[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 12-20]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Markey, Mr. Coons, Mr. Whitehouse, 
        Mr. Franken, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 23. A bill to amend title 17, United States Code, with respect to 
the definition of ``widow'' and ``widower'', and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, over the past few years we have seen 
remarkable progress in one of the defining civil rights issues of our 
era--ensuring that all lawfully married couples are

[[Page 13]]

treated equally under the law. In 2011, when I chaired the first 
Congressional hearing to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, only 5 
States, including Vermont, recognized same-sex marriage. With today's 
lifting of Florida's unconstitutional same-sex marriage ban, couples in 
36 States and the District of Columbia now have the freedom to marry. 
This is welcome progress, and I hope we will see similar advancements 
in even more States this year so that all Americans can marry the one 
they love.
  Despite this tremendous progress, there is still more to be done to 
ensure that no person faces discrimination based on who they marry or 
wish to marry. As I said when the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 
of the Defense of Marriage Act, ``All couples who are lawfully married 
under state law, including in Vermont, should be entitled to the same 
Federal protections afforded to all other married couples.'' Court 
challenges will continue this year in the remaining States that do not 
recognize marriage equality. But in Congress, there are several steps 
we can take immediately to help ensure our Federal laws treat all 
marriages equally.
  Surprisingly, the Copyright Act, which protects our Nation's diverse 
creative voices, still bears vestiges of discrimination. A provision in 
the Act grants rights to the surviving spouse of a copyright owner only 
if the marriage is recognized in the owner's State of residence at the 
time he or she dies. This means that a writer who lawfully marries his 
or her partner in Vermont or California is not a ``spouse'' under the 
Copyright Act if they move to Michigan, Georgia, or one of the other 
States that do not currently recognize their marriage.
  Congress should close this discriminatory loophole to ensure our 
Federal statutes live up to our Nation's promise of equality under the 
law. As the Supreme Court recognized in striking down key portions of 
the Defense of Marriage Act, it is wrong for the Federal Government to 
deny benefits or privileges to couples who have lawfully wed.
  Today I am reintroducing the Copyright and Marriage Equality Act in 
the Senate to correct this problem. The bill, which I introduced in the 
Senate last Congress and which a bipartisan group of lawmakers 
including Representatives Derek Kilmer, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Jared 
Polis plans to reintroduce in the House of Representatives soon, amends 
the Copyright Act to look simply at whether a couple is lawfully 
married--not where a married couple happens to live when the copyright 
owner dies. It will ensure that the rights attached to the works of our 
Nation's gay and lesbian authors, musicians, painters, photographers, 
and other creators pass to their widows and widowers. Artists are part 
of the creative lifeblood of our Nation, and our laws should protect 
their families equally.
  When I introduced this bill last year, it failed to get the support 
of a single Republican in the Senate. I hope that in this Congress, 
Republicans will consider joining this effort to correct these remnants 
of discrimination in our Federal laws. On the issue of marriage 
equality, the arc of history is at long last bending towards justice, 
so that all Americans one day will be free to marry the one they love. 
Statutes like the Copyright Act, or laws governing the Social Security 
Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs which also contain 
remnants of discrimination, are no place for inequality in our country. 
I urge the Senate to take up and pass this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 23

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Copyright and Marriage 
     Equality Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF WIDOW AND WIDOWER IN TITLE 17, UNITED 
                   STATES CODE.

       (a) In General.--Section 101 of title 17, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking the definition of ```widow' or 
     `widower''' and inserting the following:
       ``An individual is the `widow' or `widower' of an author if 
     the courts of the State in which the individual and the 
     author were married (or, if the individual and the author 
     were not married in any State but were validly married in 
     another jurisdiction, the courts of any State) would find 
     that the individual and the author were validly married at 
     the time of the author's death, whether or not the spouse has 
     later remarried.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to the death of any author that 
     occurs on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Lee):
  S. 24. A bill to clarify that an authorization to use military force, 
a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the 
detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent 
resident of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Due 
Process Guarantee Act, which passed the Senate in 2012 with 67 votes as 
an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013.
  Unfortunately, the amendment was taken out in the Conference 
Committee that year. It is my hope that the Senate will pass this 
legislation again this year, and this time the House will support it so 
that it can finally be enacted into law to protect Americans from being 
detained indefinitely.
  The bipartisan bill I am introducing today, with Senator Lee as the 
lead co-sponsor, is almost identical to the amendment that passed the 
Senate in December 2012 with 67 votes. The previous version of this 
bill had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee on February 29, 2012.
  This legislation is necessary to prevent the U.S. Government from 
detaining its citizens indefinitely.
  Unfortunately, indefinite detention has been a part of America's not-
too-distant past. The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War 
II remains a dark spot on our Nation's legacy, and is something we 
should never repeat.
  To ensure that this reprehensible experience would never happen 
again, Congress passed and President Nixon signed into law the Non-
Detention Act of 1971, which repealed a 1950 statue that explicitly 
allowed the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.
  The Non-Detention Act of 1971 clearly states:

       No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained the 
     United States except pursuant to an act of Congress.

  Despite the shameful history of indefinite detention of Americans and 
the legal controversy over the issue since 9/11, during debate on the 
defense authorization bill in past years, some in the Senate have 
advocated for allowing the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.
  Proponents of indefinitely detaining U.S. citizens argue that the 
Authorization for Use of Military Force, AUMF, that was enacted shortly 
after 9/11 is, quote, ``an act of Congress,'' in the language of the 
Non-Detention Act of 1971, that authorizes the indefinite detention of 
American citizens regardless of where they are captured.
  They further assert that their position is justified by the U.S. 
Supreme Court's plurality decision in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. 
Rumsfeld. However, the Hamdi case involved an American captured on the 
battlefield in Afghanistan.
  Yaser Esam Hamdi was a U.S. citizen who took up arms on behalf of the 
Taliban and was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. The divided 
Court did effectively uphold his military detention, so some of my 
colleagues use this case to argue that the military can indefinitely 
detain even American citizens who are arrested domestically here on 
U.S. soil, far from the battlefield of Afghanistan.
  However, the Supreme Court's opinion in the Hamdi case was a muddled 
decision by a four-vote plurality that recognized the power of the 
government to detain U.S. citizens captured

[[Page 14]]

in such circumstances as ``enemy combatants'' for some period, but 
otherwise repudiated the government's broad assertions of executive 
authority to detain citizens without charge or trial.
  In particular, the Court limited its holding to citizens captured in 
an area of, quote, ``active combat operations'', unquote, and concluded 
that even in those circumstances the U.S. Constitution and the Due 
Process Clause guarantees U.S. citizens certain rights, including the 
ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial 
judge.
  The plurality's opinion stated:

       It [the Government] has made clear, however, that, for 
     purposes of this case, the `enemy combatant' that it is 
     seeking to detain is an individual who, it alleges, was `part 
     of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or 
     coalition partners' in Afghanistan and who ```engaged in an 
     armed conflict against the United States'' there. Brief for 
     Respondents 3. We therefore answer only the narrow question 
     before us: whether the detention of citizens falling within 
     that definition is authorized.''

  The opinion goes on to say at page 517 that ``we conclude that the 
AUMF is explicit congressional authorization for the detention of 
individuals in the narrow category we describe . . .''
  Indeed, the plurality later emphasized that it was discussing a 
citizen captured on a foreign battlefield. Criticizing Justice Scalia's 
dissenting opinion, the opinion says, ``Justice Scalia largely ignores 
the context of this case: a United States citizen captured in a foreign 
combat zone.'' The plurality italicized and emphasized the word 
``foreign'' in that sentence.
  Thus, to the extent the Hamdi case permits the government to detain a 
U.S. citizen ``until the end of hostilities,'' it does so only under a 
very limited set of circumstances, namely citizens taking an active 
part in hostilities, who are captured in Afghanistan, and who are 
afforded certain due process protections, at a minimum.
  Additionally, decisions by the lower courts have contributed to the 
current state of legal ambiguity when it comes to the indefinite 
detention of U.S. citizens, such as Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who 
was arrested in Chicago in 2002. He was initially detained pursuant to 
a material witness warrant based on the 9/11 terrorist attacks and 
later designated as an ``enemy combatant'' who conspired with al-Qaeda 
to carry out terrorist attacks including a plot to detonate a ``dirty 
bomb'' inside the U.S.
  Padilla was transferred to the military brig in South Carolina where 
he was detained for three and a half years while seeking habeas corpus 
relief. Padilla was never charged with attempting to carry out the 
``dirty bomb'' plot. Instead, Padilla was released from military 
custody in November 2005 and transferred to Federal civilian custody in 
Florida where he was indicted on other charges in Federal court related 
to terrorist plots overseas.
  While he was indefinitely detailed by the military, Padilla filed a 
habeas corpus petition which was litigated at first in the Second 
Circuit Court of Appeals, and then in the Fourth Circuit Court of 
Appeals. In a 2003 decision by the Second Circuit known as Padilla v. 
Rumsfeld, the Court of Appeals held that the AUMF did not authorize his 
detention, saying: ``we conclude that clear congressional authorization 
is required for detentions of American citizens on American soil 
because 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4001(a) the ``Non-Detention Act'', prohibits 
such detentions absent specific congressional authorization. Congress's 
Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution, . . . passed 
shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, is not such an 
authorization.''
  This requirement for ``clear congressional authorization'' to detain 
is known as the Second Circuit's ``Clear Statement Rule.''
  However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reached the opposite 
conclusion, finding that the AUMF did authorize his detention. It is 
worth pointing out, however, that their analysis turned entirely on the 
disputed claims that ``Padilla associated with forces hostile to the 
United States in Afghanistan,'' and, ``like Hamdi, Padilla took up arms 
against United States forces in that country in the same way and to the 
same extent as did Hamdi.''
  Facing an impending Supreme Court challenge and mounting public 
criticism for holding a U.S. citizen arrested inside the U.S. as an 
enemy combatant, the Bush administration relented, and ordered Padilla 
transferred to civilian custody to face criminal conspiracy and 
material support for terrorism charges in Federal court.
  I believe that the time is now to end the legal ambiguities, and have 
Congress state clearly, once and for all, that the AUMF or other 
authorities do not authorize indefinite detention of Americans 
apprehended in the U.S.
  To accomplish this, we are introducing legislation again this year 
which affirms and strengthens the principles behind the Non-Detention 
Act of 1971.
  It amends the Non-Detention Act to provide clearly that no military 
authorization allows the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens or Green 
Card holders who are apprehended inside the U.S.
  Like the amendment that passed with 67 votes in 2012, the bill 
creates a new subsection (b) of the Non-Detention Act which clearly 
states: ``A general authorization to use military force, a declaration 
of war, or any similar authority, on its own, shall not be construed to 
authorize the imprisonment or detention without charge or trial of a 
citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended 
in the United States.''
  Like the previous version, this bill amends the Non-Detention Act to 
codify the Second Circuit's ``Clear Statement Rule'' from the Padilla 
case. So new subsection (a) will read, ``No citizen or lawful permanent 
resident of the United States shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained 
by the United States except consistent with the Constitution and 
pursuant to an act of Congress that expressly authorizes such 
imprisonment or detention.''
  Making the Clear Statement Rule part of subsection (a) strengthens 
the Non-Detention Act even more by requiring Congress to be explicit if 
it wants to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely. Subsection (b) clarifies 
that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or 
any similar authority does not authorize the indefinite detention of a 
U.S. citizen or a Lawful Permanent Resident of the U.S., also known as 
a Green Card holder.
  Some may ask why this legislation protects Green Card holders as well 
as citizens. And others may ask why the bill does not protect all 
persons'' apprehended in the U.S. from indefinite detention.
  Let me make clear that I would support providing the protections in 
this amendment to all persons in the United States, whether lawfully or 
unlawfully present. But the question comes, is there enough political 
support to expand this amendment to cover others besides U.S. citizens 
and Green Card holders?
  Wherever we draw the line on who should be covered by this 
legislation, I believe it violates fundamental American rights to allow 
anyone apprehended on U.S. soil to be detained without charge or trial.
  The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have proven, time and 
again, that they are up to the challenge of detecting, stopping, 
arresting, and convicting terrorists found on U.S. soil, having 
successfully arrested, detained and convicted hundreds of these heinous 
people, both before and after 9/11.
  Specifically, there have been 556 terrorism-related convictions in 
federal criminal court between 9/11 and the end of 2013, according to 
the Department of Justice.
  Also, it is important to understand that suspected terrorists who may 
be in the U.S. illegally can be detained within the criminal justice 
system using at least the following 4 options:
  They can be charged with a Federal or State crime and held; they can 
be held for violating immigration laws; they can be held as material 
witnesses as part of Federal grand jury proceedings; and they can be 
held for up to 6 months under Section 412 of the Patriot Act.

[[Page 15]]

  I want to be very clear about what this bill is and is not about. It 
is not about whether citizens such as Hamdi and Padilla, or others who 
would do us harm, should be captured, interrogated, incarcerated, and 
severely punished. They should be.
  But what about an innocent American? What about someone in the wrong 
place at the wrong time? The beauty of our Constitution is that it 
gives everyone in the United States basic due process rights to a trial 
by a jury of their peers.
  As President Obama said when referring to the indefinite detention of 
non-Americans at Guantanamo:

       ``Imagine a future--10 years from now or 20 years from 
     now--when the United States of America is still holding 
     people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land 
     that is not part of our country. . . . Is that who we are? Is 
     that something that our Founders foresaw? Is that the America 
     we want to leave to our children? Our sense of justice is 
     stronger than that.''

  The same questions could be asked of those who would indefinitely 
detain Americans arrested on U.S. soil.
  Is that who we are?
  Does that reflect the America we want to leave to our children?
  Now is the time to clarify U.S. law to state unequivocally that the 
government cannot indefinitely detain American citizens and Green Card 
holders captured inside this country without trial or charge.
  The Federal Government experimented with indefinite detention of U.S. 
citizens during World War II, a mistake we now recognize as a betrayal 
of our core values.
  Let us not repeat it. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Graham):
  S. 27. A bill to make wildlife trafficking a predicate offense under 
racketeering and money laundering statutes and the Travel Act, to 
provide for the use for conservation purposes of amounts from civil 
penalties, fines, forfeitures, and restitution under such statutes 
based on such violations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wildlife 
Trafficking Enforcement Act of 2015, which I authored along with my 
colleague Senator Lindsey Graham.
  This bill will allow the Federal Government to crack down on poachers 
and transnational criminal organizations involved in the global trade 
in illegal wildlife products.
  Wildlife trafficking has become a global crime that the State 
Department estimates is valued at between $8 to $10 billion annually. 
This ranks it as one of the most lucrative types of organized crime in 
the world, along with drug and human trafficking.
  Besides being a major international crime, wildlife trafficking is a 
morally repugnant practice that threatens some of our world's most 
iconic species with extinction.
  The most disturbing example is that of elephants and rhinoceroses. A 
recent study estimates that over 100,000 elephants were illegally 
poached in Africa from 2010 to 2012. At this rate, the African elephant 
is being killed faster than the species can reproduce, putting it at 
risk of being wiped off the face of the earth.
  Most disturbingly, poachers are slaughtering very young and juvenile 
elephants for their tusks due to the record high demand for ivory in 
places like China and the United States.
  But the illicit ivory trade is not just a threat to African 
elephants; it is also a problem for global security. The State 
Department reports that there is increasing evidence that wildlife 
trafficking is funding armed insurgencies like Al Shabaab and the 
Lord's Resistance Army. The illegal ivory trade fuels corruption and 
violence in Africa.
  The rhinoceros has also been decimated by poaching due to record high 
demand for its horn. Conservation organizations estimate that hundreds 
of rhinoceroses are illegally slaughtered in Africa each year. It is 
deeply concerning that the poaching rate for rhinoceroses in Africa 
appears to be increasing.
  Some populations of rhinoceroses are on the brink of extinction. The 
population of the Sumatran rhinoceros has plummeted by over 50 percent 
in the last two decades due to poaching, and it is estimated that only 
about 100 remain in existence. It is estimated that fewer than 10 
Northern White Rhinoceroses remain alive in the wild.
  The problem is not just confined to elephants and rhinoceroses. 
Tigers, leopards, endangered sea turtles, and many other wildlife 
species are being decimated by poaching.
  At its core, this legislation increases criminal penalties for 
wildlife trafficking crimes. The federal government needs stiffer 
penalties in order to go after organized and high volume traffickers. 
The President asked for this authority in the National Strategy to 
Combat Wildlife Trafficking released last year.
  Specifically, this bill makes violations of the Endangered Species 
Act, the African Elephant Conservation Act, and the Rhinoceros and 
Tiger Conservation Act that involve more than $10,000 of illegal 
wildlife products predicate offenses under the money laundering and 
racketeering statutes and the Travel Act.
  Currently, each of these wildlife laws carries a maximum prison 
sentence of only one year for a violation. Under this bill, wildlife 
trafficking violations can be subject to up to a 20-year prison 
sentence, as well as increased fines and penalties of up to $500,000 
for an offense.
  These new penalties will allow the government to change the equation 
on wildlife crimes. Wildlife trafficking has increased at dramatic 
rates because the crime is high value and low risk due to weak 
penalties across the world. Under the new authorities, the Federal 
Government will have a full range of tools to prosecute the worst 
wildlife trafficking offenders and to put them behind bars with 
significant sentences. The new authorities will also act as a deterrent 
to the criminal organizations currently trafficking illicit wildlife 
products into and through the United States.
  As one of the largest markets for products of illicit poaching in the 
world, the United States has a responsibility to step up and help to 
combat this scourge. With this legislation, the United States will set 
an example for other countries on the need for each country to 
strengthen penalties for wildlife trafficking. It is critical that 
other nations around the world with large markets for illicit wildlife 
products step up to tackle this global problem.
  The Wildlife Trafficking Enforcement Act of 2015 will also allow 
fines, penalties, forfeitures, and restitution recovered through use of 
the bill's new authorities to be transferred to established 
conservation funds at the Departments of the Interior and of Commerce. 
This will enable the Federal Government to use the monetary penalties 
from a wildlife trafficking conviction to benefit the species that was 
harmed. Thus, the bill will both act to punish and deter criminals 
while supporting the conservation of those species that are directly 
harmed by poaching.
  Addressing the issue of wildlife trafficking speaks to our values and 
morals as a Nation. We have a responsibility to help prevent these 
endangered species, which have existed for thousands of years, from 
becoming extinct in our lifetime. It is also clear that Federal law's 
weak penalties for wildlife crimes have been exploited by poachers and 
transnational criminals.
  I therefore ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
work with me to enact this legislation this year. The stakes for 
endangered species like elephants, tigers, and rhinoceroses could not 
be higher. If we don't crack down on wildlife trafficking, we will be 
complicit in the slaughter.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Cardin, Mr. 
        Durbin, Mr. Franken, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
        Udall, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 28. A bill to limit the use of cluster munitions; to the Committee 
on Foreign Relations.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues 
Senators

[[Page 16]]

Leahy, Boxer, Durbin, Klobuchar, Murray, Udall, Franken, Wyden and 
Whitehouse to introduce the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act 
of 2015.
  Our legislation places common sense restrictions on the use of 
cluster munitions. It prevents any funds from being spent to use 
cluster munitions that have a failure rate of more than one percent.
  In addition, the rules of engagement must specify that: cluster 
munitions will only be used against clearly defined military targets; 
and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in 
areas normally inhabited by civilians.
  Our legislation also includes a national security waiver that allows 
the President to waive the prohibition on the use of cluster munitions 
with a failure rate of more than one percent if he determines it is 
vital to protect the security of the United States to do so.
  However, if the President decides to waive the prohibition, he must 
issue a report to Congress within 30 days on the failure rate of the 
cluster munitions used and the steps taken to protect innocent 
civilians.
  Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that 
contain up to hundreds of small submunitions, or individual 
``bomblets.''
  They are intended for attacking enemy troop and armor formations 
spread over a wide area.
  But, in reality, they pose a far more deadly threat to innocent 
civilians.
  According to the Cluster Munitions Monitor, over the past fifty 
years, there have been 19,419 documented cluster munitions deaths in 31 
nations. The estimated number of total cluster munitions casualties, 
however, is an astonishing 55,000 people.
  While cluster munitions are intended for military targets, in 
actuality civilians have accounted for 94% of cluster munition 
casualties.
  Death and injury from unexploded ordnance left behind by cluster 
munitions continues to kill civilians to this day. Today, 23 States 
remain contaminated by unexploded ordnance left from cluster munitions.
  Last year, nine of these countries suffered casualties from 
unexploded ordnance. They were: Croatia, Iraq, Laos, Lebanon, Cambodia, 
South Sudan, Sudan, Syria and Vietnam.
  More tragically, despite the risk they pose to civilians, cluster 
bombs continue to be used in conflicts.
  Since July 2012, Syrian government forces have used cluster munitions 
in 10 of the country's 14 governates.
  Human Rights Watch has documented that the Syrian government has used 
seven types of cluster munitions to date, six of which were 
manufactured in the former Soviet Union and the seventh of which is 
Egyptian-made.
  In 2012 and 2013, the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor recorded 
1,584 deaths from government-launched cluster munitions in Syria. 
Approximately 97 percent of the deaths directly linked to cluster 
munitions were civilians.
  For the first time, Human Rights Watch has also obtained evidence 
that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, known as ISIL, has also 
used cluster bombs.
  According to witness testimony and photographic evidence, ISIL used 
cluster bombs on at least two occasions near the besieged town of 
Kobani.
  Terrorist groups and other non-state actors would not be able to 
obtain and use cluster bombs if the world adopted the Oslo Treaty on 
Cluster munitions.
  The Oslo Treaty bans the production, sale, stockpiling and use of 
cluster munitions. It came into effect in 2010 and to date has been 
ratified by 88 nations.
  Under the Treaty, 22 nations have destroyed 1.16 million cluster 
bombs and nearly 140 million submunitions.
  Unfortunately, the United States is neither a signatory nor state 
party to the Oslo Treaty.
  In fact, the United States maintains a stockpile of 5.5 million 
cluster munitions containing 728 million submunitions. These bomblets 
have an estimated failure rate of between 5 and 15 percent.
  Rather than adopting the increasing international consensus that 
cluster bombs should be banned, the Pentagon continues to assert that 
they are ``legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat.''
  I respectfully disagree. The benefit of using cluster bombs is 
outweighed by the continuing threat they pose to civilians long after 
the cessation of hostilities.
  The Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act would immediately ban 
cluster bombs with unacceptable unexploded ordnance rates and in areas 
where civilians are known to be present.
  Passing this legislation would move the United States closer to 
abiding by the requirements of the Oslo Treaty, which has been ratified 
by many of our allies, including the United Kingdom, France and 
Germany.
  Since 2008 the Congress has banned the export of cluster munitions 
with a greater than one percent unexploded ordnance rate. While banning 
the export of these indiscriminate weapons was a positive first step, I 
strongly believe the United States can do better.
  This body cannot compel the administration to sign the Oslo Treaty. 
However, we can surely take steps to abide by its spirit. Passing the 
Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act would do exactly that.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Bennet, Mr. 
        Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Brown, Ms. Cantwell, 
        Mr. Cardin, Mr. Carper, Mr. Casey, Mr. Coons, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Franken, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Kaine, 
        Mr. King, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Markey, Mrs. McCaskill, 
        Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Murphy, Mrs. 
        Murray, Mr. Peters, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. Sanders, Mr. 
        Schatz, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Tester, 
        Mr. Udall, Mr. Warner, Ms. Warren, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. 
        Wyden):
  S. 29. A bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure 
respect for State regulation of marriage; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, and ensure that married 
same-sex couples are accorded equal treatment by the federal 
government.
  When I first introduced this bill in 2011, only 5 States and the 
District of Columbia recognized same-sex marriage.
  Today, due to a combination of actions by legislatures, voters, and 
the courts, 36 States and D.C. recognize same-sex marriage. Florida 
joined the group just this week.
  This progress is nothing short of amazing. Over 70 percent of 
Americans now live in a State where same-sex couples can marry.
  The Supreme Court's landmark decision in United States v. Windsor, 
which struck down Section 3 of DOMA, has caused most federal agencies 
to accord equal rights and responsibilities to married same-sex 
couples.
  But, despite this progress, the mission of ensuring full equality 
under Federal law for married same-sex couples is still unaccomplished.
  This bill will accomplish that mission. It will strike DOMA from 
Federal law, and ensure that legally married same-sex couples are 
treated equally by the federal government, period.
  I want to thank my 41 colleagues who have cosponsored this bill.
  For my colleagues who have not yet supported this bill: if you 
believe that couples who are married should be treated that way by the 
federal government, you should cosponsor this bill. It is as simple as 
that.
  Two major agencies, which serve millions and millions of Americans--
the Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs--
still deny benefits to some married couples depending on where the 
couple has lived. This bill would fix that problem.
  Let me address Social Security first. An example of the 
discrimination married same-sex couples still face is the

[[Page 17]]

case of Kathy Murphy and Sara Barker. According to a legal filing, this 
couple married in Massachusetts and shared a ranch house in Texas for 
nearly 30 years.
  In 2010, when Sara was 60 years old, she was diagnosed with an 
aggressive form of cancer. Sara went through several surgeries and 
chemotherapy, and Kathy was Sara's caregiver.
  Sara passed away on March 10, 2012. As the complaint states: ``Kathy 
lost her partner of more than thirty years and the love of her life.''
  In July 2014--over a year after she applied--Kathy's application for 
survivor's benefits from Social Security was denied because they lived 
in Texas together, and Texas does not recognize them as married.
  This cost her an estimated $1,200 per month in Federal survivor's 
benefits.
  Veterans and active-duty military personnel in same-sex marriages 
also are being denied equal treatment by the Department of Veterans 
Affairs.
  Many of these brave individuals have served our country overseas or 
in war zones, but they may nevertheless be denied a huge range of 
benefits our nation grants to those who have served in the Armed 
Forces.
  A court filing by the American Military Partners Association explains 
that:

     lesbian and gay veterans and their spouses and survivors . . 
     . will be denied or disadvantaged in obtaining spousal 
     veterans benefits such as disability compensation, death 
     pension benefits, home loan guarantees, and rights to burial 
     together in national cemeteries.

  This is wrong. Our married gay and lesbian soldiers put their lives 
on the line for our country the same way other soldiers do.
  We owe them the same debt of gratitude we owe to all other men and 
women who serve, and this bill would ensure that we fulfill that solemn 
obligation.
  Continued discrimination against married same-sex couples is not 
limited to these benefits programs.
  Other Federal laws are not part of programs administered by agencies, 
but they nevertheless are designed to protect families, including 
spouses.
  Let me just give one example--Section 115 of Title 18. Among other 
things, this law makes it a crime to assault, kidnap, or murder a 
spouse of Federal law enforcement officer, with the intent to influence 
or retaliate against the officer.
  This law protects the ability of people like FBI agents and federal 
prosecutors to serve the public knowing there is protection from 
violence against their families.
  These agents and prosecutors investigate and prosecute people like 
drug kingpins, terrorists, and organized crime figures.
  But, even today, it is not clear whether this vital protection for 
these officers covers those in lawful same- sex marriages everywhere in 
the country.
  These public servants, who protect all of us, should not have to 
worry that they lack the full protection we provide to their 
colleagues--but that is the situation we confront today. This bill 
would fix it.
  In addition, Section 2 of DOMA--which was not expressly addressed by 
the Supreme Court--continues to pose a serious risk to legal relief 
received by victims of crime and civil wrongs. This bill would repeal 
it.
  Section 2 of DOMA is the full faith and credit provision of DOMA, and 
it has been the subject of many misconceptions.
  When DOMA was enacted, some claimed Section 2 was designed to prevent 
the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution from forcing a 
state to recognize a marriage from another state.
  But states have never needed permission from Congress to decide 
whether to recognize an out-of-state marriage. States have done that 
under their own laws, subject to other constitutional guarantees like 
the Equal Protection Clause.
  Thus, repealing Section 2 of DOMA simply would not force a State, or 
a religious institution, to recognize a particular marriage.
  While it is on the books, Section 2 may have a very serious impact: 
it may nullify legal relief awarded to victims of crime and other civil 
wrongs.
  There is a general rule that the judgments of one state's courts will 
be enforced in another state's courts.
  But Section 2 purports to exempt any ``right or claim arising from'' 
a same-sex marriage from this rule.
  Imagine a woman killed by a drunk driver. Her surviving spouse would 
have a civil claim for wrongful death, or might obtain restitution in a 
criminal case.
  But DOMA could prevent the court judgments in those cases from being 
enforced in the perpetrator's home State, allowing him to avoid the 
consequences of his actions.
  The same problem could arise in numerous types of cases, such as 
assaults, batteries, and insurance claims.
  Same-sex married couples are the only class of people who are 
burdened by this sort of legal disability, which hinders the court 
system from protecting them the same way that it does other citizens.
  This is wrong, and it must be repealed.
  As a Senator from California, I come to this bill with a strong sense 
of history.
  In 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state court to 
find that a ban on interracial marriage violates the Equal Protection 
Clause. At the time, 29 states still prohibited interracial marriage.
  Prohibitions on interracial marriage then were eliminated in 13 other 
states, so that when the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia in 
1967, only 16 states retained bans on interracial marriage.
  I very much hope that is where we are today on same-sex marriage.
  People of all stripes have come to believe that loving and committed 
same-sex couples are worthy of the same dignity and respect other 
couples receive. Public opinion has changed dramatically, and 36 states 
now recognize same-sex marriage.
  The tide has shifted, I hope irreversibly so.
  But here, in Congress, we still have work to do.
  We must end the discrimination married same-sex couples continue to 
face at the federal level.
  DOMA remains on the books, where it should never have been placed. It 
could be revived by a different Supreme Court majority.
  A future administration also could interpret other laws differently 
than this Administration has done, potentially restricting the 
availability of key benefits even further.
  The solution is simple: pass this bill, which would eliminate DOMA 
and accord equal treatment under Federal law for married same-sex 
couples.
  Let me again thank my cosponsors for joining me in this effort, and 
to urge my other colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Donnelly, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. 
        Manchin):
  S. 30. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 
the definition of full-time employee for purposes of the employer 
mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, Senator Donnelly and I are 
reintroducing the Forty Hours is Full-time Act to correct a serious 
flaw in the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, that is 
already causing workers to have their hours reduced and their pay cut. 
We are pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort by Senators 
Murkowski and Manchin. Our legislation would raise the threshold for 
``full-time'' work in Obamacare to the standard 40 hours a week. This 
is consistent with the threshold for overtime eligibility under the 
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the common-sense understanding of ``full-
time'' work.
  Under Obamacare, an employee working just 30 hours a week is defined 
as ``full-time,'' a definition that is completely out-of-step with 
standard employment practices in the U.S. today. According to a survey 
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average American 
actually works 8.7

[[Page 18]]

hours per day, which equates to roughly 44 hours a week. The Obamacare 
definition is nearly one-third lower than actual practice.
  Similarly, the Obamacare definition of ``full-time'' employee is ten 
hours a week fewer than the 40 hours per week used by the GAO in its 
study of the budget and staffing required by the IRS to implement 
Obamacare. In that report, the GAO described a ``full-time equivalent'' 
as: ``a measure of staff hours equal to those of an employee who works 
2,080 hours per year, or 40 hours per week. . . .'' Even the Office of 
Management and Budget recognizes that 30-hours is not ``full-time.'' A 
circular it issued to Federal agencies actually directs them to 
calculate staffing levels using more than 40 hours a week as a ``full-
time equivalent.''
  The effect of using the 30-hour a week threshold is to artificially 
drive-up the number of ``full-time'' workers for purposes of 
calculating the penalties to which employers are exposed under 
Obamacare. These penalties begin at $40,000 for businesses with 50 
employees, plus $2,000 for each additional ``full-time equivalent'' 
employee. While these draconian penalities were scheduled to begin in 
January of last year, we have yet to feel their full effect because the 
Obama administration delayed their implementation through 2014, perhaps 
knowing the negative impact that will result. But that artificial 
grace-period expired January 1 for employers with 100 or more workers 
and will end for employers with between 50 and 99 employees in January 
of next year.
  Needless to say, these penalties will force many employers to 
restrict or reduce the hours their employees are allowed to work, so 
they are no longer considered ``full-time'' for the purposes of the 
law. In addition, these penalties will discourage employers from 
growing or adding jobs, particularly those close to the 50-job trigger.
  These are not hypothetical concerns. According to the Investors 
Business Daily, more than 450 employers had cut work hours or staffing 
levels in response to Obamacare as of September of last year. Employees 
of for-profit businesses are not the only ones threatened by 
Obamacare's illogical definition of full-time work. Public sector 
employees and those who work for non-profits are also affected.
  I am concerned that educators, school employees, and students will be 
particularly hard hit. As the ASAA, the School Superintendents 
Association, explained in a letter in support of our bill, Obamacare's 
30-hour threshold puts an ``undue burden on school systems across the 
Nation, many of [which] will struggle to staff their schools to meet 
their educational mission'' while complying with this requirement.
  For example, the school superintendent of Bangor, ME, has told me 
that Obamacare will require that school district to reduce substitute 
teacher hours to make sure they don't exceed 29 hours a week. This will 
harm not only the substitute teachers who want and need more work, but 
it will also harm students by causing unnecessary disruption in the 
classroom.
  Likewise, in Indiana, a county school district had to reduce the 
hours of part-time school bus drivers to make sure they do not work 
more than the 30-hour threshold. As a result, the school district has 
been forced to cut field trips and transportation to athletic events, 
and employees who used to work more than 30 hours total in two jobs 
have been forced to give up one of their jobs, hurting their financial 
security.
  The 30-hour rule will also affect our Nation's institutions of higher 
education. According to the College and University Professional 
Association for Human Resources, Obamacare's full-time work definition 
has already caused 122 schools to announce new policies capping hours 
for students and faculty.
  It is troubling that the 30-hour threshold will also harm delivery of 
home care services. The requirement will likely result in reduced 
access to needed services for some of our Nation's most vulnerable 
citizens: home-bound seniors, individuals with disabilities, and 
recently discharged hospital and nursing home patients. Information 
provided to my office by the Home Care & Hospice Alliance of Maine 
shows that many of its member organizations will be forced to reduce 
work hours for employees or even to cease operations due to Obamacare's 
definition of ``full-time'' work. If that happens, hundreds of home 
care workers could lose their jobs, and a thousand seniors could lose 
access to home care services--in Maine alone.
  Data from Maine's Medicaid program show that home care services are 
extremely cost-effective compared to alternatives. Thus, by making it 
harder for home care service providers to give their workers the hours 
they need, Obamacare's definition of ``full-time'' work will end up 
reducing the home care services available to seniors, depriving them of 
care or forcing them into costlier care, driving up Federal costs.
  Before I close, I would like to read a few lines from a letter I 
recently received from Randy Wadleigh, the owner of a well-known and 
much-loved restaurant institution in Maine called ``Governor's.'' 
Randy's letter sums up what Maine employers have always told me--their 
employees are the heart and souls of their businesses, and are the face 
of their companies to the public. As Randy puts it, businesses 
recognize the importance of their workers ``because without GREAT 
employees, businesses really don't have anything. [The 30-hour 
threshold] is hurting many of our employees. They don't understand it, 
they can't afford it and they just want to work more hours.''
  The bipartisan bill we are introducing today will protect these 
workers by changing the definition of ``full-time'' work in the ACA to 
40 hours a week, and making a corresponding change in the definition of 
``full-time equivalent'' employee to 174 hours per month. This is a 
sensible definition in keeping with actual practice.
  Among the many organizations that have endorsed our bill are: the 
College & University Professional Association for Human Resources, the 
National Association for Home Care & Hospice, the American Hotel & 
Lodging Association, the American Staffing Association, the Asian 
American Hotel Owners Association, the Associated Builders and 
Contractors, the Food Marketing Institute, the International Franchise 
Association, the National Association of Convenience Stores, the 
National Association of Health Underwriters, the American Rental 
Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National 
Association of Theatre Owners, the National Grocers Association, the 
National Federation of Independent Business, the National Restaurant 
Association, the National Retail Federation, the Retail Industry 
Leaders Association, ASAA, the School Superintendents Association, the 
Society for Human Resource Management, and the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce.
  Regardless of the varying views of Senators on the Affordable Care 
Act, surely we ought to be able to agree to fix this problem in the law 
that is hurting workers' paychecks and creating chaos for employers. I 
urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                December 19, 2014.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of AASA: The School 
     Superintendents Association, the Association of Educational 
     Service Agencies, the National Rural Education Association 
     and the National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition, I write 
     to express our support for the Forty Hours is Full Time Act. 
     Collectively, we represent public school superintendents, 
     educational service agency administrators and school system 
     leaders across the country, as well as our nation's rural 
     schools and communities. We have followed closely the 
     Affordable Care Act and stand ready to implement the law, and 
     see your proposed legislation as one way to alleviate an 
     unnecessarily burdensome regulation.
       The Forty House is Full Time Act would change the 
     definition of ``full time'' in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) 
     to 40 hours per week and the number of hours counted toward a 
     ``full time equivalent'' employee to

[[Page 19]]

     174 hours per month. The current ACA arbitrarily sets the bar 
     for a full work week to 30 hours. This is inconsistent with 
     how most Americans think: full-time is a 40 hour work week. 
     The current definition causes confusion among employers who 
     struggle to understand and comply with the new requirements, 
     especially ones that are in conflict with long-standing 
     practices built on the long-standing 40-hour work week 
     premise.
       We welcome the opportunity to ensure our employees have a 
     positive work environment and we remain committed to 
     providing a robust set of work benefits. We are concerned 
     that the ACA, as currently written, puts additional, undue 
     burden on school systems across the nation, many of whom will 
     struggle to staff their schools to meet their educational 
     mission while meeting the strict 30-hour regulation.
       We applaud your continued leadership on this issue and look 
     forward to seeing the Forty Hours is Full Time Act move 
     forward.
           Sincerely,
                                               Noelle M. Ellerson,
          AASA, The School Superintendents Association, Associate 
      Executive Director, Policy & Advocacy, AESA, NREA and NREAC 
     Legislative Liaison.
                                  ____

         Governor's Restaurant & Bakery, Governor's Management 
           Company, Inc.,
                                  Old Town, ME, December 22, 2014.
     Re Definition of full time hours for the ACA

     Hon. Susan Collins,
     413 Dirksen Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Susan: Governor's Restaurants have been a staple in 
     Maine since 1959. We have 6 locations and employ over 300 
     full and part time fine Maine folks while serving the great 
     people of Maine. In general, we've had longevity because we 
     pay attention to business and play by the rules dictated to 
     us by local, state and federal agencies. In a nutshell, we 
     take pride in doing the right things.
       As our company's CEO, I recently conducted health insurance 
     enrollment meetings at all of our locations for those 100+ 
     eligible full time employees (as currently defined at 30 
     hours per week). We are strongly in favor of changing the 
     current definition of a full time employee from 30 hours to 
     40 hours . . . but not necessarily for the reason(s) you may 
     think.
       On behalf of our employees, we've just got to increase the 
     threshold to 40 hours. Our offered health plan is defined as 
     affordable and meets minimum standards as defined by the law, 
     but when you express to the employee that they must 
     contribute +/-$30 per week it becomes a heartfelt choice to 
     pay for food, child care, rent OR pay for health care. On 
     more than one occasion, I had employees (all of whom worked 
     less than 32 hours per week) break down in tears because they 
     just can't afford coverage. At the same time, those that 
     worked over 38 hours, were more likely to participate and in 
     fact could afford coverage.
       When ACA was first introduced, I could never understand why 
     the law defined 30 hours per week. Our company has had to 
     make dramatic cuts in hours to some staffers to reduce 
     exposure. But once again this hurts the employee.
       So you see the obvious selfish thing to do as a business 
     person is to cry foul about the health care law and how it 
     affects our bottom line. But our company takes a bit of a 
     different approach. We recognize the importance of our people 
     because without GREAT employees, business owners really don't 
     have anything. This law is hurting many of our employees. 
     They don't understand it, they can't afford it and they just 
     want to work more hours. 30 hours is too restrictive to them. 
     40 would be better for them and ultimately for business and 
     such change would benefit both the employee and the employer.
       Thanks for your great work in Washington.
           Sincerely,

                                               Randy Wadleigh,

                                                    Owner and CEO,
                                    Governor's Management Company.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Udall, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. 
        Klobuchar, Mr. Grassley, and Ms. Heitkamp):
  S. 32. A bill to provide the Department of Justice with additional 
tools to target extraterritorial drug trafficking activity, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the 
Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2015 with my colleagues and 
friends, Senators Charles Grassley, Richard Blumenthal, Heidi Heitkamp, 
Amy Klobuchar and Tom Udall.
  This bill, which passed the Senate unanimously in the last Congress, 
supports the Obama Administration's Strategy to Combat Transnational 
Organized Crime by providing the Department of Justice with crucial 
tools to combat the international drug trade. As drug traffickers find 
new and innovative ways to avoid prosecution, we cannot allow them to 
exploit loopholes because our laws lag behind.
  This legislation has three main components. First, it puts in place 
penalties for extraterritorial drug trafficking activity when 
individuals have reasonable cause to believe that illegal drugs will be 
trafficked into the United States. Current law says that drug 
traffickers must know that illegal drugs will be trafficked into the 
United States and this legislation would lower the knowledge threshold 
to reasonable cause to believe.
  The Department of Justice has informed my office that, it sees drug 
traffickers from countries like Colombia, Bolivia and Peru who produce 
cocaine but then outsource transportation of the cocaine to the United 
States to violent Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Under current 
law, our ability to prosecute source-nation traffickers from these 
countries is limited since there is often no direct evidence of their 
knowledge that illegal drugs were intended for the United States. But 
let me be clear: drugs produced in these countries fuel violent crime 
throughout the Western Hemisphere as well as addiction and death in the 
United States.
  Second, this bill puts in place penalties for precursor chemical 
producers from foreign countries, such as those producing 
pseudoephedrine used for methamphetamine, who illegally ship precursor 
chemicals into the United States knowing that these chemicals will be 
used to make illegal drugs.
  Third, this bill makes a technical fix to the Counterfeit Drug 
Penalty Enhancement Act, which increases penalties for the trafficking 
of counterfeit drugs. The fix, requested by the Department of Justice, 
puts in place a ``knowing'' requirement which was unintentionally left 
out of the original bill. The original bill makes the mere sale of a 
counterfeit drug a Federal felony offense regardless of whether the 
seller knew the drug was counterfeit. Under the original bill, a 
pharmacist could be held criminally liable if he or she unwittingly 
sold counterfeit drugs to a customer. Adding a ``knowing'' requirement 
corrects this problem.
  As Co-Chair of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control 
and as a public servant who has focused on narcotics issues for many 
years, I know that we cannot sit idly by as drug traffickers find new 
ways to circumvent our laws. The illegal drug trade is constantly 
evolving and it is critical that our legal framework keeps pace. We 
must provide the Department of Justice with all of the tools it needs 
to prosecute drug kingpins both here at home and abroad.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. 
        Schumer, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
        Portman, and Mr. Whitehouse):
  S. 36. A bill to address the continued threat posed by dangerous 
synthetic drugs by amending the Controlled Substances Act relating to 
controlled substance analogues; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the 
Protecting Our Youth from Dangerous Synthetic Drugs Act of 2015, with 
my colleagues, Senators Kelly Ayotte, Richard Blumenthal, Barbara 
Boxer, Amy Klobuchar, Rob Portman, Charles Schumer, Jeanne Shaheen and 
Sheldon Whitehouse. This legislation addresses the significant harm 
that synthetic drugs cause our communities.
  When Congress outlawed several synthetic drugs in 2012, traffickers 
did not stop producing them. Instead, they slightly altered the drugs' 
chemical structure to skirt the law, producing ``controlled substance 
analogues'' which are dangerous, chemically similar to Schedule I 
substances, and mimic the effects of drugs like ecstasy, cocaine, PCP, 
and LSD.
  Manufacturers of synthetic drugs often prey upon youth, selling 
products such as Scooby Snax, Potpourri, and Joker Herbal. But make no 
mistake: these products are dangerous. In the first ten months of 2014 
alone, poison centers nationwide responded to approximately 3,900 calls 
related to synthetic drugs.
  Under current law, determining whether a substance meets the vague

[[Page 20]]

legal criteria of a ``controlled substance analogue'' results in a 
``battle of experts'' inside the courtroom. Significantly, a substance 
ruled to be an analogue in one case is not automatically an analogue in 
a second case.
  The Protecting Our Youth from Dangerous Synthetics Drug Act addresses 
these issues. This bill creates an interagency committee of scientists 
that will establish and maintain an administrative list of controlled 
substance analogues. The Committee is structured to respond quickly 
when new synthetic drugs enter the market.
  Because virtually all of these controlled substance analogues arrive 
in bulk from outside our borders, the bill makes it illegal to import a 
controlled substance analogue on the list unless the importation is 
intended for non-human use.
  Finally, the bill directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review, 
and if appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing guidelines for 
violations of the Controlled Substances Act pertaining to controlled 
substance analogues.
  In sum, this bill sends a strong message to drug traffickers who 
attempt to circumvent our Nation's laws: no matter how you alter the 
chemical structure of synthetic drugs to try to get around the law, we 
will ban these substances to keep them away from our children.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Brown):
  S. 37. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 to provide for State accountability in the provision of access to 
the core resources for learning, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to reintroduce the Core 
Opportunity Resources for Equity and Excellence Act with my colleague 
Senator Brown. I would also like to thank Representative Fudge for 
introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. This 
year, we will be commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act. Now is the time to reaffirm our commitment 
to educational equity, and in the words of President Johnson ``bridge 
the gap between helplessness and hope.''
  As we embark upon reauthorizing this landmark legislation, we must 
ensure that our accountability systems in education measure our 
progress towards equity and excellence for all children. The CORE Act 
will help advance that goal by requiring states to include fair and 
equitable access to the core resources for learning in their 
accountability systems.
  More than 60 years after the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of 
Education, one of the great challenges still facing this nation is 
stemming the tide of rising inequality. We have seen the rich get 
richer while middle class and low-income families have lost ground. We 
see disparities in opportunity starting at birth and growing over a 
lifetime. With more than one in five school-aged children living in 
families in poverty, according to Department of Education statistics, 
we cannot afford nor should we tolerate a public education system that 
fails to provide resources and opportunities for the children who need 
them the most.
  We should look to hold our education system accountable for results 
and resources. And we know that resources matter. A recent study by 
researchers at Northwestern University and the University of California 
at Berkeley found that increasing per pupil spending by 20 percent for 
low-income students over the course of their K-12 schooling results in 
greater high school completion, higher levels of educational 
attainment, increased lifetime earnings, and reduced adult poverty.
  In addition to funding, there are other opportunity gaps that we need 
to address. Survey data from the Department of Education's Office of 
Civil Rights show troubling disparities, such as the fact that Black, 
Latino, American Indian, Native Alaskan students, and English learners 
attend schools with higher concentrations of inexperienced teachers; 
nationwide, one in five high schools lacks a school counselor; and 
between 10 and 25 percent of high schools across the nation do not 
offer more than one of the core courses in the typical sequence of high 
school math and science, such as Algebra I and II, geometry, biology, 
and chemistry.
  We are reintroducing the CORE Act to ensure that equity remains at 
the center of our federal education policy. Specifically, the CORE Act 
will require state accountability plans and state and district report 
cards to include measures on how well the state and districts provide 
the core resources for learning to their students. These resources 
include: high quality instructional teams, including licensed and 
profession-ready teachers, principals, school librarians, counselors, 
and education support staff; rigorous academic standards and curricula 
that lead to college and career readiness by high school graduation and 
are accessible to all students, including students with disabilities 
and English learners; equitable and instructionally appropriate class 
sizes; up-to-date instructional materials, technology, and supplies; 
effective school library programs; school facilities and technology, 
including physically and environmentally sound buildings and well-
equipped instructional space, including laboratories and libraries; 
specialized instructional support teams, such as counselors, social 
workers, nurses, and other qualified professionals; and effective 
family and community engagement programs.
  These are things that parents in well-resourced communities expect 
and demand. We should do no less for children in economically 
disadvantaged communities. We should do no less for minority students 
or English learners or students with disabilities.
  Under the CORE Act, States that fail to make progress on resource 
equity would not be eligible to apply for competitive grants authorized 
under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. For school districts 
identified for improvement, the State would have to identify gaps in 
access to the core resources for learning and develop an action plan in 
partnership with the local school district to address those gaps.
  The CORE Act is supported by a diverse group of organizations, 
including the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, 
American Federation of Teachers, American Library Association, 
Coalition for Community Schools, Education Law Center, Fair Test, First 
Focus Campaign for Children, League of United Latin American Citizens, 
National Association of School Psychologists, National Education 
Association, National Latino Education Research and Policy Project, 
Opportunity Action, Public Advocacy for Kids, Public Advocates, Inc., 
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, and the Texas Center for 
Education Policy.
  Working with this strong group of advocates and my colleagues in the 
Senate and in the House, it is my hope that we can build the support to 
include the CORE Act in the reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. I urge my colleagues
to join us by cosponsoring this legislation.

                          ____________________