[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12353-12363]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HOEVEN (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. 
        Grassley, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Thune, Mr. Brown, Mr. Enzi, and 
        Mr. Rounds):
  S. 1844. A bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to 
provide for voluntary country of origin labeling for beef, pork, and 
chicken; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, today I filed, along with a bipartisan 
group of cosponsors, the Voluntary Country of Origin Labeling and Trade 
Enhancement Act of 2015. I wish to thank the cosponsors on the 
legislation. The lead cosponsor on the Democratic side is Senator 
Debbie Stabenow, ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee. 
Also joining us in this bipartisan group are Senator John Thune from 
South Dakota, another member of the agriculture committee, Senator Amy 
Klobuchar, Senator Chuck Grassley, Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Senator Mike 
Enzi, and Senator

[[Page 12354]]

Sherrod Brown. With the exception of Senator Enzi, all of the 
cosponsors are members of our agriculture committee.
  What we are trying to do is come up with a solution to the country-
of-origin labeling issue. This is an issue that has been in a WTO court 
for some time and involves the United States, Canada, and Mexico, our 
very good trading partners. Essentially what we are working to do is to 
find a solution that addresses the WTO issues as far as country-of-
origin labeling in a way that makes sure that we are WTO compliant so 
that there are no duties or tariffs that can be levied against any of 
our agricultural exports or any other exports. At the same time, for 
those who want to use country-of-origin labeling on a voluntary basis, 
they are able to do so. That would preserve what is known as the 
``Grade A'' label, which simply means born, raised, and slaughtered or 
processed in the United States. So for beef, pork, and chicken, if it 
is born and raised and processed in the United States, one can still 
use that ``Grade A'' label, but it is a voluntary program, it is not a 
mandatory program. We do that purposely so that we meet the WTO 
requirements. I have spoken with the U.S. Trade Representative's office 
about that issue, which I will go into in just a minute.
  What we have done is we have simply taken the House legislation--
sponsored by the Agriculture Committee chairman in the House, 
Representative Mike Conaway, which passed in the House--essentially, we 
take the same bill, the same language as far as repealing mandatory 
COOL. So we repeal mandatory COOL, which puts us in compliance with 
what the WTO is asking for, then we simply add some language that 
allows for a voluntary program, so that for processors, marketers, and 
producers that want to participate in a voluntary program, they can. If 
they believe consumers want to know, then they have that opportunity to 
provide their product with the ``Grade A'' label on a voluntary basis. 
That is reasonable because that is what Canada does. Canada has a 
voluntary program. It is called their ``Product of Canada'' label. So 
all we are doing is what Canada does. We repeal the mandatory program 
and we put in place a voluntary program just as our good friends and 
neighbors do in Canada.
  When I spoke with the U.S. Trade Representative about this issue, 
essentially what they said is whether we repeal mandatory COOL by 
itself or repeal mandatory COOL and have a voluntary program, 
essentially we are in the same position vis-a-vis meeting the WTO 
requirements.
  So this is really an effort to build bipartisan support for a 
solution to the COOL issue, which has been a challenging issue. This is 
an issue we worked on on the farm bill. I was one of the conferees on 
the conference committee, and COOL and some of the other issues were 
some of the last--dairy, for example--issues we were able to resolve in 
finally getting an agreement on a farm bill.
  Again, this is an effort in a practical way to bring people together 
on both sides of the issue to solve the problem. We make sure we are 
WTO compliant. Then, on a voluntary basis, there is the option for 
people to label as they want to. We work to create enough bipartisan 
support in this body so we can deal with the issue now, so we can 
resolve the issue now and pass this legislation and then get it to 
conference with the House and have a resolution before the end of this 
month and before the August recess so that this issue is taken care of.
  I look forward to working with everybody involved on both sides of 
the aisle, including our esteemed chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee, Senator Roberts. I appreciate all the time we have spent 
working together on this issue. I look forward to working with Members 
on both sides of the aisle, both on the Agriculture Committee and 
everyone else, to craft a solution, advance it through this body, and 
get it to conference with the House.
  As I said, I have spoken with Chairman Conaway, the Agriculture 
Committee chairman in the House. We have a good relationship, and we 
had a good dialogue about the sooner we get to work together to resolve 
this, the better, and we look forward to that.
  Again, I ask my colleagues to join with us, our bipartisan group, in 
a bipartisan way. Let's get this done and make sure we not only have 
addressed the issue with the World Trade Organization court so there 
are no duties but also make sure we have put forward a solution that 
works for the American consumer and for the American agriculture 
industry, that on a voluntary basis gives them the opportunity to 
provide country-of-origin labeling as well as solving the WTO 
challenge.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Sanders, Mr. 
        Brown, Mr. Tester, and Ms. Hirono):
  S. 1856. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for 
suspension and removal of employees of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs for performance or misconduct that is a threat to public health 
or safety and to improve accountability of employees of the Department, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, going back to my colleagues who have 
appeared to talk about issues of accountability for the Department of 
Veterans Affairs, I want to say how grateful I am for the spirit of 
collaboration that prevailed yesterday in our meeting.
  Very generously and responsibly, the chairman of that committee, 
Senator Isakson--my good friend and distinguished colleague from 
Georgia--offered and committed to continue the effort to improve the 
measures we approved yesterday in our committee to hold accountable the 
Department of Veterans Affairs and all of its employees--just as we do 
any other agency of government--to make sure we keep faith with our 
veterans and leave no veteran behind.
  Our Nation needs to make sure we provide the robust resources and the 
prompt delivery of health care services and other measures to our 
veterans with the honest and efficient management our veterans deserve.
  So many of us were repulsed and outraged by the revelation just a 
little more than 1 year ago about delays in health care, irresponsible 
and reprehensible and, indeed, criminal obstruction of justice in 
cooking the books that prevailed at health care facilities of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs around the country, and the 
ramifications were sweeping. There were indeed changes in management, 
beginning at the very top, with a new Secretary. There were also 
measures approved by this Congress in the last session, the Veterans 
Access, Choice and Accountability Act, to make sure no veteran 
suffering 30 days or more in delays in health care be denied a private 
provider if he or she chooses one or is living more than 40 miles from 
any facility.
  We are working on additional measures, constructive and positive 
measures, to make sure this Nation fulfills its promise of prompt, 
world-class, first-class health care to every veteran who needs it, 
regardless of what that need is, the specialty or the illness, and to 
make sure we also cure the other deficiencies, such as the delays in 
disability claims, homelessness, joblessness, the need for job training 
and skills among our veterans.
  Part of our task is accountability to make sure members of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs are held accountable. That is one reason 
why I insisted and urged from the very beginning of those revelations 
of wrongdoing and criminality in the Department of Veterans Affairs 
that there be a Department of Justice investigation. I called on the 
Attorney General of the United States to investigate, not the inspector 
general of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Attorney General of 
the United States because only the Department of Justice has the 
resources and expertise, direction, and leadership to successfully 
pursue the wide-ranging criminality and wrongdoing that I thought was 
revealed.
  For all of us who hope there is honesty and fair dealing in our 
government, regrettably there has now been a criminal indictment. The 
indications

[[Page 12355]]

are that more should follow, that there was and is reason for a 
Department of Justice investigation, that there are and need to be 
continued reports and results of the IG investigation. I have called in 
hearing after hearing that we be given those reports and results of the 
ongoing inspector general investigation, and we still are lacking in 
the full work product from that office. There is clearly more work to 
be done on the wrongdoing that has been committed in the past, and 
there is clearly more work to be done to prevent it in the future.
  Part of what needs to be done is to protect the whistleblowers. 
Indeed, those revelations of wrongdoing came in part from 
whistleblowers who had the courage and fortitude to step forward and 
who were intimidated and ostracized and sometimes persecuted within the 
VA. They need protection. One part of what we need to do is to make 
sure they are protected.
  There ought to be accountability going forward in disciplining 
employees within the VA when there is malfeasance or waste or fraud. 
That involves eliminating some of the redtape and rigaramole that in 
the past have hampered the VA Secretary or other managers in making 
sure that there is accountability. That is why I welcome the focus of 
our committee on assuring accountability and transparency.
  Those changes in the law are necessary to enable the VA Secretary and 
his team to make sure that there is not only accurate and effective 
prompt discipline but also the appearance of it so that employees at 
the VA will know that there is a standard of conduct and it will be 
enforced and it will be upheld in the courts when it is challenged. 
That is true not only in the VA but of every department of the U.S. 
Government. There needs to be that perception and reality of the 
enforcement of codes of conduct and ethics.
  There needs to be a recognition that it is in the interest not only 
of the American taxpayer but the employees of the U.S. Government 
themselves. The majority of them are honest and hard-working. Those 
nurses, counselors, therapists, doctors, and administrators at the VA 
who are doing their job--in fact, working overtime often without 
additional pay--who are serving valiantly and responsibly, their 
clients deserve that wrongdoers be rooted out and held accountable. 
They are the vast majority of those honest and hard-working employees, 
and we owe them thanks for what they do to serve our veterans, but the 
wrongdoers need to be disciplined.
  The idea that they should receive bonuses is absolutely abhorrent. I 
welcome legislation that stops bonuses for employees who fail the most 
basic notions of effective and honest service. They deserve that those 
bonuses be stopped.
  My colleague Senator Isakson has spoken about S. 627, the bill that 
has been sponsored by Senator Ayotte and was approved yesterday. I want 
to make sure in the improvements I am going to offer to it and that my 
colleague Senator Brown offered yesterday--that we actually make it 
more effective. That is the nature of this deliberative process, that 
we try to improve on what we are doing to make enforcement more 
effective.
  I know as an enforcer, as a former U.S. attorney and a Federal and 
State official, enforcement is key to making the law work. The same is 
true of S. 1082, sponsored by our colleague Senator Rubio, which also 
was approved yesterday by our committee. I have offered a bill that 
will improve the measure we approved yesterday in a number of different 
respects.
  First of all, there are serious questions about the constitutionality 
of the provision approved yesterday. I think in fairness to all of the 
American taxpayers as well as this body, we should face whatever 
deficiencies there are constitutionally in the law before that law 
becomes unenforceable.
  The importance of making sure a law is constitutional goes to 
enforcement. A law that is unconstitutional, that fails to provide 
sufficient notice, a statement of causes, a right to be heard, an 
opportunity to achieve basic constitutional protection that the U.S. 
Security Court has repeatedly said is necessary, those deficiencies can 
make law unenforceable.
  As I said yesterday in our committee meeting, as a former attorney 
general, and there are others in this body, we know how difficult the 
task is to defend a law or defend State action that is based on a 
constitutional and firm statute.
  A law that is unenforceable is worse than no law at all because it 
creates a false sense of security, an expectation that never can be 
fulfilled because a law that is unenforceable will never be effective 
in preventing the wrong that it is designed to do.
  I want to improve S. 1082--in fact, to make it more effective--but to 
make sure it is done in a way that can be upheld, also to protect those 
whistleblowers, and to make sure that if there are firings and 
disciplines, it is done on the merits, that it is done on the basis of 
real cause and evidence, not as part of a political witch hunt.
  We have been through the spoils system. This Nation has lived through 
a time when, in effect, offices were bought and sold. That certainly is 
nobody's intention here, and I am sure my colleagues and I can work 
together to move toward a measure that fulfills our common shared 
objective in making sure that merit and effective action is rewarded 
with bonuses and through other means and that wrongdoing is punished 
and deterred.
  There can be no enforcement unless the law is framed as well as 
possible, and there can be no deterrence unless there is enforcement. 
That is what we want to do: prevent this kind of wrongdoing going 
forward, not just looking backward and pursuing and prosecuting the 
wrongdoers, which I hope will be done. There is more than ample 
evidence to support it but also to prevent it going forward.
  I am tremendously heartened by our committee chairman's commitment to 
work with me and others on that committee. He said to me very 
explicitly, and it is on the record, that he will, in fact, work with 
us. We will engage in collaboration.
  I think we are going to improve these measures. They may not be huge 
or sweeping changes in what we approved yesterday, but we all know that 
words can sometimes lead to courts concluding that there are defects in 
the law that were never intended by the Framers. That is a consequence, 
an unintended result that we should avoid if possible. It may seem like 
lawyer talk, but it has ramifications in the courts. That is the reason 
we heard from the DAV at our June 24 hearing that it is ``vitally 
important to VA's long-term future to create an environment in which 
the best and brightest professionals choose VA over other Federal or 
private employers.''
  We need those best of the best in the VA, not working in the private 
sector alone. Fairness and due process in our workplace will encourage 
talented doctors, lawyers, nurses, and other professionals to come to 
the VA, which is where we need them, for the strength of that system.
  As the independent U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board stated in its 
statement for the record in the committee's June 24th hearing, there is 
a need to follow and respect constitutional due process. The 
Partnership for Public Service said much of the same thing in this 
letter of July 21, 2015.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Partnership for Public Service,

                                     Washington DC, July 21, 2015.
     Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Members of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee: On 
     behalf of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan, 
     nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the 
     effectiveness of our federal government, I am writing to 
     express my views on S. 1082, the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs Accountability Act of 2015, and a substitute 
     amendment to be offered by Senator Blumenthal, which would 
     address employee accountability and broader management 
     challenges at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
       As members of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, you 
     have a unique opportunity

[[Page 12356]]

     to fix serious problems at the Department and improve the 
     ability of the Department to deliver on its mission to 
     provide high-quality services to veterans. Unfortunately, the 
     reforms promoted in S. 1082 will not accomplish these 
     objectives. As drafted, the bill eliminates due process 
     protections for employees--which will silence the very 
     whistleblowers we rely on to sound the alarm--and could lead 
     to removals for partisan or discriminatory reasons. The bill 
     will also have an adverse impact on the ability of VA to 
     recruit and retain top talent, as seasoned reformers may be 
     less inclined to pursue VA leadership positions without due 
     process protections. In addition, the bill expedites the 
     appeals process without providing additional resources, 
     which, according to a statement for the record from the Merit 
     Systems Protection Board (MSPB), could overwhelm MSPB's 
     capacity to manage its workload.
       The Partnership strongly agrees that poor performance is a 
     real problem at VA and that federal employees at all agencies 
     must be held accountable for their performance and conduct. 
     We have recommended dozens of reforms to the current civil 
     service system that, we believe, will lead to a better 
     managed government and a higher performing workforce. 
     However, moving to at-will employment will have many 
     unintended consequences and will not solve the critical 
     management challenges that are hobbling VA and jeopardizing 
     the care of our veterans. We believe a better solution lies 
     in Sen. Blumenthal's substitute amendment that would give the 
     Secretary an additional tool to remove individuals who are a 
     threat to public health or safety, and improve the management 
     of the Department.
       Among other things, the substitute amendment would do the 
     following:
       Hold senior political leaders accountable in performance 
     plans for recruiting and selecting the right people for 
     employment at the agency, engaging and motivating employees, 
     training and developing employees and holding managers 
     accountable for making difficult performance decisions. 
     Accountability for management in government starts at the 
     very top and this provision will ensure all leaders, career 
     and political, are held accountable.
       Ensure managers are fully using the probationary period to 
     develop high-potential employees and to remove someone if 
     they are not the right fit for the position. The amendment 
     would require managers to make an affirmative decision as to 
     whether an individual who serves in a probationary period has 
     demonstrated successful performance and should continue past 
     the probationary period. It also requires new supervisors to 
     demonstrate management competencies, in addition to technical 
     skills, in order to remain in a management position.
       Require periodic training for managers on the rights of 
     whistleblowers and how to address an employee allegation of a 
     hostile work environment, reprisal or harassment; how to 
     effectively motivate, manage and reward employees; and how to 
     effectively manage employees who are performing at an 
     unacceptable level.
       Hold VA managers accountable in performance plans for 
     taking action to address poor performance and misconduct and 
     for taking steps to improve or sustain high levels of 
     employee engagement.
       Create a separate promotion track for technical experts so 
     they can advance in their careers without having to go into 
     management positions for which they are ill-suited. Too often 
     we hear that supervisors promote their employees to 
     management positions because they want to pay them more, even 
     when the employees are technical experts who may be 
     uninterested or unskilled in managing people.
       Require GAO to study the implementation of Section 707 of 
     the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, 
     which was enacted last year, to understand its impact on 
     performance, accountability, recruitment and retention at VA, 
     particularly at the executive level. The provision would also 
     require GAO to review VA's internal policies for dealing with 
     performance issues and make recommendations for how the 
     Department could expedite the process for addressing 
     performance and misconduct administratively.
       The challenges at VA are critical and must be addressed. We 
     encourage the Committee to adopt the substitute amendment and 
     ensure these critical management provisions are included as 
     the bill moves to the floor. Our veterans deserve the very 
     best care and this is the time for real reform, not simple 
     expediency.
           Very best wishes,
                                                        Max Stier,
                                                President and CEO.

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask that my colleagues join in this collaboration 
because I know how deeply you and I feel, how we share that common 
goal, not just in our committee. I ask that we work to incorporate the 
measure I have introduced today, S. 1856, with the cosponsorship 
Senators Murray, Sanders, Brown, Tester, and Hirono, my colleagues on 
the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the Department of Veterans Affairs 
Equitable Employee Accountability Act. This measure is introduced 
today, and it will help us improve and enhance S. 1082 and the 
supremely important objectives that motivate it.
  I thank my colleagues for our work together, and I look forward to 
pursuing it.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Booker, Mr. Bennet, 
        Mr. Blumenthal, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Brown, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
        Cardin, Mr. Carper, Mr. Coons, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
        Franken, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Kaine, 
        Mr. King, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Markey, Mrs. McCaskill, 
        Mr. Menendez, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Murphy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
        Peters, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Schatz, Mr. 
        Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Udall, Mr. Warner, Ms. 
        Warren, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 1858. A bill to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, 
gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Equality 
Act of 2015--comprehensive civil rights legislation for our LGBT 
community.
  There are few concepts as fundamentally American as equality. We were 
founded on this principle with these simple words:

       We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are 
     created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with 
     unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and 
     the pursuit of happiness.

  For more than two centuries, we have been working to fulfill that 
vision of equality. We have taken direct action as a nation so that our 
laws align more closely with these founding ideals. We have challenged 
unjust rules and destructive prejudices and chosen to advance basic 
civil rights.
  Martin Luther King put forth the vision that the arc of the moral 
universe is long but it bends towards justice. He knew that in the 
1950s and 1960s Americans were hard at work making that moral arc of 
the universe bend towards justice. That is the work we continue here in 
the Senate, here on Capitol Hill, here in the House of Representatives 
just 100 yards away.
  Step by step, stride by stride, the barriers that once prevented 
people from enjoying the full measure of liberty, the full measure of 
opportunity, the full measure of equality have broken down.
  At the same time, we recognize there is much more to be done to 
secure that reality for each and every American. In cities and towns 
across our Nation, many of our citizens do not receive equal treatment, 
not because of anything they have done but because of who they are--
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, whom they love, and who they are.
  Yes, we have made progress in advancing rights for the LGBT 
community. We passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act 
after I came to the Senate in 2009. We repealed don't ask, don't tell, 
which prevented all Americans from serving openly in the U.S. military. 
We reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, with 
protections for services for the LGBT community. We passed the 
Affordable Care Act so that no one could be denied health care because 
of their sexual orientation or gender identity. And we have seen 
landmark victories in the Supreme Court, first in the Edith Windsor 
case when the Court ruled it was unconstitutional for the Federal 
Government to discriminate and just last month when the Court 
reaffirmed that ``love is love'' and ensured that marriage equality 
would come to all 50 States.
  That is a significant number of steps, a significant number of 
strides on the path toward full equality, and it happened in a 
relatively short period of time. But we are far from where we need to 
be--full equality for every American. As long as people are afraid

[[Page 12357]]

to put their spouse's photo on their desk at work, as long as they are 
worried about being evicted from their apartment if they do not pretend 
to be just roommates, we have a lot of work to do.
  The harsh reality remains that in far too many States there are still 
no laws specifically prohibiting discrimination against LGBT Americans. 
Nearly two-thirds of the LGBT community reports they have faced 
discrimination in their lives. In Pennsylvania, a transgender woman can 
be denied service and kicked out of a restaurant just for being who she 
is and it would be perfectly legal. In Michigan, a newly married couple 
can be denied the chance to buy their first house just because they are 
both women and that would be perfectly legal. In North Carolina, a gay 
man can be fired from his job today just for being gay and that would 
be perfectly legal.
  Only 22 States and the District of Columbia have passed legislation 
that prevents workers from being fired because they are gay. Only 19 of 
those States and the District of Columbia include language protecting 
against gender identity bias.
  The time has come to right this wrong. The time has come for us as a 
nation to be bolder and better at ensuring full rights and full 
equality for the LGBT community. Not only is it within our power, it is 
something America must work to lead. And the most powerful form of 
leadership is the example we set.
  In 1962, Bobby Kennedy said:

       Nations around the world look to us for leadership not 
     merely by strength of arms, but by the strength of our 
     convictions. We not only want, but we need, the free exercise 
     of rights by every American.

  Our commitment to the vision of equality and fairness is a 
significant part of America's soul. It makes us strong. It makes us who 
we are as a people. And we should settle for nothing less. These 
fundamental principles served as the guiding force behind the 
comprehensive legislation--the Equality Act of 2015--we are introducing 
today here in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
  I thank my lead cosponsors in the Senate, Cory Booker and Tammy 
Baldwin, who have done enormous good work in setting the stage for 
today's introduction.
  I thank four staff members who worked very hard on this on my team, 
including my chief of staff, Michael Zamore; my legislative director, 
Jeremiah Baumann; my legislative assistant, Adrian Snead; and my 
legislative correspondent, Elizabeth Eickelberg. There are many other 
members of the team who pitched in, but they have worked day and night 
to help make this moment arrive.
  We have had support, such critical support and involvement from 
numerous outside groups.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a list of dozens of groups endorsing this legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


          National Organizations that endorse the legislation:

       9to5, National Association of Working Women, Advocates for 
     Youth, Aids United, American Civil Liberties Union, American 
     Federation of Teachers, American Federation of Teachers, 
     Anti-Defamation League, Athlete Ally, Bend the Arc Jewish 
     Action, CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers, Central 
     Conference of American Rabbis, Family Equality Council, 
     Family Equality Council, Freedom to Work, Generation 
     Progress, GLSEN, Hindu American Foundation, Human Rights 
     Campaign, Interfaith Alliance, JWI.
       Lambda Legal, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Black 
     Justice Coalition, National Center for Lesbian Rights, 
     National Center for Transgender Equality, National Council of 
     La Raza (NCLR), National Education Association, National 
     Education Association, National Employment Law Project, 
     National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, National LGBTQ 
     Task Force Action Fund, National Organization for Women, 
     National Partnership for Women & Families, National Women's 
     Law Center, People For the American Way, PFLAG National, 
     PFLAG National, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 
     Secular Coalition for America, Sexuality Information and 
     Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS), The Trevor Project, 
     Union for Reform Judaism.


           State organizations that endorse the legislation:

       9to5 California, CA; 9to5 Colorado, CO; 9to5 Georgia, GA; 
     9to5 Wisconsin, WI; Equality Michigan, MI; Equality Michigan, 
     MI; Gender Justice, MN and Upper Midwest; Gender Rights 
     Maryland, MD; PROMO (Missouri), MO; Southwest Women's Law 
     Center, NM.

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I particularly want to draw attention to 
several organizations that played a leading role, and I apologize to 
others that were also very involved. The Human Rights Campaign played a 
central role in organizing today's introduction. I also thank the 
American Civil Liberties Union, the National Council of La Raza, the 
National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund, the National Women's Law Center, 
and so many others.
  The Equality Act will create uniform Federal standards to protect all 
LGBT Americans from discrimination in housing, in workplaces, in 
schools, in public accommodations, and in financial transactions. It is 
a vision of equality deeply rooted in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It is 
setting the same foundation to end discrimination for the LGBT 
community that was set for ethnicity and set for gender and set for 
race. That is the foundation for the vision of eliminating 
discrimination in area after area, and it is time we place LGBT 
nondiscrimination on that same foundation. That is what we are doing 
today--comprehensively taking on discrimination.
  The bill also addresses gaps in legal protections against sex 
discrimination--ensuring women are treated equally in all aspects of 
their lives. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and a steadily 
increasing number of courts have recognized that sexual orientation and 
gender identity discrimination are properly understood as forms of sex 
discrimination in light of multiple controlling sex discrimination 
cases. The EEOC has done this through several decisions, most notably 
Macy v. Holder in 2012, which held that transgender discrimination is 
sex discrimination, and Baldwin v. Foxx very recently, which held that 
sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination.
  The bill we are introducing today, the Equality Act, codifies this 
understanding, making it clear that sexual orientation and gender 
identity are correctly understood as sex discrimination.
  In addition, the bill adds the terms ``sexual orientation'' and 
``gender identity'' to the list of protected characteristics throughout 
the code. This change should not be read to mean that sexual 
orientation and gender identity are not correctly understood as sex 
discrimination. These additions were made so covered entities as well 
as LGBT people can clearly see that these protections exist. Employers, 
businesses, and institutions are often not aware of the decisions by 
the EEOC and the courts holding that sexual orientation or gender 
identity are protected.
  This bill represents a paradigm shift in two ways. First, our civil 
rights community has worked incredibly hard to defend the principles 
established in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and today we are asking for 
their engagement to not simply defend this act but to expand this act. 
Second, we have worked very hard to take on pieces of discrimination, 
whether it be don't ask, don't tell, whether it be Federal benefits for 
same-sex partners. But today we are saying we need a vision of 
comprehensive nondiscrimination. That is the expression of full 
opportunity. You cannot access full opportunity if the door is closed 
in financial transactions or jury selection or public accommodations if 
you can still be turned away from a restaurant because of whom you love 
or whom you are. Every American deserves equality in every basic 
function of our society. Discrimination has no place in our Nation's 
laws.
  If it is wrong in marriage, as the Court has held, as numerous States 
have established, it is wrong also in employment. If it is wrong in 
employment, it is wrong in housing. If it is wrong in housing, it is 
wrong, too, in education.
  Overwhelmingly, Americans believe discrimination is wrong. 
Overwhelmingly, they believe it is already illegal, and they believe it 
has no place in our

[[Page 12358]]

society and no place being condoned by our laws.
  Even though the Equality Act addresses multiple dimensions of 
discrimination, it is quite simple. It says that people deserve to live 
free from fear, free from violence, and free from discrimination, 
regardless of who they are or whom they love.
  Writing these protections into law will bring us another stride 
forward in our Nation's long march toward inclusion and equality. It 
will extend the full promise of America to every American. I will keep 
fighting until this bill is on the President's desk. I will not be 
satisfied until everyone in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender 
community is guaranteed the dignity and the freedom they deserve, the 
whole sense of opportunity provided through participation in American 
society. A full measure of equality: equal citizen.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in this fight. I thank the 40 
Senators who stood up today to be original cosponsors of the Equality 
Act of 2015. Let's make our democracy more inclusive and our freedom 
more perfect by bringing our laws and our actions in line with the 
founding principle that all are created equal.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last month, the Supreme Court took a 
significant step towards a more perfect union when it ruled that every 
American has the right to marry the person they love and have that 
lawful marriage recognized. It was a victory for love and justice over 
bigotry and intolerance. This historic milestone should be celebrated, 
but we must remember that the journey is not complete. The Fourteenth 
Amendment's principles of liberty and equality safeguard all couples' 
right to marry, and also serves
as a bulwark against discriminatory treatment in the other aspects of 
everyday life, including where we live, where we work, and our 
interactions with the government.
  While LGBT Americans are now able to marry the person they love, they 
continue to experience discrimination in many other aspects of their 
lives. Achieving full equality means that LGBT individuals should be 
able to provide security for their families without fear that they will 
be fired from their jobs or denied housing. It means that a restaurant 
cannot refuse to serve an LGBT couple because the owner disapproves of 
that couple's relationship.
  These are not abstract concepts. In our country today, LGBT Americans 
continue to experience discrimination, and it must end. In a June 27 
article in the New York Times, entitled ``Next Fight for Gay Rights: 
Bias in Jobs and Housing,'' the author Erik Eckholm provides clear 
documentation of such discrimination. A landlord in East Nashville, TN, 
refused to rent his apartment to two women in a loving relationship 
after he learned of their partnership because it made him 
``uncomfortable.'' He refused their rental application even after they 
offered to raise the rent by $150. A transgender individual was fired 
from her job as an industrial electrician because, according to her 
boss, her identity was becoming ``too much of a distraction,'' in spite 
of the fact that she was doing ``great work.''
  If such discrimination were based on race, religion, sex, or national 
origin, these individuals would be protected under Federal law. But 
because Federal civil rights law, as well as many state and local laws, 
do not provide explicit protections based on sexual orientation and 
gender identity, these individuals continue to experience 
discrimination without any legal protection. Their stories show us that 
LGBT Americans continue to be treated as second class citizens in their 
daily lives.
  That is why I am an original cosponsor of the Equality Act. The bill 
would amend existing Federal law to provide explicit civil rights 
protections for LGBT individuals. This non-discrimination bill would 
ensure that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected under 
Federal law in the same way that race, sex, religion, national origin, 
and disability are also protected classes. The result would be to 
protect LGBT individuals against discrimination in public 
accommodations, federally-funded programs, employment, housing, 
education, credit, and other aspects of daily life. This is the kind of 
equality and security that all American families should enjoy.
  I am proud that Vermont was one of the first States to pass a 
comprehensive law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual 
orientation in 1992, and also passed a law explicitly prohibiting 
discrimination on the basis of gender identity in 2007. All Vermonters 
are protected from discrimination in employment, places of public 
accommodation, housing, credit, and other services. This is what we 
need on the Federal level as well.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times 
article referenced above be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, June 27, 2015]

          Next Fight for Gay Rights: Bias in Jobs and Housing

                           (By Erik Eckholm)

       Exhilarated by the Supreme Court's endorsement of same-sex 
     marriage, gay rights leaders have turned their sights to what 
     they see as the next big battle: obtaining federal, state and 
     local legal protections in employment, housing, commerce and 
     other arenas, just like those barring discrimination based on 
     race, religion, sex and national origin.
       The proposals pit advocates against many of the same 
     religious conservatives who opposed legalizing same-sex 
     marriage, and who now see the protection of what they call 
     religious liberty as their most urgent task. These opponents 
     argue that antidiscrimination laws will inevitably be used to 
     force religious people and institutions to violate their 
     beliefs, whether by providing services for same-sex weddings 
     or by employing gay men and lesbians in church-related jobs.
       Nationally, antidiscrimination laws for gay people are a 
     patchwork with major geographic inequities, said Brad Sears, 
     executive director of the Williams Institute at the School of 
     Law of the University of California, Los Angeles. ``Those who 
     don't live on the two coasts or in the Northeast have been 
     left behind in terms of legal protection,'' he said.
       At least 22 states bar discrimination based on sexual 
     orientation, and most of them also offer protections to 
     transgender people.
       Tennessee is one of the majority of states that do not bar 
     such discrimination. There, in East Nashville, Tiffany Cannon 
     and Lauren Horbal thought they had found the perfect house to 
     share with a friend, and the landlord seemed ready to rent 
     when they applied in April.
       Then he called them to ask what their relationship with 
     each other was, Ms. Horbal, 26, recalled.
       She said that when the landlord learned that she and Ms. 
     Cannon, 25, were partners, he said, ``I'm not comfortable 
     with that.'' He refused to process their application, even 
     after they offered to raise their rent by $150, to $700 a 
     month, Ms. Horbal said.
       The women, both restaurant workers, are still looking for a 
     place to live.
       In many states, some local governments have 
     antidiscrimination laws, but they are often weak or poorly 
     enforced, said Ruth Colker, an expert on discrimination law 
     at Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University.
       ``Typically, the penalty for violating a city ordinance is 
     more akin to a traffic violation,'' she said. ``State-level 
     penalties can be much more significant.''
       As they push for more state and local safeguards, rights 
     advocates are also starting a long-term campaign for a broad 
     federal shield that would give sexual orientation and gender 
     identity protected status under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
       The goal is to achieve overlapping local, state and federal 
     laws, an approach that has proved effective in curbing other 
     kinds of discrimination, said Sarah Warbelow, legal director 
     at the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group. 
     Visible laws can not only permit lawsuits, she said, but also 
     deter employers and others from biased behavior.
       Although a majority of states lack such protections, 
     federal orders and court decisions, especially in employment, 
     are gradually offering more safeguards.
       With executive orders last year, President Obama barred 
     discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender 
     identity by federal agencies and federal contractors, 
     including companies employing about one in five American 
     workers, Mr. Sears said.
       At the same time, the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission, charged with enforcing federal law in the 
     workplace, has determined that discrimination against gay 
     men, lesbians and transgender people amounts to illegal sex 
     discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and 
     it is bringing or endorsing lawsuits under that provision.
       That application of existing law is still being tested in 
     court and is more established

[[Page 12359]]

     for transgender workers than for gay and lesbian workers. In 
     the past two years, the agency has successfully pursued 223 
     cases involving gay or transgender people who faced workplace 
     harassment or other discrimination, gaining settlements or 
     court orders, said Chai R. Feldblum, one of the agency's five 
     commissioners.
       Patricia Dawson of Pangburn, Ark., 46, hopes to join that 
     list. Ms. Dawson, who grew up as Steven, had more than 15 
     years' experience as an industrial electrician and had been a 
     rising employee at H & H Electric, an industrial contractor, 
     for four years when she informed her boss in 2012 that she 
     was transitioning to female and had changed her name.
       The boss, she said in a Title VII-based lawsuit brought by 
     the American Civil Liberties Union, told her to keep her 
     plans secret and not to ``rock the boat'' with clients.
       When her identity became obvious and gossip raged at the 
     work site, she said, the boss said to her, ``I'm sorry, 
     Steve, you do great work, but you are too much of a 
     distraction, and I am going to have to let you go.''
       Ms. Dawson said she was devastated by her treatment. ``I 
     love what I do; I get the greatest joy out of fixing 
     things,'' she said in an interview. ``Treating us as second-
     class citizens, it's hurtful.''
       Civil rights groups worked for years for an employment 
     antidiscrimination act, an effort that was blocked by House 
     Republicans and collapsed this year over discord about 
     religious exemptions. Buoyed by the rapid advance of same-sex 
     marriage, these groups are now determined to seek a far wider 
     law.
       ``I think there's a very strong consensus now among 
     advocacy groups that we need a broader bill that puts 
     discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender 
     identity on the same footing as race, religion and gender,'' 
     said Shannon P. Minter, legal director at the National Center 
     for Lesbian Rights.
       ``No court decision could accomplish all of that,'' Mr. 
     Minter said.
       Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, said he planned 
     to introduce a bill within the next few months to add 
     protections for gays and transgender people to the Civil 
     Rights Act.
       ``People are going to realize that you can get married in 
     the morning and be fired from your job or refused entry to a 
     restaurant in the afternoon,'' Mr. Merkley said. ``That is 
     unacceptable.''
       But the effort will take years, he said, because it appears 
     unlikely that Republican committee heads in Congress will 
     advance such a bill.
       In the emerging state-by-state battles for 
     antidiscrimination laws, the strongest opposition has come 
     from conservative religious groups that have been alarmed by 
     a few well-publicized cases, like that of a florist in 
     Washington State who was fined for refusing to provide 
     flowers for a same-sex wedding.
       ``We've got good reason to be concerned about these laws, 
     because they've been found to be coercive where they've been 
     enacted,'' said Greg Scott, vice president of communications 
     at Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group.
       Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious 
     Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, said 
     that it was wrong to equate religious objections to 
     homosexual behavior with racism, and that proposed 
     antidiscrimination laws could ``do more harm than good.''
       ``Some have suggested that we work out a compromise, 
     addressing housing and employment discrimination and 
     protecting religious freedom for those who dissent from the 
     ideas of the sexual revolution,'' he said. ``But I have yet 
     to see any proposal that would do both of those things 
     well.''
       There is some common ground. For example, under the Civil 
     Rights Act, religious organizations have the right to give 
     preference in hiring to those of their faith, Ms. Warbelow of 
     the Human Rights Campaign noted. In housing, federal rules 
     exempt owner-occupied rentals with four or fewer units from 
     discrimination provisions.
       ``We wouldn't expect these things to change,'' Ms. Warbelow 
     said. ``We really want L.G.B.T. people to be protected the 
     same as those in other protected categories.''
       But some disagreements, especially involving private 
     businesses, may be unbridgeable. The major gay and civil 
     rights groups are united in their opposition to ``religious 
     liberty'' bills, a priority of conservative Christian 
     advocates, which would allow religious vendors to refuse to 
     serve gay couples or wedding celebrations.
       ``Religious liberty does not authorize discrimination,'' 
     said James D. Esseks, the director of gay rights issues at 
     the American Civil Liberties Union.
       ``It's profoundly harmful to walk into a business open to 
     the public and be told, `No, we don't actually serve your 
     kind here,''' he said. ``That's not how America works.''

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am proud to join in sponsoring the 
Equality Act.
  Last month, the Supreme Court ruled on the right side of history by 
deciding that loving and committed same-sex couples have the right to 
be married. While same-sex couples now can be legally wed, Federal law 
still does not protect them from being fired or evicted from their 
homes on the basis of their sexual identity or gender identity. The 
Equality Act addresses this issue and represents a major step forward 
in protecting the civil rights of all Americans.
  At the same time we celebrate this historic bill, we must ensure that 
religious institutions have the right to their own views of marriage. 
As the
Supreme Court noted in its decision, ``it must be emphasized that 
religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to 
advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, 
same-sex marriage should not be condoned.'' I look forward to working 
with colleagues to address these issues as the bill advances through 
the legislative process.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 1860. A bill to protect and promote international religious 
freedom; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1860

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Further Independence of 
     Religion for Security and Tolerance Freedom Act of 2015'' or 
     the ``FIRST Freedom Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Many of our Nation's founders fled religious 
     persecution and placed great importance on religious freedom. 
     President George Washington summed up the prevailing view of 
     our founders when he wrote, in 1793, ``in this Land of equal 
     liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will 
     not forfeit the protection of the Laws''.
       (2) In 1791, the First Amendment to the Constitution was 
     ratified, enshrining freedom of religion as the ``First 
     Freedom'' of all Americans and becoming an inspiration to 
     people all over the world who struggle to throw off the yoke 
     of religious persecution.
       (3) Throughout our Nation's history, the United States has 
     sought to protect and promote fundamental human rights, 
     including religious freedom, in the United States and 
     throughout the world.
       (4) After World War II, under Eleanor Roosevelt's 
     leadership, the United States spearheaded the ratification of 
     the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted at Paris 
     December 10, 1948, which recognized freedom of religion as a 
     fundamental right of all people. Article 18 of that treaty 
     states ``Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, 
     conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to 
     change his religion or belief, and freedom either alone or in 
     community with others and in public or private, to manifest 
     his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and 
     observance.''.
       (5) The International Covenant on Civil and Political 
     Rights, adopted at New York December 16, 1966, and which was 
     ratified by the United States in 1992, states, ``Everyone 
     shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and 
     religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to 
     adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either 
     individually or in community with others and in public or 
     private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, 
     observance, practice and teaching.''.
       (6) Since the enactment of the International Religious 
     Freedom Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-292), referred to in this 
     section as ``IRFA'', which established the Department of 
     State's Office on International Religious Freedom, the 
     Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, and 
     the United States Commission on International Religious 
     Freedom (referred to in this section as ``USCIRF''), the 
     state of religious freedom throughout the world has 
     significantly worsened.
       (7) In section 2(a)(4) of IRFA (2 U.S.C. 6401(a)(4)), 
     Congress stated, ``More than one-half of the world's 
     population lives under regimes that severely restrict of 
     prohibit the freedom of their citizens to study, believe, 
     observe, and freely practice the religious faith of their 
     choice.''.
       (8) According to ``Rising Tide of Restrictions on 
     Religion,'' the most recent report of the Pew Research 
     Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life, three-quarters of 
     the world's population lives in countries in which 
     restrictions on religion were high or very high.
       (9) According to the 2014 USCIRF Annual Report, ``The past 
     10 years have seen a worsening of the already-poor religious 
     freedom environment in Pakistan, a continued dearth of 
     religious freedom in Turkmenistan, backsliding in Vietnam, 
     rising violations in Egypt before and after the Arab Spring, 
     and Syria's decent [sic] into sectarian civil war

[[Page 12360]]

     with all sides perpetrating egregious religious freedom 
     violations.''.
       (10) Under section 402 of IRFA (22 U.S.C. 6442), the 
     President is required to designate a country as a country of 
     particular concern (referred to in this section as ``CPC'') 
     if the government of the country has engaged in or tolerated 
     systematic, ongoing and egregious violations of religious 
     freedom.
       (11) According to the 2015 USCIRF Annual Report, since 
     October 1999, when the first countries were designated as 
     CPCs, ``the list has been largely unchanged. Of the nine 
     countries designated as CPCs in July 2014, most had been 
     named as CPCs for over a decade . . . Since IRFA's inception, 
     only one country has been removed from the State Department's 
     CPC list due to diplomatic activity.'' This track record 
     calls into serious question the utility of the CPC mechanism 
     and the utility of IRFA to improve the state of religious 
     freedom throughout the world.
       (12) The United States has a long tradition of providing 
     safe haven to refugees, including members of religious 
     minority groups and those fleeing religious persecution. 
     Following the international community's tragic failure to 
     shelter Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazi genocide, the United 
     States played a leadership role in establishing the 
     international legal regime for the protection of refugees. 
     Since that time, the American people have generously welcomed 
     millions of refugees fleeing war and totalitarian regimes, 
     and the United States traditionally accepts at least 50 
     percent of resettlement cases handled by the Office of the 
     United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (referred to in 
     this section as ``UNHCR'').
       (13) According to the 2014 UNHCR Global Trends Report, more 
     than 59,500,000 people were forcibly displaced in 2014--
       (A) which is equal to 1 displacement for every 122 people 
     worldwide;
       (B) which is the most displacements in a year in recorded 
     history;
       (C) including--
       (i) 38,200,000 individuals who were internally displaced 
     within their own country;
       (ii) 19,500,000 refugees; and
       (iii) 1,800,000 asylum-seekers;
       (D) many of whom were victims of serious human rights 
     violations, including religious persecution; and
       (E) many are whom are members of vulnerable populations, 
     including religious minorities.
       (14) The ongoing conflict in Syria has led to the world's 
     worst ongoing humanitarian crisis and worst refugee crisis 
     since World War II. More than 50 percent of Syria's 
     23,000,000 people have been forcibly displaced from their 
     homes and, as of 2015, 20 percent of the world's refugees are 
     Syrians. UNHCR is seeking to resettle 130,000 Syrian refugees 
     during 2015 and 2016, with a particular focus on vulnerable 
     individuals such as religious minorities. Although the United 
     States traditionally accepts at least 50 percent of UNHCR 
     resettlement cases, the United States has only accepted 
     approximately 800 Syrian refugees since the beginning of the 
     Syrian conflict, which is an unacceptably low number.
       (15) There are several steps that would facilitate the 
     efforts of the United States Government to protect and 
     provide safe haven to refugees from religious persecution. 
     The 2015 USCIRF Annual Report recommends that Congress ``work 
     to provide the President with permanent authority to 
     designate as refugees specifically-defined groups based on 
     shared characteristics identifying them as targets for 
     persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, 
     membership in a particular social group, or political 
     opinion''.
       (16) The United States Government has limited tools to hold 
     accountable the perpetrators of religious freedom violations. 
     Section 604 of IRFA added section 212(a)(2)(G) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(G)), 
     which made foreign government officials who commit 
     particularly severe violations of religious freedom 
     inadmissible to the United States, but it has only been 
     applied once, to deny entry to Narendra Modi, who was Chief 
     Minister of Gujarat, India. In its 2015 Annual Report, USCIRF 
     recommends that the State Department: ``Make greater efforts 
     to ensure foreign government officials are denied entry into 
     the United States due to their inadmissibility under U.S. law 
     for their responsibility for religious freedom violations 
     abroad.'' The effectiveness of this law is also limited 
     because it does not apply to non-state actors, such as 
     international terrorists, and it can only be used to deny 
     entry to a perpetrator who has not yet arrived in the United 
     States, not to deport a perpetrator who has already entered 
     the country.
       (17) In the 2015 USCIRF Annual Report, USCIRF recommended 
     that the United States Government ``should call for or 
     support a referral by the UN Security Council to the 
     International Criminal Court to investigate ISIL violations 
     in Iraq and Syria against religious and ethnic minorities, 
     following the models used in Sudan and Libya, or encourage 
     the Iraqi government to accept ICC jurisdiction to 
     investigate ISIL violations in Iraq after June 2014''. Given 
     the weakness of the international criminal justice system, 
     particularly that an ICC referral is subject to a UN Security 
     Council veto, the United States Government should have the 
     ability to prosecute members of ISIL in United States courts 
     for crimes against humanity, including religious persecution.
       (18) Under United States law, it is a crime for a non-
     United States national to commit genocide, torture, 
     terrorism, or several other violations of the law of nations, 
     but it is not a crime under United States law to commit 
     crimes against humanity, including religious persecution. 
     Since the United States Government is unable to prosecute 
     perpetrators of these crimes, many foreign war criminals have 
     found safe haven in this country.
       (19) In 2006, the United States Government learned that 
     Marko Boskic, a man who participated in the Srebrenica 
     massacre in the Bosnian conflict, was living in 
     Massachusetts. Rather than charging him with crimes against 
     humanity, or religious persecution, Mr. Boskic was charged 
     with visa fraud and sentenced to only 5 years in prison.
       (20) There is bipartisan agreement about the need for the 
     United States Government to promote and protect international 
     human rights, including religious freedom. USCIRF is, by 
     design, a bipartisan organization, with Commissioners 
     appointed by the President and Congressional leaders. USCIRF 
     can most effectively promote religious freedom on a 
     bipartisan basis.
       (21) In its 2014 Annual Report entitled ``Additional 
     Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and 
     Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits'', which 
     identifies unnecessary duplication in the Federal government, 
     the Government Accountability Office (referred to in this 
     section as ``GAO'')--
       (A) highlighted the lack of coordination and overlapping 
     missions of USCIRF and the Office of International Religious 
     Freedom in the Department of State;
       (B) found that ``the lack of a definition regarding how 
     State and the Commission are to interact has sometimes 
     created foreign policy tensions that State has had to 
     mitigate.''; and
       (C) concluded that the lack of coordination between the 
     USCIRF and the Department of State may undermine the efforts 
     of the United States Government to promote international 
     religious freedom by sending mixed messages to foreign 
     governments and human-rights activists who are fighting to 
     defend religious freedom in their countries.
       (22) Congress, which is responsible for overseeing the work 
     of USCIRF and ensuring that it is effectively pursuing its 
     mission, should provide greater oversight of USCIRF's 
     practices, including addressing concerns regarding financial 
     irregularities and the work environment for religious 
     minorities.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the protection and promotion of international human 
     rights, including religious freedom, should be an important 
     priority for the United States Government; and
       (2) the United States Government should pursue new 
     strategies for protecting and promoting religious freedom 
     throughout the world, including--
       (A) the creation of new tools--
       (i) to deter and punish the perpetrators of particularly 
     severe violations of religious freedom, including non-state 
     actors; and
       (ii) to protect the victims of such violations; and
       (B) increased diplomatic engagement that does not focus 
     primarily on CPC designations.

     SEC. 3. ENHANCED PROTECTIONS FOR REFUGEES AND ASYLEES FLEEING 
                   RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.

       (a) Authority to Designate Certain Groups of Refugees for 
     Consideration.--Section 207(c)(1) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1157(c)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``Subject to the numerical 
     limitations''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B)(i) The Secretary of State, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, may designate specifically 
     defined groups of aliens--
       ``(I) whose resettlement in the United States is justified 
     by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national 
     interest; and
       ``(II) who--
       ``(aa) share common characteristics that identify them as 
     targets of persecution on account of race, religion, 
     nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 
     political opinion; or
       ``(bb) having been identified as targets under item (aa), 
     share a common need for resettlement due to a specific 
     vulnerability.
       ``(ii) An alien who establishes membership in a group 
     designated under clause (i) to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall be considered a refugee 
     for purposes of admission as a refugee under this section 
     unless the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that 
     such alien ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise 
     participated in the persecution of any person on account of 
     race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 
     social group, or political opinion.
       ``(iii) A designation under clause (i) is for purposes of 
     adjudicatory efficiency and may be revoked by the Secretary 
     of State at any time after notification to Congress.
       ``(iv) Categories of aliens established under section 
     599D(b) of the Foreign Operations,

[[Page 12361]]

     Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
     1990 (Public Law 101-167; 8 U.S.C. 1157 note)--
       ``(I) shall be designated under clause (i) until the end of 
     the first fiscal year commencing after the date of the 
     enactment of the FIRST Freedom Act; and
       ``(II) shall be eligible for designation thereafter at the 
     discretion of the Secretary of State, considering, among 
     other factors, whether a country under consideration has been 
     designated as a country of particular concern under section 
     402 of International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 
     6442) for engaging in or tolerating systematic, ongoing, and 
     egregious violations of religious freedom.
       ``(v) A designation under clause (i) shall not influence 
     decisions to grant, to any alien, asylum under section 208, 
     protection under section 241(b)(3), or protection under the 
     Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 
     Degrading Treatment or Punishment, done at New York December 
     10, 1984.
       ``(vi) A decision to deny admission under this section to 
     an alien who establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security that the alien is a member of a group 
     designated under clause (i) shall--
       ``(I) be in writing; and
       ``(II) state, to the maximum extent feasible, the reason 
     for the denial.
       ``(vii) Refugees admitted pursuant to a designation under 
     clause (i)--
       ``(I) shall be subject to the numerical limitations under 
     subsection (a); and
       ``(II) shall be admissible under this section.''.
       (b) Time Limits for Filing for Asylum.--Section 208(a)(2) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security'' after ``Attorney General'' both places 
     such term appears;
       (2) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (D);
       (3) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B);
       (4) in subparagraph (B), as redesignated, by striking 
     ``subparagraph (D)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (C) and 
     (D)''; and
       (5) by inserting after subparagraph (B), as redesignated, 
     the following:
       ``(C) Changed circumstances.--Notwithstanding subparagraph 
     (B), an application for asylum of an alien may be considered 
     if the alien demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the 
     Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, the 
     existence of changed circumstances that materially affect the 
     applicant's eligibility for asylum.
       ``(D) Motion to reopen certain meritorious claims.--
     Notwithstanding subparagraph (B) or section 240(c)(7), an 
     alien may file a motion to reopen an asylum claim during the 
     2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of the 
     FIRST Freedom Act if the alien--
       ``(i) was denied asylum based solely upon a failure to meet 
     the 1-year application filing deadline in effect on the date 
     on which the application was filed;
       ``(ii) was granted withholding of removal pursuant to 
     section 241(b)(3) and has not obtained lawful permanent 
     residence in the United States pursuant to any other 
     provision of law;
       ``(iii) is not subject to the safe third country exception 
     under subparagraph (A) or a bar to asylum under subsection 
     (b)(2) and should not be denied asylum as a matter of 
     discretion; and
       ``(iv) is physically present in the United States when the 
     motion is filed.''.
       (c) Conditions for Granting Asylum.--Section 
     208(b)(1)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)) is amended by striking ``at least 
     one central reason for persecuting the applicant'' and 
     inserting ``a factor in the applicant's persecution or fear 
     of persecution''.
       (d) Study on the Effect of Expedited Removal and Processing 
     Delays on Asylum Claims.--
       (1) Study.--
       (A) Definitions.--In this paragraph--
       (i) the term ``immigration officer'' means an officer of 
     the Department of Homeland Security performing duties under 
     section 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1225(b)) with respect to aliens who--

       (I) are apprehended after entering the United States; and
       (II) may be eligible to apply for asylum under section 208 
     or 235 of such Act; and

       (ii) the term ``improper conduct'' means conduct whereby an 
     immigration officer--

       (I) improperly encourages an alien described in clause (i) 
     to withdraw or retract claims for asylum;
       (II) incorrectly fails to refer such an alien for an 
     interview by an immigration officer to determine whether the 
     alien has a credible fear of persecution (as defined in 
     section 235(b)(1)(B)(v) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1225(b)(1)(B)(v)));
       (III) incorrectly removes such an alien to a country in 
     which the alien may be persecuted; or
       (IV) detains such an alien improperly or under 
     inappropriate conditions.

       (B) Authorization.--The United States Commission on 
     International Religious Freedom (referred to in this section 
     as the ``Commission'') is authorized to conduct a study to 
     determine--
       (i) whether immigration officers are engaging in improper 
     conduct; and
       (ii) the impact of delays in interviews by immigration 
     officers and immigration court hearings on asylum claims.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date on which 
     the Commission initiates the study under subsection (a), the 
     Commission shall submit a report containing the results of 
     the study to--
       (A) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate;
       (B) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
       (C) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
       (D) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (E) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (F) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (3) Staff.--
       (A) From other agencies.--
       (i) Identification.--The Commission may identify employees 
     of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of 
     Justice, and the Government Accountability Office who have 
     significant expertise and knowledge of refugee and asylum 
     issues.
       (ii) Designation.--At the request of the Commission, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall authorize 
     staff identified under subparagraph (A) to assist the 
     Commission in conducting the study under paragraph (1).
       (B) Additional staff.--The Commission may hire additional 
     staff and consultants to conduct the study under paragraph 
     (1).
       (C) Access to proceedings.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General shall 
     provide staff designated under subparagraph (A) or hired 
     under subparagraph (B) with unrestricted access to all stages 
     of all proceedings conducted under section 235(b) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)).
       (ii) Exceptions.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and 
     the Attorney General may not permit unrestricted access under 
     clause (i) if--

       (I) the alien subject to a proceeding under such section 
     235(b) objects to such access; or
       (II) the Secretary or Attorney General determines that the 
     security of a particular proceeding would be threatened by 
     such access.

     SEC. 4. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL 
                   RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

       (a) Particularly Severe Violations of Religious Freedom.--
       (1) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(2)(G) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(G)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(G) Aliens who have committed particularly severe 
     violations of religious freedom.--Any alien who was 
     responsible for, or directly carried out, at any time, 
     particularly severe violations of religious freedom (as 
     defined in section 3 of the International Religious Freedom 
     Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6402)) is inadmissible.''.
       (2) Removability.--Section 237(a)(4)(E) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(E)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(E) Aliens who have committed particularly severe 
     violations of religious freedom.--Any alien who was 
     responsible for, or directly carried out, at any time, 
     particularly severe violations of religious freedom (as 
     defined in section 3 of the International Religious Freedom 
     Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6402)) is deportable.''.
       (b) Religious Persecution.--Chapter 118 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 2443. Religious persecution

       ``(a) Offense.--Any person who outside the United States 
     commits, or attempts or conspires to commit, religious 
     persecution--
       ``(1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not 
     more than 20 years, or both; and
       ``(2) if the death of any person results from the violation 
     of this subsection, shall be fined under this title and 
     imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
       ``(b) Jurisdiction.--There is jurisdiction over an offense 
     under subsection (a), and any attempt or conspiracy to commit 
     such an offense, if--
       ``(1) the victim is a United States person;
       ``(2) the offender is a United States person or an alien 
     residing in the United States, regardless of whether the 
     alien is lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
       ``(3) the offender is a stateless person whose habitual 
     residence is in the United States; or
       ``(4) after the conduct required for the offense occurs, 
     the offender is brought into or found in the United States, 
     even if the conduct required for the offense occurs outside 
     the United States.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Admission to the united states; alien; immigrant; 
     lawfully admitted for permanent residence; nonimmigrant.--The 
     terms `admission to the United States',

[[Page 12362]]

     `alien', `immigrant', `lawfully admitted for permanent 
     residence', and `nonimmigrant' have the meanings given such 
     terms in section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)).
       ``(2) Religious persecution.--The term `religious 
     persecution' means conduct that--
       ``(A) is intended--
       ``(i) to obstruct any person in the free exercise of 
     religious belief or practice; or
       ``(ii) to terrorize or coerce any person because of the 
     actual or perceived religion of any person; and
       ``(B) if the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurred 
     in the United States or in the special maritime and 
     territorial jurisdiction of the United States, would 
     violate--
       ``(i) section 81 (relating to arson);
       ``(ii) section 1111 (relating to murder);
       ``(iii) section 1201(a) (relating to kidnapping), 
     regardless of whether the offender is the parent of the 
     victim;
       ``(iv) section 1203 (relating to hostage taking), 
     notwithstanding any exception under subsection (b) of such 
     section;
       ``(v) section 1581(a) (relating to peonage);
       ``(vi) section 1583(a)(1) (relating to kidnapping or 
     carrying away individuals for involuntary servitude or 
     slavery);
       ``(vii) section 1584(a) (relating to sale into involuntary 
     servitude);
       ``(viii) section 1589(a) (relating to forced labor);
       ``(ix) section 1590(a) (relating to trafficking with 
     respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced 
     labor);
       ``(x) section 1591(a) (relating to sex trafficking of 
     children or by force, fraud, or coercion);
       ``(xi) section 2241(a) (relating to aggravated sexual abuse 
     by force or threat);
       ``(xii) section 2242 (relating to sexual abuse); or
       ``(xiii) section 2340A (relating to torture), regardless of 
     whether the offender is acting under color of law.
       ``(3) United states person.--The term `United States 
     person' has the meaning given such term in section 3077.''.
       (c) Statute of Limitations.--Chapter 213 of title 18, 
     United States Code is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 3302. Religious persecution

       ``No person may be prosecuted, tried, or punished for a 
     violation of section 2443 unless the indictment or the 
     information is filed not later than 10 years after the 
     commission of the offense.''.
       (d) Clerical Amendments.--Title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in the table of sections for chapter 118, by adding at 
     the end the following:

``2443. Religious persecution.''.

       (2) in the table of sections for chapter 213, by adding at 
     the end the following:

``3302. Religious persecution.''.

     SEC. 5. REFORM AND REAUTHORIZATION OF UNITED STATES 
                   COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

       (a) Establishment and Composition.--
       (1) Leadership.--Section 201(d) of the International 
     Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6431(d)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(d) Election of Chair.--At the first meeting of the 
     Commission after May 30 of each year, a majority of the 
     members of the Commission present and voting shall elect the 
     Chair and Vice Chair of the Commission, subject to the 
     following requirements:
       ``(1) Initial elections.--At the first meeting of the 
     Commission after May 30, 2016, the members of the Commission 
     shall elect--
       ``(A) as Chair, a member of the Commission who was 
     appointed by an elected official of the political party that 
     is not the political party of the President; and
       ``(B) as Vice Chair, a member of the Commission who was 
     appointed by an elected official of the political party of 
     the President.
       ``(2) Future elections.--
       ``(A) Next election.--At the first meeting of the 
     Commission after May 30, 2017, the members of the Commission 
     shall elect--
       ``(i) as Chair, a member of the Commission who was 
     appointed by an elected official of the political party of 
     the President; and
       ``(ii) as Vice Chair, a member of the Commission who was 
     appointed by an elected official of the political party that 
     is not the political party of the President.
       ``(B) Subsequent elections.--After the election described 
     in subparagraph (A), the positions of Chair and Vice Chair 
     shall continue to rotate on an annual basis between members 
     of the Commission appointed by elected officials of each 
     political party.
       ``(3) Term limits.--No member of the Commission is eligible 
     to be elected as--
       ``(A) Chair of the Commission for a second term; or
       ``(B) Vice Chair of the Commission for a second term.''.
       (2) Attendance at meetings of ambassador at large for 
     international religious freedom.--Section 201(f) of such Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 6431(f)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The Ambassador at Large shall be given advance 
     notice of all Commission meetings and may attend all 
     Commission meetings as a nonvoting member of the 
     Commission.''.
       (3) Appointments in cases of vacancies.--Section 201(g) of 
     such Act (22 U.S.C. 6431(g)) is amended by striking the 
     second sentence.
       (b) Powers of the Commission.--Section 203(e) of the 
     International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 
     6432a(e)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Views of the Commission.--
       ``(1) Private speech.--Members of the Commission may speak 
     in their capacity as private citizens. A member of the 
     Commission may be identified as a member of the Commission 
     when making oral or written statements in their private or 
     other professional capacity if the member states clearly that 
     the statement--
       ``(A) is not on behalf of the Commission; and
       ``(B) does not necessarily reflect the views of the 
     Commission.
       ``(2) Official statements.--
       ``(A) Written statements.--All statements on behalf of the 
     Commission shall be issued in writing over the names of the 
     members of the Commission.
       ``(B) Statutory authority.--In its written statements, the 
     Commission shall clearly describe its statutory authority, 
     distinguishing that authority from that of appointed or 
     elected officials of the United States Government. Oral 
     statements of the Commission shall include a similar 
     description, to the extent practicable.
       ``(C) Consensus.--Members of the Commission shall make 
     every effort to reach consensus on all oral or written 
     statements on behalf of the Commission.
       ``(D) Approval.--All views of the Commission on pending 
     legislation or any other matter under the jurisdiction of the 
     Commission shall be approved by an affirmative vote of at 
     least 6 of the 9 members of the Commission. Each member of 
     the Commission may include the individual or dissenting views 
     of the member.
       ``(E) Accuracy.--All oral or written statements by members 
     or staff of the Commission on behalf of the Commission, 
     including testimony, press releases, articles, and public or 
     private correspondence, shall accurately reflect approved 
     views of the Commission in accordance with subparagraph 
     (D).''.
       (c) Commission Personnel Matters.--Section 204 of the 
     International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C.6432b) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``or terminate an Executive Director'' and 
     inserting ``an Executive Director and additional personnel''; 
     and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``The decision to 
     terminate an Executive Director and additional personnel 
     shall be made by an affirmative vote of at least 5 of the 9 
     members of the Commission.'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (b) through (g) as 
     subsections (c) through (h);
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Executive Director.--
       ``(1) Appointment.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of the enactment of the FIRST Freedom Act, the Commission 
     shall appoint an Executive Director by an affirmative vote of 
     at least 6 of the 9 members of the Commission.
       ``(2) Term of service.--Each Executive Director--
       ``(A) may serve for a 4-year term; and
       ``(B) may serve an additional, consecutive 4-year term if 
     reappointed by the Commission by an affirmative vote of at 
     least 6 of the 9 members of the Commission.''.
       (4) in subsection (d), as redesignated, by striking ``and 
     the Executive Director'';
       (5) in subsection (g), as redesignated, by striking ``the 
     commission, for the executive director,'' and inserting ``the 
     Commission, for the Executive Director,''; and
       (6) in subsection (h), as redesignated--
       (A) by striking ``For purposes'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes'';
       (B) by inserting ``(including discrimination on the bases 
     of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or 
     disability)'' after ``employment discrimination''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Treatment of discrimination on basis of sexual 
     orientation or gender identity.--In applying paragraph (1) to 
     rights and protections that pertain to employment 
     discrimination on the basis of sex, and the remedies and 
     procedures available to address alleged violations of such 
     rights and protections, the laws, rules, and regulations that 
     provide such rights and protections to employees whose pay is 
     disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate or the Chief 
     Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives shall 
     be deemed to recognize discrimination on the basis of sexual 
     orientation or gender identity as forms of discrimination on 
     the basis of sex and shall treat such discrimination in the 
     same manner as discrimination on the basis of sex.''.
       (d) Report of Commission.--Section 205 of the International 
     Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6433) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Not later than May 1 
     of each year,'' and inserting ``Each year, between 30 and 90 
     days after the publication of the Department of State's 
     Annual Report on International Religious Freedom,''; and
       (2) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) Individual or Dissenting Views.--Members of the 
     Commission shall make every effort to reach consensus on the 
     report

[[Page 12363]]

     under this section. When such consensus is not possible, the 
     report shall be approved by an affirmative vote of at least 6 
     of the 9 members of the Commission. Each member of the 
     Commission may include the individual or dissenting views of 
     the member in the report.''.
       (e) Applicability of the Freedom of Information Act.--
       (1) Section 206 of the International Religious Freedom Act 
     of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6434) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(a) Federal Advisory Committee Act'' 
     before ``The''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Freedom of Information Act.--Notwithstanding section 
     551 of title 5, United States Code, the Commission shall be 
     considered to be an agency for purposes of section 552 of 
     such title.''.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 207(a) of the 
     International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 
     6435(a)) is amended by striking ``2015'' and inserting 
     ``2017''.
       (g) Termination.--Section 209 of the International 
     Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6436) is amended by 
     striking ``September 30, 2015'' and inserting ``September 30, 
     2017''.

                          ____________________