With Attorney General
William Barr facing criticism for his direct involvement in extorting Ukraine
to engage in a bogus investigation intended to harm Democratic candidate for
2020 Vice President Joe Biden and opening a criminal investigation into the
intelligence officers in the CIA and FBI who initially investigated and exposed
Russian meddling in the 2016 Election and contacts with the Trump campaign,
Senator Elizabeth Warren’s proposals unveiled earlier this month to restore
trust in the federal judiciary are particularly noteworthy in light of
widespread concern that the judiciary has been politicized. This is from the
Warren campaign:
Charlestown, MA – Senator Elizabeth Warren
detailed how she will strengthen the ethical integrity and impartiality of the
federal judiciary. Her plan will ensure that judges do not hear cases where
they have conflicts of interests, strengthen our nation’s ethics rules for
judges, and ensure accountability for judges who violate these rules.
Under her plan, investigations into judicial misconduct
could continue even when a judge resigns from office or is elevated to the Supreme
Court. This provision would allow the judiciary to reopen the investigations
into Alex Kozinski, Maryanne Trump Barry, Brett Kavanaugh, and any other judge
who benefited from this loophole.
In December 2017, more than 15 female law clerks alleged that Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski committed sexual misconduct and created a “hostile, demeaning and persistently sexualized environment” for employees. According to their accounts, Kozinski inappropriately touched female clerks and showed them pornography in his chambers.
It wasn’t the first time he
was accused of misconduct. But what did Judge Kozinski do when the judiciary
started to investigate? He retired.
And because of inadequate ethics laws, the investigation
ended immediately. Meanwhile, Kozinski continues to collect his
taxpayer-funded pension for life.
The Kozinski case is just one example of the broader problem
of accountability in the federal judiciary.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia did not recuse themselves
from Citizens United v. FEC, the case that opened an avalanche of money in
politics to the benefit of people like the Koch brothers, who invited the pair to multiple
all-expenses paid retreats.
The basic premise of our legal system is that every person
is treated equally in the eyes of the law – including judges. Our judiciary
only functions properly when it lives up to this promise, and it risks eroding
its legitimacy when the American people lose faith that
judges are ethical and fair-minded.
That’s why today I’m announcing my plan to strengthen the
ethical integrity and impartiality of the federal judiciary. It’s time to
ensure that judges do not hear cases where they have conflicts of interests,
strengthen our nation’s ethics rules for judges, and ensure accountability for
judges who violate these rules.
Recusing Judges and Supreme Court Justices with Conflicts
of Interest.
In 2011, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James
Hill ruled in favor of Johnson &
Johnson in a case brought by a woman who suffered from a
malfunctioning medical implant. He did so while owning as much as $100,000 in
the company’s stock. The same judge ruled on three other cases involving
companies in which he owned stock – and ruled in favor of the company each
time. Judge Hill, unfortunately, is not alone: one study identified 24 cases in
which judges owned stock in a company that appeared before them in court.
A basic principle of our federal judicial system is that
judges make decisions as disinterested, impartial observers – stepping aside
when they may not be able to decide cases objectively. This principle should
also bar judges from being the final arbiter of whether they can be objective
in the first place.
It’s time for fundamental reform:
Prohibit judges from deciding for themselves whether they
should recuse from a case due to a conflict. When a litigant believes
that a judge cannot consider a case in an unbiased manner, the litigant may
file a recusal motion asking for another judge to decide the case instead. But
our current system gives judges enormous discretion to decide for themselves whether
to grant recusal motions where their objectivity is challenged. My plan will
instead empower the Chief Judges within regional circuits to establish a
binding recusal process. It will also require courts to publish its reasons any
time judges are disqualified from a case without a recusal motion, including
when judges voluntarily recuse or when an automated conflict-checking
software disqualifies them.
Ban judges from owning or trading individual
stocks. It’s not enough for judges like James Hill to recuse in cases
with conflicts of interest – my plan would eliminate the appearance of
impropriety by banning federal judges from owning or trading individual stocks,
while allowing them to instead invest in conflict-free mutual funds or open new
investment accounts managed by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
Law firms follow rules like these to avoid the appearance of financial
conflicts with the interests of their clients. Judges should certainly be held
to the same standard.
Require Supreme Court Justices to provide written
explanations of recusal decisions when a litigant challenges for recusal. If
a Supreme Court Justice has a conflict of interest, they are ethically
obligated to recuse themselves from considering a case, but the law allows them
to deny recusal motions without even providing an
explanation. Under my plan, when a party asks for a Justice to
recuse, the Judicial Conference will issue a non-binding, public advisory
opinion with its recommendation – and the challenged Justice will publicly
explain their final recusal decision in writing. Because all recusal decisions
will be a matter of public record, future litigants will understand these
conflicts and know when to bring recusal decisions of their own.
Strengthening Ethics Rules for All Judges.
Every lawyer in America is subject to ethics rules. Federal
judges are generally subject to a Code of Conduct that
applies the most basic of these principles to members of the judiciary.
That means that Supreme Court Justices can go on trips with litigants,
like Justice Scalia did when he heard a case involving Vice President
Cheney after going hunting with him –
without an independent ruling on whether it was proper to do so. It means
Justices can receive large speaking fees and all-expenses paid trips to fancy
conferences, like Justice Thomas did when the Federalist Society, an extremist
right-wing legal group, flew him to Palm Springs and
paid for meals and transportation for four days. And it means that someone
like Brett Kavanaugh can
face accusations of lying to Congress – without a full and fair
investigation by the judiciary. These actions could violate
the Judicial Code of Conduct,
but because unlike all other federal judges these Justices are not bound by a
code of ethics, they are immune from any judicial investigations into
misconduct.
We must act now to fix this – and that means strengthening
the Code of Conduct for all judges.
Here’s where I would start:
Extend the Code of Conduct to Supreme Court Justices. When
Judge Kavanaugh was elevated to the Supreme Court, 83 ethics complaints that had been
lodged against him were dismissed – and because the Supreme
Court is not covered by a Code of Conduct, no procedure exists to file new
complaints. Questions are oftenraised about the
behavior of Supreme Court Justices, such as Justice Thomas’s 13 years of
financial disclosures that failed to list $690,000
in payments to his wife from the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing judicial
activist group – but these actions are beyond the scope of current rules.
Enough. My plan applies the Code of Conduct for United States
Judges to Supreme Court Justices – and places the Judicial
Conference in charge of violations. My plan also allows individuals to file
complaints against Supreme Court Justices, just like they can against all other federal judges.
Strengthen the Code of Conduct to ensure a fair and
impartial judiciary. When judges accept gifts or financial
contributions from interested parties, public trust in a fair-minded judiciary
erodes. My plan strengthens the Code of Conduct so that judges generally cannot
receive paid speaking fees or
all-expenses-paid trips from outside organizations. To ensure that
judges continue to interact with the public without the appearance of
impropriety, my plan also establishes a modest fund to help cover reasonable
expenses.
Real Enforcement for Judicial Misconduct.
When a lawyer violates the ethics rules, their state’s
judiciary can investigate their behavior and impose disciplinary punishment,
including stripping their licence to practice law.
But the panels of judges
that investigate judicial conduct complaints have limited disciplinary power beyond
asking the judge to voluntarily resign or asking the House of Representatives
to consider impeachment proceedings – a request the House is free to
ignore.
It’s time for real accountability for judges. Here’s how
we’ll start:
Continue investigations into judicial misconduct even
when a judge resigns from office or is elevated to the Supreme Court.
In 2016, Federal District Court Judge Walter Smith faced a judicial
investigation into allegations of sexual harassment of
court employees and drinking on the
bench while presiding over cases. Judge Smith resigned, and the complaints
filed against him were dismissed.
My plan extends the authority of the Judicial Conference to former judges so
that individuals under investigation cannot simply resign from the bench to
avoid accountability. This provision would allow the judiciary to reopen the
investigations into Alex Kozinski, Maryanne Trump-Barry, Brett Kavanaugh, and any
other judge who benefited from this loophole.
Provide strong disciplinary authority to judicial ethics
watchdogs, including the ability to strip non-vested taxpayer-funded pensions
from judges.
Under today’s rules, even if retired judges could be investigated, the Judicial
Conference has no meaningful tools to discipline them. American taxpayers are
paying for the more than $180,000-per-year retirement pay of Judge Smith, Judge
Kozinski, Judge Trump-Barry, and several other judges who left office during
investigations into their behavior. We need to restore real accountability
within our judiciary.
That’s why my plan provides disciplinary tools to the Judicial Councils and
their parent organization, the Judicial Conference, including the ability to
strip sitting or retired judges of their non-vested pension benefits by making
retirement pay for new judges explicitly contingent on the absence of serious
misconduct. In addition to strengthening these disciplinary tools, my
administration will also work to prevent judicial misconduct against employees
and law clerks by supporting strong climate surveys,
questionnaires to court employees about the work environment in our federal
courts, to help the judiciary understand how to improve the culture within our
courts.
Create a new, fast-track impeachment process for federal
judges who commit impeachable offenses.
The Constitution reserves the impeachment of judges for only the most egregious offenses. But
when a judge commits a serious offense or ethical violation, we need to make
sure that there is a prompt investigation – and that Congress takes action.
It’s time to fast-track the process for judges who commit impeachable offenses.
My plan would strengthen the process to certify
that a judge may have committed an impeachable offense, and would ensure that
any impeachment referrals will trigger a series of automatic rules under which
the House Judiciary Committee will conduct a thorough investigation and vote
without unnecessary delay. These reforms will ensure that judges who commit
serious, impeachable offenses will more likely be promptly removed from office.
These changes will not only allow us to ensure
accountability for bad actors, including reopening inquiries into the conduct
of offenders like Brett Kavanaugh. They will also hold the vast majority of
judges who act in good faith to the highest ethical standards, and in the
process, begin to restore accountability and trust in a fair and impartial
federal judiciary.
The vigorous contest of Democrats seeking the 2020 presidential nomination has produced excellent policy proposals to address major issues. In a recent poll, Americans have indicated that education is a top issue. Senator Elizabeth Warren released her plan to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in public schools, paid for by a 2c wealth tax on fortunes above $50 million. “It’s time to live up to the promise of a high-quality public education for every student. My plan makes big, structural changes that would help give every student the resources they need to thrive.” This is from the Warren campaign:
Charlestown, MA – Senator Elizabeth Warren
released her plan to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in our public
schools — paid for by a two-cent wealth tax on fortunes above $50 million —
and make a series of legislative and administrative changes to ensure a great
public school education for every student.
Her plan has five objectives:
Fund schools adequately and equitably: Invest
hundreds of billions of dollars in pre-K-12 public education, paid for by her
wealth tax — including quadrupling Title I funding, fully funding the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, investing an additional $50 billion
in repairing and upgrading school buildings, and offering schools $100 billion
in Excellence Grants to invest in options that schools and districts identify
to help their students. A Warren Administration will also set the goal of
turning 25,000 public schools into true community schools. She will condition
the new Title I money on states chipping in more funding and adopting and
implementing more progressive funding formulas, so that more resources go to
the schools and students that really need them. She will also improve the way
the federal government allocates this new Title I funding.
Renew the fight against segregation and discrimination in
our schools: She will attack residential segregation in a variety of
ways, strengthen Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by expanding the private
right of action under Title VI to cover claims of disparate impact against
states and school districts, revive the Department of Education’s Office for
Civil Rights, apply particular scrutiny to breakway districts, and commit to
enforcing the civil rights of all students.
Provide a warm, safe, and nurturing school climate for
all our kids: She will cancel student breakfast and lunch debt and
provide free and nutritious school meals, eliminate high stakes testing, end zero
tolerance discipline policies, implement and expand Social Emotional Learning,
and address chronic absenteeism.
Treat teachers and staff like the professionals they are: She
will address not just teacher pay, but other important issues including strengthening
bargaining power, cancelling student loan debt, diversifying the teacher
pipeline, and funding professional development.
Stop the privatization and corruption of our public
education system: She will ensure public dollars are not diverted from
traditional public schools, end all federal funding for creating new charter
schools, and push to ensure that existing charter schools are subject to at
least the same level of transparency and accountability as traditional public
schools. She also supports banning for-profit charters, and will direct the IRS
to investigate so-called nonprofit schools that are violating the statutory
requirements for nonprofits, and will ban the storing and selling of student
data.
I attended public school growing up in Oklahoma. After I
graduated from the University of Houston, a public university where tuition
cost only $50 a semester, my first job was as a special education teacher at a
public school in New Jersey. I later attended a public law school.
I believe in America’s public schools. And I believe
that every kid in America should have the same access to a high-quality
public education — no matter where they live, the color of their skin, or how
much money their parents make.
We’re not living up to that promise. Funding for public K-12
education is both inadequate and inequitable. I’ve long been concerned about
the way that school systems rely heavily on local property taxes, shortchanging
students in low-income areas and condemning communities caught in a spiral of
decreasing property values and declining schools. Despite a national expectation
of progress, public schools are more segregated today than they were thirty
years ago, and the link between school funding and property values perpetuates
the effects of ongoing housing discrimination and racist housing policies, like
redlining, that restricted homeownership and home values for Black
Americans.
We ask so much of our public school teachers,
paraprofessionals, and school staff. But instead of treating them like
professionals — paying them well, listening to them, and giving them the
support they need — we impose extreme accountability measures that punish them
for factors they cannot possibly control. We divert public dollars from
traditional public schools that need them, leave our students vulnerable to
exploitative companies that prey on schools’ limited resources for profit, and
allow corruption to undermine the quality of education that our students
receive.
And each of these trends has gotten worse under Betsy DeVos
— a Secretary of Education who thinks traditional public schools are a “dead end.”
We can do so much better for our students, our teachers, and
our communities. I’ll start – as I promised in May
– by replacing DeVos with a Secretary of Education who has been a public school
teacher, believes in public education, and will listen to our public school
teachers, parents, and students.
But that’s just the beginning. As public school teachers
across the country know, our schools do not have the financial resources they
need to deliver a quality public education for every child. That’s why my plan
invests hundreds of billions of dollars in our public schools — paid for by a
two-cent wealth tax on fortunes above $50 million — and makes a series of
legislative and administrative changes to achieve five objectives:
Fund schools adequately and equitably so that all
students have access to a great public education.
Renew the fight against segregation and discrimination in
our schools.
Provide a warm, safe, and nurturing school climate for
all our kids.
Treat teachers and staff like the professionals they are.
Stop the privatization and corruption of our public
education system.
What would this plan mean for America’s families? Parents
wouldn’t have to bust their budgets to live in certain exclusive neighborhoods
just to ensure that their children get a good education. Parents of children
with disabilities wouldn’t have to fight every day so their children get the
services they’re entitled to and that they need. Public school teachers and
staff would have more financial security and more freedom to use their
expertise to teach their students. And every student would have the chance to
go to a safe, enriching public school from pre-K to high school.
Funding Schools Adequately and Equitably
All students should have the resources they need to get a
great public education. That’s not happening today. The data show that more school
funding significantly improves student achievement, particularly for students from low-income
backgrounds. Yet our current approach to school funding at the
federal, state, and local level underfunds our schools and results in many
students from low-income backgrounds receiving less funding than
other students on a per-student basis. My plan makes a historic new federal
investment in public schools — and pushes both the federal government and
state governments to dedicate more resources to the schools and students that
need them most.
State and local funds make up about 90% of total K-12
education funding. The federal government provides roughly the remaining 10% of K-12
funding, primarily through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965.
Both sets of investments have serious shortcomings. On the
state side, even when states provide substantial supplemental funding for
high-need communities, reliance on local property tax revenue means wealthier
communities are often still able to spend more money on their public schools
than poorer communities. As of 2015, only 11 states used a
progressive funding formula — one that dedicates more money per-student to
high-poverty school districts. The remaining states use a funding formula that
is either basically flat per-student or dedicates less money per-student to
high-poverty districts. In a handful of states, students in high-poverty
districts get less than 75 cents for
every dollar that students in wealthier school districts get.
There are problems with federal funding too. The Elementary
and Secondary Education Act is a civil rights law Congress enacted to provide
supplemental support for students from low-income backgrounds or those who need
extra support, like English Language Learners and students who are homeless or
in foster care. Almost every school
district and 70% of
schools receive some Title
I money, but the current investment in Title I — $15.8 billion — is
not nearly enough to make up for state-level funding inequities. And Title I
funding itself is distributed based on a formula that isn’t always efficiently targeted
to ensure adequate support for the schools and students who need it most.
Our flawed approach to K-12 funding isn’t just producing
disparities in education between poor and rich students. It’s also helping
produce disparities in education based on race. Black and Latinx students
are disproportionately likely to
attend chronically under-resourced schools. Bureau of Indian Education schools
are badly underfunded too.
My plan addresses each and every aspect of this
problem. It starts by quadrupling Title I funding — an additional $450
billion over the next 10 years — to help ensure that all children get a
high-quality public education.
But we need to do more than just increase funding. We also
need to ensure that federal funds are reaching the students and schools that
need it most. That’s why I’m committed to working with public education
leaders and school finance experts to improve the way the federal government
allocates this new Title I funding. And I would impose transparency
requirements on this new funding so that we can understand what investments
work best and adapt our approach accordingly.
I’m also committed to using this new federal investment to
press states to adopt better funding approaches themselves. I would
condition access to this additional Title I funding on states chipping in more
funding, adopting more progressive funding formulas, and actually allocating
funding consistently with these new formulas. This would ensure that
both the federal government and state governments do their part to
progressively and equitably fund public schools while still ensuring that no
child gets less per-student funding than they do today.
My plan also lives up to our collective commitments to
students with disabilities. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
protects the civil rights of students with disabilities by guaranteeing their
right to a free and appropriate public education. When Congress passed the
original version of IDEA in 1975, it promised to cover
40% of the additional costs of educating students with disabilities.
But today, Congress is failing spectacularly in meeting that
obligation. Last year, the federal government covered less than 15% of
these costs. That failure has shifted the burden to states and school districts
that simply can’t find the money to make up the difference. The result?
Students with disabilities are denied the resources they need
to fulfill their potential.
This will end under my administration. I’ll make
good on the federal government’s original 40% funding promise by committing an additional
$20 billion a year to IDEA grants. I will also expand IDEA funding for
3-5 year olds and for early intervention services for toddlers and infants.
In addition to ensuring that all students have the resources
they need for a high-quality public education, I’ll give schools the chance to
invest in programs and resources that they believe are most important to their
students. That’s why my plan will invest an additional $100 billion
over ten years in “Excellence Grants” to any public school. That’s the
equivalent of $1 million for every public school in the country to invest in
options that schools and districts identify to help their students. These funds
can be used to develop state-of-the art labs, restore afterschool arts
programs, implement school-based student mentoring programs, and more. I’ll
work with schools and school leaders to develop the best way to structure these
grants to meet their needs.
Those funds can also be invested in developing sustainable community schools —
and the Warren Administration will have the goal of helping 25,000
public schools transition to the community school framework by 2030. Community
schools are hubs of their
community. Through school coordinators, they connect students and families with
community partners to provide opportunities, support, and services inside and
outside of the school. These schools centeraround wraparound
services, family and community engagement, afterschool programs and expanded
learning time, and collaborative leadership structures.
Studies show that every
dollar invested in community schools generates up to $15 in economic return to
the community.
Finally, my plan will provide a surge of investment in
school facilities and infrastructure. About 50 million students
and 6 million adults spend their weekdays in public school buildings. Too many of
these schools are dealing with leaky roofs, broken heating systems, lead pipes,
black mold, and other serious infrastructure issues. According to the most
recent data, more than half of
our public schools need repairs to be in “good” condition. Our poor school
infrastructure has serious effects on
the health and academic outcomes of students and on the well-being of teachers
and staff.
The vastly unequal state of public school facilities is
unacceptable and a threat to public education itself. We cannot legitimately
call our schools “public” when some students have state-of-the-art classrooms
and others do not even have consistent running water. The federal government
must step in.
That’s why, as President, I’ll invest at least an
additional $50 billion in school infrastructure across the country — targeted
at the schools that need it most — on top of existing funding for school
upgrades and improvements in my other plans. For example, my Clean Energy Plan for America commits
billions of dollars to retrofit and upgrade buildings to increase energy
efficiency and to invest in zero-emission school buses. My housing plan commits
$10 billion in competitive grants that communities can use for school repairs.
My Environmental Justice plan establishes
a lead abatement grant program focused on schools. My Plan to Invest in Rural America commits
to universal broadband so that every student in this country can access the
Internet at school. And I will fully fund Bureau
of Indian Education schools to support major construction and repair
backlogs.
Renewing the Fight Against Segregation and Discrimination
in Public Schools
While Donald Trump tries to divide us and pit people of
different races and backgrounds against each other, Americans know that we are
stronger because of our differences. As my dear friend Congressman Elijah
Cummings said earlier this
year before his passing, “America has always been at its best when we
understand that diversity is our promise — not our problem.” Integrated
communities and integrated schools help create a society built on mutual
respect and understanding.
But broad public affirmation of the Brown v. Board
of Education decisions in the 1950s and recent debates about
historical desegregation policies have obscured an uncomfortable truth — our
public schools are moresegregated today
than they were about thirty years ago.
We made only fitful progress towards integration in the
years immediately after the Brown v. Board decisions. But by
the mid-1980s, thanks to dedicated advocacy by civil rights leaders and
sustained investment and oversight by the federal government, school
segregation had declined.
Then we reversed course. The Supreme Court scaled back the
courts’ remedial tools to address segregation, which — as I called out at the
time as a law student — entrenched segregation, particularly in Northern urban
schools. To make matters worse, the Nixon and Reagan Administrations slashed investments
in integration efforts and loosened federal oversight, setting us on a path
towards heightened segregation. Over the same period, segregation of Latinx
students entrenched even
further.
Integrated schools improve educational outcomes for
students of all races. And
integrated schools are demanded by our Constitution’s guarantee of equal
protection to every person in this country. In a Warren Administration, we will
achieve this goal.
The first step toward integrating our schools is integrating
our communities. Today in America, residential communities are highly
segregated. Some believe that’s purely a result of people choosing to live
close to other people who look like them. That’s wrong. Modern residential
segregation is driven at least in part by income inequality and parents
seeking out the best possible school districts for their children.
By investing more money in our public schools — and helping ensure that every
public school is a great one — my plan will address one of the key drivers of
residential segregation.
Beyond that, my Housing Plan for America establishes
a $10 billion competitive grant program that offers states and cities money to
build parks, roads, and schools if they eliminate the kinds of restrictive
zoning laws that can further racial
segregation. And it includes a historic new down payment assistance program
that promotes integration by giving residents of formerly redlined areas help
to buy a home in any community they choose.
My plan would also use federal education funding to
encourage states to further integrate their schools. Under current law, states
may use a portion of
Title I funds to implement evidence-based interventions for low-performing
schools. The data show that students at integrated schools perform better, so even
in the absence of congressional action, my administration can and will use
these provisions to encourage states to use that portion of Title I money on
integration efforts of their own design. All told, that will add up to
billions of dollars a year that states can use to promote residential and
public school integration, including through the use of public magnet schools. And
to ensure that school districts won’t have to choose between integration and
federal funding, my plan will guarantee that districts will retain access to
Title I funds even if their successful integration efforts cause the districts
to fall below current Title I funding thresholds.
Incentives to integrate communities and schools will
encourage many districts to do the right thing. But they won’t be sufficient
everywhere. That’s why I’m committed to strengthening Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 — which prohibits discrimination
on the basis of race in any program or activity that receives federal funding
— and reviving robust enforcement of its terms. Betsy DeVos and the
Trump Administration have pulled back on
civil rights enforcement, seemingly content to let states and districts use
billions of taxpayer dollars to entrench or exacerbate racial segregation in
schools. That ends under a Warren Administration. Here’s what we’ll do:
Strengthen Title VI: Under current Supreme Court precedent on
Title VI, the government can challenge any policy that disproportionately harms
students of color, but students and parents can only bring a claim under Title
VI for intentional discrimination. Students and parents should have the right
to challenge systemic discrimination that perpetuates school segregation,
so I will push to expand the private right of action under Title VI to
cover claims of disparate impact against states and school districts. I
will also fight to give the Justice Department — in coordination with the
relevant funding agency — direct enforcement authority to bring disparate
impact claims under Title VI, and to give DOJ the right to issue subpoenas and
civil investigative demands under Title VI to strengthen their investigative
capacity.
Revive and fund the Department of Education’s Office for
Civil Rights (OCR): OCR is responsible for enforcing federal civil
rights laws in our public schools. Betsy DeVos rescinded dozens of
guidelines intended to prevent discrimination and limited OCR’s
capacity to give complaints the consideration they deserve. My administration
will restore and expand OCR’s capacity, reinstate and update the rules and
guidance revoked by DeVos, press for new protections for students, and give OCR
clear marching orders to root out discrimination wherever it is
found.
Subject attempts to create “breakaway” districts to
additional enforcement scrutiny: Since 2000, there have been at
least 128 attempts to
break off a part of an existing school district into its own separate district.
These “breakaway” districts are often wealthier and whiter than
the district they leave behind and typically result in massive funding inequities
between the new district and the old one. Under my leadership, the Department
of Education and the Justice Department will subject any attempt to create a
breakaway district to careful scrutiny and bring appropriate Title VI
enforcement actions.
Improve federal data collection to support better
outcomes: Activists, academics, and legislators rely on the Department
of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection to better monitor and remedy what’s
broken in our public education system. But there’s a years-long lag in
the data collection process — and the data that are collected glosses over
crucial details. I will increase funding for CRDC so that we can expand the
types of data collected, provide data collection training on the district and
state level, and produce data more quickly.
I am also committed to ending discrimination against all
students. My administration will strictly enforce the right of students
with disabilities to a free and appropriate public education. I will
push to build on Obama-era policies by writing new rules to help ensure that
students of color with disabilities are treated fairly when it comes to
identifying disabilities, classroom placement, services and accommodations, and
discipline. I am opposed to the use of restraint and seclusion in schools, and
I will push for sufficient training to ensure student, teacher, and staff
safety. I will protect students’ right to be educated in the least restrictive
environment. And in light of the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School
District, which affirmed the right
of every child to have the chance to meet challenging objectives, my Department
of Education will help schools and districts develop and implement ambitious
individualized education programs for all students with disabilities. This
includes upholding the right to
a fair and appropriate public education for students in juvenile detention
facilities, who are disproportionately students
with disabilities.
I will also fight to protect the rights of LGBTQ+
students. When Gavin Grimm took
his school district to court to defend the rights of transgender students, he
bravely stood for the many LGBTQ+ students facing harassment and discrimination
in our schools. Today, more than half of
LGBTQ+ students report feeling unsafe at school, and nearly a fifth have been
forced to switch schools. That’s why I will press to enact the Safe Schools Improvement Act,
which requires school districts to adopt codes of conduct that specifically
prohibit bullying and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender
identity. I will also direct the Department of Education to reinstate
guidance revoked under Trump
about transgender students’ rights under Title IX, and make clear that federal
civil rights law prohibits anti-LGBTQ+ rules like discriminatory dress codes,
prohibiting students from writing or discussing LGBTQ+ topics in class, or
punishing students for bringing same-sex partners to school events. And I will
affirm and enforce federal protections under Title IX for all students who are survivors of sexual
harassment and assault.
I will commit to protecting English Language Learners. Our
public schools are home to nearly 5 million English
Language Learners — about 10% of the entire student population. In 1974, the
Supreme Court ruled that failing
to give English Language Learners meaningful instruction was a violation of
their civil rights. But, once again, the Department of Education is failing these
students under Betsy DeVos. As President, I will affirm and strengthen the Obama Administration’s 2015
guidelines on the civil rights of English Language Learners to
include meaningful access to rigorous coursework, teachers, special education
services, and integration with the rest of the student body, while fostering
their home language.
I will also commit to protecting immigrant students and
their families. Immigration makes America stronger — economically,
socially, and culturally. But because of the Trump Administration’s inhumane
immigration policies, many immigrant students are afraid to go to school,
and many families living in the shadows are afraid to access resources like free school lunch.
I would end the Trump’s Administration’s monstrous policies and enact immigration reform that
is fair, humane, and reflects our values. I will ensure immigrant students
don’t get second-class status by being directed into GED programs instead of
classrooms. I will protect sensitive locations like schools from
immigrant enforcement actions. And I’ll recommit OCR to upholding and enforcing Plyler
v. Doe — which the Trump administration has tried to
undermine — so that all immigrant children have access to a quality education,
no matter their native language, national origin, immigration status, or
educational history.
Finally, I will nominate judges who look like America and
are committed to applying our civil rights laws. The courts often have
the final say on critical civil rights matters. Donald Trump has appointed judges
who are overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male. During their confirmation
processes, dozens of his
appointees refused to state publicly that they would uphold Brown v.
Board of Education. I’m committed to appointing a diverse slate of judges,
including those who have a background in civil rights. And while it is shocking
to need to make this commitment, I will only appoint judges who will apply the
law as established in Brown v. Board of Education and other landmark
civil rights rulings.
Providing a Warm, Safe, and Nurturing School Climate for
All Our Kids
Every student deserves the opportunity to learn in a
traditional public school that’s welcoming and safe. Research shows that
students learn best when they have supportive and nurturing relationships with
teachers and administrators, and when learning is not just academic but social
and emotional too. With 46 million children
experiencing some form of trauma — whether it’s poverty, violence in the
community or in the home, homelessness, family separation, or an incarcerated
caretaker — we can’t expect schools to bear this burden alone.
In addition to my goal of turning 25,000 public schools into
true community schools, my plan will ensure the federal government plays its
part in trying to bring a positive and nurturing climate to every
school.
Here’s what we’ll do:
Expand access to early childhood services and
education: My plan for Universal Child Care and
Early Learning will provide high-quality child care and early
learning to 12 million kids across the country. As part of a comprehensive
early childhood education system, I will ensure all children can attend free
high-quality universal pre-K. That means pre-K teachers that are prepared, supported, and
compensated fairly, and program alignment to K-3,
ensuring that every child is ready for day one of kindergarten and beyond.
Eliminate high-stakes testing: The push toward
high-stakes standardized testing has hurt both students and teachers. Schools
have eliminated critical
courses that are not subject to federally mandated testing, like social studies
and the arts. They can exclude students
who don’t perform well on tests. Teachers feel pressured to teach
to the test, rather than ensuring that students have a rich learning
experience.
I oppose high-stakes testing, and I co-sponsored successful legislation in
Congress to eliminate unnecessary and low-quality standardized tests. As
president, I’ll push to prohibit the use of standardized testing as a primary
or significant factor in closing a school, firing a teacher, or making any
other high-stakes decisions, and encourage schools to use authentic assessments
that allow students to demonstrate learning in multiple ways.
Cancel student breakfast and lunch debt and provide free
and nutritious school meals: No one should have to go into debt to get
a nutritious meal at school. I’ve already proposed expanding
the farm-to-school program one-hundred fold so that schools get access to
fresh, local, nutritious meals. I will also push to cancel all existing
student meal debt and increase federal funding to school meals programs so that
students everywhere get free breakfast and lunch. And to meaningfully
address student food insecurity and hunger, I will direct my Department of
Education to work with schools to look for ways to provide dinner, and meals
over weekends and
throughout long holidays, to students
who need it.
Invest in evidenced-based school safety: Despite
evidence that the militarization of our schools does not improve
school safety, the Trump Administration has doubled down
on militarization policies that only make students, teachers, and parents
feel less safe.
Enacting basic gun safety laws that
the overwhelming majority of Americans support is a critical step towards
improving school safety. But we need to take a different approach in
our schools, too — 14 million students
attend schools with police but no counselor, nurse, psychologist, or social
worker.
I will push to close the mental health provider gap in schools so that every
school has access to the staff necessary to support students. And if police
officers have to be in schools, they should receive training on discrimination,
youth development, and de-escalation tactics, and the contracts between
districts and law enforcement agencies should clearly define the
responsibilities and limitations of the officers and the rights of the
students. And no teacher should be armed — period.
End zero-tolerance discipline policies: Zero-tolerance
policies require out-of-school suspensions or expulsions on the first offense
for a variety of behaviors. These policies are ineffective, disproportionately hurt Black, Latinx, Native American,
and Southeast Asian and Pacific
Islander students, and can serve as the entry
point to the school-to-prison pipeline. My administration will
encourage schools to adopt discipline policies that draw students in rather
than pushing them out, including restorative justice programs, which
have been shown to dramatically reduce suspension
rates and the discipline gap between Black and White students. I will also push
to issue guidance to limit the use of discriminatory dress codes targeting
student dress and hairstyle that lead to students of color losing
valuable learning time and Muslim students being denied participation in
school activities.
Establish more School-Based Health Centers: Students
do better when they
have access to good health care on site, but students from low-income
backgrounds are less likely to have
regular access to providers and preventative care. Students from rural
communities and students attending
Bureau of Indian Education schools also face significant barriers to health
care access. School-Based Health Centers have been shown to improve
grade promotion and decrease suspension rates and to increase the rates of
vaccination and detection of hearing and vision issues. I’ve committed
to establishing a $25 billion capital fund for
communities that are health professional shortage areas to improve access to
care through projects like constructing a School-Based Health Center or
expanding capacity or services at an existing clinic.
Expand the implementation of comprehensive, culturally
relevant curriculum and Social Emotional Learning: Rigorous,
culturally relevant, identity-affirming curriculum can increase attendance
and academic success of students. And Social Emotional Learning —
curriculum that focuses on empathy, responsible decision-making, and positive
relationships — has positive
effects too. Unfortunately, because of tight budgets, these subjects and
programs are often considered expendable. We should invest more in curricula
that engage all students across a wide array of subject areas like the arts,
STEM, civics, and health, including evidence-based inclusive sex ed. I’ll fight
to fully fund and target programs that conduct research in and support
well-rounded, culturally relevant education, some of which the Trump
administration has proposed eliminatingentirely. I’ve
already committed to
supporting programs to ensure that public school curriculum includes Native
American history and culture as a core component of all students’ education. In
addition to those programs, we should ensure that all the communities that make
up our public schools are reflected in school curricula. And I’ll require
states receiving these grants to provide the same well-rounded, culturally
relevant curriculum in alternative schools and juvenile detention
facilities.
Provide better access to career and college readiness
(CCR): As President, I will enact legislation to make public two-year, four-year, and
technical colleges tuition-free for all students. We must also
ensure that students are able to take advantage of those opportunities and that
high schools are funded and designed to prepare students for careers, college,
and life. Students from low-income backgrounds are more likely than
their wealthier peers to graduate high school without having taken any CCR
coursework. Students with disabilities are also less likely to have
the opportunity to enroll in CCR courses. I’ve fought hard in Congress to make
sure high school students can access career and technical education without
paying out of pocket. I’ve also proposed dramatically
scaling up high-quality apprenticeship programs with a $20 billion investment
that will support partnerships between high schools, community colleges,
unions, and companies. I’ll work with the disability community to encourage
schools to begin the development of postsecondary transition plans, as required
by IDEA, earlier in a student’s school career. I’ll work with states to align high
school graduation requirements with their public college admission
requirements. And I’ll also direct the Department of Education to issue
guidance on how schools can leverage existing federal programs to facilitate
education-to-workforce preparedness.
Address chronic absenteeism without punishing parents or
children: About 8 million students
missed at least three weeks of school during the 2015-2016 school year, with
Black and Latinx students more likely to be
chronically absent than their white and Asian peers. In younger grades,
students who are chronically absent are less likely to meet
state proficiency standards. In middle and high school, chronic absenteeism is
a predictor of whether a student drops out of school
before completing high school. I’m committed to
decriminalizing truancy and to working to decrease the rate of chronic
absenteeism through other means. My plan to invest in programs that promote
Social Emotional Learning, free school meals, and restorative justice would
help reduce chronic
absenteeism. I’ll also increase federal funding for pilot programs that
implement best practices in truancy reduction, like sending parents
easy-to-understand notices on the effects of chronic absenteeism, which has
been shown to improve attendance
by 40%.
Treating Public School Teachers and Staff Like the
Professionals They Are
Teachers, paraprofessionals, school staff, and school
leaders are the foundation of our public education system. But inadequate pay,
shrinking benefits, under-resourced classrooms, and dangerously high levels of
student debt are squeezing teachers and staff. We trust them to educate our
children, but we fail to treat them like the professionals they are.
Despite these challenges, our country’s educators have taken
matters into their own hands — not only in the classroom, but also in the
fight for the future of our country. Teachers have been battling for public
investment over privatization, and for shared prosperity over concentrated
wealth and power. Educators, particularly women,
across the country have carried the #RedforEd movement from the streets to state capitol
buildings, striking not just to get the compensation they deserve,
but to condemn the diversion of funding from
public schools to private ones, to increase funding to reduce class sizes and improve their schools,
and to expand services that
will make their students’ lives safer and more stable.
Teachers have shown that they will stand together and fight
for what they believe in. They deserve a President who will fight for them too.
That’s why, as President, I will:
Provide funding for schools to increase pay and support
for all public school educators: Pay for our public school educators
is unacceptably low, and it’s putting incredible strain on them and causing
many to burn out and leave the profession. My plan to quadruple Title I funding
incentivizes states to shift their funding formulas to better support students
in critical ways, such as by increasing teacher pay with the goal of closing the educator pay gap and
also paying paraprofessionals and other education support professionals a living
wage. It also means additional funds to ensure that classrooms are
well-equipped with resources and supports so that teachers aren’t paying out of pocket.
Strengthen the ability of teachers, paraprofessionals,
and staff to organize and bargain for just compensation, for a voice in
education policy, and for greater investment in public education: One
of the best ways to raise teacher pay permanently and sustainably — and to
give teachers more voice in their schools — is to make it easier for teachers
to join a union, to bargain collectively, and to strike like educators did
across 14 states in
2018-2019. I have led the effort to
eliminate the ability of states to pass anti-union “right to work” laws, and I
will make enacting that change a top priority. And as part of my plan for empowering American
workers, I pledged to enact the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate
Act, which ensures that public employees like teachers can
organize and bargain collectively in each state, and authorizes voluntary
deduction of fees to support a union.
Ensure that anyone can become a teacher without drowning
in debt: A generation of educators is retiring, and our
country is facing a
looming teacher shortage. Our country’s student debt crisis hits teachers hard. Combined with
salaries that are far too low, that debt makes it difficult for many educators
to make ends meet and to continue teaching. Meanwhile, the debt forgiveness
programs that the government promised teachers for their years of service
turned out to be empty promises. My
college plan will wipe out debt for
most teachers and provide tuition-free public college so future teachers never
have to take on that debt in the first place. In addition, I will push states
to offer a pathway for teachers to become fully certified for free and to
invest in their educators and build teacher retention plans. I will increase
funding for Grow Your Own Teacher programs that
provide opportunities for paraeducators or substitute teachers to become
licensed teachers. And I will push to fully fund the Teacher Quality
Partnership program to support teacher residency programs in high-need areas,
like rural communities, and in areas of expertise like Special Education and
Bilingual Education.
Build a more diverse educator and school leadership pipeline: Representation
matters in the classroom, and a diverse workforce helps all
students. Teachers of color can boost the academic
outcomes of their students and improve graduation
rates among students of color. Though the teacher workforce is getting more
diverse, it is not keeping pace with changes in student demographics: educators
of color comprise only 20% of the teaching
workforce, while students of color now represent more than half of
public school students.
My plan to cancel student loan debt, provide tuition-free public college, and
invest a minimum of $50 billion in Historically Black Colleges and Universities
and Minority Serving Institutions will help more Black, Latinx, Native
American, Asian American, and Pacific Islander students become educators and
school and district leaders. Over 38% of Black
teachers have degrees from HBCUs or MSIs. And Hispanic Serving Institutions are
playing a crucial role in
closing the teacher-student population demographic gap. I’ve also committed to
significantly increasing BIE funding so these schools can attract and train
teachers, particularly those from Native communities. But we must do more. I
will target the biases and discrimination that inhibit our ability to build a
diverse educator workforce and school leadership pipeline, such as pay discrimination,
by expanding OCR’s purview to investigate systemic and individual workplace
discrimination in our schools. And I am committed to passing the Equality Act to
guarantee workplace protections for LGBTQ+ teachers and staff.
Provide continuing education and professional development
opportunities to all school staff: Ongoing high-quality professional
development opportunities for teachers, administrators, and education support
professionals produce better
outcomes for students. As President, I will increase funding for critical
programs that fund professional development and ongoing education on effective
instruction, cultural competency, and child development for school staff, like
the Supporting Effective Instruction and Supporting Effective Educator
Development grants, that the Trump administration has proposed eliminating. And
I will invest in funding of IES research on best practices in professional
development that is effective and engages educators in decision-making on their
own learning.
Combating the Privatization and Corruption of Our Public
Schools
To keep our traditional public school systems strong, we
must resist efforts to divert public funds out of traditional public schools.
Efforts to expand the footprint of charter schools, often without even ensuring
that charters are subject to the same transparency requirements and
safeguards as traditional public schools, strain the resources of school
districts and leave students behind, primarilystudents of color.
Further, inadequate funding and a growing education technology industry have
opened the door to the privatization and corruption of our traditional public
schools. More than half of the states allow public schools to be run by for-profit companies,
and corporations are leveraging their market power and schools’ desire to keep
pace with rapidly changing technology to extract profits at
the expense of vulnerable students.
This is wrong. We have a responsibility to provide great
neighborhood schools for every student. We should stop the diversion of public
dollars from traditional public schools through vouchers or tuition tax credits
— which are vouchers by another name. We should fight back against the
privatization, corporatization, and profiteering in our nation’s schools. I did
that when I opposed a ballot
question in Massachusetts to raise the cap on the number of charter schools,
even as dark money groups spent millions in
support of the measure. And as president, I will go further:
Ensure existing charter schools are subject to at least
the same level of transparency and accountability as traditional public
schools: Many existing charter schools aren’t subject to the
same transparency and accountability
requirements as traditional public schools. That’s wrong. That’s
why I support the NAACP’s recommendations to
only allow school districts to serve as charter authorizers, and to empower
school districts to reject applications that do not meet transparency and
accountability standards, consider the fiscal impact and strain on district
resources, and establish policies for aggressive oversight of charter schools.Certainstates are already
starting to take action along these lines to address the diversion of public
funds from traditional public schools. My administration will oppose the
authorization of new charter schools that do not meet these standards. My
administration also will crack down on union-busting and discriminatory enrollment, suspension, and expulsionpractices in
charter schools, and require boards to be made up of parents and members of the
public, not just founders, family members, or profit-seeking service providers.
End federal funding for the expansion of charter
schools: The Federal Charter School Program (CSP), a series of federal
grants established to
promote new charter schools, has been an abject failure. A recent report showed
that the federal government has wasted up to $1 billion on charter schools that
never even opened, or opened and then closed because of mismanagement and other
reasons. The Department of Education’s own watchdog has even criticized the
Department’s oversight of the CSP. As President, I would eliminate this
charter school program and end federal funding for the expansion of charter
schools. I would also examine whether other federal programs or tax credits
subsidize the creation of new charter schools and seek to limit the use of
those programs for that purpose.
Ban for-profit charter schools: Our public
schools should benefit students, not the financial or ideological interests of
wealthy patrons like the DeVos and Walton families. I
will fight to ban for-profit charter schools and charter schools that outsource
their operations to for-profit companies.
Direct the IRS to investigate so-called nonprofit schools
that are violating the statutory requirements for nonprofits: Many
so-called nonprofit schools – including charter schools – operate alongside closely
held, for-profit service providers. Others are run by for-profit companies that
siphon off profits from students and taxpayers. The IRS should investigate the
nonprofit status of these schools and refer cases to the Tax Fraud Division of
the Department of Justice when appropriate. I would also apply my plan’s ban on
for-profit charter schools to any of these so-called “nonprofit” schools
that actually servefor-profit interests.
And my plan would ban self-dealing in nonprofit schools to prevent founders and
administrators from funneling resources to service providers owned or managed
by their family members.
Expand enforcement of whistleblower actions against
schools that commit fraud against taxpayers: Our federal laws allow
whistleblowers to bring actions to expose fraud and retrieve stolen federal
money. The Department of Justice should expand its enforcement of these
whistleblower actions to address fraud that appears all too common in certain charter schools,
including online charter schools that falsify or inflate their
enrollment numbers.
It’s also time to end the corporate capture of our education
system and crack down on corruption and anti-competitive practices in the
education industry. Here’s how we can start:
Require companies that lobby school systems that receive
federal funding to comply with expanded federal lobbying restrictions and
disclosure requirements: Corporate lobbyists spend millions of
dollars lobbying state
officials. If companies are lobbying for contracts from schools receiving
federal funding, they should be subject to our federal lobbying rules, even
when they are lobbying state officials. That’s why my plan would
require all companies that lobby for these contracts to comply with the new
federal lobbying proposals in my plan to end Washington corruption. That
means that these education conglomerates will have to disclose the details of
their meetings with all public officials, their lobbyists will not be able to
donate or fundraise for federal candidates, those lobbyists will not be able to
cycle through the revolving door into our federal government, and education
companies like Pearson that often spend over $500,000 in a single year on
lobbying will be subject to my new lobbying tax.
Ban the sharing, storing, and sale of student data:Severalinvestigations have revealed that
educational technology companies, for-profit schools, and other educational
entities are selling student data to corporations. My plan would extend the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to ban the sharing,
storing, and sale of student data that includes names or other information that
can identify individual students. Violations should be punishable by
civil and criminal penalties.
Direct the FTC to crack down on anti-competitive data mining practices by educational technology companies: Big companies like Facebook and Google, and smaller companies like Class Dojo, have already collected student data to market products or to sell themselves to companies that can do so. As president, I would direct the FTC to crack down on these antic-competitive data mining practices by technology companies engaging in these practices in the education space, including by reviewing and blocking mergers of companies that have taken advantage of data consolidation.Require high-stakes testing companies to make all released prior testing materials publicly available: High-stakes testing companies create their own test prep companies using proprietary materials or sell these materials directly to those who can afford it, giving some children a distinct advantage on those tests. My plan would bar companies with federal government contracts from selling questions to individuals or to companies for commercial purposes.
Read statements of support from
National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, and others here
The vigorous contest of
Democrats seeking the 2020 presidential nomination has produced excellent
policy proposals to address major issues. Senator Elizabeth Warren details her
plan to confront the crisis of environmental injustice. “Justice cannot be a
secondary concern – it must be at the center of our response to climate change.”
This is from the Warren campaign:
Charlestown, MA – Senator Elizabeth Warren has released her plan to fight for justice as we take on the climate crisis. Warren will implement an equity screen for her proposed climate investments, directing at least $1 trillion into the most vulnerable communities over the next decade and investing not only in cleaning up pollution but in building wealth and lifting up the communities in most need.
The climate crisis demands all of us to act, but it is also an opportunity to create millions of new good, middle class, union jobs and to directly confront the racial and economic inequality embedded in our fossil fuel economy. Elizabeth will honor our commitment to fossil fuel workers by fighting for guaranteed wage and benefit parity for workers transitioning into new industries, and to protect the pensions and benefits that fossil fuel workers have earned. She’ll partner with unions every step of the way.
She will hold corporate polluters accountable, working with Congress to create a private right of action for environmental harm, and imposing steep fines on violators that will be reinvested in impacted communities.
Elizabeth knows we need to elevate environmental justice at the highest levels. She’ll transform the Council on Environmental Quality into a Council on Climate Action with a broader mandate, including empowering frontline community leaders to speak directly to the White House.
In 1987, the United Church of Christ’s Commission on Racial Justice commissioned one of the first studies on hazardous waste in communities of color. A few years later — 28 years ago this month — delegates to the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit adopted 17 principles of environmental justice. But in the years since, the federal government has largely failed to live up to the vision these trailblazing leaders outlined, and to its responsibilities to the communities they represent.
From predominantly black neighborhoods in
Detroit to Navajo communities in
the southwest to Louisiana’s Cancer Alley, industrial
pollution has been concentrated in low-income communities for decades —
communities that the federal government has tacitly written off as so-called “sacrifice zones.” But
it’s not just about poverty, it’s also about race. A seminal study found
that black families are more likely to live in neighborhoods with higher
concentrations of air pollution than white families — even when they have the
same or more income. A more recent study found that while whites largely cause
air pollution, Blacks and Latinxs are more likely to breathe it in.
Unsurprisingly, these groups also experience higher rates of childhood asthma. And
many more low-income and minority communities are exposed to toxins in
their water — including lead and chemicals from industrial and agricultural
run-off.
And these studies don’t tell the whole story. As I’ve
traveled this country, I’ve heard the human stories as well. In Detroit, I met
with community members diagnosed with cancer linked to exposure to toxins after
years of living in the shadow of a massive oil refinery. In New Hampshire, I
talked with mothers fighting for clean drinking water free of harmful PFAS
chemicals for their children. In South Carolina, I’ve heard the stories of the
most vulnerable coastal communities who face the greatest threats, from not
just sea-level rise, but a century of encroaching industrial polluters. In West
Virginia, I saw the consequences of the coal industry’s abandonment of the
communities that made their shareholders and their executives wealthy — stolen
pensions, poisoned miners, and ruined land and water.
We didn’t get here by accident. Our crisis of environmental
injustice is the result of decades of discrimination and environmental racism
compounding in communities that have been overlooked for too long. It is the
result of multiple choices that put corporate profits before people, while our
government looked the other way. It is unacceptable, and it must change.
Justice cannot be a secondary concern — it must be at the
center of our response to climate change. The Green New Deal commits us to a
“just transition” for all communities and all workers. But we won’t create true
justice by cleaning up polluted neighborhoods and tweaking a few regulations at
the EPA. We also need to prioritize communities that have experienced historic
disinvestment, across their range of needs: affordable housing, better
infrastructure, good schools, access to health care, and good jobs. We need
strong, resilient communities who are prepared and properly resourced to
withstand the impacts of climate change. We need big, bottom-up change —
focused on, and led by, members of these
communities.
No Community Left Behind
The same communities that have borne the brunt of industrial
pollution are now on the front lines of climate change, often getting hit first
and worst. In response, local community leaders are leading the fight to hold
polluters responsible and combat the effects of the climate crisis. In
Detroit’s 48217 zip code, for example, community members living in the midst of
industrial pollution told me how they have banded together to identify refinery
leakages and inform their neighbors. In Alabama and Mississippi, I met with
residents of formerly redlined neighborhoods who spoke to me about their fight
against drinking water pollution caused by inadequate municipal sewage systems.
Tribal Nations, which have been disproportionately impacted by environmental
racism and the effects of climate change, are leading the way in
climate resilience and adaptation strategies, and in supporting healthy
ecosystems. The federal government must do more to support and uplift the
efforts of these and other communities. Here’s how we can do that:
Improve environmental equity mapping. The EPA
currently maps communities
based on basic environmental and demographic indicators, but more can be done
across the federal government to identify at-risk communities. We need a
rigorous interagency effort to identify cumulative environmental health
disparities and climate vulnerabilities and cross-reference that data with
other indicators of socioeconomic health. We’ll use these data to adjust
permitting rules under Clean Air and Clean Water Act authorities to better
consider the impact of cumulative and overlapping pollution, and we’ll make
them publicly available online to help communities measure their own health.
Implement an equity screen for climate investments. Identifying
at-risk communities is only the first step. The Green New Deal will involve
deploying trillions of dollars to transform the way we source and use energy.
In doing so, the government must prioritize resources to support vulnerable
communities and remediate historic injustices. My friend Governor Jay Inslee
rightly challenged us to fund the most vulnerable communities first, and
both New York and California have
passed laws to direct funding specifically to frontline and fenceline
communities. The federal government should do the same. I’ll direct one-third
of my proposed climate investment into the most vulnerable communities — a
commitment that would funnel at least $1 trillion into these areas over the
next decade.
Strengthen tools to mitigate environmental harms. Signed
into law in 1970, the National Environmental Policy Act provides the original
authority for many of our existing environmental protections. But even as
climate change has made it clear that we must eliminate our dependence on
fossil fuels, the Trump Administration has tried to weaken NEPA with
the goal of expediting even more fossil fuel infrastructure projects. At the
same time, the Trump Administration has moved to devalue the
consideration of climate impacts in all federal decisions. This is entirely
unacceptable in the face of the climate emergency our world is facing. As
president, I would mandate that all federal agencies consider climate impacts
in their permitting and rulemaking processes. Climate action needs to be mainstreamed
in everything the federal government does. But we also need a standard that
requires the government to do more than merely “assess” the environmental
impact of proposed projects — we need to mitigate negative environmental
impacts entirely.
Beyond that, a Warren Administration will do more to give the people who live
in a community a greater say in what is sited there — too often today, local
desires are discounted or disregarded. And when Tribal Nations are involved,
projects should not proceed unless developers have obtained the free, prior and
informed consent of the tribal governments concerned. I’ll use the full extent
of my executive authority under NEPA to protect these communities and give them
a voice in the process. And I’ll fight to improve the law to reflect the
realities of today’s climate crisis.
Build wealth in frontline communities. People of
color are more likely to live in neighborhoods that are vulnerable to climate
change risks or where they’re subject to environmental hazards like pollution.
That’s not a coincidence — decades of racist housing policy and officially
sanctioned segregation that denied people of color the opportunity to build
wealth also denied them the opportunity to choose the best neighborhood for
their families. Then, these same communities were targeted with the worst of
the worst mortgages before the financial crisis, while the government looked
the other way. My housing plan includes
a first-of-its-kind down-payment assistance program that provides grants to
long-term residents of formerly redlined communities so that they can buy homes
in the neighborhood of their choice and start to build wealth, beginning to
reverse that damage. It provides assistance to homeowners in these communities
who still owe more than their homes were worth, which can be used to preserve
their homes and revitalize their communities. These communities should have the
opportunity to lead us in the climate fight, and have access to the economic
opportunities created by the clean energy sector. With the right investments
and with community-led planning, we can lift up communities that have experienced
historic repression and racism, putting them on a path to a more resilient
future.
Expand health care. People in frontline
communities disproportionately suffer from certain cancers and other illnesses
associated with environmental pollution. To make matters worse, they are less likely to have
access to quality health care. Under Medicare for All, everyone will have high
quality health care at a lower cost, allowing disadvantaged communities to get
lifesaving services. And beyond providing high quality coverage for all, the
simplified Medicare for All system will make it easier for the federal
government to quickly tailor health care responses to specific environmental
disasters in affected communities when they occur.
Research equity. For years we’ve invested in
broad-based strategies that are intended to lift all boats, but too often leave
communities of color behind. True justice calls for more than
‘one-size-fits-all’ solutions — instead we need targeted strategies that take
into account the unique challenges individual frontline communities face. I’ve
proposed a historic $400 billion investment
in clean energy research and development. We’ll use that funding to research
place-based interventions specifically targeting the communities that need more
assistance.
No Worker Left Behind
The climate crisis will leave no one untouched. But it also
represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity: to create millions of
good-paying American jobs in clean and renewable energy, infrastructure, and
manufacturing; to unleash the best of American innovation and creativity; to
rebuild our unions and create real progress and justice for workers; and to
directly confront the racial and economic inequality embedded in our fossil
fuel economy.
The task before us is huge and demands all of us to act. It
will require massive retrofits to our nation’s infrastructure and our
manufacturing base. It will also require readjusting our economic approach to
ensure that communities of color and others who have been systematically harmed
from our fossil fuel economy are not left further behind during the transition
to clean energy.
But it is also an opportunity. We’ll need millions of
workers: people who know how to build things and manufacture them; skilled and
experienced contractors to plan and execute large construction and engineering
projects; and training and joint labor management apprenticeships to ensure a
continuous supply of skilled, available workers. This can be a great moment of
national unity, of common purpose, of lives transformed for the better. But we
cannot succeed in fighting climate change unless the people who have the skills
to get the job done are in the room as full partners.
We also cannot fight climate change with a low-wage economy.
Workers should not be forced to make an impossible choice between fossil fuel
industry jobs with superior wages and benefits and green economy jobs that pay
far less. For too long, there has been a tension between transitioning to a
green economy and creating good, middle class, union jobs. In a Warren
Administration we will do both: creating good new jobs through investments in a
clean economy coupled with the strongest possible protections for workers. For
instance, my Green Manufacturing plan
makes a $1.5 trillion procurement commitment to domestic manufacturing
contingent on companies providing fair wages, paid family and medical leave,
fair scheduling practices, and collective bargaining rights. Similarly,
my 100% Clean Energy Plan will
require retrofitting our nation’s buildings, reengineering our electrical grid,
and adapting our manufacturing base — creating good, union jobs, with
prevailing wages determined through collective bargaining, for millions of
skilled and experienced workers.
Our commitment to a Green New Deal is a commitment to a
better future for the working people of our country. And it starts with a
real commitment to workers from the person sitting in the White House: I will
fight for your job, your family, and your community like I would my own. But
there’s so much more we can do to take care of America’s workers before,
during, and after this transition. Here are a few ways we can start:
Honor our commitment to fossil fuel workers. Coal
miners, oil rig workers, pipeline builders and millions of other workers have
given their life’s blood to build the infrastructure that powered the American
economy throughout the 20th century. In return, they deserve more than
platitudes — and if we expect them to use their skills to help reengineer
America, we owe them a fair day’s pay for the work we need them to do. I’m
committed to providing job training and guaranteed wage and benefit parity for
workers transitioning into new industries. And for those Americans who choose
not to find new employment and wish to retire with dignity, we’ll ensure full
financial security, including promised pensions and early retirement
benefits.
Defend worker pensions, benefits, and secure retirement. Together,
we will ensure that employers and our government honor the promises they made
to workers in fossil fuel industries. I’ve fought for years to protect pensions
and health benefits for retired coal workers, and I’ll continue fighting to
maintain the solvency of multi-employer pension plans. As president, I’ll
protect those benefits that fossil fuel workers have earned. My plan to empower American workers commits
to defending pensions, recognizing the value of defined-benefit pensions, and
pushing to pass the Butch-Lewis Act to
create a loan program for the most financially distressed pension plans in the
country. And my Social Security plan
would increase benefits by $200 a month for every beneficiary, lifting nearly 5
million seniors out of poverty and expanding benefits for workers with
disabilities and their families.
Create joint safety-health committees. In 2016, more than 50,000 workers
died from occupational-related diseases. And since the beginning of his
administration, Trump has rolled back rules and regulations that limit exposure to certain
chemicals and requirements around facility safety inspections,
further jeopardizing workers and the community around them. When workers have
the power to keep themselves safe, they make their communities safer too. A
Warren Administration will reinstate the work safety rules and regulations
Trump eliminated, and will work to require large companies to create joint
safety-health committees with representation from workers and impacted communities.
Force fossil fuel companies to honor their obligations. As
a matter of justice, we should tighten bankruptcy laws to prevent coal and
other fossil fuel companies from evading their responsibility to their workers
and to the communities that they have helped to pollute. In the Senate, I have fought to
improve the standing of coal worker pensions and benefits in bankruptcy — as
president, I will work with Congress to pass legislation to make these changes
a reality.
And as part of our commitment, we must take care of all
workers, including those who were left behind decades ago by the fossil fuel
economy. Although Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal is the inspiration for this
full scale mobilization of the federal government to defeat the climate crisis,
it was not perfect. The truth is that too often, many New Deal agencies and
policies were tainted by structural racism. And as deindustrialization led to
prolonged disinvestment, communities of color were too often both the first to
lose their job base, and the first place policymakers thought of to dump the
refuse of the vanished industries. Now there is a real risk that poor
communities dependent on carbon fuels will be asked to bear the costs of
fighting climate change on their own. We must take care not to replicate the
failings and limitations of the original New Deal as we implement a Green New
Deal and transition our economy to 100% clean energy. Instead we need to build
an economy that works for every American — and leaves no one behind.
Prioritizing Environmental Justice at the Highest Levels
As we work to enact a Green New Deal, our commitment to
environmental justice cannot be an afterthought — it must be central to our
efforts to fight back against climate change. That means structuring our
government agencies to ensure that we’re centering frontline and fenceline
communities in implementing a just transition. It means ensuring that the most
vulnerable have a voice in decision-making that impacts their communities, and
direct access to the White House itself. Here’s how we’ll do that:
Elevate environmental justice at the White House.
I’ll transform the Council on Environmental Quality into a Council on Climate
Action with a broader mandate, including making environmental justice a
priority. I’ll update the 1994 executive order that
directed federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of their
missions, and revitalize the
cabinet-level interagency council on environmental justice. We will raise the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council to report directly to the White
House, bringing in the voices of frontline community leaders at the highest
levels. And I will bring these leaders to the White House for an environmental
justice summit within my first 100 days in office, to honor the contributions
of frontline activists over decades in this fight and to listen to ideas for
how we can make progress.
Empower the EPA to support frontline communities. The
Trump Administration has proposed dramatic cuts to
the EPA, including to its Civil Rights office, and threatened to eliminate EPA’s
Office of Environmental Justice entirely. I’ll restore and grow both offices,
including by expanding the Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE)
and Environmental Justice Small Grant programs. We’ll condition these
competitive grant funds on the development of state- and local-level
environmental justice plans, and ensure that regional EPA offices stay open to
provide support and capacity. But it’s not just a matter of size. Historically,
EPA’s Office of Civil Rights has rejected nine out of ten cases
brought to it for review. In a Warren Administration, we will aggressively
pursue cases of environmental discrimination wherever they occur.
Bolster the CDC to play a larger role in environmental
justice. The links between industrial pollution and negative public health
outcomes are clear. A Warren
Administration will fully fund the Center for Disease Control’s environmental
health programs, such as childhood lead poisoning prevention, and community
health investigations. We will also provide additional grant funding for
independent research into environmental health effects.
Diminish the influence of Big Oil. Powerful
corporations rig the system to work for themselves, exploiting and influencing
the regulatory process and placing industry representatives in positions of
decision-making authority within agencies. My plan to end Washington corruption would
slam shut the revolving door between industry and government, reducing
industry’s ability to influence the regulatory process and ensuring that the
rules promulgated by our environmental agencies reflect the needs of
communities, not the fossil fuel industry.
Right to Affordable Energy and Clean Water
Nearly one-third of
American households struggle to pay their energy bills, and Native American,
Black, and Latinx households are more likely to be energy insecure. Renters are
also often disadvantaged by landlords unwilling to invest in safer buildings,
weatherization, or cheaper energy. And clean energy adoption is unequal along
racial lines, even after accounting for differences in wealth. I have a plan to move the
United States to 100% clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy in electricity
generation by 2035 — but energy justice must be an integral part of our
transition to clean energy. Here’s what that means:
Address high energy cost burdens. Low-income
families, particularly in rural areas, are spending too much of their
income on energy, often the result of older or mobile homes that are not
weatherized or that lack energy efficient upgrades. I’ve committed to meet
Governor Inslee’s goal of retrofitting 4% of U.S. buildings annually to
increase energy efficiency — and we’ll start that national initiative by
prioritizing frontline and fenceline communities. In addition, my housing plan
includes over $10 billion in competitive grant programs for communities that invest
in well-located affordable housing — funding that can be used for
modernization and weatherization of homes, infrastructure, and schools. It also
targets additional funding to tribal governments, rural communities, and
jurisdictions — often majority minority — where homeowners are still
struggling with the aftermath of the
2008 housing crash. Energy retrofits can be a large source of green jobs, and
I’m committed to ensuring that these are good jobs, with full federal labor
protections and the right to organize.
Support community power. Consumer-owned energy
cooperatives, many of which were established to electrify rural areas during
the New Deal, serve an estimated 42 million people
across our country. While some co-ops are beginning to transition their assets
to renewable energy resources, too many are locked
into long-term contracts that make them dependent on coal and other dirty fuels
for their power. To speed the transition to clean energy, my administration
will offer assistance to write down debt and restructure loans to help
cooperatives get out of long-term coal contracts, and provide additional low-
or no-cost financing for zero-carbon electricity generation and transmission
projects for cooperatives via the Rural Utilities Service. I’ll work with
Congress to extend and expand clean energy bonds to
allow community groups and nonprofits without tax revenue to access clean
energy incentives. I’ll also provide dedicated support for the four Power Marketing
Administrations, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Appalachian Regional
Commission to help them build publicly-owned clean energy assets and deploy
clean power to help communities transition off fossil fuels. Accelerating the
transition to clean energy will both reduce carbon emissions, clean up our
air, and help bring down rural consumers’ utility bills.
Protect local equities. Communities that host large
energy projects are entitled to receive a share of the benefits. But too often,
large energy companies are offered millions in tax subsidies to locate in a
particular area — without any commitment that they will make a corresponding
commitment in that community. Community Benefit Agreements can help address
power imbalances between project developers and low-income communities by
setting labor, environmental, and transparency standards before work begins.
I’ll make additional federal subsidies or tax benefits for large utility
projects contingent on strong Community Benefits Agreements, which should
include requirements for prevailing wages and collective bargaining rights. And
I’ll insist on a clawback provision if a company doesn’t hold up its end of the
deal. If developers work with communities to ensure that everyone benefits from
clean energy development, we will be able to reduce our emissions faster.
It’s simple: access to clean water is a basic human right.
Water quality is an issue in both urban and rural communities. In rural areas,
for example, runoff into rivers and streams by Big Agriculture has poisoned local
drinking water. In urban areas, lack of infrastructure investment has resulted
in lead and other poisons seeping
into aging community water systems. We need to take action to protect our
drinking water. Here’s how we can do that:
Invest in our nation’s public water systems.
America’s water is a public asset and should be owned by and for the public. A
Warren Administration will end decades of disinvestment and privatization of
our nation’s water system — our government at every level should invest in
safe, affordable drinking water for all of us.
Increase and enforce water quality standards. Our
government should enforce strict regulations to ensure clean water is available
to all Americans. I’ll restore the Obama-era water rule that protected our
lakes, rivers, and streams, and the drinking water they provide. We also need a
strong and nationwide safe drinking water standard that covers PFAS and other
chemicals. A Warren Administration will fully enforce Safe Drinking Water Act
standards for all public water systems. I’ll aggressively regulate chemicals
that make their way into our water supply, including by designating PFAS as a
hazardous substance.
Fund access to clean water. Our clean drinking water
challenge goes beyond lead, and beyond Flint and Newark. To respond, a Warren
Administration will commit to fully capitalize the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to refurbish old water
infrastructure and support ongoing water treatment operations and maintenance,
prioritizing the communities most heavily impacted by inadequate water
infrastructure. In rural areas, I’ll increase funding for the Conservation
Stewardship Program to $15 billion annually, empowering family farmers to help
limit the agricultural runoff that harms local wells and water systems. To
address lead specifically, we will establish a lead abatement grant program
with a focus on schools and daycare centers, and commit to remediating lead in
all federal buildings. We’ll provide a Lead Safety Tax Credit for homeowners to
invest in remediation. And a Warren Administration will also fully fund IDEA
and other support programs that help children with developmental challenges as
a result of lead exposure.
Protecting the Most Vulnerable During Climate-Related
Disasters
In 2018, the U.S. was home to the world’s three costliest environmental
catastrophes. And while any community can be hit by a hurricane, flood, extreme
weather, or fire, the impact of these kinds of disasters are particularly
devastating for low-income communities, people with disabilities,
and people of color. Take
Puerto Rico for example. When Hurricane Maria hit the island, decades of racism
and neglect were multiplied by the government’s failure to prepare
and Trump’s racist post-disaster response —
resulting in the deaths of at least 3,000 Puerto
Ricans and long-term harm to many more. Even as we fight climate change, we
must also prepare for its impacts — building resiliency not just in some
communities, but everywhere. Here’s how we can start to do that:
Invest in pre-disaster mitigation. For every dollar
invested in mitigation, the government and communities save $6 overall. But
true to form, the Trump Administration has proposed to steep cuts to
FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, abandoning communities just as the risk
of climate-related disasters is on the rise. As president, I’ll invest in
programs that help vulnerable communities build resiliency by quintupling this
program’s funding.
Better prepare for flood events. When I visited
Pacific Junction, Iowa, I saw scenes of devastation: crops ruined for the
season, cars permanently stalled, a water line 7 or 8 feet high in residents’
living rooms. And many residents in Pacific Junction fear that this could
happen all over again next year.
Local governments rely on FEMA’s flood maps, but some of these maps haven’t
been updated in decades. In my first
term as president, I will direct FEMA to fully update flood maps with
forward-looking data, prioritizing and including frontline communities in this
process. We’ll raise standards for new construction, including by reinstating
the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard. And we’ll make it easier for
vulnerable residents to move out of flood-prone properties — including by
buying back those properties for low-income homeowners at a value that will
allow them to relocate, and then tearing down the flood-prone properties, so we
can protect everyone.
Mitigate wildfire risk. We must also invest in
improved fire mapping and prevention programs. In a Warren Administration, we
will dramatically improve fire mapping and prevention by investing in advanced
modeling with a focus on helping the most vulnerable — incorporating not only
fire vulnerability but community demographics. We will prioritize these data to
invest in land management, particularly near the most vulnerable communities,
supporting forest restoration, lowering fire risk, and creating jobs all at
once. We will also invest in microgrid technology, so that we can de-energize
high-risk areas when required without impacting the larger community’s energy
supply. And as president, I will collaborate with Tribal governments on land
management practices to reduce wildfires, including by incorporating
traditional ecological practices and exploring co-management and the return of
public resources to indigenous protection wherever possible.
Prioritize at-risk populations in disaster planning and
response. When the most deadly fire in California’s history struck the town
of Paradise last November, a majority of the
victims were disabled or elderly. People with disabilities face increased difficulties in
evacuation assistance and accessing critical medical care. For people who are
homeless, disasters exacerbate existing
challenges around housing and health. And fear of deportation can deter undocumented
people from contacting emergency services for help evacuating or from going to
an emergency shelter. As president, I will strengthen rules to require disaster
response plans to uphold the rights of vulnerable populations. In my immigration plan, I
committed to putting in place strict guidelines to protect sensitive locations,
including emergency shelters. We’ll also develop best practices at the federal
level to help state and local governments develop plans for at-risk communities
— including for extreme heat or cold — and require that evacuation services
and shelters are fully accessible to people with disabilities. During
emergencies, we will work to ensure that critical information is shared in ways
that reflect the diverse needs of people with disabilities and other at-risk
communities, including through ASL and Braille and languages spoken in the
community. We will establish a National Commission on Disability Rights and
Disasters, ensure that federal disaster spending is ADA compliant, and support
people with disabilities in disaster planning. We will make certain that
individuals have ongoing access to health care services if they have to leave
their community or if there is a disruption in care. And we will ensure
that a sufficient number of disability specialists are present in state
emergency management teams and FEMA’s disaster response corps.
Ensure a just and equitable recovery. In the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina,
disaster scammers and profiteers swarmed, capitalizing on others’ suffering to
make a quick buck. And after George W. Bush suspended the
Davis-Bacon Act, the doors were opened for contractors to under-pay and subject
workers to dangerous working conditions, particularly low-income and immigrant
workers. As president, I’ll put strong protections in place to ensure that
federal tax dollars go toward community recovery, not to line the pockets of
contractors. And we must maintain high standards for workers even when disaster
strikes.
Studies show that the white and wealthy receive
more federal disaster aid, even though they are most able to financially
withstand a disaster. This is particularly true when it comes to housing —
FEMA’s programs are designed to protect homeowners, even as homeownership
has slipped out of reach for
an increasing number of Americans. As president, I will reform post-disaster
housing assistance to better protect renters, including a commitment to a
minimum of one-to-one replacement for any damaged federally-subsidized
affordable housing, to better protect low-income families. I will work with
Congress to amend the Stafford Act to make grant funding more flexible to allow
families and communities to rebuild in more resilient ways. And we will
establish a competitive grant program, based on the post-Sandy Rebuild by Design pilot,
to offer states and local governments the opportunity to compete for additional
funding for creative resilience projects.
Under a Warren Administration, we will monitor post-disaster recovery to help
states and local governments better understand the long-term consequences and
effectiveness of differing recovery strategies, including how to address climate gentrification,
to ensure equitable recovery for all communities. We’ll center a right to
return for individuals who have been displaced during a disaster and prioritize
the voices of frontline communities in the planning of their return or
relocation. And while relocation should be a last resort, when it occurs, we
must improve living standards and keep communities together whenever possible.
Holding Polluters Accountable
In Manchester, Texas, Hurricane Harvey’s damage wasn’t
apparent until after the storm had passed — when a thick, chemical smell
started wafting through the majority Latinx community, which is surrounded by
nearly 30 refineries and
chemical plants. A tanker failure had released 1,188 pounds of
benzene into the air, one of at least one hundred area leaks that happened in
Harvey’s aftermath. But because regulators had turned off air
quality and toxic monitoring in anticipation of the storm, the leaks went
unnoticed and the community uninformed.
This should have never been allowed to happen. But
Manchester is also subject to 484,000 pounds of
toxic chemical leaks on an average year. That’s not just a tragedy — it’s an
outrage. We must hold polluters accountable for their role in ongoing, systemic
damage in frontline communities. As president, I will use all my authorities to
hold companies accountable for their role in the climate crisis. Here’s how we
can do that:
Exercise all the oversight tools of the federal
government. A Warren Administration will encourage the EPA and Department
of Justice to aggressively go after corporate polluters, particularly in cases
of environmental discrimination. We need real consequences for corporate
polluters that break our environmental law. That means steep fines, which we
will reinvest in impacted communities. And under my Corporate Executive Accountability
Act, we’ll press for criminal penalties for executives when their
companies hurt people through criminal negligence.
Use the power of the courts. Thanks to a Supreme
Court decision, companies are
often let completely off the hook, even when their operations inflict harm on
thousands of victims each year. I’ll work with Congress to create a private
right of action for environmental harm at the federal level, allowing individuals
and communities impacted by environmental discrimination to sue for damages and
hold corporate polluters accountable.
Reinstitute the Superfund Waste Tax. There are over 1300 remaining
Superfund sites across the country, many located in or adjacent to frontline
communities. So-called “orphan” toxic waste clean-ups were originally funded by
a series of excise taxes on the petroleum and chemical industries. But thanks
to Big Oil and other industry lobbyists, when that tax authority expired in
1995 it was not renewed. Polluters must pay for the consequences of their
actions — not leave them for the communities to clean up. I’ll work with
Congress to reinstate and then triple the Superfund tax, generating needed
revenue to clean up the mess.
Hold the finance industry accountable for its role in the
climate crisis. Financial institutions and the insurance industry underwrite
and fund fossil fuel investments around the world, and can play a key role in
stopping the climate crisis. Earlier this year, Chubb became the
first U.S. insurer to commit to stop insuring coal projects, a welcome
development. Unfortunately, many banks and insurers seem to be moving in the
opposite direction. In fact, since the Paris Agreement was signed, U.S. banks
including JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Bank of America have
actually increased their
fossil fuel investments. And there is evidence that big banks are replicating a tactic they
first employed prior to the 2008 crash — shielding themselves from climate
losses by selling the mortgages most at risk from climate impacts to Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac to shift the burden off their books and onto taxpayers at a
discount.
To accelerate the transition to clean energy, my Climate Risk Disclosure Act would
require banks and other companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions
and price their exposure to climate risk into their valuations, raising public
awareness of just how dependent our economy is on fossil fuels. And let me be
clear: in a Warren Administration, they will no longer be allowed to shift that
burden to the rest of us.
The vigorous contest of
Democrats seeking the 2020 presidential nomination has produced excellent
policy proposals to address major issues. Senator Elizabeth Warren details her
plan to tax excessive lobbying as part of her anti-corruption proposal. This is
from the Warren campaign:
Charlestown, MA – Senator Elizabeth Warren recently unveiled her plan for a new tax on excessive lobbying. It applies to every corporation and trade organization that spends over $500,000 per year lobbying our government. The revenue from this tax will be used to help our government fight back against the influence of lobbyists.
Based on our analysis of lobbying data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, if this tax had been in effect over the last 10 years, over 1,600 corporations and trade groups would have had to pay up – leading to an estimated $10 billion in total revenue.
Senator Warren has already laid out how she will end lobbying as we know it and strengthen Congressional independence from lobbyists. (Read more about her plan here.)
Here is more about her plan to tax
excessive lobbying:
When Americans think about corporate lobbyists, they usually think about the
people in fancy suits who line the halls of Congress armed with donations,
talking points, and whatever else they need to win favorable treatment for their
big corporate clients.
They’re right. In fact, corporate interests spend more on lobbying than
we spend to fund both houses of Congress — spending more than $2.8 billion on
lobbying last year alone. That’s why I have a plan to strengthen congressional
independence from lobbyists and give Congress the resources it
needs to defend against these influence campaigns.
But corporate lobbyists don’t just swarm Congress. They also target our federal
departments like the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau. These agencies exist to oversee giant corporations and
implement the laws coming out of Congress – but lobbyists often do their best
to grind public interest work at these agencies to a halt.
When the Department of Labor tried to protect workers from
predatory financial advisors who got rich by siphoning off large and
unnecessary fees from workers’ life savings, Wall Street lobbyists descended on
Washington to try to kill the effort – twice. When they failed
the second time, they sued to stop it in
the courts.
When the Environmental Protection Agency decided to act on greenhouse gas
emissions by passing regulations on methane,
fossil fuel companies called in their lobbyists. The rule was dramatically weakened –
and then Trump’s EPA went even further than some in the industry wanted by
proposing to scrap the rule altogether.
When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau tried to crack down on
payday lenders exploiting vulnerable communities, lobbyists convinced the Trump
administration to cripple the rule –
while the payday lenders who hired them spent about $1 million at
a Trump resort.
Regulatory agencies are only empowered to implement public interest rules under
authority granted by legislation already passed by Congress. So how is it that
lobbyists are able to kill, weaken, or delay so many important efforts to
implement the law?
Often they accomplish this goal by launching an all out assault on the process
of writing new rules – informally meeting with
federal agencies to push for favorable treatment, burying those agencies
in detailed industry comments during
the notice-and-comment rulemaking process, and pressuring members of Congress to
join their efforts to lobby against the rule. If the rule moves forward anyway,
they’ll argue to an obscure
federal agency tasked with weighing the costs and benefits of agency rules that
the rules are too costly, and if the regulation somehow survives this
onslaught, they’ll hire fancy lawyers to
challenge it in court.
I have released the most sweeping set of anti-corruption reforms since
Watergate. Under my plan, we will end lobbying as we know it.
We will make sure everyone who is paid to influence government is required to
register as a lobbyist, and we’ll impose strict disclosure requirements so that
lobbyists have to publicly report which agency rules they are seeking to
influence and what information they provide to those agencies. We’ll also shut
the revolving door between government and K Street to prevent another Trump
administration where ex-lobbyists lead the Department
of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Labor, the
Department of Interior, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
My plan also calls for something unique – a new tax on excessive lobbying
that applies to every corporation and trade organization that spends over
$500,000 per year lobbying our government. This tax will reduce the incentive
for excessive lobbying, and raise money that we can use to fight back against
this kind of onslaught when it occurs.
Under my lobbying tax proposal, companies that spend between $500,000 and $1
million per year on lobbying, calculated on a quarterly basis, will pay a 35%
tax on those expenditures. For every dollar above $1 million spent on lobbying,
the rate will increase to 60% – and for every dollar above $5 million, it will
increase to 75%.
Based on our analysis of lobbying data provided
by the Center for Responsive Politics, if this tax had been in effect over the
last 10 years, over 1,600 corporations and trade groups would have had to pay
up – leading to an estimated $10 billion in total revenue. And 51 of them –
including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Koch Industries, Pfizer, Boeing,
Microsoft, Walmart, and Exxon – would have been subject to the 75% rate for
lobbying spending above $5 million in every one of those years.
Nobody will be surprised that the top five industries that would have paid the
highest lobbying taxes are the same industries that have spent the last decade
fighting tooth and nail against popular policies: Big Pharma, health insurance
companies, oil and gas companies, Wall Street firms, and electric
utilities.
Among individual companies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce would have owed the
most of any company or trade group in lobbying taxes: an estimated $770 million
on $1 billion in lobbying spending – over $400 million more than the
next-highest-paying organization, the National Association of Realtors, which
would have paid $307 million on $425 million in lobbying spending. Blue Cross
Blue Shield, PhRMA, and the American Hospital Association would have all paid
between $149 and $163 million in taxes on between $213 and $233 million in
lobbying spending. And General Electric, Boeing, AT&T, Business Roundtable,
and Comcast round out the top ten, paying between $105 million and $129 million
in taxes.
Every dollar raised by the lobbying tax will be placed into a new Lobbying
Defense Trust Fund dedicated to directing a surge of resources to Congress and
federal agencies to fight back against the effort to bury public interest
actions by the government.
Corporate lobbyists are experts at killing widely popular policies behind
closed doors.
Take just one example from the Obama administration. In October 2010, the
Department of Labor (DOL) proposed a
“fiduciary rule” to protect employee retirement accounts from brokers who charge exorbitant fees and
put their own commissions above earning returns for their clients. The idea was
simple: if you’re looking after someone’s money, you should look out for their
best interests.
It’s an obvious rule – but it would cut into financial industry profits. So the
industry dispatched an army of lobbyists to fight against the
rule, including by burying the agency in public comments. In the first four
months, the DOL received hundreds of comments on
the proposed rule, including comments from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Morgan
Stanley, Bank of America, BlackRock, and other powerful financial interests.
After a public hearing with testimony from groups like Fidelity and J.P Morgan,
the agency received over 100 more comments —
including dozens from members of Congress,
many of which were
heavily slanted toward industry talking points.
Because the law requires agencies to respond to each concern laid out in the
public comments, when corporate interests flood agencies with comments, the
process often becomes so time-consuming and resource-intensive that it can kill or delay final rules altogether
– and that’s exactly what happened. On September 19, 2011, the DOL withdrew the proposed rule,
but said that it planned to try again in the future.
Undeterred, Wall Street pushed forward their lobbying campaign to ensure that
the Department of Labor wouldn’t try again to re-issue the fiduciary rule. In
June 2013, Robert Lewis, a lobbyist for an investment industry trade
group, personally drafted a letter opposing
this common-sense reform – and got 32 members of Congress to sign it. The
letter ominously urged the Department to “learn from its earlier experience”
when the financial industry had killed the first proposal. Soon, members of
Congress from both parties were joining in, telling the Obama
administration to delay re-issuing the rule.
To its great credit, the Obama Department of Labor didn’t give up. On February
23, 2015, the agency finally re-proposed the rule. Wall Street ramped up their
lobbying once more to try to kill it a second time. This time, with firm resolve
and committed allies, DOL and those of us fighting alongside
them beat back thousands of comments,
and retirees won – but it took so long that Donald Trump became President
before the rule fully went into effect.
Lobbyists have followed this same playbook to
block, narrow, or delay countless other common- sense industry regulations.
Swarm regulators and Congress, bury everyone in an avalanche of money, and
strangle government action in the public interest before it even gets off the
ground.
That’s why I’m using the revenue from my tax on excessive lobbying to
establish a new Lobbying Defense Trust Fund, which will help our government
fight back against the influence of lobbyists.
First,
we’ll use the Lobbying Defense Trust Fund to strengthen congressional support
agencies. In
my plan to strengthen congressional
independence from lobbyists, I explained how lobbying tax revenue
would help to reinstate the Office of Technology Assessment and increase the
budget for other congressional support agencies, like the Congressional Budget
Office.
Second,
we’ll give more money to federal agencies that are facing significant lobbying
activity. Every
time a company above the $500,000 threshold spends money lobbying against a
rule from a federal agency, the taxes on that spending will go directly to the
agency to help it fight back. In 2010, DOL could have used that money to hire
more staffers to complete the rule more quickly and intake the flood of
industry comments opposing it.
Third,
revenue from the lobbying tax will help to establish a new Office of the Public
Advocate. This
office will help the American people engage with federal agencies and fight for
the public interest in the rule-making process. If this office had existed in
2010, the Public Advocate would have made sure that DOL heard from workers and
retirees – even while both parties in Congress were spouting industry talking
points.
My new lobbying tax will make hiring armies of lobbyists significantly more
expensive for the largest corporate influencers like Blue Cross Blue Shield,
Boeing, and Comcast. Sure, this may mean that some corporations and industry
groups will choose to reduce their lobbying expenditures, raising less tax
revenue down the road – but in that case, all the better.
And if instead corporations continue to engage in excessive lobbying, my
lobbying tax will raise even more revenue for Congress, agencies, and federal
watchdogs to fight back.
It’s just one more example of the kind of big, structural change we need to put
power back in the hands of the people – and break the grip that lobbyists have
on our government for good.
The vigorous contest of Democrats seeking the 2020 presidential nomination has produced excellent policy proposals to address major issues.Ahead of her speech in Washington Square Park near the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, in which she delineated how corruption in Washington has allowed the rich and powerful to tilt the rules and grow richer and more powerful, Senator Elizabeth Warren released her plan to end Washington corruption.
Warren has already
advanced comprehensive anti-corruption legislation in Congress, but she is
going further with a set of far-reaching and aggressive proposals. “Her plan
will end lobbying as we know it, end self-dealing in the White House, end
corporate capture of the federal government’s rule-making process, hold our
federal judiciary and the Supreme Court to the highest ethical standards, and
more.”
Warren declared, “No
matter what brings you into this fight — whether it’s child care, student
loans, health care, immigration, or criminal justice, one thing is crystal
clear: corruption is making it worse — and it’s at the root of the major
problems we face as a democracy.
“Reforming the money
game in Washington isn’t enough. We also need to comprehensively clean up our
campaign finance system. That’s why I’ve also called for a constitutional
amendment to overturn Citizens
United. It’s why we need to get rid of the Super PACs and secret
spending by billionaires and giant corporations that try to buy our democracy.
It’s why we need to break the grip that big donors have by creating a system of
exclusive public funding of our elections. But even if we solve our campaign
finance problems, comprehensive anti-corruption reforms targeted at Washington
itself are necessary to finally end the stranglehold that the wealthy and the
well-connected have over our government’s decision-making processes.
“I believe that we can
root out corruption in Washington. I believe we must make big, structural
changes that will once again restore our trust in government by showing that it
can work for all of us. And when I’m President, that’s exactly what I’ll do.”
This is from the Elizabeth Warren campaign:
In 1958, the National Election Survey first asked Americans a simple question: Do you trust the government to do the right thing most of the time? That year, 73% of Americans said yes.
In
2019, that number is just 17%. Five out of every six Americans do not trust
their government to do the right thing.
Why
have so many people lost faith in government?
It’s
true that right-wing politicians have spent a generation attacking the very
idea of government. But it’s also true that these days, our government doesn’t
work for most people. Sure, it works great for the wealthy and the
well-connected — but for everybody else, it doesn’t.
It
doesn’t work because big insurance companies and hospital conglomerates put
profits ahead of the health and well-being of the American people, and dump
piles of money into political campaigns and lobbying efforts to block any move
toward Medicare for All.
It
doesn’t work because big oil companies that have concealed climate studies —
and funded bought-and-paid-for climate denial research — bury regulators in an
avalanche of shady, bad-faith pseudoscience and then spend freely on influence
peddling in Congress to make sure nothing like a Green New Deal ever sees the
light of day.
It
doesn’t work because giant pharmaceutical companies want to squeeze every last
penny out of the people who depend on their prescriptions, while their army of
lobbyists suffocates reform any time there’s a discussion in Congress on drug
pricing.
Universal
child care. Criminal justice reform. Affordable housing. Gun reform. Look
closely, and you’ll see — on issue after issue, widely popular policies are
stymied because giant corporations and billionaires who don’t want to pay taxes
or follow any rules use their money and influence to stand in the way of big,
structural change.
We’ve got to call that out for what it is: corruption, plain and
simple.
Make
no mistake about it: The Trump Administration is the most corrupt
administration of our lifetimes.
Trump’s
tax bill is a $1.5 trillion giveaway that primarily helps large corporations and wealthy
Americans. Half of the total registered lobbyists in Washington
worked on issues involving the word “tax” the year the bill was written —
that’s eleven lobbyists for every member of Congress. And when the members of
Congress who championed it lost their elections, they got juicy gigs in the lobbying industry themselves.
Trump’s
Supreme Court Justices were hand-picked by right-wing extremist groups that
spent millions on television ads — first to hold open a Supreme Court seat in
the Obama Administration, and then to pressure the Senate to rubber stamp their
candidates of choice, even when it meant ignoring serious sexual assault charges to ram through
the confirmation.
But
these problems did not start with Donald Trump. They are much bigger than him —
and solving them will require big, structural change to fundamentally transform
our government.
That’s
why I’ve released plans to fight Washington corruption. A plan to make sure
that no president is above the law. A plan to tackle defense contractor coziness at the Pentagon.
A plan to ban private prisons and expand oversight, transparency, and
enforcement for all contractors hired by the federal government. In Congress,
I’ve previously advanced wide-ranging anti-corruption legislation.
But
we must go further.
Today, I’m announcing a comprehensive set of far-reaching and
aggressive proposals to root out corruption in Washington. It’s the most
sweeping set of anti-corruption reforms since Watergate. The goal of these
measures is straightforward: to take power away from the wealthy and the
well-connected in Washington and put it back where it belongs — in the hands of
the people.
My
plan lays out nearly a hundred ways that we can change our government to fix
this problem — from improving public integrity rules for federal officials in
every branch of government to ending lobbying as we know it, fixing the
criminal laws to hold corrupt politicians to account, and ensuring our federal
agencies and courts are free from corrupting influences.
And
I’m just getting started.
Restoring Public Integrity
If
you choose to be a public servant, you should serve the public — not your own
financial interests or the financial interests of the rich and powerful. But we
face a crisis of confidence in the ethics and public integrity of federal
officials in America. The revolving door in and out of the Trump Administration
is spinning out of control, and wave after wave of people in Trump’s orbit are
trying to profit personally from his presidency — including him.
But
even before Trump entered the White House, our nation’s public integrity rules
were far too lax. Too many public officials can easily leverage public service
for personal gain. And the ability to walk around government with obvious and
direct personal financial conflicts reduces public faith in honest officials.
To fix this, we need a total rewrite of our ethics laws.
We must begin by rooting out financial conflicts of interest in
Washington.
Donald
Trump is a walking conflict of interest. Actually, more like 2,310 conflicts of interest — and counting.
His refusal to divest from his businesses has opened the door for giant
corporations, foreign lobbyists, and our own government officials to curry
favor with his administration and pad his own bottom line.
According
to a study by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington, Donald Trump has visited one of his own properties for nearly a
third of the total days that he has been president. Trump’s Washington hotel
even sent the federal government a bill for $200,000 because Secret Service agents
were forced to stay there as well.
Foreign
countries have also taken the hint. Representatives from 65 foreign governments
have visited Trump properties since he took office, and embassies have begun
booking Trump’s hotels for their events. Trump has egged them on, shamelessly
floating another one of his properties as the venue for a future international summit.
Big
corporations and billionaires have also tried to curry favor with Donald Trump
by patronizing his properties. T-Mobile sent its top executives to the Trump
Hotel in DC right after the company announced a merger requiring the Trump
administration’s approval. Payday lenders held their annual meetings at Trump’s golf club in Miami, while the
Trump administration has consistently gutted restrictions and regulations on
exploitative payday lenders. And several wealthy donors who pay the $200,000
Mar-a-Lago membership fee — which doubled when Trump became President — have
exerted “sweeping influence” at the Department of Veteran’s Affairs.
Even
Trump’s own appointees and political allies have tried to suck up to Trump by
exploiting his conflicts of interest. More than 100 Republican Members of Congress have become patrons of
Trump’s businesses since he became President. Most recently, Trump’s Attorney
General William Barr spent $30,000 at Trump’s Washington Hotel, implausibly
claiming that it was the only place he could find for his holiday party in
Washington — and on an official trip to Ireland, Vice President Mike Pence
stayed at a Trump property reportedly at Trump’s instruction, even though it was three hours away from his
scheduled meetings in Dublin.
Trump
is by far the most egregious example — and we need new rules to hold leaders
accountable for this kind of conduct. But we cannot condemn this conduct
without also acknowledging that opportunities for the appearance of
self-dealing are far too easy across the federal government. Restoring public
confidence isn’t just about replacing Trump and his cronies. We need new bright
lines and clear rules to eliminate the possibility of public officials serving
private interests.
End self-dealing in the White House by applying conflict of
interest laws to the President and Vice President. Under my plan,Presidents
and Vice Presidents would be required to place their businesses into a blind
trust to be sold off. No more payoffs. No more bribes from foreign governments.
No more self-dealing.
Disclose tax returns of federal candidates and officeholders to
the public automatically. Tax return disclosure for federally elected officials
shouldn’t be optional — it should be the law. And it shouldn’t just apply to Presidents
— it should apply to everyone running for or serving in federal elected office.
Presidential candidates, in particular, should follow the standard set by
Barack Obama for releasing at least eight years of returns. (I’ve released
eleven.) And the IRS should simply put out the required tax returns for
qualified candidates themselves — so nothing like Donald Trump’s refusal to
disclose his taxes can ever happen again.
Force senior government officials to divest from privately-owned
assets that could present conflicts of interest. White House
advisers like Jared Kushner have been allowed to use their
government positions to further enrich themselves and their families, while
Cabinet Officials like Betsy DeVos have hundreds of millions held in
privately-owned accounts that make it nearly impossible to determine who could
exercise influence over DeVos and her family. The fact that such conduct could
pass any kind of ethics screen makes it clear that we need new rules. My plan
puts an end to this practice by requiring senior officials, including those who
are unpaid like Kushner, to divest from their businesses and other conflicted
assets.
Completely ban the practice of government officials trading
individual stocks while in office. Under current law, members of Congress can
trade stocks and then use their powerful positions to increase the value of
those stocks and pad their own pockets. Tom Price, Trump’s former Secretary of
Health and Human Services, purchased pharmaceutical stocks while in the
House of Representatives — then fought hard to get a return on his investment
by pushing policies that would benefit giant pharmaceutical companies. And
another member of Congress, Chris Collins, was charged for trading the same stocks based on insider information. But
prosecutions like this are rare. And even where investments don’t influence
decisions, the existence of these direct conflicts undermine public confidence
in government.
The
solution is simple — ban members of Congress and senior government officials
from owning or trading individual stocks. Instead, they can invest in conflict-free
mutual funds or funds managed by the federal Thrift Savings Program. Law firms
follow these kinds of rules to prevent the appearance of financial conflicts
with the interests of their clients — there’s no reason important public
servants and elected officials shouldn’t, too.
Shut down a raft of additional shady practices that provide
opportunities for government officials to serve their own financial
interests. My plan bans members of Congress and senior congressional staff
from serving on corporate boards — whether or not they’re paid to do so. It
also strengthens ethics requirements for presidential transition teams to
ensure that those who are shaping our government disclose any conflicts of
interest and comply with the highest ethical standards. And to ensure that
there are no questions about whether members of Congress are acting based on
financial conflicts, like lobbyist-turned-Senator-turned-lobbyist Jon Kyl, my plan requires
every member of Congress, including appointed ones, to disclose their financial
conflicts before they take office.
Finally, we must immediately end the possibility of trading on
access to insider political information. Every year, hundreds of millions of
dollars flow into so-called “political intelligence” firms that hire operatives to prowl the
halls of Congress for insider information and sell that information to Wall Street traders trying to make a buck. My plan
combats this practice by implementing strict disclosure requirements and
regulations on so-called “political intelligence consulting,” including
criminal penalties for former public officials who use insider political
information to make investments or advise others who are doing so.
Next, it’s time to close and padlock the revolving door between
government and industry.
Donald
Trump has not just enriched himself and his advisers; he has turned his White
House into a case study in the dangers of the revolving door between industry
and government.
Trump
railed against Goldman Sachs on the campaign trail in 2016. But as soon as he
was elected, he tapped more than half a dozen of the firm’s employees to fill senior
positions in his administration — enough to open a new Goldman Sachs branch
office.
One
of these people was Gary Cohn, the former President of Goldman Sachs, who
became Trump’s top economic adviser. On his way out of Goldman, the firm gave
him a whopping $285 million — $123 million in the form of cash and
stocks that he could only collect if he left the firm to work in government.
I
call that a “pre-bribe.” And it paid off, too. While cashing that $285 million
check, Gary Cohn helped rewrite our nation’s tax laws, rammed the changes
through Congress, and gave Goldman Sachs their money back — and a few billion dollars in change.
There
are countless examples like this in the Trump Administration, but it’s a
widespread problem in official Washington — and it goes far beyond obvious and
egregious quid-pro-quo bribery. When someone serves in government with plans to
immediately turn around and work in the industry they’ve been overseeing, that
individual faces obvious incentives to advance the interests of their future
employer. And when someone moves immediately from a regulated company to a job
regulating that company, the public is right to worry about the risk that such
individuals will prioritize the interests of their old bosses.
Government
must be able to benefit from tapping private sector expertise, and public
servants who leave government should be able to find post-government
employment. Similarly, volunteer and part-time government positions, which make
sense in certain situations, necessarily assume some level of outside work. But
there is a difference between expertise and graft.
It
isn’t simply a matter of replacing Trump with an honest President. We’ve seen
the issue of industry lobbyists and top execs spinning freely through the
revolving door to and from important government positions in both Democratic
and Republican administrations. Fixing the underlying problem requires us to
tighten up the rules to ensure that when government officials are making
decisions, they are considering only the public interest — and not their own
personal interests or the interests of their friends and future employers.
Here
are some obvious steps to help address this problem:
Ban “golden parachutes” that provide corporate bonuses to
executives for serving in the federal government. We can’t let big
companies get away with installing their top executives in senior government
positions and paying them pre-bribes on their way out the door. Under my plan,
this would be illegal.
Restrict the ability of lobbyists to enter government
jobs. Under my proposal, current lobbyists won’t be able to take
government jobs for 2 years after lobbying, with limited exceptions for when
the hiring is in the national interest. Corporate lobbyists will have to wait
at least 6 years — no exceptions, and no waivers. These extensive cooling off
periods will help ensure that if anyone with this background is hired into a
government role, they are being selected because of their expertise, and not
their connections.
Make it illegal for elected officials and top government
appointees to become lobbyists — ever. My plan bans Presidents, Vice Presidents,
Members of Congress, federal judges, and Cabinet Secretaries from ever becoming
lobbyists — not for one or two years, but for life. All other federal employees
will also be barred from lobbying their former office, agency, or House of
Congress after they leave government service for at least 2 years — or 6 years
for corporate lobbyists.
Restrict the ability of companies to buy up former federal
officials to rig the game for themselves. Under my plan,
companies would be banned from immediately hiring former senior government
officials whose agency or office the company has lobbied in the past two years.
And because the biggest and most market-dominant corporations in America also
exercise outsized political power, my plan blocks them from using personnel
hires to rig the game by banning giant companies, banks, and monopolies from
hiring former senior government officials for at least four years.
Next, we’ll hold our federal judiciary to the highest ethical
standards.
Giant
corporations and powerful interests haven’t limited their influence-peddling to
Congress and the White House. They’ve also turned their attention to the
courts.
There
is “no formal mechanism for review of conflicts” for Supreme Court
justices. But covering your eyes doesn’t mean there’s nothing to see. The
Federalist Society — an extremist, corporate-funded right-wing group that
hand-picked Trump’s list of Supreme Court nominees — picked up Justice Clarence Thomas’s bills to attend a
fancy retreat hosted by the Koch brothers. And for years, Justice Thomas failed
to file public disclosures indicating that his wife worked as the White House
liaison for the Heritage Foundation, a group whose
co-founder personally began the conservative push to
overturn Roe v. Wade.
It’s
not just Supreme Court Justices, either. Federal judges can do just about
anything without disclosing it, and in the rare instance where their ethical
violations are discovered and they face investigation, they can escape further
scrutiny altogether by resigning without penalty.
Our
federal court system only works if the American people have faith that it is
neutrally dispensing fair-minded justice without bias or personal interests
interfering in judicial decisions. If we want the American people to believe
this, we need some serious judicial ethics reforms.
Ensure Supreme Court Justices are held to the same standard as
the rest of the federal judiciary. Today, every federal judge is bound by a Code
of Conduct — except Supreme Court justices. It’s a recipe for corruption. We
can fix it by applying the Code of Conduct for United States Judges to Supreme
Court justices.
Strengthen ethics requirements for federal judges. Corporations and
advocacy organizations routinely provide federal judges with all-expenses-paid
trips to extravagant seminars. My plan tightens existing rules that prohibit
judges from accepting gifts and establishes a new fund to cover reasonable
expenses for participating in judicial seminars. No more big speaking fees and
no more fancy trips to hunting lodges and golf courses. My plan also bans
federal judges from owning individual stocks.
Require judges to disclose key information so the American
people can verify that their conduct is above ethical reproach. My plan requires the
Judicial Conference of the United States — the institution in charge of
administering our federal courts — to publicly post judges’ financial reports,
recusal decisions, and speeches to bring these activities out of the shadows.
This will build public confidence that cases are being heard by fair and
independent judges.
Close the loophole that allows federal judges to escape
investigations for misconduct by stepping down from their post. When Ninth Circuit
Judge Alex Kozinski was confronted with a judicial ethics investigation for
sexual misconduct towards young female law clerks, he resigned — and the investigation immediately
ended. Similarly, sexual assault and perjury complaints against Brett Kavanaugh
were dismissed when he was confirmed to the Supreme
Court, and Donald Trump’s sister Maryanne Trump-Barry resigned from the bench,
ending an investigation into the Trump family’s decades-long tax schemes, including potential fraud. Under my plan,
investigations will remain open until their findings are made public and any
penalties for misconduct are issued.
Ending Lobbying As We Know It
The
fundamental promise of our democracy is that every voice matters. But when
lobbyists and big corporations can buy influence from politicians, that promise
is broken. The first thing to do to fix it is to end lobbying as we know it.
The
Constitution guarantees the American people the right to petition their
government with grievances. Lobbying isn’t new — it’s been around for
centuries. What’s new is the weaponization of lobbying to coerce our government
into doing whatever corporate interests want. While companies have an important
role to play in our democratic conversation, the voices of corporations and
powerful interests shouldn’t be the only voices in the room. But that’s exactly
what’s happened.
Prior
to the 1970s, there was little corporate spending on lobbying. Last year,
over eleven thousand registered lobbyists roamed the halls of
government, mostly representing their powerful clients — to the tune of over $3
billion. It’s no wonder everyone else has such a hard time breaking through the
noise.
This
boom in the influence-peddling game has happened around the same time that
right-wing ideologues have slashed independent government resources and
in-house expertise, which are essential for officials to maintain their
independence from the “expertise” of self-interested corporate lobbyists.
Meanwhile, most corporate lobbying work remains hopelessly opaque — nominally
governed by a patchwork of weak definitions, few meaningful restrictions, and
inadequate reporting and disclosure requirements. And the free rein granted to
corporate lobbyists to also fundraise for political campaigns crosses the line
from influence peddling to legalized bribery.
We
can break the grip that lobbyists for giant corporations have on our
government. Together, we can end lobbying as we know it. Here’s where to start:
Expand the definition of lobbyists to include everyone who is
paid to influence lawmakers. Because of our weak laws, only individuals who meet directly
with politicians or spend more than 20% of their time lobbying are required to register as lobbyists. That means law
firms, consultancies, and even self-described lobbying firms that hire
individuals for the express purpose of influencing government may be able to
avoid these registration requirements — allowing powerful interests to
influence policy without any public accountability. This practice, endemic on
both sides of the aisle, must end.
My
plan brings this activity out of the shadows by strengthening the definition of
a lobbyist to include all individualspaid to influence government.
It also creates a new designation for corporate lobbyists to identify
individuals paid to influence government on behalf of for-profit entities and
their front-groups — and subjects these corporate hired guns to additional
restrictions.
Ban lobbying for foreign entities — period. President Trump’s
campaign chair currently sits in prison, convicted in part of
failing to properly register his shady foreign lobbying activity on behalf of
Ukraine. But what is the justification for allowing foreign governments to use
Americans as hired guns who sit in the shadows, quietly attempting to influence
our domestic political system? That’s not how diplomacy should work. Other
nations have ambassadors and diplomatic staff in the United States. If those
governments want to interact with our political process they can do so through
normal, above-board diplomatic channels. My plan categorically bans the
practice of private lobbying for foreign governments, foreign individuals, and
foreign companies. No more K Street influence-peddlers looking out for the
interests of China, Russia, or Saudi Arabia.
Impose strict rules on all lobbyists, including preventing them
from donating to or fundraising for political candidates. Paid lobbyists are
hired for one objective: to advance the interests of their clients. Allowing
individuals who are paid to influence government officials on policy to also
give gifts or funnel money to the political campaigns of those same officials
sounds like legalized bribery. My plan not only bans lobbyists from making
political contributions, it also bans them from bundling donations or hosting
fundraisers for political candidates. And it outlaws lobbying contingency fees,
where lobbyists are only paid if they successfully influence politicians to
achieve a policy outcome that serves their client’s narrow interests.
Dramatically expand the kinds of information lobbyists are
required to disclose. Our current laws require only minimal disclosure from
lobbyists of their activities. This prevents the American people from fully
understanding who is trying to influence government — and why. My plan requires
all lobbyists to report publicly all meetings with Congressional offices or
public officials, the documents they provide to those individuals, and all
government actions they attempt to influence. It also demands that all
charitable non-profit organizations, social welfare organizations, and trade
associations disclose any donors whose money was used to develop products to
influence Congressional testimony, agency rulemaking, or for lobbying purposes.
Impose a tax on excessive lobbying — and use this revenue to
give Congress and agencies the tools to fight back against the corporate
influence machine. In 2018, lobbyists spent a whopping $3.4 billion trying to influence public policy on
behalf of their clients, including $95 million from the pro-corporate Chamber of
Commerce, $73 million from the National Association of
Realtors, and $28 million from the Big Pharma lobbying group. The
right to petition our government does not allow industries to exercise
unlimited financial influence over policymakers. That’s why I will impose a tax
on any entity that spends over $500,000 per year on lobbying. The tax will
reduce the financial incentive for excessive lobbying, and its revenue will be
used to counter the effects of excessive lobbying by providing additional
financial resources for agencies to research and review regulatory actions that
are the targets of excessive lobbying activity, as well as additional funding
for the National Public Advocate, an office established to help the public
engage with the rulemaking process, and for Congressional support agencies.
Strengthen Congressional independence from lobbyists. Congressional offices
and agencies are severely underfunded, creating unnecessary pressure to rely on
lobbyists for expertise. My plan transitions Congressional staff to competitive
salaries and reinstates the nonpartisan Congressional Office of Technology
Assessment to help members of Congress understand new areas of science and
technology — because members of Congress should be able to access expertise and
information without being dependent on lobbyists.
Major
federal agencies — agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department of Labor, and the Department of Energy — were created by Congress to
enforce and implement laws that protect the broad interests of the public
against the unrestrained exercise of corporate power. But because of the
revolving door, the avalanche of lobbyists, and the weakness of our agency
tools to fight back, agencies often find their agendas hijacked by the very
industries they are supposed to regulate. We can and should make additional
changes to strengthen agencies’ independence and their ability to act
decisively in the public interest.
Here
are some of the steps my plan takes to address this:
Stop powerful actors from peddling fake research — often funded
by undisclosed donors — and hold corporations accountable for lying to
regulators. I’ll crack down on corporations who manipulate agencies by
submitting sham research — like the climate denial studies bought and paid for by oil and gas magnates like the Koch
Brothers — by requiring individuals who submit a public comment on a proposed
rule to disclose editorial conflicts-of-interest related to any
non-peer-reviewed research they cite. Studies that are determined to have
conflicts of interest will be withheld from the rulemaking process unless the
individual offering that research certifies that they have undergone rigorous,
independent peer review. Otherwise, we’ll treat them like the bad faith junk
science that they are, excluding them from the rulemaking process and
preventing any court from considering them too. And if a company misleads an
agency with “analysis” it knows to be false, they’ll be prosecuted just like
anyone else who lies under oath to Congress or in a court of law.
End the practice of inviting corporate bigwigs to negotiate
rules their companies would have to follow and put a stop to the stall tactics
they use to kill public interest rules. My plan restricts the parties eligible to
participate in the negotiated rulemaking process so that industry no longer has
an open door to dominate the process. It also closes the loopholes that have
allowed industry and agencies to delay the implementation of rules it
disfavors, including by ending so-called informal review, reducing the review
period to 45 days, and clarifying that only Appeals Courts — not individual
Federal District judges — can temporarily block the implementation of rules.
And my plan requires agencies to publicly justify the withdrawal of any public
interest rules.
Give the public the tools to fight back against corporations who
seek to co-opt this process for their benefit. My plan establishes an
Office of the Public Advocate to help the public engage with important legal
changes made by federal agencies during the rulemaking process. I’ll also allow
private individuals to bring lawsuits against federal agencies for
unnecessarily delaying or failing to enforce agency rules — and against corporations
who have violated them.
Ensuring Access to Justice for All
Equal
justice is supposed to be the promise of the American legal system. But it’s
not delivering on that promise. Instead, we have one system for the wealthy and
the well-connected, and a different one for everyone else. It’s hard enough to
hold a powerful company accountable through our legal system, but recent developments in the law have made it even harder for
individuals to even bring those cases in the first place. We need to reform our
legal rules to make sure every person who has been harmed can have their day in
court.
Here’s
how I’ll start:
Ban forced arbitration clauses. Many companies force
their employees and consumers to sign “forced arbitration” clauses as part of
their contracts for employment or for services. These clauses mean that if
something goes wrong, individuals agree to never file a lawsuit in federal
court against the company — and instead are diverted into a private dispute
system. These provisions are often tucked in the fine print of contracts
that workers or consumers sign, and many people don’t even know that they have
signed one until they have been harmed and need our courts to help them get
justice. These provisions shouldn’t be enforceable, but the conservative
majority in the Supreme Court decided that because there was no law explicitly
against them, they could be freely enforced. So let’s pass that law. My plan
categorically bans forced arbitration clauses from blocking lawsuits related to
employment, consumer protection, antitrust, and civil rights.
Ban mandatory class action waivers. When workers or consumers
are wronged by a company, they should be able to band together and seek
justice. Taking on a big corporation’s army of lawyers takes enormous sums of
money and legal expertise. But class action waivers tucked into consumer and
employment contracts prevent individuals from suing together.
That makes it virtually impossible to pursue a lawsuit, and gives companies unlimited
license to rip you off without any consequences. These anti-worker and
anti-consumer provisions shouldn’t be enforceable, but because of a Supreme Court decision written by Justice Gorsuch, they’re
alive and well. That’s why my plan would restore the fundamental right of
workers and consumers to join together when they are wronged by banning these
provisions in employment, consumer protection, antitrust, and civil rights
cases.
Restore fair pleading standards. When you file a
lawsuit, one of the first steps of the legal process is called “discovery.”
That’s when you’re supposed to ask questions and gather facts about your case,
but a pair of recent Supreme Court decisions upended decades of pleading standards, making it difficult
to file a case without already having many of these facts. These widely
criticized cases deprive plaintiffs of their day in court, and allow
powerful defendants to successfully dismiss cases before they even begin. My
plan would undo this damage by restoring fair pleading standards so that every
person who has been harmed gets their day in court.
Holding Bad Actors Accountable
The
reforms I’ve outlined will go a long way toward cleaning up Washington. But we
also need strong enforcement mechanisms and broad transparency requirements to
make sure we can hold bad actors accountable.
Let’s start with real penalties for violating the rules.
When
Secretary Ben Carson was warned about his son participating in fancy government
events, he brushed it off. And when an independent federal ethics watchdog
determined that Kellyanne Conway should be fired for repeatedly
violating federal law, the administration barely cared.
In
Washington, corrupt actors should face penalties when they break the law — not
return to business as usual.
Here’s
how my plan would fix this:
Establish a new U.S. Office of Public Integrity and strengthen
ethics enforcement. The new office will investigate ethics complaints from the
public, impose civil and administrative penalties on violators, and refer
egregious violations to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.
Expand and strengthen the independent Office of Congressional
Ethics. My
plan ensures this office has the proper authorities and resources to conduct
investigations, refer civil and criminal violations to the appropriate
authorities, and recommend disciplinary action to the House and Senate Ethics
Committees.
Expand the definition of “official act” in bribery statutes to
criminalize the sale of government access. When a politician
accepts gifts in exchange for government favors, that’s bribery — but thanks to
a wrong-headed Supreme Court decision in United States v. McDonnell,
our laws don’t fully recognize it. My plan plugs that tractor-sized loophole
and ensures that corrupt politicians who accept bribes can be prosecuted. It
also clarifies that a stream of benefits — rather than a single act — qualifies
as an unlawful benefit paid in exchange for a bribe.
Clarify the definition of “in-kind contributions” to ensure that
no future candidate can receive political assistance from foreign countries or
solicit large hush money payments without facing legal consequences. Politicians and
advisors like Donald Trump Jr. have reportedly tried to receive help from
foreign countries, even though it is illegal for foreign individuals to provide
in-kind contributions to campaigns. And Donald Trump directed Michael Cohen to spend $130,000 to cover
up an affair so it would not come to light before the 2016 election, despite
laws preventing him from soliciting large in-kind contributions. Although a
federal judge accepted Cohen’s guilty plea, Trump’s lawyers and defenders continued to insist that what Cohen did — and what
Trump solicited — was not a crime. My plan settles this debate and clarifies
that the rules governing in-kind contributions also apply to intangible
benefits, such as dirt on political opponents, and in-kind financial contributions,
like the payment of hush money, when those contributions are made at least in
part — even if not exclusively — for campaign purposes.
Deter Corruption Through Broad New Government Transparency
Standards
If
government is supposed to work for the people, then the people should be given
enough information to judge how well their government is working for them. Too
many government records are kept behind lock and key, making it impossible for
the public to hold their government accountable. Significant legal actions that
have implications for public health and safety can be kept secret. And the
actions of federal contractors — the companies often tasked with the
implementation of government policies and programs, like Trump’s family
separation policy — are almost completely concealed from public view, thanks to
an assortment of exemptions and loopholes.
Here’s
how my plan would shine a light on government activity:
Prohibit courts from sealing records involving major public
health and safety issues. When people were killed by ignition defects in
Chevrolet vehicles, General Motors settled the cases on the condition that all
documents related to the defects would be sealed from public view. It wasn’t an isolated
incident. Big corporations routinely use secret settlements to keep defective
products on the market so they can continue to rake in profits. That must stop.
My plan bans courts from sealing records in cases involving public health and
safety, with rare exceptions, so that corporations cannot conceal these
dangerous conditions from the American people.
Impose strict transparency standards for federal courts and
remove barriers to accessing electronic judicial records. My plan requires
federal appellate courts to livestream audio of their proceedings, share case assignment
data in bulk, and make all electronic case records — which currently must be
purchased from the government — more easily accessible and free of charge.
Strengthen federal open records laws to close loopholes and
exemptions that hide corporate influence, and increase transparency in
Congress, federal agencies, and nonprofits that aim to influence policy. The American people
have a right to know whether their elected leaders are acting in the public’s
best interest — and who is trying to influence them. Under my plan,
Congressional committees, government agencies, and federal contractors would be
required to publicly release key information so that the American people — and
the American press — can hold the federal government accountable.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, running to be the Democratic
candidate for president, began and ended her speech before some 20,000 gathered
at Washington Square Park in New York City relating the history of the Triangle
Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911 which took place mere blocks from the Arch that
took the lives of 146 Jewish and Italian immigrant women and girls – still one
of the largest industrial accidents in US history. She spoke of Francis Perkins,
who ran from a townhouse just behind where Warren stood. Perkins was already an
activist for workers’ rights and won fire safety regulations, “but didn’t stop
there,” and other worker protections.
Even before women got the right to vote, Perkins became a
political adviser on workers rights and became the first woman Cabinet
secretary, Secretary of Labor, under FDR.
Perkins, Warren said, worked from within, while thousands of
women in the trade union movement, worked from outside – 500,000 marched in a
funeral procession up Fifth Avenue for the 146.
Speaking from a podium built of wood from the Frances
Perkins homestead in Newcastle, Maine, obtained from her grandson, Tomlin Perkins Coggeshall, Warren used the story to
prove her point of what can happen through grassroots action, that big bold
things – such as what she is proposing to make fundamental, systemic change. “Don’t
be afraid…” she declared – a not-so-subtle shout out to the Democrats who,
desperate to see Trump voted out of office, are looking for a candidate they
believe has the best chance of winning the general election, which for many
means someone who won’t rock the boat too much, rather than someone whose ideas
and proposals excite, engage and promote real structural change.
There were cheers throughout her speech delivered by a crowd
that the campaign estimated at 20,000 (Warren’s biggest to date) but especially
as she said, “Medicare for All,” and then, at the phrase, “wealth tax,” chants
of 2c, 2c, 2c rose up.
Warren, who had just been endorsed by the National Working
Families Party, said that the 2c on
every dollar after the first $50 million in wealth, would correct historic,
systemic, and “government sanctioned” racism and sexism that produced gaps in
income and also political power – redlining in housing, the pay gap between women
and men, particularly women of color, criminal justice reform, eliminating
private prisons that incentive locking people up, eliminating student debt,
providing universal pre-K. Without using the word “reparations” – she offered a
more constructive, implementable series of programs that would accomplish the
same goal of equalizing the opportunity to succeed.
“The time to hold back is over. We need structural change.”
Warren added, “I know what you are thinking – it is too
much, too big, too hard.” Then, scanning the crowd, she joked, “OK, nobody here.
I know this change is possible because others have made big structural change
before.”
And she went back to Perkins and the Triangle Shirtwaist
Factory – how factory owners, made filthy rich because of the horrendous
working conditions and wages were able to amass the wealth to buy politicians,
how greed by owners and corruption by politicians effectively negated
democracy.
“30 years old, Francis Perkins already was a human rights activist…how,
seeing the fire at the factory, she ran and watched as young women leaped to
their death rather than be consumed by the flames. 500,000 at that march. It wasn’t the first
march, but it was different.”
“While they picketed from the outside, Francis pushed from
the inside. Those women died because of the greed of business owners and the
corruption of politicians. Perkins was the lead investigator, years before
women could vote, let alone have a role in government. But Frances had a” plan –
she fought for fire safety, but she didn’t stop there.
“With Francis working from the inside and the women workers
applying pressure from the outside, they rewrote state labor laws top to bottom
to protect workers. She became the leading expert on working conditions.” President
Franklin D. Roosevelt named her his Labor Secretary through the New Deal.
“That what one woman can do.” She added, “It’s what’s
possible when we fight together.”
Warren declared, “No
matter what brings you into this fight — whether it’s child care, student
loans, health care, immigration, or criminal justice, one thing is crystal
clear: corruption is making it worse — and it’s at the root of the major
problems we face as a democracy.
“Reforming the money game
in Washington isn’t enough. We also need to comprehensively clean up our
campaign finance system. That’s why I’ve also called for a constitutional
amendment to overturn Citizens United. It’s
why we need to get rid of the Super PACs and secret spending by billionaires and
giant corporations that try to buy our democracy. It’s why we need to br”eak
the grip that big donors have by creating a system of exclusive public funding
of our elections. But even if we solve our campaign finance problems,
comprehensive anti-corruption reforms targeted at Washington itself are
necessary to finally end the stranglehold that the wealthy and the
well-connected have over our government’s decision-making processes.
“I believe that we can root out corruption in Washington. I believe we must make big, structural changes that will once again restore our trust in government by showing that it can work for all of us. And when I’m President, that’s exactly what I’ll do.”
Warren, famous now for posing for selfies with people who come out to see her, wound up staying until midnight before the line, thousands long, was through. “I stayed four hours, but so did the last guy on line,” she later said. It is an indication of the enthusiasm for her and her endurance as a candidate at a time when a big issue among Democrats is who can get out the vote.
Whenever Republicans
talk about the need to reform “entitlements,” they always refer to the “sacrifice”
demanded of the people most dependent upon Social Security benefits and most
vulnerable (with the least political power) in society. They never ask the most
obscenely rich, most comfortable, most powerful to make any sacrifice – after all,
they are the “job creators” and we don’t want to interfere with the number of
yachts and vacation homes they can purchase.
Senator Elizabeth
Warren, vying for the 2020 Democratic nomination for president, has just
released her plan to expand Social Security – not cut it.
“Millions of Americans
are depending on Social Security to provide a decent retirement. My plan raises
Social Security benefits across-the-board by $2,400 a year and extends the full
solvency of the program for nearly another two decades, all by asking the top
2% to contribute their fair share to the program,” Warren states. “It’s time
Washington stopped trying to slash Social Security benefits for people who’ve
earned them. It’s time to expand Social Security.”
This is from the
Warren campaign:
Charlestown, MA – Today, Elizabeth Warren
released her plan to provide the biggest and most progressive increase in
Social Security benefits in nearly 50 years. Her plan will mean an immediate
Social Security benefit increase of $200 a month — $2,400 a year — for every current
and future Social Security beneficiary in America. That will immediately help
nearly 64 million current Social Security beneficiaries, including 10 million
Americans with disabilities and their families.
The plan also updates outdated rules to further increase
benefits for lower-income families, women, people with disabilities,
public-sector workers, and people of color. The plan finances these benefit
increases and extends the solvency of Social Security by nearly two decades by
asking the top 2% of earners to contribute their fair share to the
program.
According to an independent analysis,
Elizabeth’s plan will immediately lift an estimated 4.9 million seniors out of
poverty — cutting the senior poverty rate by 68%. It will also produce a “much
more progressive Social Security system” by delivering much larger benefit
increases to lower and middle-income seniors on a percentage basis,
increase economic growth in the long term, and reduce the deficit by
more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
I’ve dedicated most of my career to studying what’s happening to working families in America. One thing is clear: it’s getting harder to save enough for a decent retirement.
A generation of stagnant wages and rising costs for basics
like housing, health care, education, and child care have squeezed family
budgets. Millions of families have had to sacrifice saving
for retirement just to make ends meet. At the same time, fewer people have
access to the kind of pensions that used to help fund a comfortable retirement.
As a result, Social Security has become the main source of
retirement income for most seniors. Abouthalf of married
seniors and 70% of unmarried seniors rely on Social Security for at least half
of their income. More than 20% of married seniors and 45% of unmarried
seniors rely on Social
Security for 90% or more of their income. And the numbers are
even more stark for seniors of color: as of 2014, 26% of Asian and Pacific
Islander beneficiaries, 33% of Black beneficiaries, and 40% of Latinx
beneficiaries relied on Social Security benefits as their only source of retirement income.
Yet typical Social Security benefits today are quite small.
Social Security is an earned benefit — you contribute a portion of your wages
to the program over your working career and then you and your family get
benefits out of the program when you retire or leave the workforce because of a
disability — so decades of stagnant wages have led to smaller benefits in retirement
too. In 2019, the average Social Security beneficiary received $1,354 a month, or
$16,248 a year. For someone who worked their entire adult life at an average
wage and retired this year at the age of 66, Social Security will replace just 41% of what
they used to make. That’s well short of the 70% many financial
advisers recommend for a decent retirement — one that allows you to keep living
in your home, go to a doctor when you’re sick, and get the prescription drugs
you need.
And here’s the even scarier part: unless we act now, future
retirees are going to be in even worse shape than
the current ones.
Despite the data staring us in the face, Congress hasn’t
increased Social Security benefits in nearly fifty years. When
Washington politicians discuss the program, it’s mostly to debate about whether
to cut benefits by a lot or a little bit. After signing a $1.5 trillion tax
giveaway that primarily helped the rich and big corporations, Donald Trump
twice proposedcutting billions
from Social Security.
We need to get our priorities straight. We should be
increasing Social Security benefits and asking the richest Americans to
contribute their fair share to the program. For years, I’ve helped lead the fight in
Congress to expand Social Security. Andtoday I’m
announcing a plan to provide the biggest and most progressive increase in
Social Security benefits in nearly half a century. My plan:
Increases Social Security benefits immediately by $200 a
month — $2,400 a year — for every current and future Social Security
beneficiary in America.
Updates outdated rules to further increase benefits for
lower-income families, women, people with disabilities, public-sector workers,
and people of color.
Finances these changes and extends the solvency of Social
Security by nearly two decades by asking the top 2% of families to contribute
their fair share to the program.
An independent analysis of my plan
from Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, finds that my plan will
accomplish all of this and:
Immediately lift an estimated 4.9 million seniors out of
poverty, cutting the senior poverty rate by 68%.
Produce a “much more progressive Social Security system”
by raising contribution requirements only on very high earners and increasing
average benefits by nearly 25% for those in the bottom half of the income
distribution, as compared to less than 5% for people in the top 10% of the
distribution.
Increase economic growth in the long term and reduces the
deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next ten years.
Every single current Social Security beneficiary — about 64
million Americans — will immediately receive at least $200 more per month under
my plan. That’s at least $2,400 more per year to put toward home repairs, or
visits to see the grandkids, or paying down the debt you still might owe. And
every future beneficiary of Social Security will see at least a $200-a-month
increase too, whether you’re 60 years old and nearing retirement or 20 years
old and just entering the workforce. If you want to see how my plan will affect
you, check out my new calculator here.
Our Current Retirement Crunch — And How It Will Get Worse
If We Don’t Act
Seniors today are already facing a difficult retirement.
Without action, future generations are likely to be even worse off.
While we’ve reduced the
percentage of seniors living in poverty over the past few decades, the numbers
remain unacceptably high. Based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s Supplemental
Poverty Measure, 14% of seniors —
more than 7 million people — live in poverty. Another 28% of seniors have
incomes under double the poverty line. A record-high 20% of seniors are still in the workforce in
their retirement years. Even with that additional source of income, in 2016,
the median annual income for
men over 65 was just $31,618 — and just $18,380 for women over 65.
It’s hard to get by on that, especially as costs continue to
rise. Most seniors participate in Medicare Part B, and standard premiums for
that program now eat up close to 10% of the average monthly Social Security benefit.
The average senior has just 66% of Social
Security benefits remaining after paying all out-of-pocket healthcare expenses
— and if we don’t adopt Medicare For All, out-of-pocket medical spending by
seniors is projected to rise sharply over
time. The number of elderly households still paying off debt has grown by
almost 20% since 1992,
and hundreds of thousands of
seniors have had their monthly benefits garnished to pay down student loan
debt.
Meanwhile, the prospect of paying for long-term care looms
over most retirees. 26% of seniors
wouldn’t be able to fund two years of paid home care even if they liquidated
all of their assets. And for people that have faced lifelong discrimination,
like LGBTQ seniors who until recently were denied access to spousal pension
privileges and spousal benefits, the risk of living in or near poverty in
retirement is even higher.
This squeeze forces a lot of seniors to skimp in dangerous
and unhealthy ways. A recent survey found that
millions of seniors cut pills, delay necessary home and car repairs, and skip
meals to save money.
While the picture for current retirees is grim, it’s
projected to get even worse for Americans on the cusp of retirement. Among
Americans aged 50 to 64, the average amount saved in 401(k) accounts is less
than $15,000. On average,
Latinx and Black workers are less likely to have
401(k) accounts, and those who do have them have smaller balances and are more
likely to have to make withdrawals before retirement. The gradual disappearance
of pensions has been particularly harmful to
workers of color who are near retirement. And 13% of all people
over 60 have no pension or savings at all.
Meanwhile, this near-retirement group are also suffering
under the weight of mounting debt levels and other costs. 68% of households headed
by someone over 55 are in debt. Nearly one-quarter of
people ages 55 to 64 are also providing elder care. According to one study, 62%
of older Latinx workers, 53% of older Black workers, and 50% of older Asian
workers work physically demanding jobs,
leading to higher likelihood of disability, early exit from the job market, and
reduced retirement benefits.
Gen-Xers and Millennials are in even greater trouble. For
both generations, wages have been virtually stagnant for
their entire working lives. 90% of Gen-Xers are
in debt, and they’re projected to be able to replace only 50% of their income
in retirement on average. Many Gen-Xers are trapped between
their own student loans and mortgages, the costs
of raising and educating their
children, and the costs of caring for their elderly relatives. Two-thirds of
working millennials have no retirement savings, and the numbers are even worse
for Black and Latinx working millennials. Debt, wage stagnation, and decreasing
pension availability mean that, compared to previous generations at the same
age, millennials are significantly behind in
retirement planning.
There’s also the looming prospect of serious Social Security
cuts in 2035. Social Security has an accumulated reserve of almost $3 trillion
now, but because of inadequate contributions to the program by the rich, we are
projected to draw down that reserve by 2035, prompting automatic 20% across-the-board
benefit cuts if nothing is done.
My plan addresses both the solvency of Social Security and
the need for greater benefits head on — with bold solutions that match the
scale of the problems we face.
Creating Financial Security By Raising Social Security
Benefits
The core of my plan is simple. If you get Social
Security benefits now, your monthly benefit will be at least $200 more — or at
least $2,400 more per year. If you aren’t getting Social Security benefits now
but will someday, your monthly benefit check with be at least $200 bigger than
it otherwise would have been.
My $200-a-month increase covers every Social Security
beneficiary — including the 10 million Americans
with disabilities and their families who have paid into the program and now
receive benefits from it. Adults with disabilities are twice as likely to
live in poverty as those without a disability. While 9% of people
without disabilities nearing retirement live in poverty, 26% of people that
age with disabilities live in poverty. Monthly Social Security benefits make up
at least 90% of income for
nearly half of Social Security Disability Insurance beneficiaries.
This benefit increase will also provide a big boost to other
groups. It will help the 621,000 disabled
veterans who are Social Security beneficiaries. It will benefit the 1 million seniors
who exclusively receive Social Security Insurance — which helps Americans with
little or no income and assets — and the 2.7 million Americans
who receive both SSI and Social Security benefits.
On top of this across-the-board benefit increase, I’ll
ensure that current and future Social Security beneficiaries get annual
cost-of-living adjustments that keep pace with the actual costs they face. The
government currently increases Social Security benefits annually to keep pace with the
price of goods typical working families buy. But older Americans and people
with disabilities tend to purchase more of certain goods — like health care —
than working-age Americans, and the costs of those goods are increasing more
rapidly. That’s why my plan will switch to calculating annual cost-of-living increases
based on an index called CPI-E that better
reflects the costs Social Security beneficiaries bear. Based on current
projections, that will increase benefits
even more over time.
Combined, my immediate $200-a-month benefit increase for
every Social Security beneficiary and the switch to CPI-E will produce
significantly higher benefits now and decades into the future. My Social
Security calculator will let you see how much your benefits could change under
my plan.
Targeted Social Security Improvements to Deliver Fairer
Benefits
Broadly speaking, Social Security benefits track with your
income during your working years. That means pay disparities and wrongheaded
notions that value salaried work over time spent raising children or caring for
elderly relatives carry forward once you retire. That needs to change. My plan
increases Social Security benefits even further by making targeted changes to
the program to deliver fairer benefits and better service to women and
caregivers, low-income workers, public sector workers, students and
job-seekers, and people with disabilities.
Women and Caregivers
In part because of work and pay discrimination and
time out of the workforce to provide care for
children and elderly relatives, women receive an average monthly Social
Security benefit that’s only 78% of the average
monthly benefit for men. That’s one reason women over the age of 65 are 80% more likely to
live in poverty than men. My plan includes several changes that primarily
affect women and help reduce these disparities.
Valuing the work of caregivers. My plan creates
a new credit for caregiving for people who qualify for Social Security
benefits. This credit raises Social Security benefits for people who
take time out of the workforce to care for a family member — and recognizes
caregiving for the valuable work it is.
The government calculates Social Security benefits based on
average lifetime earnings, with years spent out of the workforce counted as a
zero for the purpose of the average. When people spend time out of the
workforce to provide care for a relative, their average lifetime earnings are
smaller and so are their Social Security benefits.
That particularly harms lower-income women, people of color,
and recent immigrants. There are more than 43 million informal
family caregivers in the country, and 60% of them are
women. A 2011 study found that women over fifty forgo an average of $274,000 in
lifetime wages and Social Security benefits when they leave the workforce to
take care of an aging parent. Caregivers who also work are more likely to be
low-income and incur out-of-pocket costs for providing care. Because access to
paid or partially paid family leave is particularly limited for workers
of color — and first-generation immigrant workers are less likely to have
jobs with flexible schedules or paid sick days — these workers are more likely
to have to take unpaid leave to provide care and thus suffer reductions in
their Social Security benefits.
My plan will give credit toward the Social Security average
lifetime earnings calculation to people who provide 80 hours a month of unpaid
care to a child under the age of 6, a dependent with a disability (including a
veteran family member), or an elderly relative. For every month of caregiving
that meets these requirements, the caregiver will be credited for Social
Security purposes with a month of income equal to the monthly average of that
year’s median annual wage. People can receive an unlimited amount of caregiving
credits and can claim these credits retroactively if they have done this kind
of caregiving work in the last five years. By giving caregivers credits equal
to the median wage that year, this credit will provide a particular boost in
benefits to lower-income workers.
Improving benefits for widowed individuals from
dual-earner households and widowed individuals with disabilities. Because
women on average outlive men by 2.5 years, they
typically spend more of their retirement in widowhood, a particularly vulnerable period financially.
My plan provides two targeted increases in benefits for widows.
In households with similar overall incomes, Social Security
provides more favorable survivor benefits to the surviving spouses in
single-earner households than in dual-earner households. After the death of a
spouse, a surviving spouse from a dual-earner household can lose as much
as 50% of her
household’s retirement income. My plan will reduce this disparity by ensuring
that widow(er)s automatically receive the highest of: (1) 75% of combined
household benefits, capped at the benefit level a household with two workers
with average career earnings would receive; (2) 100% of their deceased spouse’s
benefits; or (3) 100% of their own worker benefit.
My plan will also improve benefits for widowed individuals
with disabilities. Currently, a widow with disabilities must wait until she is
50 to start claiming Social Security survivor benefits if her spouse dies — and
even at 50, she can only claim benefits at a highly reduced rate. Since most
widows with disabilities can’t wait until the official retirement age of 66 to
claim their full survivor benefits, their average monthly benefit is only $748 a month, or
less than $9,000 a year. My plan will repeal the age requirement so
widow(er)s with disabilities can receive their full survivor benefits at any
age without a reduction.
Lower-Income Workers
My plan ensures that workers who work for a lifetime at low
wages do not retire into poverty.
In 1972, Congress enacted a Special Minimum Benefit for
Social Security. The benefit was supposed to help people who had earned
consistently low wages over many years of work. But it’s become harder to
qualify for the benefit, and the benefit amount has shrunk in value so it now helps
hardly anyone. Today, only 0.6% of all
Social Security beneficiaries receive the Special Minimum Benefit, and projections show
that no new beneficiaries will receive it this year.
No one who spends 30 years working and contributing to
Social Security should retire in poverty. That’s why my plan restructures the
Special Minimum Benefit so that more people are eligible for it and the
benefits are a lot higher. Under my plan, any person who has done 30
years of Social Security-covered work will receive an annual benefit of at
least 125% of the federal poverty line when they reach retirement age. That
means a baseline of $1,301 a
month in 2019 — plus the $200-a-month across-the-board increase in my plan, for
a total of $1,501 a month. That’s more than $600-a-month
more than what that worker would receive under current law.
Public Sector Workers
My plan also ensures that public sector workers like
teachers and police officers get the full Social Security benefits they’ve
earned.
If you work in the private sector and earn a pension, you’re
entitled to your full pension and your full Social Security benefits in
retirement. But if you work in state or local government and earn a pension,
two provisions called the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension
Offset can reduce your Social Security benefits. WEP slashes Social Security
benefits for nearly 1.9 million former
public-sector workers and their families, while GPO reduces — and in most cases,
eliminates — spousal and survivor Social Security benefits for 700,000 people, 83% of whom are
women.
My plan repeals these two provisions, immediately
increasing benefits for more than two million former public-sector workers and
their families, and ensuring that every current state and local government
employee will get the full Social Security benefits they’ve earned.
Students and Job Seekers
My plan also updates the Social Security program so that it
encourages people to complete college and participate in job training programs
or registered apprenticeships.
Restoring and extending benefits for full-time students
whose parent has a disability or has died. In the Reagan administration,
Congress cut back a provision that allowed children receiving Social Security
dependent benefits to continue to receive them until age 22 if they were
full-time students. Before the provision was repealed, these beneficiaries came
from families with average incomes 29% lower than their college peers, were
more likely to have a parent with low educational attainment, and were more likely to be
Black. Access to these benefits boosted college
attendance and performance by letting low-income students reduce the number of
hours they had to work while attending school. When Congress repealed this
benefit, college attendance by previously eligible beneficiaries dropped by
more than one-third. My plan
restores this provision — and it extends eligibility through the age of 24
because only 41% of all students
complete college in four years, and Black, Native American, and Latinx students
have even lower four-year
completion rates. A longer eligibility period will improve the chances the
people who receive this benefit complete college before the benefit ends.
Encouraging registered apprenticeships and job training.
Currently, workers who participate in registered apprenticeships or job
training may receive lower Social Security benefits because they are taking
time out of the workforce or agreeing to accept lower-paying positions to gain
skills. We’re about to enter a period of immense transformation in the economy,
and we should encourage workers to take time to participate in a registered
apprenticeship or job training program so they are prepared for in-demand jobs.
That’s why I proposed a $20 billion investment in high-quality apprenticeships
in my Economic Patriotism and Rural America plans.
My plan today complements that investment by letting workers in job training
and apprenticeship programs elect to exclude up to three years in those
programs from their lifetime earnings calculation for Social Security benefits,
thereby producing a higher average lifetime earnings total — and higher
benefits.
Improving the Administration of Social Security Benefits
My plan improves Social Security in another important way:
it makes it easier for people to actually get the benefits they’ve earned.
Congress is starving the Social Security Administration of
money, creating hardship for people who rely on the program for benefits.
Congress has slashed SSA’s operating budget by 9% since 2010, even as
the number of beneficiaries is growing. Meanwhile, more Baby Boomers are
approaching retirement age — a critical period when workers are most likely to
claim Social Security Disability benefits. SSA has a staff shortage, rising telephone
and office wait times, and outdated technology.
Sixty-four Social Security field offices have closed since 2011 and 500 mobile
offices have closed since
2010. Field office closures are correlated with a 16% drop in
disability insurance beneficiaries in the surrounding area because those people
— who have paid into the system and earned their benefits — no longer have assistance
to file their applications.
Disability insurance applicants can wait as long as 22 months for an
eligibility hearing. Thousands of people have
died while waiting for administrative law judges to determine if they’re eligible
to receive their benefits. To make matters worse, Donald Trump issued an
Executive Order that will politicize the
process of selecting the judges who adjudicate these cases. And his
administration keeps proposing more cuts to the
SSA budget.
My plan restores adequate funding to the Social Security
Administration so that it can carry out its core mission. That will allow us to
hire more staff, keep offices open, reduce call times, update the technology
system, and give applicants and beneficiaries the services they need. And I
will revoke Trump’s Executive Order on administrative law judges.
Strengthening Social Security By Extending Solvency For
Nearly Two More Decades
Currently, the rich contribute a far smaller portion of
their income to Social Security than everyone else. That’s wrong, and it’s
threatening the solvency of the program. My plan fully funds its new benefit
increases and extends the full solvency of Social Security for nearly 20 more
years by asking the richest top 2% of families to start contributing more.
Social Security is funded by mandatory insurance
contributions authorized by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, or “FICA”.
The FICA contribution is 12.4% of wages, with employers and employees splitting
those contributions equally at 6.2% each. (Self-employed workers contribute the
full 12.4%.) If you’re a wage employee, you contribute 6.2% of your very first
dollar of wages to Social Security, and 6.2% of every dollar after that — up to
an annual cap. This year’s cap is $132,900, and each year, that cap increases
based on the growth in national average wages.
Congress designed the cap to go up each year based on
average wages to ensure that a fairly steady percentage of total wages in
America were subject to the FICA contribution requirement. But growing wage
disparities over the past few decades has thrown the system out of whack.
While wages for lower-income and middle-income workers have
been fairly stagnant —
limiting the growth of the national average wage figure we use to set the
annual cap — income at the very top has been skyrocketing. That means
more income for the biggest earners has been above the cap and therefore exempt
from the FICA contribution requirement. In 1983, 90% of total wage
earnings were below the cap. Now it’s just 83%. The top 1% of
earners have an estimated effective
FICA contribution rate of about 2%, compared to more than 10% for the middle
50% of earners. That amounts to billions of dollars every year that should have
gone to Social Security but instead remained in the pockets of the very richest
Americans, while the Social Security system slowly starved.
And the very rich have escaped contributing to the system in
yet another way: more and more of their income is in the form of unearned
investment income, not wages, and they don’t have to contribute any of their
investment income to Social Security. Although most Americans earn most of
their income from wages, capital income makes up more than half of
total income for the top 1% and more than two-thirds for
the top 0.1%. All that income escapes the Social Security program.
My plan brings our Social Security system back into balance
by asking the top 2% of earners to start contributing a fair share of their
wages to the system and by asking the top 2% of families to contribute a
portion of their net investment income into the system as well:
First, my plan imposes a 14.8% Social Security contribution requirement on individual wages above $250,000 — affecting less than the top 2% of earners — split equally between employees and employers at 7.4% each. While most American workers contribute to Social Security with every dollar they earn, CEOs and other very high earners contribute to Social Security on only a fraction of their pay. My plan changes that and requires very high earners to contribute a fair share of their income. My plan also closes the so-called “Gingrich-Edwards” loophole to ensure that self-employed workers can’t easily reclassify income to avoid making Social Security contributions.
Second, my plan establishes a new 14.8% Social Security contribution requirement on net investment income that applies only to the top 2% — individuals making more than $250,000 in annual income or families making more than $400,000 in annual income. My plan creates a new contribution requirement — modeled on the Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT) from the Affordable Care Act — that asks people and families above these high income thresholds to contribute 14.8% of the lesser of net investment income or total income above these thresholds. My plan also closes loopholes in the NIIT that allow wealthy owners of partnerships and other businesses to avoid it. This contribution requirement will ensure that the very wealthy are paying into Social Security even when they report the bulk of their income as capital returns rather than wages.
The vigorous contest of Democrats seeking the 2020 presidential nomination has produced excellent policy proposals to address major issues. Senator Elizabeth Warren details a plan to transform America’s approach to trade: “Trade can be a powerful tool to help working families but our failed pro-corporate agenda has used trade to harm American workers and the environment. My plan represents a new approach to trade — one that uses America’s leverage to boost American workers and raise the standard of living across the globe. The President has a lot of authority to remake trade policy herself. When I’m elected, I intend to use it.” Here are the details, as provided by the Warren campaign:
Charlestown, MA – Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is running to be the 2020 Democratic candidate for president, released her plan to break decades of Washington consensus and transform every aspect of America’s current approach to trade.
America enters trade negotiations with enormous leverage because it is the world’s most attractive market. A Warren Administration won’t hand that leverage to big corporations to use for their own narrow purposes. Elizabeth will use it to create and defend good American jobs, raise wages and farm income, combat climate change, lower drug prices, and raise living standards worldwide. Under Elizabeth’s plan, America will engage in international trade — but on our terms and only when it benefits American families.
The plan is the third pillar of Elizabeth’s economic patriotism agenda. Read more about her plan here and below:
Last month, I released my economic patriotism agenda
— my commitment to fundamentally changing the government’s approach to the
economy so that we put the interests of American workers and families ahead of
the interests of multinational corporations. I’ve already released my ideas for
applying economic patriotism to manufacturing and
to Wall Street. This is my
plan for using economic patriotism to overhaul our approach to trade.
For decades, big multinational corporations have bought and
lobbied their way into dictating America’s trade policy. Those big corporations
have gotten rich but everyone else has paid the price. We’ve lost millionsofjobs to
outsourcing, depressedwages for American
workers, accelerated climate
change, and squeezed America’s
family farmers. We’ve let China get away with the suppression of pay and labor rights, poor environmental
protections, and years of currency manipulation.
All to add some zeroes to the bottom lines of big corporations with no loyalty
or allegiance to America.
We need to completely transform our approach to trade.
America enters into trade negotiations with enormous leverage because America
is the world’s most attractive market. As President, I won’t hand
America’s leverage to big corporations to use for their own narrow purposes —
I’ll use it to create and defend good American jobs, raise wages and farm
income, combat climate change, lower drug prices, and raise living standards
worldwide.We will engage in international trade — but on our terms
and only when it benefits American families.
A New Approach to Trade
My plan is a new approach to trade — one that is different
from both the Washington insider consensus that brought us decades of bad trade
deals and from Donald Trump’s haphazard and ultimately corporate-friendly
approach.
Unlike the insiders, I don’t think “free trade” deals that
benefit big multinational corporations and international capital at the expense
of American workers are good simply because they open up markets. Trade is good
when it helps American workers and families — when it doesn’t, we need to
change our approach. And unlike Trump, while I think tariffs are an important
tool, they are not by themselves a long-term solution to our failed trade
agenda and must be part of a broader strategy that this Administration clearly
lacks.
To ensure that American families benefit from international
trade in the decades to come, I want to invest in American workers and
to use our leverage to force other countries to raise the bar on everything
from labor and environmental standards to anti-corruption rules to access to
medicine to tax enforcement. If we raise the world’s standards to our level and
American workers have the chance to compete fairly, they will thrive — and
millions of people around the world will be better off too.
Achieving this vision isn’t about tough talk or tweets. We
must do the hard work of transforming every aspect of our current approach to
trade: from our negotiating process to the negotiating objectives we pursue to
the way we enforce agreements. That’s what I intend to do.
A Trade Negotiation Process that Reflects America’s
Interests
Our current approach to negotiating trade agreements works
great for the wealthy and the well-connected. The negotiating text is
kept confidential from
all but a small set of advisory groups comprised mostly of corporate
executives and industry trade group representatives. Once those corporate
interests are finished whispering in the ears of our negotiators, the completed
text is released. Then, under the expedited “Fast Track” procedure
Congress typically uses to approve trade agreements, our elected
representatives must vote up or down on the agreement with no ability to
propose and secure any changes to it. Meanwhile, the negotiators who
constructed it often breeze through the revolving door to
take jobs with the corporations whose interests underlie the deal.
This is undemocratic and obviously corrupt. In a Warren
Administration, we will negotiate and approve trade agreements through a
transparent process that offers the public a genuine chance to shape it:
Trade negotiators will publicly disclose negotiating
drafts and provide the public with an opportunity to comment. When
federal agencies write new rules, they typically must publish a proposed
version of the rule and permit the public to submit comments on it. I will
adopt a similar approach for our trade deals. Prior to negotiations, our
negotiators will publish a draft of their proposals in the Federal Register,
let the public offer comments on the draft, and take those comments into
consideration during negotiations. And then as talks proceed, they will publish
drafts of the negotiating texts so the public can monitor the negotiations.
Trade advisory committees will prioritize the views of workers and consumers. I will ensure that there are more representatives from labor, environmental, and consumer groups than from corporations and trade groups on every existing advisory committee. And I’ll expand the current list of advisory committees to create one for consumers, one for rural areas, and one for each region of the country, so that critical voices are at the table during negotiations.
The US International Trade Commission will provide a regional analysis of the economic effects of a trade agreement. Trade agreements can hollow out communities and transform regional economies. Yet the report the ITC provides before Congress considers a trade agreement only includes a nationwide analysis of a trade deal’s economic impact. I will push for the agency to provide a region-by-region analysis so the public and Members of Congress can understand how an agreement is likely to affect the places they live and represent.
The congressional approval process will offer more
opportunities for the public and elected representatives to shape trade
agreements. I will seek expedited congressional approval of trade
agreements only when every regional advisory committee and the labor, consumer,
and rural advisory committees unanimously certify that the agreement serves
their interests. I will also expand the list of congressional committees that
must review any agreement before it is eligible for expedited consideration.
Together, these changes will ensure that our negotiations
reflect the views of American families, not corporate interests.
Using Our Leverage to Demand More for American Families
and to Raise the Global Standard of Living
While a better process will produce better agreements, we
also must fundamentally shift the goals of our trade agenda so they are aligned
with the interests of America’s families.
With certain important exceptions, we live in a low-tariff
world. Modern trade agreements are less about the
mutual reduction of tariffs and more about establishing regulatory standards
for everything from worker rights to pollution to patent protections.
My approach to trade reflects that reality. For too long, we
have entered into trade deals with countries with abysmal records on labor, environmental, and human rights issues.
In exchange for concrete access to the American market, we get vague
commitments to do better, which we then hardly enforce. The
result is that millions of people in our trading-partner countries don’t gain
the benefits of higher standards — and companies can easily pad their profits
by shifting American jobs to countries where they can pay workers next to
nothing and pollute the air and water freely.
That will end under my Administration. I am establishing a set of standards countries must meet as a precondition for any trade agreement with America. And I will renegotiate any agreements we have to ensure that our existing trade partners meet those standards as well.
My preconditions are that a country must:
Recognize and enforce the core labor rights of the International Labour Organization, like collective bargaining and the elimination of child labor.
Uphold internationally recognized human rights, as reported in the Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights, including the rights of indigenous people, migrant workers, and other vulnerable groups.
Recognize and enforce religious freedom as reported in the State Department’s Country Reports.
Comply with minimum standards of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.
Be a party to the Paris Climate agreement and have a national plan that has been independently verified to put the country on track to reduce its emissions consistent with the long-term emissions goals in that agreement.
Eliminate all domestic fossil fuel subsidies.
Ratify the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.
Comply with any tax treaty they have with the United States and participate in the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project to combat tax evasion and avoidance.
Not appear on the Department of Treasury monitoring list of
countries that merit attention for their currency practices.
A country should only be considered an acceptable partner if
it meets these basic standards. Shamefully, America itself does not meet many
of these labor and environmental standards today. I am committed to fixing that
as President. And to help bring other countries up to these standards, I’ll
revitalize our commitment to providing technical assistance to help countries
improve.
I will also go beyond these minimum standards in key areas
to promote the interests of American workers and families.
Labor. I will ensure trade agreements protect
Buy American and other programs designed to develop local industry, contain
strong rule-of-origin standards to promote domestic manufacturing, protect
worker pensions, promote equal pay for equal work for women, and prohibit
violence against workers. Unlike previous trade deals agreements that
have put labor standards in side agreements that
are difficult to enforce, I will make labor standards central to any agreement.
Climate Change and the Environment. Climate
change is real, it’s man-made, and we’re running out of time to address it.
America should be leading this fight, but we have turned our backs on our
responsibilities — with communities of color in the U.S. and developing countries bearing
a disproportionate amount of the harm.
Beyond requiring implementation of the Paris Climate accord
and the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies as preconditions for any trade
agreement, I have already proposed a Green Marshall Plan to
dedicate $100 billion to helping other countries purchase and deploy
American-made clean energy technology.
But we must do more. I will push to secure a
multilateral agreement to protect domestic green policies like subsidies for
green products and preferential treatment for environmentally sustainable
energy production from WTO challenges. And because big corporations
will move their production to the countries with the weakest greenhouse gas
emissions standards — undermining global efforts to address climate change and
penalizing countries that are doing their part — I will impose a border carbon adjustment so
imported goods that these firms make using carbon-intensive processes are
charged a fee to equalize the costs borne by companies playing by the rules.
Prescription Drugs. Last year, Americans spent more
than $500 billion on
prescription drugs. That’s a 50% increase since 2010. Nearly 3 in 10Americans
report not taking their medicine as directed because of costs. And yet, one of
the core elements of America’s current trade agenda is guaranteeing
pharmaceutical firms monopoly protections so they can avoid competition from
generic drugs — driving up costs and reducing access to
necessary medicine abroad, and undermining our
efforts to reduce drug prices here at home. That’s exactly what
the Trump Administration has done as part of their failed effort to renegotiate
NAFTA.
While medical innovation is important, there is no link between
extremely long exclusivity periods and pharmaceutical innovation. These are
giveaways to drug companies, plain and simple, which allow them to maintain
ludicrously high drug prices.
As President, I will fight to bring down the costs of
prescription drugs here and around the world. I will never use
America’s leverage to push another country to extend exclusivity periods for
prescription drugs. I will support efforts to impose price controls on
pharmaceuticals. And I will actively seek out opportunities to reduce
exclusivity periods in our existing trade deals in exchange for securing other
changes that will help America’s working families.
Agriculture. For decades, trade deals have squeezed family
farmers, with Black farmers losing their land particularly quickly.
Between the trade fights incited by Trump’s haphazard tariffs and a series
of natural disasters,
America’s farmers are now facing the worst crisis in almost 40
years. They are also facing unprecedented levels of uncertainty and
instability. Trump’s tariffs have reduced crop prices, threatened farmers
already operating on razor-thin margins, and opened up new non-American markets
against which our farmers are now forced to compete. Like trade deals of the
past, Trump’s NAFTA 2.0 is written to help giant multinational agribusinesses
at the expense of family farms, and it
will do nothing to solve the newly created market insecurity Trump’s tariffs
have caused.
As President, I will fight for trade agreements that reward
American farmers for their hard work by negotiating for fair prices for goods,
breaking up the monopolies in grain
trading and meat packing, and protecting domestic markets to create stability
for America’s family farms. And I will impose Country-of-Origin Labeling rules
to protect American producers and provide transparency to consumers.
Consumer protection. We must ensure that the food we
eat is high-quality and safe. But our trade agreements have limited safety
standards and the inspection of imported foods,
while simultaneously enabling a new flood of food imports that overwhelm food
safety inspectors. In my Administration, our trade pacts will require
imported food to meet domestic food safety standards, including enhanced border
inspection requirements.
As with imported food, our current trade deals require us to
allow imports of other products and services that do not meet domestic safety
and environmental standards. My trade agreements will ensure that imported
products and services must meet the same standards as domestic products and
services.
Antitrust. We are in an era of massive
consolidation across many sectors of the economy. One of the reasons why is
that we have a narrow, permissive approach to mergers that looks only at
economic efficiency and consumer welfare instead of assessing the impact that a
merger will have on competition itself.
In recent years, we have added this problematic
standard into trade agreements and
proposed it as the defining objective for competition policy in new and renegotiated agreements.
Under my administration, we will not propose this standard in any new
agreement, and we will work to renegotiate agreements to remove it.
Delivering for American Families with Stronger
Enforcement
Our approach to enforcing trade agreements drives down
standards worldwide and undermines American families. We offer big corporations
fast and powerful methods to enforce the provisions that benefit them but make
it nearly impossible for Americans to enforce labor and environmental
protections. Foreign governments only fear a challenge to strong rules that
might hurt corporate bottom lines, not to weak rules that might not adequately
protect workers, the environment, or public health.
I will entirely reorient our approach to enforcement so we drive standards up, not down. I’ll start by ending “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS, the favorable enforcement approach we offer corporations. Under ISDS, a company that believes that a new law violates some aspect of a trade agreement can skip the courts and challenge the law before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company wins, the panel can order that country’s taxpayers to pay out billions in damages — with no review by an actual court. What’s worse, the arbitration panels handing out these binding rulings are often made up of corporate lawyers whose day jobs are representing the very same companies that seek judgments before them.
Companies have used ISDS to undermine laws intended to benefit the public interest. A French company challenged Egypt when it increased the minimum wage. A Swedish company challenged Germany when it decided to cut back on nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster. These cases have real effects across the globe: an ISDS panel’s decision to hear a challenge that Philip Morris brought against Uruguay’s anti-smoking campaign prompted several other countries to abandon similar public health efforts.
As President, I will not include ISDS in any new
agreement and will renegotiate existing agreements to remove ISDS from them.
And I’ll strengthen our approach to enforcing labor and environmental
standards. Unlike a corporation under ISDS, a labor union seeking to enforce
labor standards can’t bring a claim on its own — it must convince the federal
government to bring a claim on its behalf. Even in the face of overwhelming
evidence, our government can refuse to act for diplomatic or other unrelated
reasons.
As a result, the federal government has only pursued one such claim in
the last 25 years. In that one case, the American government, AFL-CIO, and
Guatemalan unions spent nine years trying
to challenge the Guatemalan government for violating the labor chapter of one
of our trade deals because Guatemalan workers were being murdered for trying to
join a union. In the end, we lost because the
trade agreement required a showing that the violations had affected trade.
I will replace this broken process by creating independent
commissions — made up of experts in the area — to monitor potential violations,
respond to complaints, and investigate claims. The commissions must review and
investigate claims promptly so that claims don’t languish for years. If
one of these commissions recommends that the United States bring a claim
against another country, the United States will be required to do so, without
exception.
I will also fix the problem that arose in the Guatemala case
by pushing to remove language from our deals that require us to show that a
violation of rights was “sustained or recurring” and “affecting trade or
investment.” A violation is a violation, and I won’t let another case like
Guatemala happen ever again.
I will strengthen our enforcement approach in other ways as
well:
Under WTO rules, a country designated as a “non-market economy” can face more serious trade penalties. I will push for a new “non-sustainable economy” designation that would allow us to impose tougher penalties on countries with systematically poor labor and environmental practices. We cannot allow countries that treat their workers and the environment poorly to undercut American producers that do things the right way.
I already have a plan to move the lead American trade negotiator — the Office of the United States Trade Representative — within my new Department of Economic Development. That will ensure that America’s trade policy supports our broader economic agenda of defending and creating good American jobs. I will also create a new labor and environment enforcement division at the USTR to more effectively enforce obligations, and embed a labor attache at U.S. embassies to monitor compliance with our labor standards.
Unlike the current approach that lets our government ignore unfair trade practices, my administration will create automatic triggers to initiate investigations into unfair trade practices. If those investigations produce compelling evidence of a violation, the Department will impose trade remedies immediately until the offenders show they are no longer engaging in an unfair trade practice. These automatic triggers will also apply to violations of labor and environmental standards.
Finally, when we impose duties to support particular
domestic industries, I want to ensure that the money we collect actually goes
to American workers, instead of being sucked up by
executives and shareholders. I will fight to change our trade laws so
that we review duties every six months and lift the duties if companies can’t
demonstrate the benefits of the duties are going to their workers.