New Philadelphia, Illinois, Study Act

Mr. President, nobody should have to choose between safety and shelter. Yet 48 percent of homeless women in Minnesota previously had stayed in abusive situations because they did not have safe housing options available to them. Twenty-nine percent of homeless adult women in my State are fleeing domestic violence, and more than half of those women are living with children. That simply is not acceptable.

This problem is not unique to Minnesota. Far from it. National studies establish an undeniable link between homelessness and domestic and sexual violence. By one account, two in five women who experience domestic violence will become homeless at some point in their lives.

Not surprisingly, once a woman becomes homeless, she becomes vulnerable to further violence and exploitation. In fact, nine in ten homeless women have experienced severe physical or sexual abuse. During a hearing last week, the Executive Director of the Minnesota Indian Women's Resource Center explained that perpetrators of sexual violence often prey on homeless women.

Of course, we all know that this problem is not about statistics. It is about the real people with real stories who are behind the numbers. It is about the woman in California who was evicted for ``causing a nuisance'' after the police responded to an incident of domestic violence in her Low Income Housing Tax Credit unit--where she was the victim.

It is about the mother of five in Florida who received a termination notice after her ex-husband broke down her door and assaulted her. It is about the 83-year-old woman in Minnesota who was threatened with eviction from her Section 202 housing unit because of disturbances caused by her abuser.

Though the link between homelessness and domestic and sexual violence is undeniable, it is not unbreakable. Advocates across the country work tirelessly to ensure that victims of domestic and sexual violence have the shelter and support they need. Local law enforcement officials and prosecutors are dedicated to ending the cycle of abuse and homelessness. Property owners, too, often work with victims, advocates, and local authorities to find solutions to the problem.

Here in Congress, we have made efforts to break the link between domestic and sexual violence and homelessness as well. The 2005 Violence Against Women Act included important protections that made it unlawful to deny someone housing assistance under certain federal prorams just because the individual is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking. From conversations with experts in Minnesota, I know that those protections have been invaluable.

The Violence Against Women Act is now up for reauthorization. That occasion provides us an opportunity to build on the successes of the 2005 bill and to address its shortcomings. That is why today I have introduced the Housing Rights for Victims of Domestic and Sexual Violence Act. This bill is for every woman who has hesitated to call the police to enforce a protective order because she was afraid that she would be evicted if she did so. The bill rests on the simple premise that a woman should not lose her home just because she is a victim of domestic or sexual violence.

The Violence Against Women Act currently protects tenants of only two federal housing programs--those provided under Sections 6 and 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. These protections were an important first step. But we can do better. A woman's rights should not depend on the type of housing assistance she receives.

So my bill extends VAWA's housing protections to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, the Rural Housing Services program, the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program, the Section 811 Supportive Housing Program for persons with disabilities, and five additional Federal housing programs. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the bill will cover more than 4 million housing units that are not included in existing law.

In addition, current law fails to secure housing rights for victims of sexual assault. My bill fixes that problem. It makes it unlawful to deny a woman federally assisted housing just because she is a victim of sexual assault. As the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence explains, too many victims become homeless as a result of sexual assault, and, once homeless, they are further to sexual victimization. My bill recognizes that victims of sexual assault require safe housing just as do victims of domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking--groups that already are covered by existing law.

My bill also takes an important new step toward ensuring that victims of domestic and sexual violence do not end up on the streets. It requires managers of federally supported housing units to adopt emergency transfer policies for women who would be in imminent danger were they to stay in their current homes. Under these policies, a victim of domestic or sexual violence could move to safe, federally subsidized housing unit instead of staying in harm's way.

I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Collins and Senator Mikulski, both of whom are true champions of women's rights. Both are advocates for victims of domestic and sexual vio1ence. In 2005, both cosponsored the Violenc Against Women Act reauthorization bill. They were leaders in this area then, and they have stepped forward to lead again today. I thank them for their help.

The Housing Rights for Victims of Domestic and Sexual Violence Act is preventive, proven, and precedented.

It is preventive because it will keep women and children in their homes at a time when they are vulnerable--when they need a roof over their heads the most. It is no secret that shelters and transitional housing programs are overextended. This legislation addresses a victim's housing needs before she becomes homeless and requires those services.

The protections contained in the bill are proven. Advocacy groups from Minnesota and throughout the country--the people most familiar with the problem--have weighed in on this bill. It already has been endorsed by 23 organizations, including the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Women's Law Center, the National Housing Law Project, and the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

The bill is unprecedented, too. We are not reinventing the wheel here. The bill builds upon housing protections that were incduded in the 2005 VAWA reauthorization bill, which passed the Senate with unanimous consent and was signed into law by President George W. Bush. Though many say the political climate here in Washington has changed for the worse in the years since then, I am hopeful that the goals underlying VAWA once again will transcend partisanship.

We have worked together to address the unique housing needs facing domestic and sexual violence victims in the past. We need to do so again today.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA. JASTA is a bipartisan effort to make modest changes to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, and the Anti-Terrorism Act, or ATA, in order to ensure that the victims of terrorism in the United States can hold the foreign sponsors of that terrorism to account in American courts.

I am especially proud to be introducing this measure with such a bipartisan and diverse group of Judiciary Committee colleagues: Myself and Senator Whitehouse on the Democratic side, and Senators Graham, Hatch, Kyl, and Cornyn on the Republican side.

This legislation has become necessary due to flawed court decisions that have deprived the victims of terrorism on American soil, including those injured by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, of their day in court. Unfortunately, and contrary to the clear intent of Congress, some courts have concluded that Americans who were injured due to terrorist attacks in the United States have no recourse against the foreign states that sponsor those attacks. This conclusion is contrary to the plain language of the FSIA and ATA, and it is bad policy.

Let me explain the legal background. Originally passed in 1976, the FSIA abrogates the sovereign immunity of foreign countries and permits suit against them in Federal court when, among other things, a foreign country or its instrumentalities commit a tort that results in injury on our soil, this is known as the ``tort exception'' to the FSIA. In addition, the ATA authorizes suit in Federal court by any U.S. national injured ``by reason of an act of international terrorism'' and permits the recovery of damages in U.S. courts.

Thus, taken together, the FSIA and ATA were designed to enable terrorism victims to bring suit against foreign states and terror sponsors when they support terrorism against the United States. I am introducing this bill because I want the survivors of the 9/11 tragedy to have their day in court--and they were deprived of this by a court ruling that contorted the language and purpose of the FSIA and the ATA. As we all know, nearly 3,000 innocent victims died that day, and the Nation suffered $10 billion in property and other commercial damage alone--all at the hands of al-Qaeda and its funders.

In 2002, these plaintiffs sued, among other defendants, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, several Saudi officials, and a purported charity under the control of the Kingdom known as the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Substantial evidence establishes that these defendants had provided funding and sponsorship to al-Qaeda without which it could not have carried out the attacks.

But the Second Circuit threw out this case, based on two flawed conclusions. First, the court ruled that the tort exception to the FSIA did not apply, and barred their case because the Saudi entities and individuals were not on the State Department's list. Second, the court ruled that there was no personal jurisdiction over the Saudis because while they certainly could ``foresee'' that their support would lead to terrorist acts, they did not ``direct'' the terrorist acts. There is another reason that I am introducing this bill. I am introducing this bill because we need to cut off the flow of money to terrorists by shutting down the reservoir--not just turning off the faucet. We need to use every tool at our disposal to hit terrorism at its very root, including the United States Federal courts.

You don't have to take my word for it. This focus on terrorist financing channels has been a major national security priority since the September 11 attacks. As the Treasury Department's former Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence has observed, ``the terrorist operative who is willing to strap on a suicide belt is not susceptible to deterrence, but the individual donor who wants to support violent jihad may well be,'' Testimony of Stuart Levey, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, before the Senate Committee on Finance, April 1, 2008.

It should be clear that the public interest is served when American citizens have the right to seek compensation for their injuries and that this right serves a dual purpose of deterring bad conduct. Yet we are here today introducing this bill, JASTA, because the courts have misconstrued our statutes.

Before closing, let me address one concern I have heard that deserves a response. There are those who worry that restoring Americans' right to bring these suits will interfere with our foreign affairs. I simply do not think that is the case. First of all, if Americans have been injured in the United States by foreign terrorism, they have the right to seek redress. But it is also important to remember that this law does not prevent the Executive Branch from espousing claims brought by Americans against foreign states and settling them through an executive agreement. This is an executive authority that has been recognized and utilized going back to the administration of George Washington, and nothing in JASTA interferes with it. Nothing in this act would interfere with the execution of our foreign policy.

To conclude, JASTA will restore the rights of the victims of terrorism and deter international terrorist financing, and it will have the related benefit of enabling the victims of the September 11 Attacks to proceed with their case, as Congress had intended. It does so without in any way threatening sensitive National security or diplomatic priorities of the nation. In fact, it makes the Nation stronger.

I urge my colleagues to support these modest, but critical, amendments.

Mr. President, this Saturday, November 19, marks the 148 Anniversary of the Gettysburg Address. In this address, President Abraham Lincoln famously said, ``The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.''

In advance of this important historic occasion, I am introducing the Gettysburg National Military Park Expansion Act. If enacted, this legislation would expand the boundaries of Gettysburg National Military Park to include the historic Gettysburg Railroad Station and an additional 45 acres of land at the southern end of the battlefield. Through these acquisitions, the between 1.5 to 3 million people that visit Gettysburg each year will enjoy a more complete experience. Passage of this legislation is very important, especially right now as the Park prepares for the 150 Anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg.

The Gettysburg Railroad Station, which is also known as the Lincoln Train Station, is located in downtown Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. It was built in 1858 and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. During the Battle of Gettysburg, the building served as a train station to transport thousands of troops and also as a hospital. Perhaps more important historically, this station was the site to which President Lincoln arrived on the day before he delivered the Gettysburg Address in 1863. This station is currently operated by the National Trust for Historic Gettysburg and is open to the public year round. It also serves as the home to the Pennsylvania Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, which organized and held events in 2009 to commemorate the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth. The station was renovated in 2006 using state grant money to serve as an information and orientation center, but currently does not serve as such because of a lack of funds to manage its day-to-day operations. The Gettysburg Borough Council voted in 2008 to transfer the station to the National Park Service so that it could be used as a visitor center for tourists coming to the Gettysburg area.

The Gettysburg National Military Park Expansion Act would also expand the boundary of the Gettysburg National Military Park to include 45 acres of land at the southern end of the battlefield. This area is both historically and environmentally significant. It was where cavalry skirmishes during the Battle for Gettysburg occurred and is also home to wetlands and wildlife habitat related to the Plum Run stream that runs through the National Park. The forty five acres were donated in April of 2009 and as a result no federal funding or land acquisition would be required to obtain the property and incorporate it into the National Park.

The Gettysburg National Military Park Expansion Act would help preserve different sites that are historically significant while protecting the environment. The Civil War was a monumental moment in our Nation's history and because of this we must take steps to preserve the area's historical sites.

Mr. President, today I introduce the National Guard Technician Equity Act to correct inconsistencies in the dual-status technician program.

Over 48,000 National Guard dual-status technicians serve our Nation. They are a distinct group of workers, as civilians, they work for the reserve components, performing administrative duties, providing training, and maintaining and repairing equipment. However, as a condition of their civilian position, they are also required to maintain military status, attending weekend drills and annual training, deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, and responding to domestic disasters and emergencies, thereby creating their ``dual-status.''

Because of their unique position, dual-status technicians are caught between the provisions that govern the federal civilian workforce and the military in numerous ways. First, under existing law, a dual-status technician who is no longer fit for military duty must be fired from their technician position, even if they are still fully capable of performing their civilian duties. This bill would give technicians the option of remaining in their civilian position if they have 20 years of service as

a dual-status technician. This way we will retain the experience and skills of these dedicated employees.

Second, dual-status technicians do not have the same appeal rights as most other federal employees, including those civilians in other Department of Defense positions. Federal employees who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement have the right to file a grievance and proceed to arbitration, or file a case with the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB, a neutral Federal agency. Dual-status technicians may appeal to the Adjutant General in their state, but not to any neutral third party. This bill would allow them to also appeal to the MSPB for grievances unrelated to their military service.

Third, most reserve component members are able to obtain health care coverage through the TRICARE Reserve Select program. However, dual- status technicians are ineligible, despite their mandatory military status and reserve service, because they can participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, FEHBP. FEHBP plans can be more expensive than TRICARE Reserve Select, thereby adding costs and limiting health care options for these Guard technicians. My legislation simply calls for the Department of Defense to study the feasibility of converting the coverage for National Guard dual-status technicians from FEHBP to TRICARE Reserve Select.

The National Guard Technician Equity Act also corrects other inconsistencies by providing greater civilian and military retirement parity, providing eligibility to retain certain military bonuses and benefits, and increasing leave time for required military training.

I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor the National Guard Technician Equity Act. I will also be working to include provisions of this bill in the National Defense Authorization Act, which the Senate has begun to consider, and I hope my colleagues can work together on this effort.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, few things are more important to consumer well being than ensuring the safety of our pharmaceutical supply chain. Yet today, the penalties for counterfeit drug offenses are outdated and insufficient to deter this epidemic problem. As a result, counterfeit medicines reportedly lead to 100,000 deaths globally each year, with upwards of 90 percent of drug sales estimated to be counterfeit.

Similarly, few things are more important to the American economy and long-term job creation than protecting our companies' intellectual property. Yet businesses manufacturing and selling counterfeit drugs reportedly generate more than $75 billion in annual revenue. This means lost profits for American businesses and lost jobs for American workers. Such staggering numbers would be unacceptable in any economic climate, and they are devastating today.

Combating the sale of counterfeit drugs is increasingly difficult. Whether it is the prevalence of Internet pharmacies, or the new and sophisticated methods of manufacturing, packaging and distributing counterfeit drugs, the obstacles to safeguarding the pharmaceutical supply chain in today's economy are many. As a result, large counterfeit drug enterprises are being funded on the backs of consumers, both in Vermont and around the country, whose health and safety are at stake.

Under current law, it is illegal to introduce counterfeit drugs into interstate commerce, but the penalties are no different than those assessed for trafficking other counterfeit products, such as handbags or sneakers. While the manufacture and sale of any counterfeit product is a serious crime, counterfeit medication poses a grave danger to public health that warrants a harsher punishment. Legislation is needed to raise counterfeit drug penalties to a level commensurate with the severity of the offense in order to deter an epidemic problem.

Today, I am introducing the bipartisan Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act, which will raise the maximum penalties for counterfeit drug offenses, and direct the United States Sentencing Commission to consider amending its guidelines and policy statements to reflect the serious nature of these crimes.

This legislation will protect the safety of American consumers, and the investment that American pharmaceutical companies make in developing the quality medicines that lead to reputable brands. Ensuring patient safety and combating intellectual property theft are not uniquely Democratic or Republican priorities, these are bipartisan priorities, and I hope that we can quickly take up and consider this much needed legislation.

We should not expect that enactment of this or any legislation will completely deter this serious problem. But this bill is an important step towards countering a problem that harms American consumers, American businesses, and American jobs.

I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Bennet for working with me on this legislation, and I look forward to working with all Senators to pass this important, bipartisan legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.