(a) (relating to sale into involuntary
servitude);
``(viii) section 1589(a) (relating to forced labor);
``(ix) section 1590(a) (relating to trafficking with
respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced
labor);
``(x) section 1591(a) (relating to sex trafficking of
children or by force, fraud, or coercion);
``(xi) section 2241(a) (relating to aggravated sexual abuse
by force or threat);
``(xii) section 2242 (relating to sexual abuse); or
``(xiii) section 2340A (relating to torture), regardless of
whether the offender is acting under color of law.
``(3) United states person.--The term `United States
person' has the meaning given such term in section 3077.''.
(c) Statute of Limitations.--Chapter 213 of title 18,
United States Code is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 3302. Religious persecution
``No person may be prosecuted, tried, or punished for a
violation of section 2443 unless the indictment or the
information is filed not later than 10 years after the
commission of the offense.''.
(d) Clerical Amendments.--Title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in the table of sections for chapter 118, by adding at
the end the following:
``2443. Religious persecution.''.
(2) in the table of sections for chapter 213, by adding at
the end the following:
``3302. Religious persecution.''.
SEC. 5. REFORM AND REAUTHORIZATION OF UNITED STATES
COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
(a) Establishment and Composition.--
(1) Leadership.--Section 201(d) of the International
Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6431(d)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(d) Election of Chair.--At the first meeting of the
Commission after May 30 of each year, a majority of the
members of the Commission present and voting shall elect the
Chair and Vice Chair of the Commission, subject to the
following requirements:
``(1) Initial elections.--At the first meeting of the
Commission after May 30, 2016, the members of the Commission
shall elect--
``(A) as Chair, a member of the Commission who was
appointed by an elected official of the political party that
is not the political party of the President; and
``(B) as Vice Chair, a member of the Commission who was
appointed by an elected official of the political party of
the President.
``(2) Future elections.--
``(A) Next election.--At the first meeting of the
Commission after May 30, 2017, the members of the Commission
shall elect--
``(i) as Chair, a member of the Commission who was
appointed by an elected official of the political party of
the President; and
``(ii) as Vice Chair, a member of the Commission who was
appointed by an elected official of the political party that
is not the political party of the President.
``(B) Subsequent elections.--After the election described
in subparagraph (A), the positions of Chair and Vice Chair
shall continue to rotate on an annual basis between members
of the Commission appointed by elected officials of each
political party.
``(3) Term limits.--No member of the Commission is eligible
to be elected as--
``(A) Chair of the Commission for a second term; or
``(B) Vice Chair of the Commission for a second term.''.
(2) Attendance at meetings of ambassador at large for
international religious freedom.--Section 201(f) of such Act
(22 U.S.C. 6431(f)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The Ambassador at Large shall be given advance
notice of all Commission meetings and may attend all
Commission meetings as a nonvoting member of the
Commission.''.
(3) Appointments in cases of vacancies.--Section 201(g) of
such Act (22 U.S.C. 6431(g)) is amended by striking the
second sentence.
(b) Powers of the Commission.--Section 203(e) of the
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C.
6432a(e)) is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Views of the Commission.--
``(1) Private speech.--Members of the Commission may speak
in their capacity as private citizens. A member of the
Commission may be identified as a member of the Commission
when making oral or written statements in their private or
other professional capacity if the member states clearly that
the statement--
``(A) is not on behalf of the Commission; and
``(B) does not necessarily reflect the views of the
Commission.
``(2) Official statements.--
``(A) Written statements.--All statements on behalf of the
Commission shall be issued in writing over the names of the
members of the Commission.
``(B) Statutory authority.--In its written statements, the
Commission shall clearly describe its statutory authority,
distinguishing that authority from that of appointed or
elected officials of the United States Government. Oral
statements of the Commission shall include a similar
description, to the extent practicable.
``(C) Consensus.--Members of the Commission shall make
every effort to reach consensus on all oral or written
statements on behalf of the Commission.
``(D) Approval.--All views of the Commission on pending
legislation or any other matter under the jurisdiction of the
Commission shall be approved by an affirmative vote of at
least 6 of the 9 members of the Commission. Each member of
the Commission may include the individual or dissenting views
of the member.
``(E) Accuracy.--All oral or written statements by members
or staff of the Commission on behalf of the Commission,
including testimony, press releases, articles, and public or
private correspondence, shall accurately reflect approved
views of the Commission in accordance with subparagraph
(D).''.
(c) Commission Personnel Matters.--Section 204 of the
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C.6432b)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``or terminate an Executive Director'' and
inserting ``an Executive Director and additional personnel'';
and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``The decision to
terminate an Executive Director and additional personnel
shall be made by an affirmative vote of at least 5 of the 9
members of the Commission.'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (b) through (g) as
subsections (c) through (h);
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Executive Director.--
``(1) Appointment.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of the FIRST Freedom Act, the Commission
shall appoint an Executive Director by an affirmative vote of
at least 6 of the 9 members of the Commission.
``(2) Term of service.--Each Executive Director--
``(A) may serve for a 4-year term; and
``(B) may serve an additional, consecutive 4-year term if
reappointed by the Commission by an affirmative vote of at
least 6 of the 9 members of the Commission.''.
(4) in subsection (d), as redesignated, by striking ``and
the Executive Director'';
(5) in subsection (g), as redesignated, by striking ``the
commission, for the executive director,'' and inserting ``the
Commission, for the Executive Director,''; and
(6) in subsection (h), as redesignated--
(A) by striking ``For purposes'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--For purposes'';
(B) by inserting ``(including discrimination on the bases
of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or
disability)'' after ``employment discrimination''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Treatment of discrimination on basis of sexual
orientation or gender identity.--In applying paragraph (1) to
rights and protections that pertain to employment
discrimination on the basis of sex, and the remedies and
procedures available to address alleged violations of such
rights and protections, the laws, rules, and regulations that
provide such rights and protections to employees whose pay is
disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate or the Chief
Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives shall
be deemed to recognize discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation or gender identity as forms of discrimination on
the basis of sex and shall treat such discrimination in the
same manner as discrimination on the basis of sex.''.
(d) Report of Commission.--Section 205 of the International
Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6433) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Not later than May 1
of each year,'' and inserting ``Each year, between 30 and 90
days after the publication of the Department of State's
Annual Report on International Religious Freedom,''; and
(2) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Individual or Dissenting Views.--Members of the
Commission shall make every effort to reach consensus on the
report under this section. When such consensus is not
possible, the report shall be approved by an affirmative vote
of at least 6 of the 9 members of the Commission. Each member
of the Commission may include the individual or dissenting
views of the member in the report.''.
(e) Applicability of the Freedom of Information Act.--
(1) Section 206 of the International Religious Freedom Act
of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6434) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(a) Federal Advisory Committee Act''
before ``The''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Freedom of Information Act.--Notwithstanding section
551 of title 5, United
[[Page S5537]]
States Code, the Commission shall be considered to be an
agency for purposes of section 552 of such title.''.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 207(a) of the
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C.
6435(a)) is amended by striking ``2015'' and inserting
``2017''.
(g) Termination.--Section 209 of the International
Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6436) is amended by
striking ``September 30, 2015'' and inserting ``September 30,
2017''.
____________________