[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 133 (Wednesday, September 16, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6700-S6703]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. ENZI (for himself and Mr. Barrasso):
S. 2039. A bill to designate the mountain at the Devils Tower
National Monument, Wyoming, as Devils Tower, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the introduction of
legislation which designates the mountain and populated place at Devils
Tower National Monument as Devils Tower. This is legislation I am
introducing today with the support of Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming
and in conjunction with Representative Cynthia Lummis who is
introducing this same measure in the House.
Devils Tower National Monument is not an ordinary national treasure.
There are approximately 117 national monuments, but Devils Tower has
the distinction as being America's first national monument. Established
by President Theodore Roosevelt on September 24, 1906, Devils Tower
National Monument preserves the unique geologic, cultural, and
aesthetic values of this breathtaking feature.
Devils Tower has a rich cultural history, and has many meanings to
different cultures, including the many peoples and Native American
tribes that have historical and geographic ties to Northeastern
Wyoming. The Geographic Names Information System, GNIS, prepared by the
U.S. Geological Survey, USGS, acknowledges there are sixteen documented
variant names to Devils Tower. Documents submitted to the U.S. Board on
Geographic Names cite approximately 94 different published names for
Devils Tower. Meanwhile, official Federal records indicate the name
Devils Tower has existed for over 130 years.
This is why I am glad there was an opportunity for public comment and
debate on the most recent petition to rename Devils Tower. The results
of that 5 month public comment period demonstrated there is strong
support from the community and local officials to retain the Devils
Tower name for the geologic feature, the populated place, and the
National Monument.
Now that there has been an opportunity to hear comments about the
most recent petition to rename Devils Tower, the Wyoming congressional
delegation is introducing this legislation to preserve the Devils Tower
name for the feature, populated place, and for America's first national
monument. We also encourage the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, U.S.
Department of Interior, and the President to suspend any additional
consideration on the petition to rename the features at Devils Tower
National Monument.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Crook County
Board of Commissioners,
Sundance, WY, September 11, 2015.
In 1868, the Wyoming Territory was created. In 1885, Crook
County was created. In 1890, the Territory of Wyoming
obtained statehood. In 1906, the first national monument,
Devils Tower, was established. The United States was the
first country in the world to set aside its most significant
places
[[Page S6701]]
as national park units so they could be enjoyed by all.
Over the centuries, many people have passed through or have
inhabited the region now known as Crook County. The many
Native American tribes who were in the area called the summit
different names over time. By establishing the summit and the
surrounding grounds as Devils Tower National Monument, the
decision was made as to its official name.
The Crook County Commission would like to submit comments
from the public it began to solicit since March 2015. A
survey was developed and was inserted in the local
newspapers, put on Crook County's website and each
Commissioner hand delivered comment sheets throughout the
county to the area businesses and town halls. We received
comments from within the County and from around the world. As
of August 3, 2015, we have received 954 comments about the
summit: 34 approve the name change and 886 oppose the name
change. For changing the name of the settlement called Devils
Tower, we received 953 comments: 37 for the name change and
855 against it.
Crook County citizens believe the Tower is special. There
is evidence that organized gatherings have taken place at the
Tower since the first recorded climb of the Tower July 4,
1893. Citizens urged State and Federal officials to recognize
the importance of this landmark and pressed for improved
roads to the Tower in the early 1900's. Since then, the Tower
has been the site of numerous weddings, reunions, picnics,
school outings and other important life events. Always, the
Tower has been referred to with reverence. It is always
called ``Devils Tower'' or ``the Tower''. We are not aware of
any pet name or slang references used by local citizens. One
definition of the word, ``sacred'', in Webster's Dictionary
means ``worthy of respect''. By that definition, Devils Tower
is sacred.
If the name is changed to ``Bear Lodge'', it will diminish
the uniqueness of the site. This special place deserves more
than a generic name. There is already the Bear Lodge
Mountains east of the Monument. There is a rare earths mine
being built in the Bear Lodge Mountains called the Bear Lodge
Project. There is Bear Butte in Meade County, SD which is
reportedly a sacred site to some Native Americans. By having
so many places with ``Bear'' already in its name, it creates
confusion for the over 400,000 annual visitors who come
specifically to northeast Wyoming to see Devils Tower.
Records show the name Devils Tower has existed officially
for over 130 years. In the Bureau of Land Management
Cadastral Survey Land Plats dated August 24, 1883, it is
indicated that the summit was named Devils Tower. This is
based upon field notes from 1881 and 1882. Those field notes
dated July 23, 1883 state ``A prominent land mark is a high
peak in Section 7 called Devils Tower''.
Today is not the time to debate whether the site is sacred
to some tribes or not. Anecdotal evidence exists that some
tribes did avoid the area due to the ``bad gods''. Please see
some of the comments submitted. For example, the Campstool
Ranch was established by Lady Grace Esme MacKenzie in 1881.
``The location of the ranch near the base of Devils Tower was
chosen not due to its scenery but because the Native
Americans were scared of it and would not go near it''. This
was in 1881. The Battle of the Little Bighorn was June 1876
and the Indian Wars continued until 1918.
We do not believe that all elders, leaders and individual
tribal members find the name of the summit highly offensive,
insulting, etc., as stated in the petition. There is an
organization called Devils Tower Sacred to Many People whose
mailing address is Devils Tower, Wyoming which owns land near
the Tower. This federally recognized non-profit exists to
benefit the Native Americans who live on reservations. The
international monetary supports this organization receives
show many people recognize the name Devils Tower. The Native
artists who sell their wares to the organization recognize
the name also and support their efforts.
We do not believe the summit was given its name purposely
due to white people finding cultural and faith traditions
practiced by Native Americans ``evil''. It was the name
commonly used by the people who lived in the area. That is
why one name was chosen for the summit and for the National
Monument. Many tribes have their own historic name for the
Tower. The United States Board on Geographic Names Case Brief
cites approximately 94 different published names for Devils
Tower. We do not believe that over twenty tribes who have
potential cultural affiliation with the Tower have reached a
consensus to support the proposal of one name for the summit.
We believe each tribe will continue to use their traditional
name for the Tower and Wyoming natives will do the same.
Devils Tower has always been open to anyone to use as a
respectful place to carry on their own traditions and we
expect it to remain that way. The Tower can be shared by all.
The Crook County Commission questions what significant or
historic benefit will be advanced by changing the name of the
summit located at Devils Tower National Monument? Will the
name change proposed by the petitioners benefit many, just a
few, or will it cause more dissention? Therefore: We request
the Wyoming Board on Geographic Names and the United States
Board on Geographic Names retain the name of the summit as
Devils Tower.
We question why the settlement of Devils Tower is being
petitioned for change. There is a United States Post Office
there and we have not received a recommendation from the USPS
for a name change. Records show that particular Post Office
has been in existence since 1925. Reading some of the
comments we received from our Wyoming natives, we ask ``How
can people who do not even live in the area propose a name
change to a populated place?'' Numerous comments from the
people who have Devils Tower as their mailing address mention
the unnecessary distress of changing the name of their
business and changing their address on passports, official
documents and just receiving mail and packages.
Crook County received 855 comments to retain the name of
the settlement of Devils Tower. Again we ask: what
significant or historic benefit will be advanced by changing
the name of the settlement? A name change should be proposed
by the citizens it would most affect. Therefore, we request
the name of the settlement be retained as Devils Tower,
Wyoming.
Sincerely,
Kelly B. Dennis,
Chairman.
Jeanne A. Whalen,
Vice-Chairwoman.
Steve J. Stahla,
Member.
______
By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Grassley, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Graham, Mr. Whitehouse,
Mr. Lee, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Flake, Mr. Franken, Mr. Cruz, Mr.
Coons, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Perdue, and Mr. Markey):
S. 2040. A bill to deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CORNYN. 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. 2040
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 ``Justice Against Sponsors of
Terrorism Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) International terrorism is a serious and deadly problem
that threatens the vital interests of the United States.
(2) The Constitution confers upon Congress the power to
punish crimes against the law of nations and therefore
Congress may by law impose penalties on those who provide
material support to foreign organizations engaged in
terrorist activity, and allow for victims of international
terrorism to recover damages from those who have harmed them.
(3) International terrorism affects the interstate and
foreign commerce of the United States by harming
international trade and market stability, and limiting
international travel by United States citizens as well as
foreign visitors to the United States.
(4) Some foreign terrorist organizations, acting through
affiliated groups or individuals, raise significant funds
outside of the United States for conduct directed and
targeted at the United States.
(5) It is necessary to recognize the substantive causes of
action for aiding and abetting and conspiracy liability under
the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 (22 U.S.C. 5201 et seq.).
(6) The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia in Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472
(D.C. Cir. 1983), which has been widely recognized as the
leading case regarding Federal civil aiding and abetting and
conspiracy liability, including by the Supreme Court of the
United States, provides the proper legal framework for how
such liability should function in the context of the Anti-
Terrorism Act of 1987 (22 U.S.C. 5201 et seq.).
(7) The United Nations Security Council declared in
Resolution 1373, adopted on September 28, 2001, that all
countries have an affirmative obligation to ``[r]efrain from
providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities
or persons involved in terrorist acts,'' and to ``[e]nsure
that any person who participates in the financing, planning,
preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in
supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice''.
(8) Consistent with these declarations, no country has the
discretion to engage knowingly in the financing or
sponsorship of terrorism, whether directly or indirectly.
(9) Persons, entities, or countries that knowingly or
recklessly contribute material support or resources, directly
or indirectly, to persons or organizations that pose a
significant risk of committing acts of terrorism that
threaten the security of nationals of the United States or
the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the
United States, necessarily direct their conduct at the United
States, and should reasonably anticipate being brought to
court in the United States to answer for such activities.
(10) The United States has a vital interest in providing
persons and entities injured as a result of terrorist attacks
committed within
[[Page S6702]]
the United States with full access to the court system in
order to pursue civil claims against persons, entities, or
countries that have knowingly or recklessly provided material
support or resources, directly or indirectly, to the persons
or organizations responsible for their injuries.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide civil
litigants with the broadest possible basis, consistent with
the Constitution of the United States, to seek relief against
persons, entities, and foreign countries, wherever acting and
wherever they may be found, that have provided material
support, directly or indirectly, to foreign organizations or
persons that engage in terrorist activities against the
United States.
SEC. 3. FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.
Section 1605(a) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (5) to read as follows:
``(5) not otherwise encompassed in paragraph (2), in which
money damages are sought against a foreign state arising out
of physical injury or death, or damage to or loss of
property, occurring in the United States and caused by the
tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any
official or employee of that foreign state while acting
within the scope of the office or employment of the official
or employee (regardless of where the underlying tortious act
or omission occurs), including any statutory or common law
tort claim arising out of an act of extrajudicial killing,
aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, terrorism, or the
provision of material support or resources for such an act,
or any claim for contribution or indemnity relating to a
claim arising out of such an act, except this paragraph shall
not apply to--
``(A) any claim based upon the exercise or performance of,
or the failure to exercise or perform, a discretionary
function, regardless of whether the discretion is abused; or
``(B) any claim arising out of malicious prosecution, abuse
of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit,
interference with contract rights, or any claim for emotional
distress or derivative injury suffered as a result of an
event or injury to another person that occurs outside of the
United States; or''; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of subsection (a)(5)--
``(1) the terms `aircraft sabotage', `extrajudicial
killing', `hostage taking', and `material support or
resources' have the meanings given those terms in section
1605A(h); and
``(2) the term `terrorism' means international terrorism
and domestic terrorism, as those terms are defined in section
2331 of title 18.''.
SEC. 4. AIDING AND ABETTING LIABILITY FOR CIVIL ACTIONS
REGARDING TERRORIST ACTS.
(a) In General.--Section 2333 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Liability.--In an action under subsection (a) for an
injury arising from an act of international terrorism
committed, planned, or authorized by an organization that had
been designated as a foreign terrorist organization under
section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1189), as of the date on which such act of international
terrorism was committed, planned, or authorized, or that was
so designated as a result of such act of international
terrorism, liability may be asserted as to any person who
aided, abetted, or conspired with the person who committed
such an act of international terrorism.''.
(b) Effect on Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.--Nothing in
the amendments made by this section affects immunity of a
foreign state, as that term is defined in section 1603 of
title 28, United States Code, from jurisdiction under other
law.
SEC. 5. PERSONAL JURISDICTION FOR CIVIL ACTIONS REGARDING
TERRORIST ACTS.
Section 2334 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting at the end the following:
``(e) Personal Jurisdiction.--The district courts shall
have personal jurisdiction, to the maximum extent permissible
under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, over any person who commits or aids and abets an act
of international terrorism or otherwise sponsors such act or
the person who committed such act, for acts of international
terrorism in which any national of the United States suffers
injury in his or her person, property, or business by reason
of such an act in violation of section 2333.''.
SEC. 6. LIABILITY FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN CIVIL ACTIONS
REGARDING TERRORIST ACTS.
Section 2337 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``Sec. 2337. Suits against Government officials
``No action may be maintained under section 2333 against--
``(1) the United States;
``(2) an agency of the United States; or
``(3) an officer or employee of the United States or any
agency of the United States acting within the official
capacity of the officer or employee or under color of legal
authority.''.
SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act or any amendment made by this
Act, or the application of a provision or amendment to any
person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder
of this Act and the amendments made by this Act, and the
application of the provisions and amendments to any other
person not similarly situated or to other circumstances,
shall not be affected by the holding.
SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply to any civil
action--
(1) pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of
enactment of this Act; and
(2) arising out of an injury to a person, property, or
business on or after September 11, 2001.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY:
S. 2043. A bill to revise counseling requirements for certain
borrowers of student loans and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, student debt is a big and growing
concern for millions of American graduates.
As we look at ways of addressing this problem, it is important to
keep in mind that about 90 percent of that debt is owed to the Federal
Government. The Federal Government currently holds more than $1
trillion of student loan debt. That makes the U.S. Department of
Education one of the country's largest lenders.
As such, any solution to the debt problem needs to examine the
Federal Government's lending practices. Federal banking regulations
require commercial lenders to confirm a borrower's ability to repay the
loan. Federal student loans are given without a credit check or any
analysis of the student's ability to repay the loan in the future. This
is intentional, since many prospective college students have no credit
and little or no income, but it also puts all the burden on student
borrowers to make sure they don't borrow more than they need.
As a Nation, we have accepted that it makes moral and financial sense
to assist low-income Americans in accessing higher education
opportunities, and we do that to the tune of billions of dollars
through Pell grants, subsidized student loans, and other student aid
programs. However, while need-based Federal student aid is vital to
help students who could not otherwise afford to attend college,
students are able to borrow well in excess of their financial need and
potentially in excess of what they will be able to repay. So something
needs to be done about this.
College financial aid officers are required under law to issue
Federal loans up to the full amount for which the student is eligible
even if a financial aid administrator knows a student is borrowing more
than the student needs and will likely have trouble repaying. Think
about that. Even if the financial aid administrator knows the student
plans to put the funds toward an engagement ring or sports car, Federal
rules say they must issue the loan. If a bank followed the same rules
as the Federal Government follows for student aid, it would be accused
of predatory lending.
There have been lots of suggestions about how to address the student
debt issue, but if you don't tackle the root of the problem, it is like
closing the barn door after the horse has gotten out. A good place to
start is looking at how our current Federal student lending practices
may be helping to fuel the student debt problem. For example, about 60
percent of the students at the University of Iowa graduate with debt,
and their average debt is about $25,000. However, the university
estimates that of that $25,000 figure, about $13,000--or 60 percent of
the debt--is debt that was incurred to pay for tuition, room and board,
and books, and the remainder is for what can be called lifestyle
expenses. In other words, about 40 percent of the average student debt
taken out by the University of Iowa student goes toward lifestyle-
enhancing extras.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee will be
looking at a number of reforms to the student loan program as it drafts
legislation to reauthorize and reform the Higher Education Act. I know
that our esteemed Chairman Alexander has in the past proposed giving
higher education institutions additional tools to reduce unnecessary
student borrowing. I have worked with Senator Franken of Minnesota on
some measures to provide more information about college costs when
students are selecting a college in the very first place, which will
hopefully encourage more price competition to combat rising tuition.
[[Page S6703]]
There is room for a lot of innovation in higher education. I don't
pretend to have all the answers and solutions to the problem of college
cost and student debt, but I am proposing some very simple, very
commonsense first steps to empower students with the information they
need to make sound financial decisions.
The Higher Education Act already contains a requirement for colleges
to provide counseling to new borrowers of Federal student loans.
However, the current disclosures in the law do not do enough to
encourage students to understand the scope and impact of the debt they
will face when they graduate.
I am here on the floor to introduce legislation I have entitled the
Know Before You Owe Federal Student Loan Act. This bill strengthens the
current student loan counseling requirement by making the counseling an
annual requirement before new loans are disbursed rather than just for
first-time borrowers. My bill then adds several key components to the
information institutions of higher education are required to share with
students as part of that loan counseling. Under my bill, colleges would
have to provide an estimate of the student's projected loan debt-to-
income ratio at the time of their graduation. This would be based on
the starting wages for that student's program of study and the
estimated total student loan debt the student will likely take out to
complete the program. That way, students will have a real picture of
the student loan payment they will face and whether they will be able
to afford those payments with their likely future income from whatever
program they majored in.
We often hear that statistics show that on average a college degree
results in higher earnings over a lifetime. However, not all college
degrees have the same earning potential, and many students will be in
for a very rude awakening when they graduate and find that what they
are able to earn with their degree does not match the level of their
debt. Students deserve to have this information when they are deciding
how much to borrow, not after they graduate with unmanageable debt.
This legislation I am proposing will also ensure that students are
counseled to borrow only the minimum amount necessary to cover expenses
and informed that they do not have to accept the full amount of the
loan offered. Students will also be given options for reducing
borrowing through scholarships, reduced expenses, work study, or other
work opportunities. Also, not graduating on time can significantly
increase student loan debt, so students will be counseled on the impact
of adding an additional year of study to the total indebtedness and how
they can stay on track to graduate on time.
Crucially, the bill also requires that a student manually enter
either in writing or through electronic means the exact dollar amount
of the Federal direct loan funding the student desires to borrow. The
current process almost makes borrowing the maximum the default option.
If you want to borrow less than is offered, you have to ask for less.
Because the amount of Federal student loans a student is eligible to
borrow is not limited by the calculation of the financial need or
ability to repay, it is important that the student make a conscious,
informed decision about how much to borrow rather than simply accepting
the total amount of the Federal student loan which the law allows them
to borrow.
Many schools already make a concerted effort to counsel students
against over-borrowing, and such efforts are showing signs of success
right in my home State of Iowa.
My alma mater, the University of Northern Iowa, created a program 5
years ago with the theme ``Live Like a Student.'' The program includes
workshops and courses designed to educate students on the importance of
living within their means while they are in school so they need not
live like a student later in life. As a result, the university has
lowered average student debt from more than $26,000 to $23,163.
Grand View University, also in my State, has a financial empowerment
plan where students and families construct a comprehensive 4-year
financing plan. Under this plan, borrowing is based on the student's
future earning potential in the student's field of study. The 4-year
plan also helps ensure students graduate on time, and tuition increases
are kept at 2 percent a year over those 4 years.
Iowa Student Loan, my State-based nonprofit lender, also has a
program called the Student Loan Game Plan, which is an online
interactive resource that calculates a student's likely debt-to-income
ratio. It walks students through how their borrowing will affect their
lifestyle in the future and what actions they can take now to reduce
their borrowing. As a result, in the past year 18.2 percent of the
students who participated decreased the amount they planned to borrow
by an average of $3,680, saving students $2.1 million in additional
loan debt.
My legislation would also require that students receive regular
statements about their loan while they are in school, just as they will
when they graduate and start repaying. With just about any other kind
of loan you can think of, borrowers start receiving statements right
away and are expected to make payments. With Federal student loans,
payments are not required until a period of time after graduation and
no statements are sent out until that time, so students forget about
the amount of debt they are accruing until they graduate and get their
first bill.
What is more, many Federal student loans still accrue interest while
the student is in school, which will be added to the total loan when
they start repaying. That means that not only do students forget how
much debt they have while in school, making them less conscientious
about living like a student, but their loan may actually be growing
while they are in school. Students have the option to pay that interest
while they are in school so that it isn't capitalized into their loan.
However, few students take advantage of this option. The regular
statement my bill calls for would encourage this practice so students
get used to paying some amount toward their loans even before they
graduate. This will also make students more aware of their borrowing
and less likely to overborrow each time they take out a new loan.
A college education generally remains a good investment. However,
when students' academic dreams become a nightmare upon graduation
because they borrowed more from the Federal Government than they can
afford to repay with the degree they earned, they understandably feel
something is very wrong. The Federal Government, as the lender making
these loans, has a responsibility to at least ensure that students know
what they are getting themselves into before they get in over their
heads. My legislation is intended to deal with that issue.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill to prevent more students
from drowning in Federal student loan debt, and I will introduce that
bill at this particular time.
____________________