[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5027-5028]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 959. A bill to establish a tax credit for on-site apprenticeship 
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of the 
Apprenticeship and Jobs Training Act, which I have introduced with my 
colleague Senator Cantwell. Few issues are as important to the American 
people as the availability of good jobs in our communities. 
Unemployment in Maine and across the country remains unacceptably high. 
It is crucial that we continue to improve job training initiatives to 
help people find jobs in fields with open positions.
  Many business owners in Maine have told me that they have jobs 
available, but they cannot find qualified and trained workers to fill 
these vacant positions. One way for employees to acquire the skills 
needed to succeed in these in-demand fields is through apprenticeship 
programs. Apprentices gain hands-on experience that is invaluable to 
employers and can help workers secure a well-paying job.
  According to the Department of Labor's Employment and Training 
Administration, more than 44,000 participants graduated from the 
apprenticeship system in fiscal year 2014. In Maine, there were almost 
700 registered apprentices. That number, however, is likely 
insufficient to meet tomorrow's needs. One manufacturer in Maine 
estimates that nearly 2.7 million manufacturing employees are expected 
to retire in the next decade. We must do all we can to ensure that an 
adequate pool of skilled workers is available to fill these well-paying 
jobs.
  Our bill helps achieve this goal by giving tax credits to businesses 
that hire apprentices. To ensure that workers are given adequate time 
to prove their value, the apprentice must be employed for seven months 
in order for a business to claim the credit. Our bill also provides 
incentives for experienced workers who spend at least 20 percent of 
their time passing their hard-earned knowledge on to the next 
generation. These workers would be allowed to receive some retirement 
income early, without facing tax penalties. Finally, our bill ensures 
that the brave men and women who defend our country are given credit 
for the skills they learn while serving. Training received while 
serving in the Armed Forces would count toward an apprentice's training 
requirement.
  This bill would help better align the needs of our Nation's employers 
with potential employees to promote hiring and the creation of new 
jobs. I encourage all my colleagues to support this bill, and I am 
pleased to join Senator Cantwell in introducing it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Whitehouse, 
        and Mr. Markey):
  S. 962. A bill to extend the same Federal benefits to law enforcement 
officers serving private institutions of higher education and rail 
carriers that apply to law enforcement officers serving units of State 
and local government; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Equity in Law 
Enforcement Act to extend Federal benefits to law enforcement officers 
who serve at private institutions of higher education and rail 
carriers. Through this legislation, these individuals would be eligible 
for many of the same benefits provided to public law enforcement 
officers, including line-of-duty death benefits and access to federal 
grant opportunities through the Department of Justice's Bulletproof 
Vest Partnership Grant and Byrne Justice Assistance Grant, JAG, 
programs.
  In 1976, the Public Safety Officers' Benefits PSOB program was 
enacted to aid in the recruitment and retention of public safety 
officers. Recognizing the danger that law enforcement officers, 
firefighters, and first responders face while serving in our 
communities, the PSOB provides a one-time financial benefit to 
survivors of officers who die as a result of injuries sustained in the 
line of duty.
  Although the officers protecting our private universities and 
railways face the same risks, they are currently not

[[Page 5028]]

included in the PSOB program These brave individuals protect our 
communities every day, enforce the law within their jurisdiction, and 
receive similar training to their government counterparts. However, 
they are currently excluded from the line-of-duty federal death 
benefits available to law enforcement officers serving units of State 
and local governments, and from access to federal grant programs for 
protective body armor and other equipment.
  Since 1960, approximately 35 college or university law enforcement 
officers have lost their lives while protecting our communities. While 
some families of officers that have been gravely injured while serving 
at public universities have received PSOB line-of-duty death benefits, 
the families of those who lost their lives while serving at private 
institutions have been ineligible. We should fix this inequity.
  Inscribed on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial are the 
names of the heroes who gave their full measure while protecting our 
communities. This memorial includes Patrol Officer Joseph Francis 
Doyle, who was killed in the line of duty at Brown University in 1988, 
as well as the other officers who died while working at private 
universities and colleges and on our railways.
  A recent name on the Memorial is Patrol Officer Sean Collier. Today, 
we mark the second anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombings, an act 
of terror that tragically killed three and injured hundreds of others. 
Three days after the bombings, during the manhunt for the attackers, 
Officer Collier of the MIT Police Department was shot and killed by the 
perpetrators on the university's campus. Officer Collier died while not 
only bravely serving the students and faculty of MIT. He was also 
serving the city of Boston, working with others in the law enforcement 
community during an exceptionally difficult time to keep the city and 
our nation safe. However, since he was employed by a private 
university, Officer Collier was not eligible for line-of-duty death 
benefits. To honor Officer Collier's service and sacrifice, this bill 
would be retroactive to April 15, 2013, the day of the Boston bombings.
  I am pleased that Senators Ayotte, Leahy, Whitehouse, and Markey have 
once again joined me in introducing this legislation, which would 
ensure that officers who have lost their lives protecting our 
communities and their families are eligible for the benefits associated 
with law enforcement work as well as access to the protective equipment 
they need. The bill would only apply to officers who are sworn, 
licensed, or certified to enforce the law within their jurisdiction, 
and is supported by the International Association of Campus Law 
Enforcement Administrators.
  I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring and passing the 
Equity in Law Enforcement Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS:
  S. 965. A bill to prohibit the use of funds by Internal Revenue 
Service to target citizens of the United States for exercising any 
right guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would 
prohibit the IRS from targeting any U.S. citizens for exercising their 
constitutional rights under the First Amendment.
  The history of the IRS offers abundant examples of the Agency 
trampling on these rights. In the most recent controversy, which came 
to light in 2013, the IRS applied a heightened scrutiny to applications 
from conservative groups that were seeking tax-exempt status. Delaying 
these groups' applications suggests an attempt to chill the 
constitutional right of speech and association by groups that hold 
conservative views. No matter what your political views, the details 
that have emerged are truly alarming. The IRS admitted that it 
deliberately targeted conservative groups' applications for tax-exempt 
status for extra review if they included such words as ``tea party,'' 
``patriots,'' or ``9/11'' in their names. It also acknowledged 
targeting applications from groups that criticized how this country is 
being run or whose purpose was to address government spending, 
government debt, taxes, or simply to make America a better place. These 
inappropriate criteria stayed in place for more than 18 months and 
resulted in substantial delays in processing the applications of many 
different groups. In some cases, the applications remained outstanding 
for more than 2 years.
  The IRS also sought to compel some of the targeted groups to divulge 
their membership lists. IRS officials have subsequently admitted there 
was absolutely no reason for Agency personnel to have sought that kind 
of information.
  Such behavior, unfortunately, is not a one-time aberration, and the 
targets have been on both sides of the aisle. A May 2013 Time magazine 
article noted that the IRS has been involved in scandals going back at 
least as far as the Kennedy administration, which used the service to 
investigate so-called rightwing groups. President Nixon employed a 
secret IRS operation to investigate and audit political opponents. 
During the Johnson administration, the IRS targeted some antiwar 
activists. In the decades since, a number of political activists from 
both the conservative and liberal ends of the spectrum, as well as 
whistleblowers, have been subjected to intimidating and discriminatory 
scrutiny by the IRS.
  The IRS's history of abuses demonstrates that Congress must be ever-
vigilant in protecting taxpayers. The Agency's power allows it to 
pervade the most sensitive aspects of Americans' private lives. 
Irrespective of whether those singled out are liberal or conservative, 
Democrat or Republican, Independent or Green Party members, regardless 
of their personal views, the targeting of private citizens for 
exercising their First Amendment rights is out of bounds and cannot be 
tolerated.
  Seventeen years ago, when the IRS was accused of using abusive 
tactics towards taxpayers, Congress responded by passing the IRS 
Restructuring and Reform Act. That act created the Taxpayer Bill of 
Rights, strengthened taxpayer protections against unauthorized 
collection activities, and established an oversight board to ensure 
that taxpayers are properly treated by the IRS.
  The bill I am introducing today builds on the 1998 act, as well as an 
amendment I authored in 2013, which became law, that prohibited the IRS 
from using funds provided through the fiscal year 2014 IRS funding bill 
to target American citizens for exercising their First Amendment 
rights. That prohibition on the use of funds was continued in the 
fiscal year 2015 funding bill, and the legislation I am offering today 
would make that prohibition permanent.
  The First Amendment is one of our most cherished and sacred freedoms, 
and its free exercise must be vigorously protected.
  It has been said the power to tax is the power to destroy. The 
American people cannot and will not tolerate any abuse of that power.
  It is imperative that Congress act to make sure the power of the IRS 
is never again used to harass or abuse Americans for exercising their 
First Amendment rights. The bill I have introduced is tailored to that 
end. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

                          ____________________